The function of an ordered survey is not always to prove or disprove the issue, since genuine issues can normally be resolved only in practice and depend upon the achievement of the consensus of the parties involved. There can be both highly-relevant and tenable arguments for, as well as against, an issue so that no rational conclusion as to the whole can be derived. If a conclusion is reached it is not a logically-valid one in the strict sense because it is an evaluation as to which side presents the strongest arguments when all are taken together and compared.


Making a preliminary survey

Few people without training and experience in debating or scientific argumentation are at the outset capable of making a complete and ordered survey of consistent, clear and relevant arguments for and against any particular issue. Therefore, it is usual to make a preliminary survey of the issue and arguments. This can serve as the basis for a fuller survey where the arguments are ordered according to certain rules. One may even start with a text or recorded materials upon which the survey is to be based. The following exemplifies this:

"In our opinion world security is threatened by nuclear power plants. Consider the cases of India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa. Nuclear power plants have provided the technology they require to make them capable of developing nuclear weapons. Further, fissionable products can more easily be stolen for illegal uses when nuclear power plants exist, even though official authorities claim their security systems to be almost infallible. Obviously, no system where the human factor is involved is ever infallible. It's no use arguing that nuclear technology is under the control of expert scientists because this is not so and because scientists do not own the technology or its products."

The underlined is clearly what constitutes the issue-statement (hereafter I0) and it is a descriptive statement. The arguments for and against will therefore be ordered as statements that support or weaken the tenability of 10, making those that are directly relevant to the issue main arguments (hereafter 'first-order arguments'), and those that are directly related to a main argument sub-arguments.

Arguments that are first-order are indicated by capital P for pro and C for contra and are numbered for the sake of identification (i.e. the numbering does not indicate importance or precedence). Further, arguments that do not relate directly to the issue but instead refer to a first-order argument (whether pro or contra the issue) are sub- arguments. Sub-arguments are thus indirectly related to the issue, through the first-order argument to which they refer.

Sub-arguments can be of any order from second-order and onwards numerically. There can be any number of sub-arguments for or against any main argument, whatever their order.

For example, p1P1, p2P1, p5P1 / c1P1, c2P1, c3P1 / and p1C1, p2C1 would all symbolise second-order arguments. The second-order argument p1P2 ' supports £2 and therefore indirectly supports the issue-statement. However c1P2 indirectly weakens the issue-statement, as would p1C1. An argument labelled c1C1 will therefore be in indirect support of the issue-statement.

Third-order arguments relate directly to the preceding second-order argument. Thus, the triple symbol pair c1c1P1 is an argument against c1P1, thus also in support of P1 and of the issue-statement.
Further, c2c1P1 would be another argument against c1P1 (not necessarily more important than c1c1P1, as the numbers are for identification only and do not represent order of priority of the arguments of that order).
Fourth-order arguments would be indicated by four symbol pairs as c1c1c1P1 and so on.

Following the above method of label-ordering, the example text above can be ordered as a survey to demonstrate the relations of its arguments as follows;-
I0 World security is threatened by nuclear power plants
P1 because they provide the technology required to make countries capable of developing nuclear weapons
p1P1 Consider the cases of India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa
P2 because fissionable products can more easily be stolen for illegal uses
c1P2 but official authorities claim their security systems to be almost infallible
c1c1P2 but no system where the human factor is involved is ever infallible

C1 No, because nuclear technology is under the control of expert scientists.
c1C1 but scientists do not own the technology or its products

The above obviously does not exhaust the issue, but it serves to show how three main lines of argument (headed by P1, P2 and C1) are related to the issue and their sub-arguments. There is no way to decide when an issue is exhausted as this depends upon experience, imagination and knowledge of the facts pertinent to the issue. Despite this, however, certain arguments can be so tenable and relevant and of such a degree of irrefutability that they serve to make only one conclusion likely, even though the survey is not exhaustive of all main arguments possible. They are not thereby logically irrefutable, but practically so in that their denial leads to absurd standpoints.

To judge whether any survey is sufficiently ordered we need to apply the following standards, which apply equally to surveys with descriptive and prescriptive issue-statements.

Rule 1) The arguments must be formulated explicitly enough to enable one to decide whether they are Pro or contra. If a statement could equally well figure as pro or contra, it is not a sufficiently clear descriptive argument. (The main arguments must be ordered correctly as for (P1, P2, P3 etc.) or against (C1, C2, C3 etc) the issue-statement, see example above). The exact wording of an argument is important, so the semantical standards of clarity, conciseness and precision should be observed. Unclear arguments can frequently be improved by reformulation of their expressions according to the principles earlier stated.

