Arguments in Common Language

Logic comes naturally to any rational person. We use logic every day to find out the truth and make predictions. For example, consider a simple statement,

 “It is raining. It must be cloudy.”

We can make this statement just by watching the rain or hearing the sound from our bedroom without seeing the sky because we know that rain happens only if there is a cloud. The premises are based on a matter of fact, as clouds contain water, which results in rain. We can express the argument in the following standard form.

• Premises 1: All rains are caused by clouds. (Assumed Premises)
• Premises 2: It is raining.
• Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a cloud outside.

Arguments in daily language often don’t follow the standard format. They often contain many assumed premises, and we have to identify assumed premises to complete the arguments and assess their strength and validity. For instance, the above argument assumes that everyone knows that clouds cause rain, so it is not mentioned. If the assumed premises are right, the argument is valid and strong. However, the argument is invalid and weak if the assumed premises are wrong. 

We usually don’t present our arguments in the standard forms. Instead, we use natural language to argue. Natural languages always have some vagueness since they are subject to interpretation. For instance, terms like good knowledge or good person are vague since good is not a quantifiable term, and people have different interpretations of the meaning of good. What is good for one person may not be good for another person.  However, we commonly understand the goodness of knowledge or a person by comparing them with others, and good here refers to better compared to ordinary people.

Hence, as much as possible, the speaker must avoid using ambiguous, vague or abstract words and be as precise as possible if a sentence is too vague or its meaning is ambiguous,  it can’t function as a claim. For instance, the claim that many people came to the party is too vague since many may refer to a dozen or a hundred people or even more.

However, sometimes, it is difficult to avoid using words with multiple meanings. Often, the author deliberately uses ambiguous words to convince the audience easily. Sometimes, ambiguous words are deliberately used in the law books so that the courts can suitably interpret the meaning of the terms in different situations and times.

Assumed Premises

In daily language, many premises are not stated but assumed because they are commonly accepted and believed by the audiance. Hence, in order to fully understand the argument, we must find out these assumed promises. If assumed premises are true, it leads to valid and strong arguments. However, the conclusion may be weak or wrong if assumptions are false.

The following are examples of arguments we make regularly.

• The leftovers are not in the fridge at home. My wife must have eaten it.
• The Coke bottle is empty, and the chocolate is missing. The child must have drunk/eaten it.
• John has gained lots of weight recently. He must be eating lots of fast food and not doing workouts.
• Aman is a low-rank government employee but eats in five-star hotels every week. He must be corrupt.
• Gita got first rank in her school. She must be studying a lot.
• Kabir is living in a 4BHK house in a posh locality in Mumbai. He must be getting a good salary.

All the claims above are made in the common language and represent arguments because every claim or conclusion is made based on a certain reason, which is highlighted in italics. They appear to be prima facia valid as well. However, as we shall see later, the above arguments are not in the standard forms, and many premises are assumed and not stated. Hence, some of these arguments may be invalid in certain situations. However, we need to study the principles of arguments in depth to understand the fallacy of the arguments and then find out how these arguments are valid or invalid.

Example: The leftovers are not in the fridge at home. My wife must have eaten it.

The argument can be written in the following standard form.

• P: The leftovers are not in the fridge at home.
• C: My wife must have eaten it.

However, this argument is not complete, as the conclusion does not automatically follow from the premises. The man concluded that his wife must have eaten the leftover food when he found that the leftovers were not in the fridge. Now, the leftover food could be eaten by the husband, wife, or children. Now, the man, the husband, knows for sure that he has not eaten the leftover. He also believes that children won’t eat the leftover food. Hence, the only possibility is that the wife must have eaten the leftovers. 

Hence, the complete argument in the standard form can be written as follows:

• P: The leftovers are not in the fridge at home.
• AP: The family consists of my wife, me, and my children.
• AP: I have not eaten it.
• AP: Children don’t eat leftover food.
• C: Hence, my wife must have eaten it.

