All-Things-Considered Arguments

CRITICAL THINKING ALL-THINGS-CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS (Steven Lee) An all things considered argument is an argument in which the speaker brings up (and addresses) considerations or issues that appear to go against the claim the speaker is trying to establish. For example, if someone is arguing for installing wireless internet in a certain hotel and they bring up the financial cost they are giving an all-things-considered argument. COUNTER CONSIDERATIONS A counter-consideration is the statement of a fact that appears to go against (or give negative support for) the conclusion the speaker is trying to establish. Example 1: Some people claim that (1) potato chips are a gateway junk food, leading to the consumption of more and more junk food. However, (2) this is clearly not the case. In addition, (3a) people love potato chips and (3b) they are a great source of potassium. (4) So we should serve potato chips at all our events. Conclusion: Counter-consideration: Note: Sometimes the conclusion of an ATC argument is implicit. 1 Example 2: (1) It is true that laws that would make it illegal to harm a pet would make the lives of our pets much better. (2) But the creators of our legal system never intended for us to attempt to protect animals by passing laws. (3) And there are other ways of protecting pets. Conclusion: Counter-consideration: RESPONDING TO COUNTERCONSIDERATIONS DEFUSING WITH COUNTER-PREMISES The whole reason for bringing up a counter-consideration in an argument for some claim is to defuse the counter-consideration and thus make the speaker’s argument stronger. This is done using counter-premises. A counter-premise is a premise that argues against a counterconsideration in an ATC argument. METHODS OF DEFUSING We can defuse a counter-consideration in many ways, including by pointing out that it is false, irrelevant to the conclusion, or maybe just insufficient when weighed against the other considerations. In some cases it may be that the counter-consideration actually supports the conclusion. Example 3: Although the counter-consideration counts against the conclusion it is not sufficient to show that the conclusion should not be accepted. 2 COUNTER CONSIDERATIONS AND COUNTER-PREMISES Note: Often the counter-premise is IMPLICIT. That is, the writer introduces the counter-consideration and defuses it, but without explicitly saying what is wrong with the counter-consideration. Example 4: (1) Some people claim that having junk-food in food dispensers, leads to the consumption of more and more junk food. (2) But food dispensers provide an invaluable service in that they make food available to busy people who have no where else to go for food. (3) We should have food dispensers. Conclusion: Counter-consideration: Counter-premise: 3 Note: Often the counter-premise is supported by other premises. Example 5: Context: Letter about the creation of centralized computerized medical databases It is true that (1) the existence of a centralized computerized medical database containing information on each person from life until death would make it easier for patients to transfer information from one doctor to another. However, (2) there are other ways of transferring this information. In addition, (3) the existence of such a database would also make it much easier for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with medical conditions. Conclusion: Counter-consideration: Counter-premise: Support for Counter-premise: TREE DIAGRAMS When constructing a tree diagram of an all-things-considered argument, one must include the counter-premises and their support (if they have any). Since part of the counter-premise is often implicit you may need to reword it. 4 Example 6: Context: Letter about potential seatbelt laws It is true that, (1) in this country, we value personal freedom more than most others. However, (2) because seat-belt laws save lives, their benefits outweigh the costs of any infringement on personal freedom. (3) Seat belt laws also encourage good habits. Conclusion: Counter-consideration: Counter-premise: Example 7: Context: letter about campaign advertising (1) However misleading, campaign advertising offers one of the few unmediated outlets for political candidates. (2) Without advertising, voters in large states would rely almost exclusively on media-filtered glimpses of the candidates. (3) If commercials necessarily rely on sound bites, at least they are of the candidates’ own choosing. –RB-- WITA, #5, p. 525 Conclusion: Counter-consideration: Counter-premise: QUALIFIED CONCLUSIONS 5 • Scope qualifications: “All” vs. “Most,” “Some,” or “Few” All mammals nurse their young. Most mammals nurse their young. • Modal qualifications: “Necessarily” vs. “Certainly,” “Probably,” or “Possibly” • Qualification by Limiting Phrase: “All” vs. “Most,” “Some,” or “Few” 6