Please note that you don't need to spend a lot of times studying the extended examples linked from this page. This is because those examples are way too big to quickly study, AND all I want you to get out of those examples is a general impression of how the various phases of analysis work out in practice. If you're studying this for a quiz or exam, bear in mind that there there will be no questions on these outlinked examples.
1. A claim is controversial if even one
person involved in the dispute does not explicitly agree
that it is true.
2. Any person making a controversial claim bears the burden
of supporting that claim with an argument.
3. Any controversial claim that is asserted without a supporting
argument should NOT be treated as true
in your analysis.
4. A controversial claim with a supporting argument should still
not be regarded as true unless the supporting argument is a logically
good argument.
5. The only way to tell if an argument is good or bad is to do a logical
analysis of the argument.
(There will probably be one or two quiz/exam questions about the basics.)
The Basic Logical Analysis Method, or "BLAM", is a general way of approaching the analysis of persuasive writings. It's also intended to be something that people can practice on various writings to begin to develop argument analysis as an intuitive response to things people write or say in attempts to get you to believe things they want you to believe. Once BLAM has been internalized, people can if they wish develop a deeper understanding of logic by taking logic classes, or independently working through various arguments made by various other people.
I sometimes call this the "Eightfold Noble Path of Logic". (There will probably be one or two quiz/exam questions about the elements of BLAM.)
Remember, a claim that is only supported by "arguments" that fail BLAM is not a claim you should take seriously. Rather it is a claim that nobody should assert as true. Baslically, claims that are provably not supported by any good argument are claims that everyone should regard as false.
The best way to get started learning BLAM is to intensively study a single fairly short and straightforward persuasive article. As you're just starting, it will help to make extensive notes as you go. I'm serious. Make lots of notes as you go. It would not be excessive to make a pile of notes that contains ten times the words as the article itself.
The article we're going to look at today is Is Business Bluffing Ethical? by Albert Z. Carr. I suggest you give it a quick read right now, and write down whatever ideas pop into your head as you're reading. Random notes are still notes. (There will be no questions about the specific contents of this article.)
It might be helpful if your next note is a description of what the article makes you feel. (This is a symbolic exercise, so be ready for the twist.) Write things you now feel to be true, to be probably true, to be good points, to be possible, to be smart, to be dumb, to be probably false, to be mistakes, to be outright lies, to be whatever. If you have a lot of impressions, you can stop writing after you've gotten down your three or four strongest feels.
Here's the symbolic bit. Next you take a thick red pen, draw a big red "X" on the whole paragraph, and write beneath in blood-like red capital letters "MY FEELINGS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE LOGIC OF THIS".
WHY: Crooks, fools, and liars all the time use our feelings to get us to believe things that are not true. BLAM is intended to allow people to cut through all kinds of rhetoric and manipulation, and get to the logic (good or bad) of the article. Feeling feels is fine, but logical analysis requites us to put our feelings aside. This exercise is intended to allow you to separate yourself from the world of the writer, and thus begin to enhance you ability to make an objective appraisal of the writer's arguments.
(It's entirely that there will be a quiz/exam questions about transcending the feels.)
Now it's time to begin to lay the ground for a proper logical analysis. The first thing you can do to that end is to simply write down, in your own words whenever possible the most significant points the writer makes in their paper. If you have a lot of energy, you might want to write down a lot of points, but for this exercise it might be better to write down the 5 to 10 points you think are or might be significant. And, because this is just a familiarization exercise, you can stop when you get tired or bored.
The reason I'm telling you to write points down rather than just highlight things is that reading and then writing out an idea helps that idea sinking much better than merely highlighting it. Especially if you put the idea correctly and precisely into your own words. If you're doing that, it's better to do fewer points more carefully. (Paraphrasing is a skill you should have been taught in high school. If your English teachers didn't teach that, they were less than fully competent.)
To practice, get out pencil and paper, and jot down a very few of your own ideas of points Carr is making in Is Business Bluffing Ethical? You can do this any way you like, although my suggestion is to read some part of the article word-by-word, and write down whatever you take to be Carr's most significant points as you go.
When you've got down at least all the crucial points, take a very quick look at this ridiculously elaborate example of what might be done with the Carr text. Carr01. (Your effort should have far, far fewer points than this example.)
WHY: The point here is to become as familiar as you can get with precisely what the writer is actually saying. A big source of error in student writing is simply careless reading. A lot of papers would have gone much better if the writer had taken more time to carefully read the prompt and other relevant materials.
(It's a pretty safe bet that I will ask a question or two about points and reasons.
At this point, having become intimately familiar with the content of the article, you might want to think about the purpose of your analysis. Are you simply analyzing your chosen article so you can write a thoughtful review of its contents, which might include a nuanced, all-things-considered appraisal of the writer's goals, beliefs and integrity? Or are you fundamentally concerned with what is or isn't proved by the writer's arguments, and not at all with the personality. or character of the writer?
