Text Analysis and Philosophical Argumentation
Reading a philosophical text
Know how to identify an author's thesis, premises, conclusion, and method. Distinguish exposition (what the author says) from evaluation (whether it is sound). Be able to reconstruct an argument in standard form (numbered premises, stated conclusion) and to identify hidden premises.
Argument analysis
Recognise deductive and inductive structures; identify validity, soundness, and cogency. Know common informal fallacies: ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, begging the question, equivocation, slippery slope, appeal to authority, and hasty generalization.
Writing and criticising
A good philosophical answer: states the position precisely, gives the strongest objection, and offers a reasoned response. Avoid mere summary, avoid rhetorical appeals, and define technical terms on first use. When quoting, integrate the quotation into your own argument.
Traps
(a) Confusing describing an argument with assessing it; (b) attacking a weaker version of the opponent's view (straw man); (c) treating a counterexample as a refutation when it only shows a need for qualification; (d) using technical terms loosely (e.g., "valid" for "true").
Rule of thumb
Use the three-step test: (1) What is claimed? (2) What reasons are given? (3) Would those reasons convince someone who doubted the claim? If not, the argument needs repair.
Worked example: "Everyone believes X, so X is true." Reconstruct: P1 everyone believes X; C X is true. The hidden premise (what everyone believes is true) is false - an ad populum fallacy. Name the fallacy and the missing premise.