PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS

By Jean Hubert M. Wagemans — Last updated on September 13, 2026

Argument from integratives

A claim about something is supported 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. You can attack it by denying that the part is decisive for the whole.

Example

Evil will never beat good because defeating evil is easier than defeating good

Standardized 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.

Triadic structure of the argument from integratives example: conclusion, premise and lever

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) in an identical way as being easier than defeating good (Y) is INTEGRATIVE of never beating good (X)”.

Assessment questions

  1. Is defeating evil indeed easier than defeating good?
  2. Is defeating evil an integrative aspect of evil in the same way as being easier to defeat is an integrative aspect of never winning — is the part, in each case, decisive for the whole?
  3. Is the greater ease of defeating evil enough to conclude that evil will never beat good, or can what is easier to defeat still win — because nobody attempts the defeat, or because the fight is never fought on equal terms?

Not to be confused with

Source of the example

Source not yet recorded.