Rule 2) All arguments that are of a sub-order should be labelled so as to indicate to which main arguments they are related and whether they are pro or contra the argument to which they directly relate.
(The example already given above shows c1P2 is a second-order argument against P2, which is for 10, and therefore is indirectly against I0. Then c1c1P2 is a third-order argument, being against c1P2 and thus indirectly for I0). The purpose in labeling is semantical and also in the interests of the economy of thought. A clear overview of a complex issue is best attained by the systematic ordering of an argument-survey. This process facilitates the subsequent process of evaluation of the arguments on the whole and the eventual drawing of a conclusion as to the relative strength of the issue-statement.

Rule 3) No argument that is directly or indirectly in support of the issue-statement may contradict any other supporting arguments, whatever order they may be.
Contrariwise, no arguments directly or indirectly against the issue-statement should contradict one another whatever order they be.
If so the argumentation is incompatible and the survey must be altered to remove this. This rule is an application of the principle of non-contradiction (see section one of this book). Its purpose is to bring overall logical consistency to all the arguments that can be forwarded either for or against an issue-statement. Evidently, pro-arguments can legitimately contradict contra-arguments of the same order. In such a case one can only decide between them on the strength of the relative sub-arguments. It is important to note that sub-arguments which indirectly support an issue-statement can be ordered on either 'side' of a survey, depending upon which relation they bear to the main argument. See as follows;

I0 'In Scandinavian nations party politicians are bound to vote according to officially-adopted party conference policies.'

PRO CONTRA
PI because those who do not are not put up by their parties for re-election.
C1 but this does not occur in every instance
c1C1 but those who do not are not put up by their parties for re-election.

We see here that P1 also could figure as c1C1. It is a matter of choice where the argument is placed, for its evaluation will not be affected. If the argument is regarded as of great weight, however, it is evidently better to formulate it as a first-order argument (than as a second-order argument on the opposite 'side' of a survey).

Rule 4) Implicit assertions supporting the issue-statement should not contradict any stated arguments which also support the issue-statement (directly/or indirectly).
Likewise, implicit assertions that are against the issue-statement should not contradict any stated arguments which are also against the issue-statement (directly or indirectly).
This rule is necessary in that most arguments on general issues are based upon assumptions. The complete grounds for any general argument cannot normally be made explicit in full. If the grounds assumed are likely to be in conflict with other arguments that they would be in support of, they should be made explicit as argument-expressions and rule 3 applied to see whether contradiction arises.
For example, in continuance of the example above under rule 3:-
Suppose that some contra-argument C1 is based on the assumption that 'there are instances where the party parliamentary group decide that the issue to be voted on is purely a matter of individual moral conscience, such as the issues of capital punishment or right to abortion'. This assumption would not be logically consistent with the contra-argument C2:-

C2 but parliamentary representatives of a party may only abstain from voting unless they receive directions from official party conference policies.

Impracticable and untrue as C2 is as an argument, it is not consistent with the assumption upon which C1 was supposedly based. One cannot both abstain from voting and vote on grounds of Individual moral conscience etc. (C2 is also not clearly a contra-argument, as it stands without further explanation).


Application of the rules

Applying these standards to the example about nuclear power plants it can be seen from the original text that the writer-is arguing for the issue-statement, so P1 is correctly labeled. However, considering whether P1 could just as well have been labeled C1, we find that those who see it as a benefit that countries with nuclear power plants should be capable of developing nuclear weapons would indeed label the argument as contra the issue-statement. According to rule 1 therefore the argument is not sufficiently clear. That is not clear about it when taken outside the textual context is that it assumes implicitly that it is an undesirable state of affairs that certain countries are capable of developing nuclear weapons. The argument could therefore be further qualified as follows:-
P1 because they provide the technology required to make countries capable of developing undesirable nuclear weapons.

The debate about desirability or undesirability would then become relegated to the second-order argumentation, if such a point is regarded as debatable.

Secondly, the sub-argument p1P1 is correctly labeled as a statement supporting P1.

The third rule requires that we ensure no contradictions between P1, p1P1, P2, c1c1P2 and c1c1 occur, because all of these are statements in support of the issue-statement, either directly or indirectly. In this case there is compatibility in that all of these statements could be tenable at once.

Rule 4 does not appear to be infringed in the example, though this does not guarantee that it is fully observed. Further analysis may bring to light assumptions that are not justifiable.


