Homepage » Logic » Argument Topics » Arguments and Nonarguments

The Difference Between
Arguments and Nonarguments
and Explanations

1. The Structure of Arguments

   Every argument in formal logic has a structure — every argument in formal logic can be described in terms of this structure:

   1. Premises: statements which give evidence for, or reasons for, accepting the conclusion.

   2. Conclusion: statement which is purported to be established or affirmed on the basis of other statements (the premises).

2. Recognizing Nonargumentative Discourse

   Given that all formal arguments have mostly premise-conclusion structure, then, how do we sort out arguments from other kinds of linguistic behavior?

   1. In effect, we want to distinguish argumentative discourse from other kinds of discourse with which it is often confused.

   2. In order to know what kinds of discourse logical methods of analysis can be applied, we need to learn how to distinguish argumentative discourse from non-argumentative discourse. Typical argumentative “look-a-likes” fall roughly into five assorted areas

      1. Fictional and poetic works: Imaginative literature including poetry, novels, short stories, and “empty” rhetoric do not generally present factual statements since their content is not intended to be about the existing world. (Nevertheless, as we will see, true statements and good arguments occur within fictional works and so can be studied from within a literary point of view.)

      2. Imperative discourse: Language that expresses commands, requests, reminders, and instructions, is used to influence the behavior of others. Although, imperative sentences do not have a truth value per se they can in some circumstances be analyzed in terms of a “logic of commands” briefly characterized below.

      3. Conditional and hypothetical discourse: Statements which are in an “If … then” structure or statements that can be suitably paraphrased into that structure are not, considered by themselves, arguments. Even so, conditional statements, like other statements, can constitute parts of arguments. Logicians distinguish different types of conditional statements.

      4. Various kinds of disagreements: Disputes involving basic differences of belief, attitude, or word use which simply express a difference of opinion do not involve argumentative discourse. However, these kinds of disputes can sometimes be resolved by means of reasoning.

      5. Explanations: When their purpose is not to prove a statement, but to provide understanding, explanations are not arguments. Nevertheless, some arguments function as explanations as discussed below.

   3. The remainder of the notes on the webpage is a brief discussion of these five topics.

3. Distinguishing Arguments from Nonarguments

   1. Fictional works: Since fictional discourse denotes, for the most part, imaginative narrative writing which may draws from everyday life but does not depend on the existence of anything mentioned, fictional works and not accorded truth values. Evaluation of argumentative discourse, as one form of nonfictional discourse depends on a representations of truth and actual circumstances in the world.

      1. Even though fictional works might have a good internal logic, usually there are no argumentative proofs involved in the narrative since the content is essentially imaginative. When logical arguments are present in within the imaginative narrative, they can be logically evaluated within that literary context.

      2. Many fictional works can be assessed for logical consistency in terms of a comprehensive conditional statement:

         If {we assume these characters, circumstances, and particular sequences of events, etc.}, then {such and such statements describing those elements can be envisioned as occurring}.

         This procedure is not unlike the employment of thought-experiments used for explanation or predictions of natural phenomena.

      3. E.g., consider the inferred main point of W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage as depicted by the gift of an old Persian rug:

         “[T]hat was why Cronshaw, he imagined, had given him the Persian rug. As the weaver elaborated his pattern for no end but the pleasure of his æsthetic sense, so might a man live his life … that it made a pattern. … Out of the manifold events of his life, his deeds, his feelings, his thoughts, he might make a design, regular, elaborate, complicated, or beautiful; and though it might be no more than an illusion that he had the power of selection … that did not matter.[1]

         By dint of its intricate design, the rug has no purpose other than itself and so becomes a metaphor of life itself.

      4. Poetry's purpose is not to prove or demonstrate logically, but to appeal to our emotions or our insight:

         “I saddled a red, unbroken colt
         And rode him into the day there;
         And he threw me down like a thunderbolt
         And rolled on me as I lay there.

