1 Running head THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES .docx

1
Running head: THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES
The Ethics of Elephants in Circuses
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103: Informal Logic
Ashford University
Annotated example for Week One Assignment
2
THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES
This is the argument in
Standard Form.
Standard Form means
putting each premise
and conclusion on a
separate line, as
observed here. Labeling

the premises P1, P2, etc.
is also helpful to be able
to refer to them later.
The next four
paragraphs
provide
support for
each premise
of the
argument.
The topic of
each
paragraph is
clear from the
opening
sentence.
It is good to
provide
clarification of
the meaning of
premises as well
(as indicated in
the instructions).
P1: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.
P2: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their
lives in extreme confinement.
P3: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to

live their lives in extreme confinement is wrong unless it serves
a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Putting elephants in circuses does not serve a purpose that
outweighs the suffering involved.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
The first premise has been widely known for decades by those
who
have studied elephants. Scientific studies have shown that
elephants are
able to independently discover novel methods to figure out how
to retrieve
food, and they have recently been shown to be able to enlist the
help of
other elephants in situations that require cooperation (Jabr,
2014).
The second premise is justified by looking at how elephants are
treated in circuses. When not performing or being transported,
circus
elephants are kept on a short chain that prevents them from
being able
to move around or even lie down normally. This is what is

meant by
‘extreme confinement’: captivity so severe that the animal is not
able
to get proper exercise and stimulation. In addition to the
captivity, there
3
have been many reports, and footage, of abuse of circus
elephants with bullhooks, electrocution, and
other forms of cruelty (Nelson, 2011).
The third premise makes a strong moral claim. Given the
intelligence of elephants, and their
natural use of vast savannahs of space, life spent on a tiny chain
will involve a tremendous amount of
suffering. They develop “stereotypic behaviors” such as
constant swaying back and forth, indicating
severe psychological distress (Wildlife Advocacy Project, n.d.).
President of PAWS, Ed Stewart, expresses
it well:
Elephants should not be in captivity – period … The social
structure isn’t correct, the space is not
right, the climate is not right, the food is not right … They are

unbelievably intelligent. With all of
that brainpower – to be as limited as they are in captivity – it’s
a wonder they cope at all. (Jabr,
2014)
My final premise states that keeping elephants for circuses does
not serve a purpose that
outweighs the suffering involved. It is clear that many people
enjoy the circus. However, how does their
enjoyment compare against the suffering of the elephants? It
should be noted that many circuses
operate without the use of animals. Acrobats, clowns, and other
human performers provide a riveting
show without elephants. Given that elephants only provides
some added measure of entertainment,
this purpose does not outweigh the tremendous suffering due to
confinement inflicted on these
intelligent beings.
4
This part
demonstrates
that the

conclusion
follows in a
deductively
valid manner
from the
premises (as
indicated in the
instructions).
This argument is deductively valid - if all of the premises are
true, then the conclusion must be
as well. The third premise says that anything meeting two
conditions, requiring highly intelligent beings
to live in extreme confinement and not serving an outweighing
purpose, is
wrong . Premises one and two together show that the first
condition is
met. Premise 4 shows that the second condition is met. Since
both
conditions of premise 3 are met, the stated result follows and
we can infer
the conclusion.
5

References
Jabr, F. (February 26, 2014). The science is in: Elephants are
even smarter than we realized. Scientific
American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-in-
elephants-are-even-smarter-than-we-realized-video
Nelson, D. (2011). The cruelest show on earth. Mother Jones.
Retrieved
from
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-
bros-elephant-abuse
Wildlife Advocacy Project (n.d.). Tools of the circus trade.
Retrieved
from
http://www.wildlifeadvocacy.org/current/circus/tools_of_the_tra
de.php
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-
bros-elephant-abuse
http://www.wildlifeadvocacy.org/current/circus/tools_of_the_tra
de.php

PHI103 Final Paper Options
Here is the list of options from which to choose your paper
topic. The idea is to use the same topic
for all three papers in this course, developing and improving
your argument as you go. If you want
to switch topics between papers or choose a topic not on this
list, consult with your instructor first.
It is also possible for your instructor to add other options to this
list, so check the instructor’s
announcements for any modifications.
• Is it ever permissible to torture a person?
• Should athletes be allowed to use performance-enhancing
drugs (such as steroids or
EPO) or techniques (such as blood doping or oxygen tanks)?
• Should universal healthcare be available to all regardless of
their ability to pay in
the same way that other services (such as education) are
available to all for free?
• Does one have an obligation to report wrongdoing by one’s
employer, even when
doing so will result in the loss of one’s job? Are whistle blower
laws effective and
necessary?
• Does social media enhance or hinder interpersonal
relationships?
• Is it important to teach the arts and humanities to children?

Chapter 1
1.1 What Is Critical Thinking?
What is critical thinking? What is a critical thinker? Why do
you need a guide to think critically? These are good questions,
but ones that are seldom asked. Sometimes people are afraid to
ask questions because they think that doing so will make them
seem ignorant to others. But admitting you do not know
something is actually the only way to learn new things and
better understand what others are trying to tell you.
There are differing views about what critical thinking is. For the
most part, people take bits and pieces of these views and carry
on with their often imprecise—and sometimes conflicting—
assumptions of what critical thinking may be. However, one of
the ideas we will discuss in this book is the fundamental
importance of seeking truth. To this end, let us unpack the term
critical thinking to better understand its meaning.
First, the word thinking can describe any number of cognitive
activities, and there is certainly more than one way to think. We
can think analytically, creatively, strategically, and so on
(Sousa, 2011). When we think analytically, we take the whole
that we are examining—this could be a term, a situation, a
scientific phenomenon—and attempt to identify its components.
The next step is to examine each component individually and
understand how it fits with the other components. For example,
we are currently examining the meaning of each of the words in
the term critical thinking so we can have a better understanding
of what they mean together as a whole.
Analytical thinking is the kind of thinking mostly used in
academia, science, and law (including crime scene
investigation). In ordinary life, however, you engage in
analytical thinking more often than you imagine. For example,
think of a time when you felt puzzled by someone else’s
comment. You might have tried to recall the original situation

and then parsed out the language employed, the context, the
mood of the speaker, and the subject of the comment.
Identifying the different parts and looking at how each is
related to the other, and how together they contribute to the
whole, is an act of analytical thinking.
When we think creatively, we are not focused on relationships
between parts and their wholes, as we are when we think
analytically. Rather, we try to free our minds from any
boundaries such as rules or conventions. Instead, our tools are
imagination and innovation. Suppose you are cooking, and you
do not have all the ingredients called for in your recipe. If you
start thinking creatively, you will begin to look for things in
your refrigerator and pantry that can substitute for the missing
ingredients. But in order to do this, you must let go of the
recipe’s expected outcome and conceive of a new direction.
Critical thinking involves carefully assessing information and
its sources.
When we think strategically, our focus is to first lay out a
master plan of action and then break it down into smaller goals
that are organized in such a way as to support our outcomes. For
example, undertaking a job search involves strategic planning.
You must identify due dates for applications, request letters of
recommendations, prepare your résumé and cover letters, and so
on. Thinking strategically likely extends to many activities in
your life, whether you are going grocery shopping or planning a
wedding.
What, then, does it mean to think critically? In this case the
word critical has nothing to do with criticizing others in a
negative way or being surly or cynical. Rather, it refers to the
habit of carefully evaluating ideas and beliefs, both those we
hear from others and those we formulate on our own, and only
accepting those that meet certain standards. While critical
thinking can be viewed from a number of different perspectives,
we will define critical thinking as the activity of careful
assessment and self-assessment in the process of forming

judgments. This means that when we think critically, we
become the vigilant guardians of the quality of our thinking.
Simply put, the “critical” in critical thinking refers to a healthy
dose of suspicion. This means that critical thinkers do not
simply accept what they read or hear from others—even if the
information comes from loved ones or is accompanied by
plausible-sounding statistics. Instead, critical thinkers check the
sources of information. If none are given or the sources are
weak or unreliable, they research the information for
themselves. Perhaps most importantly, critical thinkers are
guided by logical reasoning.
As a critical thinker, always ask yourself what is unclear, not
understood, or unknown. This is the first step in critical
thinking because you cannot make good judgments about things
that you do not understand or know.
The Importance of Critical Thinking
Can you recall a time when you acted or made a decision while
you were experiencing strong emotions? Relying on our
emotions to make decisions undermines our ability to develop
confidence in our rational judgments. Moreover, emotional
decisions cannot typically be justified and often lead to regret.
Why should you care about critical thinking? What can it offer
you? Suppose you must make an important decision—about
your future career, the person with whom you might want to
spend the rest of your life, your financial investments, or some
other critical matter. What considerations might come to mind?
Perhaps you would wonder whether you need to think about it at
all or whether you should just, as the old saying goes, “follow
your heart.” In doing so, you are already clarifying the nature of
your decision: purely rational, purely emotional, or a
combination of both.
In following this process you are already starting to think
critically. First you started by asking questions. Once you
examine the answers, you would then assess whether this
information is sufficient, and perhaps proceed to research
further information from reliable sources. Note that in all of

