Morandi’s paintings are great because they are not realistic representations of bottles.
The subjects are the same and the predicates are different, so the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y): “Morandi’s paintings (a) are great (X) because they (a) are not realistic representations of bottles (Y).”
The conclusion is a statement of value (V) and the premise is a statement of fact (F), so the argument substance is VF: “Morandi’s paintings are great (V) because they are not realistic representations of bottles (F)”.
The keyword CRITERION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Not being realistic representations of bottles (Y) is a CRITERION for being great”.
Other examples
- Anger is less dangerous than indifference because anger can at times be creative (https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html).
- Torture simply does not work because it consistently produces false confessions and unreliable or misleading information (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/01/torture-torture-and-waterboarding-not-exception-un-expert-urges-us-not).
Notes
The example is adapted from a discussion on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/ContemporaryArt/comments/1ivkxh2/please_could_someone_explain_to_me_why_giorgio/).
PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS 