THE PRIMARY RULES OF ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Two years ago, when Beaner was studying critical thinking, I made this simple list for her curriculum. Whether one is studying Scripture, engaging in apologetic conversation, reading the newspaper, or listening to a commercial on the radio, knowing the basic rules for identifying an argument (or lack thereof) is crucial.

Proverbs teaches us that, “The first one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him” (18:13). And how often do the Scriptures warn us against being deceived, the root of the primeval, archetypical sin? Moreover, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only expressing his opinion” (Prov 18:2).

How, then, are we to discern between mere opinion, conjecture or arbitrariness and reliable patterns of reasoning? It’s only a start, but being able to discover and identify premises and conclusions is essential. So, here are some general guidelines and helps for that end...

1. Premises and conclusions are not identified by their content or their location in the paragraph.

2. The appearance of the following words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that what follows will be a:

PREMISE
a. since
b. for
c. because
d. as
e. whereas
f. inasmuch as
g. seeing that

CONCLUSION
a. therefore
b. thus
c. hence
d. so
e. consequently
f. accordingly
g. it follows that
h. as a result
i. I conclude

These terms may or may not be present; in other words, the rule is not absolute. But the presence of one of these words before a premise or a conclusion is the rule, not the exception. Argument identification can be greatly enhanced by learning the various forms of valid arguments. (We’ll look at that in a future post.)

3. An enthymeme is a kind of argument that is so clear from the context that it assumes the reader/hearer will supply some premises or the conclusion.

One example of the enthymeme that is lucid is Jesus’ argument that “My kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36. Yes; this verse contains a complete argument. It goes like this:

P1. “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.”

P2. [The supplied premise: And it’s not so that my servants are fighting]

Therefore,

C1. My kingdom is not of this world.

P2 is supplied by the reader/hearer thus completing the the pattern of thought. That this is enthymemic is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is employing a particular from of argument, known as the modus tollens (one we’ll look at in the future), which is made complete with the assumed/supplied premise.

4. A sorites is a set of interlocking arguments in which there are propositions that may be both a conclusion in one and a premise in another following argument. This method doesn’t have a great showing in our culture; this due to the fact that media saturation, the ridiculous institution known as public “education,” and the misological attitude that has prevailed Western society of late, has degenerated our abilities to follow a lengthy, escalating discourse (esp. a written one). Nevertheless, if you read the Bible or any theological or philosophical works anterior to the 20th century, then you’ve been exposed to the sorites. Paul’s letters, especially Romans, provide great examples, as does Hebrews.

I hope you'll find these points helpful.