A claim about one case is supported by pointing to the larger body it belongs to. The argument works by handing down what is said of the collection to the single item: Greek salad is healthy because Mediterranean food is. You can attack it by showing that this particular case is an exception to what holds of the whole.
Example
Greek salad is healthy because Mediterranean food is healthy
Standardized form
Greek salad (a) is healthy (X) because Mediterranean food (b) is healthy (X).
Transformations applied: none — the example is already in canonical form.
Classification
The subjects differ and the predicate is the same, so the argument form is beta (a is X because b is X).
The conclusion is about one specific dish (s) and the premise about all Mediterranean food (u), so the argument substance is su.
The keyword BELONGS TO THE TOTALITY OF describes the relationship between subjects a and b. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Greek salad (a) belongs to the TOTALITY of Mediterranean food (b) with respect to being healthy (X)”.
Assessment questions
- Is Mediterranean food indeed healthy?
- Does Greek salad belong to the totality of Mediterranean food — is it a member of the collection about which the verdict is made?
- Is the healthiness of Mediterranean food enough to conclude that Greek salad is healthy, or could this particular dish be an exception — because of its cheese, oil or salt — to what holds of the cuisine as a whole?
Not to be confused with
- Argument from genus — The conclusion is about a kind within the class, not about one individual member of it.
pu - Argument from example — Runs the other way, from one case up to the whole class.
us - Argument from division — The conclusion is the complete set of parts of the thing in the premise, not one member of a collection.
A PART OF
Notes
Apart from beta form arguments with substance su, those with substance sp or pu also fit the scheme, as the scope of the conclusion is smaller than that of the premise.
Source of the example
Source not yet recorded.
