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 — reasons aim at truth; rationalisations aim at protecting a prior conclusion. Critical thinking includes self-audit: am I reasoning, or defending?
Cover (hidden) premises: most real arguments leave steps unstated:
"The witness is a convicted perjurer; [honest testimony is unlikely from a convictedperjurer]; the testimony should be treated with caution." Finding the cover premise is the analyst's key move — Unit 2.1 formalises it as assumptions.