Exercise on Argument Analysis

For the following examples, reconstruct the original argument by identifying the premise(s) (including any supressed premises required by the principle of charity) and conclusion. Looking at the critical responses to the argument, then decide whether the critic is being responsive and if so in what way. Obviously, these exercises only touch the surface of the issues involved. No argument/response is the last word on the topic. You may email me questions on these exercises. I may answer your question in lecture, rather than by a direct email response. Better yet, bring your question(s) to office hours.

Just to re-emphasis. The purpose of these exercises is to get you comfortable with the kind methodology that is used in philosophic analysis. The purpose of adopting a philosophic methodology is to approach the issue with a little more objectivity than one might be accustomed to, allowing one to go beyond mere gut-reactions to important issues.

Example 1: Capital Punishment

Sally's argument:
There are certains crimes -- for example mass murder -- that are so heinous that those who perpetrate the crimes deserve to die. We need to send the message that we will not tolerate such blatant disregard for human life by reinstating capital punishment.

Reconstruct this argument, then click here to check your answer.

Tom's criticism
Sally is being unduly insensitive. Although there are human acts that are truly horrific, we should separate the person from the act and further investigate the kinds of conditions that might have lead a person to commit such offenses. All persons have intrinsic worth and nobody truly deserves to die.

Decide whether and how this is responsive, then click here to check your answer

Dick's criticism
Studies show that the death penalty is not effective at reducing crime, so what's the point. The death penalty only serves to emphasize our own hypocracy by using murder to condemn murder.

Decide whether and how this is responsive, then click here to check your answer

Harry's criticism
While I agree with Sally that there are certain criminals who deserve to die, I am uncomfortable with institutionalizing this form of retributivist justice. Inherent in any system designed and implemented by humans is error. Let's face it, the system sometimes gets things wrong. To my mind it is far worse to wrongly convict and execute an innocent person than to fail to execute certain persons who are deserving of death. Afterall, it's not as though they are getting off scott-free; they still face life-imprisonment.

Decide whether and how this is responsive, then click here to check your answer

Example 2: Salmon Farming

Sally's argument:
The provincial government of British Columbia and/or the federal government of Canada should regulate the fisheries. All non-partisan, scientific studies show the devastating effects of salmon farming on the native Pacific ecosystem. The essential problem stems from the fact that it is impossible to keep the farmed salmon completely isolated from wild populations and from the ecosystem in which the farming occurs. Once farmed salmon have escaped, they have the potential to out-compete wild salmon for scarce resources, since the farmed variety have been genetically engineered to swim faster and consume more. In addition, most farmed salmon is Atlantic, which tends to out-compete the wild Pacific species. This then has devastating effects on wild populations – 100 populations have disappeared and salmon are extinct in 40 percent of the rivers where they once spawned along the North American Pacific coast. The pollution from the farms also has a negative impact on the entire ecosystem; indeed, the level of toxicity approaches that of raw sewage, but is dumped into receiving waters with almost no treatment. To reduce these effects and prevent devastation, we must strictly regulate salmon farming, especially on Canada’s pacific coast.

Reconstruct this argument, then click here to check your answer.

Harry's criticism
All this talk of the dangers of salmon farming are overblown. We cannot determine with scientific certainty that there are these effects. In fact, there is a report published by Salmon Farmers, Inc. that denies the impact of salmon farming on the environment. Besides, any potential negative environment effects are off-set by the economic gains. We should not hinder the ability of Canadian businesses to make profit as they see fit.

Decide whether and how this is responsive, then click here to check your answer. Note: there may be more than one response embedded in these comments.

Return to the Philosophy 120 home page