1. See Monty Python, ‘Argument Clinic’ sketch (1976), at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&t=136s>
2. See below on ad hominem fallacies.
3. This definition comes from Robert Fogelin. He and I have defended a close relative in Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 9th edn (Stamford, CT: Cengage Advantage Books, 2014).
4. I will not bother with technical issues about whether the premises and conclusion are statements, propositions or sentences, since that nicety does not affect the general issues in this book. I will also allow arguments with a single premise, but they must have at least one premise. What if the speaker knows that the premises are not really reasons at all, but he presents them as such in order to fool some audiences? I am inclined to think that what he gives is an argument, even though he does not intend its premises to be real reasons for its conclusion. This explains why I define arguments as presenting reasons, which means that their premises are intended to be seen as reasons.
5. Aristotle, Physics, II, 3, and Metaphysics, V, 2. Notice that an arguer’s desire for an argument to serve a purpose is what causes the arguer to give the argument.
6. ‘Conservative South Koreans Rally against President Park’s Impeachment’, Asia Times, 17 December 2016, at <http://www.atimes.com/article/conservative-south-koreans-rally-parks-impeachment/>