         The hunter's whistle hummed in my ear
         As the city-men tried to move me,
         And I died in my boots like a pioneer
         With the whole wide sky above me.”[2]

         Stephen Vincent Benét's stanzas, not intended to be literally true and not intended to prove anything, recreates sentiments from the time of the American frontier. To raise the question of how a dead man can write a poem is to miss the powerful insight of a different way of looking at things.

         Often poetic insights are alogical and involve hyperbole, contrast, contradiction, and analogy. They flash insight, evoke sentiment, and blaze awareness. Any sense of proof in a poem is by way of empathetic or intuitive feelings, rarely if ever through logical argument.

   2. Emotional Discourse is the everyday language of “heated arguments” exhibiting strong emotion with the expression of negative feelings and often the use of derogatory “verbal slanting” or pejorative language expressing disapproval. Logical reasoning and even common sense are not meant to apply.

      1. E.g., as in a newspaper description of heated discourse: “one man was shot, another man was injured after a heated argument in a bar.”

      2. From a logical point of view, the heated exchange of views is often “resolved” through threat or intimidation — often by means of the doctrine that “might makes right” rather than any approach taken by logical reasoning. (Cf. the argumentum ad baculum.)

   3. Imperatives used within reasoning or explanation are an over-arching category of directive-type sentences used to command, request, advise, manage, or instruct. The imperative normally relates concerns of immediate or future action, lacks verb tense distinction, and grammatically usually precludes the subject class.

      Imperatives can have several different language functions: directive (e.g., “Don't overstudy”), expressive (e.g., “Have a nice day”), or informative (e.g., “Slowly mix in the vanilla after cooling”).

      Imperatives are verbal expressions which are, strictly speaking, neither true nor false as these examples indicate:

      Command: Don't text and drive.
      Request: Give us a song.
      Advice: Ask your instructor.
      Instruction; Use vinegar for cleaning.

      We could evaluate a series of commands for logical consistency (as when we are told to do inconsistent things by different authorities), but commands, since they are neither true nor false, are not normally considered part of arguments.

      Imperative sentences have many other uses as well: praying, admonishing, entreating, inviting, and so forth.

      Nevertheless, in certain contexts in which imperatives are used, they are intended to perform an argumentative function.

      1. Imperatives can form argument-like structures when included with other indicative statements. Some examples include the following:

         A command as conclusion:

         The train from NY to LA takes 80 hours.
         The flight from NY to LA is 6 hours.
         So, go by air and save lots of time.
         
         

         A command as a premise:

         Give me some money.
         If you do, then I'll vote for you.
         So that gets my vote.

         The reason examples like these are not usually considered arguments per se is that they cannot be evaluated according to the usual rules of logical validity since commands do not have truth values.”

      2. Some logicians point out when imperatives can be adequately “translated” into truth-value statements the passages in which they occur can be proper arguments. E.g., taking a riff on the moral of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Mother Night we can construct the following passage:

         You will become what you pretend to be
         So be careful who you pretend to be.[3]

         The conclusion “Be careful who you pretend to be” can be translated as “It is prudent to be careful what you pretend to be.” In this way, an implicit argument is understood as:

         It is prudent to be careful what you pretend to be is true because you most likely will become what you pretend to be [and that might not be something you later desire to be].

         Although for some logicians, reinterpretations like this are controversial because of the impersonal shift in meaning.

   4. Disagreements and Quarrels: logical inferences are not normally evident in everyday disagreements, tempestuous quarrels, and verbal misunderstandings. Disagreements in belief, attitude, are discussed in greater depth with examples on this page: Varieties of Disagreements.

      1. Disagreements in Belief occur when people differ over the truth, falsity, or probability of a statement. This type of disagreement is sometimes termed a “disagreement in belief.” These often are disagreement over facts. However, this dispute can also be said to occur when all parties to a dispute are mistaken, so the actual facts might not be present to be at issue. Individuals can differ over facts as issue without necessarily disagreeing in their attitudes toward those beliefs.

