Study Guide: Recognizing Arguments in

Logic and Critical Thinking

Key Concepts
• Sentence: A grammatical unit that expresses a complete thought.
• Statement: A declarative sentence that can be either true or false. Arguments are
composed of statements.
• Argument: A group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed
to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion).
• Premise: A statement in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why we should
accept the conclusion.
• Conclusion: The statement in an argument that the premises are intended to prove
or support.
• Good Argument: An argument in which the premises genuinely support the
conclusion.
• Bad Argument: An argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion.
• Indicator Words: Words or phrases that provide clues that premises or conclusions
are being put forward.
• Premise Indicators: Words such as since, because, for, given that, as, inasmuch as,
considering that, in view of the fact that, as indicated by, judging from, on account of,
may be inferred from, for the reason that, owing to.
• Conclusion Indicators: Words such as therefore, accordingly, entails that,
wherefore, we may conclude, hence, thus, it must be that, it follows that, consequently,
for this reason, implies that, we may infer, so, as a result.
• Inference: The reasoning process expressed by an argument.
• Inferential Claim: The claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning
process—that something supports or implies something, or that something follows
from something. This can be explicit (indicated by indicator words) or implicit
(inferred from the relationship between statements).
• Nonargumentative Discourse: Passages that do not aim to prove a conclusion
based on premises. Types include:
• Reports: Convey information about a subject or event.
• Unsupported Assertions: Statements of belief without evidence.
• Conditional Statements: If-then statements that do not claim that the consequent
follows from the antecedent.
• Illustrations: Provide examples of a claim, not proof.
• Explanations: Show why something is the case, not prove that it is the case.

Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. What is the crucial difference between a sentence and a statement in the context of
logic? Provide an example of a sentence that is not a statement.
 2. Define an argument in your own words. What are the two essential components that
every argument must contain?
3. Explain the roles of premises and conclusions within an argument. How do they
relate to one another?
4. What are indicator words, and why are they helpful in identifying the structure of an
argument? Provide one example of a premise indicator and one example of a
conclusion indicator.
5. Describe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument based on the
relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
6. What is an inferential claim? Explain the difference between an explicit and an
implicit inferential claim, providing a brief example for each.
7. Explain why a conditional statement ("if-then" statement) is generally not
considered an argument in the logical sense.
8. What is the primary purpose of a report? How does this purpose differ from the
purpose of an argument?
9. Explain the difference between an illustration and an argument. What is the main
function of an illustration in writing or speech?
10. How does an explanation differ from an argument? What question does each type of
discourse primarily aim to answer?

Answer Key
1. A sentence is a grammatical unit, while a statement is a declarative sentence that
can be true or false. Only statements can function as premises or conclusions in an
argument. For example, "Close the door!" is a sentence but not a statement because
it cannot be assigned a truth value.
2. An argument is a collection of statements where one or more statements (the
premises) are presented as reasons for accepting another statement (the
conclusion). The two essential components of an argument are at least one premise
and one conclusion.
3. Premises are the statements that provide evidence or reasons, while the conclusion
is the statement that the premises are intended to support or prove. The premises
are meant to lead the reader or listener to accept the conclusion as true or plausible.
4. Indicator words are specific words or phrases that signal the presence of premises
or conclusions in a passage. They help us identify the structure of an argument by
indicating which statements are meant to provide support and which statement is
being supported. For example, "because" is a premise indicator, and "therefore" is a
conclusion indicator.
5. A good argument is one in which the premises genuinely provide logical support for
the conclusion, meaning if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true
as well. A bad argument, on the other hand, has premises that do not adequately
support or have no logical connection to the conclusion.
6. An inferential claim is the assertion that there is a reasoning process occurring in a
passage, where one statement is supposed to follow from or be supported by others.
An explicit inferential claim is indicated by the presence of premise or conclusion
 indicator words, such as "thus, the sky is blue." An implicit inferential claim occurs
when there is a logical relationship between statements without any indicator
words, such as "The cat is wet. It must have been raining."
7. A conditional statement expresses a relationship between an antecedent (the "if"
part) and a consequent (the "then" part), but it does not assert that the antecedent is
true, and therefore does not claim that the consequent follows. There is no claim
that one part provides support for the other in the way premises support a
conclusion.
8. The primary purpose of a report is to convey factual information about a topic or
event without necessarily trying to prove a specific point. This differs from an
argument, which aims to persuade or convince the reader or listener to accept a
particular conclusion based on the evidence presented in the premises.
9. An illustration provides examples to clarify or make a general claim more
understandable, but it does not offer proof or reasons to believe the claim. An
argument, in contrast, aims to provide evidence and logical connections to establish
the truth or plausibility of a conclusion. The main function of an illustration is to
exemplify, not to prove.
10. An explanation aims to show why something is the case by identifying causes or
reasons for an already accepted fact. An argument, on the other hand, aims to prove
that something is the case by offering evidence to support a claim that may not be
initially accepted.

