Question

There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide where (option 1, 2, 3 or 4) the following sentence would best fit. 
Sentence: For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities. 
Paragraph : (1). An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where some parts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, the conclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complex speech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assert propositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and a stated or implicit marker ("hence", "therefore") that indicates that the conclusion follows from the premises.. (2)_. The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).(3)__. But depending on one's explanatory goals, there is also much to be gained from considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices.

• A. Option 2
• B. Option 1
• C. Option 1
• D. Option 3

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Paragraph Summary and Analysis: 

This paragraph offers a conceptual explanation of what constitutes an argument in logic and philosophy. It not only defines an argument in structural terms but also explores its nature as a communicative act and how arguments function in theoretical and practical contexts.

1. Sentence (1): “An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure…”
   This introduces the core definition of an argument as a symbolic structure with premises supporting a conclusion. It then presents an alternative, speech-act-based perspective — where arguing involves performing acts such as premising and concluding, often marked by linguistic indicators (like “therefore,” “hence”).
2. Sentence (2): “The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways…”
   This elaborates on the types of logical relationships that can exist between premises and conclusions. It introduces the idea that arguments differ in strength and nature — from deductive (guaranteeing truth) to inductive (increasing probability) to pragmatic (assertibility or acceptability).
3. Sentence (3): “For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities…”
   This shifts from the abstract to the contextual. It acknowledges that while arguments can be analyzed in isolation, much insight is gained by situating them in actual human communicative settings. This bridges formal logic and practical discourse.

Purpose and Coherence: The paragraph develops in a logical sequence:

• First defining the concept of an argument from two perspectives (structural and communicative),
• Then exploring the types of logical relationships between premises and conclusions,
• And finally discussing how arguments are treated in theory vs. practice.

This coherent flow provides a nuanced understanding suitable for philosophical or analytical discussions about argumentation.