Since the semester started, I feel that I have learned quite a bit in this COMM 41 class. Though it is an online class, I still learned things. I think I need more information on repairing arguments. Like I get it, but then again I kind of don’t. The book says a repairing argument means “given an (implicit) argument that is apparently defective, we are justified in adding a premise or a conclusion if it satisfies all three of the following: 1. the argument becomes stronger or valid. 2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible o the other person. 3. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion (Epstein 62). I also think I need more discussion on strong and valid arguments. So I was doing some research on it and the site says “A valid argument is one in which it is not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true”. A strong argument, then, is an “invalid argument in which is likely that the conclusion is true, given that the premises are true. Unlike validity, strength can come in degrees”. EX Premise: 99% of Americans are afraid of snakes. Premise: Jane is an American. Conclusion: Jane is afraid of snakes”
( http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/writingvocab.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment