How to Write an Argument Analysis Paper - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 14
About This Presentation
Title:

How to Write an Argument Analysis Paper

Description:

(i.e., a paper containing an analysis and evaluation of an argument) ... Furthermore, the argument considered in this paper is invalid. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:133
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 15
Provided by: George6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: How to Write an Argument Analysis Paper


1
How to Write an Argument Analysis Paper
  • (i.e., a paper containing an analysis and
    evaluation of an argument)

To move through the presentation, press the
"PgDn" or "Enter" key at the end of each slide.
2
To perform a logical analysis and evaluation of a
deductive argument, one must take six steps
  • ANALYSIS (Steps 1, 2, 3)
  • Identify the conclusion.
  • Identify the premises.
  • Portray the structure of the argument in
    "standard form"
  • Premise 1.
  • Premise 2.
  • Premise . . . n
  • Conclusion.
  • EVALUATION (Steps 4, 5, 6)
  • Evaluate the premises, one by one, in separate
    paragraphs true, false, or unconvincing?
  • Evaluate the inference valid or invalid?
  • Assess the argument as a whole sound or unsound?

Now let's apply this procedure to a specific
argument.
This presentation does not include information
on nondeductive (inductive) arguments.
3
For example (although this one is not in our
assignment instructions)If there are any sound
deductive arguments for the existence of God,
then God exists. However, there are no sound
deductive arguments for the existence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
First, select an argument to assess
(from the list in the assignment instructions)
  • Opening Paragraph
  • (see next slide)

4
Let us consider the following argument, seeking
to decide whether it is sound or unsound "If
there are any sound deductive arguments for the
existence of God, then God exists. However, there
are no sound deductive arguments for the
existence of God. Therefore, God does not
exist." Step 1 The conclusion of this argument
is the proposition "God does not exist" and
Step 2 the premises are (1) "If there are any
sound deductive arguments for the existence of
God, then God exists" and (2) "There are no sound
deductive arguments for the existence of God."
Opening paragraph, including steps 1 and 2
Step 2
Always include an exact quotation of the
argument in the opening paragraph.
5
The formal structure of the argument is as
follows
Step 3 Portray the argument in "standard form"
(in a new paragraph)
  • If there are any sound deductive arguments for
    the existence of God, then God exists.
  • There are no sound deductive arguments for the
    existence of God.
  • God does not exist.

The logical form of the argument is 1. If P,
then Q. 2. Not-P. 3. Not-Q. Do you see that?
This will be relevant at Step 5.
Step 4
6
Step 4 Evaluate the premises true, false, or
unconvincing?(one premise at a time separate
paragraphs)
  • The first premise in the argument under
    consideration is convincing, but the second
    premise is not. The first premise says that if
    there are any sound deductive arguments for the
    existence of God, then God exists. A deductive
    argument is sound when its premises are true and
    the inference it contains is valid and a valid
    deductive argument is one whose conclusion
    follows with the force of absolute logical
    necessity from the assumed truth of its premises
    (Cronk 11-12, 14-15). Because the conclusion of a
    valid deductive argument follows necessarily from
    the assumed truth of its premises, it is
    logically impossible for such an argument to have
    true premises and a false conclusion (Cronk 12).
    Thus, if the premises of a valid deductive
    argument are in fact true, which would be the
    case if the argument is sound, then the
    conclusion of the argument must be true. So if
    there were a sound deductive argument for the
    existence of God, then the conclusion of that
    argument ("God exists") would have to be true,
    which is the point of the first premise in the
    argument under consideration herein.

