00:00 Hi there! 00:01 When we talk, write, or tell a story, 00:04 we want to communicate something. 00:06 Sometimes the information is pretty straightforward 00:09 (as in 1 + 1 = 2), 00:11 but a lot of times, what we share 00:13 is not so straightforward, so we may need to 00:16 argue the point. 00:18 But when someone presents an argument 00:20 you don't simply accept it. 00:22 Or... do you? 00:24 Shouldn't you analyze it to see if it's a sound argument? 00:28 Stick around and let's talk about analyzing the argument. 00:30 [♪] 00:31 [ANALYZING THE ARGUMENT - PART 1] [♫] 00:35 Hi! Welcome to Snap Language. I'm Marc Franco. 00:39 An argument (or a logical argument) 00:41 is a set of ideas put together to support a point. 00:45 For example, this is a very simple argument: 00:47 "You like Japanese food, 00:49 so you'll love this sushi restaurant." 00:51 The claim is that, 00:53 because you like this, you'll also like that. 00:57 But is it a good argument? 01:00 If understand really well what an argument is, 01:03 you can then build arguments that support your ideas 01:06 when you speak or write. 01:08 And of course, when you listen to or read 01:11 someone's arguments, you can also make sure that 01:14 the arguments are well built or convincing. 01:17 [♪] 01:18 To build an argument, you need statements or claims. 01:21 One of these claims is a conclusion; 01:24 the other claims are premises 01:26 (they provide evidence to support your conclusion). 01:30 Let's look at a very simple example: 01:32 "Hawaii has hot weather year round and beautiful beaches, 01:36 so it is the best place for a vacation." 01:41 There are three claims in this argument. 01:43 The main point (or the conclusion) is that Hawaii is 01:47 the best place for a vacation. 01:50 Two premises support this claim: 01:52 (1) Hawaii has hot weather year round, 01:55 and (2) Hawaii has beautiful beaches. 01:59 Let's see how well this argument works. 02:01 What supports the point that Hawaii is the best place 02:04 for a vacation? 02:05 One of the premises (used as evidence) 02:08 is that it's hot there year round. 02:11 Well, if you like hot weather, yes... but... what if you don't? 02:16 And what if you'd rather go skiing? ... 02:18 Hmm... 02:20 The other premise is that Hawaii has beautiful beaches. 02:24 How do you define "beautiful?" Why beaches in Hawaii? 02:28 Aren't there other places in the world with "beautiful" beaches? 02:32 What if you prefer the mountains?... or the city? 02:35 We are not trying prove or disprove that Hawaii is 02:39 a great place for a vacation. 02:41 We're simply analyzing the argument in this example. 02:44 Even if you agree that Hawaii is a great vacation spot, 02:48 you may decide that this argument doesn't make a good case for Hawaii. 02:54 Let's look at another example. See if you can identify the claims, 02:57 and which is presented as the conclusion 03:00 and which are the premises that support that conclusion. 03:04 "Cell phones pose serious risks to their users. 03:07 "Several studies have shown a correlation 03:09 between cell phone use and the development of 03:12 brain tumors (Hardell). 03:14 "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 03:19 classified cell phones as a possible cause of cancer." 03:22 (Pause the video now if you need time 03:24 to identify the claims.) 03:26 [PAUSE] 03:28 Premise 1 is here. 03:30 Premise 2 is here. 03:32 The main point (or the conclusion) is here. 03:35 But wait! Before you swear never to use a cell phone again, 03:39 let's analyze the argument. 03:41 Look at the premises again, and ask questions. 03:44 Are there problems with these premises? 03:47 Is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion? 03:53 Researchers have found a correlation between cell phone use 03:56 and the development of brain tumors. 03:59 How good were these studies? 04:01 A correlation does not mean that cell phones were *the cause.* 04:06 Are there studies maybe that found no correlation? 04:10 The second premise is that they classified cell phones 04:13 as a possible cause of cancer. 04:16 A "possible" cause of cancer means the evidence is not "definitive." 04:20 Did they make that classification based on the same studies 04:24 mentioned in Premise 1? 04:26 If so, this premise is a bit redundant. 04:30 Again, right or wrong, 04:32 we're just analyzing the argument. 04:35 As a critical thinker, 04:36 you must challenge your assumptions 04:38 and other people's assumptions. 04:41 Just because something is in writing 04:43 doesn't mean it's a fact or "the truth." 04:47 Even if a conclusion *is* based on facts, 04:50 it doesn't mean it's a good conclusion. 04:53 You may want to take another look at our video 04:55 about distinguishing fact from opinion 04:57 for more information on this. 04:59 "Snap Language has videos about reading, writing, 05:02 and other topics. 05:04 Knowing how to use the language well 05:05 helps you think critically. 05:08 Therefore; you should subscribe to this channel 05:11 so you can get smarter through language." 05:14 Well, this argument is totally true. 05:17 Totally! 05:18 Well, I'll see you in Part 2... 05:21 For now, thanks for stopping by and watching this video. 05:25 I'm serious, though. Snap Language rocks! 05:28 [♪] 05:29 Bye! 05:29 [♫]