4 Identifying Argumentative Units
The definition of what counts as an argumentative component provided above (Tip 2.1) covers several different ways to formulate reasons and objections. The notions of reason and objection carry different connotations for different people, and some are irrelevant to the concept of argumentative component. The following clarifications and tips explicate to some extent the concept of argumentative component used in this guideline. They are meant to help you identify argumentative units in a consistent way.
4.1 The Irrelevance of Evaluating Reasons and Objections
You do not have to evaluate or assess the strength of reasons and objections.
A text segment counts as an argumentative unit, regardless of whether the presented justification succeeds. It does not matter whether a presented reason is a good reason. What counts are the author’s intention and commitments. As an annotator, you only have to ask yourself whether the author meant the text segment to represent a justification or whether they are committed to it by what they said.
4.3 Oblique Reasons
Sometimes reasons are presented in indirect ways. Example 4.2 illustrate this point.
For many people, the very idea [of germline editing] feels unnatural and wrong, and I was one of those people when I first started thinking about the issue. Humans have been reproducing for millennia, aided only by the DNA mutations that arise naturally, and for us to begin directing the process—similar to the way that plant biologists might genetically modify corn—seems almost perverse at first glance. As National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins put it, “Evolution has been working toward optimizing the human genome for 3.85 billion years. Do we really think that some small group of human genome tinkerers could do better without all sorts of unintended consequences?” (Doudna and Sternberg 2017)
The first two sentences appeal to emotions. It is about what people feel towards the idea of germline editing. There is a common misconception that emotions and arguments are mutually exclusive. While it is true that emotions are no reasons on their own, emotions can express or point to reasons. The reason implicitly formulated in the snippet above is known as the argument from naturalness: we should not pursue germline editing because it is unnatural.
The second reason is formulated as a rhetorical question in the last sentence. The stated reason points to the possibility of severe side effects: Germline editing will have unintended effects because human genome editing cannot be better than the evolutionary optimisation of the human genome.
Again, it is unimportant how we evaluate the argumentative strength of these reasons to categorise them as argumentative components (see Note 4.1). The example shows that reasons can be formulated indirectly, for instance, through appeals to emotion and rhetorical questions.
Reasons and objections can be presented indirectly.
4.4 Using Linguistic Cues
How do we recognise text segments as expressing argumentative components? Often, authors employ linguistic cues to signal to the audience what they intend as a reason or an objection.
Search for linguistic cues that indicate the formulation of argumentative components!
Linguistic cues are indicator words, phrases, clauses, or whole sentences used by an author (or interlocutor) to help the audience interpret the text’s (or utterance’s) intended meaning. Linguistic cues for reasons and objections serve as direct or indirect signs that characterise text segments as argumentative units.
Typical phrases that indicate a support relation between x and y include:
- x is true. Hence/Therefore, y.
- y because x.
- y since x.
- y for the reason that x.
- …
Attack relations can be formulated, for instance, by the following phrases:
- x is false/implausible/irrelevant because y.
- x. This is obviously false since y.
- x. This argument is based on the assumption that …, which is false since y.
- An important objection to x is that y.
- …
Often, text segments are presented as reasons by attributing claims together with their reasons and objections to specific groups or people:
- S argues for x by y.
- The main reason for x is put forward by S. According to them … y.
- S objects to x by saying that y.
- …
One important question is whether annotators should consider linguistic cues as part of the corresponding argumentative unit—in other words, whether annotators should count them as belonging to the formulation of reasons. There is no particular reason to do it one way or the other. However, to make the results of different annotators comparable, we should adopt one consistent rule: You should not annotate linguistic cues as part of the argumentative unit (for more details and exceptions, see Section 7.2.2). Nevertheless, searching for linguistic cues and independently annotating them is very helpful for the task of identifying argumentative units. In the following examples, we will either underline or italicise linguistic cues.
4.5 Relevance of the Cotext
While searching for linguistic cues is an indispensable means to identify argumentative units, you cannot always count on finding informative linguistic cues. Often, linguistic cues will be amiss. Fortunately, the surrounding text—which we will refer to as cotext—will often provide enough information to decide on whether a text segment is an argumentative unit.
Let’s have a second look at Example 4.1:
Some people worry that it is impossible to obtain informed consent for germline therapy because the patients affected by the edits are the embryo and future generations. The counterargument is that parents already make many decisions that affect their future children, including similarly complicated decisions such as PGD [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] with IVF [in vitro fertilization]. (NHGRI 2017, emphasis added)
We already characterised the first sentence as a reason against germline therapy. How do we know that? The phrase ‘Some people worry that x.’ is not a unique linguistic cue for x being a reason. It simply presents x as being a worry. But often such ascriptions serve as an indirect means of expressing a reason. In this example, the cotext—here, the second sentence—corroborates this interpretation. It contains a linguistic cue (‘The counterargument is’) for an attack relation. It not only tells us that the second sentence expresses an objection but that some of the preceding sentences must contain a reason to which it is an objection.
For the task of identifying argumentative units, take the cotext or even the whole text into account.
4.6 Justificatory and Explanatory Reasons
While you should search for linguistic cues, you have to be careful when interpreting them. The same phrase can be utilised for different purposes in different contexts. A prevalent example is the phrase ‘x because y’. Sometimes it will signpost a presented justification, but sometimes it will be used to formulate an explanation without any justificatory relevance. Consequently, we have to distinguish between justificatory reasons and explanatory reasons. Up until now, we have only considered justificatory reasons—that is, reasons that are presented as justifications for some other statement. In contrast to justificatory reasons, explanatory reasons provide explanations.
The relevant difference between the two concepts can be explained in terms of the questions they answer. Justifications for x answer to the question ‘Is x true?’; explanations for x answer to questions such as ‘Why is x true?’, ‘What is the explanation for x?’ or ‘What is meant with x?’ A justification for x is usually formulated to convince the audience that x is true. In this case, the author assumes that the audience needs to be convinced of x and provides reasons that justify the truth of x. An explanation for x is used for different purposes. It can be offered to inform the audience about the cause of x, or it can explain the meaning of x. In contrast to a justification, an explanation for x does not aim to establish the truth of x. The truth is either presupposed or simply not the issue at stake.
The following examples illustrate different types of explanatory reasons. In Example 4.3, the because-phrase expresses a causal explanation:
Meanwhile, the average white household has a net worth 13 times that of the average black household and 10 times that of the average Hispanic household, largely because whites inherit greater generational wealth. (Gordon and Wang 2019, emphasis added)
The example formulates a causal explanation in terms of cause and effect: The inheritance of greater wealth in white households is offered as a cause for why the average net worth of white households exceeds that of black and Hispanic households. We can think of this sentence as an answer to why white households exhibit a higher average net worth. Consequently, the sentence does not formulate an argumentative component.
In Example 4.4, behaviour is explained in terms of personal preferences:
Some heterosexual couples may hesitate to use this option [using third-party eggs or sperm] because they want a child who is not just spared a deleterious gene in their lineage, but is also genetically related to both of them. (Harris and Darnovsky 2018, emphasis added)
This sentence answers to the question of why some couples prefer not to have children that result from using third-party eggs or sperm. On its own, the sentence does not contain an argumentative component, as it does not aim to justify the truth of any statement.
Unfortunately, it can get more complicated. Even if a statement formulates an explanatory reason, it can be an argumentative unit at the same time. There are no clear-cut rules for the interpretation of such cases, as Example 4.5 illustrates:
When it comes to experimentation with human embryos, some Christian communities are opposed because they regard the embryo as a person from conception, whereas Jewish and Muslim traditions tend to be more accepting because they do not consider embryos created in vitro to be people. (Doudna and Sternberg 2017, emphasis added)
The two occurrences of the linguistic cue ‘because’ signal explanatory reasons in this example. The sentence offers explanations for the attitudes of different religious communities towards germline editing on embryos for research purposes. It explains these attitudes in terms of beliefs about the status of embryos. The first part of the sentence explains why Christians are against such experimentation, and the second why Jews and Muslims are “more accepting”.
Additionally, we can plausibly reconstruct the Christians’ belief as a reason justifying their attitude. It tells us not only why they are opposed to germline editing but makes it plausible to reconstruct how they might justify their stance. Christians would justify the prohibition of such research with the status of embryos as persons.
