Week 3, Post 1
According to Richard Epstein, author of "Critical Thinking," a good argument must include a claim that is reasonable in order for the outcome to be true. In addition to that, he also mentioned that having a good argument must pass at least one of the three following consisting of:
1. The premises are plausible.
2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.
3. The argument is valid or strong.
Carlos loves rescuing animals
People with more than 30 pets rescue animals.
So, Carlos has more than 30 pets.
The argument, "Carlos loves rescuing animals" is possible therefore it is valid. Although the argument is valid because it is true granted test 3 it does not make a strong argument due to the second premise that violates test 1 and 2. The conclusion is true, however based on the second statement that is false the argument is no longer plausible.
If the second premise is changed to, "People with more than 30 pets usually like to rescue animals" then it would be considered a reasonable argument because it is not common that families own more than 30 pets. The claim states, "usually like" which makes the argument valid because it is possibly true. Changing the second premise passes the tests and not make the argument questionable.
Your example in testing an argument was really clear; subsequently, it made a lot of sense to me, especially the part when you went into detail about the second premise of your argument ‘People with more than 30 animals rescue pets’. I like that you gave a hypothetical situation that showed if the premise changed to ‘people with more than 30 animals usually like to rescue pets’ that this would alter the argument. I didn’t consider doing this when writing my post about testing an argument, but it would have made my argument and post a little clearer.
ReplyDelete