Critical Thinking |
|
How to Reconstruct an Argument
Sample Argument Reconstructions
Several steps will help you to produce a good reconstruction of even highly complex arguments:
1. Read the article carefully.
2. Restate the key ideas of each paragraph (or small group of paragraphs) in a sentence or two. This will take some time, but will be worth your effort as a foundation for the other steps.
3. Consider the summary sentences and try to group related ones (those that cover a common issue) into clear thematic groups. Note clearly which of the statements are directly part of the central argument of the article, and which provide background. Do not just blindly replicate the order of the article itself! Try to uncover the logical structure of the argument by paying attention to the themes the argument addresses.
4. State the key point of the sentences you have grouped together in each argumentative theme group. This should give you a highly condensed standard-form version of the argument.
5. Use the standard-form version of the argument as an outline for your reconstruction/summary. In other words, each thematic issue should form one part of your paper, and should be treated in a paragraph or two.
6. For your introduction, sketch out the issue of the article, the position the author takes, and briefly outline the argument (the standard-form version of the argument in #4 will give you the elements for this). Be sure to identify the author, article, and any other necessary background clarification for the issue.
To review:
Finally, remember that the point of a reconstruction is to restate the key ideas and arguments of the argument. That means that you should not try to criticize or evaluate the quality of the argument. Cultivating a critical attitude is essential to critical thinking, but in a reconstruction you should hold off on your evaluation of the quality of the argument. (That will come later!)
While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm, either.
Most of the detail of the argument addresses the first point (objections to cloning). That suggests reading the argument as having a subargument:
1. Cloned individuals would have the same rights as humans resulting
from normal biological reproduction.
2. Cloning would only be done on the genetic material of people
who give their consent.
3. It is unlikely that cloning will be used to promote any sort
of "breeding program."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Worries about cloning can be handled with reasonable rules.
4. Cloning might be attractive to people in a number of situations
(infertile couples, couples with genetic defects, etc.).
5. If cloning has some potentially beneficial applications, and
if worries about cloning can be handled by establishing reasonable guidelines,
then we should cautiously explore it rather than banning it altogether.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: We should cautiously explore cloning rather than banning it
altogether.
| David H. Calhoun
PHIL 101/ENGL 101 Reconstruction/Summary Paper |
Include your name, the name of the course, and the assignment at the top of the first page. |
|
|
Title your reconstruction with a phrase that identifies the topic and thrust of the article. |
| In the article "Human cloning? Don't just say no" (U.S. News 10 March 1997, online), Ruth Macklin argues that fears and concerns about human cloning are based on misunderstanding and poor arguments. She suggests that the worries people have about cloning can be addressed with reasonable conditions on human cloning. Further, she thinks that human cloning might well be attractive to people in certain situations. Based on these ideas, she concludes that we should cautiously explore cloning rather than banning it altogether. | Begin your reconstruction with a
clear introduction. The introduction should always:
*identify the article you are reconstructing *give bibliographic information *identify the author *briefly summarize the argument--the main premises and the conclusion |
| Macklin is aware of the the resistance most people have to cloning, but she argues that it is based more on an emotional "yuk factor" than on any serious objections. Most of the worries about cloning ignore the restrictions we place on any activities that affect human beings. For example, we should not violate the rights of a cloned human being, or use his organs as "spare parts" for others, any more than we would do such a thing to a person produced by normal biological reproduction. | Take the first premise as the theme or "topic sentence" of your first paragraph. State the premise, explain the informational background of the author's idea, and discuss the evidence the author offers in support of the premise. |
| While the objections to human cloning are ill-founded, Macklin suggests that there are at least some situations in which cloning might be a reasonable option for people seeking to have children. Couples that are infertile or couples in which one partner has a serious defect might resort to cloning in order to have a child. A family suffering the loss of a child to illness might wish to "replace" the dying child. While such a scenario might be disturbing to some people, Macklin rejects the idea that such a child would be any less loved or cared for by the family than the original child. | Repeat the same procedure in the second paragraph, explaining the second premise. Treat each main premise in a separate paragraph until you have discussed the entire argument. |
| Since Macklin believes that human cloning might be appropriate in some cases, and since she thinks that concerns about human cloning can be dealt with by reasonable regulations, she thinks that human cloning should not be banned. With careful safeguards, human cloning very well might play an important role in human reproduction. | End the reconstruction with a clear statement of the conclusion. You may wish to offer a condensed version of the entire argument at the end of the paper. Remember that your task is not to criticize or evaluate the argument! |
1. Despite the development in the late 1700s of an ideological
link between nationality and language, national unity does not depend on
a common language.
2. Nations whose citizens do not speak a single official language
can be unified by a sense of "unique otherness"; the United States
does have such a national identity.
3. Language use cannot be legislated anyway (Quebec, Gaelic),
and attempts to unify a nation by language are often counterproductively
divisive.
4. Most Americans (94%) speak English anyway, as will the children
of most immigrants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: English should not be declared the official language of the United
States.
A alternate approach to the reconstruction would more clearly draw out the thrust of King's argumentative strategy, by stressing the set of themes that underlie King's argumentative approach. For example:
1. The primary justification for declaration of official national
languages is to promote national unity. (This justification has developed
from an ideological linking of language and national unity since the 1700s.)
