3  Clarifying  Obscure Reasoning

A.  Reasoning found in the "real world" is more difficult to analyse than exercises you have done so far.

 1.  Writers do not indicate the structure of the reasoning.
 2.  They mix arguments with non-arguments, and statements that are not relevant to the arguments given.
 3.  They do not take the time to express themselves clearly, or their thought were unclear to begin with.

B.  This chapter (only) begins to give you practice with applying what you have learned to realistic cases.

C.  The advantages:

 1.  You will be better able to digest, understand, and evaluate communications with others.
 2.  You will become able to make the argument structure of your own communication clearer.
 3.  You will learn how to read and write.
 4.  Clear expression helps develop clear thought.
 "I really understand everything, I just can't put it into words well!"

D.  Sample text:
(Jeff Smith, The Frugal Gourmet Cooks Three Ancient Cuisines, p. 10)

I cannot understand it!  How can you call a dish "new" or "nouvelle" if you do not know the old dishes?  The whole idea of calling something new before you have understood the history of a dish is totally inconsistent.  Most people in our culture have not yet tasted the old cuisines so it is difficult to know what is new.  The basic and wonderful flavors of the past belong to us as a culture, and these flavors have come from many sources.  It is through examination of the sources that one realizes what is new and what is simply repetition on a plate, along with a slice of kiwi fruit.
 

Step 1.  Assemble useful statements.  Convert them to declarative form.

(1)  You cannot call a dish "new" or "nouvelle" if you do not know the old dishes.

(2)  It is inconsistent to call a dish new before you have understood its history.

(3)  Most people in our culture have not yet tasted the old cuisines.
 so
(4)  It is difficult to know what is new.

(5)  The basic and wonderful flavors of the past belong to us as a culture, and these flavors have come from many sources.

(6)  It is through examination of the sources that one realizes what is new.

(...  and what is simply repetition on a plate, along with a slice of kiwi fruit)

Step 2.  Settle on an over all conclusion or motive for the text.  Then work backwards to likely lines of support.

Read (buy) this book.

because:

You need to know old cuisines.

Step 3.  Try to sketch to roles of the sentences in this structure.

You can't know what is new (trendy) if you do not know what is old.  (1)  (6)  (2)
[You want to know about new cuisine.]
[You should learn about old cuisines.]

So  [Read (buy) this book.]

Step 4.  Find places for parts not in the structure, changing them if necessary.

(3)  Most people in our culture have not yet tasted the old cuisines.
 so   (4)  It is difficult to know (what is new) about old cuisines.

Step 5.  And see if you can tie them to the overall  conclusion or motive.

  [You should learn about old cuisines.]
(4)  It is difficult to know about old cuisines.
 [But this book will help you learn about old cuisines.]

 [Read (buy) this book.]

(3)  Most people in our culture have not yet tasted the old cuisines.
+
You can't know what is new if you do not know what is old.

So

(4)  It is difficult (for most people) to know what is new.
+
[But this book will help you learn what is new, (by explaining the old)]
+
[You want to know about new cuisine]

So [Read (buy) this book.]

What about (5)?

(5)  The basic and wonderful flavors of the past belong to us as a culture, and these flavors have come from many sources.

(5) may "set you up" for (6) but it does NOT support (6).

(6)  It is through examination of the sources that one realizes what is new.
 

Why (5) does not support (6).

What (5) says:
(5a)  The old flavors are wonderful.
(5b)  The old flavors belong to us as a culture.
(5c)  The old flavors have many sources.

NOTE:  NONE of  (5a), (5b) (5c) supports (6).

INSTEAD  (6) is supported by (1)

(1)  You can't call a dish new if you do not know old dishes.

So

(6) It is through examination of the sources (old dishes) that one realizes what is new.
 

So what is (5) for?

Answer 1:  It helps us focus on the topic:   old flavors and their sources, in order to present a different argument involving those ideas.

Answer 2:  It might provide its own argument for the idea that you should learn about old cuisine.
 
 

(5a)  Old flavors are wonderful.     (5b) Old flavors are part  of our culture.

You should learn about old cuisines.

Step 7.  Develop a detailed diagram

What about (1), (2) and (6)?

(1)  You cannot call a dish "new" or "nouvelle" if you do not know the old dishes.

(2)  It is inconsistent to call a dish new before you have understood its history.

(6)  It is through examination of the sources (old dishes) that one realizes what is new.

These seem a lot alike.

It helps to express them as conditionals:

(1')  If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.

(2')  It is inconsistent to call a dish new and not know its history

It is inconsistent to A and not B   =
If you A then you must B.
 

(2")  If you call a dish new then you must understand its history.
           "TRANSPOSITION"
(1')   If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.
 

What about (6)?

(6) It is through examination of the sources (old dishes) that one realizes what is new.

(6')  It is (only) though examination of the old dishes that one realizes what is new.

(6")  If one realizes what is new then one must examine the old dishes.

Summary of this part:

(2")  If you call a dish new then you must understand its history.
           "TRANSPOSITION"
(1')   If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.

(6")  If one realizes what is new then one must examine the old dishes.

(6"')  If you want to know about new cuisine then you must learn about old cuisine.
+
[You want to know about new cuisine.]
So

[You should learn about old cuisines.]
+ [This book will teach you about old cuisines.]
So  [Read (buy) this book.]

Summary of Remaining parts.

(5a)  Old flavors are wonderful. (5b) Old flavors are part   of our culture.

[You should learn about old cuisines.]
 
 

(3)  Most people in our culture have not yet tasted the old cuisines.
+
(6"')  If you want to know about new cuisine then you must learn about old cuisine.

So

(4)  It is difficult (for most people) to know what is new.
+
[But this book will help you learn what is new, (by explaining the old)]
+
[You want to know about new cuisine]

So [Read (buy) this book.]

Step 8.  Now evaluate each component argument.

(5a)  Old flavors are wonderful.
[You should learn about what is wonderful.]
So  [You should learn about old cuisines.]

If something is wonderful it might be better to EXPERIENCE it than to learn about it.

(5a)  Old flavors are wonderful.
[This book will give you recipes so that you can taste the old flavors.]
[Read (buy) this book.]
 

(5b)  Old flavors are part of our culture.
[You should learn about our culture.]
So  [You should learn about old cuisines.]
 

(2")  If you call a dish new then you must understand its history.
           "TRANSPOSITION"
(1')   If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.
 

(2")  If you call a dish new then you must understand its history.
      TRANSPOSITION     VALID
[If you do not understand a dish's history then you cannot call the dish new.]

[????]  Hint:

(1')   If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.
 
 
 

[If you do not understand a dish's history then you cannot call the dish new.]

[If you do not know old dishes then you won't understand a given dish's history.]

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM  (CHAIN)

(1')   If you do not know old dishes then you cannot call a dish new.