Module 2 - 1

Question 1

what is Standardising?

Answer 1

1. A useful way to begin DETERMINING ARGUMENT STRUCTURE = STANDARDISING
2. There may be any number of premises, provided there’s at least one, and all of them can be put at the top before any conclusions.
3. And there may be any number of intermediate
   conclusions from none upwards.

Question 2

Standardising is getting an argument down into a form like this:

STANDARDISING STRUCTURE:

Answer 2

1. Premiss
2. Premiss
   So (or therefore, hence etc.)
3. Intermediate conclusion (sub-conclusion)
4. Premiss
   So (or accordingly, in consequence etc.)
5. Main Conclusion

Question 3

The point of standardisation…3

Answer 3

• is to get an argument into a clear form,
• where the direction of inference is reflected in the physical arrangement of the components on the page.
• do this by ensuring that every inferred statement appears below every statement from which it is inferred

Question 4

No premise indicators in Standardising arguments…

Answer 4

1. This means that a standardised argument NEVER USES PREMISE INDICATORS.
2. Any premise indicator words like ‘because’ (which tell you that a premise is coming next in the original) must be replaced by conclusion indicator words like ‘so’ (which tell you that a conclusion is coming next).
3. An argument which started out in the form ‘C because P’ would have to be converted to ‘P so C’.

Question 5

How do we get this into standard form? =

Answer 5

1. go through the passage trying to identify the separable statements, and giving them each a letter of the alphabet.
2. separate the statements from each other by inserting angle brackets, and then give
   a letter to each bracket.
3. underline the inference
   indicators

Question 6

Logical vs grammatical order…

Answer 6

The idea is that, as far as possible, you should
write what is inferred BELOW that which it is inferred from, so that the main conclusion appears at the very end.

In this example, this reverses the GRAMMATICAL order of the original in favour of displaying most clearly its LOGICAL order.

Question 7

Traps of Standardising…
MISSING INFERENCE INDICATORS

Answer 7

1.MISSING INFERENCE INDICATORS

• The occurrence of MODAL WORDS as INFERENCE INDICATORS

John can’t come out tonight. He is finishing his
homework.

b.John is finishing his homework

So
a.John isn’t coming out tonight
(i.e. John is able to come out tonight but has a good
reason not to do so)

Question 8

Traps for Standardising…MAKE SURE YOU GIVE DISGUISED STATEMENTS THEIR OWN LETTER.

Answer 8

The loss of B company means that we shall have to
withdraw.

(a) <The> means that (b) <we></we></The>

(a) B company has been lost

So

(b) We shall have to withdraw

Question 9

Traps for standardising…DISGUISED STATEMENTS OFTEN INVOLVE REPETITION AND REPETITIONS SHOULD GET THE SAME LETTER.

Answer 9

(a) <Dogs>. It 'follows' 'from' (a) <this> 'that' (b) <they>.</they></this></Dogs>

Notice here, too, how the inference indicator is
a set of words which are split into two by the disguised statement (a)

Question 10

Further complications arise when we

Answer 10

we try to decide how
to divide the argument up into its separate
statements.

Question 11

Because…

Answer 11

1. Statement (c) is a conditional.
2. This is disguised by the fact that the word ‘if’
   introduces the second clause rather than the first, and the word ‘then’ is missing altogether.
3. ‘P, if Q’and‘If Q, then P’mean the same thing.
4. Conditionals CANNOT be broken up into their
   separate constituents.

Question 12

To separate or to Not …the general moral…

Answer 12

1. Make sure that each item in an argument to which you give a letter in the process of
   standardisation is a COMPLETE ASSERTION IN ITS OWN RIGHT, no more and no less.
2. This makes the principle of deciding whether to drop or retain words quite clear

Question 13

A qualification…

Answer 13

Owing to the incompatibility of the principle of universal causation and the idea that we have a genuine choice when we act, the only defensible theories on
the question of free will and determinism are fatalism and libertarianism.

Question 14

What’s the qualification to the
general moral?

Answer 14

Make sure that each item in an argument to which
you give a number in the process of standardisation is a complete assertion in its own, right, no more and no less, or can be converted
into such an assertion without change in meaning.

Question 15

In standard form…
CONJUNCTIONS SHOULD BE

Answer 15

CONJUNCTIONS SHOULD BE SPLIT –
EACH STEP SHOULD CONSIST OF JUST ONE ASSERTION

Question 16

PRONOUNS IN STANDARD FORM

Answer 16

1. Govier tells you, in her Table of Strategies, that
   pronouns like ‘this’ and ‘the’
   Should never be used in a standard version.
2. The reason we avoid pronouns is to avoid
   ambiguity of reference.
3. In the argument we’ve just looked at, there was
   virtually no chance of such an ambiguity because
   there was really nothing other than chimpanzees
   that the word ‘their’ could be
   indicating.
4. But things are not always so simple.

Question 17

Avoid pronouns…

Answer 17

When you’re write something like ‘from this we can see that . . .’, it might be clear to you what you mean by ‘this’, but it might not be clear to anyone else.

Sometimes the context will sort this out.

But when we lose the grammatical clues of the
immediate context, as we do when we put an argument
into standard form, the reference of the pronoun ‘this’ might be totally obscured even if it could still be recovered from the original.

To avoid this kind of problem, avoid pronouns.