If you're doing a review that might have some effect on how other people see the writer, it's important to practice what academics call "charity", which means giving, in one's appraisal of the writer's character and intelligence, the full benefit of any reasonable double you can find. If there really are two different ways to interpret a particular sentence, charity says to pick the more intelligent and honorable interpretation. If you see a way to frame or twist the writer's words to make them look stupid, ignorant or dishonorable, charity says don't do it.
If you're doing a logical analysis (as we are here), charity is only one of your concerns. Certainly you still should never twist or reframe a writer's words to make them look worse than they are, but now the greatest emphasis is on accuracy. There will, of course, be times where the charitable account is also the accurate account, but there will also come times when, to be scrupulously accurate, one will have to be rather less charitable than one might otherwise like to be.
In order to do a proper logical analysis of an article, one must at some point settle on what one will take to be the thesis of that article. This is because the bottom line of any successful logical analysis is answering the question of whether or not the arguments given in an article prove the thesis of the article. Thus it is always important to
When comparing the most charitable interpretation of an article to the most logical, it sometimes occurs that the charitable interpretation has the writer saying something that pretty much everybody agrees with, while the strictly logical interpretation has them saying something much more controversial. Since persuasive essays are generally written to try to change people's minds, when we are doing logical analysis, it makes sense to interpret the article as advancing the most controversial thesis we can reasonably say is supported by the actual content of the article.
Take another look at Is Business Bluffing Ethical? and try to figure out all the most general points Carr could be trying to make, and then settle on the most controversial overall point that may reasonably taken to be supported by the arguments given in that article. Once you've done that, write it out, and then write out the negation of that thesis as the "antithesis" of Carr's thesis. (Don't spend a lot of time on this, as the content of this article won't be on any test.)
After you've had a go at that, take very quick a look at Carr02 to see what I came up with. (I will not ask any questions about the content of this example.)
WHY: Partly, this is to continue the process of gaining emotional distance from the article. Once a reader has developed a understanding of the writer's thesis, they can more easily see themselves as actively evaluating the writer's attempt to logically support that thesis, rather than passively reading to feel whatever feels the writer wants them to feel. Most importantly, however, you really can't do a logical analysis of an article without a clear idea of what the writer is trying to say.
(Please note I will probably ask at least one question about charity, and thesis identification.)
This phase can be done on your point list, or it can be done on a printed out copy of the original article. Either way, make the text double or triple space, and go through any way you feel like, making (in red) the worst reasonable comments on particular points you can make. These comments are the worst because they're not complimentary, or supportive, or even polite. Instead they're sarcastic, or humorous, or just silly. But they're also supposed to be reasonable because they have to be things that represent some kind of critical thinking about the content of the point upon which you comment. If one of the writer's points implies something absurd or unsavory, comment on that, and don't be tactful. If something they say contradicts some factual thing you happen to know, comment on that, and show no respect. And if something the writer says comes of as smug, or patronizing, or derogatory, or hopelessly naive, well, you know what to do. (Here you should still be charitable, at least to the extent of not taking the writer to be saying anything that isn't at least a reasonable interpretation of their actual words. But, for this exercise, you definitely don't have to be nice.)
If you come across anything that looks like it might be intended to support Carr's thesis, or something else Carr says, mark it as a possible argument.
Here's a horrifically overdone example of what might be done with my
point breakdown of the Carr text. Carr03 (Just
skim this example. I won't test you on it.)
WHY: This exercise has two goals. First, it's supposed to create emotional distance between you and the article to further enhance your objectivity. Second, it's intended to help kick your mind over from understanding mode into critique mode. In understanding mode, you focus on getting what the article is saying without thinking about whether or not it makes logical sense. In critique mode, you constantly think about whether or not what you're reading makes logical sense. (Some people write their whole papers in understanding mode, without doing any critical thinking, and thus earn absolutely no credit for those papers.)
(Yes, I will probably ask a question or two about the larks, and the snarks.)
Some writers write so well that it's really clear what they're saying. Others are a bit more verbose, and it's often difficult to figure out exactly what they're saying. "Content isolation" means going through an article and separating the stuff that counts from the stuff that's just fluff. The Carr article, you may have noticed, contains an awful lot of fluff.
So one thing that's good to do is to go through an article and cross out all the things that clearly cannot possibly even slightly help to support the writer's thesis, and highlight the things that might possibly be taken as an argument supporting the writer's thesis.
As an exercise, go through Is Business Bluffing Ethical?, and spend five minutes or so doing con cross out some stuff, and highlight some other stuff. The stuff that you cross out should be stuff that clearly does not support Carr's thesis, and the stuff that you highlight should be stuff that most clearly supports, or at least might possibly be thought to support Carr's thesis. (I won't test you on this. It's just so you get a bit of experience doing it.) When you've cut out about a fifth or a quarter of what Carr says, and highlit three, or four, or five things, or you've gotten bored, go to Carr04 (which I won't test you on) and compare what you got with what I got.
(I might quiz you on the concept of content isolation, but I won't ask about the specifics shown in that outlinked example.)
