Arguments, explanations, and standard form

Establishing that versus saying why

Two kinds of reasoning look alike on the page and do different jobs. An argument offers reasons to establish that a claim is true — the claim is in doubt and the premises are meant to settle it. An explanation takes a claim as already true and says why it is so. "The press broke down fourteen times, so delivery is now unreliable" argues; "delivery is unreliable because the press is nine years old" explains. Same facts, opposite direction.

In stage 2 the two map onto the rubric directly. An issue statement is an argument: it must establish, from the case's facts, that a gap exists and that it matters. A cause analysis is an explanation: it takes the gap as established and accounts for it. The common error is explaining before establishing — a paragraph on why the press fails, before anyone has shown that the failures cost anything.

Standard form

An argument is easiest to check when it is written in standard form: the premises numbered, a line, then the conclusion. Anything that has to be true for the conclusion to follow, and is not written, is a hidden premise — and stage 3's bias check will go looking for those. Here is Lakeshore's delivery issue as an argument:

P1. On-time delivery has fallen from 96 % to 84 %.
P2. Two of the three key accounts have said they will move if it continues.
P3. Those accounts are $180,000 of revenue at a 42 % margin.
———
C.  Therefore the delivery problem threatens ≈ $75,600 of annual margin.

The arithmetic is $180,000\times 0.42=$75,600. Written this way, the argument shows what it rests on: P2 is a verbal threat, not a notice; P3 assumes both threatening accounts are the larger ones; and the conclusion is threatens, not will lose. Those are exactly the assumptions R-psp-2 asks you to write down.

Now the cause, as an explanation:

Delivery is late because the press broke down 14 times last year,
and it breaks down because it is nine years old and past its service life
(repairs $9,000 → $38,000 in three years).

No line, no "therefore": nothing is being established. The lateness is taken as given (P1 established it) and the explanation says why.

Indicator words

"Because", "since", "given that", "for" usually introduce a premise; "therefore", "so", "hence", "it follows that" introduce a conclusion. But "because" also introduces the explanans of an explanation — so the word alone does not tell you which you are reading. Ask instead: is the claim after the indicator in doubt? If the writer is trying to convince you it is true, argument; if everyone accepts it and the writer is accounting for it, explanation.

The clinic's issue in standard form

P1. About 12 % of booked appointments at the clinic are not kept.
P2. An unkept slot at a two-dentist clinic is clinical time that earns nothing.
P3. Two double-bookings occurred last month, each costing a patient's goodwill.
———
C.  Therefore the paper booking system is costing the clinic revenue and goodwill.

Check it: P1 is Tomas's estimate (an information constraint from stage 1 — flag it); P2 is true unless the slot is refilled from a wait-list, which the paper book cannot do quickly; C claims the system is the problem, which is really the cause creeping into the conclusion — a tighter C would stop at "the clinic is losing revenue and goodwill", and leave the system for the explanation.

Type the skeleton

The snippet below is the shape. Type it until it is automatic, then use it on every issue you state in a case: if you cannot fill three premises with facts from the brief, you do not yet have an issue — you have a symptom.