these steps, you are making distinctions: You would distinguish
between relevant and irrelevant questions, and from the relevant
questions, you would distinguish the clear and precise ones
from the others. You also would distinguish the answers that are
helpful from those that are not. And finally, you would separate
out the good sources for your research, leaving aside the weak
and biased ones.
Making distinctions also determines the path that your
examination will follow, and herein lies the connection between
critical thinking and logic. If you decide you should examine
the best reasons that support each of the possible options
available, then this choice takes you in the direction of logic.
One part of logical reasoning is the weighing of evidence. When
making an important decision, you will need to identify which
factors you consider favorable and which you consider
unfavorable. You can then see which option has the strongest
evidence in its favor (see Everyday Logic: Evidence, Beliefs,
and Good Thinking for a discussion of the importance of
evidence).
Consider the following scenario. You are 1 year away from
graduating with a degree in business. However, you have a
nagging feeling that you are not cut out for business. Based on
your research, a business major is practical and can lead to
many possibilities for well-paid employment. But you have
discovered that you do not enjoy the application or the analysis
of quantitative methods—something that seems to be central to
most jobs in business. What should you do?
How Lack of Wisdom Creates Problems
Psychologist Barry Schwartz tells a story of how a simple
error—and arguably a lack of critical thinking—led a family to
fall into the child protective system.
Critical Thinking Questions
This clip is from a TED Talk in which Barry Schwartz makes a
passionate call for what he calls "practical wisdom" as an
antidote to bureaucracy. Based on this clip, what do you think

he means by "practical wisdom"? What is its relationship to
critical thinking? How do you think one can develop practical
wisdom?
According to Schwartz, rules often fail us: "Real-world
problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined, and the context is
always changing. . . . A wise person knows when and how to
make the exception to every rule . . . a wise person knows how
to improvise." What are some rules that you tend to follow that
you think you could break and actually create better outcomes
at work, your home, and in your relationships?
Many would seek advice from trusted people in their lives—
people who know them well and thus theoretically might
suggest the best option for them. But even those closest to us
can offer conflicting advice. A practical parent may point out
that it would be wasteful and possibly risky to switch to another
major with only 1 more year to go. A reflective friend may
point out that the years spent studying business could be
considered simply part of a journey of self-discovery, an
investment of time that warded off years of unhappiness after
graduation. In these types of situations, critical thinking and
logical reasoning can help you sort out competing
considerations and avoid making a haphazard decision.
We all find ourselves at a crossroads at various times in our
lives, and whatever path we choose will determine the direction
our lives will take. Some rely on their emotions to help them
make their decisions. Granted, it is difficult to deny the power
of emotions. We recall more vividly those moments or things in
our lives that have had the strongest emotional impact: a
favorite toy, a first love, a painful loss. Many interpret gut
feelings as revelations of what they need to do. It is thus easy to
assume that emotions can lead us to truth. Indeed, emotions can
reveal phenomena that may be otherwise inaccessible. Empathy,
for example, permits us to share or recognize the emotions that
others are experiencing (Stein, 1989).
The problem is that, on their own, emotions are not reliable
sources of information. Emotions can lead you only toward what

feels right or what feels wrong—but cannot guarantee that what
feels right or wrong is indeed the right or wrong thing to do.
For example, acting selfishly, stealing, and lying are all actions
that can bring about good feelings because they satisfy our self-
serving interests. By contrast, asking for forgiveness or
forgiving someone can feel wrong because these actions can
unleash feelings of embarrassment, humiliation, and
vulnerability. Sometimes emotions can work against our best
interests. For example, we are often fooled by false displays of
goodwill and even affection, and we often fall for the emotional
appeal of a politician’s rhetoric.
The best alternative is the route marked by logical reasoning,
the principal tool for developing critical thinking. The purpose
of this book is to help you learn this valuable tool. You may be
wondering, “What’s in it for me?” For starters, you are bound to
gain the peace of mind that comes from knowing that your
decisions are not based solely on a whim or a feeling but have
the support of the firmer ground of reason. Despite the
compelling nature of your own emotional barometer, you may
always wonder whether you made the right choice, and you may
not find out until it is too late. Moreover, the emotional route
for decision making will not help you develop confidence in
your own judgments in the face of uncertainty.
In contrast, armed with the skill of logical reasoning, you can
lead a life that you choose and not a life that just happens to
you. This power alone can make the difference between a happy
and an unhappy life. Mastering critical thinking results in
practical gains—such as the ability to defend your views
without feeling intimidated or inadequate and to protect
yourself from manipulation or deception. This is what’s in it for
you, and this is only the beginning.
Everyday Logic: Evidence, Beliefs, and Good Thinking
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe
anything on insufficient evidence.
—W. K. Clifford (1879, p. 186)
British philosopher and mathematician W. K. Clifford’s claim—

that it is unethical to believe anything if you do not have
sufficient evidence for it—elicited a pronounced response from
the philosophical community. Many argued that Clifford’s claim
was too strong and that it is acceptable to believe things for
which we lack the requisite evidence. Whether or not one
absolutely agrees with Clifford, he raises a good point. Every
day, millions of people make decisions based on insufficient
evidence. They claim that things are true or false without
putting in the time, effort, and research necessary to make those
claims with justification.
You have probably witnessed an argument in which people
continue to make the same claims until they either begin to
become upset or merely continue to restate their positions
without adding anything new to the discussion. These situations
often devolve and end with statements such as, “Well, I guess
we will just agree to disagree” or “You are entitled to your
opinion, and I am entitled to mine, and we will just have to
leave it at that.” However, upon further reflection we have to
ask ourselves, “Are people really entitled to have any opinion
they want?”
From the perspective of critical thinking, the answer is no.
Although people are legally entitled to their beliefs and
opinions, it would be intellectually irresponsible of them to feel
entitled to an opinion that is unsupported by logical reasoning
and evidence; people making this claim are conflating freedom
of speech with freedom of opinion. A simple example will
illustrate this point. Suppose someone believes that the moon is
composed of green cheese. Although he is legally entitled to his
belief that the moon is made of green cheese, he is not
rationally entitled to that belief, since there are many reasons to
believe and much evidence to show that the moon is not
composed of green cheese.
Good thinkers constantly question their beliefs and examine
multiple sources of evidence to ensure their beliefs are true. Of
course, people often hold beliefs that seem warranted but are

later found not to be true, such as that the earth is flat, that it is
acceptable to paint baby cribs with lead paint, and so on.
However, a good thinker is one who is willing to change his or
her views when those views are proved to be false. There are
certain criteria that must be met for us to claim that someone is
entitled to a specific opinion or position on an issue.
There are other examples where the distinction is not so clear.
For instance, some people believe that women should be
subservient to men. They hold this belief for many reasons, but
the predominant one is because specific religions claim this is
the case. Does the fact that a religious text claims that women
should serve men provide sufficient evidence for one to believe
this claim? Many people believe it does not. However, many
who interpret their religious texts in this manner would claim
that these texts do provide sufficient evidence for such claims.
It is here that we see the danger and difficulty of providing
hard-and-fast definitions of what constitutes sufficient
evidence. If we believe that written words in books came
directly from divine sources, then we would be prone to give
those words the highest credibility in terms of the strength of
their evidence. However, if we view written words as arguments
presented by their authors, then we would analyze the text based
on the evidence and reasoning presented. In the latter case we
would find that these people are wrong and that they are merely
making claims based on their cultural, male-dominated
environments.
Of course, all people have the freedom to believe what they
want. However, if we think of entitlement as justification, then
we cannot say that all people are entitled to their opinions and
beliefs. As you read this book, think about what you believe and
why. If you do not have reasons or supporting evidence for your
beliefs and opinions, you should attempt to find it. Try not to
get sucked into arguments without having evidence. Most
important, as a good thinker, you should be willing and able to
admit the strengths and weaknesses of various positions on
issues, especially your own. At the same time, if in your search

for evidence you find that the opposing position is the stronger
one, you should be willing to change your position. It is also a
sign of good thinking to suspend judgment when you suspect
that the arguments of others are not supported by evidence or
logical reasoning. Suspending judgment can protect you from
error and making rash decisions that lead to negative outcomes.
Becoming a Critical Thinker
By now it should be clear that critical thinking is an important
life skill, one that will have a decisive impact on our lives. It
does not take luck or a genetic disposition to be a critical
thinker. Anyone can master critical thinking skills. So how do
you become a critical thinker? Earlier in the chapter, logical
reasoning was described as the main tool for critical thinking.
Thus, the most fundamental step in becoming a critical thinker
is to recognize the importance of reason as the filter for your
beliefs and actions. Once you have done this, you will be in the
right frame of mind to start learning about logic and identify
what tools of logic are at your disposal.
It is also important to note that becoming a critical thinker
demands intellectual modesty. We can understand intellectual
modesty as the willingness to put our egos in check because we
see truth seeking as a far greater and more satisfying good than
seeking to be right. Critical thinkers do not care about seeking
approval by trying to show that they are right. They do not
assume that disagreement reflects a lack of intelligence or
insight. Being intellectually modest means recognizing not only
that we can make mistakes, but also that we have much to learn.
If we are (a) aware that we are bound to make mistakes and that
we will benefit when we recognize them; (b) willing to break
old habits and embrace change; and, perhaps most importantly,
(c) genuinely willing to know what others think, then we can be
truly free to experience life as richly and satisfactorily as a
human being can.
1.2 Three Misconceptions About Logic
If logic is so important to critical thinking, we must of course
examine what logic is. This task is not as easy as it sounds, and

