[MUSIC]

Hello, everyone.

In this lecture, we're going to be looking at a specific kind argument pattern

called an argument chain.

Firstly, we'll identify what we mean by a chain argument or hypothetical argument?

Next, we'll look at the structure of these arguments by looking at the two different

ways that an argument chain is used.

In the next lesson, we'll have a look at one common fallacy associated with these

arguments as well as look at how we can evaluate the quality of a chain argument.

So, let's firstly define what a chain argument is?

A chain argument is a series of connected premises that

build on each other to reach a conclusion.

As an example, let's have a look at the basic structure of a chain argument.

If it is raining, I'll get wet.

If I get wet, it'll be cold.

It's raining, so I'll get cold.

These can also be expressed as A=B and B=C.

So therefore, A=C.

A chain argument has this name because it presents a series of implications

that are connected in a series.

In each statement, there is a precedent the first part and

an antecedent the second part.

The antecedent of each statement becomes the precedent of the next statement.

It's called the chain argument, because of the linking and

overlapping of such premises to reach in inclusion.

Chain arguments are also called hypothetical arguments.

This is because each component of the argument is usually a hypothetical

situation.

A hypothetical is an imagined or

supposed situation rather them on grounded in reality.

They can often be identified by the use of if, but other language,

such as suppose or imagine can express a hypothetical situation as well.

Argument change are also used to either prove or refute an idea.

Let's go back and have a look at our first example again.

In this argument, my claim is that I'll get cold if it's raining.

To prove that, I need to provide premises that support this claim.

Because this is a simple argument,

only one new premise needs to introduced which is if I get wet, it'll be cold.

This premise B serves the link A and C together.

This is a very basic example.

In many cases, chain arguments are much longer.

Let's have a look at a longer chain argument the focus in on a theme of

homelessness.

If the cost of rental accommodation increases disproportionately to income,

then less people will be able to afford private housing.

If less people can afford private housing,

there will be more people who rely on public housing.

If there are more people who rely on public housing,

the current public housing allocation will be insufficient to meet demand.

If the current public housing allocation cannot meet demand,

there will be more people who cannot access public housing.

If there are more people who cannot access public housing,

then there will be more people who do not have fixed accommodation.

If there are more people who do not have fixed accommodation,

there will be an increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness.

Here we can see how the argument chain is used to support the claim that if

the cost of rental accommodation increases disproportionately to income,

then less paper would be able to afford private housing.

It's important to know key that China arguments may not necessarily use this

language in real life as the language is a bit repetitive and

lacks sufficient hedging or cautious language.

For example,, of first three points above would be more likely written as.

If the cost of rental accommodation increased disproportionately to income,

then less people would be able to afford private housing.

This then would lead to an increase in the amount of people who rely on

public housing and a concomitant lack of public housing to meet demand.

Now, let's have a look at how argument chains are used to negate a premise.

Let's look at a simple example first.

If the Sun is shining, it's hot.

The Sun is not shining.

Therefore, it is not hot.

In this case, we can express the chain as if A, then B.

Not A, therefore, not B.

Here's another example based on our previous chain argument based on

homelessness.

If there's a large increase in demand for public housing,

there'll be too much pressure on the current allocation.

However, there isn't a large increase in demand.

Therefore, there isn't too much pressure on the current public housing allocation.

We've seen in this lesson how argument chains are structured and

how they can be used.

In the next lesson, we'll see how these chain arguments need to be

carefully considered as they can be prone to exaggeration and fallacy.

[MUSIC]

5.1b Argument Chains

Critical Thinking Skills for University Success

与讲师见面