Should the statement "for, since, and because, introduce premises and you will find the conclusion present in the same sentence" just be completely disregarded- like not too much thought put into it.
"Did you miss me? We're making the assumption(s) that you miss me, that hugging is a thing that one does to another person when they miss them, that I do not mind being hugged?"
something i've found to be really helpful when im confused which part before or after "because" or "since" is the argument (or if it is even an argument at all) is substituting in the word "therefore"
i could take "Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated" and switch it to:
"Poseidon is furious, therefore his temple was desecrated" but this makes no sense
so then alternatively:
"his temple was desecrated, therefore Poseidon was furious"
ive found in most cases, if i am really tripped up about which part is the conclusion/premise, this format simplifies it down enough to where i can pick out the conclusion!
so to identify a conclusion with a for, since, or because (which often have both premise +concl.) it'll appear either A. before the above indicators, or B. after the indicators seperated by a comma after the premise part?
Why is it true that Poseidon is furious? Because his temple was desecrated. Here is a bit more, because I know the Poseidon example is a bit annoying:
Poseidon being furious is a state of mind, one that cannot necessarily be posed as fact. His emotion is speculative as a statement alone, therefore the author is offering the argument to prove Poseidon’s emotion. The author is positing the Poseidon must be furious because his temple was desecrated.
How is "I'm hugging you because I miss you" not an argument? I thought about it like, "I'm hugging you, and why?" - because I miss you. Isn't the "I miss you" supporting why I am hugging that person?
@shay_lsat "I'm hugging you" describes an action, not a belief. The main difference lies between an argument and an explanation. By saying "I'm hugging you because I miss you" the author is not trying to make you believe or convince you, rather they are explaining an action.
The way I thought about it was, "could someone argue that I am not hugging you?" No, because its an irrefutable action, and the fact that "I miss you" is just an explanation. If I had said "Everyone should hug someone they haven't seen in a while because they missed them," then I am trying to convince you of why an action should occur (argument), not explain why I am doing something (explanation).
So because I am a little nervous of confusing these words when they DON'T signify premises, is it true I can ALWAYS ask "why" to the premise and if there is a why answered it must make sense? For instance, "I'm hugging you because I miss you." You can ask "why do you miss me" and the answer is "because I am hugging you".. this doesn't make sense so it is not a premise. Can this logic work for all cases?
"Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated." Why is this an argument and not an explanation? Maybe we aren't trying to prove posideon was angry, just explain why.
Here is how I am thinking about it, a conclusion is a claim being asserted as true, the premise supports this claim. Since "I'm hugging you" is not a claim being asserted as true, it cannot be a conclusion, so it is not an argument.
Still don't really understand why the hugging example isn't an argument. I guess it might depend on the context, but my initial reading of it made it seem like the author was trying to persuade the listener WHY they were hugging them, not that they were hugging them at all. In that case, I feel it would definitely classify as an argument, no?
If the author is genuinely just explaining why they are hugging, I suppose that doesn't have to be an argument, but isn't it bad practice to just assume that or read that in to the text when it might not be present?
@Sameer_Ahamad I disagree. If you were to try and make it an argument, I would say that "I miss you" is the conclusion. --> I'm trying to persuade you that "I miss you. " (conclusion)
"Why should I believe that?"
"Well, I'm hugging you. " (premise/evidence)
If you d it the other way around, it doesn't make much sense for "I miss you" to be evidence/premise for a conclusion of "I'm hugging you."
I don’t understand how the hugging example isn’t and argument. I identify when I say “why should I believe conclusion because premises “ and using this same logic why should I believe I miss you because I’m hugging you. It’s definitely a weak one but an argument nonetheless no?
Update I read some reply but I’m still confused if someone is trying to prove the miss you by hugging doesn’t that make it the structure of an argument
I may be wrong but it almost feels like more of a claim than an argument. Now if it was a bit more fleshed out and lets say... it was "We spend a lot of time away from one another. When I have an extended period of time away from you, it makes me miss you. I tend to hug when I miss someone. Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." would make it an argument.
@a.ugonna Sorry I'm late, but here's what I think about it. I think that for those statements to be considered an argument, the only way for me to see that would be with "It really shouldn’t have caused a long estrangement." as the conclusion. I think that some of the sentences were unnecessary, though, and none really served as premises. There was a potential conclusion, but the lack of premises gave the conclusion no merit and therefore made the set of statements just that: a set of statements. The argument in question, with you seeing the conclusion as "Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." makes sense, but it's implied that the incident with the toothpaste flecks on the mirror is not a reasonable means for a breakup or seperation, and I think that this statement overshadows the grounds for any other potential argument.
78 comments
So to make "I'm hugging you because I miss you." into an argument does there need to be a 2nd premise that says "I hug people that I miss"?
@StephenKim was thinking the same thing that this actually could be an argument lol
lawdaddy420
Should the statement "for, since, and because, introduce premises and you will find the conclusion present in the same sentence" just be completely disregarded- like not too much thought put into it.
I feel like this is making me overthink the concept haha
@kaymamoo same lol
"I'm hugging you because I miss you"
"Did you miss me? We're making the assumption(s) that you miss me, that hugging is a thing that one does to another person when they miss them, that I do not mind being hugged?"
something i've found to be really helpful when im confused which part before or after "because" or "since" is the argument (or if it is even an argument at all) is substituting in the word "therefore"
i could take "Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated" and switch it to:
"Poseidon is furious, therefore his temple was desecrated" but this makes no sense
so then alternatively:
"his temple was desecrated, therefore Poseidon was furious"
ive found in most cases, if i am really tripped up about which part is the conclusion/premise, this format simplifies it down enough to where i can pick out the conclusion!
i hope this helps!
