Formal Argument Reconstruction
8 weeks · 0 milestones
Reconstruct a real philosophical argument from a named primary text into standard logical form: premises explicitly numbered, logical structure diagrammed, validity assessed, and at least one potential objection identified and answered. The primary text and the specific argument being reconstructed must both be named and cited. Proof is your reconstruction plus a challenge from a philosophy academic or logician who confirms the accuracy of your reconstruction and asks you to identify a second argument structure in the same text that you did not include — whether you find it and your analysis of its relationship to the first argument are part of the proof.
Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a real published argument from a philosophy paper, a published policy position, a Supreme Court or appellate decision, or a major editorial — any source where a real author makes an argument with premises and a conclusion. Reconstruct the argument in standard form: identify all premises (stated and implicit), state the conclusion, identify the argument's form (deductive, inductive, abductive), and assess validity and soundness. The implicit premises must be made explicit — not just the stated ones.
Proof required
Argument reconstruction document (500+ words) identifying the real source with citation, presenting the argument in standard form (premises numbered, conclusion stated), identifying argument form, assessing validity and soundness separately, and explaining the most important implicit premise.
What gets checked
- Source is a real published argument — not a constructed example
- Implicit premises are made explicit — not just the stated premises
- Validity and soundness are assessed separately — the argument may be valid but unsound, or invalid regardless of premise truth