Analyzing Papers for Argumentative Structure

Analyzing Papers for their Argumentative Structure

We are reading this article not for its content – although I expect it to be of interest to many of you, especially the criminology majors – but as an illustration of how to think in terms of arguments. That is, we shall be using this article as a way of illustrating some of the key concepts brought out in the previous lecture. Further, this essay can serve as a model of the kind of writing I expect you to be doing in your essays (with some important caveats that I will mention at the end of this lecture).

Recall from the previous lecture that the two key component of an argument are the premises and the conclusion. Typically, the thesis statement of a given piece of writing states the conclusion. In today’s lecture I shall walk you through the process of reading an essay for its argumentative structure.

Step 1: Identifying the thesis/conclusion

I asked you try to identify the article’s thesis statement for today’s lecture. This is the kind of exercise that you should already be competent at, as it is simply the kind of thing that is included in the reading comprehension section of the provincial exam. Provided that one reads the entire article from start to finish, it is easy to spot the central thesis, as it is clearly and precisely stated in last paragraph of the opening section; and is reiterated in the very last sentence of the article:

…society should discuss the urgent need to reform practices that contribute to false confessions and to require mandatory videotaping of all interviews and interrogations. (26)

Such reforms [of interrogation techniques] are sorely needed. Only then can society trust the process of interrogation and the confessions that it produces—and help to promote justice for all. (31)

Some of you may have taken the task as trying to summarize the primary thesis of the article in your own words. That is fine, provided your own statement of the thesis does differ substantially from the sentences provided above. But a well-written argumentative essay will have a clearly-articulated thesis statement, and one need not to put in the extra work of trying to figure out what the central point is that the author is trying to communicate. Thesis statements makes things easier on the reader, which is one of the primary communicative goals of good writing – at least in philosophy (mystery authors may have different goals).

Once we have identified the thesis statement, it is much easier to figure out the argumentative structure of the essay.

While both of the above sentences can serve as a thesis statement, the first is basically a statement only of the central conclusion, while the second is probably best interpreted as including elements of the central premise. Let me explain what I mean.

Identifying an author’s conclusion is a matter of some finesse. Recall that we are constrained by two overarching principles: charity and accuracy. But even given these constraints, there is a certain amount of leeway in deciding just how narrowly to construe the conclusion. Except in the very rare case in which an author explicitly says, “My thesis is…” it is possible that more than one specification of the author’s conclusion are consistent with the principles of charity and accuracy. For example, the following all seem equally reasonable construals of the author’s primary conclusion:

C1: Reform of police interrogation techniques are necessary.
C2: Reforms such as mandatory videotaping of police interrogation are necessary for social justice.
C3: Social justice requires reforming police interrogation techniques.
C4: Reforms such as mandatory videotaping of police interrogations are necessary for social justice.

And there may be others as well. I personally prefer the last one as it is the most specific and thus better enables one to see the precise nature of the argument. But this is to some extent a matter of preference. One doesn’t want to be overly anal retentive about exactly how the conclusion is to be specified.

That said, it is crucial to understand that not just any construal will do. For example, the following construals would be unacceptable:

C5: Police should not be allowed to interrogate suspected criminals.
C6. It is more important to respect the rights of criminals than to make sure that criminals are convicted.
C7. A just society should respect the rights of criminals.

These are neither accurate nor charitable. The first two are clearly uncharitable, and therefore inaccurate—one can imagine a politician twisting his opponent’s words in just this way. The last may not be uncharitable – those who believe in a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment would accept it – but it is inaccurate, because that is not the author’s point.
Once we have settled on a conclusion that is at least as charitable and accurate as all others, the next task is to fill out the structure of the argument.

Step 2: Filling out the structure of the Argument

Let’s work with the second of the above conclusions for the present. How does the author’s argument proceed? We know that part of the argument has something to do with trust in the process of investigating and prosecuting suspected criminals. Why is that important? Presumably, because we want to find the truth. Suppose that you are betting on something – the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the Stock Market – and you are given a tip. Do you automatically act on that tip? No, of course not; you want to know whether the source is reliable. In the case of a juror you are also betting on something, on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Confessions are offered as evidence of an accused person’s guilt. And, just as in the case of the betting tip, a rational person would want to know whether the confession is reliable, specifically, whether it is a reliable indicator of guilt.

The above considerations give us some sense of the shape of the argument, but it does not yet let us determine the precise nature of the argument. To do that I suggest just working through each section and identifying the main point of that section. Here is what I came up with.

Discerning the Truth

Interrogations are often influenced by a bias on the part of the interrogator.

Protections Averted

Subjects, especially innocent ones, often waive their Miranda rights.

Interrogation Tactics

Aggressive interrogation tactics can often produce false confessions.

False Confessions

This section has no overarching point. It first distinguishes three different types of false confessions. It also identifies three specific problems that can lead to such false confessions. But the most important point made in this section is that “trial jurors…can be overly influenced by confessions.”

The Need for Reforms

The conclusion of the article. It summarizes the main argument and thesis, identifying videotaping of interrogations as one specific reform that is likely to be effective in reducing the problems brought out in the article.

So how do we put these together to form a series of premises? Again, we must respect the constraints of charity and accuracy. One might begin by simply listing each of these claims in order.

P. Interrogations are often influenced by a bias on the part of the interrogator.
P. Aggressive interrogation tactics can often produce false confessions.
P. Trial jurors are often heavily influenced by confessions.
C. Reforms such as mandatory videotaping of police interrogations are necessary for social justice.

Is this a cogent argument? Not yet. This is simply a summary of the main points of the article. An argument needs to link these up in some way. For example, since the conclusion has a mention of social justice, so too must at least one of the premises. So how do we proceed?

