According to the Epstein text, there are three tests’ an argument must pass in order for it to be good. These tests are: “the premises are plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion and the argument is valid or strong” (Epstein text). For the premises to be plausible, that just means the opening statement of the argument is something within reason. The premises being more plausible than the conclusion, means that it must make a good point and therefore the conclusion follows. Lastly, the argument must be strong or valid. A strong argument means it is “highly unlikely that its premises to be true and its conclusion false” (Epstein text). A valid argument means there is “no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false” (Epstein text).
Here is an example of an argument:
“That kid’s shirt is purple. That must be his favorite color.”
1. The premise is true. We can all agree that the kid’s shirt is the color purple.
2. The premise is also more plausible than the conclusion because we cannot fairly conclude that his favorite color is purple. It is very likely that he just wore a purple shirt.
3. Therefore, this is not a good argument because the conclusion is not valid or strong. Now, if we asked the kid what his favorite color was, and he said it was purple, then the argument would be stronger.
I like your example for a good argument. It is very clear and easy to understand, thus a good example for explaining this somewhat complex idea. It is true that just because the kids shirt is purple it does not mean it is his favorite color. Hence, this is not a good argument. My favorite color is purple, but I hardly ever wear purple shirts! With that being said, it would be false for someone to say "she never wears purple shirts. She must hate purple." Also, I liked how you incorporated quotes from the text. The addition of quotes made it obvious that you read and understood this topic, and in turn made it easier for us to understand. Good job!
ReplyDelete