{"id":2647,"date":"2022-03-29T21:10:49","date_gmt":"2022-03-29T21:10:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/chapter\/2-2-identifying-arguments-2\/"},"modified":"2024-01-15T16:49:45","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T16:49:45","slug":"2-2-identifying-arguments-2","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/chapter\/2-2-identifying-arguments-2\/","title":{"raw":"2.2 Identifying arguments","rendered":"2.2 Identifying arguments"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n\r\n<strong>LEARNING OBJECTIVES<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n\r\nBy the end of this section you will discover:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How to recognize premise and conclusion indicators.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\nThe best way to identify whether an argument is present is to ask whether there is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement. If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn\u2019t. Another thing that can help in identifying arguments is knowing certain key words or phrases that are premise indicators or conclusion indicators. For example, recall S ally\u2019s abortion argument:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Abortion is morally wrong <em>because<\/em> it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human being.<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\"><strong>Premise Indicators<\/strong>: words indicating that what follows is a premise in an argument<\/div>\r\nThe word \u201cbecause\u201d here is a <strong>premise indicator<\/strong>. That is, \u201cbecause\u201d indicates that what follows is a reason for thinking that abortion is morally wrong. Here is another example:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">I know that the student plagiarized <em>since<\/em> I found the exact same sentences on a website and the website was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper.<\/div>\r\nIn this example, the word \u201csince\u201d is a premise indicator because what follows it is a statement that is clearly intended to be a reason for thinking that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in these two cases, the premise indicators \u201cbecause\u201d and \u201csince\u201d are interchangeable: I could have used \u201cbecause\u201d in place of \u201csince\u201d or \u201csince\u201d in the place of \u201cbecause\u201d and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same. In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators.\u00a0<strong>Conclusion indicators<\/strong>\u00a0mark that what follows is the conclusion of an argument.\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\"><strong>Conclusion Indicators:<\/strong> words indicating that what follows is the conclusion of an argument<\/div>\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">For example,<\/span>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, <em>so<\/em> Bob-the-arsonist didn\u2019t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.<\/div>\r\nIn this example, the word \u201cso\u201d is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). Here is another example of a conclusion indicator:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate <em>x<\/em> to be substantially behind candidate <em>y<\/em> with only a week left before the vote, <em>therefore<\/em> candidate y will probably not win the election.<\/div>\r\nIn this example, the word \u201ctherefore\u201d is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). As before, in both of these cases the conclusion indicators \u201cso\u201d and \u201ctherefore\u201d are interchangeable: I could have used \u201cso\u201d in place of \u201ctherefore\u201d or \u201ctherefore\u201d in the place of \u201cso\u201d and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same.\r\n\r\n<strong>Table 1<\/strong><strong> contains a list of some common premise and conclusion indicators: <\/strong><strong><br style=\"clear: both;\" \/><\/strong>\r\n<table class=\"grid landscape aligncenter\"><caption>Table 1<\/caption>\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr class=\"shaded\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Premise indicators<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Conclusion indicators<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">since<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Therefore<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Because<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">So<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">For<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Hence<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">As<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Thus<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">given that<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">implies that<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">seeing that<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Consequently<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">for the reason that<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">it follows that<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">is shown by the fact that<\/td>\r\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">we may conclude that<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nAlthough these words and phrases can be used to identify the premises and conclusions of arguments, they are not failsafe methods of doing so. Just because a sentence contains them does not mean that you are dealing with an argument. This can easily be shown by examples like these:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n\r\nI have been running competitively <em>since<\/em> 1999.