8 1G e t t i n g D o w n t o B a s i c sA point can often be clarified by restating it in a new way. Repetition can also
function as a kind of assurance, as an expression of confidence, or as an indica-
tion of how important a point is. Some writers seem to think that if they say
something often enough, people will come to believe it. Whether or not this trick
works, if two sentences say equivalent things, there is no need to list both sen-
tences when the argument is put into standard form. Listing the same premise
twice will not make the argument any better from a logical point of view.
Sometimes guarding terms can also be dropped. If I say, “I think Miranda
is at home, so we can probably meet her there,” this argument might be rep-
resented in standard form thus:
(1) I think Miranda is at home.
∴(2) We can probably meet her there. (from 1)
This is misleading. My thoughts are not what make us able to meet Miranda
at home. My thoughts do not even increase the probability that she is at
home or that we can meet her there. It is the fact that Miranda is at home that
provides a reason for the conclusion. Thus, it is clearer to drop the guarding
phrase (“I think”) when putting the argument into standard form. But you
have to be careful, for not all guarding phrases can be dropped. When I say
“We can probably meet her there,” I might not want to say simply, “We can
meet her there.” After all, even if she is there now, we might not be able to
get there before she leaves. Then to drop “probably” from my conclusion
would distort what I meant to say and would make my argument more
questionable, so you should not drop that guarding term if you want to un-
derstand my argument charitably and accurately.
Here’s another example: If a friend says that you ought to buckle your
seat belt because you could have an accident, it would distort her argument
to drop the guarding term (“could”), because she is not claiming that you
definitely will have an accident, or even that you probably will have one.
The chance of an accident is significant enough to show that you ought to
buckle your seat belt, so this guarding term should be kept when the argu-
ment is put into standard form.
It is also possible to drop assuring terms in some cases. Suppose some-
one says, “You obviously cannot play golf in Alaska in January, so there’s
no point in bringing your clubs.” There is no need to keep the assuring
term (“obviously”) in the premise. It might even be misleading, because
the issue is whether the premise is true, not whether it is obvious. The ar-
gument cannot be refuted by showing that, even though you in fact can-
not play golf in Alaska in January, this is not obvious, since there might be
indoor golf courses. In contrast, assuring terms cannot be dropped in some
other cases. For example, if someone argues, “We know that poverty causes
crime, because many studies have shown that it does,” then the assuring
terms (“We know that.. .” and “studies have shown that.. .”) cannot be
dropped without turning the argument into an empty shell: “Poverty causes
crime, because it does.” The point of this argument is to cite the sources of97364_ch05_ptg01_079-110.indd 81 15/11/13 9:53 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.