Assessing Arguments: Look At The Arguments Below

Assessing Arguments Look At The Arguments Below Are Th

Evaluate the validity and soundness of the following arguments:

A. P1. All dogs go to heaven. P2. Charlie is a dog. C. Charlie will go to heaven.

B. P1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it. P2. The moon is made of green cheese. C. Cows jump over the moon.

C. P1. If it’s raining, then the streets are wet. P2. The streets are wet. C. It’s raining.

D. P1. All apples are fruits. P2. Some fruits are red. C. Some apples are red.

E. P1. Thanksgiving is in November. C. Thanksgiving is in November.

Reconstruct the following informal arguments into premise/conclusion form. Are they valid? Are they sound?

A. “You shouldn’t feed chocolate to the dog. Chocolate makes dogs sick.”

B. “Anyone who goes to Yale is a total jerk. I know because I met my roommate’s brother, who goes to Yale, and he is a total jerk.”

Paper For Above instruction

Arguments are fundamental components of logical reasoning and critical thinking, allowing individuals to build persuasive cases or evaluate the validity of claims. Analyzing the validity and soundness of arguments involves determining whether their logical structure is valid—that is, if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises—and whether their premises are true, rendering the argument sound. Below, we examine several arguments to analyze their logical integrity and truthfulness.

Assessment of Specific Arguments

The first argument posits:

• P1. All dogs go to heaven.
• P2. Charlie is a dog.
• Conclusion: Charlie will go to heaven.

From a logical perspective, this argument follows a valid structure known as modus ponens, wherein if all dogs go to heaven, and Charlie is a dog, then Charlie indeed will go to heaven. The validity hinges on the form; if the premises are true, so too is the conclusion. However, the soundness depends on whether the premises are actually true. Many would challenge the truth of the first premise, as it pertains to an unverifiable supernatural claim, thus rendering the argument unsound despite its validity.

In the second argument:

• P1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it.
• P2. The moon is made of green cheese.
• Conclusion: Cows jump over the moon.

This is a conditional argument relying on the truth of an antecedent—"the moon is made of green cheese." The conclusion that cows jump over the moon follows logically from the premises if they are true. The second premise is factually false; the moon is not made of green cheese. Nonetheless, the argument's form is valid; it logically guarantees the conclusion if the premises hold. The argument is not sound because of the false premise.

The third argument:

• P1. If it’s raining, then the streets are wet.
• P2. The streets are wet.
• Conclusion: It’s raining.

This argument is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. The streets could be wet for reasons other than rain, such as a street cleaner or a burst water pipe. Therefore, even with true premises, the conclusion might be false, making the argument invalid and unsound.

The fourth argument states:

• P1. All apples are fruits.
• P2. Some fruits are red.
• Conclusion: Some apples are red.

This argument is invalid because the premises do not necessarily entail the conclusion. Just because some fruits are red does not mean those red fruits are apples. The premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow necessarily, indicating invalidity. It is also not sound for the same reason.

Finally, the simple statement:

P1. Thanksgiving is in November.

Conclusion: Thanksgiving is in November.

This is a straightforward statement where the premise and conclusion are identical, making the argument both valid and sound due to the self-evident truth.

Reconstructing Informal Arguments

Reconstructing informal arguments involves identifying implicit premises and clarifying reasoning in premise/conclusion form. For example, the argument:

“You shouldn’t feed chocolate to the dog. Chocolate makes dogs sick.”

can be reconstructed as:

• P1. Chocolate makes dogs sick.
• P2. You should not feed your dog what makes it sick.
• Conclusion: You shouldn’t feed chocolate to your dog.

This reconstruction makes explicit the omitted premise that feeding any harmful substance to a dog is unethical or inadvisable, thus strengthening the logical flow.

In another case,:

“Anyone who goes to Yale is a total jerk. I met my roommate’s brother, who goes to Yale, and he is a total jerk.”

can be reconstructed as:

• P1. My roommate’s brother goes to Yale.
• P2. My roommate’s brother is a jerk.
• P3. Anyone who goes to Yale is a total jerk.
• Conclusion: Anyone who goes to Yale is a total jerk.

In this structure, the argument relies on an unstated premise (P3) that all Yale students are jerks, which must be explicitly added for clarity and evaluation.

Conclusion

Analyzing the validity and soundness of arguments is essential for sound reasoning. Valid arguments guarantee that if premises are true, the conclusion must be true, while sound arguments also require the premises to be actually true. While many everyday and philosophical arguments are intuitively valid, their soundness hinges on the factual accuracy of their premises. Reconstruction of informal arguments serves to clarify implicit assumptions and facilitates rigorous evaluation, ensuring arguments withstand critical scrutiny.

References

• Rachels, J. (2003). The challenge of cultural relativism. In The Elements of Moral Philosophy (4th ed., pp. 53-63). McGraw-Hill.
• Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays. Free Press.
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2018). Introduction to Logic (15th ed.). Routledge.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Engel, S. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Cengage Learning.
• Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. Free Press.
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Rescher, N. (2000). Introduction to Logic. University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Levine, S. (2014). Critical Thinking and Moral Problems. Routledge.