Critical Thinking
#2. That new e-company just made its stocks available to the public. If you do not buy them now, you will not be able to make much profit, should you buy them later.
1. The argument in this context is established on the premises that the stocks have been made available and the public can make purchases.
2. Failure to buy at the appropriate time will lead to making losses if one buys later.
Conclusion
The case concludes by intimating that members of the public who do not buy at that particular time are not likely to make profits if they do so later.
Argument
The reasoning presented in the argument is not valid and warrants scrutiny. When a company makes its stocks available to the public, the main idea is to assist in raising some funds critical for increasing the organization’s market capitalization. Profitability is determined by the extent to which a company is capable of remaining productivity in the market while maximizing on profitability. It is, therefore, misguided to assume that if members of the public do not buy the stock at the opening stages, they are likely to loose on profits.
It is imperative to note that it does not matter when a person buys stocks from a particular company. One can purchase stocks at the opening stages and still make losses while those who buy later can be profitable. Profitability is dependent on the company’s standing in the market. If the company is used to making losses, it is impossible to convince a member of the public that they will make profits if they purchase the products early. Consequently, if the e-company makes profits people are likely to benefit from the sales made through dividends. The loophole in the argument arises from the fact that profits can be made when one buys at the opening of the stock. It does not consider that profitability is determined by a host of factors, some that include company’s productivity, leverage in the market and competitive ability.
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
#3. Jack went to the store to buy a large bottle of cheap wine. He forgot his wallet. He had several friends over for dinner that night. The friends did not have a good time. The friends left the party in an agitated and disgruntled mental state.
1. The third argument is built on the premise that Jack went to buy a bottle of cheap wine.
2. He forgot his wallet and could not make purchases.
3. The friends left the party agitated and mentally disjointed
Conclusion
The conclusion is that Jack’s friends did not enjoy the party because of the absence of the wine.
Argument
This argument lacks merit and does meet the threshold of being determined as a viable submission. Case in point is that the friends might have been affected by some other factors other than dining with a cheap wine.
While it is possible that Jack’s friends may not have enjoyed the party because of the absence of wine, there are other issues that can determine the enjoyment of others in the party. For example, the expectations of the friends were not met as appropriate. People normally have high expectations when it comes to parties, and Jack must have disappointed the friends by not offering the best perhaps as promised. Another argument is that maybe Jack must have banked only on the cheap wine effectively disregarding other components that make a party interesting. Besides wine, there are other drinks that can be used in the situation.
Moreover, snacks and food substances are elements that can be used to improve the entertainment level of the party. Ideally, the friends must have felt disenfranchised may be because of the lack of basic entertainment requirements that are normal at any social gathering. The cheap wine and its absence are not enough to compel Jack’s friends to walk away disgruntled and agitated. In such circumstances, some issues play out, and a reasoning that is on single dimensional is obsolete.
Sub argument 1 Sub argument 2
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Conclusion
#4. There is heavy rain in the Adirondacks today. So you’ll need a good pair of water-proof shoes and you cannot expect to see much wildlife either.
1. As a consequence, one needs water repellent shoes.
2. An Individual cannot see much of the wildlife.
Conclusion
Heavy rains requires an individual to have water repellant shoes and the wild life cannot be spotted easily.
Argument
This argument is valid and makes a lot of sense based on the issues cited. Anytime there are heavy rains; the infrastructure is affected, and people require proper equipment or materials to operate under such circumstances. In this case, a person has to acquire the best shoes or water repellant essentials as a measure of avoiding disenfranchisement. Failure to adhere to the advice may be detrimental because if an individual goes to an area that has heavy rainfall, the normal establishments might not serve the purpose of being in such locations. For example, heavy rains cause floods and mud, lack of proper shoes can hinder movement. Moreover, during the heavy rainfall, though it is not impossible to identify some wildlife, it is rare to spot them.
Wildlife takes shelter because just like humans, they are threatened by adverse weather conditions such as rainfall. It is imperative to underscore that animals in the wild can shelter in areas that are hidden and out of reach. The argument correctly analyzes the situation presented and provides possibilities that are manifest in the given scenario. The statement provides appropriate advice that can aid an individual in making decisions that are informed and necessary. Consequently, there is no exaggeration of the situation, but a candid evaluation and analysis of the issues caused by the heavy rains. Therefore, due to heavy rains, it might be relatively difficult to spot the wildlife and due to the ravaging waters, a proper water repellent shoe is required.
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Sub argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Conclusion
#5. Since Peter eats grates for supper, it can be inferred that he does not have to brush his teeth. For chewing on gristle is bound to clean his teeth.
1. Peter chews gristle
3. Does not have to brush teeth
Conclusion
The statement concludes that chewing gristle guarantees clean teeth.
Argument
The argument intimates that consumption of gristle does not warrant Peter to brush the teeth. This argument has no validity and exhibits misguided misconceptions. The assumption is that gristle can be used a replacement for tooth brushing. It should be noted that gristle is tough and extensively inaudible. The suggestion that gristle can be used in place of brushing the teeth misses the point. The essence of brushing the teeth is aimed at removing food particles and neutralizing the sugary components that might cause tooth decay.
Essentially, tooth-brushing has a wide mandate compared to the toothbrush. It has been proven that during the night bacterial components accumulate in the mouth from the stomach. As a result, a person is required to toothbrush to eliminate the bacteria and other elements that might cause poor oral hygiene. It is inappropriate to adopt unconventional means to take the place of practice that has been proven to be effective. Gristle does not have any alternative components that can serve the purpose of a toothbrush.
As aforementioned, gristle might be tough or rough, but the fact is that it has certain components that might remain between the cavities. The argument can only be admissible if it posits that it has got certain alternatives that either better or similar to the practice of tooth brushing. It is not sensible to assume that gristle is an essential food substance that can deal with the bacteria or the food particles. It does not also fit to suggest that gristle may not have certain particles that might necessitate brushing off the teeth.
Sub-argument 1 Conclusion
Sub-argument 1 Conclusion
#6. There are several reasons why I cannot go with you to the club tonight. First, I have to study for my critical reasoning exam tomorrow. Second, I do not have any money. Third, I have to be here in case the people at ‘who wants to be a millionaire?’ try to contact me to appear on the show.
Premises
1. To study
2. Lack of money
3. Waiting for a call in case a call is made requiring the person’s appearance on the show.
Conclusion
The individual cannot attend or accompany the friend to the nightclub because of other valid commitments and issues aforementioned.
Argument
The arguments presented in this argument are rational and valid. It is the fact that attending a nightclub at the expense of studying can result in failure. The person is right by failing to attend the nightclub and commit to the studies. Consequently, money is a necessity and its deficiency hinders some things from taking place. Going out may require some money for transport or for other contingencies that might arise in due course.
Some of the clubs only admit people based on their ability to pay for the entrance or purchase drinks while on the premises. The individual, therefore, finds no sense in going to places where he can be disenfranchised. Staying at home with the hope that the producers of the show to make an appearance can call him is well thought. Essentially, the individual argues his case based on priorities and inherent deficiencies that hinder him from doing certain things. Setting priorities in life and establishing methodologies to achieve them cannot be overemphasized. An individual can only be empowered based on the choices made throughout a lifetime. In this context, the person can choose to attend the nightclub, but fail in other areas that are more important and crucial. Making the right choices is a positive gesture and promotes positive thinking.
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
Sub-argument 1 Sub-argument 2
