Reference no: EM131449156

Assignment: Responding to peers

Discussion 1

Read the arguments presented by your classmates and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Comment on the strength of their reasoning. Help them out by pointing out any respect in which a reasonable person might disagree with the truth of their premises or with the strength of their reasoning.Give suggestions for how the argument might be improved.

PEER 1

Argument: Is torture ever permissible?

Premise One: Torture will not institutionalize the interrogator.

Premise Two: The interrogator is doing a job to extract information when there is a substantial threat to the community.

Premise Three: Any normal person would torture if it meant protecting their community from substantial harm.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is permissible to torture because anyone can torture a suspect if it meant protecting their community from substantial harm.

The premises have been shown through experimentation as true. Such experiments like the Milgram experiment show that a normal person can and would torture another individual. The job of an interrogator is just that, a job and does not mean that the individual will become institutionalized. This is a harder inductive argument because the conclusion is not strong but can be stronger if turned into another form of argument.

PEER 2

Argument- Should an athlete who knowingly knows the risks and fines of using performance enhancing drugs be punished

Premise 1- Ben Johnson took performance enhancing drugs prior to winning gold medal at the Olympic Games

Premise 2- Ben Johnson admitted to using performance enhancing drugs prior to race after being caught during a random drug test

Conclusion-Therefore any athlete who knowingly knows the consequences of taking performance enhancing drugs should be punished

Strength -of argument would be that all athletes know the risks of performance enhancing drugs whether it is health or to be fined

Weakness- would be that not all athlete who use performance enhancing drugs

Benefit from the use because Ben Johnson did, this can be argued.

Discussion 2

Respond to at least three of your classmates' posts. In each case provide substantive thoughts about the strength of the inference. Mention as well what premises you think could be added to strengthen the inference or which might weaken it. How do you think that the argument could be improved?

PEER 1

Inductive Cogency

Premise #1- Every day that I have been alive, the sun has risen in the East and set in the West.

Conclusion- Tomorrow, the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.

If it is believed that the premise of this argument is true, then you will believe that it is likely that the conclusion is probably true. We don't know for certain if the sun will rise in the East and set in the West tomorrow, but the fact that it has happened a lot of times before is pretty good justification for believing that it will happen again. If an inductive argument is well-structured, then believing that its premises are true means believing that its conclusion is probably true (Hardy, Foster, & Zuniga y Postigo, 2015).

Causal Arguments

Premise #1- Exercising relieves stress.

Premise #2- Exercising keeps you in shape.

Premise #3- Exercising lowers risk of heart disease.

Conclusion- Everyone should exercise at least three times a week to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

This argument focuses on discussing the cause of something. A causal argument can be also referred to as a cause and effect argument. A causal argument can be based on speculation and can be full of mistakes, especially if the person making the argument does not have enough evidence to support their claim (Hardy, Foster, & Zuniga y Postigo, 2015).

Statistical Syllogism

Premise #1- Almost all the I Med students are from South High School.

Premise #2- Kathy is a I Med student.

Conclusion- Kathy is most probably a graduate of South High School.

Premise #1 is the generalization and the argument attempts to draw a conclusion from the generalization. The premises logically supports the conclusion rather than strictly implying it. It is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false, but it is not likely (Hardy, Foster, & Zuniga y Postigo, 2015).

PEER 2

Casual Argument

A casual argument is an argument about cause and effect.

Premise 1- Every time I wash my car it rains.

Premise 2- I washed my car today.

Conclusion- Therefore, the reason it is raining is that I washed my car today.

My argument is an inductive argument which pertains to cause and effect. The premise supports the conclusion. Washing my car does not cause rain. My premise does not lead to the conclusion.

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to authority infers a claim is true because an expert said so.

Premise 1- The roofer said we need a new roof.
Premise 2- The roofer is an expert in replacing roofs.
Conclusion- Therefore, we need a new roof.

My argument is an inductive argument which appeals to authority. The premises supports the conclusion, but does not lead to the conclusion; another roofer may be able to repair the roof instead of replacing it.

Statistical Syllogism

Statistical Syllogism uses general statistics to make an argument for a case.

Premise 1- Seventy percent of police dogs are German Shepherds.
Premise 2- Sonya is a police dog.

Conclusion- Therefore, Sonya is a German Shepherd.

My argument is an inductive argument which appeals to statistical syllogism. The premises supports the conclusion but does not lead to the conclusion. There is a thirty percent chance Sonya is another breed of dog.

PEER 3

Statistical Syllogism

This means to uses a statistic for an argument.

Premise 1: Of the Americans living in Japan, 85% are in the military.
Premise 2: David is an American that lives in Japan.
Conclusion: Therefore, David is in the military because he lives in Japan.

This argument shows its strength because David is an American living in Japan.

Casual Argument

Argument is bases on a cause and its effect

Premise 1: Alcohol drink can cause damage to internal organs.
Premise 2: John drinks alcohol every day.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has damaged his internal organs because he drinks alcohol every day.

This argument is true because the statement shows that since John drinks everyday he is damaging his internal organs.

Appeal to Authority
Argument true due to expert opinion

Premise 1: My doctor says if I eat fruits and vegetables I will live longer.
Premise 2: I eat fruits and vegetables every day.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will live longer because I eat fruits and vegetables every day.

This argument is true because a doctor told its patient to eat fruits and vegetables in order to live longer.