A Further Subtlety—

When putting the SBBP into argument form, we schematize only [rI] and [s] SP’s.
    However, as some of you noticed, that when we include relevant detail, [q]’s are
    introduced to fill in the bigger picture. Technically, what needs to be done with
    the [q]’s is the following:

    If the [q] is directly subordinate to the MP, we know that it is not part of the reasoning
    because it is not an [s] or an [rI]. Thus we would leave it out.

        MP:
         [s] SP1:
         [q] SP2:
 

        S1=SP1 (notice SP2 is left out due it not being a reason)
        ------
        C=MP

    However, if the [q] is directly subordinate to a secondary (or more) SP, where that SP is
        an [s], the [q] qualifies the [s].

        MP:
         [s] SP:
              [q]: SP

    For example,

    MP: The car will be difficult to fix.
         [s] SP1: The parts are probably in Japan.
              [q]SP2: Japan in not currently exporting parts.

    This would become in schematized form. SP1 and SP2 are combined into S1.
        (SP1 is qualified by SP2).

    S1—The parts are probably in Japan and they are not exporting parts at the moment.
    ----
    C—The car will be hard to fix.
 

Schematizing Directly from a Passage

Once we can notice the different types of inferential connections from other kinds of
subordination, we may take to directly schematizing from the passage. However, when
passages are longer, we may still fall back on the SBBP to show structure and relations.

Remember, schematizing an argument is putting it into the following form:

S—Support
-------
C—Conclusion

To extract reasoning from a passage we need to do two different things.

 1) We need to recognize that some reasoning is going on,
      whether it is inference or argument.

2) We also need to notice the structure and see what supports what.
 

Reasoning Clues

Reasoning clues come in three basic kinds:
 (a) general common sense indicators
 (b) indirectness flags
 (c) [s] and [ri] indicators such as ‘because’ and ‘so.’

Note: These clues usually work in pairs, and if you have a pair of them, it is a VERY
            good indicator that there is reasoning in the passage.

For example, where you have clues of (a) and (b), you will probably have reasoning.

(a) general common sense indicators
    If something is an investigation or a controversy, it might indicate reasoning.
    Very general indicators of reasoning include, evidence, clue, discover, and investigators.
    Also look for normative words, such as right, ought, should, and wrong.

(b) indirectness flags
    There are a variety of indirectness flags including: must, may, probably, likely,
        apparently, and seems.

(c) [s] and [rI] indicators such as ‘because’ and ‘so.’
    Indicators like because and others like since, for, and after all.
    Indicators like so and others like, thus, hence, therefore and it
         follows that.

Pairs

(b) and (c) virtually guarantee reasoning.
The car may have been open because there was no sign of forced entry.
    may=(b) and because=(c)

(a) and (b) are also a strong reason to believe there is reasoning.
If something is an investigation/controversy and it contains indirectness.

An investigation may reveal how Bush won the election.

(a) and (c)
If something is an investigation/controversy and it contains indirectness flags.

An investigation is underway because voter fraud is suspected.

Structural Clues—These clues can signal reasoning due to the structure of the passage alone.

Link Flags—[rI] indicators, so, therefore, hence, etc…
These are consequence drawing words: they give you both a consequence and
    what it is a consequence of. They point backwards toward support and forward to a conclusion.

Once we see the above clues in (a)-(c) we then look to see how they structure the passage.
    The very same clues found in (a)-(c) will determine the relevancy of support.

[ri] indicators contain the most information about argument structure. For example,
    when someone concludes with a ‘therefore’, we know that what went on before
    the sentence is the support—thus, that is where we would look for argument.

…………………(Support)…………………………………
……………………………Therefore,…(Conclusion)…..

Conclusion Flags

If there are no obvious link flags, try to find the argument’s conclusion. And the best indicators
    of conclusions are, once again, indirectness flags: must, probably, may, etc…
    You need to look for support in the rest of the passage, because it may not be local to it.

However, most of the time the conclusion flag occurs just before the conclusion or is part of it.

Going to Cal Poly is probably the best move she ever made.

Support Flags

Particular words signal that support is coming up. This support always goes above the line, i.e.,
    it is used to support the conclusion. These words include, since, for, after all, etc... and they
    indicate that support is coming up.

    She is graduating early since she took an overload of courses in the Fall.

• You MUST always remove the structural flags before you put it in argument form.

Mental Flags

When arguments are attributed to people, there is another group of verbs that appear
    as indirectness flags, and hence as conclusion flags. These include to the verbs “believe”,
    “think”, “suspect”, and “presume”. What these indicate is that they don’t know the thing
    directly but it must be inferred.

I believe that my car will start. I don’t know that it will start but I can infer that it might based
    upon the fact that it has started everyday for the past year.  To schematize this then:

    S—My car has started everyday for the past year.
    ---
    C—My car will start.

Notice in my schematization, I left out ‘believe.’ ‘Believe’ here is a structural flag,
    in this case flagging a conclusion. We always remove structural flags from our arguments.
    For example:

    I went home early because I believed the weather was going to get worse. Therefore, I didn’t
        get to eat dinner with her family.

    MP: I went home early.
         [s]: The weather got worse.
         [ri]: I didn’t eat dinner with her family.

    S1—The weather got worse
        ---------
    S2—I went home early    --->      S2—I went home early.
                                                          ---------------
                                                        C2—I didn’t eat dinner with her…

Notice, all the structural flags were removed, ‘because’, ‘believed’, and ‘therefore.’

Another Use of Flags: Partial Paraphrases

When a passage contains obvious reasoning, however there are no structural flags, you may want
    to rely upon your skills and put them into the proper subordinate form, e.g., with ‘because’ or ‘so’.
    Examples of this include rhetorical questions, e.g., “Why not do ‘x’? could be
            paraphrased “you should do ‘x’”.
 

Proposals and Recommendations

All can be reduced to the form:

We should do ‘x’ or We should not do ‘x’.

“Should” and other normative terms like “ought”, we need not be as concerned
    with ‘because’ and ‘so’ as explanatory terms. Instead we should view them as structural
    flags, signaling various things in the passage and structuring the argument. For example,

    We should have fun because we are all young, the ‘because’ here is structural, it signals that
        the consequent is in support of the antecedent.

    Normative terms are retained in the schematization.

Charitable Schematizing

This means that in schematizing arguments we use whatever discretion we have in the circumstances
to make an argument stronger, never weaker. What we end up with should always be the best looking
argument we can find in the context.