before we tackle it we must first dismantle some common
misconceptions about the subject.
Logic Is for Robots
The first misconception is that it is not normal for humans to
display a command of logic. (In fact, some suggest that humans
created, rather than discovered, these patterns of thought; see A
Closer Look: Logic: A Human Invention?) Think of how
popular culture and media often depict characters endowed with
logical reasoning. In American slang they are the eggheads, the
geeks, the nerds, the ones who can use their minds but have
trouble relating to other people. Such people often lack
compassion or social charisma, or they are emotionally
unexpressive. They are only logical and lack the blend of
attributes that people actually have.
Consider the logically endowed characters on the Star Trek
series. Vulcans, for example, are beings who suppress all
emotions in favor of logic because they believe that emotions
are dangerous. What appear to be heartless decisions by the
Vulcans no doubt make logic seem quite unsavory to some
viewers. The android Data—from The Next Generation series in
the Star Trek franchise—is another example. Data’s positronic
brain is devoid of any emotional capacity and thus processes all
information exclusively by means of a logical calculus. Logic is
thus presented as a source of alienation, as Data yearns for the
affective depth that his human colleagues experience, such as
humor and love.
Such presentations of logic as the polar opposite of emotion are
false dichotomies because all human beings are naturally
endowed with both logical and emotional faculties—not just one
or the other. In other words, we have a broader range of
abilities than that for which we give ourselves credit. So if you
think that you are mostly emotional, then you simply have yet
to discover your logical side.
Nonetheless, some believe emotions are the fundamental mark
of human beings. It is quite likely that emotion has played a
significant role in our survival as a species. Neuroscientists, for

example, have discovered that our emotions have a faster
pathway to the action centers of the brain than the methodical
decision-making approach of our logical faculties (LeDoux,
1986, 1992). It pays, for example, to give no thought to running
if we fear we are being hunted by a predator.
In most human civilizations today, however, dodging predators
is not a main necessity. In fact, methodical reasoning is more
advantageous in most of today’s situations. Thinking things
through logically assists learning at all levels, produces better
results in the job market (in seeking jobs, obtaining promotions,
and procuring raises), and helps us make better choices. As
noted in the previous section, we are more likely to be satisfied
and experience fewer regrets if we reason carefully about our
most critical choices in life. Indeed, logical reasoning can prove
to be a better strategy for attaining the individual quest for
personal fulfillment than any available alternative such as
random choice, emotional impulse, waiting and seeing, and so
on.
Moral of the Story: Emotions Versus Logic
Embracing logical reasoning does not mean disregarding our
emotions altogether. Instead, we should recognize that emotions
and logic are both essential components of what it is to be
human.
A Closer Look: Logic: A Human Invention?
Aristotle’s Organon is a compilation of six treatises in which
Aristotle formulated principles that laid the foundation for the
field of logic.
One objection to the use of logic—often from what is known as
a postmodern perspective—is that logic is a human invention
and thus inferior to emotions or intuitions. In other words, what
some call the “rules of logic” cannot be seen as universally
applicable because logic originated in the Western world; thus,
logic is relative and only a matter of perspective.
For example, the invention of chairs seems indispensable to
those of us who live where chairs have become part of our
cultural background. But those from different cultural

backgrounds or those who lived during different time periods
may not use chairs at all, or may employ alternative seating
devices, such as the traditional Japanese tatami mats. To
broadly apply the concept of chair as an appropriate place to sit
would be ethnocentric, or applying the standards of one’s own
culture to all other cultures.
In response to the foregoing objection, the authors of this text
argue that logic is not a human invention, nor a convention that
spread in certain parts of the world. Rather, logic was
discovered in people’s ordinary encounters with reality, as early
as antiquity. Based on available historical records, the first
study of the principles at work in good reasoning emerged in
ancient Greece. Aristotle was the first to formulate principles of
logic, and he did so in six treatises that ancient commentators
grouped together under the title Organon, which means
“instrument” (reflecting the view that logic is the fundamental
instrument for philosophy, which will be discussed later in the
chapter).
Importantly, other civilizations have developed logic
independently of the Greek tradition. For example, Dignaga was
an important thinker in India who lived a few hundred years
after Aristotle. Dignaga’s work begins with certain practices of
debate within the Nyaya school of Hinduism and transitions to a
more formal approach to reasoning. Although the result of
Dignaga’s studies is not identical to Aristotle’s, there is enough
similarity to strongly suggest that basic logical principles are
not merely cultural artifacts.
In the Middle Ages, Aristotelian logic was brought to the West
by Islamic philosophers and thus became part of the scholarship
of Christian philosophers until the 14th or 15th century. The
emergence of modern logic did not take place until the 19th and
20th centuries, during which new ways of analyzing
propositions gave rise to new discoveries concerning the
foundations of mathematics, as well as a new system of logical
notation and a new system of logical principles that replaced the
Aristotelian system.

Thus, the examination of good reasoning was fundamental in the
development of human civilization. Logical reasoning has
helped us to identify the laws that guide physical phenomena,
which brought us to the state of technological advancement that
we experience today. How else could we have erected pyramids
and other marvels in the ancient world without having
discovered a principle for checking the accuracy of the
geometry employed to design them?
Logic Does Not Need to Be Learned
A second misconception is that logic does not need to be
learned. After all, humankind’s unique distinction among other
animals is the faculty of rationality and abstract thought.
Although many nonhuman animals have very high levels of
intelligence, to the best of our knowledge, abstract thought
seems to be the mark of humankind’s particular brand of
rationality. Today the applications of logical reasoning are all
around us. We are able to experience air travel and marvel at
rockets in space. We are also able to enjoy cars, skyscrapers,
computers, cell phones, air-conditioning, home insulation, and
even smart homes that allow users to regulate light,
temperature, and other functions remotely via smartphones and
other devices. Logical reasoning has afforded us an increasingly
better picture of reality, and as a result, our lives have become
more comfortable.
However, if logical reasoning is a natural human trait, then why
should anyone have to learn it? We certainly experience
emotions without any need to be trained, so why would the case
be different with our rational capacities? Consider the
difference between natural capacities that are nonvoluntary or
automatic, on the one hand, and natural capacities that involve
our will, on the other. Swallowing, digesting, and breathing are
nonvoluntary natural capacities, as are emotions. We usually do
not will ourselves to feel happy, angry, or excited. Rather, we
usually just find ourselves feeling happy, angry, or excited.
Now contrast these with voluntary natural capacities such as
walking, running, or sitting. We usually need to will these

actions in order for them to take place. We do not just find
ourselves running without intending to run, as is the case with
swallowing, breathing, or feeling excited or angry. If logic were
akin to breathing, the world would likely look like a different
place.
Logic is practiced with intention and must be learned, just like
we learn to walk, sit, and run. True, almost everyone learns to
run to some degree as part of the normal process of growing up.
Similarly, almost everyone learns a certain amount of logical
reasoning as they move from infant to adult. However, to be a
good runner, you need to learn and practice specific skills.
Similarly, although everyone has some ability in logic,
becoming a good critical thinker requires learning and
practicing a range of logical skills.
Moral of the Story: Logic as a Skill
Having a natural capacity for something does not amount to
being good at it. Even as emotions seem to come so naturally,
some people have to work at being less sensitive or more
empathetic. The same is true for logical reasoning.
Logic Is Too Hard
The final misconception is that logic is too hard or difficult to
learn. If you have survived all these years without studying
logic, you might wonder why you should learn it now. It is true
that learning logic can be challenging and that it takes time and
effort before it feels like second nature. But consider that we
face the same challenge whenever we learn anything new,
whether it is baking, automotive repair, or astrophysics. These
are all areas of human knowledge that have a specific
terminology and methodology, and you cannot expect to know
how to bake a soufflé, fix a valve cap leak, or explain black
holes without any investment in learning the subject matter.
Let us return to our running analogy. Just as we must intend to
run in order to do it, we must intend to think methodically in
order to do it. When we become adept at running, we do not
have to put in as much effort or thought. A fit body can perform
physical tasks more easily than an unfit one. The mind is no

different. A mind accustomed to logical reasoning will find
activities of the intellect easier than an unfit one. The best part
is that if you wish to achieve logical fitness, all you need to do
is learn and practice the necessary tools for it. The purpose of
this book is to guide you toward this goal.
Without a doubt, learning logic will be challenging. But keep in
mind that starting a logical fitness program is very much like
starting a physical fitness program: There will be a little pain in
the beginning. When out-of-shape muscles are exercised, they
hurt. You might find that some lessons or concepts might give
you a bit of trouble. When this happens, don’t give up! In a
physical fitness program, we know that if we keep going, over
time the pain goes away, the muscles get in shape, and
movement becomes joyful. Likewise, as you keep working
diligently on learning and developing your natural logical
abilities, you will discover that you understand new things more
easily, reading is less of a struggle for you, and logical
reasoning is actually fun and rewarding. Eventually, you will
begin to recognize logical connections (or the lack thereof) that
you did not previously notice, make decisions that you are less
likely to regret, and develop the confidence to defend the
positions you hold in a way that is less emotionally taxing.
1.3 What Is Logic?
Having dispelled some common misconceptions, we can now
occupy ourselves with a fundamental question for this book:
What is logic? A first attempt to define logic might be to say
that it is the study of the methods and principles of good
reasoning. This definition implies that there are certain
principles at work in good reasoning and that certain methods
have been developed to encourage it. It is important to clarify
that these principles and methods are not a matter of opinion.
They apply to someone in your hometown as much as to
someone in the smallest village on the other side of the world.
Furthermore, they are as suitable today as they were 200 or
2,000 years ago.
This definition is a good place to start, but it leaves open the

