The main reason for poor arguments is that the argument does not have the required premises. A premise is the support, that a argument needs.
An example would be "Miley Cyrus has a good voice. So Miley Cyrus should become a country singer."
There is a conclusion but there is no plausible premises to support the conclusion. To repair this argument, you can add "Miley Cyrus' voice has a rich country tone to it." Before it was just stated that she has a good voice, which is not really a supporting plausible premise for her to become a country singer. Just because she has a good voice does not mean she should be a country singer. Different voice suit different genres of music. Now with the new added premise, the conclusion is supported. Miley Cyrus should become a country singer because her voice has a rich country tone to it. The argument is now fixed because it has a plausible premise.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI like how you started off by saying that arguments need the right premises, not just any. Sometimes people assume others know things and leave key information out or just forget to say it. Your argument has me ask, why country? It begs the question and Miley Cyrus having a good voice does not make me think twice because I believe it. Using your solution makes the argument valid. The premise is also plausible and more plausible than the conclusion. Nice example and good job explaining what was wrong and why your extra sentence is a fix. It connected to first premise and conclusion.