...Validity of an Argument Samir Shrestha HUMN210-E5WW (FA12) Miriam Abbott September 22, 2012 Part I We are closed, But you can come in. Contradiction: The office is closed and we can go in. Part II A. Argument’s conclusion ➢ The conclusion of the argument is : It is a cat. B. Premises ➢ All cats have four legs ➢ It has four legs. C. Symbolizing the argument ➢ Let, C= It is a cat and Let F= It has four legs. ➢ C → F ➢ F ➢ Thus, C Here, Antecedent = It is a cat. Consequent = It has four legs. D. It is a deductive argument because the premises are used with the intention to prove the conclusion. E. Yes, the conclusion can be a false statement. Despite the facts that the premises are true, conclusion derived from it can be false. Here, the evaluation of the argument on the basis of the intellectual standard of logical validity can help to prove that only one similar characteristic is not enough to prove a claim. F. It is an invalid deductive argument. As we know, an invalid deductive argument consists of false conclusion despite the true premises. The conclusion arrived by the deduction can be strongly interfered by the addition of new premises. For instant cat’s paws are small can alter the conclusion of the given argument, as the paws of the dog are comparatively bigger than that of cat, thus making it invalid. G. Argument Form: ➢ Affirming the Consequent General Form: 1. p → q 2. q 3. Thus, p H. I think the little dog is guilty...
Words: 309 - Pages: 2
...insiders and outsiders that there is a comparative equality within the organisation. This is done by diminishing status distinctions, for example eliminating executive dining rooms and not having reserved parking spaces for certain employees (Standford University, 1994). Pfeffer’s arguments can be valid however they can also be questionable, in whether they are the right practices to use. Culture, job factors and organisational context are important aspects to consider in determining whether these practises may or may not work. Pfeffer’s rationale and casual logic for wage compression is that by “reducing interpersonal competition and enhancing cooperation, can lead to effective gains.” (Pfeffer, 2005) Although Pfeffer recognises that large differences in rewards can increase motivation and improve performance, Pfeffer believes that wage compression can produce a higher overall performance, as employees are not focused on gaming the system to gain extrinsic rewards for themselves.”(Pfeffer, 2005) The validity of Pfeffer’s argument suggests that a payment structure that focuses on physiological returns will increase overall performance if employees are intrinsically motivated. However his argument ignores external alignment, being payment structures of competitors. Individuals seek to...
Words: 1779 - Pages: 8
...Steps to Evaluating an Argument Sonya Walls PHL/458 January 19, 2015 Lance Principe The Four Steps to Evaluating an Argument An argument can have many sides to it, depending on time and location. It can be used as a statement or simply a rebuttal. Although an argument is usually viewed as a negative connotation, it does have some positive aspects. The four steps to evaluating an argument are: state your argument fully and as clearly as can be, examine each part of your argument for errors that are affecting the truth, examine an argument for validity errors, and if any errors are found eliminate them(Ruggiero, 2012). Each step helps to spring forth the next steps. This allows the user to have a way to make a legitimate argument which makes using them easier and convenient for anyone. In this paper, each step is explained and used in the eyes of an attorney presenting new evidence in a case. Each requires different actions but if used properly, will create a positive outcome. The first step in an argument is to state your argument fully and as clearly as can be ( Ruggiero, 2012). This situation proves that clarification is important. In the instance of an attorney in the courtroom, while he is defending his client, he has to understand the importance of making sense, and he also has to make sure that his message is being conveyed to the judge in a manner that will represent his client in the best way possible. This sets a platform that shows validity. The judge cannot be...