The point of this, of course, is to get as clear as possible about exactly what is being argued, and how it is being argued, as preparation for the next stage of logical analysis.
After you've isolated the important stuff, and started to more-or-less ignore all the other stuff, you can move (smoothly?) into identifying everything that can be counted as an argument, and putting the most significant arguments into your own words.
It can be helpful to think of arguments as usually fitting the form "C is true because P", "C" being the "conclusion" of the argument, "P" being the premise(s), and "because" being the presumed logical connection between P and C. (To review, the "conclusion" is the thing the arguer is trying to get you to believe, and the "premise(s)" are the reason(s) the arguer presents in their effort to persuade you.)
If you take a very quick look at Carr05, you will see the results of a horrendously
complicated and waaaay overdetailed attempt at argument identification. I
won't quiz you about the details of Carr05, I just want you to know what
it might look like when someone goes through a thesis article looking for
C-is-true-because-P statements.
("The Eightfold Noble Path of Logic")
Remember, a claim that is only supported by "arguments" that fail BLAM is not a claim you should take seriously. Rather it is a claim that nobody should assert as true. Baslically, claims that are provably not supported by any good argument are claims that everyone should regard as false.
(You can pretty much guarantee that I will
ask you some very specific and detailed questions about BLAM.)
If you are interested in seeing some examples of the results of BLAM, you can take a look at Carr06. (The most important thing is to give you an idea of how this kind os analysis goes in practice.)
I won't ask you about any of the specific arguments
analyzed in Carr06, but you should expect some
questions about the eight elements of BLAM.
If you have more than one argument to deal with, do each argument on it's own.
For each argument, write a paragraph, or a page, or a short paper, in which you do the following.
1. Write out the argument as clearly, as precisely, and as fairly as you can. (Write it the way a proponent would want it written.)
2. Explain as clearly as you can what this argument is supposed to imply for this topic, and how it is supposed to imply it. (Maybe it's supposed to support the thesis directly, or maybe it's supposed to answer a counter-argument.)
3. Figure out and explain what logical principle is supposed to justify these implications.
4. Explain what that logical principle would imply if it were applied in other contexts. Look for applications that have unacceptable results.
5. Say whether or not that principle has acceptable results when applied in those other contexts.
6. Explain how this logical principle is supposed to be justified, if it has a justification.
7. Explain what else would also be justified by that justification. Try to find a bad think that it would justify.
8. Say whether or these other things are good or bad.
9. Say whether or not it is a good
logical principle.
If it doesn't work in all of those other contexts, then it's not a good
principle.
If it has no underlying justification, then it's not a good principle.
If its underlying justification would
also "justify" something bad, then it's not a good principle.
10. Say whether or not the argument is good or bad. (If it's not based on a good logical principle, it's bad.)
1. Some people say that cat juggling
is morally wrong because people have a subconscious definition of cats
as non-flying animals.
2. This argument implies that
cat juggling is morally wrong because it involves flying cats, and cats
are not defined as flying animals.
3. The logical principle seems to be that "non-flying
animals shouldn't ever fly."
4. In other contexts, this principle would imply that cats
and dogs and other animals, including humans, shouldn't be allowed on
airplanes.
5. These are not acceptable results. People have to fly to
visit their friends and relatives who live far away.
6. The justification seems to be "we should always act
according to our subconscious definitions."
7. Racism would be justified, since some people
subconsciously define other races as inferior.
8. Racism is bad.
9. It's not a good logical principle since it
doesn't work in all contexts.
10. Also, while it does have an underlying "justification", but
that "justification" would also justify a bad thing, so it's not really
a justification.
Summary: The argument is bad because is not based on a good logical principle. Basing an argument on a subconscious definition is a really bad idea. Not everyone has the same subconscious definitions, and many people have subconscious definitions that are either wrong, morally bad, or both. Furthermore, even if the subconscious definition was right, it wouldn't mean anything, because what's moral or immoral doesn't depend on how things are defined.
The important thing about logical analysis is that you analyze the arguments as deeply as you can. This means that doing four arguments can be worse than doing just one argument. If you do four arguments, but don't get into their logical principles and justifications, then you will have failed to do a logical analysis, even if you fill up ten pages talking about those arguments. But if you deeply analyze even one argument, then you have succeeded, even if you only fill up a page and a half.
Another way to think about logical analysis is to imagine a conversation between this author and another person who says either "not true" and "so what?" to each of these reasons. Imagine that the author tries to come up with both a reason to support the truth of his claim and a logical or moral principle to connect that claim to his thesis. If the author can't prove that his claim is true, then it's a bad argument. If the author can't show how the claim would support his thesis, then it's a bad argument. He's got to do both for the argument to work. If he fails at either one, he fails absolutely. So if you don't see a strong reason to think that a claim is true, or you don't see how a claim could support his thesis, then it's a bad argument.
If you have time to review a more complicated
example, read Time Travel Argument.
Copyright © 2022 by Martin C. Young