The new fan is coming! This is a little long. . .
In the previous lecture, we already know that the ability to track others' arguments is very important, which makes us:
-Being able to identify the obvious elements that make up an argument, such as premises, conclusions and reasoning indicators; and
-Being able to confirm unspecified or missing premises, conclusions or inferred indicators; and
-you can use symbols to demonstrate all the elements (for example, mark the premise as P 1, P2, etc.; Mark the missing premises as MP 1, MP2, and so on; The conclusion is marked as C, the missing conclusion is marked as MC, and so on).
-Simple argument;
-T-type independent variable;
-V type parameter; and
Composite parameters, consisting of one or more simple parameters, T-type parameters and/or V-type parameters.
We will introduce them one by one.
In the second lecture, we define argument as inference expressed by propositions, one or more of which is premise and the other is conclusion. Usually, there is a reasoning arguer reminding us that the premise supports its conclusion.
The simplest form of argument has a premise, supports a conclusion and has an inference index. He broke his leg yesterday, so he can't take part in the football match this week. We draw the structure of such a simple argument as follows. For obvious reasons, we call it "tree argument".
The arrow represents the inference indicator "Therefore".
Just as a T-shirt looks like the letter T, the structure of T-argument is similar to T, hence the name T-argument.
T-type argument has two or more preconditions, none of which can support the conclusion alone, but they can support the conclusion together. For example, lecturers with a master of arts degree in international journalism are required to take the responsibility of guidance, and a total of 60 students need guidance on their papers. Therefore, each lecturer should guide students around 10.
T-type argument can be explained as follows:
Similarly, if a T-type argument has three premises, and none of them can independently support the conclusion, we will mark three premises on the horizontal axis; If a T-type argument has four premises, and none of them can independently support the conclusion, we will mark four premises on the horizontal axis, and so on.
For example:
It should be noted that to become a T-type argument, there must be two or more preconditions, none of which can support the conclusion alone, but together they can support the conclusion.
Not surprisingly, the structure of the V-shaped argument looks like the letter V. V-type argument and T-type argument are very different, so it is very important to know their differences.
V-type argument has two or more premises, each of which can independently support the conclusion if it is established. For example, Serbian general Ratko Mladic was arrested by United Nations forces yesterday and accused of committing war crimes against non-Serbs in the former Yugoslavia. The United States warned the Serbian government last night that Serbia would face a new round of sanctions if it did not hand over Radovan Karadzic, a former Bosnian Serb, to face charges of war criminals. Therefore, extreme nationalists in Serbia are under increasing pressure. We will illustrate this argument as follows:
It should be noted that in V-type argument, any precondition can independently support the conclusion. This means that only one premise is false and the conclusion is still valid.
Therefore, V-type argument is an important exception to the general rule that we have learned before to judge whether an argument is reliable and effective. This rule stipulates that an argument should be reliable and effective, it should have the power of logic, and all preconditions must be true. But in V-type argument, as long as one of the preconditions supports the conclusion and is true, the argument is valid.
We can see that all preconditions must be true, which applies to "tree argument" and "T argument" but not to "V argument".
Therefore, when we trace back or evaluate an argument, it is very important to check whether the argument structure is "tree", "t" or "v" at an early stage.
A composite parameter is a combination of two or more "tree", "t" and/or "v" parameters.
Let's look at a simple compound argument: Arif has just turned 2 1 year old, which gives him all legal rights as an adult. Therefore, he can now take over the huge financial legacy left by his father.
This parameter has a tree structure:
Let's take a look at the tree structure diagram just now. Please note:
-The chart has two arrows. This is because this argument contains two inferences. P 1 supports another conclusion. We call this sub-conclusion P2 because P2 supports the main conclusion C; but
-P 1 supports P2 and P2 supports C for the same reason-there is no difference-you can remove one of the two premises and C still gets the same support; but
-This argument is marked as a tree structure, because we mainly use a tree diagram to describe a premise argument.
Let's take a look at a developing country's view on international debt:
Donor countries and major financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should immediately cancel the debts of all developing countries. Forgiving debts is a noble act. The net outflow of funds from poor countries to rich countries is unfair and a humanitarian shame. Many poor countries cannot feed their own people, let alone provide clothes and education. Although each Japanese cow receives a subsidy of $4 per day, millions of people still can't get 1 dollar to make a living, which shows the indifference of the world. Rich countries and institutions have the ability to forgive debts and will not trigger a worldwide financial crisis. Serious research shows that the IMF can finance debt relief by carefully selling a small part of its gold reserves. This will not affect the world banking system. Developing China countries can make good use of this opportunity of debt relief. A new generation of leading teams in developing countries have been put in place. They are familiar with the economy, commit to open government affairs and have the ability to spend money wisely.
This is a compound argument with multiple conclusions, which means that it contains a series of different arguments and may combine different types of argument structures (tree, T and V).
How can we trace this argument?
The first step is to find out its conclusion. Now, we draw a line under all the conclusions with a pencil and mark it as C, but we don't need to mark the serial number of the conclusions.
Second, we asked which of these conclusions was the main conclusion. We can ask ourselves: which conclusion is the best summary of the full text? Or we can change the question. We asked: which conclusion we found can be used as a premise to support other conclusions?
Step one, let's find out the conclusion. They have four:
C donor countries and major financial institutions such as the world bank and the international monetary fund should immediately cancel the debts of all developing countries.