Evaluation of the arguments

Evaluation requires three assessments. Firstly the tenability and secondly the relevance of each main argument is assessed, where necessary by also assessing the tenability and relevance of the supporting and weakening sub-arguments. Lastly, the main arguments, as assessed for tenability and relevance, are reviewed together and compared as to their relative strength pro and contra. This may lead one to a conclusion, based on all the arguments and only those arguments (i.e. excluding 'after-thought' arguments not included in the survey). The conclusion may be for the issue-statement, against it or a 'stalemate', where neither side has an overweight and one therefore reserves judgement. In some cases of course, no conclusion will be arrived at due either to incompleteness of a survey, either as to arguments that ought to have been included or as to lacking information regarding the tenability of main arguments. However, all arguments end somewhere.

Applying the above to the argument example about nuclear power plants, I make an evaluation for purposes of demonstration, it being based upon my own information and judgement at present, (i.e. the correctness of my information and judgement is not thereby entirely guarantee:-

P1 is greatly strengthened by p1P1, India having exploded nuclear weapons already which were developed from so-called 'peaceful' nuclear power plant technology. Pakistan is known to be close to developing nuclear weapons, and their plant has been bought surreptitiously upon the open world market. Israel is publicly strongly believed to have produced several nuclear weapons, as has also South Africa. However, nuclear power plants do not provide all the technology necessary for weapons of the traditional type and only certain types produce plutonium which is a potential 'nuclear weapon' in itself, if of unconventional sort, being extremely poisonous and easy to spread. Therefore the tenability of P1 is not 100%. Had the phrase 'can under certain conditions' been included, it would have been completely tenable in my judgement.
The tenability of P1 makes the truth of 10 highly likely, therefore the argument is highly relevant to the issue.

P2 is contested by c1P2, which is again contested by c1c1P2. This latter argument is highly tenable in my opinion as there are already recorded and confirmed cases of theft of fissionable products from nuclear power plants, chiefly one in U.K. in 1982 where a researcher stole 1 lb. of plutonium so as to prove that the security forces were fallible at a nuclear power station. Therefore I regard P2 as tenable and this does increase world insecurity, making it also highly relevant.

C1 appears to argue that 'expert scientists' would never stoop to developing nuclear weapons, which is provenly untrue. In this case it makes little difference whether they own the technology or its products, so c1C1 has little relevance, though high tenability. Nuclear technology is no longer completely controlled by expert scientists in the security sense, which further weakens C1. If 'controlled' were interpreted as 'economically controlled', which is unlikely in the context, c1C1 would then appear much more relevant and would weaken C1 yet further.

All in all, I regard C1 as untenable, therefore also irrelevant to the issue.
Concerning the relative strength of arguments, therefore I find two strong main arguments supporting the statement "World security is threatened by nuclear power plants."

The conclusion was here reached on the basis of the explicit arguments plus additional facts introduced when evaluating their tenability and relevance. Optimally such facts should be included in the explicit arguments of the survey. However, as all arguments end somewhere and all relevant facts cannot be enumerated that the mind can review, Judgements of tenability will invariably depend upon the experience and knowledge of the one who judges.


Prescriptive 'arguments'

A prescriptive statement does not constitute a logical argument because its function or purpose is to be emotive (i.e. to persuade) and is not cognitive.

To argue for or against a value (as expressed in a prescriptive issue-statement) by forwarding another value does not make an explicit and rational argument, from the viewpoint of logic and science. This view is strictly 'rationalist' because it admits no value judgements in a purely reasoning process, insisting on cognitive arguments formulated in descriptive statements (and not in prescriptive statements). It is rationalist in that it sets reason above emotion. In many cultures, however, this sort of rationalism is rejected and values are frequently therefore forwarded as support for and against issues of a normative sort. For example, consider this:-
I0 "One ought to believe in God"
P1 "Yes. Because not to do so is morally wrong"
p1P1 "And this leads to belief in justification for any inhuman acts"

P1 is clearly a prescriptive statement and one which many would accept as a good argument for I0. Here, however it is not formulated as a logical or empirical ground for I0, so it must be regarded as irrelevant to I0. The sub-argument p1P1, however, makes explicit what is thought to be one consequence of morally wrongful non-belief in God. So p1P1 could be tested as to its tenability and therefore could stand as a rational ground for I0. It could be re-labeled P1 instead of as P1 above, which latter is rejected from any ordered survey. Whether p1P1 (now P1) is a strong or tenable argument is another question. At least it puts forward a view that is testable in principle, though doubtless very difficult to test in practice. It assumes also that the term 'inhuman' is not normative, which is open to question. Further definition of the term 'inhuman' would be required before any test would be practically feasible. For example, 'inhuman acts' could be defined as 'acts contrary to the Geneva Contention of 1948's Declaration of Human Rights. Even then, conclusive testing of the tenability of p1P1 would be highly difficult and probably most controversial.