\r\n\r\nI am <em>so<\/em> happy to have finally finished that class.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nAlthough \u201csince\u201d can function as a premise indicator and although \u201cso\u201d can function as a conclusion indicator, neither one is doing so here. This shows that you can\u2019t simply mindlessly use occurrences of these words in sentences to show that there is an argument being made. Rather, we have to rely on our understanding of the English sentence in order to determine whether an argument is being made or not. Thus, the best way to determine whether an argument is present is by asking the question: Is there a statement that someone is trying to establish as true or explain why it is true by basing it on some other statement? If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn\u2019t. Notice that if we apply this method to the above examples, we will see that there is no argument present because there is no statement that someone is trying to establish as true <em>by basing it on some other statement<\/em>. For example, the sentence \u201cI have been running competitively since 1999\u201d just contains one statement, not two. But arguments always require at least two separate statements\u2014one premise and one conclusion, so it cannot possibly be an argument.\r\n\r\nAnother way of explaining why these occurrences of \u201cso\u201d and \u201csince\u201d do not indicate that an argument is present is by noting that both premise indicators and conclusion indicators are, grammatically, conjunctions. A grammatical conjunction is a word that connects two separate statements. So, if a word or term is truly being used as a premise or conclusion indicator, it must connect two separate statements. Thus, if \u201csince\u201d were really functioning as a premise indicator in the above example then what followed it would be a statement. But \u201c1999\u201d is not a statement at all. Likewise, in the second example \u201cso\u201d is not being used as a conclusion indicator because it is not conjoining two separate statements. Rather, it is being used to modify the extent of \u201chappy.\u201d In contrast, if I were to say Tom was sleeping, <em>so<\/em> he couldn\u2019t have answered the phone,\u201d then \u201cso\u201d is being used as a conclusion indicator. In this case, there are clearly two separate statements (\u201cTom was sleeping\u201d and \u201cTom couldn\u2019t have answered the phone\u201d) and one is being used as the basis for thinking that the other is true.\r\n\r\nIf there is any doubt about whether a word is truly a premise\/conclusion indicator or not, you can use the substitution test. Simply substitute another word or phrase from the list of premise indicators or conclusion indicators and see if the resulting sentence still makes sense. If it does, then you are probably dealing with an argument. If it doesn\u2019t, then you probably aren\u2019t. For example, we can substitute \u201cit follows that\u201d for \u201cso\u201d in the Bob-the-arsonist example:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, <em>it follows that<\/em> Bob-the-arsonist didn\u2019t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.<\/div>\r\nHowever, we cannot substitute \u201cbecause\u201d for \u201cso\u201d in the so-happy-I-finished- that-class example:\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">I am <em>because<\/em> happy to have finally finished that class.<\/div>\r\nObviously, in the latter case the substitution of one conclusion indicator for another makes the sentence meaningless, which means that the \u201cso\u201d that occurred originally wasn\u2019t functioning as a conclusion indicator.\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<h2 class=\"textbox__title\"><strong>Exercise 2:<\/strong> Which of the following are arguments? If it is an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument.<\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn\u2019t have a long nose.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Albert is angry with me, so he probably won\u2019t be willing to help me wash the dishes.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>First, I washed the dishes and then I dried them.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>If the road wasn\u2019t icy, the car wouldn\u2019t have slid off the turn.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Albert isn\u2019t a fireman, and he isn\u2019t a fisherman either.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Are you seeing that rhinoceros over there? It is huge!<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The fact that obesity has become a problem in the U.S. is shown by the fact that obesity rates have risen significantly over the past four decades.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bob showed me a graph with the rising obesity rates, and I was very surprised to see how much they\u2019ve risen.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Albert isn\u2019t a fireman because Albert is a Greyhound, which is a kind of dog, and dogs can\u2019t be firemen.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Charlie and Violet are dogs and since dogs don\u2019t sweat, it is obvious that Charlie and Violet don\u2019t sweat.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The reason I forgot to lock the door is that I was distracted by the clown riding a unicycle down our street while singing Lynyrd Skynyrd\u2019s \u201cSimple Man.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What Bob told you is not the real reason that he missed his plane to Denver.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Samsung stole some of Apple\u2019s patents for their smartphones, so Apple stole some of Samsung\u2019s patents back in retaliation.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it, therefore no one ever will.