Words: 1740 - Pages: 7
...Research Documents The Research Paper Factory JoinSearchBrowseSaved Papers Home Page » Philosophy and Psychology Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise In: Philosophy and Psychology Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise The arguments I will choose to evaluate for truth and validity will be taken from the Applications list 12.2 (a.-y.) at the end of Ch. 12 in The Art of Thinking. I will start with exercise j and the premise that “power must be evil because it can corrupt people”. First of all, I would check the argument for any hidden premises making sure that it was stated fully and in a clear way. This argument seems to pass the first hurdle, however when it comes checking for errors affecting truth, the argument seems to not hold water. To start with, the part of the argument that says power corrupts all people (the all is inferred) is not true since there are many examples throughout history of people with power that were not corrupted. A more valid argument would be to state that “power may be evil because it can corrupt some people”. When it comes to step three in the evaluation process, checking the argument for validity errors and considering the reasoning that links conclusions to premises to determine whether your conclusion is legitimate or illegitimate, the argument fails on more than one point. Even with the revised statement, there are some questions that need answering, such as how corrupt do you have to...
Words: 384 - Pages: 2
...Evaluating truth and validity for arguments is important. I will choose arguments from the Applications list 12.2(a-y) that is at the end of Chapter 2 in The Art of Thinking to evaluate for truth and validity. The first argument will be exercise j and the statement is, “power must be evil because it can corrupt people (Ruggiero, 2012)”. The first step of the evaluation process involves evaluating to look for any hidden premises, and ensuring that it is stated in a clear way and fully. This argument passes the first the step. The next step involves checking whether the statement has errors that affect truth. To begin with, the first part of the statement that says that power corrupts all people-in this case, all is inferred- is untrue. This is because throughout history, there are several examples of people who had power that was not corrupted. To make the argument more valid, it would be rewritten as, “power can be evil since it can corrupt some people (Ruggiero, 2012).” The next step entails evaluating the argument to check for validity of errors, and also determining the reasoning that connects conclusions to premises. The aim of this is to check whether the conclusion is legitimate or illegitimate. In this case, the argument fails on several points. On top of revising it, the argument has several questions that required answers. One of the main questions is: how corrupt should people be before they are considered “evil”? Several people are corrupt but they would not be considered...
Words: 1129 - Pages: 5
...1. The following argument violates some principles of well-crafted arguments: While 1[there is much wickedness in the world,] 2[then there is also much good.] For 3[if there is evil, then there must be good,] since 4[good and evil are relative, like big and small.] And no one will deny that 5[evil exists.] Answer questions ‘a’ to ‘e’ below from the passage above. A) Write a well-crafted version of the argument, replacing the emotionally loaded verbiage with more neutral language. 1. The world has much good and evil. b) Examine each statement and explain the reference to the language and sentences used as to how you could decide whether this argument is valid or invalid. The language used is uniformed and charitable. The linkage between the premises and conclusion is not obscured. Statement 1 and 2 are true premises. Argument 3 may be classified as false because evil is not a must in this world nor is good. The argument is valid because the conclusion links to premise although some premises in the argument are false. c) Give one examples each of how hedges and assurances are used in arguments that are not well-crafted. Assurances indicate that the writer is confident in the premise or conclusion. For example: Messi and Ronaldo are good football players. Everyone knows that Messi is a better footballer than Ronaldo. The assurance in the argument above is ‘Everyone knows that’. In the argument, the writer is confident that that in his statement that Messi...
Words: 828 - Pages: 4
...pragmatism; according to this theory, truth can be described as a “changing, subjective, and relative” phenomenon (414). In particular, it is necessary to evaluate his claim that “we commend a statement as true when it passes the tests that our community uses to distinguish what is true from what is false” (416). In other words, this argument implies that a person can accept anything as truth, provided that it is compatible with the standards of validity that are adopted by a group. Overall, this argument should not be overlooked because it highlights the unreliability of human knowledge; nevertheless, its relativism can be used to justify absurd or even atrocious ideas that can eventually prove to be disastrous. These are the main issues that should be discussed more closely. Overall, Richard Rorty believes that individuals accept something as truth if it passes the “procedures of justification” established in a certain community (416). In this context, the term justification procedures can be described as the tools or tests which are used to distinguish truth from falsity. The main issue is that various communities may apply different tests of validity. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the notion of truth is not a static phenomenon; on the contrary, it can vary and evolve considerably with time passing. It should be mentioned that the tests of justification can also evolve considerably. Therefore, one cannot say...
