[MUSIC] In the last lesson, we looked at what an argument chain, a hypothetical chain is and how it's structured. The argument chain is a common form of supporting arguments in academic context, but we need to be careful when using or evaluating them. This form of argument is often misused, and can lead to a slippery slope fallacy. Also, while some argument chains can seem logical, they may not be good quality arguments, because the links between premises seem okay but they're not the most logical steps to make. In this lesson, we'll look at both of these points using some practical examples. First of all, let's have a look at another chain argument. If there is a rise in the cost of housing, it will lead to an increase in the amount of people experiencing homelessness. If there is an increase in the amount of people experiencing homelessness, then there will be further strain on government support. If there is further strain on government support, there will be less money allocated to other areas of the budget, such as schools. If there is less federal finance allocated to schools, then there will be a decrease in the quality of education. If there is a decrease in the quality of education, our workforce will be less competitive. If our workforce is less competitive, we will lose major sectors to foreign countries. If we lose these major sectors, we'll have a rise in extreme poverty. If there's a rise in extreme poverty there will be a rise in violence and civil unrest. If there is a rise in violence and civil unrest then the government will not be able to govern. If the government cannot govern then our society will collapse. Therefore, the rise in housing costs will lead to the collapse of our society. So here, in ten steps, we have proof that the rise in the cost of housing will lead to the collapse of society. Does anything sound wrong here? This is an example of a slippery slope fallacy, which we looked at in our lesson on common fallacies. In this example, while the steps may seem superficially logical, many of the statements carry assumptions that would actually need further evidence before they can be accepted. For example, the third statement claims, if there is further strain on government support there will be less money allocated to other areas of the budget, such as schools. This may seem a logical step, but it's definitely not a certainty that strain on the welfare sector would lead to less money being allocated to schools. There are many other possible alternatives. The arguer has stated less money would be allocated to other areas of the budget, and gives schools as an example. But the arguer does not give any reason why schools have been chosen, when there are many other areas of the budget that may be affected instead of education. Because there are other alternatives that are equally or more valid, each of the following steps that lead to the conclusion should not be accepted by the audience. The arguer would need to present much greater evidence to prove the link between the precedent and the antecedent in this statement, as well as justify why schools would definitely be affected, before the audience can accept the argument. Finally, we need to recognize that just because an argument is logical, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily good. This is because there maybe a premise and conclusion that is logically valid, but is also missing several important, unmentioned steps between them. In this case, it's necessary to have a look at the link between the two, and to think about whether this the best, most logical conclusion, or whether it's simply a good conclusion. If it's simply good, then what could be better, and why? When teasing out this idea, you'll uncover steps that complicate the simple move from precedent to antecedent. Let's look at another statement from the previous example. If there is a rise in the cost of housing, it will lead to an increase in the amount of people experiencing homelessness. This cause and affect relationship might make sense, but remember, you need to ask whether it is the most logical conclusion. We need this statement to represent the best possible reasoning. In this case, there are too many other variables. For example, is the the rate of pay increasing proportionately? If it is, then the conclusion would not be a reasonable one to make. In fact, the rise in the cost of housing might be a consequence of strong economic growth in the region. Alternatively, a rise in the cost of housing might lead to other possibilities, such as government regulations or tax breaks designed to alleviate pressure on low income families. To justify the original statement, more detail and clearer reasoning is needed. In conclusion, analysing argument chains is no different to analysing other argument structures. As we've looked at in the lesson on premises and conclusions, an argument is only as strong as its weakest point. This is especially relevant to chain arguments, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Argument chains are a valid and useful form of argumentation, however it's important to be careful to look for any weak links in the chain. Joints where the link between premise and conclusion is not the strongest that can be made. Because they are unspoken, these assumptions can easily lead to poor arguments. [MUSIC]