Essay Format Questions

1. Discuss the importance of being able to distinguish between arguments and
nonargumentative discourse in critical thinking. Provide specific examples of how
misidentifying different types of nonarguments as arguments (or vice versa) could lead
to flawed reasoning or misunderstandings.

Being able to distinguish between arguments and nonargumentative discourse is

fundamental to critical thinking because arguments aim to persuade or provide reasons for
accepting a conclusion, while nonargumentative discourse serves different purposes, such as
reporting information, expressing beliefs, providing examples, explaining causes, or stating
conditions. Misidentifying one for the other can lead to flawed reasoning and misunderstandings
because you might either try to find support where none is intended or fail to critically evaluate a
claim that is actually being argued.
According to the sources, an argument is defined as a group of statements where one or more
statements (the premises) are claimed to provide support for another statement (the conclusion).
There are good arguments where the premises genuinely support the conclusion, and bad
arguments where they do not. Identifying arguments often involves recognizing premise
indicators (e.g., since, because, for) and conclusion indicators (e.g., therefore, thus,
consequently), although arguments can also have implicit inferential claims without such
indicators.
The sources outline several types of nonargumentative discourse:
•
Reports: These aim to convey information about a subject or event without trying to prove
anything. For example, the passage about demographic and economic changes in the late 20th
century is a report. If one were to treat a statement within this report as a conclusion of an
argument without identifying supporting premises, they would be misunderstanding the purpose
of the text.
•
Unsupported Assertions: These are statements of belief or opinion without any supporting
evidence or reasons. For instance, "I believe that it is not dying that people are afraid of...".
Mistaking such an assertion for a conclusion would lead to a fruitless search for nonexistent
premises and a failure to recognize it simply as an expressed opinion.
•
Conditional Statements: These "if-then" statements or antecedent-consequent statements do not
assert that any statement follows from another. For example, "If it rains, then the picnic will be
canceled". Misinterpreting the consequent ("the picnic will be canceled") as a conclusion implies
that the antecedent ("it rains") is a premise offered as support. However, the conditional
statement only expresses a relationship between two events, not an argument that the picnic will
be canceled.
•
Illustrations: These provide examples to clarify a claim, not to prove it. For example, "Many
wildflowers are edible. For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious in salads". If someone
took "daisies and day lilies are delicious in salads" as a conclusion, they would be missing the
point that this is simply an example supporting the broader claim that many wildflowers are
edible.
•
Explanations: These aim to show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the case. For
example, "Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg". If one treats "Titanic sank" as a conclusion
and "it struck an iceberg" as a premise meant to prove the sinking (which is already accepted as
fact), they misunderstand the purpose of the statement, which is to provide a causal explanation.
Conversely, if one treats "Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may
be mistakenly executed" as merely an explanation of why someone believes it should be
abolished, they might fail to recognize and critically evaluate the intended argument for
abolition.
Misidentifying these types of nonarguments as arguments (or vice versa) can lead to flawed
reasoning or misunderstandings in several ways:
•
Failure to evaluate claims: If an argument is mistaken for a report or an unsupported assertion,
one might not subject the conclusion to critical scrutiny or look for supporting evidence,
potentially accepting a claim without proper justification.
•
Misdirected criticism: If a nonargumentative explanation is taken as an argument, one might
mistakenly try to find flaws in its supposed reasoning instead of understanding its purpose is to
provide a cause or reason for something already accepted.
•
Missing the point of communication: Treating an illustration as an argument can lead to
focusing on the specifics of the example rather than the general claim it is meant to support.
Similarly, misinterpreting a conditional statement as an argument can lead to unnecessary
debates about the truth of the antecedent or consequent in isolation, rather than understanding the
stated relationship.
•
Inability to construct effective arguments: A clear understanding of what constitutes an
argument and how it differs from other forms of discourse is essential for constructing well-
supported arguments in one's own critical thinking and communication.
In summary, the ability to distinguish between arguments and nonargumentative discourse is
crucial for effective critical thinking. It allows us to correctly identify when a claim is being
supported by reasons, when information is simply being conveyed, when an opinion is being
expressed, when an example is being given, when a cause is being explained, and when a
conditional relationship is being stated. Accurate identification ensures that we apply
appropriate evaluative techniques and avoid misunderstandings in communication and
reasoning.

