Identifying Arguments and Their Components

Identifying the premise(s) and conclusion of an argument can sometimes be tricky, since there is no
specific rule or formula that an author must follow when constructing an argument in ordinary language.
Conclusions (and premises) can occur anywhere in a passage, and even can be implicit or go unstated. Also, not
all passages contain arguments. Some passages are reports, explanations, jokes, etc. Thus, in order to properly
evaluate an argument, we must be able to recognize whether or not an argument is present and to identify properly
its components. Here are some tips or guidelines (as there are no formulas) for identifying the components of an
argument (premise and conclusion) and for identifying arguments from non-arguments.

TIPS FOR IDENTIFYING THE CONCLUSION OF AN ARGUMENT

*Indicator Word Test: Look for indicator words present in the passage. Be sure to know your list of premise and
conclusion indicator words, as well as how they function in language. Also, know the function of other types of
words such as transition words, logical operators, etc. Remember: It is NOT necessary that an argument contain
indicator words.

*No indicator Words: Look at the beginning or end of the passage as the conclusion is often (but not always)
found in one of those places. As a general rule, if an argument has NO indicator words, then generally the first
claim is the conclusion. But also, it can often occur at the end of the passage. So look at both the beginning and
the end of the passage.

*Supply your own “because” and “therefore”: If there are no indicator words, try placing the indicator words
“because” and/or “therefore” after various statements of the passage. Do this in different combinations. Ask
yourself which of these combinations sounds best or makes most sense. The statement with the “therefore” in
front of it will be the conclusion.

*Main Issue: Find the main issue of the passage and ask yourself what position the arguer is taking on that issue.
To help do this, ask these three questions: 1) What is the issue? (What is the argument about?); 2) What is the
arguer’s stance on the issue? (Is it Pro or Con?); 3) What statement (state or unstated) best captures the arguer’s
stance? By answering #3, you will have most likely identified the conclusion.

*Most Controversial Claim: Look for the most controversial claim of the passage—this is the claim that is most
in need of proof or evidentiary support. To find this claim, ask yourself: “What is the author trying to prove?”
Also, look to titles and headlines that may be supplied with the passage.

As a general rule here, you should apply two or more of these tips to confirm that you have properly identified the
conclusion of the argument.

TIPS FOR IDENTIFYING THE PREMISE OF AN ARGUMENT

* Ask “Why?”: Once the conclusion is found, ask the question “What reasons does the arguer offer in support of
the argument’s conclusion?” Identify and list these reasons—both those explicitly stated and those implied or
implicit (unstated). Also, look out for language that does not properly serve as premise, such as statements of
belief or expressions of feelings. This stuff is not part of the argument and should be excluded from the premise
set of the argument.
 TIPS FOR IDENTIFYING AN ARGUMENT FROM A NON-ARGUMENT

*Indicator Word Test: Again, look for indicator words. Remember that not all passages contain indicator words,
and just because a passage has these words does not entail that it is an argument. So be careful.
*Know your Type of Non-Arguments: Become familiar with the types of non-arguments. If you can recognize
that a passage fits one these types, you can rule it out as an argument. Some of the forms of non-arguments are:
Reports, Unsupported assertions (such as statements of belief, warnings, and pieces of advice), Isolated
conditional statements, Illustrations, Explanations. (See Text for details and examples.)

* Common Knowledge Test: Ask yourself: Is the statement that the passage seeks to prove or explain a matter of
common knowledge? If so, then the passage is most likely an explanation rather than an argument. Remember
that controversial claims are those that require proof and so there is little point in trying to prove something that is
already common knowledge or a well-known fact.

*The Past-Event Test: Like the Common Knowledge Test, the point here is that, generally speaking, many
passages about the past are not arguments. The point is that it is much more common to try to explain why past
events have occurred rather than to prove that they did in fact occur. But be careful here, as there are cases where
a passage will argue for a specific set of past events rather than another, or present an argument in a deductive
form concerning the past. So don’t assume that just because the passage is about the past it is not an argument.
Apply some of the other tests to confirm whether or not it is an argument.

* The Author’s Intent Test: Examine the speaker’s or writer’s intent. Is it to prove or show that something is the
case? Here, you are looking for the presence or absence of an inferential link between statements—between the
information provide and the main claim concerning the issue or topic. Are there reasons offered for this main
claim? Or is it the intent to simply explain why something is the case? That is, is the intent to offer an account of
why some event has occurred or why something is the way it is? If it is the latter, then the passage does not
contain an argument. If it’s the former, then it is. Here, an important thing to look at is the context of the
passage—the format or source in which the passage was presented. Is it a newspaper story on the front page, or is
it an editorial piece? Is the passage presented in a first-year text book—e.g. the text for this class—as opposed to a
book that attempts to prove some thesis? Is a peer-reviewed journal or a common periodical? Generally speaking,
the former instances are most likely not going to contain an argument where the later instances are.

