A good argument is considered good if they pass through these tests.
1. The premises are plausible.
2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion
3. The argument is valid or strong.
The argument: He does not like to eat anything that is colored green. Vegetables are green. Therefore, he does not eat vegetables.
It can be reasonable that a person does not like to eat anything green. People can develop weird habits and maybe eating green colored food degusts them. It can be proven that he does not eat anything that is green. The second statement is also plausible because vegetables are green. The sentence does not say “all” because clearly not all vegetables are green. It is a vague statement since most vegetables are considered green. In reality there are vegetables such as beets, carrots, and pumpkin that he can be eat because they are not green.
The conclusion could be true, but it is only if the person really does not eat any vegetables at all, including the vegetables that are not green. The argument is weak and invalid because we cannot determine if the person eats vegetables such as carrots or other vegetables that are not green.
I like this post because it relates to me. I don't like eating anything green, but I think i just don't like eating vegetables because I don't eat carrots or pumpkin either. I think if it's anything vegetables related, I don't eat it. Not I don't like it, but I don't eat it. This is a good sentence to use as an example because it is very vague. Also, "does not like" does not mean that the person does not eat it. It just means the person eats vegetables, but he just "does not like" to eat it.
ReplyDelete