Forgiving debts is a noble act. The net outflow of funds from poor countries to rich countries is unfair and a humanitarian shame. Many poor countries cannot feed their own people, let alone provide clothes and education. Although each Japanese cow receives a subsidy of $4 per day, millions of people still can't get 1 dollar to make a living, which shows the indifference of the world.
C rich countries and institutions have the ability to forgive debts and will not trigger a worldwide financial crisis. Serious research shows that the IMF can finance debt relief by carefully selling a small part of its gold reserves. This will not affect the world banking system.
Developing China countries can make good use of this debt relief opportunity. A new generation of leading teams in developing countries have been put in place. They are familiar with the economy, commit to open government affairs and have the ability to spend money wisely.
Which is the main conclusion?
In my opinion, it is obvious that the first sentence is: donor countries and major financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should immediately cancel the debts of all developing countries. Let's underline this sentence and still mark it as C, which is the third step.
Why? Because this sentence is the best summary of the main points of this text. In addition, other conclusions we found can easily be used as a premise to support this conclusion.
Now, let's do the fourth step: we turn other sub-conclusions into premises and mark them as P 1, P2, and so on.
At this point, we trace this argument as follows.
We found a main conclusion, which was supported by three other conclusions. We transform these three conclusions into several preconditions (P1–P3) of this main conclusion (C).
C donor countries and major financial institutions such as the world bank and the international monetary fund should immediately cancel the debts of all developing countries.
Forgiving debts is a noble act. The net outflow of funds from poor countries to rich countries is unfair and a humanitarian shame. Many poor countries cannot feed their own people, let alone provide clothes and education. Although each Japanese cow receives a subsidy of $4 per day, millions of people still can't get 1 dollar to make a living, which shows the indifference of the world.
P2 Rich countries and institutions have the ability to forgive debts, which will not trigger a worldwide financial crisis. Serious research shows that the IMF can finance debt relief by carefully selling a small part of its gold reserves. This will not affect the world banking system.
P3 Developing countries can make good use of this debt relief opportunity. A new generation of leading teams in developing countries have been put in place. They are familiar with the economy, commit to open government affairs and have the ability to spend money wisely.
Now, our fifth step is to test the type of relationship between each main premise and main conclusion. We need to know:
-Is it a tree structure? In other words, do the main premises add up to form the premise to support the conclusion?
-Is it a T-shaped structure? That is to say, is there any main premise that cannot support the main conclusion alone, but needs to support the main conclusion together with one or more other main premises?
-Is it a V-shaped structure? In other words, can each or more preconditions independently support the conclusion?
In my opinion, each major premise can independently support the main conclusion. This means that the core point of this passage is a V-shaped argument, which can be represented by the following figure:
Now, our sixth step is to test the preconditions that support the main premise (sub-conclusion). Let's start with P 1, which is the sub-conclusion: debt forgiveness is a noble act.
The question we want to ask is: What arguments support this sub-conclusion?
Let's look at the text. The following premises support this sub-conclusion:
-P 1. 1 The net outflow of funds from poor countries to rich countries is unfair and humiliating to humanity.
-P 1.2 Many poor countries can't feed their people, let alone provide clothes and education.
-P 1.3 Although each Japanese cow receives a daily subsidy of $4, there are still millions of people who can't get 1 to make a living, which shows the indifference of the world.
Please note that I marked these premises as P 1. 1-P 1.3, so that I can clearly see which main premise (P 1) they are associated with.
Our seventh step is to question the nature of the relationship between P 1. 1-P 1.3 and P 1. Is it a tree structure, a T structure or a V structure? Since each of these premises can independently support P 1, this secondary argument is V-shaped. Therefore, we will explain the structural form of this argument as follows:
Our eighth step is to see what arguments can be found to support P2, that is, rich countries and institutions have the ability to forgive debts and will not trigger a worldwide financial crisis.
We can find two supporting conditions:
-P2. 1 Serious research shows that the International Monetary Fund can finance debt relief by carefully selling a small part of its gold reserves.
-P2.2 This will not affect the world banking system.
Our ninth step is to question the relationship between these preconditions and P2 teaching.
Obviously, this relationship is a composite tree structure-that is, P2. 1 and P2.2 actually support P2 for the same reason-they are no different-you can remove any one of them and P2 can still be kept.
Therefore, it can be proved that the structural form of P2 can be represented by the following tree diagram:
If we add the above figure to the whole argument structure, it will look like the following figure:
Our tenth step is to test the argument supporting P3 that developing China countries can make good use of this debt relief opportunity.
The prerequisites for supporting P3 include:
-P3. 1 A new generation of leading teams in developing countries has been put in place.
-P3.2 This team is familiar with the economy, committed to open government affairs, and has the ability to spend money wisely.
Please note that these two preconditions cannot support the conclusion alone, but together they can. So the structure of this argument is T-shaped.
At this point, the final complete version of the compound argument structure we discussed can be described as follows:
In this lesson, we introduced four basic structures of argument and how to confirm them. These four basic structural forms are:
-Simple tree parameters;
-T-type independent variable;
-V type parameter; and
Composite parameters, which contain one or more tree, t and/or v parameters.
We also studied and learned how to use symbols and charts to mark the structural forms of these different arguments.
Next lecture: ten fallacious forms of argument?
See you next week!
20 15-6- 16