Skip to content

Course 13 · Lesson 3.2

Finding premises and conclusions in ordinary writing

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 13 outline

Module 1: What Apologetics Is and Is Not

  1. The word apologia and 1 Peter 3:15 in context
  2. Paul and the apostles giving reasons: Acts 17 and Acts 26
  3. What apologetics is for: defense, clarification and invitation
  4. What apologetics cannot do: conversion, certainty and the work of the Spirit

Module 2: Four Methods of Apologetics

  1. Classical apologetics: first God, then Christ
  2. Evidential apologetics: the weight of historical evidence
  3. Presuppositional apologetics: starting from Christian premises
  4. Cumulative-case apologetics: many lines of support
  5. Comparing the methods and choosing among them

Module 3: Logic and Argument Construction

  1. What an argument is and is not
  2. Finding premises and conclusions in ordinary writing
  3. Deductive arguments and validity
  4. Soundness, inductive strength and abductive reasoning
  5. Mapping an argument step by step

Module 4: Evidence, Inference and the Burden of Proof

  1. Who carries the burden of proof, and when
  2. Types of evidence: testimony, documents, experience and background knowledge
  3. From evidence to conclusion: inference and its pitfalls
  4. Common fallacies and how to spot them fairly

Module 5: Fair Argument: Steelmanning, Rebuttal and Humility

  1. Steelmanning: restating an opposing argument at its strongest
  2. Rebuttal, counterargument and defeaters
  3. Intellectual humility and the limits of what you know
  4. Speaking with gentleness and respect: tone, listening and honesty

Module 6: Faith and Reason

  1. Faith and reason in the Fathers: Tertullian, Augustine and Anselm
  2. Aquinas and the harmony of faith and reason
  3. Pascal, Kierkegaard and the limits of argument
  4. Reformed epistemology and properly basic belief

All courses

Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 3.2

What you will learn

  • Locate the conclusion and premises in a paragraph of ordinary prose.
  • Use indicator words and the question, what is this writer trying to show, to find the main point.
  • Identify and state unstated (implicit) premises fairly.
  • Rewrite a paragraph as a numbered argument in standard form.

The big idea

Real writing rarely presents arguments in neat order. Conclusions may come first or last, premises may be scattered among illustrations and asides, and some of the reasoning may never be written at all. The skill of finding premises and conclusions is the skill of asking what the writer wants the reader to accept and why. Once this is clear, the argument can be set out in a numbered list, where it can be checked step by step, and where the missing assumptions become visible.

Key terms

Standard form
A way of writing an argument as a numbered list of premises followed by the conclusion, each in a plain statement.
Main conclusion
The final claim the whole passage aims to establish.
Intermediate conclusion
A claim that is supported by earlier premises and then used as a premise for a later conclusion.
Implicit premise
A premise that the argument depends on but that the writer leaves unstated, often because it seems obvious. It is also called a suppressed or hidden premise.
Indicator word
A word or phrase that signals a premise or a conclusion, such as because or therefore.
Paraphrase
Restating a sentence in simpler words without changing its meaning.
Charity
The habit of reading an argument in the strongest reasonable way before criticizing it.

Background

In a textbook, arguments are short and tidy. In a sermon, essay or conversation they are not. A writer may open with the conclusion, illustrate it with a story, return to it with a quotation and finish by pressing it on the reader. Another writer may conceal the conclusion and only hint at it. Finding the argument is therefore a matter of reading with attention and judgment.

The apostle Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 is a good ancient example. It is a real piece of reasoning in a letter, written to people who had a specific question. It is used here only to show how an argument can be traced in ordinary text, and the conclusions about what Paul meant belong to a later study.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Ask what the writer wants you to accept

Begin by asking what the passage as a whole is trying to show. This is the main conclusion. Often it is stated in the first or last sentences, but not always. Try completing the sentence, the writer wants the reader to believe that. If you cannot finish it, perhaps the passage is a description or an explanation and not an argument.

Then look for the reasons. Ask of each sentence, is this offered in support of something? Sentences that give no support, such as illustrations, transitions and expressions of feeling, may be set aside for now. They can still matter in other ways.

Step 2: Use indicator words, but with care

Words such as therefore, thus, so and hence often introduce a conclusion. Words such as because, since, for and given that often introduce a premise. Phrases such as it follows that and this shows that also point to a conclusion. These words are good clues, but they can mislead. The word since can mean because, or it can refer to time. The word so can introduce a conclusion or simply continue a story.

Many arguments have no indicators at all. In such cases the logic of the passage must guide you. Ask which statement would make sense as the support for which.

Step 3: Trace a chain of reasoning

Many passages contain more than one step. The first conclusion becomes a premise for the next. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, reasons in this way. He says that some in Corinth claim there is no resurrection of the dead. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, then preaching and faith are empty and the apostles are false witnesses. So if there is no resurrection of the dead, the faith is empty.

Set out in a simple form, the steps are visible. Each step uses a conditional claim of the form, if this, then that. The passage shows a general point: arguments can chain, and a conclusion in the middle may serve as a premise later.

Step 4: Supply implicit premises fairly

Most arguments leave something unsaid. The writer says that the Gospels were written by people who knew Jesus, so they are reliable. This depends on an implicit premise, that people who knew Jesus would report him accurately. The task is to state the missing premise in the way the writer would accept, and then to ask whether it is true.

There are two dangers. One is to supply a premise that is so weak that it makes the argument look foolish. The other is to supply one that is so strong that the argument becomes unrealistically good. The test is whether the writer would say, yes, that is what was assumed. If the author is not available, choose the premise that a thoughtful defender of the view would accept.

