Analysing and criticising arguments on the good life: VCE Philosophy
“The skills of identifying premises, support, conclusions and assumptions, and offering criticisms of arguments about the good life”
To analyse an argument: find the conclusion, list the premises that support it, note how each premise is supported, and bring out hidden assumptions. To criticise it: ask whether each premise is true or plausible, whether the premises together actually lead to the conclusion (validity or strength), and whether an unstated assumption does a lot of work. Name exactly which part you target, give a reason and say what follows if the objection succeeds. Then consider the best reply.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
The study design lists key skills: recognise arguments by identifying premises, the support for those premises, conclusions and any assumptions, and offer criticisms by assessing the plausibility of premises and assumptions and showing whether the conclusion follows. This page turns that list into a method.
Step 1: find the conclusion
Look for the claim the author wants you to accept. Indicator words such as 'therefore', 'so' and 'it follows that' often signal it, but in many extracts you must infer it. Ask: what is the author trying to persuade me of?
Step 2: list the premises
Rewrite the supporting claims in plain numbered sentences. Keep them short and make each a claim that could be true or false. Include the support given: an analogy, an example, an appeal to intuition, or an appeal to authority.
Step 3: expose assumptions
An assumption is a claim the argument needs but does not state. Test by asking: if someone accepted all the premises but rejected the conclusion, what would they have to deny? That is often the hidden assumption.
Step 4: assess
Two questions only:
- Are the premises plausible? Consider counterexamples, alternative explanations, ambiguity in key terms.
- Does the conclusion follow? Is the support strong enough? Does the argument shift from one meaning of a word to another?
Step 5: write the criticism
A well-formed criticism has four parts: identify the target (a specific premise or step), state the objection, give a reason or example, and explain the consequence for the argument. Then, to show depth, state a possible reply and your view of it.
Reconstruct and criticise part of Singer's argument.
Reconstruction:
P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
P2. If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to.
P3. Affluent people can prevent such suffering by giving without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.
C. Affluent people ought to give.
Support for P2: the drowning child analogy and the claim that distance is irrelevant.
Assumption: that giving is an effective way to prevent the suffering, and that the cost of giving is small relative to what is at stake. The conclusion also assumes the pond case is a good analogy for global giving.
Criticism: P3 is the weak point. What counts as 'comparable moral importance'? If it includes my commitments to family or my ability to pursue my own projects, then giving often does sacrifice something comparable, and P3 is false. Singer may reply that such sacrifices are rarely of comparable importance to a child's life, which puts the weight on how we measure importance. If this reply is accepted, the argument stands but demands a lot, so the dispute becomes about the standard of comparison and not about the logical form.
Common types of criticism
- Counterexample: a case where the principle gives an implausible result.
- False analogy: a case used to support a conclusion differs in a relevant way from the case at issue.
- Equivocation: one word with two meanings, for example happiness as feeling and as flourishing.
- Unsupported assumption: a needed claim never defended.
- Gap in inference: premises true, but conclusion needs more.
- Self-undermining: the argument conflicts with its own standard.
Practice questions
Identify one assumption in Callicles' argument that self-discipline is incompatible with the good life.
Model answer: He assumes that the good life is simply the satisfaction of desire, so that anything limiting satisfaction is bad. Someone who values order or deep relationships would reject this, so the premise needs defence.
Explain the difference between criticising a premise and criticising an inference.
Model answer: Criticising a premise says a claim in the argument is false or implausible. Criticising an inference accepts the premises but says they do not lead to the conclusion, because the support is too weak or a further premise is needed.
Do not criticise the author's conclusion in general terms ('I disagree'). Marks go to precise targeting: which premise, why it fails and what difference that makes.