Codifying Real Arguments

The arguments we've looked at so far are pretty simple. In everyday life, the arguments you're likely to run into are often difficult to recognize, and even harder to analyze. Why is that?

Real arguments often contain extraneous information. One rarely finds an argument which contains just the premises and the conclusion. Other statements are often included.
Arguments often omit premises which are intended, but not explicitly stated. These are often referred to as "unstated assumptions" or "presuppositions."
Sometimes the conclusion of an argument is not stated at all. It's assumed that the reader can supply the conclusion.
Arguments in natural languages have to be interpreted. If an argument contains the sentence "The box is in the pen." does "pen" refer to a pig pen, a play pen or a writing instrument?

Exercise: Finding real arguments

After you've completed the above exercise I suspect you'll appreciate the difficulty of locating and codifying arguments as they appear in ordinary language. It's even more difficult to determine whether an argument, once located, is a good argument or a bad argument! We've already noted that to evaluate an argument we need to look at its form or structure. Formal logic does just that. It specifies the formal properties of the sentences which make up arguments, and separates form from content. This point may not be easy to grasp at this point in the course. Don't worry! You'll soon see what logical form is all about.

table of contents

List of Exercises