How do you recognise an argument, tell it apart from other kinds of writing, and set it out in standard form?
Statements, arguments and standard form: distinguishing arguments from explanations, descriptions and assertions, identifying premises and conclusions using indicator words, and rewriting an argument in standard form.
How to recognise an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy, tell it apart from explanations and descriptions, identify the premises and the conclusion using indicator words, and rewrite the argument in standard form ready for analysis.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Arguments in Action begins with a basic skill: spotting an argument and laying it out so it can be analysed. You must be able to tell an argument from an explanation, description or bare assertion, identify which sentences are the premises and which is the conclusion, and rewrite the whole thing in standard form. Every later skill in this area, judging validity, spotting fallacies, weighing acceptability, depends on getting the argument cleanly onto the page first.
Statements, the building blocks
Only statements can be premises or conclusions, because an argument works by claiming that the truth of the premises gives you reason to accept the truth of the conclusion. A rhetorical question often hides a statement ("Surely no one wants war?" asserts that no one wants war), and in standard form you rewrite it as the plain statement it implies.
Arguments versus the things they resemble
An argument offers reasons for a claim that is in doubt. Three things look similar but are not arguments:
- Explanation. Takes a fact already accepted and gives its cause or reason. "The bridge collapsed because the bolts corroded" explains an accepted collapse; it does not argue that the bridge collapsed.
- Description. Reports how something is without offering reasons for any conclusion. "The castle stands on a volcanic crag overlooking the city" describes; it argues nothing.
- Assertion. A claim stated with no supporting reasons. "Taxes are too high" on its own is an assertion; add a reason ("because they discourage work") and it becomes the conclusion of an argument.
Indicator words
Indicator words are the quickest route into a passage, though they are clues, not guarantees.
- Premise indicators: because, since, for, as, given that, the reason is, firstly.
- Conclusion indicators: therefore, so, thus, hence, consequently, it follows that, which shows that.
In "Since all metals conduct electricity, and copper is a metal, copper conducts electricity", "since" flags the premises and the unflagged final clause is the conclusion. Beware that "since" and "as" can also mean "because of time" rather than "for the reason that", so always check the sense.
Standard form
Standard form is the tidy layout philosophers use to expose an argument's structure:
- List each premise on its own line, numbered P1, P2, P3.
- State the conclusion last, marked C or preceded by "therefore".
- Remove repetition, rhetorical flourishes, examples used only for colour, and any background that is not doing logical work.
- Make hidden statements explicit, including an unstated premise the argument assumes, so the reasoning is complete.
The point is that once an argument is in standard form you can see exactly what is claimed and test whether the premises really support the conclusion.
Examples in context
Take the passage: "You should learn a second language. It improves your job prospects, and besides, it is good for the brain. Why would anyone pass that up?" The final rhetorical question adds no premise, so it is dropped. In standard form: P1 Learning a second language improves your job prospects. P2 Learning a second language is good for the brain. C Therefore you should learn a second language. The argument is now ready to test: are the premises acceptable, relevant and sufficient for the conclusion? Notice we kept only the two reasons and the claim they support.
Try this
Q1. Why can a question never be a premise or a conclusion? [2 marks]
- Cue. Premises and conclusions must be statements, sentences that are true or false, and a question is neither true nor false.
Q2. Give one premise indicator and one conclusion indicator, and say what each signals. [2 marks]
- Cue. "Because" (or since, for) signals a premise, a reason being offered; "therefore" (or so, thus) signals the conclusion, the claim being supported.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA Higher (P1)4 marksRewrite the following passage in standard form, identifying the premises and the conclusion.Show worked answer →
The Arguments in Action paper rewards setting an argument out in standard form, numbering each premise and clearly marking the conclusion. You earn marks for selecting only the reasons and the claim they support, leaving out repetition and background.
Suppose the passage is: "Capital punishment should be abolished. After all, it risks executing the innocent, and no civilised state should take that risk." In standard form this becomes: P1 Capital punishment risks executing the innocent. P2 No civilised state should take the risk of executing the innocent. C Therefore capital punishment should be abolished. Notice the conclusion was stated first in the passage but is placed last in standard form, and the indicator phrase "after all" flagged the premises that follow.
SQA Higher (P1)3 marksExplain the difference between an argument and an explanation, with an example of each.Show worked answer →
Marks are awarded for a clear distinction plus a correct example of each. State that an argument offers premises as reasons to accept a conclusion that is in doubt, whereas an explanation takes an accepted fact and gives its cause or reason.
Example of an argument: "The streets are wet, so it must have rained" - the wet streets are evidence offered for the disputed claim that it rained. Example of an explanation: "The streets are wet because it rained" - here that it rained is already accepted, and the rain is given as the cause. The same sentence shape can do either job, so you judge by asking whether the conclusion is being supported (argument) or accounted for (explanation).
Related dot points
- Deductive validity and soundness: the meaning of validity (the conclusion must follow if the premises are true), the meaning of soundness (valid plus all premises actually true), and why a valid argument can have a false conclusion and a true conclusion can come from an invalid argument.
How SQA Higher Philosophy defines deductive validity and soundness: validity as a guarantee that true premises force a true conclusion, soundness as validity plus true premises, and why truth and validity are separate ideas you must not confuse.
- Valid and invalid argument forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, the disjunctive and hypothetical syllogisms; the formal fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and using the counterexample method to expose an invalid form.
The standard valid argument forms in SQA Higher Philosophy (modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive and hypothetical syllogism) and the invalid forms (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent), with the counterexample method for proving an argument invalid.
- Inductive arguments and reliability: how induction differs from deduction, the main inductive patterns (generalisation from a sample, argument from analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and the criteria that make an inductive argument reliable or weak.
How SQA Higher Philosophy treats inductive reasoning: the difference between induction and deduction, the main inductive forms (generalisation, analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and what makes an inductive argument reliable rather than weak.
- Fallacies: the formal fallacies (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent) and the common informal fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, begging the question, hasty generalisation and others), with how to identify and explain each.
The fallacies SQA Higher Philosophy expects you to recognise: the formal fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, and the common informal fallacies such as ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, begging the question and hasty generalisation.
- Evaluating arguments: judging the premises for acceptability, judging the premises for relevance to the conclusion, judging whether the premises are sufficient to support the conclusion, and applying the principle of charity when interpreting an argument.
How to evaluate an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy using the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, how these criteria connect to validity and soundness, and why the principle of charity matters when interpreting an argument.
- The course assessment: the structure of the externally marked question papers covering Arguments in Action, Knowledge and Doubt and Moral Philosophy, the command words used, and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.
An overview of how SQA Higher Philosophy is assessed: the externally marked question papers across the three areas of study, the command words (explain, analyse, evaluate), and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.