Critical Thinking: Skill Building Assignment 1: Argument Reconstruction Instructions – In this assignment, you will be presented with seven arguments to choose from. Select two of them and apply the skills you have learned in Hanscomb chapter 4: Arguments and argument reconstruction. THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS In the book’s Introduction it was explained how the identification and analysis of arguments is at the heart of critical thinking. An argument, you will recall, is comprised of:
A claim being asserted that you want other people to believe is true. Reasons offered in support of this claim, through which we try to rationally convince other people that this claim is true. The point of offering an argument is to convince someone else of your point of view. This point of view forms the conclusion of the argument, and information (statements) offered in support of this are called premises. An argument can have any number of premises, and in the traditions of formal and informal logic they are usually set out in this form: Premise 1: Premise 2: Conclusion: For the sake of brevity, a premise is abbreviated to ‘P’ and a conclusion to ‘C’, so it becomes: P1: P2: C: This would be the structure of a simple two premise argument, such as: Anything that intensifies racial discrimination should be outlawed. Capital punishment intensifies racial discrimination. Therefore, capital punishment should be outlawed. Set out formally it would read, P1: Anything that intensifies racial discrimination should be outlawed. P2: Capital punishment intensifies racial discrimination. C: Therefore capital punishment should be outlawed. ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION Another example of a simple argument is: Isaac Newton was not a true natural scientist. This is so because anyone who believes in the principles of alchemy cannot be a true natural scientist, and Newton believed in the principles of alchemy. P1: Newton believed in the principles of alchemy. P2: Anyone who believes in the principles of alchemy cannot be a true natural scientist. C: Therefore Newton was not a true natural scientist. Often arguments are more complex that this, involving many more premises (some of which might be ‘implicit’), more than one conclusion, and what are known as ‘sub-conclusions’. These variations will be explored shortly. Reconstruct a clear, clean, elegant, ‘steel man’ version of both arguments. In the lecture, my professor boiled down Hanscomb’s method of argument reconstruction to six steps, although you may treat steps 3-5 as one big, complicated step if you want. It may help to remind you of those steps here: 1) Correctly identify the conclusion of the argument Cut out extraneous material that isn’t essential to the argument. Reword to make the argument more concise, to clear up vagueness/ambiguity, and to make sure every premise is expressed as a proposition. Apply the principle of charity: If there is more than one plausible way to interpret an argument, pick the strongest interpretation that is plausible. Number your premises and conclusions: Lay out the premises and conclusion in clear, numbered form; supply implicit premises if necessary; include sub-conclusions if necessary. Indicate relations of support: Make sure it is totally obvious how the conclusions follow from (or are at least strongly supported by) the premises. You do not need to demonstrate to me that you’ve followed these six steps. You don’t need to evaluate or comment on these arguments. It will be sufficient to complete the assignment if you simply provide me with strong, appropriately formatted reconstructions of two of the arguments below of your choice. Make sure you clearly indicate which two arguments you have selected. The lecture over chapter 4 contains multiple examples of how to do this successfully; it would be wise to refer to it as you work on your reconstructions. Rubric: The criteria for Argument 1 and Argument 2 should be Excellent Reconstruction 9 points. This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin by my college Professor. I chose: Should we allow performance enhancing drugs in sports? The case for “yes” The primary reason why performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are outlawed in professional sports is that they give users an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Various professional sports leagues have attempted to set a level playing field by testing for drug use and suspending those found guilty. It’s a noble effort, but it’s clearly not working. Stiff punishments have done little to reduce the number of cyclists caught cheating every year; as Deadspin helpfully points out, the inheritors of Lance Armstrong’s seven abandoned Tour de France titles have all been implicated in doping scandals. Major League Baseball also hands down suspensions each season to players caught using outlawed substances, and it’s absurd to think those players are the only ones guilty of juicing. So if we really want to level the playing field, it may be time to head in the other direction: legalize performance enhancers. Not only would the playing field suddenly be even for all players, it would be at a higher level. A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher. Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs to go further, cyclists to charge for longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed. -Chris Smith, “Why it’s time to legalize steroids in professional sports,” August 24, 2012, Forbes. The case for “no” Since athletes around the world are using drugs, many think legalizing steroids will fix the problem. However, the [negative] consequences greatly outweigh the benefits and therefore they should not be allowed at any level. The first problem with legalizing PEDs is the health risks. All drugs, including PEDs, have extreme, long-term, negative effects on a person’s physical and mental states. Someone who chooses to take these drugs is asking for health problems in the present and in the future. Not only are they risking their athletic career, but also their overall well-being for the need to get a leg up on the competition. Why should the choice of harming themselves be given to athletes? Plus, if most athletes are deciding to use steroids, then many of the players who do not wish to suffer from the long-term effects will feel coerced into using illegal substances themselves. This could result in them slowly killing themselves in order to stay at the new competitive level set by the steroid users. -Haley Tackaberry, “Allowing PEDs in Sports is a Bad Idea,” The Gazette, December 21, 2018. This is what I wrote: Argument 1: Should We Allow Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports? The Case for “Yes” – P1: The principal justification for prohibiting performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in professional sports is to prevent unfair competitive advantages.
P2: Despite testing and suspensions, some professional athletes continue to use prohibited PEDs while others comply with the rules.
C1: Existing prohibitions have not eliminated the competitive inequality they are intended to prevent. (From P1 and P2.)
P3: Legalizing PEDs would allow all professional athletes to use them without violating the rules.
[P4: Allowing all athletes to use PEDs would provide more equal competitive opportunities than a system in which some athletes gain advantages through prohibited use.]
C2: Legalizing PEDs would better address the competitive inequality associated with prohibited use. (From C1, P3, and P4.)
P5: PEDs can improve athletic capabilities, including strength, speed, and endurance.
P6: A major attraction of professional sports is watching athletes achieve exceptional levels of performance.
C3: Legalizing PEDs would allow higher levels of athletic performance and enhance an important aspect of spectator enjoyment. (From P5 and P6.)
[P7: Professional sports should adopt a policy that better promotes equal competitive opportunities and enhances athletic performance and spectator enjoyment.]
C4: Professional sports should legalize PEDs. (From C2, C3, and P7.) Argument 2: Should We Allow Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports? The Case for “No” –
P1: PED use exposes athletes to serious physical and psychological health risks, including long-term harm.
P2: These risks threaten both athletes’ careers and their overall well-being.
C1: The costs of PED use extend beyond athletic competition to athletes’ long-term health and welfare. (From P1 and P2.)
P3: If PEDs were legalized and widely used, athletes who used them would raise the level of performance required to remain competitive.
P4: Athletes who wanted to avoid PED-related health risks would consequently feel pressured to use PEDs to remain competitive.
C2: Legalizing PEDs would pressure otherwise unwilling athletes to accept serious health risks. (From P1, P3, and P4.)
[P5: The benefits of enhanced athletic performance do not outweigh serious threats to athletes’ health and pressure on unwilling athletes to accept those threats.]
C3: The negative consequences of legalizing PEDs would outweigh the benefits. (From C1, C2, and P5.)
[P6: A performance-enhancing practice should not be permitted at any level of sport when its negative consequences outweigh its benefits.]
C4: PEDs should not be allowed at any level of sport. (From C3 and P6.)