questions of what we mean by “good reasoning” and what
makes some reasoning good relative to others. Although it is
admittedly difficult to cram answers to all possible questions
into a pithy statement, definitions should attempt to be more
specific. In this book, we shall employ the following definition:
Logic is the study of arguments that serve as tools for arriving
at warranted judgments. Notice that this definition states how
logic can be of service to you now, in your daily routine, and in
whatever occupation you hold. To understand how this is the
case, let us unpack this definition a bit.
The Study of Arguments
In logic, an argument is the methodical presentation of one’s
position on a topic, not a heated fight with another person.
This definition of logic does not explain that there are
principles at work in good reasoning or that these principles are
not necessarily informed by experience: The meaning of the
word argument in logic does the job. Argument has a very
technical meaning in logic, and for this reason, Chapter 2 is
dedicated entirely to the definition of arguments—what they
are, what they are not, what they consist of, and what makes
them good. Later in this chapter, we will survey other meanings
for the word argument outside of logic.
For now, let us refer to an argument as a methodical defense of
a position. Suppose that Diana is against a proposed increase in
the tax rate. She decides to write a letter to the editor to present
her reasons why a tax increase would be detrimental to all. She
researches the subject, including what economists have to say
about tax increases and the position of the opposition. She then
writes an informed defense of her position. By advancing a
methodical defense of a position, Diana has prepared an
argument.
A Tool for Arriving at Warranted Judgments
For our purposes, the word judgment refers simply to an
informed evaluation. You examine the evidence with the goal of
verifying that if it is not factual, it is at least probable or
theoretically conceivable. When you make a judgment, you are

determining whether you think something is true or false, good
or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, real or fake, delicious
or disgusting, fun or boring, and so on. It is by means of
judgments that we furnish our world of beliefs. The richer our
world of beliefs, the clearer we can be about what makes us
happy. Judgments are thus very important, so we need to make
sure they are sound.
What about the word warrant? Why are warranted judgments
preferable to unwarranted ones? What is a warrant? If you are
familiar with the criminal justice system or television crime
dramas, you may know that a warrant is an authoritative
document that permits the search and seizure of potential
evidence or the arrest of a person believed to have committed a
crime. Without a warrant, such search and seizure, as well as
coercing an individual to submit to interrogation or
imprisonment, is a violation of the protections and rights that
individuals in free societies enjoy. The warrant certifies that the
search or arrest of a person is justified—that there is sufficient
reason or evidence to show that the search or arrest does not
unduly violate the person’s rights. More generally, we say that
an action is warranted if it is based on adequate reason or
evidence.
Accordingly, our judgments are warranted when there is
adequate reason or evidence for making them. In contrast, when
we speak of something being unwarranted, we mean that it lacks
adequate reason or evidence. For example, unwarranted fears
are fears we have without good reason. Children may have
unwarranted fears of monsters under their beds. They are afraid
of the monsters, but they do not have any real evidence that the
monsters are there. Our judgments are unwarranted when, like a
child’s belief in lurking monsters under the bed, there is little
evidence that they are actually true.
In the criminal justice system, the move from suspicion to arrest
must be warranted. Similarly, in logic, the move from grounds
to judgment must be warranted (see A Closer Look: Warrants
for the Belief in God for an example). We want our judgments

to be more like a properly executed search warrant than a
child’s fear of monsters. If we fail to consider the grounds for
our judgments, then we are risking our lives by means of blind
decisions; our judgments are no more likely to give us true
beliefs than false ones. It is thus essential to master the tools
for arriving at warranted judgments.
It is important to recognize the urgency for obtaining such
mastery. It is not merely another nice thing to add to the bucket
list—something we will get around to doing, right after we trek
to the Himalayas. Rather, mastering the argument—the
fundamental tool for arriving at warranted judgments—is as
essential as learning to read and write. Knowledge of logic is a
relatively tiny morsel of information compared to all that you
know thus far, but it has the capacity to change your life for the
better.
A Closer Look: Warrants for the Belief in God
In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas advanced the idea
that belief in the existence of God can be grounded in logical
argument.
Striving for warranted judgments might seem difficult when it
comes to beliefs that we have accepted on faith. Note that not
all that we accept on faith is necessarily related to God or
religion. For example, we likely have faith that the sun will rise
tomorrow, that our spouses are honest with us, and that the car
we parked at the mall will still be there when we return from
shopping. Many American children have faith that the tooth
fairy will exchange money for baby teeth and that Santa Claus
will bring toys come Christmas. Are we reasoning correctly by
judging such beliefs as warranted? Whatever your answer in
regard to these other issues, questions of religious belief are
more likely to be held up as beyond the reach of logic. It is
important to recognize this idea is far from being obviously
true. Many deeply religious people have nonetheless found it
advisable to offer arguments in support of their beliefs.
One such individual was Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century
Roman Catholic Dominican priest and philosopher. In his

Summa Theologica (Aquinas, 1947), he advanced five logical
arguments for God’s existence that do not depend on faith.
The 20th-century Oxford scholar and Christian apologist C. S.
Lewis, perhaps best known for the popular children’s series The
Chronicles of Narnia, did not embrace his Anglican religion
until he was in his thirties. In his books Mere Christianity and
Miracles: A Preliminary Study, he employs reason to defend
Christian beliefs and the logical possibility of miracles.
There are, of course, many more examples. The important point
to draw from this is that all of our judgments of faith—from the
faith in the sun rising tomorrow to the faith in the existence of
God—should be warranted beliefs and not just beliefs that we
readily accept without question. In other words, even faith
should make sense in order to be able to communicate such
beliefs to those who do not share those beliefs. Note that
philosophers who have presented arguments in defense of their
religious views have helped transform the nature of religious
disagreement to one in which the differences are generally
debated in an intellectually enlightening way.
We have not yet reached the point in which differences in
religious views are no longer the cause of wars or killing.
Nonetheless, the power of argument in the formation of our
beliefs is that it supports social harmony despite diversity and
disagreement in views, and we all gain from presenting our
unique positions in debated issues.
Formal Versus Informal Logic
Logic is a rich and complex field. Our focus here will be how
logic contributes to the development and honing of critical
thinking in everyday life. Primarily, the concepts we will
discuss will reflect principles of informal logic. The principal
aim in informal logic is to examine the reasoning we employ in
the ordinary and everyday claims we make.
In contrast, formal logic is far more abstract, often involving
the use of symbols and mathematics to analyze arguments.
Although this text will touch on a few formal concepts of logic

in its discussions of deduction (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4),
the purpose in doing so is to develop methodology for good
reasoning that is directly applicable to ordinary life.
1.4 Arguments Outside of Logic
Although Chapter 2 will explore the term argument in more
detail, it is important to clarify that the word is not exclusive to
logic. Its meaning varies widely, and you may find that one of
the descriptions in this section fits your own understanding of
what is an argument. Knowing there is more than one meaning
of this word, depending on context or application, will help you
correctly understand what is meant in a given situation.
Arguments in Ordinary Language
Often, we apply the word argument to an exchange of diverging
views, sometimes in a heated, angry, or hostile setting. Suppose
you have a friend named Lola, and she tells you, “I had an
argument with a colleague at work.” In an ordinary setting you
might be correct in understanding Lola’s meaning of the term
argument as equivalent to a verbal dispute. In logic, however,
an argument does not refer to a fight or an angry dispute.
Moreover, in logic an argument does not involve an exchange
between two people, and it does not necessarily have an
emotional context.
Although in ordinary language an argument requires that at least
two or more people be involved in an exchange, this is not the
case in logic. A logical argument is typically advanced by only
one person, either on his or her behalf or as the representative
of a group. No exchange is required. Although an argument may
be presented as an objection to another person’s point of view,
there need not be an actual exchange of opposing ideas as a
result.
Now, if two persons coordinate a presentation of their defenses
of what can be identified as opposing points of view, then we
have a debate. A debate may contain several arguments but is
not itself an argument. Accordingly, only debates are exchanges
of diverging views.
Even if a logical argument is both well supported and heartfelt,

its emotional context is not its driving force. Rather, any
emotion that may be inevitably tied in with the defense of the
argument’s principal claim is secondary to the reasons
advanced. But let us add a little contextual reference to the
matter of debates. If the arguments on each side of the debate
are presented well, then the debate may lead to the discovery of
perspectives that each party had not previously considered. As
such, debates can be quite enlightening because every time our
own perspective is broadened with ideas not previously
considered and that are well supported and defended, it is very
difficult for the experience to be negative. Instead, a good
debate is an intellectually exhilarating experience, regardless of
how attached one may be to the side one is defending.
Not even debates need to be carried out with an angry or hostile
demeanor, or as a means to vent one’s frustration or other
emotions toward the opposition. To surrender to one’s emotions
in the midst of a debate can cause one to lose track of the
opposition’s objections and, consequently, be able to muster
only weak rebuttals.
Moral of the Story: Defining the Word Argument
To avoid conflating the two widely different uses of the word
argument (that is, as a dispute in ordinary language and as a
defense of a point of view in logic) is to use the word only in its
classical sense. In its classical meaning, an argument does not
refer to a vehicle to express emotions, complaints, insults, or
provocations. For these and all other related meanings, there are
a wide variety of terms that would do a better job, such as
disagreement, quarrel, bicker, squabble, fight, brawl,
altercation, having words, insult match, word combat, and so
on. The more precise we are in our selection of words, the more
efficient our communications.
Rhetorical Arguments
Think about how politicians might try to persuade you to vote
for them. They may appeal to your patriotism. They may
suggest that if the other candidate wins, things will go badly.

