Basics of Logic: Arguments

An argument is a collection of statements arranged in a logical manner to convince

someone of a final statement or conclusion. An argument is valid if the statements
lead to the conclusion. This means that if all the statements are true the conclusion
must be true.
Statement – expressions of fact or opinion
Fact – a statement that has a verifiable truth value (can be either true or false)
Opinion – a statement that has no truth value (the only way to verify that an opinion is
true or false is to ask the person holding that opinion and whether they are lying or
not is not possible to know)
Validity – this refers to the logical structure of the argument. Valid arguments are
arranged in such a way that if the statements are true the conclusion must be true
Ex: If it is raining outside then the ground is wet. It is raining outside, therefore the
ground it wet.
This is a valid argument regardless of whether or not it is raining (ie the truth of the
statements) because of the structure of the argument. A conditional statement has
been established and the necessary and sufficient statements have been met
meaning the conclusion must be true.
 Basics of Logic: Making Arguments

When making an argument you will need arrange your statements in a way that if they
were all true the conclusion must also be true. Here is where opinions get us
confused. An opinion is often used in an argument to try to reach a conclusion.
However since opinions necessitate nothing (meaning nothing MUST follow from an
opinion) they cannot help your argument prove your conclusion.
Ex: The Yankees are the best team in the history of baseball. They have the most fans,
their players are paid the most money and many players want to play for the
Yankees. The Yankees have won the most World Series Titles of any Baseball team.
Although they are not going to win the World Series this year they are still the best
team in the history of baseball because they are my favorite team.

This argument starts with the conclusion “Yankees are the best team in the history of
baseball”. In Blue you will see all the statements of fact (these can be either true or
false) that are used to prove the conclusion. In Red you will see the statement that is
an opinion. The opinion does nothing to support the conclusion. This is because there
is nothing that can logically follow from the opinion.
 Basics of Logic: Writing a good Argument

Unlike our rain example where we know the ground will be wet, with an opinion we can
draw no such conclusions.
EX: I like to go outside when it rains, it’s raining, therefore I would like to go outside.
One could think of dozens of reasons why the conclusion that “I would like to go outside”
would not be true. Opinions are not logical as they do not lead to the conclusions the
way that facts do.

HOW TO WRITE A GOOD ARGUMENT

• Don’t use opinions – these have no logical necessity and will not help support your
conclusion (a Mets fan should be able to reach the same conclusions about a winning
team as a Yankees fan)
• Define your criteria – If you arguing something is “the best” you should first establish
the criteria by which you are determining “the best”. EX: the Best team in Baseball
history in these categories…or the best team ever is the team that hit the most home
runs in a single season (1997 Seattle Mariners).
• Give examples to support your argument
• Consider counter examples or common counter arguments and refute them
 Basics of Logic: Writing a good Argument

Notice how the below example uses no opinions in it’s argument

Di Fara’s Pizza in Brooklyn is the best pizza in NYC. It has all the elements of a great
pizza executed to perfection: thin crispy crust, tomato sauce with well balance acidity
and only slight sweetness, a cheese blend that melts perfectly, imported extra virgin
olive oil and home grown basil sprinkled on the top, cooked in a blazing inferno of a
pizza over and made fresh by hand every day.

There are two ways to argue against this: 1) prove the statements are false (ie: show
evidence that the crust wasn’t thin or crispy) 2) dispute the criteria for best pizza
Method 1 is superficial and does little to actually refute the argument itself.
Method 2 is deeper and shows that the criteria themselves are faulty, meaning that even
if the criteria were executed perfectly, “the best” would still not be achieved.
It’s not about taste preference here. If the author stated “the best pizza is the pizza I like
the most” then we wouldn’t even need to argue it because that would be a matter of
opinion. For it to be a logical argument even if it wasn’t one’s favorite, one would have
to concede that is was “the best” since it satisfies all of the criteria better than others.
But why would anyone not like the best or why would the best not be everyone’s
favorite? Ask a Mets fan.