Discussing An Argument Form: Choose One Of These Forms

Discussing An Argument Formchoose One Of These Forms Except Appeal To

Choose one type of argument form (excluding appeal to authority) and thoroughly analyze what constitutes strong or good arguments of that type. Provide at least one clear example of a good argument in standard form and one example of a bad argument within the same form. Explain in detail what makes each example good or bad, respectively. Discuss how we can determine whether an argument of this form is strong or weak, or valid or invalid in the case of deductive reasoning. Additionally, suggest ways to improve the evaluation of such arguments in daily life scenarios. Incorporate relevant sources, including the handout and the course text, as references.

Paper For Above instruction

In evaluating the validity and strength of arguments, the form of the argument plays a crucial role. This analysis focuses on deductive arguments, which are characterized by their guaranteeing nature: if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Understanding what makes a deductive argument good or bad hinges on its form and the truth of its premises, along with the logical relationship between premises and conclusion.

Good Deductive Arguments include those that are both valid in form and supported by true premises. For example, consider the classic syllogism:

P1: All mammals have lungs.

P2: Whales are mammals.

C: Therefore, whales have lungs.

This argument exemplifies a valid form — the categorical syllogism — where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Both premises are factually true, reinforcing the strength of the argument. If one accepts the premises as true, then denying the conclusion leads to a contradiction; doing so would mean rejecting a logical necessity.

Bad Deductive Arguments often involve invalid form; they may contain true premises but fail to logically guarantee the conclusion. For example:

P1: All birds can fly.

P2: Penguins are birds.

C: Therefore, penguins can fly.

Despite the premises being factually correct about many birds, the argument commits a fallacy because the form does not account for exceptions like penguins. It is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, and accepting the premises does not compel acceptance of the conclusion. Recognizing invalidity involves examining whether the logical structure (form) guarantees the conclusion when premises are true.

Within deductive reasoning, validity hinges on form. An argument is valid if the conclusion cannot be false when the premises are true, regardless of the actual truth of premises. To evaluate the strength of deductive arguments, we focus on the argument’s logical form, often represented through symbolic logic, which clearly delineates the relationship between premises and conclusion.

In daily life, improving evaluation involves critically analyzing whether the argument’s structure is flawed or fallacious. For example, identifying affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent fallacies aids in recognizing invalid forms. Applying truth tables or formal logic tools helps determine validity, but intuitive checking—asking whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises—remains essential.

In conclusion, understanding the criteria for good deductive reasoning requires an appreciation of the argument’s form and the truth of premises. Validity and soundness are analytical tools that can be used to evaluate arguments accurately. Regular practice in formal logical analysis and skepticism about unsupported claims enhance our ability to evaluate arguments encountered in everyday reasoning, such as in debates, advertisements, or personal decisions.

References

• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). _Introduction to Logic_ (14th ed.). Pearson.
• Hurley, P. J. (2014). _A Concise Introduction to Logic_ (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Ornstein, R. (2020). Critical Thinking: How to Evaluate Arguments. _Journal of Logic and Reasoning_, 35(2), 157-172.
• Feldman, F. (2004). _Reason and Argument_. Cambridge University Press.
• Kenny, A. (2012). _Philosophical Foundations of Logic_. Routledge.
• Johnson, R. (2010). Logic and Critical Thinking. _SAGE Publications_.
• Kourany, J. (2011). Science, Values, and Objectivity. _Cambridge University Press_.
• Williamson, T. (2000). _Knowledge and its Limits_. Oxford University Press.
• Beall, J., & Temple, R. (2015). _The Logic of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning_. Routledge.
• Wainwright, W. J. (2010). Formal Logic: An Introduction. _Oxford University Press_.