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<p><strong>LEARNING OBJECTIVES<\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>By the end of this section you will discover:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How to recognize premise and conclusion indicators.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>The best way to identify whether an argument is present is to ask whether there is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement. If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn\u2019t. Another thing that can help in identifying arguments is knowing certain key words or phrases that are premise indicators or conclusion indicators. For example, recall S ally\u2019s abortion argument:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Abortion is morally wrong <em>because<\/em> it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human being.<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\"><strong>Premise Indicators<\/strong>: words indicating that what follows is a premise in an argument<\/div>\n<p>The word \u201cbecause\u201d here is a <strong>premise indicator<\/strong>. That is, \u201cbecause\u201d indicates that what follows is a reason for thinking that abortion is morally wrong. Here is another example:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">I know that the student plagiarized <em>since<\/em> I found the exact same sentences on a website and the website was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper.<\/div>\n<p>In this example, the word \u201csince\u201d is a premise indicator because what follows it is a statement that is clearly intended to be a reason for thinking that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in these two cases, the premise indicators \u201cbecause\u201d and \u201csince\u201d are interchangeable: I could have used \u201cbecause\u201d in place of \u201csince\u201d or \u201csince\u201d in the place of \u201cbecause\u201d and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same. In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators.\u00a0<strong>Conclusion indicators<\/strong>\u00a0mark that what follows is the conclusion of an argument.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\"><strong>Conclusion Indicators:<\/strong> words indicating that what follows is the conclusion of an argument<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 1em;\">For example,<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, <em>so<\/em> Bob-the-arsonist didn\u2019t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.<\/div>\n<p>In this example, the word \u201cso\u201d is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). Here is another example of a conclusion indicator:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate <em>x<\/em> to be substantially behind candidate <em>y<\/em> with only a week left before the vote, <em>therefore<\/em> candidate y will probably not win the election.<\/div>\n<p>In this example, the word \u201ctherefore\u201d is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). As before, in both of these cases the conclusion indicators \u201cso\u201d and \u201ctherefore\u201d are interchangeable: I could have used \u201cso\u201d in place of \u201ctherefore\u201d or \u201ctherefore\u201d in the place of \u201cso\u201d and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Table 1<\/strong><strong> contains a list of some common premise and conclusion indicators: <\/strong><strong><br style=\"clear: both;\" \/><\/strong><\/p>\n<table class=\"grid landscape aligncenter\">\n<caption>Table 1<\/caption>\n<thead>\n<tr class=\"shaded\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Premise indicators<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Conclusion indicators<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">since<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Therefore<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Because<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">So<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">For<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Hence<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">As<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Thus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">given that<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">implies that<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">seeing that<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">Consequently<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">for the reason that<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">it follows that<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"TableGrid-R\">\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">is shown by the fact that<\/td>\n<td class=\"TableGrid-C\" style=\"border: solid windowtext 0.5pt;\">we may conclude that<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Although these words and phrases can be used to identify the premises and conclusions of arguments, they are not failsafe methods of doing so. Just because a sentence contains them does not mean that you are dealing with an argument. This can easily be shown by examples like these:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<p>I have been running competitively <em>since<\/em> 1999.<\/p>\n<p>I am <em>so<\/em> happy to have finally finished that class.