Critical Thinking –Argument Support Mechanics
When a certain argument is false, an individual is supposed to be cautious in his opinions. However, the logical validity of an argument is its internal consistency and not the truth value. For instance, when an individual argues that there is a wet wall in the street, but nobody has seen the rain. The argument of this statement is correct since the opinion must accept the argument’s premises truth. Thus, it is extremely hard to refute an argument based on false premise since its truth cannot satisfy all the involved parties. The conclusion of an invalid argument should be firm with tangible facts to attract both sides into an argument together with convincing them. Moreover, the statements issued are not supposed to contradict when giving false arguments. To satisfy a given crowd of people, an individual is not intended to provide conflicting statements since they may attract arguments and objection from the audience. For instance, an individual should not convince people that they are wearing a shirt at the same time are convincing the other crowd that they are wearing a T-shirt.
Qn.10 and 11
An argument may be valid, in that, its premise is not contradicting with the conclusion, but it is convincing may put away the audience (Buechner 19). The steps in the argument are supposed to be logical to convince the audience about the truth of the case. Moreover, the argument is expected to be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The truth of the premise and conclusion make the argument valid to the audience since it may attract several questions. However, argument’s validity is determined by the logical necessity. For instance, an argument is valid provided both the premise and conclusion are correct; for instance, when people argue that men are finite. The validity of this statement is not determined by the truth and relevancy of the premise and conclusion, but the logical follow the statement (Buechner 19).
Disputation
Qn.2
Believer: People everywhere from all cultures believe in ghosts. They could not all be wrong.
Skeptic: Sure they could. Once they believed, the earth was flat, too.
In this statement, the speakers are addressing about people’s ancient believe in ghosts. In this declaration, the speakers are missing the point because their two premises are not relevant to their conclusion. At first, they took the assumption of a certain populace of a society about their fear of ghosts as the hypothesis of all people around the globe. Moreover, the conclusions of the two speakers are contradicting, in that, the first speaker takes the assumption of a particular population in the society to be all people around the world. The conclusions of both statements do not relate to the premises. Besides, the statements do not have the convincing capability to persuade the audience. The first speaker makes the strongest argument because the premise and the conclusion are relating, and they are not contradicting (Buechner 61).
Qn.3
In this statement, the speaker relates the Iraq’s invasion with the economic sanctions and boycotts. In that, she believes that the Americans should have employed the two strategies, instead of attacking Iraq. In this statement, the speaker is not missing the point because her premises are relevant to the conclusion. Moreover, the conclusion and premises are the logic of the speaker’s argument (Buechner 61).
Work Cited
Buechner, Jeff. Ways of Reasoning: Tools and Methods for Thinking outside the Box. East
Brunswick, NJ: University Publishing Solutions, 2008. Print.