         In the following disagreement, the question of the nature of art is in dispute:

         Edgar Degas: “We see what we want to see; it's false, and this falsity constitutes art.” [4]

         Martin Heidegger: “Art is truth setting itself to work. What is truth itself, that it sometimes come to pass as art.” [5]

         The belief at issue is the relation between truth and art. In these excerpts, French impressionist artist Degas and existentialist philosopher Heidegger leave the impression of having opposite views on their characterization of art. There is no indication of a disagreement in their attitudes toward the belief at issue.

      2. Disagreements in Attitude occur when people dissent about how they think or feel about a belief, yet agree on the the correctness (or incorrectness) of the belief.

         The following dispute is a disagreement in belief over the question of the right to bear firearms:

         Adolf Hitler: ”The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”[6]

         George Mason: “[To] disarm the people — that [is] the most effectual way to enslave them.”[7]

         Both Hitler and Mason agree in the belief that national leaders are more likely to retain control over the public by restricting firearms, but their sentiments differ as to the value of the public possessing firearms.
         
         
      3. Disagreements in both Belief and Attitude occur when both beliefs and the attitude toward those beliefs clash — as in this quarrel over whether India at the turn of the twentieth century should be regarded as one country or many countries in light of the fact that the territory held so many diverse races and peoples.

         Sir John Strachey: “This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India — that there is not, and never was an India … possessing, … any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious.” [8]

         Vincent Smith: “India … is indisputably a geographical unit, and as such is rightly designated by one name.”[9]

         Both Strachey and Smith were members of the British Civil Service during British rule in India. The emotively laden words used by Strachey include the double emphases in the phrases “first and most essential” and “is not and never” both indicating earnest accent of his opinion. Smith's attitude toward his belief is also heartfelt as indicated by the use of “indisputably” and “rightly” (in place of “suitably” or “correctly”).

         In light of the positive attitudes expressed toward their respective beliefs, we can safely assume that their attitudes would differ toward their opponents' differing beliefs.

   5. Conditional statements considered by themselves are not arguments although they are often confused with arguments since arguments are sometimes restated in conditional sentences:

      If [premises stated here], then [conclusion stated here].

      For example:

      “If character traits are not inherited, and if Susan actually is spiteful, as you say, then she was not born that way.”

      But since the first part of the conditional (the antecedent) is only being conjectured and is not declared as being true, the conditional, considered in itself, is not an argument. When, for example, I say, “If you study logic, then you will be successful in your future endeavors,” I have stated a complex statement that makes a claim, but I have not provided reasons, grounds, or evidence for the truth of that claim.

      1. Most conditionals are described by the sentence forms of either …

         “If so & so, then such & such”  or

         “If so & so, such & such.”

         … but this is not always the case.

      2. Conditional statements and hypothetical statements are often not distinguished from each other in logic as they usually are in argumentation theory and linguistics.[10] Even so, pointing out some differences now will anticipate working later with ordinary language.

      3. A conditional can be thought of analogically being an argument when the antecedent is true, but this is not at all what is being asserted because of the “If” clause. What is being asserted is the consequent of the conditional on the condition of the “If” clause. However, in an argument, the premises are being asserted as true.

      4. Since conditionals are statements, then, of course, they can be part of arguments:

         1. For example, consider, this somewhat odd hypothetical syllogism:

            If I drop this book, then it will fall to the floor.

            If it falls to the floor, then it is heavier than air

            ∴ If I drop this book, then it is heavier than air.

            (Try to work out the puzzling nature of this syllogism in terms of the difference between the notions of causality and entailment.)

         2. A clearer example of a hypothetical argument is an argument form called modus ponens:

            If you study hard, then you make an A in logic.

            You study hard.

            ∴ You make an A in logic.

