I wish there was more of an emphasis put on breaking down passages as an argument or set of facts. When the narrator says that we are "clearly" dealing with a set of facts without expounding it frustrates me because I am missing a crucial step in the process.
I understand the general principles when it comes to argument or set of facts in that an argument comes to a final conclusion and a set of facts does not, but when I see indicator words like 'however' and 'but' in question 2, it confuses me. It does not help that the narrator chooses not to explain why the argument is a set of facts even though the conclusion indicators 'however' and 'but' exist.
How can I remedy this situation for myself so as to better understand when a passage is an argument or a set of facts?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Reading this in the light of your other post, I want to add on: I think it would do you good to let go of indicators. Key words can only take you so far, and I think it's critical to approach the passage holistically, and truly understand what it's telling you.
For example, let's look at two statements.
Some people think the earth is flat. However, others think it is round.
Some people think the earth is flat. It cannot be true that there are no idiots.
The first statement is a set of facts despite the however. There is no conclusion. The second statement, on the other had, might be an argument. The first sentence supports the second sentence. While I'd expect it to read more like. "If follows then that it can't be true there are no idiots" the important thing is the logical relationship between the statements, not the indicator words.
