Section 2: Moving on — Diagramming
Diagramming is a way of showing how claims relate to one another. An argument can contain many claims serving different purposes:
Some of them are reasons leading to the conclusion;
One or more of them will state conclusions, and
Some of them may be there simply as background information or comments. These are called extra claims.
Example of claims: 1) We are nearly finished with this project. 2) All of the information has been entered. 3) All of the objections have been answered. 4) This is the way to wrap up a project.
The argument: Because 2) all of the information has been entered. Because 3) all of the objections have been answered. Therefore 1) We are nearly finished with this project. Notice that 4) is not part of the argument. It offers no support for the conclusion. It is simply an extra claim.
In an argument, there are three ways that premise claims relate to the conclusion.
The claims converge separately on the conclusion,
The claims link together and then lead to the conclusion,
The claims form a chain that leads to the conclusion.
If the premise claims don’t do any of these things, they are not part of the argument; they are extra claims, which may give background information, or offer explanations. They are not included in a diagram.
To diagram an argument, begin by numbering the claims in the order in which they appear in the statement, then build the diagram from there. The first eight pages of Chapter 7 in the text give more information on diagramming.
Independent Convergent Claims
These claims converge on the conclusion. Convergent claims always show an inductive argument.
Like fans mobbing a rock star—Each fan is separate—All are moving toward the rock star.
Example:
(1) Cocaine is addictive, and (2) it is illegal, so (3) you shouldn’t use it.
Analysis:
Two separate and independent reasons not to use cocaine—you could drop one of the reasons and still have an argument.
Diagram
1_________2
/
3
Dependent or Linked Claims
These claims are joined together at the hip—one cannot survive without the other. Linked or dependent claims always show a deductive argument.
Example:
Because Cocaine is a drug, and (2) because drugs are illegal, therefore (3) you shouldn’t use cocaine.
Analysis:
“Cocaine is a drug, and therefore you shouldn’t use it” isn’t much of an argument because we know drugs have a legitimate medical use, so simply saying cocaine is a drug doesn’t prove the point. However, when you link it to the second premise, “drugs are illegal,” we now know we are talking about street drugs—and the conclusion is proven. (Notice that we have correctly applied the principle of charity to this argument.)
Diagram
1 + 2
↓
3
Chained Claims
In a chain argument, the conclusion of one argument serves as the premise for another argument.
Example: (1) If I study for my exam, I’ll do well; (2) If I do well on the exam, I’ll pass the course. Consequently, (3) (thus) If I study, I’ll pass the course.
Notice how the conclusion of (1) “I’ll do well” is the premise of (2). The second argument builds on the first to reach the ultimate conclusion in (3).
Diagram
1
↓
2
↓
3
– Question 1:
This is a learning assessment question.
Diagram the following argument.
Smoking is expensive and unhealthy. It’s foolish to smoke cigarettes. I wouldn’t date anyone who smoked cigarettes.
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram.)
/ → ↓ _________ +.
– Question 2:
This is a learning assessment question.
Diagram the following argument.
In poker, it’s okay to lie and deceive, and business is just like poker, so it’s okay to lie and deceive in business.
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram)
/ → ↓ _________ +
-Question 3:
This is a learning assessment question.
Diagram the following argument.
Every morning, when I wake up, I read a few verses in the Bible, make myself a cup of coffee, and work on the daily crossword puzzle. I am a creature of habit.
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram)
/ → ↓ _________ +
Section 3: Summarizing Long Arguments
Summarizing long arguments is something you will be doing often in your coursework. This skill will also come in useful in both your professional and personal life, beyond college. Professionally, you will need to understand reports and studies relating to healthcare. Personally, you may encounter long articles on subjects of your interest that you will want to understand completely.
Before you can even think of diagramming a long argument, you need to summarize it. Before you can even begin to summarize it, you need to understand it.
While diagramming is a helpful tool, the most important skill is that of summarization. Being able to summarize means you can identify reasons and conclusions, and that means you “get” the meaning of the passage, whether it is an argument or an explanation.
Step 1: Read the text for understanding.
Don’t skimp on this step. It is the most important and essential one. That doesn’t necessarily mean reading every word, and it doesn’t necessarily mean a deep understanding. What you need at this stage is to come away with:
a sense of the author’s topic
the issue (question) about the topic that the author is addressing
the author’s answer to that question, and
at least an idea of what the author’s reasons are.
Step 2: Find the conclusion—or conclusions.
In long arguments, there may be more than one conclusion. Sometimes, a long argument is a series of shorter arguments that build on each other to a final, overall conclusion. Sometimes, an author will use a set of facts to support two different conclusions.
Step 3: Look for the reasons.
This can be like a treasure hunt because authors don’t always give you a neat string of “because.”
Step 4: Summarize the argument and make a final diagram to check your understanding.
Example
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859/2023) is about 500 pages long. Fortunately, Darwin himself summarizes his argument in Chapter 14. That summary can be further summarized and diagrammed, using the method described here.
As this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and inferences briefly recapitulated.
That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the conclusion more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that because: gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that because: all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, — and, lastly, that because: there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. (Darwin, 1859, Asscher & Widger, 2023, Chapter XIV section, paras 1-2)
Summarization
(1) Because gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind and
(2) Because all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, and
(3) Because there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. and
(4) Therefore, more complex organs and instincts have been perfected by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.
1 2 3
| /
4
The summary and diagram reveal the structure of Darwin’s argument and show it to be inductive informed.
Reference
Darwin, C. (2023). On the origin of species (S. Asscher & D. Widger). Project Gutenberg. (Original work published 1859). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h…
– Question 4:
This is a learning assessment question.
Summarize and diagram the following argument using symbols for your diagram.
Scientific tests do not support astrology’s claims. A claim commonly made by astrologers is that a person’s sun sign strongly influences their choice of a career. Many astrologers claim, for example, that Leos tend to become politicians. To test such claims, scientist John D. McGervey looked at the birth dates of 16,634 scientists and 6,475 politicians. He found no correlation between the sun sign and either of these two career choices. Studies of some sixty other careers and occupations found no correlation between astrological signs and choice of profession. (Cluver & Ianna, 1984, pp. 127–129)
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram)
/ → ↓ _________ +
Reference
Culver, R. B., & Inna, P. A. (1984). The Gemini syndrome: A scientific evaluation of astrology. Prometheus Books
-Question 5:
This is a learning assessment question.
Summarize and diagram the following argument using symbols for your diagram.
Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well-being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. … whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. (Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 1993)
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram)
/ → ↓ _________ +
Reference
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22-23 (1993). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/510/…
-Question 6:
This is a learning assessment question.
Summarize and diagram the following argument using symbols for your diagram.
Now the medical man (doctor) who sees the patient only once a day or even only once or twice a week, cannot possibly tell this without the assistance of the patient himself, or of those who are in constant observation on the patient. The utmost the medical man can tell is whether the patient is weaker or stronger at this visit than he was at the last visit. I should therefore say that incomparably the most important office of the nurse, after she has taken care of the patient’s air, is to take care to observe the effect of his food, and report it to the medical attendant. (Nightingale, 1860, VII. What Food? section)
(copy and paste the symbols you need for the diagram)
/ → ↓ _________ +
Reference
Nightingale, F. (1860). Notes on nursing: What it is, and what it is not. https://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/nightingal…
Section 6: Assessing the Logical Strength and Relevance of the Argument
Does the argument have logical strength? Are the premises relevant to the issue and conclusion of the argument?
Logical strength is simply about whether or not the premises (reasons) supply support for the conclusion. The stronger the support, the stronger the argument. So, the question is, do the claims “add it”?
Ask first: Is the speaker trying to prove her/his conclusion, or is she/he simply saying that her/his conclusion is more probable than not?
Ask second: If she/he is trying to prove her/his point, do the premises link together in such a way that her/his conclusion necessarily follows? Or, is the speaker merely saying that her/his conclusion is more probable than not? Either way, do the premises support the speaker’s conclusion?
Ask third: Are the premises (reasons) relevant to the issue and to the conclusion?
Ask fourth: Is the argument circular? (This is a tough one because it is also called “begging the question”— which is quite confusing. Keep it simple—just ask yourself if the reasons are true only if the conclusion is true—that’s a circular argument.)
-Question 7:
This is a learning assessment question.
Summarize and evaluate the following argument.
For-profit hospices do not focus on the best interests of their patients. In one study assessing the impact of ownership status on care provided to patients, researchers found that patients receiving care from for-profit hospices received a narrower range of services than patients from non-profit hospices. The narrower range of services meant that patients with for-profit hospices were not receiving as much counseling services, medications, and personal care. (Carlson et al., 2004)
Reference
Carlson, M. D., Gallo, W. T., & Bradley, E. H. (2004). Ownership status and patterns of care in hospice: results from the National Home and Hospice Care Survey. Medical Care, 42(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000124246.86156.54 -Read the instructions and questions carefully and answer the questions correctly.
– NO PLAGIARISM should be found
– Please answer the questions within an hour
– there are a total of 7 questions, please answer all of the correctly.
– be careful with the diagram questions
– answers the questions briefly only
– lmk if you have any questions