Sub-arguments concerning relevance or tenability

When sub-arguments are forwarded they will tend to support or weaken the main argument. This can be achieved in two distinct ways, either by strengthening/weakening the main argument's tenability, or by strengthening/weakening its relevance to the issue-statement. For example:-
I0 "One ought to demonstrate against the nuclear arms race".
P1 "This will increase the likelihood that leaders of nuclear nations will negotiate for nuclear disarmament in good faith, stopping the arms race"
c1P1 "No. Leaders of Warsaw Pact countries will not be influenced by demonstrations".

c1P1 is an argument against the tenability of the next argument of higher order. If c1P1 is judged tenable, it will weaken the tenability of P1. This makes it a relevant argument against P1 (see definition of relevance for descriptive issue-statements. P1 has now become, for all intents, a descriptive issue-statement in relation to c1P1 (which is like a first-order argument against it now).
Yet consider the following arguments:
c2P1 "No. Nuclear disarmament negotiations are never influenced by demonstrations, only by economic-military strategic considerations"
p1P1 "Yes. Demonstrations which express very strong public opinions eventually influence the leaders of States."

Both of the above arguments refer to the relevance of P1 as an argument for I0. Of course, c1P1 is against P1, an argument attempting to show that P1 has limited relevance to I0, while p1P1 attempts to show that P1 does have relevance to I0. Which is strongest depends upon the tenability of c1P1 and p1P1 (as well as any other arguments that might be included which concern the relevance of P1 to I0).

The process of evaluation of any main argument requires, therefore, that all of the sub-arguments be evaluated - starting with those of the lowest order and working gradually 'upwards' towards the main argument at the top. Each sub-argument is evaluated for its tenability and its relevance to the next argument (in ascending order). It is important to distinguish whether a sub-argument relates to the tenability or the relevance of the argument above it. When such judgements have been made, an overall judgement of the tenability and relevance of the main argument can be made. This is a rule-of-thumb judgement in most cases of arguments for issues of a broad or general nature and it decides the strength of the argument. This argument will then be subsequently compared with other arguments, both pro- and contra- arguments of the 1'st order so that a conclusion as to whether the issue is supported or weakened by the arguments available can be made. In some cases the arguments for and against may balance one another so that a conclusion cannot be reached, even on the strength of available evidence. Again, where broad issues are involved, it will seldom be possible to marshall all the arguments of importance, especially not all possible relevant and tenable sub-arguments. As said, all arguments end somewhere.


Prescriptive issue-statements

Prescriptive issue-statements, which express a norm and advocate action, require somewhat different treatment. When the issue-statement expresses a norm (is prescriptive) the arguments relevant to it may often also be prescriptive, including value-statements and tenets of belief. These can invariably be expressed as descriptive statements instead, which helps to clarify then and make the evaluation of their tenability possible (for prescriptive statements cannot be true or false, by definition). Relevance is also judged in a different way for prescriptive issues.
When forwarding arguments for or against a prescriptive issue-statement it will be most convenient to formulate them so that they express a consequence of the state of affairs in the issue-statement becoming realised. We shall call such types of argument 'consequence arguments'.
One asks: "What would be the consequences of 10 being realised?" The answer should be a descriptive statement. As an example consider the following consequence argument for I1 (below):-
Prescriptive issue-statement:
I0 'Observe human rights everywhere'. This is not very precise, therefore, to clarify the issue it could be re-stated more precisely as:
I1 'The governments of all nations ought to observe the articles of the 1948 United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights'
P1 'Then political oppression would cease'.

The 'then' expresses that the argument is a consequence of the realisation of I0. Had the argument been expressed as a norm, it might have been:
P1 'because political oppression ought to be brought to an end'. This prescriptive statement cannot be regarded as tenable or untenable, hence the consequence argument form instead.
Consider a second-order argument against P1 and the issue-statement:
c1P1 'but political oppression not covered by the articles of the 1948 Declaration could still occur'.

This evidently, if tenable, reduces the tenability of P1 and weakens the argument. As to the relevance of P1 one must ask 'Is it likely that political oppression would cease as a consequence of the governments of all nations observing the articles of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights?' If so, the argument can be relevant, if doubtful the argument may still be relevant but, if not, the argument is most unlikely to be relevant. The final test of relevance is whether the judge of the argument considers it to predict a good or an ill. If one considers it good that political oppression should cease, or also if one regards it as ill, the argument is relevant. If neither, then it is irrelevant.

