Arguments

There’s a great curry smell coming from across the street. It must be an Indian family that moved in.
Analysis: The argument is that the family that moved in across the street must be Indian because we can smell curry, and all Indians eat curry. The argument is weak because it assumes that only people from India either cook or eat curry. We could add something to the argument to strengthen it such as a personal observation, however, I don’t think even that would make it a strong argument.
Again, when we think about an argument I believe there are two conclusions most people jump to. If it is in the slightest way possible most people will just assume you are correct. I think this is because we have an inherent need to trust others. The second conclusion is to break your argument apart and tell you it’s obviously wrong. Mostly this comes from people who’s trust has been broken is a serious way.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion is something I am all too aware of. My favorite area that is discussed is the Strawman. In this area the text says, “It’s easier to knock down someone’s argument if you misrepresent it, putting words in the other person’s mouth. An example of this in the real world is the debate in California over the legalization of marijuana. In my mind I might feel one way about the subject, but my friend might fell another but assumes we have the same impression of what will happen if the measure passes. For instance:
Joe: I cannot wait to vote to legalize weed.
Sam: That’s crazy because you know that legalizing weed will lead to more children smoking it and eventually over dosing on heroin.
In this example we can see how Sam assumes that Joe knows that the legalization will lead children down a horrible path.

Evluating an Argument

1.I’m on my way to school. 2.I left five minutes late. 3.Traffic is heavy. 4.Therefore, I’ll be late for class. 5.So I might as well stop for breakfast.

Argument: Yes
Conclusion: If I’m going to be late for class I should stop for breakfast
Additional premise needed? I would have add something about not having time to eat and a need for health reasons to support the argument.
Identify any subargument: 1, 2 and 3 support 4. 4 supports 5.
Good argument: Not really. It seems like a personal dilemma, and the student is looking for justification to be late.

This was a fairly simple breakdown of an argument. We can see why each part of an argument is important, and that not many people are good at justifying why they do what they do. We can see that the use of therefore and because become valuable in terms of deciding whether an argument is valid.

Strong vs. Valid

My understanding of a strong versus a valid argument comes down a one simple thing: can it have no other possible conclusion. A strong argument is something that has a premise that seems true, and the conclusion is very plausible. In this way the argument is most likely correct. However, for an argument to be valid it must have a premise that is true, and the conclusion must be beyond any doubt. The example in this chapter would be valid if Manuel had a video of himself in front of a easily identifiable monument in Mexico, and the video was time stamped. While it is possible to Photoshop the video, it would be hard to assume that he is lying, or went to the effort of doing so simply to prove he was in Mexico. I understand there is a difference, but I fail to see the true relevance to such a seemingly slight variation.

Good Arguments

Joe comes to work without glasses everyday. Joe is great as shooting pool after work. Joe must have great eyesight.

The premise can be true, but the conclusion false. The premise is strong because this is something that can be observed regularly. The argument is weak because the conclusion is weak. Many people don’t wear glasses regularly, but wear contacts instead.

AI think it is interesting how we can draw conclusions so quickly based on limited information or premise. In this way we often make arguments that may be considered weak if one were to analysis the argument more closely. However, we assume that people are telling us the truth. This assumption, while often true, can be misleading. We read things on the Internet, watching stories on TV, or hear commentary on the radio that has been sensationalized. This is when the ability to test an arguments components can become increasingly helpful.

Vaguery

I suppose that the most recent statement that I have heard that was either vague or ambiguous would have to be an add on the radio for a new birth control pill. The pill said that it not only helped to prevent the chances of pregnancy, but it also help women control mood swings during their monthly cycle, lessened bleeding, and finally it would improve their acne. What made this statement vague is degree to which it would help to control mood swings, blood flow, and acne. This was actually an article I heard on NPR about the company that produced this add, and the ramifications from it. I was surprised to hear that they were forced to stop the add, and create a new add that gave more factual truth about the scientific accuracies that had been proven in trials. The second add actually confirmed that it didn’t live up to the build up from the original add.

Subjective vs objective

Subjective comments seem to be ever more present in our society. We hear them in the news, read them in the paper, and all over the internet. A great example of a subjective claim that I heard and talked about in a different class was what it takes be considered evil. We read about how some people considered the 9/11 bombers a to be evil, and I claimed that they were doing evil. This is subjective because it is up for interpretation. Recently I was talking to my friend about how my sister had been laid off from her teaching position along with people that had up to ten years of seniority. This is objective because it is stating a fact, and is not open for debate or interpretation. We can research and prove it to be the case. I tend to use subjective claims because I find them to be more stimulating and interesting due to the human factor.