Note the in-text citations to the sources that
are listed in the "Works Cited" section at the
end of the paper.
Discussion of 2d premise
7
According to the second premise, "There are no
sound deductive arguments for the existence of
God." This claim is certainly debatable. Anselm
of Canterbury offers two "ontological proofs" of
the existence of God in his Proslogion (see
227-228) Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments
for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica
(see 233-235) and René Descartes sets forth
three arguments for the existence of God in his
Meditations (see Meditation III, 262-268, and
Meditation V, 274-275). These writers all
consider their own arguments to be deductively
sound.Let's look briefly at just one of these
arguments as an example of a possibly sound
deductive argument for the existence of God. In
the Proslogion, Anselm of Canterbury argues as
follows
Furthermore, something than which nothing greater
can be thought of so certainly exists that it is
impossible to think that it doesn't exist. It is
possible to think of something that cannot be
thought not to exist that is, a necessary
being, and such a being would be greater than
something that can be thought not to exist that
is, a contingent being. If something than which
nothing greater can be thought of could be
thought of as not existing, then something than
which nothing greater can be thought of would not
be something than which nothing greater can be
thought of, which is an outright contradiction
and thus absurd. Therefore, something than which
nothing greater can be thought of has such a high
degree of existence that is, necessary
existence that it cannot be thought of as not
existing that is, its nonexistence is
impossible. (228)
Continued
8
Much more discussion would be needed to make this
analysis completely clear, and there are
arguments against the soundness of Anselm's
"ontological argument" (e.g., see Hick). My point
is that Anselm believes that his argument is a
sound deductive proof of the existence of God,
and he would not agree with the second premise in
the argument being evaluated in this paper. Thus,
there are major philosophers (Anselm, Aquinas,
Descartes, etc.) who disagree with the premise in
question, which shows that it is not
uncontroversially true. For that reason, I find
the second premise to be unconvincing.
This is an attempt to prove that the
non-existence of something than which nothing
greater can be thought of (i.e., God) is
impossible. According to Anselm, a being with
necessary existence (i.e., a being whose
non-existence is impossible) is greater than a
being with contingent existence (i.e., a being
whose non-existence is possible) (228). The point
here is that necessary existence is ontologically
greater than contingent existence, i.e.,
necessary existence is a greater degree of being
than contingent existence. On that basis, Anselm
reasons that something than which nothing
greater can be thought of must have necessary
existence because anything with merely contingent
existence would not be something than which
nothing greater can be thought of (228). If
something than which nothing greater can be
thought of has necessary existence, then its
non-existence is impossible, which means that it
must exist.
Step 5
9
Furthermore, the argument considered in this
paper is invalid. If there were a sound deductive
argument for the existence of God, that would
prove that God exists (Premise 1) but if there
are no sound deductive proofs of God's existence,
that does not show that God does not exist.
Failure to prove the existence of X does not
prove the non-existence of X. God might exist
even if there is no proof of His existence. There
might also be other existing things whose
existence cannot be proved by means of a sound
deductive argument.
Step 5 Evaluate the inference - valid or invalid?
Remember that the logical form of the argument
is 1. If P, then Q. 2. Not-P. 3. Not-Q.
Continued on next slide
10
Another way to show that the argument is invalid
is by means of the following counter-example,
which has the same logical form as the argument
under consideration. 1. If Rover is a cat, then
Rover is an animal. 2. Rover is not a cat. 3.
Rover is not an animal.Anything that is a cat
must be an animal (first premise) but something
that is not a cat (second premise) might still be
an animal (other than a cat) (conclusion).
Step 5, continued
If P, then Q. Not-P. Not-Q.
Please Note You are not required to use the
"counter-example" method of demonstrating
validity or invalidity. Including a paragraph
like the one above in your paper is strictly
optional. If you are not confident about your
grasp of the counter-example concept, then do not
use it in your paper.
Step 6
11
Step 6 Overall assessment of argument sound or
unsound?
  • The argument analyzed herein is unsound. Although
    its first premise is true, its second premise is
    unconvincing, and it contains an invalid
    inference.

Remember those citations?
12
Works Cited
  • Cronk, George. Fundamentals of Modern Logic.
    Plymouth, MI Hayden-McNeil Publishing, Inc.,
    2001.
  • Anselm of Canterbury. "Proslogion." Readings in
    Philosophy Eastern Western Sources. Ed.
    George Cronk, Tobyn De Marco, Peter Dlugos, and
    Paul Eckstein. Plymouth, MI Hayden-McNeill
    Publishing, Inc., 2001. 227-229.
  • Aquinas, Thomas. "Summa Theologica." Readings in
    Philosophy Eastern Western Sources. Ed.
    George Cronk, Tobyn De Marco, Peter Dlugos, and
    Paul Eckstein. Plymouth, MI Hayden-McNeill
    Publishing, Inc., 2001. 231-235.
  • Descartes, René. "Meditations on First
    Philosophy." Readings in Philosophy Eastern
    Western Sources. Ed. George Cronk, Tobyn De
    Marco, Peter Dlugos, and Paul Eckstein.
    Plymouth, MI Hayden-McNeill Publishing, Inc.,
    2001. 255-285.
  • Hick, John. "A Critique of the 'Second
    Argument.'" The Many-Faced Argument Recent
    Studies on the Ontological Argument for the
    Existence of God. Ed. John Hick and Arthur C.
    McGill. New York The Macmillan Company, 1967.
    341-356.

This list and the citations in the body of the
paper must be in accordance with the
documentation rules of the Modern Language
Association (MLA). See Joseph Gibaldi. MLA
Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. NY
Modern Language Association of America, 6th ed.,
2003.
13
God's Existence A Matter of Proof?
  • Oh, and the paper will need a proper heading and
    title
  • Student Name
  • PHR-101 Introduction to Philosophy

Now, to see the paper all put together, click
here, or click the "PgDn" key to end this
presentation and then see the sample paper listed
as item 4.1 under the course Writing Assignments
icon.
14
End
  • The
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com