oArguments in Ordinary Language

To understand what is the argument in ordinary language, we need to comprehend the meaning of ordinary language itself. Ordinary language philosophy is a philosophical school that approaches traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting or forgetting what words actually mean in everyday use. This approach typically involves eschewing philosophical "theories" in favour of close attention to the details of the use of everyday, "ordinary" language. Meanwhile argument is a claim, or set of claims, supported by one or more defensible reason(s) (Wittgenstein, Oxford University Press, (Oxford), 1988, p. 114). In logic, this can take the form of one or more declarative sentences or propositions, known as the premises, along with another meaningful declarative sentence or propositions, known as the conclusion.

ENTHYMEME
Enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion (www.wikipedia.com, 2011). In other word, enthymeme is an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism, or a less-than-100% argument. A figure of reasoning in which one or more statements of a syllogism (a three-pronged deductive argument) is/are left out of the configuration; an abbreviated syllogism or truncated deductive argument in which one or more premises, or, the conclusion is/are omitted. There are various kinds of syllogisms and the formal treatment of them is rather technical. However, all syllogisms are similar in that they contain at least three statements -- two premises followed by a conclusion. Ex1: - All members of primate are mamalia. (major premise) - Humans are member of primate. (minor premise) - Humans are mamalia. (conclusion)

The syllogism above would be rendered an enthymeme simply by maintaining that "Humans are mamalia because theyre primate" (leaving out the major premise). Or put differently, "Since all primate are mamalia, humans are therefore primate" (leaving out the minor premise). Statements may be strategically excluded in an enthymeme because they are too obvious or because revealing them might damage the force of the argument. Yet another reason to excluded a premise or conclusion is to let the audience infer it. The idea here is that audiences who have to draw out premises or conclusions for themselves are more likely to be persuaded by the overall argument. Ex2: - Those who study rhetoric speak eloquently. (major premise) - Aland studies rhetoric. (minor premise) - Aland speaks eloquently. (conclusion) The enthymeme here might do well to exclude the conclusion and let the audience infer it if the goal of the argument were to convince the audience that Aland speaks eloquently. While syllogisms lay out all of their premises and conclusion explicitly, enthymemes keep at least one of the premises or conclusion unsaid. The assertion left unsaid is intended to be so obvious as to not need stating. Enthymemes allow the speaker both to avoid alienating listeners with long chains of inferences and appeal to the audience's common sense without depleting the argument any of its logical force. It was intended to have the form of valid deductive syllogisms, so a complete enthymeme has the same premises-conclusion structure as any syllogism, and is intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusion based on the truth of its premises. In an enthymeme, the speaker builds an argument with one element removed, leading listeners to fill in the missing piece. (Paul Waldman, Washington Post, Sep. 2003) In some cases, the missing proposition is not stated because it is obvious. Ex3 : "You'll be fine, just follow your heart." The missing premiss is "All persons who follow their heart are persons who do fine." (Note that the explicit statement of the missing premiss makes the argument somewhat dubious.) In other cases, if the missing proposition were present, the argument might lose rhetorical force. Ex4 : "Mary does well because she pays attention." The missing premiss would be "All people

paying attention are people who do well." (Note that it seems reasonable that some persons who pay attention might not do well.) Occasionally, the proposition is suppressed in an effort to conceal the unsoundness or the invalidity of the argument. Ex5 : "No cars with internal combustion engines are energy efficient, so no American-made cars are energy efficient." (The missing premiss would be the false premiss, "All American-made cars are cars with internal combustion engines.)

SORITE
A sorities is a sequence of categorical syllogisms in which the intermediate conclusions have been omitted because they can be safely assumed. A sorties is in standard form when each of the component propositions is a standard form categorical proposition, when the predicate term of the conclusion is in the first premise, when each term occurs exactly twice, and when each premise after the first has a term in common with the preceding one. (Copi, I. M, Cohen, C., (2001), "Introduction to Logic", 11th Edition). Sorities is related syllogisms forming closed circle of premises leading to conclusion that connects back to original premise. It is relating to a form of argument in which a series of incomplete syllogisms is so arranged that the predicate of each premise forms the subject of the next until the subject of the first is joined with the predicate of the last in the conclusion. For example, if one argues that a given number of grains of sand does not make a heap and that an additional grain does not either, then to conclude that no additional amount of sand will make a heap is to construct a sorites argument. Sorities is sometimes seen as, and certainly can be, a logical fallacy, since the rapidity of claims and reasons does not allow the unstated assumptions behind each claim to be examined. It is a polysyllogism in which the premises are arranged so that intermediate conclusions are omitted, being understood, and only the final conclusion is stated. Ex1 : We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in the past. Since the witness cannot be trusted, we must disregard his present testimony. Without his damning testimony, the