2. Explain the relationship between statements, premises, and conclusions in

constructing a logical argument. How do indicator words facilitate the identification
of these components? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

In constructing a logical argument, statements serve as the fundamental building blocks.

According to the sources, a statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false.
Examples of statements include "Red is a colour," "Canada is in South America," and "Abortion
is morally wrong".

An argument itself is defined as a group of statements. Within this group, one or more
statements function as premises, which are offered as evidence or reasons why we should
accept another statement, the conclusion. Conversely, the conclusion is the statement in an
argument that the premises are intended to prove or support. Therefore, the relationship is
that premises provide the foundation or justification for the conclusion within the structure
of an argument. The argument claims that the conclusion follows from or is supported by the
premises. This relationship, the claim that something supports or implies something else, is
referred to as the inferential claim of the argument.

Indicator words play a crucial role in facilitating the identification of premises and
conclusions. These words or phrases act as clues that either premises or conclusions are being
presented.

• Premise indicators signal that the statements following them are intended as reasons or
evidence. The sources provide several examples of premise indicators, such as "since,"
"because," "for," "given that," "considering that," "as," "in view of the fact that,"
 "as indicated by," "judging from," "on account of," "may be inferred from," "for
the reason that," and "owing to".
o For instance, in the example "Expectant mothers should never use recreational
drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus",
the word "since" indicates that "the use of these drugs can jeopardize the
development of the fetus" is a premise offered to support the conclusion that
"Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs."
• Conclusion indicators signal that the statement following them is the conclusion of the
argument, which is claimed to be supported by the preceding premises. Examples of
conclusion indicators provided in the sources include "therefore," "accordingly,"
"entails that," "wherefore," "we may conclude," "hence," "thus," "it must be
that," "it follows that," "consequently," "for this reason," "implies that," "we may
infer," "so," and "as a result".
o For example, in the statement "Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve
the pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of interrogation", the
word "consequently" indicates that "torture is not a reliable method of
interrogation" is the conclusion, supported by the premise that "Tortured prisoners
will say anything just to relieve the pain."

It's important to note, as mentioned in our previous conversation and in the sources, that
arguments can also have implicit inferential claims, where the relationship between premises
and conclusion is implied without the use of indicator words. In such cases, we must look for the
inferential relationship between the statements to determine which are intended as premises and
which is the conclusion. The basic test for an argument is whether there are two or more
statements and whether one of those statements (the conclusion) is claimed or intended to be
supported by the others (the premises).

In summary, statements are the basic units of an argument. Premises are specific statements
offered as reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the premises are
meant to support. Indicator words act as helpful signals to identify these components and
understand the intended inferential relationship within the argument. Recognizing these elements
is fundamental to understanding and evaluating the logic of an argument.

3. Describe the key differences between good arguments and bad arguments. While the
source material briefly defines these, elaborate on the criteria one might use to
evaluate the quality of an argument, considering the connection between premises and
the conclusion.

According to the sources, the key difference between good arguments and bad arguments lies
in whether the premises genuinely support the conclusion. Good arguments are those in
which the premises really do support the conclusion, while bad arguments are those in
which the premises do not support the conclusion.
While the sources provide this fundamental distinction, we can elaborate on the criteria used to
evaluate the quality of an argument by considering the connection between the premises and the
conclusion in more detail. The evaluation of an argument generally involves assessing two main
aspects:

• The Acceptability (or Truth) of the Premises: For an argument to be sound (a strong
type of good argument), the premises offered as support must be true or at least
reasonable to accept. If the premises are false or highly doubtful, then even if they
logically lead to the conclusion, the argument will not be convincing in the real world.
However, the source material focuses more on the relationship of support than the truth
of the premises themselves when distinguishing between good and bad arguments.
• The Strength of the Inferential Claim (or Logical Connection): This refers to how
well the premises support the conclusion. In a good argument, there is a strong
inferential claim, meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be
true (in the case of inductive arguments) or must be true (in the case of deductive
arguments). In a bad argument, even if the premises were true, they would not provide
sufficient reason to believe the conclusion. The inferential claim is weak or nonexistent.