Step 5: Write it in standard form

Once the parts are found, write them as a numbered list. Number each premise, draw a line, and put the conclusion below. Use short, plain statements. Replace pronouns with the names they stand for, and put similar ideas into the same words each time. A common error is to use a word in one sense in one premise and in another sense in a second premise.

Standard form makes disagreement exact. Instead of saying the argument is wrong, a critic can say that premises one and three are accepted but premise two is doubted. That is a useful kind of disagreement, since it points to what must be examined.

  1. What question helps you find the main conclusion of a passage?
  2. What are two indicator words for a conclusion and two for a premise?
  3. Why can the word since be misleading?
  4. What is the difference between a main conclusion and an intermediate conclusion?
  5. How do you decide whether to add an implicit premise, and which one?
  6. Why is it useful to rewrite an argument in numbered form?

Examples

A short paragraph in standard form

A pastor writes: The church should hold a food drive in November because many families in the neighborhood go hungry before the holidays, and the church has volunteers and a hall. In standard form: (1) Many families in the neighborhood go hungry before the holidays. (2) The church has volunteers and a hall. (3) Therefore, the church should hold a food drive in November. An implicit premise is that a church ought to help the hungry when it can.

A chain from Paul

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul reasons that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. He adds that if Christ has not been raised, faith is in vain. A student writes: (1) If there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised. (2) If Christ has not been raised, faith is in vain. (3) Therefore, if there is no resurrection of the dead, faith is in vain. This is only a part of Paul’s argument.

No indicator words

The skeptic says: The universe is vast and old. Humans appeared very recently. A loving God would have made humans earlier. No signal words appear, but the passage is plainly an argument against belief in a loving God. The first two sentences are premises, the third is a premise that depends on an unstated assumption about what love would do, and the conclusion is unwritten. A good reader makes this explicit.

Different perspectives

Scholastic method (Catholic and Orthodox heirs)

Medieval writers such as Aquinas trained students to state objections and replies in precise form, with the premises of each side set out in order. The goal was to examine the strongest version of a view, even one the writer rejected.

Protestant biblical interpreters

Many Protestant interpreters teach students to trace the argument of a New Testament letter, especially Paul’s, by following the logic of each paragraph. This practice, sometimes called thought-flow analysis, treats the letters as sustained reasoning and not as collections of isolated verses.

Modern informal logic

Textbooks in informal logic teach the reconstruction of arguments from ordinary language. They stress the principle of charity and the importance of seeking the best reading before criticizing.

Rhetoricians

Students of rhetoric point out that arguments in real life also work by tone, story and trust, and that a logical outline does not capture everything a speech does. Logic and rhetoric are both needed to understand persuasion.

Why it matters

Almost everything a student will read in apologetics, whether in favor of Christianity or against it, appears in prose and not in tidy lists. Without the skill of finding premises and conclusions, it is easy to answer something the writer never said. With it, a reader can see exactly where an argument is strong and where it relies on an unstated assumption. The skill also improves writing, since one learns to put the main claim and its reasons where they can be seen.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The conclusion is always the last sentence.

Correction: It may come first, in the middle or never be stated. Look for the claim the passage is trying to support.

Misunderstanding: Every because or therefore marks an argument.

Correction: Indicator words are clues, not proof. Some uses of since and so have nothing to do with reasoning. Check what the sentence is doing.

Misunderstanding: Adding an unstated premise is putting words in the writer’s mouth.

Correction: It can be, if done carelessly. Done fairly, it makes the writer’s assumptions visible so that they can be tested, and it is a courtesy to the writer.

Misunderstanding: If an argument cannot be put in standard form, there is no argument.

Correction: Some arguments are loosely written or hard to reconstruct. The effort of trying is useful in itself, and a failure may show that the passage needs clarification.

Knowledge check

What is the first question to ask when looking for the conclusion of a passage?

Ask what the writer wants the reader to accept, or what the passage as a whole is trying to show. That claim is the main conclusion. If there is no such claim, the passage may be a description, an explanation or a collection of assertions instead of an argument.

What is an implicit premise?

An implicit premise is a statement that the argument depends on but that the writer does not state, usually because it seems obvious. Good reconstruction states it in the form the writer would accept, so that the argument can be evaluated fairly.

What is an intermediate conclusion?

It is a claim that is supported by earlier premises and is then used as a premise in a later step. In a chain of reasoning, such as Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15, a middle conclusion links the first claim to the final one.

Why should an argument be written in standard form?

Standard form lists the premises and conclusion as numbered, plain statements. This shows exactly what is claimed, makes hidden assumptions visible and allows a critic to point to the specific premise in dispute, which makes discussion more precise.

What two errors should one avoid when supplying a missing premise?

One should not supply a premise so weak that it makes the argument look foolish, and one should not supply one so strong that the argument looks better than the writer made it. The test is whether the writer or a thoughtful defender would accept the premise as stated.

Think it through

  1. Take a paragraph you wrote recently. Is its main conclusion stated clearly?
  2. When someone argues with you, how often do you restate their argument before replying?
  3. What implicit premises do you often rely on when you talk about faith?
  4. Why might a writer hide a conclusion?

Independent assignment

Reconstruct a passage

In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Read 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 in the King James Version. Write out the argument in standard form with numbered premises and conclusions, marking any intermediate conclusion. Note any implicit premises you had to add. Then write a paragraph on what you learned about Paul’s reasoning from setting it out this way. Keep this for yourself.

Further study