accusations against my client are nothing. Since the accusations against my client amount to nothing, let him be dismissed. Ex2 : (1). Socrates is a philosopher. (2) All philosophers are human. (3) All humans are mortal. So, (4) Socrates is mortal. (1) and (2) together imply that (5) Socrates is human. Their unstated conclusion (5) becomes a premise with (3). (5) and (3) then together imply (4). However, this analysis did not place the sorites in standard form. Standard form requires that the first premise have the same predicate as the conclusion. In standard form, (3) would be the first premise.

Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms

Syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition. The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations. A syllogism is a two-premise deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises. A categorical syllogism - a form of argument first inculcated by Aristotle - is a specific type of syllogism consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms or categories, each of which occurs in exactly two of the three propositions. (www.editthis.com, 2011)

Disjunctive Syllogism Disjunctive syllogism presents two alternatives in an "either . . . or" form; one of the alternatives is for formal reasons assumed to be necessarily true, so that to deny one leaves the other as the only possibility. The two possibilities, called disjuncts, are stated in the major premise; one is and must be denied in the minor premise; and the other is affirmed in the conclusion (www.wikipedia.com, 2011). This is the valid form, which can be shown as follows:

Either A or B Not A; therefore B (Deny first disjunct; affirm the second) Either A or B Not B; therefore A (Deny second disjunct; affirm the first) The opposite procedure of first affirming and then denying is, however, incorrect. Except where the members are explicitly contradictory so that both could not possibly be true, the affirmation of one disjunct (in the minor premise) does not deny the other. For example, to say, "Either the power is off or the bulb is burned out; the power is off so the bulb is not burned out," would be a fallacy, because, while we assume that one of the disjuncts is definitely true, both might be true--we did not check the bulb and so cannot be sure of its condition. Since the second disjunct has not been investigated, it cannot be denied by default. A disjunctive syllogism originally known as modus tollendo ponens, is a classically valid and simple argument form : A is B or C A is not C Therefore, A is B In logical operator notation:

where Ex1 :

represents the logical assertion.

Either I will choose chocolate or I will choose cappucino. I will not choose chocolate. Therefore, I will choose cappucino. Ex2 : It is either violet or indigo. It is not indigo. Therefore, it is violet.

Hypothetical Syllogism Hypothetical syllogism is argument whose premises and conclusion are all hypotheticals. It is mediate inference, with minor (symbol P), middle (M), and major (Q)

theses, deployed in figures, as was the case in categorical syllogism (www.thelogician.net, 2011). It is different from standard syllogisms and thus have their own rules. In a hypothetical syllogism the first premise (or major proposition) presents an uncertain condition ("if A, then B") or a problem ("either A or B"; "S and T cannot both be true") which must then be properly resolved by the second premise so that a valid conclusion can follow. The resolution of the problem is always in the form of affirmation or denial. In logic, a hypothetical syllogism has two uses. In propositional logic it expresses one of the rules of inference, while in the history of logic, it is a short-hand for thetheory of consequence. Hypothetical syllogism is one of the proof rules in classical logic that may or may not be available in a non-classical logic. The hypothetical syllogism (abbr. H.S.) is avalid argument of the following form: If P Q. If Q R. ____________________ Then(If P;Q), P R.

Ex1 : If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid. Ex2 : If you study (antecedent), then you will become a good student (consequent). If you become a good student, then you will go to college. Therefore, If you study, then you will go to college.

Notice that the first premise and the conclusion have the same antecedent, and the second premise and the conclusion have the same consequent. It should be clear why hypothetical syllogisms provide the clearest example of why syllogisms preserve truth value for this format also for a set of equivalencies.

