Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Missing parts

Sometimes when people give you arguments, they will leave out parts of the argument. This may be because those parts are things that we all know, or maybe they think they don’t need to state every single reason explicitly, or maybe they have rhetorical reasons for leaving parts out.

If in some part of my argument, I need something simple like

  • The Moon is not a planet.

I don’t really need to say this, because I know that you know this. And it would be pedantic or perhaps insulting to tell you. And sometimes, it’s more effective to leave it out.

Here’s an example of an argument with missing parts, taken from the cabaret song Maybe This Time:

Everybody loves a winner, so nobody loves me.

The conclusion of this argument is “nobody loves me”. Why? The only reason provided is that “everybody loves a winner”, but something is missing.

What do you think is missing ?

Answer: a premise is missing:

  • I’m not a winner.

When the part of an argument that is missing is a premise, we call that statement a `suppressed premise’. The argument in standard form, including the suppressed premise is:


Notice how we put the second premise in brackets in the standard form to indicate that the premise is suppressed.

One word of advice about suppressed premises: be economical! Don’t add suppressed premises unless they’re really obvious. You only want to include a suppressed premise in an argument when it is required for the argument, and it’s obvious that it has been left out on purpose.

Sometimes, another part of an argument that may be missing is the conclusion. We then say that the argument has a suppressed conclusion. An argument has a suppressed conclusion if it’s not explicitly stated. For example:

Recently, whilst I was on sabbatical in Scotland, I thought I saw the Loch Ness Monster. Turns out that all the sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are actually people mistaking logs for non-logs.

What do you think the conclusion is?

  • I did not see the Loch Ness Monster.

You might have been tempted to say “the Loch Ness Monster does not exist”, but that would not be right, as the premises do not seem to provide enough reason for that conclusion.

In standard form, the argument looks like this:


As above, we put the conclusion in brackets to indicate that it was suppressed.

You need to be careful when formulating the suppressed conclusion. You want to find a conclusion that matches the reasons that are being left out. You don’t want to put in a conclusion that wouldn’t be supported by the premises. This is not always easy, and we’ll have a chance to come to examples with suppressed premises and conclusions.

Share this article:

This article is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Get a taste of this course

Find out what this course is like by previewing some of the course steps before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study
    video

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God
    video

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises
    video

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials
    video

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    article

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law
    video

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner
    article

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan
    video

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.

Contact FutureLearn for Support