2. English is, practically speaking, the official language of
the United States, even though it has not been so legislated.
3. Declaring English the official language of the United States
would do little to promote national unity, and might even fragment unity.
4. The United States has a sense of "unique otherness" that provides
a sense of national unity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: English should not be declared the official language of the United
States.
This standard-form version of the argument provides a good condensation
of King's position and evidence in the article.
| David H. Calhoun
PHIL 101/ENGL 101 Reconstruction/Summary Paper |
Include your name, the name of the course, and the assignment at the top of the first page. |
|
|
Title your reconstruction with a phrase that identifies the topic and thrust of the article. |
| Rising concerns about bilingualism and the adjustment of immigrants to American culture have led a number of people to call for "English-only" laws to require the use of English--and English alone--in official documents and transactions of the U.S. government. While these concerns have led to the organization of groups such as U.S. English, it is not clear that legislation to require English is either wise or necessary. Robert D. King argues in "Should English Be the Law?" (Atlantic Monthly April 1997: 55-64) that English-only laws will not help the United States and in fact might be harmful. In King's view, the primary function of declaring official national languages is to promote national unity. But English is the virtual national language of the United States, even though no law has so declared it. Attempts to make English the official national language will do little to promote national unity, and might even damage it. Finally, King argues that the United States, like some other multilingual nations, has a sense of "unique otherness" that would unify it even in the absence of a common official language. | You may wish to begin your introduction
with some background information. If you do, make it informative!
Don't begin with an empty and insipid statement such as "Many people disagree
about
English-only laws." The introduction should always:
|
| Since the beginning of the modern era, a common language has been thought to be necessary for the unity of a nation. This modern view is summed up in Jacob Grimm's 1846 comment that "a nation is the totality of people who speak the same language" (58). In modern conflicts, political disputes often have linguistic motives, and many failed states (such as Yugoslavia) and countries with severe internal problems (such as Moldova, Sri Lanka, and even Canada) owe many of their problems to language. Given these disturbing cases, one might believe it important--even necessary--to protect U.S. political stability by resolving the language issue legislatively. Perhaps legal steps to protect the "national language" are merited. | Take the first premise as the theme or "topic
sentence" of your first paragraph. State the premise, explain the
informational background of the author's idea, and discuss the evidence
the author offers in support of the premise.
Offer citations when you quote the words of the original argument or cite data from it. |
| Perhaps not. According to King, the drive to declare English the official language of the U.S. ignores a significant fact: English is, practically speaking, already the official national language. The 1990 Census, for example, noted that 94 percent of residents of the U.S speak English (64). Indeed, even immigrants who do not speak English often see their children quickly learn English and forget their original non-English native language. | Repeat the same procedure in the second paragraph, explaining the second premise. Treat each main premise in a separate paragraph until you have discussed the entire argument. |
| It is not clear that legislative remedies, even if employed, would change language habits. Attempts to legislate linguistic practices often fail. Despite significant and organized government support, Irish Gaelic and Welsh are dying a slow but irreversible death. To the extent that language laws do work, they often make things worse. The increased isolation of Quebec from the rest of Canada provides an instructive case to show the inadvisability of attempting to resolve political problems by language legislation. | Give enough detail from the article to make the argument clear, but try to select out and condense what you believe is most important. |
| This might lead one to despair, but King points out that linguistically diverse nations often survive vibrantly if they have a national identity that supersedes their cultural differences. King calls this factor "unique otherness" (61), and notes that one finds it in quadri-lingual Switzerland as well as in India, with nineteen recognized languages. Unique otherness is "something big and almost mystical that holds each together in a union transcending language" (61), and is reflected in the common culture, habits, and beliefs of a nation. King notes that the United States is fortunate to have a superlinguistic national sense, built on history, tradition, basic political beliefs, and even trivial things like "sports, hot dogs, hamburgers, and milk shakes" (64). These things unify us as a nation despite our differences of culture, history, and language. | Always put special words or phrases, such as "unique otherness," in quotation marks to indicate that the author uses them in an unusual way. Be sure to cite the location at which the author first uses the word or phrase in this special way. |
| Language and national unity have a twisted and complicated relationship. Multilingual nations are often torn by civil and political turmoil. By contrast, the U.S. enjoys a virtual national language in English, which is spoken by almost the entire population of the country. Even if English were not so widely spoken in America, however, America's "unique otherness" defines and unifies the nation. Consequently, King believes that attempts to legislate English as the official U.S. language are unnecessary and divisive. | End the reconstruction with a clear statement of the conclusion. You may wish to offer a condensed version of the entire argument at the end of the paper. Remember that your task is not to criticize or evaluate the argument! |
For other sample reconstructions of both long and short argumentative articles, see the Reconstruction Directory for Dr. Mark Alfino's Critical Thinking Course.
 |
Email
David H. Calhoun
Back to PHIL 101 Critical Thinking Page Back to David H. Calhoun's Home Page Copyright © 1998-2000 by David Calhoun. All
rights reserved.
|