They may choose words and examples that help specific
audiences feel like the politician empathizes with their
situation. All of these techniques can be effective, and all are
part of what someone who studies rhetoric—the art of
persuasion—might include under the term argument.
Rhetoric is a field that uses the word argument almost as much
as logic does. You are likely to encounter this use in English,
communication, composition, or argumentation classes. From
the point of view of rhetoric, an argument is an attempt to
persuade—to change someone’s opinion or behavior. Because
the goal of a rhetorical argument is persuasion, good arguments
are those that are persuasive. In fact, any time someone
attempts to persuade you to do something, they can be seen as
advancing an argument in this sense.
Think about how you might have persuaded a sibling to do
something for you when you were young. You might have
offered money, tried to manipulate with guilt-inducing tactics,
appealed to his or her sense of pride or duty, or just attempted
to reason with him or her. All of these things can be motivating,
and all may be part of a rhetorical approach to arguments.
However, while getting someone to do something out of greed,
guilt, pride, or pity can indeed get you what you want, this does
not mean you have succeeded in achieving a justified defense of
your position.
Some of the most impressive orators in history—Demosthenes,
Cicero, Winston Churchill—were most likely born with a
natural talent for rhetoric, yet they groomed their talent by
becoming well educated and studying the speeches of previous
great orators. Rhetoric depends not only on the mastery of a
language and broad knowledge, but also on the fine-tuning of
the use of phrases, metaphors, pauses, crescendos, humor, and
other devices. However, a talent for rhetoric can be easily
employed by unscrupulous people to manipulate others. This
characteristic is precisely what distinguishes rhetorical
arguments from arguments in logic.
Whereas rhetorical arguments aim to persuade (often with the

intent to manipulate), logical arguments aim to demonstrate.
The distinction between persuading and demonstrating is
crucial. Persuading requires only the appearance of a strong
position, perhaps camouflaged by a strong dose of emotional
appeal. But demonstrating requires presenting a position in a
way that may be conceivable even by opponents of the position.
To achieve this, the argument must be well informed, supported
by facts, and free from flawed reasoning. Of course, an
argument can be persuasive (meaning, emotionally appealing) in
addition to being logically strong. The important thing to
remember is that the fundamental end of logical arguments is
not to persuade but to employ good reasoning in order to
demonstrate truths.
Moral of the Story: Persuasion Versus Demonstration
Purely persuasive arguments are undoubtedly easier to advance,
which makes them the perfect tool for manipulation and deceit.
However, only arguments that demonstrate with logic serve the
end of pursuing truth; thus, they are the preferable ones to
master.
Revisiting Arguments in Logic
Suppose you and your friend watch a political debate, and she
tells you that she thought one of the candidates gave a good
argument about taxes. You respond that you thought the
candidate’s argument was not good. Have you disagreed with
each other? You might think that you had, but you may just be
speaking past each other, using the term argument in different
senses. Your friend may mean that she found the argument
persuasive, while you mean that the argument did not establish
that the candidate’s position was true. It may turn out that you
both agree on these points. Perhaps the candidate gave a rousing
call to action regarding tax reform but did not spend much time
spelling out the details of his position or how it would work to
solve any problems. In this sort of case, the candidate may have
given a good argument in the rhetorical sense but a bad
argument in the logical sense.
To summarize:

In contrast to ordinary arguments, logical arguments do not
involve an exchange of any kind.
In contrast to ordinary arguments and rhetorical arguments,
logical arguments are not driven by emotions. In logic, only the
reasons provided in defense of the conclusion make up the force
of the argument.
In contrast to rhetorical arguments, logical arguments are not
primarily attempts to persuade, because there is no attempt to
appeal to emotions. Rather, logical arguments attempt only to
demonstrate with reasons. Of course, good logical arguments
may indeed be persuasive, but persuasion is not the primary
goal.
The goal of an argument in logic is to demonstrate that a
position is likely to be true.
So before you go on to have a quarrel with your friend, make
sure you are both using the word in the same way. Only then
can you examine which sense of argument is the most crucial to
the problem raised. Should we vote for a candidate who can get
us excited about important issues but does not tell us how he or
she proposes to solve them? Or shall we vote for a candidate
who may not get us very excited but who clearly outlines how
he or she is planning to solve the nation’s problems?
In the rest of this book, you should read the word argument in
the logical sense and no other. If the word is ever used in other
ways, the meaning will be clearly indicated. Furthermore,
outside of discussions of logic, you must clarify how the word
is being used.
1.5 The Importance of Language in Logic
The foregoing distinction of the different uses and meanings of
the word argument show the importance of employing language
precisely. In addition to creating misunderstandings, misused
words or the lack of knowledge of distinctions in meaning also
prevent us from formulating clear positions about matters that
pertain to our personal goals and happiness. Language affects
how we think, what we experience, how we experience it, and

the kind of lives we lead.
Language is our most efficient means of communicating what is
in our minds. However, it is not the only means by which
humans communicate. We also communicate via facial
expressions, gestures, and emotions. However, these nonverbal
cues often need clarifying words so we can clearly grasp what
someone else is expressing or feeling, especially people we
don’t know very well. If we see a stranger crying, for example,
we might not be able to distinguish at first glance if the tears
are from happiness or sadness. If we are visiting a foreign land
and hear a man speaking in a loud voice and gesturing wildly,
we might not know if he is quarrelling or just very enthusiastic
unless we understand his language.
This suggests that words matter very much because they are the
universal means for making ourselves clear to others. This may
seem obvious, since we all use language to communicate and,
generally speaking, seem to manage satisfactorily. What we do
not often recognize, however, is the difference we could
experience if we took full advantage of clear and precise
language in its optimal form. One result could be that many will
no longer ignore what we say. Another could be that as our
vocabulary expands, we will no longer be limited to what we
can express to others or in what we can grasp from our
experiences.
Suppose, for example, that you are invited to a dinner that
unbeknownst to you introduces you to a spice you have never
tasted before. As you savor the food on your plate, you may
taste something unfamiliar, but the new flavor may be too faint
for you, amidst the otherwise familiar flavors of the dish you
are consuming. In fact, you may be cognitively unaware of the
character of this new flavor because you are unable to identify
it by name and, thus, as a new flavor category in your
experience.
Hume’s essay Of the Standard of Taste stated that taste depends
on the refinement of sensory properties, but recent
neurobiological research suggests that taste may actually be

dependent on language.
According to philosopher David Hume (1757), many of us do
not have a sensitive enough palate to actually recognize new or
unfamiliar flavors in familiar taste experiences. For those who
do, it would seem that the test of a sensitive palate lies not with
strong flavors but with faint ones. However, recent
neurobiological research suggests that our responses to taste are
not entirely dependent on the refinement of our sensory
properties but, rather, on higher levels of linguistic processing
(Grabenhorst, Rolls, & Bilderbeck, 2008). In other words, if
you cannot describe it, it may be quite possible you are unable
to taste it; our ability to skillfully use language thus improves
our experience.
Logicians and philosophers in general take language very
seriously because it is the best means for expressing our
thoughts, to be understood by others, and to clarify ideas that
are in need of clarification. Communicating in a language,
however, is more complex than we recognize. As renowned
philosopher John Searle observed, “Speaking a language is
engaging in a rule-governed form of behavior” (Searle, 1969, p.
22). This means that whenever we talk or write, we are
performing according to specific rules. Pauses in speech are
represented by punctuation marks such as commas or periods. If
we do not pause, the meaning of the same string of words could
change its meaning completely. The same principle applies in
writing. But although we are more conscious of making such
pauses in speech, sometimes we overlook their importance in
writing. A clever saying on a T-shirt illustrates this point, and it
reads as follows:
Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.
Commas save lives.
Indeed, even what may seem like a meaningless little comma
can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence. If we want
to make sure others understand our written meaning, we need to
be mindful of relevant punctuation, grammatical correctness,

and proper spelling. If something is difficult to read because the
grammar is faulty, punctuation is missing, or the words are
misspelled, these obstacles will betray the writer’s meaning.
Moral of the Story: The Importance of Language in Logic
Clarity, precision, and correctness in language are not only
important to the practical quest of communicating your ideas to
others; they are fundamental to the practice of logical
reasoning.
1.6 Logic and Philosophy
By this point, you may have noticed that logic and philosophy
are often mentioned together. There is good reason for this.
Logic is not only an area of philosophy but also its bread and
butter. It is important to understand the connection between
these two fields because understanding the pursuit of
philosophy will help clarify in your mind the value of logic in
your life.
First, however, let us confront the elephant in the room. Some
people have no idea what philosophers do. Others think that
philosophers simply spend time thinking about things that have
little practical use. The stereotypical image of a philosopher,
for instance, is a bearded man asking himself: “If a tree falls in
the forest and there is no one else to hear it, is there sound?”
Your response to this may be: “Why should anyone care?” The
fact is that many do, and not only bearded philosophers: Such a
question is also critical to those who work at the boundaries of
philosophy and science, as well as scientists who investigate the
nature of sound, such as physicists, researchers in medicine and
therapy, and those in the industry of sound technology.
Spatial views regarding sound, for example, have given rise to
three theories: (a) sound is where there is a hearer, (b) sound is
in the medium between the resonating sound and the hearer, and
(c) sound is at the resonating object (Casati & Dokic, 2014).
Accordingly, the tree in the forest question would have the
following three corresponding answers: (a) no, if sound is
where there is a hearer; (b) no, if sound is in the medium
between the resonating sound and a hearer; and (c) yes, if sound

