Arguments that are not completely comprehensive basically mean that they are lacking information or details. When an argument fails to be strong it is then invalid due to the fact it is misunderstood. Statements are ambiguous and can be interpreted in many different ways; especially when premises are left out. After our reading, I learned that in order to make a transition from an invalid, misunderstood argument into a strong and valid argument, we must repair the argument by following three rules:
1.The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2. The premis is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
An example of an argument that needs to be repaired is:
Tom is outside. There is smoke outside. This argument is lacking premises that will help direct the argument into a plausible conclusion. Without the needed premises, this argument is making an accusation that Tom is the cause of the smoke. A statement moving against this argument could be that Tom does not smoke at all. In order to repair this argument, the argument needs premises that provide information of where the smoke is coming from and why is Tom outside. An example of a transformed argument is:
Tom is outside and takes a drag of his cigarette, and there is smoke outside; therefore Tom is smoking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked how your fixed example made the argument sound plausible then how it usually was before. You forget to mention how the first statement was not an argument in the first place because it lacked it conclusion. If the conclusion, "tom is smoking," was added in to the first argument, it still wouldn't be complete as we are not too sure if it's Tom that is actually smoking. The house next door, the cat or the woman across the street might've been smoking instead of Tom, but with the addition of taking the drag of his cigarette, the argument sounds strong.
ReplyDelete