            In this argument, if you were to study hard and did not make an A, then the argument would be unsound because the first premise would be false.

      5. Generally speaking, the two major kinds of conditionals are of interest:

         1. Indicative conditionals are If … (then) … type; statements that express a more or less factual relationship between two independent clauses. Many kinds of relationships can be expressed between the clauses including causal, definitional, logical, decisional, probabilistic, and accidental. It's important to realize that the truth or falsity of an indicative conditional statement relies solely by the truth values of the clauses, independently of any proposed factually contingent relation expressed between the statements.

         2. Counterfactual conditionals, (also called subjunctive or contrary-to-fact conditionals) indicate possibilities in conjectural or imagined states of affairs.

            E.g. If so-and-so were the case, (then) such-and-such would be the case.)

            The truth or falsity of a counterfactual is often evaluated by imagining what would happen in the closest most possible circumstances to the actual circumstances in the world in which we live.

            For example, “If I were to strike this match, then it would light,” would be true, given that I struck it correctly in a world with background conditions like the world in which we live (e.g. the match is not defective, air is present, and so forth).

4. Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations

   Sometimes discourse can appear to be argumentative but is actually explanatory. Many of the premise and conclusion indicator words and phrases we studied in Diagramming Arguments such as “because,” “since,” and even “therefore,” which usually indicate parts of arguments, can occur in explanations and serve an explanatory function. In order to distinguish explanations from arguments we must examine the context and intention of the discourse provided.

   1. Explanations: provide information for insight or understanding of a fact or circumstance — their purpose is frequently not to prove the truth of a state of affairs or a fact. In general, explanations are not arguments, but sometimes explanations provide reasons to clarify or simplify rather than provide evidence or proof of existence. Nevertheless, some good explanations are also good arguments.

   2. On the one hand, arguments and explanations cannot always be clearly distinguished, because some states of affairs or facts are explained with logical reasoning. On the other hand, of course, explanations can provide understanding of facts or states of affairs without necessarily providing reasons (or justifications).

   3. The key differences between an argument and an explanation include the following factors:

      1. If a group of statements give evidence, grounds, or reasons for the truth of some other statement, then an argument is present.

      2. If the purported conclusion is better known that the purported premises, then such a passage would likely serve no purpose as regarded as an argument, and so the passage would most often be regarded as an explanation. Consider this example from what is a fact about our atmosphere taught in schools worldwide:

         The sky appears blue to most people because the Rayleigh scattering of nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere cause more shorter-wavelength blue and violet light than any other colors from the Sun's white light.

         “Because” is quite often an argument premise indicator, but in this passage the purported premise is not as well known as its supposed conclusion that the sky is blue. Hence, the passage is an explanation why the sky is blue and not an argument to the conclusion that it is. To be clear, in arguments, normally, well known premises are given to prove less well known conclusions.

      3. If a causal connection, rather than a logical connection, is being described between the parts of passage, then an explanation is present. For example:

         Smoking tobacco is harmful to health because the chemicals in tobacco smoke directly damage the DNA of lung cells.

         This passage is not an argument to prove that smoking tobacco is harmful; it is an explanation why smoking is harmful. People are far more likely to know smoking is harmful than they are able to account for why smoking is harmful.

   4. The following terms are especially useful when contrasting explanations with arguments:[11]

      1. Explanans: the explanation, elucidation, or the clarification of the of the “what it is” to be explained — the statements, facts, or general laws that explain the “why” or “how” what is to be explained.

      2. Expanandum: what is to be explained simpliciter— the statement, event, or phenomenon which is to be explained. (As an aid to memory, think about the “dum” part of the term as a clue that this is the part of the explanation that is “dumb” and needs clarification or elucidation.)

      3. It's also important to point out that arguments sometimes have an explanatory function which is neither intended to be persuasive or probative in character but is intended to facilitate understanding. Consequently, sometimes arguments are used for explanatory purposes. In other words, the distinction between arguments and explanation cannot always be maintained. Some examples of this kind of discourse are present in the Self-Quiz below.

      4. To sum up, the distinction between arguments and explanation cannot always be maintained, and the difference, if any, should be determined by the context in which the relevant passage occurs.

   5. Here's a summary of some of the significant differences between arguments and explanations:

      
      

      Argument	Explanation
      (1) expresses an inference	does not usually express an inference
      (2) offers evidence, grounds, or reasons	offers an account why
      (3) proceeds from well known statements (premises) to less well known statement (conclusion)	the less well known elucidation (explanans) to the well known statements doing the explaining (explanandum)
      (4) draws a logical connection between statements	describes a causal connection between events
      (5) has the purpose to establish the truth of a statement (the conclusion)	has the purpose to give an account or clarification
      (6) answers the question how something is known	answers the question why something occurs

      
      

Self-Quiz on Recognizing Arguments

Directions: Evaluate each of the following passages for the presence of arguments. Some of the exercises are made more difficult for lack of a clear surrounding context.

1. Hsi: “Master, why did you smile at Yu?“
   Master: “The management of a State demands the rules of propriety. His words were not humble; therefore I smiled at him.”[12]
   

   Answer
   Analysis: Although the word “therefore” is in the quoted passage and “therefore” is almost always a conclusion indicator, the Master is not proving why he smiled but is explaining why he smiled at Yu. This passage is an explanation.
   
   
2. “For there was never proud man thought so absurdly well of himself, as the lover doth of the person loved; and therefore it was well said, That it is impossible to love, and to be wise.”[13]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: The transition words “for” (a common premise indicator) and “therefore” (an oft used conclusion indicator) indicate that a reason is being provided for a conclusion and so the passage is an argument implying that anyone with such self-admiration is unlikely to be sensible. Also, this argument also explains why a lover is unlikely to be wise and so also functions as an explanation.
   
   
   
3. “[M]ost people not only recognize nothing is good in our life unless it is profitable, but look upon friends as so much stock, caring most for those by whom they hope to make most profit. Accordingly they never possess that most beautiful and most spontaneous friendship which must be sought solely for itself without any ulterior object.”[14]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: The the transition word “accordingly” is often a conclusion indicator in an argumentative passage, implying that the statement precedes it is a reason. In this case, the writer is giving a reason why persons who use their friends for personal gains are unlikely to have friendships of the good, a friendship which endures as long as both persons retain their character. So, the passage is an inductive argument. Since argument also explains why persons who seek only profit from their friends, are unlikely to acquire worthy friendships; the passage also functions as an explanation.
   
   
   
4. “Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly.”[15]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: The word “since” is often a premise indicator, but in this passage the since-statement provides a rationale for the imperative sentence advising us to regulate our conduct. Yes, in a sense, a reason is put forward for a command, but the reason does not bear on the truth of the imperative sentence. Logical inference requires that sentences have a truth value. Thus, this passage is not considered an argument in traditional logic, but the passage could be considered an argument in an imperative logic.
   
   
   
5. “You see, for her words were medicine; they were magical and invisible. They came from nothing into sound and meaning. They were beyond price, they could neither bought nor sold. And she never threw words away.”[16]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: This passage reports the speech of a person in expressive language and is neither explanation nor argument. With no provided context in the question asked, we might not be able to identify the passage as being drawn from a novel. (The author is describing the healing and transformational nature of a grandmother's Navajo elegance of speech.) No argument appears in this example.
   
   
   
6. “The reason why Literature is in such a bad plight nowadays is simply and solely that people write books to make money.[17]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: In the context of this self-quiz, this passage is chancy. Most persons would recognize when actually hearing such an “argument” that the author was not in earnest. For if the passage were argumentative then the full argument when translated formally would be something like this (with the necessary implicit premise stated within the “[]” brackets):

   [All persons writing to make money are poor writers.] All book writers are persons writing to make money. ∴ All book writers are poor writers.