is located in the resonating object such as a human ear. This
seemingly impractical question, as it turns out, is not only quite
interesting but also bears tangible results that lead to our better
understanding of acoustics, hearing impairments, and sound
technology. The best part is that the results affect us all. Many
modern technologies arose from a “tree in the forest”
examination.
Children’s inquisitive nature personifies the act of being
philosophical. Asking questions to clarify ideas or seek the
truth is fundamental to engaging in philosophy.
The Goal of Philosophy
Now that the practical nature of philosophical inquiry has been
demonstrated, we can move to a more fruitful examination of
what exactly philosophy is. In one view, philosophy is the
activity of clarifying ideas. It is an activity because philosophy
is not fundamentally a body of knowledge (as is history or
biology, for example) but rather an activity. The goal of
philosophical activity is to clarify ideas in the quest for truth.
How does one clarify ideas? By asking questions—especially
“why?,” “what does that mean?,” and “what do you mean?”
Philosophers have observed that asking such questions may be a
natural human inclination. Consider any 2-year-old. As he or
she begins to command the use of language, the child’s quest
seems to be an attempt to understand the world by identifying
what things are called. This may be annoying to some adults,
but if we understand this activity as philosophical, the child’s
goal is clear: Names are associated with meanings, and this
process of making distinctions and comparisons of similarity is
essentially the philosophical mechanism for learning
(Sokolowski, 1998).
Once we name things, we can distinguish things that are similar
because names help us separate things that appear alike. To a 2-
year-old, a toy car and a toy truck may appear similar—both are
vehicles, for example, and have four tires—but their different

names reflect that there are also differences between them. So a
2-year-old will most likely go on to ask questions such as why a
car is not the same as a truck until she grasps the fundamental
differences between these two things. This is the truth-seeking
nature of philosophy.
Philosophy and Logical Reasoning
Logic and the Pursuit of Truth
Like philosophy, logic seeks to discover the truth of our
conceptions.
Critical Thinking Questions
It is stated that logic brings clarity to our conceptions of the
world. Is it possible that through studying logic and applying it
to your daily life, some of your long-standing beliefs might
shift once you apply the principles of logic?
What is the distinction between logic and critical thinking? Are
they fundamentally the same? Is logic just a systematic form of
critical thinking?
Since children’s natural learning state is a philosophical
attitude, by the time we start elementary school, we already
have a few years of philosophical thinking under our belt.
Unfortunately, the philosophical attitude is not always sustained
beyond this point. Over time, we stop clarifying ideas because
we might get discouraged from asking or we just get tired or
complacent. We then begin to accept everything that we are told
or shown by those around us, including what we watch on
television or learn through social media. Once we stop filtering
what we accept by means of questions, as we did when we were
very small children, we become vulnerable to manipulation and
deceit.
When we stop using questions to rationally discern among
alternatives or to make judgments concerning disputed social
problems, we begin to rely entirely on emotions or on past
experience as the basis for our decisions and judgments. As
discussed earlier in the chapter, although emotions are valid and
worthwhile, they can also be unreliable or lead us to make rash

decisions. This may be somewhat inconsequential if we are
simply buying something on impulse at the mall. But if we make
judgments based purely on fear or anger, then emotions have
much more dire consequences, perhaps causing us to mistreat or
discriminate against others.
Past experience can also be misleading. Consider Jay, a
university student, who has done very well in his first four
university courses. He has found the courses relatively easy and
not very demanding, so he assumes that all university courses
are easy. He is then surprised when he discovers that
Introduction to Physics is a challenging course, when he should
have rationally recognized that undertaking a university
education is a challenging task. Asking himself questions about
the past courses—subject matter, professor, and so on—may
help Jay adjust his expectations.
Let us review two important points that we have discussed so
far. First, philosophy is an activity of clarifying ideas. Second,
the goal of philosophy is to seek truth about all phenomena in
our experience. Logic provides us with an effective method for
undertaking the task of philosophy and discovering truths. This
view has thus remained mainstream in Western philosophy.
When we think philosophically with regard to our mundane
practical purposes, logic offers us the tools to break the habit of
relying on our emotions, feelings, or our past experiences
exclusively for making our decisions. Arriving at this
recognition alone in your own case will be part and parcel of
your journey, with this book as your guide.
Chapter 2
2.1 Arguments in Logic
Chapter 1 provisionally defined argument as a methodical
defense of a position. We referred to this as the commonsense
understanding of the way the word argument is employed in
logic. The commonsense definition is very useful in helping us
recognize a unique form of expression in ordinary human

communication. It is part of the human condition to differ in
opinion with another person and, in response, to attempt to
change that person’s opinion. We may attempt, for example, to
provide good reasons for seeing a particular movie or to show
that our preferred kind of music is the best. Or we may try to
show others that smoking or heavy drinking is harmful. As you
will see, these are all arguments in the commonsense
understanding of the term.
In Chapter 1 we also distinguished the commonsense
understanding of argument from the meaning of argument in
ordinary use. Arguments in ordinary use require an exchange
between at least two people. As clarified in Chapter 1,
commonsense arguments do not necessarily involve a dialogue
and therefore do not involve an exchange. In fact, one could
develop a methodical defense of a position—that is, a
commonsense argument—in solitude, simply to examine what it
would require to advocate for a particular position. In contrast,
arguments, as understood in ordinary use, are characterized by
verbal disputes between two or more people and often contain
emotional outbursts. Commonsense arguments are not
characterized by emotional outbursts, since unbridled emotions
present an enormous handicap for the development of a
methodical defense of a position.
In logic an argument is a set of claims in which some, called the
premises, serve as support for another claim, called the
conclusion. The conclusion is the argument’s main claim. For
the most part, this technical definition of argument is what we
shall employ in the remainder of this book, though we may use
the commonsense definition when talking about less technical
examples. Table 2.1 should help clarify which meanings are
acceptable within logic. Take a moment to review the table and
fix these definitions in your mind.
Table 2.1: Comparing meanings for the term argument
Meaning in ordinary use
Commonsense meaning
Technical meaning in logic

A verbal quarrel or disagreement, often characterized by raised
voices and flaring emotions.
The methodical and well-researched defense of a position or
point of view advanced in relation to a disputed issue.
A set of claims in which some, called premises, serve as support
for another claim, called the conclusion.
Arguments in the technical sense are a primary way in which we
can defend a position. Accordingly, we can find the structure of
logical arguments in commonsense arguments all around us: in
letters to the editor, social media, speeches, advertisements,
sales pitches, proposals submitted for grant funds or bank loans,
job applications, requests for a raise, communications of values
to children, marriage proposals, and so on. Arguments often
provide the basis on which most of our decisions are made. We
read or hear an argument, and if we are convinced by it, then we
accept its conclusion. For example, consider the following
argument:
“I’m just not a math person.” We hear this all the time from
anyone who found high school math challenging. . . . In high
school math at least, inborn talent is less important than hard
work, preparation, and self-confidence. This is what high school
math teachers, college professors, and private tutors have
observed as the pattern of those who become good in high
school math. They point out that in any given class, students
fall in a wide range of levels of math preparation. This is not
due to genetic predisposition. What is rarely observed is that
some children come from households in which parents introduce
them to math early on and encourage them to practice it. These
students will immediately obtain perfect scores while the rest do
not. As a result, the students without previous preparation in
math immediately assume that those with perfect scores have a
natural math talent, without knowing about the preparation that
these students had in their homes. In turn, the students who
obtain perfect scores assume that they have a natural math
talent given their scores relative to the rest of the class, so they
are motivated to continue honing their math skills and, by doing

this, they cement their top of the class standing. Thus, the belief
that math ability cannot change becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy. (Kimball & Smith, 2013)
In this argument, the position defended by the authors is that
the belief that math ability cannot change becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. The authors support this claim with reasons
that show good performance in math is not typically the result
of a natural ability but of having a family support system for
learning, a prior preparation in math from home, and continuous
practice. It makes the case that it is hard work and preparation
that lead to a person’s proficiency in math and other subjects,
not genetic predisposition. This argument helps us recognize
that we frequently accept oft-repeated information as fact
without even questioning the basis. As you can see, an argument
such as this can provide a solid basis for our everyday
decisions, such as encouraging our children to work hard and
practice in the subjects they find most difficult or deciding to
obtain a university degree with confidence later in life.
To understand the more technical definition of an argument as a
set of premises that support a conclusion, consider the
following presentation of the reasoning from the commonsense
argument we have just examined.
Good performance in math is not due to genetics.
Good performance in math only requires preparation and
continuous practice.
Students who do well initially assume they have natural talent
and practice more.
Students who do less well initially assume they do not have
natural talent and practice less.
Therefore, believing that one’s math ability cannot change
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Presenting the reasoning this way can do a great deal to clarify
the argument and allow us to examine its central claims and
reasoning. This is why the field of logic adopts the more
technical definition of argument for much of its work.
Regardless of what we think about math, an important

contribution of this argument is that it makes the case that it is
hard work and preparation that lead to our proficiency in math,
and not the factor of genetic predisposition. Logic is much the
same way. If you find some concepts difficult, don’t assume
that you just lack talent and that you aren’t a “logic person.”
With practice and persistence, anyone can be a logic person.
On your way to becoming a logic person, it is important to
remember that not everything that presents a point of view is an
argument (see Table 2.2 for examples of arguments and non-
arguments). Consider that when one expresses a complaint,
command, or explanation, one is indeed expressing a point of
view. However, none of these amount to an argument.
Claims
A claim is an assertion that something is or is not the case.
Claims take the form of declarative sentences. It is important to
note that each premise or conclusion consists of one single
claim. In other words, each premise or conclusion consists of
one single declarative sentence.
Claims can be either true or false. This means that if what is
asserted is actually the case, then the claim is true. If the claim
does not correspond to what is actually the case, then the claim
is false. For example, the claim “milk is in the refrigerator”
predicates that the subject of the claim, milk, is in the
refrigerator. If this claim corresponds to the facts (if the
refrigerator contains milk), then this claim is true. If it does not
correspond to the facts (if the refrigerator does not contain
milk), then the claim is false.
Not all claims, however, can be easily checked for truth or
falsity. For example, the truth of the claim “Jacob has the best
wife in the world” cannot be settled easily, even if Jacob is the
one asserting this claim (“I have the best wife in the world”). In
order to understand what he could possibly mean by “best wife
in the world,” we would have to propose the criteria for what
makes a good wife in the first place, and as if this were not

challenging enough, we would then have to establish a method
or procedure to make comparisons among good wives. Of
course, Jacob could merely mean “I like being married to my
wife,” in which case he is not stating a claim about his wife
being the best in the world but merely stating a feeling. It is not
uncommon to hear people state things that sound like claims but
are actually just expressions of preference or affection, and
distinguishing between these is often challenging because we
are not always clear in the way we employ language.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that we often make claims
from a particular point of view, and these claims are different
from factual claims. Claims that advance a point of view, such
as the example of Jacob’s wife—and especially claims about
morality and ethicality—are indeed more challenging to settle
as true or false than factual claims, such as “The speed limit
here is 55.”
The important point is that both kinds of claims—the factual
claim and the point-of-view claim—assert that something is or
is not the case, affirm or deny a particular predicate of a
subject, and can be either true or false. The following sentences
are examples of claims that meet these criteria.
There is a full moon tonight.
Pecans are better than peanuts.
All flights to Paris are full.
BMWs are expensive to maintain.
Lola is my sister.
The following are not claims:
Is it raining? Why? Because questions are not, and cannot be,
assertions that something is the case.
Oh, to be in Paris in the springtime! Why? Because this
expresses a sentiment but does not state that anything might be
true or false.
Buy a BMW! Why? Because a command is not an assertion that
something is the case.
We often intend to advance claims in ways that do not present
our claims clearly and properly—for example, by means of

rhetorical questions, vague expressions of affection, and
commands or metaphors that demand interpretation. But it is
important to recognize that intention is not sufficient when
communicating with others. In order for our intended claims to
be identified as claims, they should meet the three criteria
previously mentioned.
Claims are sometimes called propositions. We will use the terms
claims and propositions interchangeably in this book. In this
chapter we will stick to the word claim, but in subsequent
chapters, we will move to the more formal terminology of
propositions.
The Standard Argument Form
In informal logic the main method for identifying, constructing,
or examining arguments is to extract what we hear or read as
arguments and put this in what is known as the standard
argument form. It consists of claims, some of which are called
premises and one of which is called the conclusion. In the
standard argument form, premises are listed first, each on a
separate line, with the conclusion on the line after the last
premise. There are various methods for displaying standard
form. Some methods number the premises; others separate the
conclusion with a line. We will generally use the following
method, prefacing the conclusion with the word therefore:
Premise
Premise
Therefore, Conclusion
The number of premises can be as few as one and as many as
needed. We must approach either extreme with caution given
that, on the one hand, a single premise can offer only very
limited support for the conclusion, and on the other hand, many
premises risk error or confusion. However, there are certain
kinds of arguments that, because of their formal structure, may
contain only a limited number of premises.
In the standard argument form, each premise or conclusion
should be only one sentence long, and premises and conclusions

should be stated as clearly and briefly as possible. Accordingly,
we must avoid premises or conclusions that have multiple
sentences or single sentences with multiple claims. The
following example shows what not to do:
I live in Boston, and I like clam chowder.
My family also lives in Boston. They also like clam chowder.
My friends live in Boston. They all like clam chowder, too.
Therefore, everyone I know in Boston likes clam chowder.
If you want to make more than one claim about the same
subject, then you can break your declarative sentences into
several sentences that each contain only one claim. The clam
chowder argument can then be rewritten as follows:
I live in Boston.
I like clam chowder.
My family lives in Boston.
My family likes clam chowder.
My friends live in Boston.
My friends like clam chowder.
Therefore, everyone I know in Boston likes clam chowder.
The relationship between premises and the conclusion is that of
inference—the process of drawing a claim (the conclusion) from
the reasons offered in the premises. The act of reasoning from
the premises serves as the glue connecting the premises with the
conclusion.
2.2 Putting Arguments in the Standard Form
Presenting arguments in the standard argument form is crucial
because it provides us with a dispassionate method that will
allow us to find out whether the argument is good, regardless of
how we feel about the subject matter. The first step is to
identify the fundamental argument being presented.
At first it might seem a bit daunting to identify an argument,
because arguments typically do not come neatly presented in the
standard argument form. Instead, they may come in confusing
and unclear language, much like this statement by Special
Prosecutor Francis Schmitz of Wisconsin regarding Governor
Scott Walker:

Governor Walker was not a target of the investigation. At no
time has he been served with a subpoena. . . . While these
documents outlined the prosecutor’s legal theory, they did not
establish the existence of a crime; rather, they were arguments
in support of further investigation to determine if criminal
charges against any person or entity are warranted. (Crocker,
2014, para. 7 & 10)
This was a position presented in regard to the investigation of
an alleged illegal campaign finance coordination during the
2011–2012 recall elections (Stein, 2014). Does it claim a
vindication of Walker? Or does it suggest that there may be
sufficient evidence to make Walker a central figure in the
investigation? How would you even begin to make heads or tails
of such a confusing argument? Do not despair. The remainder of
this section will show you exactly what to look for in order to
make sense of the most complicated argument. With a little
practice, you will be able to do this without much effort.
Find the Conclusion First
Punctuation, parentheses, and conclusion indicators all serve as
signposts to assist us when deconstructing an argument. They
provide important clues about where to find the conclusion as
well as supporting claims.
Although the conclusion is last in the standard form, the
conclusion is the first thing to find because the conclusion is
the main claim in an argument. The other claims—the
premises—are present for the sole purpose of supporting the
conclusion. Accordingly, if you are able to find the conclusion,
then you should be able to find the premises.
The good news is that language is not only a means for
expressing ideas; it also offers a road map for the ideas
presented. Chapter 1 underscored the fundamental importance of
clear, precise, and correct language in logical reasoning. When
used properly, language also offers structures and directions for
communicating meaning, thus facilitating our understanding of
what others are saying. One punctuation mark—the question

mark—tells us that we are confronting a question. A different
punctuation mark—the parentheses—tells us that we are being
given relevant information but only as an aside or afterthought
to the main point; if removed, the parenthetical information
would not alter the main point. In the case of arguments, some
words serve as signposts identifying conclusions. Take the
following example of an argument in the standard argument
form:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The word therefore indicates that the sentence is a conclusion.
In fact, the word therefore is the standard conclusion indicator
we will use when constructing arguments in the standard
argument form. However, there are other conclusion indicators
that are used in ordinary arguments, including:
Consequently . . .
So . . .
Hence . . .
Thus . . .
Wherefore . . .
As a result . . .
It follows that . . .
For these reasons . . .
We may conclude that . . .
When a conclusion indicator is present, it can help identify the
conclusion in an argument. Unfortunately, many arguments do
not come with conclusion indicators. In such cases start by
trying to identify the main point. If you can clearly identify a
single main point, then that is likely to be the conclusion. But
sometimes you will have to look at a passage closely to find the
conclusion. Suppose you encounter the following argument:
Don’t you know that driving without a seat belt is dangerous?
Statistics show that you are 10 times more likely to be injured
in an accident if you are not wearing one. Besides, in our state
you can get fined $100 if you are caught not wearing one. You

ought to wear one even if you are driving a short distance.
Arguments are often longer and more complicated than this one,
but let us work with this simple case before trying more
complicated examples. You know that the first thing you need
to do is to look for the conclusion. The problem is that the
author of the argument does not use a conclusion indicator. Now
what? Nothing to worry about. Just remember that the
conclusion is the main claim, so the thing to look for is what the
author may be trying to defend. Although the first sentence is
stated as a question—remember, punctuation marks give us
important clues—the author seems to intend to assert that
driving without a seat belt is dangerous. In fact, the second
sentence offers evidence in support of this claim. On the other
hand, the third sentence seems to be important, yet it does not
speak to driving without a seat belt being dangerous, only
expensive. In the final sentence, we find a claim that is
supported by all the others. Because of this, the final sentence
presents the conclusion.
Now, it so happens that in this case, the conclusion is at the end
of this short argument, but keep in mind that conclusions can be
found in various places in essays, such as the beginning or
sometimes in the middle. Now that you have identified your
first piece of the puzzle, we have this:
Premise 1: ?
Premise 2: ?
Premise 3: ?
Therefore, you ought to wear a seat belt whenever you drive.
You might have noticed that the conclusion does not appear as
it did in the essay. The original sentence is “You ought to wear
one even if you are driving a short distance.” Why did we
modify it? Once again, clarity is of the essence in logical
reasoning. Conclusions should make the subject clear, so the
pronoun one was replaced with the actual subject to which the
author is referring: seat belt. In addition, the predicate “even if
you are driving a short distance” was rewritten to reflect the