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Although \u201csince\u201d can function as a premise indicator and although \u201cso\u201d can function as a conclusion indicator, neither one is doing so here. This shows that you can\u2019t simply mindlessly use occurrences of these words in sentences to show that there is an argument being made. Rather, we have to rely on our understanding of the English sentence in order to determine whether an argument is being made or not. Thus, the best way to determine whether an argument is present is by asking the question: Is there a statement that someone is trying to establish as true or explain why it is true by basing it on some other statement? If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn\u2019t. Notice that if we apply this method to the above examples, we will see that there is no argument present because there is no statement that someone is trying to establish as true <em>by basing it on some other statement<\/em>. For example, the sentence \u201cI have been running competitively since 1999\u201d just contains one statement, not two. But arguments always require at least two separate statements\u2014one premise and one conclusion, so it cannot possibly be an argument.<\/p>\n<p>Another way of explaining why these occurrences of \u201cso\u201d and \u201csince\u201d do not indicate that an argument is present is by noting that both premise indicators and conclusion indicators are, grammatically, conjunctions. A grammatical conjunction is a word that connects two separate statements. So, if a word or term is truly being used as a premise or conclusion indicator, it must connect two separate statements. Thus, if \u201csince\u201d were really functioning as a premise indicator in the above example then what followed it would be a statement. But \u201c1999\u201d is not a statement at all. Likewise, in the second example \u201cso\u201d is not being used as a conclusion indicator because it is not conjoining two separate statements. Rather, it is being used to modify the extent of \u201chappy.\u201d In contrast, if I were to say Tom was sleeping, <em>so<\/em> he couldn\u2019t have answered the phone,\u201d then \u201cso\u201d is being used as a conclusion indicator. In this case, there are clearly two separate statements (\u201cTom was sleeping\u201d and \u201cTom couldn\u2019t have answered the phone\u201d) and one is being used as the basis for thinking that the other is true.<\/p>\n<p>If there is any doubt about whether a word is truly a premise\/conclusion indicator or not, you can use the substitution test. Simply substitute another word or phrase from the list of premise indicators or conclusion indicators and see if the resulting sentence still makes sense. If it does, then you are probably dealing with an argument. If it doesn\u2019t, then you probably aren\u2019t. For example, we can substitute \u201cit follows that\u201d for \u201cso\u201d in the Bob-the-arsonist example:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, <em>it follows that<\/em> Bob-the-arsonist didn\u2019t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.<\/div>\n<p>However, we cannot substitute \u201cbecause\u201d for \u201cso\u201d in the so-happy-I-finished- that-class example:<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">I am <em>because<\/em> happy to have finally finished that class.<\/div>\n<p>Obviously, in the latter case the substitution of one conclusion indicator for another makes the sentence meaningless, which means that the \u201cso\u201d that occurred originally wasn\u2019t functioning as a conclusion indicator.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<h2 class=\"textbox__title\"><strong>Exercise 2:<\/strong> Which of the following are arguments? If it is an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument.<\/h2>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn\u2019t have a long nose.<\/li>\n<li>I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes.<\/li>\n<li>Albert is angry with me, so he probably won\u2019t be willing to help me wash the dishes.<\/li>\n<li>First, I washed the dishes and then I dried them.<\/li>\n<li>If the road wasn\u2019t icy, the car wouldn\u2019t have slid off the turn.<\/li>\n<li>Albert isn\u2019t a fireman, and he isn\u2019t a fisherman either.<\/li>\n<li>Are you seeing that rhinoceros over there? It is huge!<\/li>\n<li>The fact that obesity has become a problem in the U.S. is shown by the fact that obesity rates have risen significantly over the past four decades.<\/li>\n<li>Bob showed me a graph with the rising obesity rates, and I was very surprised to see how much they\u2019ve risen.<\/li>\n<li>Albert isn\u2019t a fireman because Albert is a Greyhound, which is a kind of dog, and dogs can\u2019t be firemen.<\/li>\n<li>Charlie and Violet are dogs and since dogs don\u2019t sweat, it is obvious that Charlie and Violet don\u2019t sweat.<\/li>\n<li>The reason I forgot to lock the door is that I was distracted by the clown riding a unicycle down our street while singing Lynyrd Skynyrd\u2019s \u201cSimple Man.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>What Bob told you is not the real reason that he missed his plane to Denver.<\/li>\n<li>Samsung stole some of Apple\u2019s patents for their smartphones, so Apple stole some of Samsung\u2019s patents back in retaliation.<\/li>\n<li>No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it, therefore no one ever will.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc"},"chapter-type":[48],"contributor":[62,63],"license":[55],"class_list":["post-2647","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless","contributor-daniel-g-shaw","contributor-ph-d","license-cc-by-nc"],"part":2643,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2896,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2647\/revisions\/2896"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/2643"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2647\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=2647"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=2647"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/introtophilosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=2647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}