Step 1: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil. Step 2: Errors affecting truth
Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-yes; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: Conclusion is illegitimate. To fix this conclusion and make it legitimate I could restate the argument as: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil. Step 4: the error of overgeneralizing was found. To fix this error I could change the argument to read: Certain types of power must be evil because it can corrupt some people Explanation of the assessment:
Overgeneralizing the concept of all power by all people makes this an error in truth. To correct the error I restated the argument by saying that certain types of power not just power, corrupts some people not all people. The original argument had an illegitimate conclusion but by restructuring the sentence as such: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil, the conclusion is now legitimate. Addition of Argumentation:
None needed
Scenario 2: 12.2.
No one who ever attended this college achieved distinction after graduation. Marvin attends this college. Therefore, Marvin will not achieve distinction after graduation. Evaluation of the Argument:
The Essay on Animal Farm Power Corrupts
The Big Guys Aren't Always Right George Orwell created a book in which animals were almost as intelligent as humans are, and held an idea of a farm where socialism ruled. This book, Animal Farm, divides animals into categories as humans are ranked today, from the animals of lesser intelligence up to the smart characters. The smart animals happened to be the pigs, who proved the human theory, " ...
Step 1: Marvin attends this college and will not achieve distinction after graduation because no one who ever attended this college achieved distinction after graduation. Step 2: Errors affecting truth
Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-no; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: The conclusion is legitimate
Step 4: No errors were found
Explanation of the assessment:
This is argument is sound; there are no errors, the conclusion is legitimate and there are no hidden premises. Addition of Argumentation:
None needed
Scenario 3: 12.2.s
Challenging other people’s opinions is a sign of intolerance, so debating courses have no place on a college campus. Evaluation of the Argument:
Step 1: If challenging other people’s opinions is a sign of intolerance, then debating courses have no place on a college campus. Step 2: Errors affecting truth
Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-yes; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: The conclusion is legitimate
Step 4: No errors were found
Explanation of the assessment:
This is argument is sound; there are no errors, the conclusion is legitimate and there are no hidden premises. Addition of Argumentation:
References
Ruggiero, V. R. (2009).
The Art of Thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought (9th ed).
New York, NY: Person Longman.
