Exercise #1:
“1. My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. 2. People do not like living next door to such a mess. He never drives any of them. 3. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. 4. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.”
Argument: Yes.
Conclusion: The neighbor should clean up his cars in his yard because it creates an unsafe environment and also makes the neighborhood look trashy.
Additional Premises needed?: I believe that the writer should be more stern on his argument.
Identify any subargument: All of the information is independent and supports the conclusion.
Good Argument?: All the premises look plausible, and the information is valid.
The writer stated enough information to make a solid conclusion, but I believe that he could have been more authoritative behind his voice. He stated that the cars look trashy in the neighborhood, but he could be more critical and state that the oil could be a health risk as well instead of it being “bad for the neighborhood”. He could also state that people are tired of looking at the clutter of cars in their neighborhood and it makes the neighborhood look very unclean. Going into further detail will help support the conclusion instead of just being vague and saying “people do not like living next door to such a mess”. Premises 1, 2, and 3 support number 4. Overall, it is a good argument, it just needs a little more information for support.
You did a good job on breaking down the structure of the argument and following the examples from the book. I also chose this example as it made the most sense to me on how I can add additional premises and see where this argument needed work. It was clear that there were some claims that were in fact true and did not need much more support while other claims had no evidence behind them such as part of claim 2, "People do not like living next to such a mess". We will never really know if his neighbors do not like living next to such a mess. Furthermore, you did a good job on identifying additional premises and discussing how the argument was a valid one.
ReplyDelete