Words: 1133 - Pages: 5
...diagrams or truth tables to test the validity of the arguments that are cited or made in your essay. 4. In the oral presentation, the slides must display the arguments and the diagrams to test validity. 1. Sustainable development becomes a challenge because we have conflicting needs. We want fresh, clean air to breathe but we also want to buy cars We want to conserve forests but we need trees to build houses We want to swim in clean waters but we need factories. Factories usually use water from rivers to power machinery or to cool down machinery a. How do we balance conflicting needs? b. What are the important steps that have to be undertaken to achieve the goals of sustainable development? c. What arguments could you present to the country’s leaders? Use good arguments to present your point of view. Use additional tools such as Venn diagram, truth table, chart, graphs to support your arguments. 2. Alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, hydropower and biomass can be harnessed to meet Vietnam’s rapidly increasing demand for energy. While there has been some early success, deployment of renewable energy has not reached the country’s potentials yet a. Why is this happening? b. Provide solutions to the problems using at least 2 forms of Argument. c. Use additional tools such as Venn diagram, Truth table, chart, graphs to support your arguments. 3. Viet Nam is considered as...
Words: 2157 - Pages: 9
...Steps for Writing Critiques (from Behrens and Rosen’s Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, 12th Edition) 1. Introduce. Introduce both the passage under analysis and the author. State the author’s main argument and the point(s) you intend to make about it. Provide background information to help readers understand the relevance of the passage. This background information may include one or more of the following: * an explanation of why the subject is of current interest * a reference to a possible controversy surrounding the subject of the passage or the passage itself * biographical information about the author * an account of the circumstances under which the passage was written * a reference to the intended audience of the passage 2. Summarize. Summarize the author’s main points, making sure to state the author’s purpose for writing. 3. Assess the presentation. Evaluate the validity of the author’s presentation, distinct from your points of agreement or disagreement. Comment on the author’s success in achieving his or her purpose, by reviewing three or four specific points. Base you review on one or more of the following criteria: * Is the information accurate? * Is the information significant? * Has the author defined terms clearly? * Has the author used and interpreted information fairly? * Has the author argued logically? 4. Respond to the presentation. NOW you can respond to the author’s views. With...
Words: 737 - Pages: 3
...reasoning moves from one or more statements which are, at least provisionally, taken for granted to some other statement. A statement means what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence always either true or false – although its truth or falsity may be unknown. The starting points of reasoning are called the premises, the end-point the conclusion. A set of statements consisting of some premises and a conclusion is called an argument. Examples of arguments: First: All rich people are happy and Hitesh is rich, therefore, Hitesh is happy. Second: The potatoes have been boiling for twenty minutes, therefore, they are cooked! A logical perspective begins in response to questions such as the following: Is this argument based on reason or experience? Is this argument correct (rationally defensible)? Does this argument preserve or lead to truth? Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types, deductive and inductive. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is valid when its premises, if true, do provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. In the realm of deductive logic, the central task is to clarify the relation between premises and conclusion in valid...
Words: 663 - Pages: 3
...Week Two Discussion Questions 1.Chapter 5 and 6 of critical thinking cover fallacies and rhetoric. What are two examples of persuasion that are not valid arguments according to the text? Why are these invalid arguments? Argument from Popularity is an example of an invalid argument. To to justify or defend an action or practice on the grounds that it is common or doing things because that's the way they've always been done are two types of arguments from popularity as stated in chapter 6. Just because most people believe something is a fact is not evidence that it is a fact. A peer pressure argument is another example of an invalid argument. Substantiating pride of membership in a group is exceedingly common. Nationalism is a powerful emotion that can lead to blindly endorsing a countries beliefs and practices. These are two examples of a peer pressure argument. A persons want to be excepted is not evidence that their beliefs are fact. 2.What are some methods you might use to determine the reliability of the data you gather? Why is it important to analyze your data to determine if it's reliable? A couple methods used to determine if your data is reliable. First compare your data to similar studies. Do not rely on just on source, but research multiple sources on the same topic. You can feel fairly confident that the data is complete and accurate if they agree with each other. Second research the authors of any written data your using as well as the...
