CAREFUL ARGUMENT ANALYSIS: Eight Ways to Clarify Claims

 CAREFUL ARGUMENT ANALYSIS IS CLARIFICATION

Careful argument analysis is needed to obtain a clear understanding of an argument before you evaluate the argument.  There are at least three major areas of clarification involved in careful argument analysis: (a) clarification of an argument by clarifying the explicit statements in the argument, (b) clarification of an argument by making unstated premises and unstated conclusions explicit, and (c) clarification of an argument by determining and displaying the logical structure of the argument in an argument diagram. 

There are a number of ways in which a statement in an argument can be UNCLEAR and in need of clarification.  A critical thinker needs to be aware of the common ways in which statements can be unclear, to be on the lookout for such problems in arguments, and to correct those problems by clarifying unclear statements.

EIGHT WAYS THAT A STATEMENT CAN BE CLARIFIED

Here are eight different ways to clarify a claim or statement:

I will now briefly discuss each of these ways to clarify a claim or statement.

REPLACE PRONOUNS AND REFERRING EXPRESSIONS

Here is one important way to clarify statements:

1. ELIMINATE and REPLACE all pronouns and referring expressions in the statements.

Pronouns like “he”, “she”, “them”, “it”, and “those” should be eliminated and replaced with the name of the person, animal, place, or thing to which the pronoun refers.  Phrases can also refer to people, animals, places, or things, and such phrases should be eliminated and replaced with expressions that clearly identify the referent of that phrase.

Here is an example passage from one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s arguments:

The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead.

(HCA, p. 183)

This one sentence asserts four different claims.  One of those claims is stated this way:

…as he did to the other two crucified criminals…

The subject of the previous statement is “the Roman soldier”, so we know what the pronoun “he” in the second statement means:

…as the Roman soldier did to the other two crucified criminals…

The previous statement says the soldier “did not break Jesus’ legs”, so we know what action is being referenced by the phrase “as ____ did to ____”, and we can now fully clarify that second statement:

The Roman soldier broke the legs of the other two crucified criminals.

This revised statement is clear and meaningful even standing alone, without needing any contextual clues from the previous statement.

CLARIFY UNCLEAR WORDS AND PHRASES

Sometimes a word or phrase needs to be clarified:

2. CLARIFY any unclear WORDS or PHRASES in the statements.

 For example, the following claim by Kreeft and Tacelli is unclear:

If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1).      

(HCA, p.182, emphasis added)

The phrase “the truth of the resurrection” is UNCLEAR and needs to be expressed in a clear statement.  I have previously argued that the conclusion that Kreeft and Tacelli are arguing for is that God intentionally caused Jesus to rise from the dead and gave Jesus an immortal body.  So, the above-quoted statement can be clarified as meaning this:

If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved that God intentionally caused Jesus to rise from the dead and gave Jesus an immortal body.          

This revised version of this key statement makes the actual conclusion of their case clear and explicit.

CLARIFY UNCLEAR QUANTIFICATION

People often fail to include appropriate quantification of their statements.  When that happens, we should try to figure out what sort of quantification the arguer intended:

3. CLARIFY any unclear QUANTIFICATION in the statements.

For example, the following statement is VAGUE because of unclear quantification:

Women are emotional.

Because this statement is UNCLEAR, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether this statement is true.  The problem is that there is a lack of quantification in that statement.  Here is a similar claim, that is much clearer:

All women are always very emotional.

Because the quantification in this statement is specified, it is much clearer than the previous statement, and we can easily see that this clearer statement is FALSE. 

Some modifications of the quantification in the above statement can produce a claim that is TRUE (or at least PLAUSIBLE):

Most women are sometimes very emotional.

It should be noted that a parallel claim about men is also TRUE (or at least PLAUSIBLE):

Most men are sometimes very emotional.

When someone puts forward an argument that includes a VAGUE claim like “Women are emotional”, we have at least two options.  One option is to reject that claim as being too UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated, and to reject any argument that uses that statement as a premise, again because the argument is too UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated.

Another option is to try to figure out what specific claim the arguer intended to make.  Suppose that the argument only works if the premise makes this very strong claim:

All women are always very emotional.

In that case we can clarify the meaning of the statement and reject the claim as being FALSE, and also reject the argument as being UNSOUND.  However, if the argument would work if the statement was interpreted as making the following weaker claim, then we should interpret the statement this other way to be fair to the arguer and to the argument:

Most women are sometimes very emotional.

Because the truth or falsehood of a statement often depends on the specific quantification intended in the statement, a critical thinker keeps an eye out for problems of unclear quantification, and points out those problems, and corrects those problems when possible.

MAKE IMPLIED DETAILS AND QUALIFICATIONS EXPLICIT

Sometimes arguers leave out important details and qualifications, but you can infer that those details and qualifications are intended to be understood as part of a statement or statements they make.  When that happens, we should make those details and qualifications explicit: 

4. MAKE EXPLICIT contextually implied DETAILS or QUALIFICATIONS.

For example, here is a statement from the “Trump actually won” argument:

You do the math and tell me how many JB got – can’t do it – I’ll help: 68.5 million votes.

Votes in which election?  Who is “JB”? and does the math give us the precise number of votes for “JB”?  In context, we see that this statement is about the 2020 presidential election, and thus “JB” means: Joe Biden. 

Furthermore, the math doesn’t show the number of votes that Biden received, it shows the MAXIMUM possible number of votes that Biden received. (You cannot get the precise number of votes for Biden by simply subtracting the number of votes for Trump from the total number of votes, because some people voted for someone other than Biden or Trump, and some voters did not vote for any presidential candidate). 

Given the context, and given an understanding of the calculation that is being performed, we can add important details and qualifications to clarify the above statement:

Biden received a maximum of 68.5 million votes in the 2020 presidential election.

With this clarification, nobody has to guess who “JB” is, or which election is being discussed, or whether the calculation is supposed to show precisely how many votes Biden received in that election.

RESTATE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

Arguers can make claims by asking rhetorical questions.  When this occurs, we should restate those questions as straightforward statements:

5. CONVERT rhetorical questions into statements.

One of the objections by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory begins with this question:

How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse?

(HCA, p.183)

This sentence is not intended to ask a question.  This sentence makes a claim that is part of an argument against the Swoon Theory.  This is a rhetorical question, and it needs to be clarified by being converted into a straightforward statement.  The reference to “a swooning corpse” is about Jesus who would supposedly have been very weak and frail on the weekend just after his crucifixion, if he had somehow survived the crucifixion (as the Swoon Theory asserts):

Jesus would have been too weak and frail on the weekend after Jesus was crucified to be able to overpower the Roman soldiers (who were guarding the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified) all by himself.

This is the statement or claim that Kreeft and Tacelli asserted in an unclear way by means of the above-quoted rhetorical question.

STANDARDIZE LOGICAL FORMS OF STATEMENTS

Part of clarifying an argument is clarifying the logical structure of the argument and of the statements in the argument.  To achieve this aim, it helps to standardize the logical forms of the statements: 

6. STANDARDIZE the LOGICAL FORMS of the statements to clarify the logical structure of the argument.

Categorical logic uses statements with these logical forms (where X and Y are categories or kinds of things):

All Xs are Ys.

All Xs are non-Ys.

Some Xs are Ys.

Some Xs are non-Ys.

No Xs are Ys.

No Xs are non-Ys.

To those standard categorical statements, we can add a few more:

Most Xs are Ys.

Most Xs are non-Ys.

Nearly All Xs are Ys.

Nearly All Xs are non-Ys.

Almost No Xs are Ys.

Almost No Xs are non-Ys.

So, when an argument involves mostly categorical logic, you want to use the above forms of statements consistently throughout the argument, or at least in the sub-arguments that make use of categorical logic.

Propositional logic uses statements that are negations, conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals, and bi-conditionals, and the standard forms of such statements are these (where P and Q are propositions or claims):

NEGATION: It is not the case that P.

CONJUNCTION: P and Q.

DISJUNCTION:  P or Q.

CONDITIONAL:  IF P, THEN Q.

BI-CONDITIONAL:  P IF AND ONLY IF Q.

When an argument involves mostly propositional logic, you should use the above forms of statements consistently throughout the argument, or at least in the sub-arguments that make use of propositional logic.

For example, one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections against the Swoon Theory begins with this sentence:

The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs…means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. 

