Week 13, Post 3
A section in chapter 15 explains the importance of normal conditions used in arguments. Normal conditions are casual claims that are claims that are unstated but obvious and plausible but used to make arguments stronger and valid. In arguments, it is normal to leave certain things left out or unsaid especially if it would be an obvious statement. I found the use of normal condition claims to be an essential when presenting an argument because it allows us to keep our claims short and direct. It is not necessary to have additional apparent information because it is not the focal point of the argument and may cause confusion. Using normal condition claims would make the premises more likely to be vague or broad because statements that are evident can be endless. I think the claims that support the argument should be more concrete, focusing on the importance of the claims is needed.
If we all had to state every single thing pertaining to an argument every time we made one, we would waste our lives away talking. There are so many little inferred things that we take for granted, especially when we take a look at the way we talk in our day to day lives. When we first started the semester and we learned about vagueness, we were told that we had to describe every little thing about an argument in order for it to not sound too vague. I am glad that there is some wiggle room with the whole idea that we can assume some things about an argument without them having to be said.
ReplyDelete