Students reconstruct arguments by supplying missing premises.
Objectives: The instructor for this course had been discussing the structure of arguments in lecture. He had done some exercises in which students were asked to fill in missing premises. This was in preparation for an argument assignment, in which students would be asked to write a formal argument about a given topic using 10-12 premises. Also, it was clear that students would have to complete an exercise like this on the final exam. Several students told me that they had not understood the exercise used in the lecture and that the instructor had moved through the examples too quickly. I developed this exercise to give students the opportunity to work through the material at their own pace and to create an opportunity for them to ask questions about the material.
Activities: We completed part A in class. I gave students a couple of minutes to complete each question before taking up the answers as a group and moving on to the next question. I assigned part B for homework and we took it up the following week.
- For each of the following arguments supply the missing premise(s).
Thoreau’s argument for our duty to disobey:
1. Our taxes support this government.
2.
3. So, our taxes support immoral deeds (i.e. unjust war, slavery).
Crito’s argument for the priority of family:
1.
2. To sacrifice your life leaves your family to fend for itself.
3. So, sacrificing your life is unjust.
Thoreau’s argument for civility:
1. We must change the government.
2.
3. Therefore, we must change people.
4.
5. Therefore, we must address people’s reason.
Socrates’ argument against following public opinion in moral matters:
1.
2.
3. So, the health of a body part requires expert advice.
4. The just life depends upon a part of the body (i.e. reason).
5. So, the just life requires expert advice.
6. Expert advice is not found in public opinion.
7. Therefore, we should not follow public opinion for the just life.
- Reconstruct Socrates argument that “Punishment should improve the wrong doer, because no one should ever do evil.” Try to break the argument into as many steps as possible, so as to avoid holes in your logic. Use the four rules of arguments to test your answer.
Sample answers:
For each of the following arguments supply the missing premise(s).
Thoreau’s argument for our duty to disobey:
1. Our taxes support this government.
2. This government does immoral deeds (i.e. unjust war, slavery).
3. So, our taxes support immoral deeds (i.e. unjust war, slavery).
Crito’s argument for the priority of family:
1. It is unjust to leave your family to fend for itself.
2. To sacrifice your life leaves your family to fend for itself.
3. So, sacrificing your life is unjust.
Thoreau’s argument for civility:
1. We must change the government.
2. The government is made up of people.
3. Therefore, we must change people.
4. To change people we must address their reason
5. Therefore, we must address people’s reason.
Socrates’ argument against following public opinion in moral matters:
1. The health of a body part requires the advice of doctors.
2. The advice of doctors is expert advice.
3. So, the health of a body part requires expert advice.
4. The just life depends upon a part of the body (i.e. reason).
5. So, the just life requires expert advice.
6. Expert advice is not found in public opinion.
7. Therefore, we should not follow public opinion for the just life.
Reconstruct Socrates argument that “Punishment should improve the wrong doer, because no one should ever do evil.” Try to break the argument into as many steps as possible, so as to avoid holes in your logic. Use the four rules of arguments to test your answer.
1. No one should ever do evil.
2. Harming another is evil.
3. Therefore, no one should ever harm another.
4. Some punishment harms other people.
5. Hence, punishment that harms others should be avoided.
6. Punishment either harms or improves the wrong doer.
7. So, punishment should improve the wrong doer.
Also:
1. Wrong deeds stem from ignorance.
2. Punishment should address wrong deeds.
3. Therefore, punishment should address ignorance.
4. Addressing ignorance (education) is improvement.
5. So, punishment should improve (educate) the wrong doer.
Assesment: Part A worked very well to give students a better understanding of how arguments work. They had time to come up with their own answers and then compare these to the correct answer. This also gave students the opportunity to ask if there answer was a good answer and gave me time to explain if it was and why. This change of pace worked to engage students in the exercise. Part B was very difficult. Although similar, part A and part B ask students to use different skills. Filling in one or two missing premises is not the same as reconstructing an entire argument. Most students found this assignment frustrating. I think that providing a few premises would have made a difference by giving students a structure to work from and creating a closer relation between the work required by parts A and B.
No comments:
Post a Comment