The Dilemma
The dilemma is a problem offering at least two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. The two options are often described as the horns of a dilemma

(www.wikipedia.com, 2011). When a problem offers three solutions or possibilities, it is called Trilemma. The dilemma is sometimes used as a rhetorical device, in the form "you must accept either A, or B"; here A and B would be propositions each leading to some further conclusion. Applied incorrectly, it constitutes a false dichotomy, a fallacy. In formal logic, the definition of a dilemma differs markedly from everyday usage. Two options are still present, but choosing between them is immaterial because they both imply the same conclusion. Symbolically expressed thus:

Which can be translated informally as "one (or both) of A or B is known to be true, but they both imply C, so regardless of the truth values of A and B we can conclude C." Horned dilemmas can present more than two choices. The number of choices of Horned dilemmas can be used in their alternative names, such as two-pronged (two-horned) or dilemma proper, or three-pronged (three-horned) or trilemma, and so on. Constructive dilemmas: 1. (If X, then Y) and (If W, then Z). 2. X or W. 3. Therefore, Y or Z. Ex : If I win a million dollars, I will donate it to an orphanage. If my friend wins a million dollars, he will donate it to a wildlife fund. Either I win a million dollars, or my friend wins a million dollars. Therefore, either an orphanage will get a million dollars, or a wildlife fund will get a million dollars. Whether the destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The disjunctive version of modus ponens is the constructive dilemma. Destructive dilemmas: 1. (If X, then Y) and (If W, then Z). 2. Not Y or not Z. 3. Therefore, not X or not W. Ex : If it rains, we will stay inside. If it is sunny, we will go for a walk. Either we will not stay inside, or we will not go for a walk. Therefore, either it will not rain, or it will not be sunny.

Trilemma is a difficult choice from three alternatives, each of which is (or appears) unacceptable or unfavorable. There are two logically equivalent ways in which to express a trilemma: It can be expressed as a choice among three unfavorable options, one of which must be chosen, or as a choice among three favorable options, only two of which are possible at the same time. The term derives from the much older term dilemma, a choice between two difficult or unfavorable options.

CONCLUSION
In philosophy, an argument is a claim, or set of claims, supported by one or more defensible reason(s). In logic, this can take the form of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions"), known as the premises, along with another meaningful declarative sentence or proposition, known as the conclusion. There are several form of arguments in ordinary language such as enthymeme, sorites, disjunctive-hypothetical syllogism, and the dilemma. Enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. An enthymeme is an argument in which one proposition is suppressed. Sometimes entymeme defines as an argument in which a premiss is missing. Nevertheless, some enthymemes omit the conclusion for rhetorical effect. enthymemes are intended to have the form of valid deductive syllogisms, so a complete enthymeme has the same premise-premiseconclusion structure as any syllogism, and is intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusion based on the truth of its premises. Sorities is a chain of several enthymematic syllogisms is explained. Sorities is related syllogisms forming closed circle of premises leading to conclusion that connects back to original premise. It is sometimes seen as, and certainly can be, a logical fallacy, since the rapidity of claims and reasons does not allow the unstated assumptions behind each claim to be examined. Disjunctive syllogism presents two alternatives in an "either . . . or" form; one of the alternatives is for formal reasons assumed to be necessarily true, so that to deny one leaves the other as the only possibility. A disjunctive syllogism originally known as modus tollendo ponens, is a classically valid and simple argument form : A is B or C

A is not C Therefore, A is B Hypothetical syllogisms are different from standard syllogisms and thus have their own rules. In a hypothetical syllogism the first premise (or major proposition) presents an uncertain condition ("if A, then B") or a problem ("either A or B"; "S and T cannot both be true") which must then be properly resolved by the second premise so that a valid conclusion can follow. The hypothetical syllogism (abbr. H.S.) is avalid argument of the following form: If P Q. If Q R. ____________________ Then(If P;Q), P R. The dilemma is a problem offering at least two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. The dilemma is sometimes used as a rhetorical device, in the form "you must accept either A, or B"; here A and B would be propositions each leading to some further conclusion. It can be symbolize as :

Which can be translated informally as "one (or both) of A or B is known to be true, but they both imply C, so regardless of the truth values of A and B we can conclude C."

References :
www.wikipedia.com www.britannica.com www.dictionary30.com www.newworldencyclopedia.org www.answers.com rhetoric.byu.edu academic.csuohio.edu wps.prenhall.com philosophy.lander.edu editthis.info thelogician.net