1.2 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions: The Language of Reasoning

The core structure: an argument = a set of reasons (premises) offered in support of a conclusion. The arguer's claim is the conclusion; the support is the reason. Everything in critical thinking hangs on telling them apart.Signal words (the indicator map):• Conclusion indicators — therefore, thus, hence, so, it follows that, we may conclude, inconsequence, which shows that;• Reason (premise) indicators — because, since, as, for, inasmuch as, owing to, the reason isthat, in view of.But beware: these words are clues, not laws — "since" can mark time ("since 2015"), "because" can explain (see below).Writing arguments in standard form (the technique):P1: The contract required delivery by 15 Jestha. P2: Delivery occurred on 30 Jestha. C: The contract was breached. Number premises (P1, P2…), state the conclusion (C) last, add unstated premises in brackets. Standard form is the lawyer's X-ray of any argument — use it on judgments and on your own drafts.Three distinctions that carry marks:1. Argument vs explanation — an argument proves a claim (why believe it?); an explanation accounts for an accepted fact (why did it happen?). "He breached because he was insolvent" explains; "He breached, for the delivery was late" argues.2. Argument vs opinion/dispute — an opinion without reasons is a preference; a dispute without reasons cannot be resolved. The court wants arguments.3. Reasons vs rationalisation —…