Philosophy for Absolute Beginners: Building Arguments That Actually Support a Conclusion

1) Arguments vs. Explanations vs. Opinions

An argument is a set of statements where some statements (the premises) are offered as reasons to accept another statement (the conclusion). The key idea is support: the premises are meant to make the conclusion more reasonable to believe.

An explanation is different: it assumes (or treats as already accepted) that something is true, and then tells you why it happened or how it works. Explanations aim at understanding, not proving.

A mere opinion is a claim stated without giving supporting reasons (or with reasons that don’t connect).

Practice: Spot which is which

• “The store should refund me because the receipt says returns are allowed within 30 days.” (Argument)
• “The store refunded me because their policy requires it.” (Explanation)
• “Refund policies are annoying.” (Opinion)

2) The Anatomy of an Argument (and How to Clean One Up)

Most arguments—especially in everyday conversation—are messy. To evaluate them, you first need to see their structure.

The three parts

• Premises: the reasons offered.
• Conclusion: the claim the speaker wants you to accept.
• Inference link: the “therefore” connection—how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion.

You can often find premises and conclusions using indicator words:

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• Premise indicators: “because,” “since,” “given that,” “for the reason that.”
• Conclusion indicators: “therefore,” “so,” “thus,” “that’s why,” “which means.”

Standard form: the cleanup tool

Putting an argument into standard form means listing premises clearly and writing the conclusion explicitly. This makes it easier to check whether the support is strong.

Template:

P1: ...  P2: ...  (P3: ...)  Therefore (C): ...

Step-by-step: Rewrite messy speech into standard form

Messy speech example (returns policy): “They have to take it back. It’s only been two weeks and the receipt literally says you can return stuff within 30 days, so yeah, they should refund me.”

Step 1: Identify the conclusion (what are they trying to get you to accept?): “They should refund me.”

Step 2: Extract the reasons (what are they using as support?): “It’s only been two weeks.” “Receipt says returns within 30 days.”

Step 3: Remove extra filler (“literally,” “so yeah”) and keep claim-like sentences.

Step 4: Write in standard form:

P1: The receipt says returns are allowed within 30 days.  P2: I am returning the item within 30 days (it has been two weeks).  Therefore (C): The store should refund me.

Common cleanup issues to watch for

• Hidden conclusion: Sometimes the conclusion is implied. Add it as a full sentence.
• Mixed goals: A speaker may switch between arguing (“you should accept X”) and explaining (“X happened because…”). Separate them.
• Vague premises: “It’s unfair” is too fuzzy to evaluate until you specify what “unfair” means in this case (e.g., “it violates the stated policy”).

3) Everyday Inference Patterns (Deductive and Inductive)

Inference patterns are common “shapes” of reasoning. You don’t need technical vocabulary to use them well; you just need to recognize what kind of support is being offered.

A) Deductive-style support: if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow

In deductive reasoning, the goal is: no gap between premises and conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion can’t be false.

Pattern 1: “If–then” reasoning (modus ponens in plain language)

Shape: If A, then B. A. So B.

Example (returns policy):

P1: If a customer returns an item within 30 days with a receipt, the store will refund it.  P2: I returned the item within 30 days with a receipt.  Therefore (C): The store will refund it.

How to check support: Ask, “Does the situation really match the ‘if’ part?” If yes, the conclusion follows.

Pattern 2: “Either–or” reasoning (everyday elimination)

Shape: Either A or B. Not A. So B.

Example:

P1: Either the package was delivered to my address or it was delivered to the wrong address.  P2: It was not delivered to my address (I was home and nothing arrived; no photo proof).  Therefore (C): It was delivered to the wrong address.

How to check support: The key is whether the “either–or” list is complete. If there’s a third option (stolen, delayed, mis-scanned), the support weakens.

B) Inductive-style support: the premises make the conclusion likely

In inductive reasoning, the goal is: strong probability, not certainty. The premises don’t guarantee the conclusion, but they can still support it well.

Pattern 3: Prediction from signs (rain example)

Shape: When we see signs like X, Y, Z, usually Q happens. We see X, Y, Z now. So Q will probably happen.

Example (predicting rain):

P1: When dark low clouds move in and the weather app shows a high chance of rain, it usually rains within a few hours.  P2: Dark low clouds are moving in now.  P3: The weather app shows an 80% chance of rain this afternoon.  Therefore (C): It will probably rain this afternoon.

How to check support: Ask, “Are these signs reliable?” and “How often do they lead to the outcome?” Stronger evidence (radar, local forecast) strengthens the inference.

Pattern 4: Generalizing from repeated experience (careful version)

Shape: In many observed cases, A leads to B. So in a new similar case, A will likely lead to B.

Example:

P1: In the past month, when I check social media during work breaks, I usually lose track of time and return late.  P2: Today is a typical workday and my habits are the same.  Therefore (C): If I check social media during my break today, I will probably return late again.

How to check support: Ask, “Are the past cases similar to the current case?” and “Is the sample big enough to trust?”

4) Guided Build: Create Your Own Practical Argument

Now you’ll build an argument for a practical claim: “We should set phone-free dinner time.” The goal is not to win; it’s to create support that actually connects to the conclusion.

Step-by-step build

Step 1: Write the conclusion as a clear action statement

• Conclusion (C): “We should set phone-free dinner time in our household.”

Step 2: Choose at least two premises that would support that action

Pick premises that are (a) relevant and (b) plausible. Here are options; choose the ones that fit your situation.

• Premise option A (relationship): “Dinner is one of the few times we’re all together, and phones reduce conversation.”
• Premise option B (attention): “When phones are present, people check them automatically, which breaks attention and makes meals feel rushed.”
• Premise option C (modeling): “Phone-free dinner sets a norm of being present, which is good for kids/partners/roommates.”
• Premise option D (mental rest): “A daily phone-free period reduces stress and improves mood.”

Step 3: Make the inference link explicit (add a ‘therefore’ sentence)

Ask: “How do these premises point toward the action?” Often the missing link is a value like “we should protect shared time” or “we should reduce distractions during meals.” You don’t need to overcomplicate it—just make the connection visible.

Step 4: Put it in standard form

Example finished argument:

P1: Dinner is one of the few times we are all together, and phones reduce conversation during that time.  P2: Regular, undistracted conversation strengthens relationships and makes shared time more meaningful.  Therefore (C): We should set phone-free dinner time in our household.

Step 5 (optional but powerful): Add a premise that addresses a likely objection

Common objection: “What if there’s an emergency?” You can strengthen the argument by building in a reasonable exception.

P3 (optional): We can allow exceptions for urgent calls, so phone-free dinner does not prevent handling emergencies.

Mini-workshop: Build yours in 3 minutes

• Write C as one sentence starting with “We should…”
• Write P1 and P2 as plain facts or widely acceptable claims (avoid slogans).
• Add “Therefore (C): …” and read it out loud. If it sounds like a leap, you need a better premise or a clearer link.

5) Peer-Check Rubric: Does It Actually Support the Conclusion?

Use this rubric to check your own argument or a partner’s. The goal is not perfection; it’s to ensure the premises, if true, would genuinely support the conclusion.

Rubric (score each 0–2)

Three quick peer-check questions

• “What is the conclusion?” (If the listener can’t answer quickly, rewrite.)
• “Which premise does the work?” (If none clearly supports it, you have an opinion, not an argument.)
• “If the premises were true, would I have a reason to agree?” (If not, the inference link is weak or the conclusion is too strong.)