Recognising and re-formatting Recognising and re-formatting everyday argumentseveryday arguments

LI:To recognise the premise, conclusion and structure of everyday arguments.To be able to re-write these in argument form.

Venn DiagramsRUSSIAN

GREEK

LATIN

1. Find similarities between:

a) Greek and Latin

b) Greek and Russian

c) Russian and Latin

d) All languages

2. Create one true statement from this diagram

GREEK RUSSIAN

LATIN

Russian + Greek

Latin + Russian

Greek, Russian + Latin

Greek + Latin

Indicators • We have already looked at words which

may connect or related premises:

‘If…then’‘Or’‘And’‘All/Some’

In conclusion….In conclusion….• We can also used language to help us identify

the conclusion in an everyday argument, for example:

So… Thus… For these reasons… This shows us that… This is why….

Watch out for a change of Watch out for a change of phrase…phrase…

1. We should not accept what the Prime Minister has said. David Cameron has got is wrong on so many occasions.

2. Capital Punishment should be reintroduced in this country for football hooligans. The death penalty should stop them from causing mayhem.

When re-writing everyday arguments you should alter the language, matching phrases, to make the structure of the argument completely clear.

Inference BarInference Bar• The line we draw to divide premises and

the conclusion.• When re-writing ordinary language

arguments, we may replace a ‘so’ or ‘therefore’ with an inference bar:

MethodMethodMethod:

List the sentences in the argument Identify the main conclusion Identify the premises Identify any hidden premisesFind the structure of the argument (phrases)

HOW WILL WE REMEMBER THIS?

Example 1Example 1 If Highers were difficult, lots of people would fail them. The pass rates are

very high. So our exams are easier than we are being told. It’s not like it was in my day!

1. If Higher were difficult, lots of people would fail them.2. The pass rates are very high.3. So our exams are easier than we are being told.4. It’s not like it was in my day.

Notice the ‘so’? What about numbers 1, 2 + 4? We need to alter phrases to match up our premises – why?

(p) If Highers were difficult, lots of people would fail them.(p) If Highers were difficult THEN lots of people would fail them. (p) The pass rates are very high

(c) Our exams are easier than we are being told.(c) It is not the case that Highers are difficult.

Example 2Example 2 The police chief (this his squad): Look, only two people knew where the informer

was hiding. Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney did. The DA must be the leak.

1. Look, only two people knew where the informer was hiding.2. Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney

did. 3. The DA must be the leak.

Notice the ‘must be’ What about 1+ 2? Are we happy with the phrasing of the premise? Any hidden or implicit premises? Are we happy with the phrasing of the conclusion? Does it match the premise?

(p) Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney did(p) Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was or the new District Attorney told

the hitman where the informer was hiding?(p) It is not the case that Lt. Kojack told the hitman where the informer was hiding. (c) The DA must be the leak.(c) The District Attorney told the hitman where the informer was hiding.

TasksTasks

p.33 (a) – (g)p.36 (a) – (f) p. 29 (a) – (g)