(HCA, p.193)

This objection makes use of propositional logic, and this specific statement can be understood as asserting a CONDITIONAL claim, so putting this statement into the standard form of a CONDITIONAL helps to clarify the logic of this argument:

IF the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, THEN the Roman soldier was sure Jesus was dead.

The “IF___, THEN ____” form of the revised statement makes it clear that this is a CONDITIONAL claim and that this argument makes use of propositional logic.

REGULARIZE KEY WORDS AND PHRASES

Arguers often use different words or different phrases to mean the same thing.  This makes the presentation of their argument more pleasant to read or hear, but it can also result in unclarity.  A common logical fallacy is that of EQUIVOCATION.  That happens when a word or phrase is ambiguous and it has different meanings in different parts of the argument.  This is a logical fallacy because the logical structure of an argument often depends on the meaning of a key word or phrase being the same throughout the argument. 

Something very similar to the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION can happen when a variety of words or phrases in an argument appear to be synonymous, but on closer examination, the different words or phrases actually have significantly different meanings.  Once again, an argument that appears to have a good logical structure might actually be logically invalid, because alternative words or phrases that appear to have the same meaning don’t actually have the same meaning.

One can avoid this logical problem by regularizing the words or phrases that are used to logically connect various statements in an argument:

7. REGULARIZE KEY WORDS and PHRASES to clarify the logical structure of the argument.

For example, in one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections against the Swoon Theory, they make these two statements:

It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor.

A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshipped fearlessly as divine lord and conqueror of death.

(HCA, p. 183)

Both of these statements refer to Jesus being in bad physical condition, but the words and phrases used to describe Jesus’ condition are different in these two statements.  Because the two statements were clearly intended to be logically connected to each other, we should regularize the key words and phrases describing Jesus’ condition, so that it is clear that these two statements are in fact logically connected to each other:

It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus was a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

A half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor is not worshipped fearlessly as divine lord and conqueror of death. 

When you clarify the statements in an argument so that key words and phrases are used consistently throughout the argument, you clearly show that the various statements containing alternative expressions of those key words and phrases were intended to be logically connected, and that the various key words or phrases used by the argument in their original statements were intended to be synonymous.

DETERMINE THE TYPE OF CLAIM

One final way to clarify a statement is to figure out the kind of claim it is making:

8. DETERMINE the TYPE OF CLAIM of each statement (factual, conceptual, evaluative, or mixed).

There are three main types of claims:

FACTUAL: empirical claims, or objective descriptions of people, actions, things, or events.

CONCEPTUAL: claims about the meanings of words, phrases, statements, or claims that are based strictly on the meanings of words, phrases, or statements.

EVALUATIVE: claims about the goodness or badness of people, actions, things, or events, or claims about an action being right or the best or wisest action to take, or wrong or worst or the most foolish action to take.

Additionally, sometimes a statement includes two or three different kinds of claims or implications:

MIXED: statements that have implications of more than one of the above kinds.

Here are some examples of FACTUAL statements:

The moon is about 239,000 miles away from the Earth. (True)

The moon is about fifteen miles in diameter. (False)

The moon is made of green cheese.  (False)

Note that a FACTUAL statement can be a false statement. 

Here are some examples of CONCEPTUAL statements:  

All triangles have exactly three sides. (True) 

A triangle is a quadrilateral in which the opposite sides are of equal length. (False) 

The word “rectangle” means “a three-sided figure in which the interior angles add up to 180 degrees”. (False)

Note that a CONCEPTUAL statement can be a false statement.  

Here are some examples of EVALUATIVE statements:

It is morally wrong to intentionally kill another person, except in self-defense. 

Porsche makes the best mass-produced gas-powered sports car in the world. 

If you don’t expect to inherit great wealth, then it is wise to start a 401k savings account in your twenties and put at least 10% of every paycheck you earn into the 401k savings for when you retire.

It can be challenging to determine whether an EVALUATIVE statement is true or false, but like the other kinds of claims, an EVALUATIVE statement can be false.  For example:

It is not morally wrong to torture a young child just for the fun of making a helpless person miserable.

This is a FALSE statement, but it is clearly an EVALUATIVE statement, nevertheless.