************
*   today (and Friday) - Chapter 7,
    SUMMARIZING arguments
    *   then:
        Chapter 15 - Science and Pseudoscience
        Chapter 5 - Logical Fallacies I
	Chapter 6 - Logical Fallacies I
***********

*   we've discussed and demo'd DIAGRAMMING arguments;

    NOW we're on the SUMMARIZING arguments!

*   summarizing involves two ADDITIONAL skills
    of argument analysis that we didn't get into
    in argument diagramming:

    *   paraphrasing
    *   finding "missing" premises and conclusions

========
*   paraphrasing
========
*   in general: a restatement of something using
    different words and phrases;

    in argument analysis:
    in particular, restating an argument in a
        more STANDARDIZED, EASIER-to-ANALYZE format

        *   can include identifying and separating out
	    the premise(s) and conclusion,

	    can include restating the argument in simpler
	    terms;

*   a GOOD paraphrase:
    *   accurate
    *   clear
    *   concise
    *   charitable

*   more on ACCURATE:
    *   is FAITHFUL to the author's intended meaning,
        reproduces that meaning fairly,
	without bias or distortion

*   more on CLEAR:
    *   we want to make the argument EASIER to understand
        by our summaries and analysis, not harder...!

    *   (still being accurate, of course)

*   more on CONCISE:
    *   a good paraphrase should capture the ESSENCE of
        an argument;

    *   (but remembering that conciseness should NOT
        override accuracy and clarity...!)

*   more on CHARITABLE:
    *   when a passage can be interpreted more than one way,
        the PRINCIPLE of CHARITY requires that we interpret
	the passage as charitably as the evidence 
        reasonably permits
        
        *   don't interpret the argument to make it easier
	    to attack...

============
*   finding "missing" premises and conclusions
============
*   in real life, people often leave parts of their
    arguments unstated;
    *   might be a premise, might be the conclusion!

    *   maybe it is considered obvious,
        maybe an ad line is considered more effective without
	it,
	maybe the arguer is wanting to conceal a weak or
	questionable step in their argument...!

*   FUN NEW WORD of the DAY:
    ENTHYMEME
    *   an argument with a MISSING premise or conclusion

*   two BASIC rules for filling in the missing parts
    of an enthymeme:
    1.   FAITHFULLY interpret the arguer's intentions
         *   the missing piece is a genuine part of the
	     argument ONLY if it was implicitly
	     understood to be part of the argument
	     by the arguer themself;

         *   question to ask:
	     "What else must the arguer assume -- that they
	      are not saying -- to reach their conclusion?"

    2.   be charitable 

************
we'll summarize longer arguments using
STANDARDIZATION
************
*   which will use the skills of paraphrasing and
    filling in missing parts in enthymemes!

*   STANDARDIZATION is restating an argument in
    STANDARD LOGICAL FORM

*   an argument is in STANDARD LOGICAL FORM
    when:

    *   each step in the (restated) argument is numbered 
        consecutively

    *   premises are stated ABOVE the conclusions they
        are claimed to support

    *   justifications are provided for each conclusion
        in the argument

    *   for each conclusion or subconclusion,
        indicate in PARENTHESES which previous steps
        that conclusion or subconclusion is claimed to
	follow from

*   here are the steps to OBTAIN this form:

    1. read through the argument, try to identify its main
       conclusion
       *   then go back through the argument and identify
           major premises and subconclusions offered in
           support of that main conclusion

       *   paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning

    2. omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material

    3. number the steps in the argument, and stack them
       in "correct" logical order (e.g., 
       premises, then conclusion)

    4. fill in any missing key premises or conclusions
       *   place BRACKETS [ ] around implied statements to indicate
           that you added them

    5. add parenthetical justifications for each
       conclusion/subconclusion
       *   that is, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate
           in parentheses from WHICH previous lines in the argument
	   that conclusion/sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow