The following critical analysis provides an
example of the explanations of argument and argument analysis
as they appear in the Read section.
Example
Some monkeys have been taught to talk, using sign
language and computers. This fact proves that monkeys can successfully
employ concepts. Monkeys also display a wide range of emotions,
from frustration to humor to depression. In addition, monkeys
have been taught behaviors which were not previously thought possible
for them to learn. Thus, we can no longer claim, as did Aristotle,
that reasoning is a uniquely human faculty. Times have changed.
- Premise 1: Some monkeys have been taught to talk,
using sign language and computers.
- Premise 2: Monkeys can successfully employ concepts.
- Conclusion: We can no longer claim...that
reasoning is a uniquely human faculty.
A Critical Analysis
Premise 2 can be seen as a conclusion or implication
drawn on premise 1. That is, the claim that monkeys can employ
concepts is supported by the claim that monkeys have been taught
to talk. The reasoning here is that "talking" presupposes
having concepts.
This is reasonable, so the truth of premise 2 depends
upon the strength of premise 1. The word "talk" in premise
1 implies oral exchange (speech), so that it should be replaced
with a more general term such as "communicate." This
is a minor flaw.
If Premise 1 is to justify the claim that monkeys
can employ concepts, then it must be understood so as to eliminate
the possibility that the use of sign language and computers by
the monkeys is not just a matter of stimulus response, like the
rat and the bell. This is a major technical and philosophical
consideration. More specific detail about the monkeys' use of
sign language and computers is needed; otherwise the argument
begs the question: Is this behavior properly called "communicating"
in the sense in which reasoning is implied?
Another question that needs to be answered here
is "does reasoning as we conceive it or as Aristotle conceived
it require more than what is implied here that monkeys can do?"
If so, then the argument is significantly weakened. If the assumption
is correct that monkeys employ concepts when using sign language
or responding through computers and if it can be further demonstrated
that they are able to solve problems by the use of conceptual
abstractions, then the argument is sound and profoundly significant.
One implication of the conclusion, if it is true,
is that our treatment of monkeys (and other relevantly similar
creatures) would need to be reviewed and altered, since our present
treatment of such animals is partly justified by and explained
in terms of their being the kind of creature that cannot reason.
But if they can be shown to reason, they may be entitled to, for
example, certain civil rights, including the right not to be unjustly
imprisoned in zoos. It doesn't follow, however, that they should
be allowed to vote, buy alcohol or attend community college.
Note: A disciplined and organized analysis of an
argument is more effective and more likely to be thorough than
a random response. As with the development of any other skill,
the skill of critical thinking, which involves argument analysis
and evaluation, requires (and improves with) practice and experience.
Also, bear in mind that arguments come in a wide range of complexity
from very simple to very complex. One's analysis will also vary
in emphasis, structure and detail depending upon the argument
under review.