This conclusion can be true only if all the assumed premises are correct. For instance, there is a possibility that the wife has given the leftover to the servant or thrown it in the dustbin, or even children have eaten it because they liked the food (like a piece of cake). However, these possibilities are quite unlikely according to the husband’s estimation, and hence, he concluded that if the leftovers are not in the fridge, there is a high chance that the wife has eaten them.

Example: Aman is a low-ranking government employee who eats in five-star hotels every week. He must be corrupt.

Argument in the standard form   

• P: Aman is a low-rank government employee.
• P: Aman eats in five-star hotels every week.
• C: Aman  is  corrupt.

We must complete the above argument by including the assumed premises (AP) in the arguments.

• P: Aman is a low-rank government employee.
• P: Aman eats in five-star hotels every week.
• AP: Eating food in five-star hotels weekly is very expensive.
• AP: Low-rank government employees can’t pay five-star hotel bills from their salary every week.
• AP: Aman’s parents or family members are not paying the bill.
• AP: Low-rank government employees can make considerable money ONLY through corruption
• C: Therefore, Aman must be corrupt.

The argument assumes that the audience is aware of the assumed premises. However, if some of the assumed premises are false, e.g. if Aman’s parents are rich and paying the bill, or if a government employee is allowed other avenues of income (like a famous sportsperson employed with the government can make considerable money through endorsement), the conclusion may be false. However, the assumed premises are likely to be true in most of the cases. Hence, the conclusion is strong and is generally accepted by the audience as true, unless evidence to the contrary is provided.

Example: John is to be promoted as he is the senior-most officer

Complete Argument in Standard Form

• P: John is the senior-most officer.
• AP: Officers are promoted solely based on seniority.
• C: Therefore, John is to be promoted.

In this case, it is assumed that promotions are seniority-based, in which case the audience would readily accept the premises. However, the argument is invalid or weak if the promotion is not solely based on seniority but also based on other criteria like birth (caste, race, positive discrimination, gender) and merit (performance).

Example:  Kabir is living in a 4BHK house in a posh locality in in Mumbai. He must be getting good salary.

Complete Argument in Standard Form

• P: Kabir is living in a 4BHK house in a posh locality in Mumbai.
• AP: Rent for 4BHK house in a posh locality in Mumbai is very high.
• AP: Kabir pays rent using his salary.
• C: Therefore, Kabir must be getting a good salary.

In this case, it is assumed that the audience is well aware that rentals in Mumbai, India, are very high and that Kabir pays the rent from his salary. However, these assumptions may not be correct if the 4BHK house belongs to his family or to his friend, who permitted him to live for free. However, the possibility of assumed premises is very low; hence, the logic appears prima-facia valid. However, if the assumptions are false, the conclusion may not be valid.

Example: Abortion is wrong because all human life is sacred.

Complete Argument

• P: All human life is sacred.
• AP: It is wrong to destroy sacred beings.
• AP: Abortion leads to the killing of a living human being (fetus)
• C: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

While abortion is an emotional matter, and many people consider it always wrong, a critical thinker must logically analyse the situations in which abortion can be right or wrong. The following questions may provide clarity to the issue.

Q: Does Abortion destroy human life?

If a human life starts just at the time of fertilization, even taking pills would be wrong. According to medical professionals, life begins when the embryo’s vital functions, like heartbeat and brain activity, are detectable, which happens at the fetal stage. After the fertilization of the egg, the embryonic stage begins and lasts for eight weeks. After the eighth week, the embryo is called a fetus, and the fetal stage begins. Hence, if abortion is done within eight weeks of pregnancy, there is no loss of life and thus nothing wrong.

Q: Is Human Life Always Sacred?

If you don’t believe in God, you don’t consider anything, including human life, to be sacred since sacredness is related to religion. However, even believers don’t always consider all human life sacred.  For instance, the killing of humans is justified if it saves other human lives, promotes justice or serves the public interest. For example, most people, including believers, would consider killing a terrorist right when he is about to do a mass killing. Likewise, most countries legally allow a person to kill another person to protect public property, save his life, or protect a woman from rape.

