Find At Least Five Real-Life Arguments Which Could Be Rewrit

Find At Least Five 5 Real Life Arguments Which Could Be Rewrit

1. Find at least five (5) “real-life” arguments which could be rewritten as syllogisms. In a sentence or two, describe the argument. Rewrite each argument as a syllogism. Identify whether the argument contains logical errors or is an example of good syllogistic reasoning.

2. Discussion 2: “Nature or Nurture Debate.” The “nature or nurture” argument is based on whether a person’s behavior is a result of heredity or his/her environment. Review the “Either/Or” fallacies in the Thinking textbook. Please respond to the following: State the main reason why you agree with either the “nature” position or with the “nurture” position. Evaluate your own stated reason: Is it supportable with verifiable evidence? Is it based on reason or opinion? Would the other side think that your stated reason adequately supports your position? Explain whether there are other theories besides nature and nurture that might explain the variability of human behavior.

Paper For Above instruction

The ability to critically analyze and reconstruct real-life arguments as syllogisms is an essential skill in logic and reasoning. It helps clarify the structure of arguments, identify fallacies, and evaluate their validity. This exercise involves selecting five genuine arguments encountered in daily life, describing them briefly, and then reformulating each as a formal syllogism. Additionally, it requires assessing whether these arguments are logically sound or contain fallacious reasoning, which enhances understanding of critical thinking processes.

One common example involves arguments about health and lifestyle. For instance, someone might argue: “People who exercise regularly are healthier,” implying that regular exercise causes good health. Reconstructed as a syllogism: All individuals who exercise regularly are healthy people; Maintaining good health is characteristic of these individuals; Therefore, exercising regularly contributes to good health. Although persuasive, this argument may overlook other factors such as diet or genetics, potentially leading to a false cause fallacy if not carefully examined.

Another typical argument arises in debates about education: “If you study hard, you will succeed,” suggesting a direct causal relationship. As a syllogism: All students who study hard increase their chances of success; Success depends on effort; Therefore, studying hard guarantees success. This reasoning might be an oversimplification, as external factors like socioeconomic background or access to resources also influence success, which could introduce logical fallacies such as oversimplification or false cause.

In discussions about technology, one might say: “Using the internet is dangerous; therefore, no one should use it.” Reformulated as a syllogism: All internet users who do not take proper safety precautions are at risk; People who do not take safety precautions should not use the internet; Consequently, no one should use the internet. This is a fallacious argument because it assumes prohibition is the only solution without considering safer usage practices, exemplifying a false dilemma or either/or fallacy.

Regarding social behaviors, an argument might be: “Children who watch violent TV become violent adults,” implying a cause-effect relationship. Syllogistically: All children exposed to violent TV are likely to become violent adults; Exposure to violent media influences behavior; Therefore, violent TV causes violent adult behavior. While there is evidence linking media violence and aggression, this argument does not account for genetic or environmental influences, potentially leading to a post hoc fallacy if not critically analyzed.

A further example involves environmental concerns: “Recycling reduces pollution, so everyone should recycle,” which can be structured as: Recycling reduces pollution; Society’s pollution level is reduced by widespread recycling; Therefore, everyone should recycle. Although valid, this argument presumes that recycling alone sufficiently addresses pollution, ignoring other factors like industrial emissions or transportation, which might diminish its overall impact.

On the “nature versus nurture” debate, I personally align more with the nurture position—that environmental factors significantly influence behavior. My stance is supported by empirical studies demonstrating the impact of upbringing, education, and socioeconomic conditions on individual development (Rutter, 2006). For instance, children adopted into different environments often exhibit behavioral traits similar to their adoptive families rather than their biological ones, indicating the importance of nurture.

However, I recognize that this view is not entirely supportable solely through verifiable evidence; it also involves some degree of interpretation and opinion. Critics from the "nature" perspective might argue that genetic predispositions set inherent limits on how much environment can influence behavior. Both sides could claim that their position has more explanatory power, but the truth likely involves an interaction of both heredity and environment, making the dichotomy overly simplistic.

Indeed, other theories beyond complete reliance on nature and nurture include the gene-environment interaction model, which suggests that genetic predispositions are expressed differently depending on environmental contexts (Caspi & Moffitt, 2006). Additionally, socio-cultural theories emphasize the role of societal norms, culture, and historical factors in shaping behavior (Vygotsky, 1978). These perspectives acknowledge that human development is complex and multifaceted, influenced by a dynamic interplay of innate and external factors.

References

• Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Gene-environment interactions in psychiatry: Joining forces with neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(7), 583-590.
• Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Biological Psychiatry, 59(10), 965-971.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype→ environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
• Aronson, E., & Osherow, N. (2019). The social animal. Macmillan.
• Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special things we now know. Molecular Psychiatry, 20(1), 98-108.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Heredity and Environment. (n.d.). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/heredity
• Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10(1), 1-11.