They are special BECAUSE the conclusion is present in the same sentence.
so to identify a conclusion with a for, since, or because (which often have both premise +concl.) it'll appear either A. before the above indicators, or B. after the indicators seperated by a comma after the premise part?
Toothpaste XD
The tread on my tires is starting to hit pavement.
These lessons have been so helpful so far!
im starting to cook
Why is it true that Poseidon is furious? Because his temple was desecrated. Here is a bit more, because I know the Poseidon example is a bit annoying:
Poseidon being furious is a state of mind, one that cannot necessarily be posed as fact. His emotion is speculative as a statement alone, therefore the author is offering the argument to prove Poseidon’s emotion. The author is positing the Poseidon must be furious because his temple was desecrated.
How is "I'm hugging you because I miss you" not an argument? I thought about it like, "I'm hugging you, and why?" - because I miss you. Isn't the "I miss you" supporting why I am hugging that person?
@shay_lsat "I'm hugging you" describes an action, not a belief. The main difference lies between an argument and an explanation. By saying "I'm hugging you because I miss you" the author is not trying to make you believe or convince you, rather they are explaining an action.
The way I thought about it was, "could someone argue that I am not hugging you?" No, because its an irrefutable action, and the fact that "I miss you" is just an explanation. If I had said "Everyone should hug someone they haven't seen in a while because they missed them," then I am trying to convince you of why an action should occur (argument), not explain why I am doing something (explanation).
@MikeRoss This is super helpful, thank you!
@MikeRoss I was arguing with myself a bit about this one as well, and defaulted to similar logic. There’s no argument for or against the hugging.
So because I am a little nervous of confusing these words when they DON'T signify premises, is it true I can ALWAYS ask "why" to the premise and if there is a why answered it must make sense? For instance, "I'm hugging you because I miss you." You can ask "why do you miss me" and the answer is "because I am hugging you".. this doesn't make sense so it is not a premise. Can this logic work for all cases?
Since my brother ate my leftovers, I am furious at him.
Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the topics and ideas in this section so thank you
"Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated." Why is this an argument and not an explanation? Maybe we aren't trying to prove posideon was angry, just explain why.
since intros premise of argument
con can show up before or after indicator word
conc is free to move but premise is attached to indicator work
im hugging you because i miss you i am not trying to convince you that i am hugging you because i miss you that doesn't make sense
Here is how I am thinking about it, a conclusion is a claim being asserted as true, the premise supports this claim. Since "I'm hugging you" is not a claim being asserted as true, it cannot be a conclusion, so it is not an argument.
Since my dog ate my homework, I am very mad.
Still don't really understand why the hugging example isn't an argument. I guess it might depend on the context, but my initial reading of it made it seem like the author was trying to persuade the listener WHY they were hugging them, not that they were hugging them at all. In that case, I feel it would definitely classify as an argument, no?
If the author is genuinely just explaining why they are hugging, I suppose that doesn't have to be an argument, but isn't it bad practice to just assume that or read that in to the text when it might not be present?
I'm hugging you because I miss you, therefore you should hug me back tightly.
This is now made into an argument because I am trying to persuade you to hug me back tightly because I miss you.
Im hugging you because I miss you.
Premises: Because I miss you.
Conclusion: I am hugging you.
Premises: Because I miss you.
Why should I believe this?
Conclusion: I am hugging you.
Please forgive me for the toothpaste flakes on the mirror.
Can also be an argument as its trying to persuade.
@Sameer_Ahamad I disagree. If you were to try and make it an argument, I would say that "I miss you" is the conclusion. --> I'm trying to persuade you that "I miss you. " (conclusion)
"Why should I believe that?"
"Well, I'm hugging you. " (premise/evidence)
If you d it the other way around, it doesn't make much sense for "I miss you" to be evidence/premise for a conclusion of "I'm hugging you."
I don’t understand how the hugging example isn’t and argument. I identify when I say “why should I believe conclusion because premises “ and using this same logic why should I believe I miss you because I’m hugging you. It’s definitely a weak one but an argument nonetheless no?
Update I read some reply but I’m still confused if someone is trying to prove the miss you by hugging doesn’t that make it the structure of an argument
I may be wrong but it almost feels like more of a claim than an argument. Now if it was a bit more fleshed out and lets say... it was "We spend a lot of time away from one another. When I have an extended period of time away from you, it makes me miss you. I tend to hug when I miss someone. Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." would make it an argument.
@a.ugonna Sorry I'm late, but here's what I think about it. I think that for those statements to be considered an argument, the only way for me to see that would be with "It really shouldn’t have caused a long estrangement." as the conclusion. I think that some of the sentences were unnecessary, though, and none really served as premises. There was a potential conclusion, but the lack of premises gave the conclusion no merit and therefore made the set of statements just that: a set of statements. The argument in question, with you seeing the conclusion as "Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." makes sense, but it's implied that the incident with the toothpaste flecks on the mirror is not a reasonable means for a breakup or seperation, and I think that this statement overshadows the grounds for any other potential argument.