Page 168 - Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Ed
P. 168

ANSWERS, DISCUSSION, AND FURTHER ADVICE 15 5
       (claim 3 in this example) plays a significant role in explaining why the other prem-
      ises lead to a particular conclusion.
      d    What was the explanation for (Sydney beating Beijing for the 2000
           Olympics) 1? There were two main reasons. (The Sydney organisers did a
           better job of lobbying the International Olympic Committee delegates) 2
           and, because of (political crises in China at the time) 3 and (perceived doubts
           about Beijing's quality of services and venues) 4, (Sydney offered a much safer
           venue for a successful Olympic games) 5.



















         This example is the hardest. The 'two main reasons' signal might confuse you
      about the nature of claims 3 and 4. But think about what the author is trying to
      say with the 'because'. It does not relate to claim 1, but gives two reasons for claim
       5. We can think of these last three claims as a sub-argument. Claim 5 functions as
       the conclusion in this sub-argument but then becomes a premise in the main expla-
      nation. Note, too, that 'political crises in China' is a short-hand way of saying
       'There were political crises in China at that time', and similarly for claim 4. Read
      further in chapter 3 for a discussion of the role of these sub-arguments inside a
      main argument or explanation.

       Exercise 3.5

       First, do not write, as if it were one claim, a statement that is either not a claim or
       is two claims. For example, the sentence 'We should study reasoning because it
      will help us to understand our world better' contains two claims, linked with the
      word 'because'. For your analytical structure to be workable, each numbered state-
       ment must be one claim only. Use your analytical structure diagram to show the
       relationship signalled by words such as 'because'. Labelling 'Reasoning is that skill
       that' as claim 1 and 'helps us to solve problems' as claim 2 is also wrong. One
       claim has, in this example, been split falsely into two non-claims. A claim needs
       to connect internally two key ideas or concepts. 'Reasoning is that skill that helps
       us to solve problems' is one claim, connecting reasoning with the idea of solving
       problems.
   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173