Epstein’s text provides us with many different examples of arguments that are either strong, or valid, but never a combination of the two. When asked to create a good argument it was actually a little more difficult than I excepted. I realized I needed to create an argument that followed the three “tests” that Epstein provides for us. After reading the many examples I noticed that sometimes it is hard to create a solid good argument. Soon however, I was able to create one that followed all premises. My argument went like this: The United States of America has had 44 presidents. 43 of them were white. Barrack Obama is the 44th president. Barrack Obama is African American. Barrack Obama is the first African American president. This argument follows all three “tests”.
The premises are plausible: Although I provide four premises, all of them are plausible. They are able to be proven and seem very likely.
The premises are more plausible than the conclusion: Although my conclusion is plausible, it rests on the outcome of my four premises. Since my conclusion is derived from my premises, it is less plausible than all four of my premises.
The argument is valid or strong: The argument I created is valid, but may not be strong. My argument is considered valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. In my arguments case, both my premise and my conclusion are true. The reason my argument may not be considered strong, is because strong arguments are based off of inductive reasoning. My argument works for deductive reasoning because when all of my premises come together, they create a true conclusion based off my premises. However, a strong argument comes from inductive reasoning, which my argument does not.
You have a very solid example of both a strong and valid argument. By adding more premises, this creates both a strong and valid argument. I like your analysis that stated that if the premises are plausible, from that we can conclude that the conclusion is more plausible and valid but at the same time less plausible then the premises. This is because the conclusion is derived from the premise, as you stated. Through supporting premises, you have created a valid argument which has turned very hard to prove invalid. One would say that the argument is factual. But as you also said, “a strong argument comes from inductive reasoning.” All in all, great post with solid information.
ReplyDelete