PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS

By Jean Wagemans — Last updated on August 26, 2026

Argument from waste

You argue that something should be carried on because so much has already been put into it. The argument works by treating the earlier investment as a reason in itself: to stop now would throw away what has been spent, so the spending is offered as a ground for continuing. It can be attacked by pointing out that what has already been spent cannot be recovered whatever is decided, so it says nothing about whether continuing is worth it.

Tile for the argument from waste (W)

Example

We must finish the tunnel, because we have already spent two billion on it.

Standardised form

The tunnel (a) must be finished (X) because the tunnel (a) has already cost two billion (Y).

Transformations applied: the sentence recast so that the tunnel is the subject of both statements; anaphora resolved — “it” replaced by “the tunnel”.

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

Classification

The subject is the same in both statements and the predicates differ, so the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y).

The conclusion “must be finished” is a statement of policy (P) and the premise “has already cost two billion” is a statement of fact (F), so the argument substance is PF.

The keyword PRIOR INVESTMENT describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Having already cost two billion (Y) is a PRIOR INVESTMENT in being finished (X)”.

Not to be confused with

  • Pragmatic argument — Looks forward to what the action will bring about; this argument looks back to what it has already cost. CONSEQUENCE
  • Teleologic argument — The action is recommended as a means to a goal that is still wanted, not because of resources already spent. GOAL
  • Deontic argument — The premise is itself an obligation, not a fact about expenditure. P ← P

Source

Invented example.

Notes

This is a proposed type that is not part of the current table of forty-two. It corresponds to what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca call the argument of waste (argument du gaspillage) and to what economists describe as the sunk-cost fallacy. Under the current table it would have to be filed as a pragmatic argument, which misdescribes it: the pragmatic argument turns on a forecast, whereas this one turns on a fact about the past.