We should do what we can to protect the environment.
Therefore, we should use cars less.
As you can see, arguments for analysis are set out in a particular
style with the premises listed in the order that they occur in the reasoning
process and the conclusion appearing at the bottom. We can refine
this style and further clarify the argument by numbering the premises
P1, P2 and so on, and drawing a line between the last premise and the
conclusion, which we mark with a ‘C’. The line between premises and
conclusion is called an inference bar, and its purpose is to distinguish
steps in reasoning. The bar should be read as standing for ‘therefore’.
This style of setting out arguments is called standard form. The pur-
pose of setting out arguments in this manner is to maximise clarity.
Using this method helps us to see the stages of reasoning clearly and to
make comparisons between arguments of similar form. When dealing
with arguments as they are ordinarily presented, distinguishing the exact
conclusion from the premises, the premises from each other, and the
premises and conclusion from other, irrelevant, material can be difficult.
Writing the argument in standard form provides us with the most
comprehensive and clearest possible view of it, ensuring that while dis-
cussing the argument and attempting to evaluate it, we do not lose track
of exactly what the argument is.
A number of the exercises included in this book require you to
set out arguments in standard form. To do this is to reconstruct the
argument, and the end product – the argument set out in standard
form – is called a reconstruction of the argument, or an argument-
reconstruction. In reconstructing arguments you should follow the
example below by taking these steps:
◗ Identify the conclusion.
◗ Identify the premises.
◗ Number the premises and write them out in order.
◗ Draw in the inference bar.
◗ Write out the conclusion, placing C) in front of it.
Thus the previous example looks thus in standard form:
P1) Car use is seriously damaging the environment.
P2) Reducing car journeys would reduce damage to the
environment.
P3) We should do what we can to protect the environment.
C) We should use cars less.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3111
Why should we become critical thinkers?
11

Part 2 The arguments reconstructed
Argument 1
P1) Something should not be banned if it is unlikely to happen.
P2) It is unlikely that another imprisoned criminal will win the lottery.
C) Imprisoned criminals should not be banned from
winning the lottery.
Argument 2
P1) Very few lottery winners deserve their winnings.
P2) Most lottery winners are entitled to collect their winnings.
C1) Some lottery winners who do not deserve their
winnings are entitled to their winnings.
C2) In order to be entitled to lottery winnings, it is not
necessary to deserve them.
Argument 3
P1) Most people, when playing the lottery, are not motivated
primarily by the desire to support good causes.
P2) Most lottery winners are entitled to collect their winnings.
C1) Some lottery winners who are not motivated by the
desire to support good causes are entitled to their
winnings.
C2) In order to be entitled to lottery winnings, it is not
necessary that one’s playing the lottery should be
primarily motivated by the desire to support good
causes.
Argument 4
P1) If a someone convicted of a crime has served the sentence
prescribed for that crime, then, if the sentence was sufficient for
the crime, the person has been sufficiently punished for the crime.
P2) Mr Hoare has served the sentence prescribed for the crime for
which he was convicted.
C) Either Mr Hoare’s sentence was not sufficient for the
crime, or he has been sufficiently punished for it.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3111
Issues in argument assessment
249