While you’re working on revisions for your research paper (largely dependent on stating and proving your premises), I want to offer this illustration of an argument that fails because it suppresses an essential premise.
This ad from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is not altogether clear about its intentions and therefore invites speculation.
It features the photographs of six convicts serving life sentences with no chance of parole. It makes several claims, but leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. This familiar form of argument can be particularly persuasive since it’s hard to refute a conclusion we draw ourselves. The ad says:
- These individuals did not commit violent crimes
- They were all sentenced to life-with-no-chance-of-parole.
- Criminal justice should be smart and fair
- The ACLU opposes extreme, inhumane, costly sentences
- The ACLU opposes mass incarceration.
The conclusions I presume the ACLU wants me to draw are that the six individuals are victims of a justice system that is not smart or fair, and that their life sentences are extreme and inhumane.
The conclusion may very well be correct, but its logic depends on an entirely unstated premise without which the deduction fails utterly.
Riddle: What is that unstated premise?
Name it in the Reply field below.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
The images don’t always load. Some say we need permission to view, just a heads up.
LikeLike
“403: Access Denied This file requires authorization: You must be logged in and a member” (This happens when we are already logged in, I am fairly certain I am not the only one who has noticed this.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Issue resolved. Thank you for the notice, cypher.
LikeLike
Ah yes, I saw the resolution a little while after commenting, thank you.
LikeLike
The hidden premise is that they may have still known that the crimes they committed merited a life sentence.
LikeLike
The lack of mention of what crime they did commit to convict them of life imprisonment.
LikeLike
The unstated premise is the crimes that these individuals have committed. If these crimes were to be known the reader may have a different opinion on this argument.
LikeLike
Though the crimes were not necessarily violent, they were still committed and remain carefully unmentioned. The reader is led to assume that some sort of innocence is present.
LikeLike
I agree with all of you. The ad pretends that no nonviolent crime warrants a life sentence. It suppresses this essential (and dubious) premise: Only violent crimes warrant a life sentence.
LikeLike