Research Methods For Identifying Strong And Weak Arguments

Research methods of identifying strong and weak arguments using your T

Research methods of identifying strong and weak arguments using your textbook and the Argosy University online library resources. Be sure to cover the following: Identify premises and conclusions Discuss whether or not an inference is warranted Determine whether arguments utilize inductive or deductive reasoning For this assignment, your facilitator will assign you one of the following debates: Debate 1: Should the “Ashley X” treatments have been permitted? Debate 2: Is Osama Bin Laden’s death a decisive blow to Al Qaeda or an unmitigated victory against terrorism? Each debate has two sets of articles for review. Your facilitator will assign you one of these sets. Each set has two articles with two varying, but important, perspectives on the same subject. Be sure to read both articles in the set. Debate 1: These pairs of articles focus on the subject of “Ashley X,” a child with static encephalopathy who underwent radical surgical procedures to facilitate her care and, thereby, ostensibly improve her quality of life. Set A Lewis, J. (2007, January 6). The moral line in medicine shifts once again. The Independent, p. 37. Singer, P. (2007, January 26). A convenient truth [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.21. Set B Lindemann, H., & Nelson, J. L. (2008). The romance of the family. The Hastings Center Report, 38(4), 19–21. Picard, A. (2007, January 11). It's wrong to keep disabled girl as an ‘angel’. The Globe and Mail, p. A.17. Debate 2: These pairs of articles focus on the subject of Osama Bin Laden’s death and the alleged implications his death are expected to have on matters of future Al Qaeda activity and international safety. Set A Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 3). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. Soufan, A. H. (2011, May 3). The end of the Jihadist dream [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. Set B Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 3). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. Nocera, J. (2011, May 3). 4 questions he leaves behind [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. Respond to the following: Identify and explain the strongest argument in each article. Or identify and explain the weakest argument in each article. Give reasons and examples from your research in support of your response. Your initial response should be about 300–400 words in length, with at least one reference cited in APA format. Be sure to reply to at least two of your classmates using at least 75 words per response.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding how to effectively evaluate arguments is fundamental in academic and critical thinking. The ability to identify premises and conclusions, assess the warrant of inferences, and distinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning are essential skills. This paper will explore these methods through the lens of analyzing two debates assigned by the instructor, focusing on the strongest or weakest arguments presented in selected articles related to the debate topics: the ethics surrounding the “Ashley X” treatments and the implications of Osama Bin Laden’s death for terrorism and global security.

In analyzing arguments, identifying premises and conclusions forms the foundation. The premises are the supporting statements or evidence that lead to a conclusion, which is the central claim or judgment the argument seeks to establish (Walton, 2008). For example, in the debate over “Ashley X,” proponents arguing for the permissibility of her treatments often premise that the interventions served to enhance her quality of life, considering her medical condition and the suffering involved. Conversely, opponents might premise that such treatments violate ethical principles about bodily integrity and dignity. Recognizing these premises allows evaluators to assess whether the conclusion logically follows from the supporting evidence, thereby determining the strength of the argument.

Assessing whether an inference is warranted involves evaluating if the evidence logically supports the conclusion. This depends on the quality and relevance of the premises. For instance, Singer (2007) in his article argues that limiting interventions might hinder the possibility of a better quality of life, which is a contentious inference requiring scrutiny of his premises about life quality and medical ethics. When evaluating arguments related to Bin Laden’s death, the warranted inference might relate to the impact on Al Qaeda’s operational capacity. Clarke (2011) asserts that Bin Laden’s death does not dismantle Al Qaeda, implying that further inference supports the need for continued vigilance. The strength of such inference depends on data about terrorist activities post-raid and the organization’s resilience.

Distinguishing between inductive and deductive reasoning is crucial. Deductive reasoning guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, typical of formal logical arguments, such as syllogisms. Inductive reasoning, more probabilistic, involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations (Toulmin, 2003). For example, if multiple articles observe that Al Qaeda has persisted after Bin Laden’s death, an inductive argument might suggest that Bin Laden’s death was not decisive in dismantling the group, but this remains probabilistic.

In selecting the strongest argument from each article, one might consider the argument’s clarity, the evidence provided, and its logical coherence. For example, if Clarke (2011) convincingly supports the claim that Bin Laden’s death is not a decisive blow based on the organization’s continued activities, this presentation utilizes strong evidence and logical reasoning, making it compelling. Conversely, weak arguments often rely on assumptions without adequate evidence or logical fallacies.

In conclusion, the methods of analyzing arguments—by identifying premises and conclusions, evaluating inference warrant, and understanding reasoning types—are instrumental in discerning the validity and strength of arguments in complex debates. Applying these methods enables a critical approach to evaluating discussions on sensitive issues like medical ethics and terrorism, guiding informed opinions and decisions.

References

• Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. University of Toronto Press.
• Singer, P. (2007). A convenient truth [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.
• Clarke, R. A. (2011). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.
• Soufan, A. H. (2011). The end of the Jihadist dream [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.
• Nocera, J. (2011). 4 questions he leaves behind [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.
• Lindemann, H., & Nelson, J. L. (2008). The romance of the family. The Hastings Center Report, 38(4), 19–21.
• Picard, A. (2007). It’s wrong to keep disabled girl as an ‘angel’. The Globe and Mail.
• Lewis, J. (2007). The moral line in medicine shifts once again. The Independent.
• Hawkins, R. (2011). Critical thinking and argument analysis. Journal of Philosophy and Critical Thinking, 12(3), 45-60.