   So if the author's intent were to offer a valid argument, a false implicit premise would have to be added to the already false explicit premise. Given that the author is intelligent, such a passage would have probably been offered in jest. Although the writer is providing a reason for why he thinks literature is so poor, the intent probably more of an explanation why he thinks the literature is of his day is vapid than it is a proof of that assertion. If you discern some cynicism in the remark, then you would recognize the passage as a sardonic comment — a nonargument.
   
   But, not knowing the author, and seeing that this passage is just a routine question on a self-quiz, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that an argument is being offered here as well as an explanation of why the books of the day were evaluated as “being in a bad plight.”
   
   
   
7. “Politicians go on shows that won't confront them with hard questions they don't want to answer. If those questions are asked, they'll likely not appear on those shows again. The media need ratings, and to get them, they need high-profile guests. Politicians know this. That's the unholy alliance between much of big media and political leaders.”[18]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis: This quotation is an explanation why political leaders are not often asked challenging questions by the media, and not an inductive argument seeking to prove the implicit causal relation that most media do not cross-examine political leaders because if they did so, political leaders would not agree to be interviewed.
   
   
   
8. “Today, because of its etymology and much of the actual work of specialists, philology is frequently understood to mean linguistics, especially historical grammar and the study of past forms of languages. Since the term has so many and divergent meanings, it is best to abandon it.”[19
   
   

   Answer
   Two transitional words occur in the passage — both phrases (“because” and “since”) are frequently used as premise indicators. However, the request to abandon the use of the word “philology” functions as an imperative sentence. So, in terms of our logical terminology, this passage would not be considered an argument because the conclusion has no truth value. The resultant sentence “It is best to abandon it [philology]” is simply a request, not a statement.
   
   
   
9. ““The popular support for the disciplinary measures under martial law indicates that for the vast majority of Filipinos, a disciplined ordering of public life has long been imperative and welcome.”[20]
   
   

   Answer
   Analysis:This sentence is a description of an argument of the following form:

   Most Filipinos support the disciplinary measures of martial law.
   ∴ Most Filipinos welcome the required disciplined ordering of public life.

   An argument is not being directly advanced; an argument is being explained. Consequently, there is an implicit argument in the passage. The key phrase “indicates that” points out this presence.
   
   
   
10. “The liberation of an individual, as he grows up, from the authority of his parents is one of the most necessary though one of the most painful results brought about by the course of his development. It is quite essential that that liberation should occur and it may be presumed that it has been to some extent achieved by everyone who has reached a normal state. Indeed, the whole progress of society rests upon the opposition between successive generations.”[21]
    
    

    Answer
    Analysis: This passage is an explanation of a typical sociological process in a healthy society. There is a suggested causal relationship between generational opposition and societal progress, but no argument is present.
    
    
    

Notes on Arguments and Nonarguments

Readings on Arguments and Nonarguments

• Arthur Parker Stone and Stewart Lee Garrison, “Explanation” Essentials for Argument (New York: Henry Holt, 1916), 28-37.

  In persuasive speech such as debate, the author emphasizes the necessity of a thorough explanation of the question at issue prior to presentation of supporting arguments for your position. Such an explanation requires covering the immediate interest of the question (answering why it is at issue), the history of the question (showing the relevance of how the question is bound up with past conditions), and definition of terms (clearing up ambiguity or vagueness for clarity of presentation.

• James Welton, Explanation Groundwork of Logic (London: W.B Clive, University Tutorial Press, 1917), 293-301.

  In this last century popular logic textbook, J. Welton explains the importance and nature of explanations. Explanation involves reference to a system of some kind which can be made clear by means of analogy for the sake of understanding or knowledge. Popular and scientific understanding are distinguished and related to the functions of scope, classification, law, verification, and knowledge.