A similar interpretation with the second explanation is considerably less well supported. While it similarly explains Jews’ and Muslims’ stance toward the status of the embryo, their position toward germline editing remains somewhat vague. “more accepting” is comparative and underspecified. Even if they reject the personhood claim, it does not follow that they thereby endorse experimentation. Consequently, it remains far more speculative whether they regard the embryo’s status as a reason for their stance. We only learn that their belief about the status of the embryo is not a reason against germline editing.
Example 4.5 also illustrates that identification of argumentative units can be interpretatively underdetermined. The identification of explanatory reasons in Example 4.5 is relatively unproblematic. However, their classification or reconstruction as argumentative units is, to some extent, speculative.
Example 4.6 provides cotext of the previous Example 4.4 and illustrates how additional information can defeat the earlier interpretation of the because-phrase as a mere explanatory reason.
Would germline gene editing be justifiable, in spite of the risks, for parents who might transmit an inherited disease? It’s certainly not necessary. Parents can have children unaffected by the disease they have or carry by using third-party eggs or sperm, an increasingly common way to form families. Some heterosexual couples may hesitate to use this option because they want a child who is not just spared a deleterious gene in their lineage, but is also genetically related to both of them. They can do that too, with the embryo screening technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a widely available procedure used in conjunction with in vitro fertilization. (Harris and Darnovsky 2018, emphasis added)
We already characterised the sentence containing the ‘because’ as expressing an explanation of why some couples prefer not to use third-party eggs or sperm for their reproduction. But now, the sentence can be considered part of an argumentative unit since it is part of a complex argument against germline editing. The authors argue that germline editing is not necessary since there are other options for parents to have children without a genetic disease: There is the option to use egg or sperm donation, and another option (PDG together with IVF) for those who prefer to have a child of their genes.
Example 4.7 employs another linguistic cue for a causal relationship.
While genetic correction poses some ethical concerns regarding which diseases and disabilities should be targeted, genetic enhancement may result in dangerous social implications. […] For example, if parents use CRISPR to select for a specific eye color or skin tone, they will likely choose the most socially preferred traits. As a result, increased discrimination and prejudice may follow for those who stray from those specific traits. (Jain 2021, emphasis added)
The phrase ‘as a result’ characterises increased discrimination and prejudice as a causal effect of parents selecting socially preferred traits if they were at liberty to choose the genetic makeup of their offspring. Again, the causal explanation is justificatory relevant since the causal statement enters into reasoning against using germline editing for enhancement purposes. According to this argumentation, we should refrain from using germline editing because of a causal relationship—namely, that enhancement would lead to increased discrimination.
These examples suggest that the question of whether explanations are justificatory relevant cannot be answered in general. The surrounding text must be taken into account, and there might be different but equally valid interpretations.
Be aware of the difference between justificatory and explanatory reasons. Use linguistic cues and the cotext to decide whether explanations are justificatory relevant.
4.7 The Role of Examples
Examples are often formulated with linguistic cues such as ‘for instance,…’ and ‘for example,…’. Often, they are used to illustrate or elaborate on a statement without being (part of) an argumentative component. However, they can also be used to justify a statement.
How do we decide whether a formulated example is intended as a justification? An example is justificatory relevant only if there is a statement that is supposed to be justified with the example. For instance, propositions that claim the existence of something are typically justified by providing an example that corresponds to an instance of what is claimed to exist.
To assess the justificatory relevance of examples, identify text segments that are meant to be justified by the example.
Take the example we’ve just discussed (Example 4.7):
While genetic correction poses some ethical concerns regarding which diseases and disabilities should be targeted, genetic enhancement may result in dangerous social implications. […] For example, if parents use CRISPR to select for a specific eye color or skin tone, they will likely choose the most socially preferred traits. As a result, increased discrimination and prejudice may follow for those who stray from those specific traits. (Jain 2021, emphasis added)
The first sentence claims the existence of possible dangerous social implications. Such an existential proposition can be justified by providing an instance of what it claims to exist. The example introduced with the linguistic cue ‘for example’ is presented as an attempt to do precisely that. It claims the possibility of increased discrimination and prejudice as a dangerous social consequence. The example is, therefore, presented as a justification for the existential claim.