Let's elaborate on the strength of the inferential claim, as this is the primary distinguishing factor
between good and bad arguments as presented in the source:

• In a good argument, the premises provide relevant and sufficient evidence or reasons to
believe the conclusion. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. The
inferential claim is well-founded. For example, the argument "All film stars are
celebrities. Majid Michel is a film star. Therefore, Majid Michel is a celebrity" is a good
argument because if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. The premises
provide strong support for the conclusion.
• In a bad argument, the premises fail to provide adequate support for the conclusion. The
conclusion either does not follow from the premises, or the connection between them is
weak and unconvincing. The inferential claim is weak or flawed. The example provided
in the source, "Some film stars are men. Jackie Appiah is a film star. Therefore, Jackie
Appiah is a man", illustrates a bad argument. While the premises might be true, they do
not logically necessitate or strongly support the conclusion. Just because some film stars
are men, and Jackie Appiah is a film star, it doesn't follow that Jackie Appiah must be a
man. Jackie Appiah could be a female film star. The premises are not sufficient to
establish the conclusion.

Therefore, when evaluating the quality of an argument and distinguishing between good and bad
ones, one must primarily assess the nature and strength of the inferential claim:

• Do the premises, if true, provide genuine reasons to accept the conclusion?

• Is there a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion?
• Is the support offered by the premises sufficient to warrant belief in the conclusion?

A good argument will have a strong "yes" to these questions, indicating that the premises
effectively back up the conclusion. Conversely, a bad argument will have a "no" or a weak
"yes," signifying a disconnect or a lack of sufficient support between the premises and the
conclusion. While the truth of the premises is crucial for a sound argument (a type of good
argument), the initial distinction between good and bad arguments, as highlighted by the source,
hinges on the efficacy of the premises in supporting the conclusion, which is the essence of
the inferential claim.

4. Analyze the concept of an inferential claim. Why is understanding the inferential claim
crucial for evaluating an argument? Discuss the implications of both explicit and
implicit inferential claims for the process of logical analysis.

The inferential claim is the assertion that a particular passage contains reasoning where one or
more statements (the premises) are intended to provide support for another statement (the
conclusion). Essentially, it is the claim that there is an inferential relationship between the
statements, meaning that something is being claimed to follow from or be supported by
something else. This claim is not about the arguer's subjective intentions but is an objective
feature of the argument, rooted in its language or structure.

Understanding the inferential claim is crucial for evaluating an argument because it is the very
essence of what constitutes an argument. According to the sources, an argument is defined by the
presence of this claim: a group of two or more statements where one (the conclusion) is claimed
or intended to be supported by the others (the premises). If there is no inferential claim, the
passage is not an argument but something else, such as a report, an unsupported assertion, or an
explanation.

Furthermore, the strength and nature of the inferential claim are central to determining whether
an argument is good or bad. A good argument is one in which the premises genuinely support
the conclusion, meaning the inferential claim is strong and well-founded. Conversely, a bad
argument is one where the premises do not support the conclusion, indicating a weak or non-
existent inferential claim. Therefore, to evaluate whether the premises truly provide reasons to
believe the conclusion, we must first identify and analyze the inferential claim being made.

The distinction between explicit and implicit inferential claims has significant implications for
the process of logical analysis:

• Explicit Inferential Claims: These are signaled by the presence of indicator words.
Premise indicators (like "since," "because," "for") and conclusion indicators (like
"therefore," "thus," "consequently") explicitly state the relationship of support or
implication between the statements.
o The advantage of explicit indicators is that they provide clear cues to the
structure of the argument, making it easier to identify the premises and the
conclusion and to recognize that an argument is indeed being presented.
 o For logical analysis, explicit indicators streamline the process of dissecting the
argument into its component parts and understanding the intended flow of
reasoning. The presence of "thus" in "Mad cow disease is spread by feeding parts
of infected animals to cows... Thus, mad cow disease continues to pose a threat..."
clearly indicates that a conclusion is being drawn from the preceding statements.
• Implicit Inferential Claims: These occur when there is an inferential relationship
between statements in a passage without the use of indicator words. The support or
implication is present but not explicitly stated through linguistic markers.
o The challenge with implicit inferential claims is that identifying the argument
and its structure can be more difficult. The reader or analyst must rely on the
content and the logical relationship between the statements to discern which are
intended as premises and which is the conclusion.
o For logical analysis, implicit claims require a more nuanced interpretation of
the passage. We need to determine if there is a logical flow where some
statements naturally provide reasons to believe another. For example, in "The
genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce
unintended changes... and these changes can be toxic...", the lack of indicator
words means we must infer that the latter two statements are meant to support the
initial claim. This requires careful consideration of the meaning of the statements
and their potential logical connections.

In conclusion, the inferential claim is the core of an argument, representing the asserted link
between premises and conclusion. Understanding this claim is fundamental to evaluating
whether an argument is good or bad. While explicit inferential claims, marked by indicator
words, simplify the process of logical analysis by clearly signaling the argument's structure,
implicit inferential claims demand a more careful and interpretive approach to uncover the
intended reasoning process. Recognizing both types of inferential claims is essential for
effectively analyzing and evaluating arguments.

5. Consider the five types of nonargumentative discourse presented in the source

material (reports, unsupported assertions, conditional statements, illustrations, and
explanations). For each type, explain its primary function and why it does not qualify
as an argument in the logical sense.

According to the source material, there are five types of nonargumentative

discourse: reports, unsupported assertions, conditional statements, illustrations,
and explanations. These are not considered arguments in the logical sense because they lack one
or both of the essential components of an argument: premises that are claimed to provide
support for a conclusion.

Here is an explanation of each type:

• Reports: The primary function of a report is to convey information about a subject or

event. Reports simply aim to present facts or details without claiming that one statement
 supports or implies another. For example, the text provides an example of a report
detailing sweeping changes in demographics, economics, culture, and society during the
last quarter of the 20th century. This passage presents information without trying to
convince the reader of a particular conclusion based on premises. Therefore, reports do
not qualify as arguments because they lack an inferential claim; there is no assertion
that one statement is intended to support another.
• Unsupported Assertions: Unsupported assertions are statements about what a
speaker or writer happens to believe. These are expressions of personal opinions or
beliefs without any accompanying reasons or evidence. An example given is "I believe
that it is not dying that people are afraid of...". While these assertions might later become
the conclusion of an argument if the speaker provides reasons for them, on their own,
they do not constitute an argument. They lack premises that are intended to support the
assertion. There is no claim that one statement provides a reason to believe the
unsupported assertion.
• Conditional Statements: A conditional statement is an "if-then" or antecedent-
consequent statement. Examples include "If it rains, then the picnic will be canceled".
The source explicitly states that conditional statements are not
arguments because there is no claim that any statement follows from any part of a
conditional statement. A conditional statement expresses a relationship between two
parts but does not assert the truth of either part (in a way that one supports the other in an
argument). It sets up a condition and a consequence. Therefore, they lack the inferential
claim necessary for an argument.
• Illustrations: Illustrations are intended to provide examples of a claim, rather than
prove or support the claim. The purpose is to clarify or make a general statement more
understandable by giving specific instances. For example, "Many wildflowers are edible.
For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious in salads". Here, the examples of daisies
and day lilies do not function as premises to prove that many wildflowers are edible; they
merely illustrate that claim. Illustrations lack the inferential claim that the examples are
meant to provide reasons to believe the general statement.
• Explanations: An explanation tries to show why something is the case, not to prove
that it is the case. Explanations aim to provide understanding or reasons for an accepted
fact. The source provides two examples: "Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg" and
"Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be mistakenly
executed". The source poses a question about which of these is an explanation and which
is an argument, implying that while both provide reasons, their purpose differs. In an
explanation, the event or phenomenon being explained is usually taken as given or
accepted as true. The subsequent statements aim to clarify the cause or reason behind it.
Arguments, on the other hand, aim to establish the truth of the conclusion. While
explanations may contain statements that resemble premises and conclusions, the intent
is not to provide support or proof for a claim whose truth is in question, but rather to
elucidate why something is as it is. Therefore, explanations often lack a contentious
inferential claim aimed at establishing the truth of a conclusion.