Words: 401 - Pages: 2
...Examining Different Arguments Pamela C Purvis HUM/111 July 29, 2012 Jennifer L. Bingham, JD Examining Different Arguments Title | Examining Different Arguments Related to the Choice of a Career | Assessment Part A: Critically Evaluating an Argument | Build your mindmap. | Arts and Sciences (Advantage): Lots of flexibility in career choices: Logically Sound | Arts and Sciences (Disadvantage): Leads to a career in food service - 'Do you want fries with that?': Irrational Appeal | Education (Advantage): The best way to make a difference in the world: Either/Or Thinking | Education (Disadvantage): Guaranteed low paying job: Overgeneralization | Nursing (Advantage): People always will need nurses: Logically Sound | Nursing (Disadvantage): Too much schooling (according to Theo, the Law student): Overgeneralization | Information Systems and Technology (Advantage): No other degree concentration is as innovative (according to Grace): Either/Or Thinking | Information Systems and Technology (Disadvantage): Too limited in scope for much advancement in business situation (according to Ritesh): Shifting the Burden of Proof | Business (Advantage): Infinite career options (according to Ritesh): Overgeneralization | Business (Disadvantage): Boring work, stuck behind a desk all day: Overgeneralization | Health and Human Services (Advantage): All the benefits of Arts and Sciences, but vastly more focused and relevant:...
Words: 649 - Pages: 3
... Another example of Reasoning You count 19 people in a group; which originally had 20 people in it; and you infer that someone is missing (input) (input) (deduce) (output) The Basic Idea Logic evaluates reasoning in terms of arguments. What is an argument? • The word “argument” can mean many different things depending on the context. • But for the purposes of logic, the term “argument” means something very specific: What is an argument? • an argument is a collection of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated as the premises. • Important note: premises are always intended to provide support or evidence for the conclusion, but they don't always succeed. (It’s still an argument either way.) What is a statement? • A statement is a declarative sentence, • i.e., a sentence that is capable of being true or false. • For example: The door is closed. • Other kinds of sentence are not capable of being true or false: • Interrogative sentences are inquiries for information: Is the door closed? • Imperative sentences make a command: Shut the #*&@% door! • Performative sentences make a declaration: I hereby pronounce the door closed! Some Examples of Arguments P1. Everyone believes that it's wrong to eat salty food. P2. If everyone believes that it's wrong to eat salty food, then it's wrong to eat pickles. C. Therefore, it's wrong to eat pickles. P1. The Bible says...
Words: 2744 - Pages: 11
...Written Homework Three: Analyzing Argumentative Discourse in Galileo: The Tower Argument Galileo discusses in Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World the views expressed by himself and those held by followers of the Aristotelian Ptolemaic worldview. In his work, Galileo presents and discusses the points of the arguments using three fictional characters. Simplicio, who argues the Aristotelian Ptolemaic points, Sagredo who acts as a neutral third party, and Salviati, who argues the Copernican points, which coincide with Galileo’s beliefs. The Aristotelian view is based on a geocentric worldview, stating that the heavenly bodies (including the sun) revolve around the earth. Alternatively, the Copernican view is based off of the...
Words: 1297 - Pages: 6
...The Principle of the Indiscernibility of the Identicals is a property that is very important when we try to prove the validity of the arguments made by Descartes. It says that any two things that are identical have the exact same properties. Descartes uses this property to defend his argument of the mind and body. Descartes believes that since the mind and the body have different properties that they cannot be identical. He even goes as far as saying the mind is better off without the body because they body can somehow distort perceptions making thoughts unclear. Although Descartes' argument makes certain points, I find it very difficult to make any sense of it. I believe that the mind and the body are two separate things, but I disagree when...
Words: 1593 - Pages: 7
