Strong arguments can be either true or false, but the audience may be convinced more by the speaker’s knowledge and details of their argument. Strong arguments can be flawed interpretations of the truth and can be matters of opinions. An example of a strong argument is that “Santa Clause does not exist”. A young child and adult could argue about this topic for hours, but it would most likely end with the child in tears. A child would argue that Santa Clause comes down the chimney every year and that he is real because they take pictures with the man in the red suit at the mall. But an adult would explain that the man in the red suit is just a random stranger and that the parents actually put the presents under the tree and eat the cookies on the fireplace.
A valid argument has to be true unlike a strong argument. The conclusion usually follows the premise. Some valid arguments are not always good because they can have a premise that is not unlikely. A valid argument is that “tanning beds are bad for you”. There is no way to prove that this is false because the UV rays from the tanning beds can cause immense damage to one’s skin.
I really enjoyed reading your post on strong vs. valid arguments. I like how you started out with a solid concrete definition of a strong argument, and then followed with a simple example. The example was pretty funny and made me remember the memories of Santa Clause many years ago. Finally, it was a good idea to move onto another concrete definition for a valid argument. I thought it was very affective that you pointed out the major difference in a valid argument, it must be true unlike a strong argument. Your example of a valid argument was right on point since there really is no argument that can say tanning beds are good for one's skin.
ReplyDelete