Sometimes an argument that is relevant to a prescriptive issue-statement will be virtually impossible to re-formulate as a consequence argument without losing the clarity and force of the argument. Consider:-
I0 "One ought to demonstrate so as to reduce inflation"
and the argument against this, pure and simple, that
C1 "demonstration is an entirely ineffective method of achieving reduced inflation".
It would be somewhat absurd to try to formulate this as a consequence
argument, though it could be written alternatively as follows, perhaps:-
C1 "then one would be using an entirely ineffective method of achieving
reduced inflation".

In this case, the argument amounts to a rejection of the issue itself, as if to say 'the issue-statement is so absurd as to be worthless for discussion'. This is frequently a problem with prescriptive issues. Those who do not consider the subject of the issue to be important, who do not assert the value concerned, nor its antithesis, may forward a rational ground why the issue itself is inconsequential. This amounts to rejecting an issue as irrelevant to fruitful discussion or research.

In some respects an issue is much like an hypothesis, the grounds for or against which one wishes to summarise and evaluate. A fruitful hypothesis is like a fruitful issue. Both can be tested by some means and both will lead to improvement in our knowledge if the ensuing debate or investigation helps to weaken or strengthen the statement in question.

Since prescriptive issue-statements express norms (i.e. are often called 'normative statements') they usually forward a value (or counter-value). The qualifier 'usually' is employed here since, as has' been shown, a statement with a prescriptive form can nonetheless have a descriptive function in reality (as contrariwise for descriptive statements). Those prescriptive issue-statements which also have a normative function (despite the actual wording) - such as "One ought not kill other human beings" may have been derived from arguments in the first place. Or else - as is most likely in the case of the present example (if taken to be an appropriate interpretation of one of the 10 commandments from the Book of Moses) - it has been put forward as a norm according to which arguments can be ordered after interpreting and applying the norm. In other words, there is an intimate or internal relationship between any issue-statement and the arguments that it will organise, or - in the opposite direction - between the data and viewpoints which, when considered together, give rise to a normative statement. This two-way relationship is comparable to that between regarding a system of statements as a deductive or as an inductive system, as will be considered in the next part of this book.

Some practical advice on making ordered surveys

l) The issue-statement must be clear and concise. The principles of efficient communication should be followed in formulating the issue-expression. Obscure, insufficiently-precise and inappropriate terms generally must be avoided. Where the issue-statement is insufficiently-precise, the result will usually be that two dr more distinct debates will take place at the sane time on the basis of two or more likely interpretations of the issue-statement. This problem can be aided by formulating an antithesis to the issue statement, which thereby helps narrow the interpretations of it. For example:-10 "I ought to stop smoking completely" can have as an antithesis either;- Antithesis; "I ought to continue smoking as usual" or:- Antithesis: "I ought to continue smoking, but reduce consumption to half". Both these antitheses cannot be used at once, for the arguments that will be ordered under 10 will alter depending upon which antithesis applies.

2) Arguments must be clear and concise. The most common faults in forming arguments tend to be vagueness, inexplicitness and compounding different arguments together into one.
A vague argument will contain terms that are not sufficiently precise to allow ordering of the argument (whether pro- or contra-, whether first or second order etc.). Insufficiently explicit statements fail to be clear how the argument is related to the issue or to arguments of a higher order, so these must be rethought and reformulated. Compounded arguments can usually be separated into separate arguments without much difficulty.
Examples:-
Arguments for and against I0 "I ought to stop smoking"
P1 'because my health is a problem.'

This argument is vague, relatively imprecise. What aspect of health? How is it related to smoking? One may try to make it more explicit and clear as:-
P1 'because then my general health would improve due to less congestion of the lungs, improved circulation of the blood and a more positive outlook.' However, this argument compounds three grounds into one. It should be reformulated as three separate arguments (P1, P2 and P3 or else as P1 with supporting p1P1, p2p1 and p3Pl).
Only when an argument is clear, concise and thus sufficiently precise can its tenability and relevance be evaluated. In general, the more precise, the more reliable evaluations of tenability and relevance are possible. This strengthens the arguments and improves the overall impact of a survey.

SAMPLE OF A BRIEF ORDERED SURVEY TO INDICATE A METHOD IN EVALUATING THE ARGUMENTS
The following issue-statement (I0)expresses a view forwarded by U.S. Government agencies: