Argument Structure

In “Argument Basics”, we discussed that the two fundamental parts of an argument are premises and conclusions. Premises are statements that give support, while conclusions are statements that receive support. We also likened an argument to a factory-line, where the premises are like raw materials and the conclusion is the newly created product that is made up of said materials. Finally, we covered a way to easily convey said parts of an argument explicitly.

Now we will use a new analogy that is more transferable to the notion of a structure–a building. Buildings require “pillars of support” to uphold their floors (or ceilings). In modern design, these pillars are often hidden inside of walls, but in ancient and medieval design, like that of surviving Greek, Roman, or Arab archectiture, the pillars are easily visible. Some floors may have four pillars upholding them, others may have many more, and if an architect was really daring, perhaps only one. Furthermore, some buildings may have a single floor, while others may have several levels of floors.

Similar to a building with many floors and pillars of support, an argument may have several levels of conclusions. Specifically, there are two types of conclusions: the main conclusion and sub-conclusions. The main conclusion is the main point of an argument, every statement in an argument, directly or indirectly, will give support to the main conclusion. It can be likened to the top-level of a building.

A sub-conclusion, on the other hand, is a step in reasoning that is developed “along the way”, for that reason it is also commonly referred to as an “intermediary conclusion”. A sub-conclusion must receive support from at least one other statement and give support to at least one other statement. In that respect, it is similar to how the middle floor of a three-story house must be supported by the first floor but also give support to the top floor.

But enough with high-level analogies, let us get into the bricks and mortar of it:

  1. I heard barking.
  2. There must be a dog. (1)
  1. I heard barking.
  2. It sounded like it was nearby.
  3. There must be a dog nearby. (1, 2)
  1. I heard barking.
  2. There must be a dog. (1)
  3. No wonder there are no cats! (2)

Note how in the second example, there are two premises that uphold a single conclusion, while in the third example, there is one premise that upholds a sub-conclusion, which in turn, is used to support the main conclusion.

Arguments may come in many different shapes and they are not always as linear or straight-forward as the examples above, but such levels and structure are the gist of them. As stated in “Argument Basics”, as you analyze more arguments, identifying these structures will gradually become easier for you. Besides, the more interesting part of arguments is yet to be covered–the unseen and the unstated–the assumptions that underlie arguments.

Want an interactive way to learn logic?

Enhance your critical thinking skills with Symbols Logic. Unlock access to the first studycard and the first level of all activities for free. Get the app now: