There are three set rules that we use and need to use when it comes to analyzing an argument. The rules are making sure the premises are plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion and that the argument is valid or strong. We are able to use these rules in everyday conversations. When we test a statement you really only need two out of the three tests to hold to analyze your argument. To start off you want to choose the question that can be answered easiest.
An example is "Steve Carell is funny. Steve Carell is on The Office. The Office is funny." Now I am going to use the three tests we learned previously to test this argument. Is the premise plausible? Yes, it is true that Steve Carell is funny and he is on The Office. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion. Just because Steve Carell is funny does not make the show The Office funny too. It all depends on the other actors. Steve Carell could be the only funny actor on the show compared to his other co-stars. However there could be a chance that Steve Carell's co-stars are just as funny as he is and The Office might be one of the funniest shows on TV. There are many factors that can contribute to whether Steve Carell is funny or the show The Office is funny. After analyzing this argument I have come to the conclusion that this is a weak argument because there are so many factors contributing to the conclusion. Your own opinion can come into play as well when deciding if Steve Carell is funny or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post was very straightforward and clear in telling readers about testing an argument. You clearly explain the three tests needed to prove if an argument is good or bad. I agree that we can use these rules in our everyday conversations. The example you used to find out whether the argument was good or bad was very interesting and you used the three tests in a way that readers could easily see how they worked. I like how used Steve Carell and The Office as an example. I also liked how you first checked the plausibility of the premise and then checked if the premise was more plausible than the conclusion. You clearly used the last test to determine if the argument was strong or valid and explained clearly why you came to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI like how you used a statement that I can get into. I found it easier to decipher whether or not this argument was valid or not, and strong or weak because this argument is one that I have actually heard before. I have been in a debate trying to figure out who makes The Office funny, as well as if Steve Carrell is the driving factor behind the show's humor. I also agree with you and febu that this post is to the point, as every bit of information was put in succession, with no "fat" in the post. Very thorough and informational.
ReplyDeleteYour blog was very insightful for me. I like how you first described and stated the three tests for an argument to be good and also told how to use it in real life. It gave a clear understanding of them before you presented your example. Your argument example I really enjoyed. It was something I thought a lot of people, especially in our generation could relate to and because they can relate to it they can better understand. I further liked how you explained your analysis of your argument in a straightforward manner; this made it easy to follow your explanation.
ReplyDeleteI found that your example for testing an argument was very interesting. I found it easier to get into the argument than I had originally expected too. Also I thought it was interesting how you used an argument that proved to not pass the test. It was a different way of approaching the topic at hand and you handled it very well. I also like how you were short sweet and to the point. You were able to pull something from the television and make it into a lesson from the book.
ReplyDelete