You support a claim about something by saying a different thing about one part or aspect of it. The argument works by letting the part settle the whole: how hard a thing is to defeat is treated as deciding whether it will win. It can be attacked by denying that the part is decisive for the whole.
Example
Evil will never beat good because defeating evil is easier than defeating good
Standardised form
Evil (a) will never beat good (X) because defeating evil (b) is easier than defeating good (Y).
Transformations applied: none — the example is already in canonical form.
Classification
Both the subjects and the predicates differ, so the argument form is gamma (a is X because b is Y).
The relation between the subjects “evil” and “defeating evil” is the same as the relation between the predicates “will never beat good” and “is easier than defeating good”, so the argument substance is i.
The keyword INTEGRATIVE describes the relation that the subjects and the predicates both instantiate. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Defeating evil (b) is INTEGRATIVE of evil (a), as being easier than defeating good (Y) is INTEGRATIVE of never beating good (X)”.
Not to be confused with
- Argument from synonyms — The matching relation is sameness of meaning.
SYNONYMOUS - Argument from opposites — The matching relation is opposition.
OPPOSITE - Argument from derivatives — One term is formed from the other.
DERIVATIVE - Non sequitur — Substance, not lever: the two relations do not match, so no lever can be formulated.
d
Source
Source not yet recorded.
PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS 