Position:Home>Philosophy> Logic & Reasoning: Identifying Arguments?
Question: Logic & Reasoning: Identifying Arguments!?
I'm having trouble with identifying whether or not the following are arguments, and if so, what their conclusions are!. If some are arguments, why are they so!? Any help is appreciated, thanks!
1!. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool!.
2!. It is possible to own too much!. A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure!.
3!. Man being reasonable, and so a thinking creature, there is nothing more worthy of his being that the right direction and employment of his thoughts; since upon this depends both his usefulness to the public, and his own present and future benefits in all respect!.
4!. It's fun to attack the rich on behalf of the poor-the Robin Hood syndrome!. But if you're serious about helping the poor, you'd better give economic security to those in the middle, so they're paying the necessary taxes!. You're just not going to be able to finance all social programs from tax collections from the rich!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Number 1!.
This Is an argument!. It can be restated like this:
1)!.No ordinary man is a person who could be such a fool to believe something like "that" (whatever that means)!.
2) [Conclusion] Therefore, anyone who believes things like "that" (whatever that is) is a person who has to belong to the intelligentsia!.
This is a bad argument, for it contains a fallacy known as "Ad Hominem"!. Moving on, though!.
Number 2!.
This, too, is an argument!. The conclusion being "It is possible to own too much"!. Note: Some conclusions and premises can be in the form of rhetorical questions (which this conclusion was)!.
It can be restated like this:
A man with one watch is sure of the time but a man with two is never quite sure!. Therefore, it is possible to own to much!.
This, too, is a bad argument!. It just doesn't logically follow!.
Number 3!.
There are two arguments here:
(first argument)
All creatures that are reasonable are a thinking creature
Man is reasonable (first statement)
Therefore man is a thinking creature (conclusion; followed by the first statement)!.
(second argument)
Man's usefulness to the public, and his present and future benefits are that which depend upon the right direction and employment of his thoughts!.
Therefore, the most worthy thing of a man's being is that which depends upon the right direction and employment of his thoughts!.
(The hidden assumption, or enthymeme, is "The most worthy thing of a man's being is man's/his usefulness to the public, and his present and future benefits)!.
The argument is seeking to show (1) That man is a thinking creature (that is, a creature who has thoughts) and (2) that his usefulness to the public therefore depends upon the right direction and employment of those thoughts!.
I'll let you do number 4 so that you can do some of your homework!. ;)Www@QuestionHome@Com
1!. Rhetorical manipulation!.
2!. Irony!.
3!. Opinion!.
4!. Rhetoric!. No actual inferences made!. Just accusations!.
If this is your homework I should point out that I am an idiot and whatever I tell you is bound to be wrong!. Same with everyone else in here!. This is not a room full of expert advice, it is a room full of opinion driven scribblers!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
1!. Not an argument, only one premise
2!. Not an argument, really has no conclusion lol, premises dont lead to anything
3!. Just one big long statement!.!. not an argument
4!.Not real sure, I think I took a differnt kind of logic class than yuo Www@QuestionHome@Com
Ok you have different types of arguments here
1 is an enthymeme or implied argument whose conclusion is not stated but provide premise
format would look like
#1
P1-believe statements like x means you belong to intelligentsia
P2-one believes statements like x
C-one is intelligentsia
No this is not what the is stated but is implied and so it can be considered an argument!.
#2
Identify any thing that is trying to be argued explicit or implied
Again this could be considered an enthymeme but I would not consider it one!. It does seem that the person is trying to imply that having two watches would answer the question of whether or not it is possible to own too much but he does not provide an enough to form an argument to support this at least as far as I can tell!.
But the reason I say this is because the meaning of owning too much would have to be implied also!.
#3
Maybe another enthymeme
P1- being a reasonable requires thinking
P2- man is reasonable creature
C- man is a thinking creature
My answer is running kind of long but I hope I have helped you understand better how to find arguments and how they can be explicit or implied!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
1) Ad hominem
A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments!. In Layman's terms playing the man not the ball!.
2) It is possilbe to own to much, a premise, feel free to support or attack it!.
3) Wow being told I am entitled to my own thoughts, i guess i should be grateful, seriously sounds more like meaning less rhtoric!.
4)"Its fun to attack the rich on behalf of the poor" id say its an Ad hominenm attack as it attacks some one intent!. The rest sounds like a valid argument!. Although personally i disagree with it, even legendry free market advocates such as smith recognise different forms of income and how they should be taxed, eg income from owning property and renting it out (income more likely gained by the rich) say vs working income tax (the main income of the middle class) the rich would like less tax on rent seeking income and more on wages which i guess is where number 4 argument is heading!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
argument: some implied stuff!. -this man believes that
-only men in intellegencia believe things like that
conlcusion: this man must belong to intelligecia!.
an incomplete argument!. the conclusion first, then 2 premises, then some implied ones!. (such as the destructive since clearly untrue one that 2 watches can't show the same time) this i find gets the point accross, but isn't really like a proof giving argument, but kind of a poetic sentiment!.
argument: -correct employment of thoughts= usefulness to public and present and future benefits in all respects!.
-the latter is a good thing!.
-man is reasonable being capable of employing thoughts!.
conclusion: man should employ reason and thoughts in the right direction!.
argument: you can't finance all social programs from the rich,
-so you need a economically secure middle class in order to help pay for them!.
-social programs help the poor!.
conclusion: in order to help the poor you need a economically secure middle class to tax from!.
i really don;t like this one, i find it a red herring!. full of assumptions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
1!. Yes it is an argument!. It has a conclusion and a premise to support it!.
2!. Same as number one!. Although in this one the conclusion comes first!.
3!. Yes, it is an argument for man thinking!.
4!. It is an argument that the middle class need to be taxed!.
Hope this helps!.
My logic text book defines an argument as a set of sentences (premises) which may or may not establish another sentence (the conclusion) as a consequence!. Premises should be given as reasons for their conclusion and a pattern of inference should be identifiable!.
So from that definition it appears that a set (plural) of sentences are required for it to be an argument!.!.!. good luckWww@QuestionHome@Com