more inclusive point that the author seems to be making: that
you should wear a seat belt whenever you drive.
This modification of language, known as paraphrasing, is part
of the construction of arguments in the standard argument form.
The act of extracting an argument from a longer piece to its
fundamental claims in the standard argument form necessarily
involves paraphrasing the original language to the clearest and
most precise form possible. This concept will be addressed in
greater detail later in this section.
Find the Premises Next
After identifying the conclusion, the next thing to do is look for
the reasons the author offers in defense of his or her position.
These are the premises. As with conclusions, there are premise
indicators that serve as signposts that reasons are being offered
for the main claim or conclusion. Some examples of premise
indicators are:
Since . . .
For . . .
Given that . . .
Because . . .
As . . .
Owing to . . .
Seeing that . . .
May be inferred from . . .
To practice identifying premises, let us return to our seat belt
example:
Don’t you know that driving without a seat belt is dangerous?
in an accident if you are not wearing one. Besides, in our state
you can get fined $100 if you are caught not wearing one. You
ought to wear one even if you are driving a short distance.
Much like a map will get you from point A to point B, putting
an argument into the standard argument form will help you
navigate from the conclusion to the premises and vice versa.
Notice again that this argument starts with a question: “Don’t
you know that driving without a seat belt is dangerous?” The

author is not really asking whether you know that driving
without a seat belt is dangerous. Rather, the author seems to be
asking a rhetorical question—a question that does not actually
demand an answer—to assert that driving without a seat belt is
dangerous. You should avoid asking rhetorical questions in the
essays that you write, because the outcome can be highly
uncertain. The success of a rhetorical question depends on the
reader or listener first understanding the hidden meaning behind
the rhetorical question and then correctly articulating the
answer you have in mind. This does not always work.
For the sake of this example, however, let us do our best to try
to get at the author’s intention. We could paraphrase the first
premise to the following claim: Driving without a seat belt is
dangerous. Does this paraphrased claim serve as a premise in
support of the conclusion? In order to answer this, we need to
put the conclusion in the form of a question. Again, premises
are reasons offered in support of the conclusion, so if we have a
well-constructed argument, then the premises should answer
why the conclusion is the case. This is what we would have:
Question: Why must you wear a seat belt whenever you drive?
Answer: Because driving without a seat belt is dangerous.
This works, so the paraphrased claim that we drew from the
author’s rhetorical question is indeed a reason in defense of the
conclusion. So now we have one more piece of the puzzle:
Premise 1: Driving without a seat belt is dangerous.
Premise 2: ?
Premise 3: ?
Let us now move to the next sentence: “Statistics show that you
are 10 times more likely to be injured in an accident if you are
not wearing one.” Is this a claim that can be a support for the
conclusion? In other words, if we put the conclusion in the form
of a question again as we did before, would this sentence be an
adequate reason in response? Let us see.

Answer: Because statistics show that you are 10 times more
likely to be injured in an accident if you are not wearing one.
The answer provides a reason in support of the conclusion, and
thus, we have another premise. Now we have most of the puzzle
completed, as follows:
Premise 1: Driving without a seat belt is dangerous.
Premise 2: Statistics show that you are 10 times more likely to
be injured in an accident if you are not wearing one.
Premise 3: ?
We have one more sentence left in the argument, which reads:
“Besides, in our state you can get fined $100 if you are caught
not wearing one.” Is this a premise? Well, it is uncertain, since
the sentence is not presented in the form of a claim. So let us
paraphrase it as a claim as follows: “Not wearing a seat belt can
result in a $100 fine.” This is now a claim, and the paraphrasing
has not altered the meaning, so we can proceed to our question:
Is this a premise for the argument that we are examining? Once
again, let us put the conclusion into a question:
Answer: Because not wearing a seat belt can result in a $100
fine.
This is a claim that can be a support for the conclusion, and
thus, we have another premise. We can now see the argument
presented more formally as follows:
Driving without a seat belt is dangerous.
in an accident if you are not wearing one.
Not wearing a seat belt can result in a $100 fine.
The Necessity of Paraphrasing
As we have discussed, extracting the fundamental claims from a
written or a spoken argument often involves paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing is not merely an option but rather a necessity in
order to uncover the intended argument in the best way
possible. Most other arguments presented to you (especially

those in the media) will not consist of only premises and the
conclusion in clearly identifiable language. Furthermore, many
arguments will be much longer and complicated than the seat
belt argument example. Often, arguments are presented with
many other sentences that do not serve the purposes of an
argument, such as empty rhetorical devices, filler sentences that
aim to manipulate your emotions, and so on. So your task in
extracting an argument from such sources is akin to that of a
surgeon—removing all those linguistic tumors that obscure the
argument in order to reveal the basic claims presented and their
supporting evidence. In other words, you should expect to do
paraphrasing as a necessary task when you attempt to draw an
argument in the standard form from almost any source.
It is important to recognize that not everyone who advances an
argument does so clearly or even coherently. This is precisely
why the structure of the standard argument form is such a
powerful tool to command. It offers you the machinery to
distinguish arguments from what are not arguments. It also
helps you unearth the elements of an argument that are buried
under complicated prose and rhetoric. And it helps you evaluate
the worthiness of the argument presented once it has been fully
clarified. You should paraphrase all claims when presenting
them in the standard argument form, whether the claims are
implied in a long argumentative essay or speech or in shorter
arguments that may be ambiguous or unclear. (To understand
the added benefits, see Everyday Logic: Modesty and Charity.)
Everyday Logic: Modesty and Charity
The goal of paraphrasing is to find the best presentation of the
premises and conclusions intended. By presenting the argument
offered in its best possible light, this will help you see not only
how far off the argument is from an optimal defense, but also
how good it is despite its bad presentation. Why should you be
so charitable?
First we must keep in mind that ideas are important, even if the
ideas are not ours. So we must always give our utmost due
diligence to the examination of ideas. Sometimes even the

roughest presentation of ideas can contain the most impressive
pearls of insight. If we are not charitable to the ideas of others,
then we might miss out on hidden wisdom.
Second, modesty is a good intellectual habit to develop. It is
very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that our thoughts are
the best ones around. This is generally far from the truth. The
most fruitful innovations of mankind have been quite
unexpected, often as the result of someone paying attention to
others’ ideas and coming up with a new way of putting them to
use. This applies to all sorts of things, including everything
from the ways in which cooking methods turned into regional
cuisines, to scientific discoveries, product innovations, and the
emergence of the Internet.
That modesty has advantages is not a new idea. In the 1980s
Peter Drucker wrote the book Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
in which he recounts, among many other stories, the story of
how Ray Kroc founded the burger chain McDonald’s®. As the
well-known story goes, Kroc bought a hamburger stand from the
McDonald brothers, along with their invention of a milkshake
machine. Although Kroc never invented anything, his
entrepreneurial genius was in seeing the potential of a
hamburger, fries, and milkshake business that catered to
mothers with little children and turning this vision into a
billion-dollar standardized operation (Drucker, 1985/2007).
Even if you dislike McDonald’s, the point is that Kroc noticed
the potential for something that many, including the McDonald
brothers themselves, had overlooked. Gems are everywhere in
the world of ideas, but we often have to dust them off, remove
all the excess baggage, and extract what is good in them.
Intellectual modesty allows us to do this; we don’t blind
ourselves by assuming our own ideas are best. Once we seek to
fully understand others’ ideas and allow them to challenge our
own, we can do all sorts of good things: understand an idea
more clearly, understand someone better, and understand
ourselves (our values, what we find important, and so on) better
as well.

Given that our human social world is characterized by diversity
of ideas, modesty also marks the path of cooperation, harmony,
and respect among human beings. This is one of the many small
ways in which the application of logical reasoning can help us
all have better lives and better relations with other people. If we
could all use logical reasoning on a regular basis, perhaps we
would not have as many wars and atrocities as we have today.
Thinking Analytically
Identifying an argument’s components as we have just done is
an example of analytical thinking. When we analyze something,
we examine its architectural structure—that is, the relation of
the whole to its parts—to identify its parts and to see how the
parts fit together as a whole.
Let us examine an excerpt from President Barack Obama’s
(2014) speech on Ebola as a way of bringing the new skills from
this section all together:
In West Africa, Ebola is now an epidemic of the likes that we
have not seen before. It’s spiraling out of control. It is getting
worse. It’s spreading faster and exponentially. Today, thousands
of people in West Africa are infected. That number could
rapidly grow to tens of thousands. And if the outbreak is not
stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of
people infected, with profound political and economic and
security implications for all of us. So this is an epidemic that is
not just a threat to regional security—it’s a potential threat to
global security if these countries break down, if their economies
break down, if people panic. That has profound effects on all of
us, even if we are not directly contracting the disease. (para. 8)
We have identified “The West African Ebola epidemic is a
potential threat to global security” as the conclusion. What are
the premises? Read the passage a few times while asking
yourself, “Why should I think the epidemic is a global threat?”
Obama says that the epidemic is not like others, that it is
growing faster and exponentially. He moves from there being
thousands of people infected, to tens of thousands, to the
possibility of hundreds of thousands. So far, everything is about

1 Running head THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES .docx

1 Running head THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES .docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de honey725342

Mais de honey725342 (20)

Último

Último (20)

1 Running head THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES .docx