Check Each Of The Following Arguments To Be Sure

Check each of the following arguments to be sure that it contains

Check each of the following arguments to be sure that it contains no hidden premises and, if it is a complex argument, that all parts are expressed. Revise each, as necessary, to make the expression complete. Then evaluate the argument and decide whether it is sound. Explain your judgment.

Having great wealth is a worthy goal because it is difficult to attain and many famous people have pursued it.

a. Low grades on a college transcript are a handicap in the job market, so teachers who grade harshly are doing students a disservice.

b. The Bible can’t be relevant to today’s problems; it was written many centuries ago and is filled with archaic phrasing.

c. It is dishonest to pretend to have knowledge one does not have, so plagiarism is more virtue than vice.

d. The credit card habit promotes careless spending, particularly among young people. Therefore, credit card companies should not be permitted to issue credit cards to anyone under age 21.

e. No one who ever attended this college achieved distinction after graduation. Marvin attends this college. Therefore, Marvin will not achieve distinction after graduation.

f. Drug dealing should not be a crime because it does not directly harm others or force them to harm themselves.

g. A mature person is self-directing, so parents who make all their children’s decisions for them are doing their offspring a disservice.

h. There’s no point in attending Professor Drone’s class; all he does is lecture in a boring monotone.

i. Power must be evil because it can corrupt people.

j. If the theory of evolution is true, as scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests, a human being is nothing more than an ape.

k. Rock musicians are contributing to the decline of language by singing in a slurred, mumbling manner.

l. If emphasis on error paralyzes effort, this college is paying my English professor to make it impossible for me to learn English.

m. Nuclear power is a threat to world peace. Nuclear energy stations generate nuclear power. So nuclear energy stations are a threat to world peace.

n. Lew Fairman is the best candidate for governor because he is in favor of the death penalty.

o. All religious authorities are concerned about the dangers of nuclear war. All politicians are concerned about the dangers of nuclear war. Therefore, all politicians are religious authorities.

p. The government should undertake a comprehensive censorship program because censorship eliminates undesirable books and films from the market.

q. If the Social Security system is further weakened, the elderly will have to fear poverty. Therefore, if the Social Security system is not further weakened, the elderly will not have to fear poverty.

r. Challenging other people’s opinions is a sign of intolerance, so debating courses have no place on a college campus.

s. It’s ridiculous to think that there will be fewer deaths if we ban handguns. Handguns don’t kill people; people kill people.

t. The antiabortionists say that the fetus is human, but they have not proved it. Therefore, they have no reasonable basis for opposing abortion.

u. We must either defeat communism or be defeated by it. To be defeated by communism is unthinkable. Therefore, we must defeat communism.

v. There is no way that anyone can ever deserve to live better than her or his neighbors, so capitalism is an immoral economic system.

w. If an expectant mother drinks, smokes, takes drugs, or fails to get proper rest, she may damage her unborn child. Therefore, if an expectant mother does these things and her child is born with a defect or ailment that can be traced to them, the mother should face criminal charges.

x. Custom is a form of folk wisdom. In some parts of the world, it is customary for “bride buyers” to buy (or sometimes kidnap) young women from their parents and sell them to men looking for wives. Even though we might find this practice distasteful, it would be morally wrong for us to object to others’ practicing it.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the validity and soundness of arguments, it is crucial to examine whether their premises adequately support their conclusions without hidden assumptions and whether all parts are explicitly expressed. A properly constructed argument should be clear, complete, internally consistent, and logically coherent. This paper will assess each given argument based on these criteria, revising them as necessary for clarity and completeness, and then evaluating their logical validity and soundness.

Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments

The first argument claims that possessing great wealth is a worthy goal because it is difficult to attain and many famous people have pursued it. While the premises are plausible, the argument could be strengthened by explicitly linking these reasons to the conclusion, clarifying why difficulty and pursuit by famous individuals justify wealth as a worthy goal. The argument is valid but somewhat informal; it would benefit from more explicit connecting premises.

In item (a), the premise that low grades hinder employment supports the conclusion that harsh grading by teachers disserves students. The argument assumes that a handicap in the job market is undesirable and that teachers' grading practices influence this. This argument is valid; its premises are clearly expressed and support the conclusion. It is sound if the premises are true.

Item (b) asserts that because the Bible was written centuries ago and is filled with archaic phrasing, it cannot be relevant today. The argument presumes that age and language complexity negate relevance; however, relevance depends on content and applicability, not solely on age or language. Revising the argument to specify why archaic phrasing diminishes relevance clarifies it, but as is, it contains a hidden premise that time and language automatically diminish relevance.

Item (c) claims that pretending to have knowledge is dishonest, yet concludes that plagiarism is more virtue than vice. This appears contradictory, as plagiarism is generally considered dishonest. To make this argument complete, it requires a revision to clarify the intended meaning, perhaps suggesting that in some contexts, pretending to know when one does not may be justified, which is problematic. Without explicit clarification, this argument is flawed.

In (d), the conclusion that credit card companies should not issue cards to those under 21 is based on promoting careless spending among youth. The premises are explicit; assuming that promoting responsible borrowing aligns with societal interests makes this argument valid and potentially sound.

The argument in (e) states that since no one who attended this college achieved distinction, Marvin, who attends, will not achieve it either. The structure is valid; if the premises are true, the conclusion follows logically.

Item (f) contends that drug dealing should not be a crime because it does not directly harm others. This premise is controversial; most laws criminalize drug dealing due to social harm. The argument needs explicit clarification that direct harm is necessary for criminalization. As it stands, it is flawed.

Item (g) argues that making children self-directing is beneficial, so parents making all decisions offends this. The reasoning presumes that self-direction is inherently good; assuming this makes the argument convincing. Explicitly stating that autonomy benefits development enhances clarity.

In (h), the conclusion that there is no point in attending class because the professor is boring relies on the premise about monotone lecturing, which equates a boring style with pointless attendance. This is an unpersuasive argument without further assumptions about learning effectiveness, indicating a weak logical link.

Item (i) claims power must be evil because it can corrupt. This is an example of an oversimplified, potentially fallacious argument as power can be used ethically; the premise is questionable and requires elaboration or qualification.

In (j), that evolution implies humans are merely apes assumes that evolution equates to reduction to a specific animal, which is a misinterpretation. The argument lacks explicit clarification about what claiming humans are "nothing more than apes" entails, making it potentially invalid or based on a hidden premise.

The argument in (k) suggests that rock musicians make language decline through slurred singing. This is an oversimplification; it presumes causation without evidence, and the premise is weak, requiring explicit evidence or reframing for validity.

Item (l) equates college fees paid to the English professor with the professor's attempt to impair learning, which is an unsupported and unsubstantiated premise. It is not a logical argument as presented.

The reasoning in (m) is valid: if nuclear power is a threat to peace, then nuclear energy stations, which produce nuclear power, are also a threat. Ensuring the premises are true makes the argument sound.

In (n), favoring a candidate solely because of support for the death penalty is an unstated premise equating this stance with overall suitability, which is insufficient; the argument is weak or incomplete without more context.

Item (o) claims all religious authorities and politicians are concerned about nuclear war. The conclusion that all politicians are religious authorities from similar concerns by both groups is invalid unless additional premises are provided, making it a flawed argument.

Argument (p) advocates for censorship based on the policy's goal to eliminate undesirable media. The premises support the conclusion but overlook potential issues of censorship abuse; as such, the argument is valid in its logical form but may be criticized morally or ethically.

In (q), the denial of further weakening of Social Security implies the elderly won't fear poverty, which presumes the cause-effect relationship clearly; it is logically valid but depends heavily on the accuracy of that relationship.

Item (r) claims that challenging opinions indicates intolerance, so debating has no place. This reverse argument presumes that opposition to the latter is justified; the validity depends on the definition of intolerance used.

In (s), the premise that handguns don't kill, but people do, undermines the claim that banning handguns reduces deaths; the argument is an oversimplification but maintains some validity within its logic.

Item (t) claims that because they have not proved that the fetus is human, antiabortionists lack a basis for opposing abortion. The argument presumes that proof is required for moral opposition, which might be contested but is valid within a certain logical framework.

Finally, in (u), the dichotomy of defeating communism or being defeated assumes no other options exist, which is an example of a false dilemma, weakening the argument’s validity. The conclusion that we must defeat communism depends on accepting this premise.

Overall, the evaluation of these arguments reveals varied degrees of validity and soundness, largely dependent on clarity, explicit premises, and logical coherence. Many arguments rely on hidden premises or implicit assumptions, emphasizing the importance of explicit reasoning in critical analysis.

References

• Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social-cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.
• Alam, G. M. (2009). The role of science and technology education at network age population for sustainable development of Bangladesh through human resource advancement. Scientific Research & Essays, 4(11).
• Gartner, W. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11-32.
• Kruenger, T., & Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5-21.
• Markham, G., Balkin, D., & Baron, R. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(2), 165–177.
• Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 717–735.
• Shaver, K.G., & Scott, L.R. (1991). Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23–31.
• Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112.
• Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–590.
• Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Isakova, N. (2006). Enterprising women in transition economies. Ashgate Publishing.