Recall that charity requires that we make a good-faithed effort to tidy it up, while accuracy requires that we not go too far beyond the text itself and/or the author’s intentions. The difference between a charitable reconstruction of an author’s argument and a friendly amendment to the argument is a matter of degree, and it doesn’t really matter what we call it. Our goal, insofar as we proceed with intellectual honesty, is to come up with the best reconstruction we can of the author’s argument. So, on with the business of refining the argument.

I suggest the following:

P1. Social justice requires that we try to minimize the potential of convicting innocent persons.
[P2. Interrogations are often influenced by a bias on the part of the interrogator.
Seems unnecessary.]
P3. Unrestricted interrogation tactics can often produce false confessions.
P4. Trial jurors are often heavily influenced by confessions; they are inclined to treat confessions as decisive evidence of guilt.

P2 is in brackets because it seems unnecessary to me. It seems better interpreted as offering support for P3, which is really what is pulling the weight.

What we need is a sub-conclusion, a conclusion that we establish on the way to the ultimate conclusion. It is both a conclusion derived from prior premises and serves as a premise used to establish the ultimate conclusion.

SC. Therefore, (from P3 and P4) unrestricted interrogation tactics increases the potential for innocent persons to be convicted (by increasing the potential for false confessions which trial jurors are often inclined to count as decisive evidence of guilt).

C. Therefore, (from P1 and SC) social justice requires that we restrict interrogation tactics.

Summarizing this so far we have:

The Argument

P1. Social justice requires that we minimize the potential for innocent persons to be convicted.
P2. Unrestricted interrogation tactics can often produce false confessions.
P3. Trial jurors are often heavily influenced by confessions; they are inclined to treat confessions as decisive evidence of guilt.
SC. Therefore, (from P3 and P4) unrestricted interrogation tactics increases the potential for innocent persons to be convicted (by increasing the potential for false confessions which trial jurors are often inclined to count as decisive evidence of guilt).
C. Therefore, (from P1 and SC) social justice requires that we restrict interrogation tactics.

Now, if we want to justify the specific proposal of videotaping interrogations, one would need further premises defending that requirement. But I will leave this as a take-home exercise.

Step 4: Critiquing the Argument

Only once one has an accurate and charitable reconstruction of an author’s argument is one in a position to critique it. Critique does not necessarily mean “object to,” for one may find the argument utterly convincing. But critique does require critical scrutiny. One can’t simply say “I agree” or “This argument resonates with me.” That may be fine when evaluating poetry (I would disagree, but that’s an issue for the English profs to deal with), but its not fine when engaging in philosophic argument. Even when you agree, it is important to consider a potential counter-argument; otherwise, you risk being dogmatic.

In critically evaluating an argument it is important to distinguish the moral/ethical premises from the empirical premises. In our argument P1 is a moral premise; it makes a claim about social justice. P2 and P3 are empirical premises; they are based on scientific evidence. In this class, we are not in a position to debate the scientific merits of the empirical claims made in this article. One would need to look at the studies cited and determine whether they were based on sound methodology. We can, however, debate premise P1. Are there any reasonable objections to that premise?

No one could reasonably deny that a perfectly just system would never convict innocent persons; however a perfectly just system would also always convict the actually guilty. Thus, the best place to gain traction against P1 is to point the need to balance these two competing goals. One might think that a better premise is something along the lines of:

P1’. Social justice requires that we balance the need to minimize the potential for innocent persons to be convicted against the need to maximize the potential for actual criminals to be convicted.

For example, which of the following results is more in line with social justice?

Suppose that 200 defendants are put on trial. In each case, 150 are guilty and 50 are innocent.

Result 1. Only 75 are convicted. Of the persons convicted, 74 are guilty and 1 innocent. Of the remaining 125 exonerated defendants, 76 are guilty and 49 innocent.
Result 2. 150 are convicted. Of those convicted, 140 are guilty and 10 innocent. Of the 50 exonerated defendants, 10 are guilty and 40 innocent.

If one believes that result 2, though imperfect, is more in line with justice, then one must reject the original P1 in favor of the revised P1’. If one can succeed in supporting this claim, would that suffice to refute the argument?

Not quite, but both sides have a burden. The opponent of the suggested reform has the burden of showing that videotaping interrogations would so significantly reduce the likelihood of actual criminals being convicted as to outweigh the increased potential for false convictions. But the proponent has the burden of showing that this is not the case. Until either side discharges their burden, the discourse is at a stalemate.

Differences between this article and the type of philosophical essay you will write in this class

One important difference has to do with the use of empirical claims. The essay we’ve read is a popularized scientific article, written by social scientists. They can back up their claims with empirical research, much of which has actually been conducted by the authors themselves. In this class, we are not qualified to make such empirical assertions. This presents a problem. For example, the above burden I mentioned involves an empirical claim, a claim that we are not in a position to either assert or deny. Sometimes in writing your papers, your argument will depend on such empirical claims. How ought you to proceed? Well, insofar as your argument depends on empirical claims, flag the fact that you are making an assumption. That is, flag the fact that your thesis can only be provisional or conditional – for example, you can say things such as, “if this claim is correct, then…”

Another important difference has to do with the introduction. The article you’ve read was written as a public-interest piece for a general-audience magazine. For such pieces, it is often a good idea to start with an attention-getting story as a way of introducing the subject matter. In an academic piece, on the other hand, introductions are all business. You do not want to waste precious word-count by starting with a story. Your goal is simply to make your case—to demonstrate you understand the material and to defend your thesis in the most concise and convincing manner possible. You do not need to entertain your audience; rather, you just need to convince your audience that you know what you are talking about and that you have a reasonably well-defended thesis.