Inferring and Explaining

34 InferrIng and exPlaInIng in your schematized arguments. You want to present the argument in the strongest form you can. Tis is not because you are being nice or discounting the previous virtue of copy fdel- ity. It is because you want to avoid at all costs weakening the evidence in the way you choose to schematize it. Tis is particularly important when you are dealing with arguments with which you disagree. If you come to the judg- ment that the evidence is weak, you need to make darn sure that you’ve given the evidence its best shot. Start at the Bottom (Find the Conclusion) We’ve already discussed the fact that conclu- sions may come anywhere in a statement of an argument. Still, in the schematic form I am urging on you, they always come at the bot- tom; they are always are identified as t 0 (“0” to start a sequence of explanations and o as a reminder that this explanation is the origi- nal one), and they are always explanations of the data, not simply statements of the data. I strongly suggest that you begin your schema- tizing of the argument by trying to identify its conclusion. Ofentimes, you will fnd hints in the state- ment that will guide you to the argument’s con- clusion. Tere are many words and phrases that are commonly used to alert readers or listeners that an inference is being drawn. Some of the classics you will fnd in any introductory logic book are as follows: “therefore,” “hence,” “so,” “it follows that,” and many others. But at other times, you are simply expected to pick out what the theory is that is supposed to be supported by the evidence. Te best advice in these latter cases is simply to ask yourself something very general and vague such as “What’s the point of all this?” or, as suggested previously, “What the heck is going on?” Once you have a candidate, now see whether it explains some of the data in the argument. If it doesn’t seem to, you might want to look for another candidate as the argu- ment’s conclusion. Two other general comments are appropri- ate here. First, don’t get discouraged. Tis is hard stuf. It will get easier and more natural as you get more experience using the recipe. And second, there will be times when you fail to discover a conclusion to begin your schema- tization because the passage of prose in front of you is not an argument in the frst place. We obviously use language do lots of things—make simple assertions, push people’s buttons, or sim- ply vent—stating an argument is only one use of language. Find the Relevant Evidence In Te Adventure of the Dancing Men , we learned a lot of stuf. Holmes enjoyed playing with Wat- son’s head. Mr. Cubitt was “a tall, ruddy, clean shaven gentleman.” And that Inspector Martin was a “dapper little man, with a quick, alert manner and a waxed moustache.” Tis is just good literary technique. Tere’s also the impor- tant information at the end of the story when Slaney is arrested and confesses. But these data are only tangential to solving the murder. Te data in e 1 through e 12 , however, are crucial to understanding what happened, and all of it should be included in a complete schematization of the argument.