🍪🍪🍪

I noticed a repeating pattern of argument structure that some may find useful. I call the form "Cost Benefit”, below I will discuss how it functions and why it matters.

The argument structure offers one benefit as a premise and concludes from this that the benefit is compelling to make a statement about the original “thing” being good overall.

Let me give an example:

The Dirt Devil vacuum cleaner has the most efficient suction system out of any vacuum on the market, moreover, the Dirt Devil is the most cost effective option on the market. Therefore if you are in the market for a vacuum, look no further than the Dirt Devil.

Here our premise holds 2 benefits (most efficient suction system, most cost effective) out to conclude that the Dirt Devil is the best to buy.

The assumption here and with every “Cost Benefit” argument is that there is not a cost being overlooked that outweighs these benefits.

So,

To Weaken such an argument: Introduce a cost that may outweigh the benefit

To Strengthen: Block out the possibility of potential costs, introduce another benefit, or emphasize the importance/relevance of the benefit.

Additionally, this argument structure is often used for Necessary Assumption questions. The NA simply stating something to the effect of: “The benefit is not outweighed by certain costs” or “The benefit is not unimportant to making a judgement about the original thing”.

The “Cost Benefit” argument also has another cookie cutter form. It uses a cost as a premise and then concludes that something is not good or we should not do something. This argument structure works the same way as the above one, except the assumption is that there is not an overriding benefit.

Cookie cutter arguments matter because patterns of reasoning are finite and LSAC re uses many of the same forms, just dressed up with confusing subject matter. For example to make a “Cost Benefit” argument more difficult, they may make the subject matter abstract or create an argument that makes perfect sense intuitively.

Boiling questions down to empirical structure is like distilling their blue prints and from there you can think about how new questions may spawn from them. Hopefully this is helpful, if so I will make some similar posts in the future!