Accordingly, it can be logically concluded that abortion is not wrong if performed within eight weeks of conception or to save other human lives, promote justice or serve the public interest. However, if abortion is done otherwise, it may be considered wrong.  Accordingly, it can be deduced that abortion may not be wrong when the life of the mother is at risk, the child is mentally or physically deformed, or the child is the result of rape.

Therefore, abortion is not always wrong. However, abortion also can’t be allowed as a matter of right and would certainly be wrong in any situation if it does not lead to saving other human lives, promoting justice or serving the public interest. For instance, if the parents want to abort a child because she is a girl (which they don’t want), it would be considered wrong.  

A critical thinker must use arguments to persuade people to know the truth and accept the conclusion based on the premises and the logic. However, the persuasive power of an argument also depends on the audience’s belief in the truth of the premises. Hence, it is common for authors to tailor their arguments in such a way that fits into the audience.  However, the same skill of persuasion can be used by people to convince even absurd things or untruths using false logic and arguments, which gives rise to logical fallacies. 

Persuasive Argument

An argument aims to persuade the audience to accept its conclusion. Hence, the persuasive arguments consider the audience’s knowledge, faith, sentiments and mood. For example, if people believe in God, it would be more convincing if the author provided some examples from scriptures to convince the people. However, if you are dealing with atheists, any quotation from God or Scripture can’t help. Similarly, if the audience does not know science and mathematics, you must find other methods to explain relativity or gravity to them.

An excellent persuasive arguments must have the following characteristics,

1. Emotional appeal: Our emotional and reasoning minds are interconnected. A person can’t accept a person’s reason if that contradicts his deep beliefs and hurts his emotions. Hence, a good argument must touch the emotional chord of the audience in the right way, or at least avoid touching it negatively. Sometimes, storytelling is more effective in persuading the audience than providing data or studies. A speaker can also use vivid language to engage the audience. The arguments become more persuasive once the audience are emotionally connected with the speaker.
2. Sound Reasoning: The argument must be well structured, strong and have all true premises. If there is a flaw in the argument, it can be demolished by any reasonable person, and your claim shall be discredited if if they are correct.
3. Credibility of the speaker: People must first accept you before they accept your arguments. Most people cannot differentiate between the credibility of the argument and that of the speaker. If they distrust the speaker or writer, they distrust the arguments. Hence, the speaker needs to be consistent with their claim and not be a hypocrite who advocates something but does just the opposite. Corrupt public servants teaching the virtue of honesty to people won’t be unacceptable to most people.
4. Simplicity: The arguments must be as simple, concise and clear as possible. The complex claims are difficult to understand and be accepted. The message should be straightforward and unambiguous, with the least number of assumptions. 
5. Examples and evidence: An argument is just an opinion of the speaker, and other people do not accept it as they, too, have their own views. However, if the argument is supported by independent evidence like scientific studies, data, or expert opinions, the audience would find it easy to accept.
6. Antithesis: A good argument considers not only the thesis, the argument the speaker wishes to prove, but also the antithesis, i.e. the counter-argument the opponents may raise. It must discuss the merits and demerits of each side and then convince the audience that the pros of the thesis are more and, hence, they are better than the counterarguments.  Addresses potential counterarguments and refutes them.
7. Call to action: Our actions and thoughts are interconnected. We do what we believe, and we believe what we do. Hence, a good argument must inspire people to accept the argument as a theory and take action based on the idea. Once people take positive actions on the basis of argument, they can find the merit of the principle and then internalise them in their lives. The Chinese philosopher Confucius explained the merit of action, “I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.”

A good argument is one that persuades the audience to accept the idea or reason of the argument not only with his head but also with his heart, i.e., his rational and emotional mind. Only when a person accepts an argument wholeheartedly does he follow that in his life and then gradually internalise the arguments. Formal arguments usually focus on rational minds, while informal arguments mainly influence emotions.