* The Principle of Charity Test: We must interpret passages charitably and generously. This means that if it is
unclear whether a passage contains an argument, then we must interpret on the side of caution and charity. This
means that we never want to interpret a passage as a “bad argument” when reasonable evidence permits us to
interpret it as not an argument at all. This doesn’t mean that one simply revert to this when one encounters
difficulties deciding, or out of laziness. Instead, the point is that if none of the other tests succeed, and we have
some evidence to indicate that it is not an argument, then we are better off interpreting the passage charitably and
treating it as a non-argument.

* Apply More Than One Test: As with the tips for identifying components of arguments, generally you should
apply two or more of these tips to confirm your interpretation of the passage as an argument or non-argument.
Indeed, many times students are frustrated by the fact that there is not a fool-proof rule or formula that can be
applied here. However, if these tips are applied in conjunction with each other, and ample practice is exercised,
the task of determining whether or not a passage is an argument can be completed successfully.
IDENTIFYING DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

DETERMINING WHETHER A PASSAGE IS A DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

DEDUCTION

Arguments based on mathematics--Look for any math problems like algebraic or geometric problems.
Arguments from definition--Look for definitions, for synonymous, stipulative or lexical definitions.
Categorical Syllogism--Look for any combination of the words "All," "No," and "Some."
Modus Ponens--Look for one "If___,then___" claim plus two other claims.
Modus Tollens--Look for one "If___,then___" claim plus two other claims.
Disjunctive Syllogism--Look for one "Either___or___" claim plus two other claims.
Hypothetical Syllogism--Look for three "If___,then___" claims.
Simplification--Look for an inference derived from a conjunctive claim such as "___and___"

INDUCTION

Prediction--Look for an inference with a conclusion in the future tense.

Arguments about the Past--Look for an inference with a conclusion in the past tense.
Inductive Generalization--Look for a generalized claim derived from a sample (Sample ---> All).
Statistical Argument--Look for the "%" symbol or such words as "percent," etc.
Arguments from Authority--Look for claims like "X claims ___," "X says___," or "According to X___"
Argument from Analogy--Look for the comparative claims such as "X is like Y," "X is similar to Y," etc.
Arguments based on Signs--Look for any sign, like grave markers, maps, road signs, etc.
Causal Inference--Look for causal claims like "X causes Y," "X results in Y," "Y is the effect of X," etc.

DETERMINING PREMISE SUPPORT OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

DEDUCTION --DETERMINING VALIDITY

Arguments based on mathematics -- Do the math!

Arguments from definition -- Know your definitions!
Categorical Syllogism -- "Some, Some, Some" or two negative premises = Invalid; "All, All, All" see HS.
Modus Ponens -- "Antecedent Same" Look out for the ugly.
Modus Tollens -- "Consequent opposite" Look out for the ugly.
Disjunctive Syllogism -- One alternative (and it doesn't matter which) must be canceled out or negated.
Hypothetical Syllogism -- The "middle term" must occupy opposite, antecedent and consequent, positions.
Simplification -- One conjunct must be inferred.

INDUCTION -- DETERMINING STRENGTH

Prediction--Ask: How likely, given the premises, is it that the conclusion will happen?
Arguments about the Past -- Ask: How likely, given the premises, is it that the conclusion did happen?
Inductive Generalization -- Ask: How good is the sample? Is it sufficient in size? Is it representative?
Statistical Argument -- Ask: What is the percentage? Is it 75% or greater? Also, see authority.
Arguments from Authority -- Ask: How credible is the expert? Is it an expert in the issue at hand? Biased?
Argument from Analogy -- Ask: How good is the comparison? Do similarities outweigh differences?
Arguments based on Signs -- Ask: How trustworthy is the sign? See authority.
Causal Inference -- Ask: How good is the causal connection? Is it just a correlation or oversimplification?
 DEDUCTION vs. INDUCTION

Deduction: A deductive argument is one with a strict relationship (called validity) between the premises
and conclusion, such that if we assume the premises true (and the argument is valid), then the conclusion
must necessarily be true. Thus there is a relationship of necessity between the premises and conclusion.

Induction: An inductive argument is one with a less strict relationship (called strength) between the
premises and conclusion, such that if we assume the premises true (and the argument is strong), then the
conclusion is probably true. Thus there is a relationship of probability between the premises and
conclusion.

TIPS FOR DETERMINING DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

* Indicator Word Test: Look for indicator words: Like premise and conclusion indicators, we can look
to certain signal words to determine if an argument is deductive or inductive. Be sure to know your list
of signal words for both deductive and inductive arguments. Remember that an argument need not have
any signal words to be an inductive or a deductive argument and further that just because a passage has a
particular signal word does not entail that the passage contains a particular type of argument.

* The Strict Necessity Test: Look at the inferential relationship between the statements. Is there a tight
or strict relationship or is it a loose or less strict relationship? Is the information in the conclusion
contained in the premise set or does the information in the conclusion go beyond the premise set?

* Principle of Charity Test: Look at the context of the passage. What is the author’s intent? Is it to
provide an inductive or deductive inference? If there is doubt, always interpret the argument in the way
most favorable to the intent of the arguer.

* Common Pattern Test: Know the types of deductive and inductive arguments. Here are some common
types of deductive and inductive arguments.

TYPES OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Deductive Arguments Inductive Arguments

Arguments based on mathematics Prediction

Arguments from definition Arguments about the Past
Categorical Syllogism Inductive Generalization
Modus Ponens Statistical Argument
Modus Tollens Arguments from Authority
Disjunctive Syllogism Argument from Analogy
Hypothetical Syllogism Arguments based on Signs
Simplification Causal Inference

Please see the next page for more tips on recognizing specific deductive and inductive argument
patterns.
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT STRUCTURES

VALIDITY IS DEFINED AS THE STRICT RELATIONSHIP OF PREMISE SUPPORT FOR A

CONCLUSION IN A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, SUCH THAT IF WE ASSUME THE PREMISES
TRUE AND THE ARGUMENT IS VALID, THEN THE CONCLUSION CANNOT BUT BE TRUE.
GENERALLY, VALIDITY WILL DEPEND UPON THE ARGUMENT’S STRUCTURE RATHER
THAN CONTENT. THUS, ALTHOUGH VALIDITY IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF TRUTH, IT IS
NOT DEPENDENT UPON TRUTH.RATHER STRUCTURE IS THE KEY TO VALIDITY. SO
KNOW YOUR DEDUCTIVE STRUCTURES. THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME VALID AND
INVALID STRUCTURES.

VALID STRUCTURES

MODUS PONENS (MP) MODUS TOLLENS (MT)

IF X, THEN Y IF X, THEN Y
X NOT Y_____
Y NOT X

DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (DS) HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (HS)

EITHER X OR Y IF X, THEN Y
NOT X IF Y, THEN Z
Y IF X, THEN Z

INVALID STRUCTURES

ASSERTING THE CONSEQUENT (AC) DENYING THE ANTECEDENT (DA)

IF X, THEN Y IF X, THEN Y
Y NOT X_____
X NOT Y

AFFIRMING AN ALTERNATIVE (AA) BAD HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

(BHS)
EITHER X OR Y IF X, THEN Y
X IF Z, THEN Y
NOT Y IF X, THEN Z
 STRATEGIES FOR NATURAL DEDUCTION

1.) Always begin by attempting to “find” the conclusion in the premises.

2) If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in
the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens.

3) If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a
conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus
tollens.

4) If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via hypothetical

syllogism.

5) If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises,
consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism.

6) If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises,
consider obtaining that letter via simplification.

7) If the conclusion is a conjunctive statement, consider obtaining it via conjunction by first

obtaining the individual conjuncts.

8) If the conclusion is a disjunctive statement, consider obtaining it via constructive dilemma or

addition.

9) If the conclusion contains a letter not found in the premises, addition must be used to
obtain that letter.

10) Conjunction can be used to set up constructive dilemma.

11) Conjunction can be used to set up DeMorgan’s Rule.

12) Constructive dilemma can be used to set up DeMorgan’s Rule.

13) Addition can be used to set up DeMorgan’s Rule.

STRATEGIES CONTINUED:

14) Distribution can be used in two ways to set up disjunctive syllogism.

15) Distribution can be used in two ways to set up simplification.

16) If inspection of the premises does not reveal how the conclusion should be derived,
consider using the rules of replacement to “deconstruct” the conclusion.

17) Material implication can be used to set up hypothetical syllogism.

18) Exportation can be used to set up modus ponens.

19) Exportation can be used to set up modus tollens.

20) Addition can be used to set up material implication.

21) Transposition can be used to set up hypothetical syllogism.

22) Transposition can be used to set up constructive dilemma.

23) Constructive dilemma can be used to set up tautology.

24) Material implication can be used to set up tautology.

25) Material implication can be used to set up distribution.