Scribd
Upload
172 views6 pages

Article - Good and Bad Arguments

The document discusses how to evaluate arguments as good or bad. It provides examples of deductive and non-deductive arguments and explains how to determine if they are valid/strong and sound/cogent. For an argument to be good, a deductive argument must be valid and sound, while a non-deductive argument must be strong and cogent. Three examples of arguments are analyzed in detail to demonstrate how to evaluate them based on these criteria.

Uploaded by

deepansh sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
172 views6 pages

Article - Good and Bad Arguments

The document discusses how to evaluate arguments as good or bad. It provides examples of deductive and non-deductive arguments and explains how to determine if they are valid/strong and sound/cogent. For an argument to be good, a deductive argument must be valid and sound, while a non-deductive argument must be strong and cogent. Three examples of arguments are analyzed in detail to demonstrate how to evaluate them based on these criteria.

Uploaded by

deepansh sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Good and bad arguments

We now have all the ingredients to be able to tell when arguments are
good or bad. And it’s now quite simple: good arguments are either
cogent or sound, otherwise, they are bad. Easy.

Here’s the diagram we introduced in the previous video to help you while
judging arguments:

Let’s see how we can use the diagram with some concrete examples. There
are two kinds of arguments: deductive and non-deductive.

Now, suppose you’re facing a deductive argument. If the argument is


invalid, then it’s a bad argument: it’s an argument that is intended to give
conclusive support for its conclusion, but fails to do so. Game over.

Think of a student sitting in a mathematics exam and making a crucial


mistake in a proof. Then the student’s answer is invalid and therefore, bad.
Of course, a professor might have reasons to think that the student’s
answer still deserves marks (maybe even full marks) even though the
student’s answer is bad – in our understanding of ‘bad’.

If the argument is valid, there are two cases:


Firstly, the argument has false premises, in which case it is not sound.
Game over, the argument is bad.

For example:

If there is a purple elephant in the hall, then I am a giant turkey. There is


a purple elephant in the hall, therefore, I’m a giant turkey

Secondly, all of the argument’s premises are true. Then the argument is
sound, and is, therefore, good.

For example:

Liliane is Patrick’s sister, and Patrick is Sylvie’s brother. Therefore,


Liliane is Sylvie’s sister.

Otherwise, you may have a non-deductive argument, in which case the


argument is either strong or weak. When the argument is weak, the
argument is bad. You could say that the premises fail to provide support
for the conclusion altogether.

For example:

I have a very strong feeling that my lottery ticket is the winning ticket, so
I’m quite confident I will win a lot of money tonight.

If the argument is strong, there are again two cases:

Firstly, the argument has false premises. In this case, the argument is not
cogent. Game over, the argument is bad. For example:

If you smoke pot, even only once in your life, you are very likely to start
using heroin. You do smoke pot, and therefore, you will probably start
using heroin.

Secondly, all of the argument’s premises are true. Then the argument is
cogent, and is, therefore, good.

For example:
About 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global
warming. Therefore, probably, humans are causing global warming.

As you may have noticed, every argument that has false premises is bad.

Let’s look at some examples of arguments and how we evaluate them.

Example 1
If you are a confident driver and have never been in an accident, then
driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or others. You are a
confident driver and have never been in an accident. Doubtless, then,
driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or others.

What’s the conclusion?

 Driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or others.
Is the argument deductive or non-deductive?

Deductive, as evidenced by the use of the word `doubtless’.

Is the argument valid?

Yes, the argument is valid, since it’s impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.

So the argument is valid. Next question:

Is the argument sound?

Now we’re asking if the premises are true. But the first premise is false.
It’s not true that if you are a confident driver and have never been in an
accident, that driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or
others.

Speeding is well known to be one of the main causes of accidents,


regardless of the skills and confidence of the speeding driver. Indeed, there
are other drivers on the road, not all of which are confident drivers that
have never been in an accident, and they might react in dangerous ways to
the presence of the speeding driver.
Hence, the argument is not sound. Even though the argument is valid, it
has a false premise, so it is a bad argument.

Example 2
We left our parrot in the house this morning. The nearest neighbour lives
one kilometre away. When we got home from work, the parrot was gone.
It’s most probable that our neighbour stole the parrot.

What’s the conclusion?

 Our neighbour stole the parrot.


Is the argument deductive or non-deductive?

Non-deductive, as evidenced by the words “it’s most probable”. But also,


it doesn’t seem like the argument is giving reasons that would guarantee
that the conclusion is true.

Is the argument strong?

Not really. It’s a bit quick to accuse your neighbour of stealing the parrot.
Think of other things that could have happened… maybe it flew out the
window!

So the argument is weak. Game over. It’s a bad argument.

Example 3
Here’s a more tricky example:

There’s been a popular revolutionary uprising in Tunisia, which is a North


African Arab nation. There’s been a popular revolutionary uprising in
Libya, also a North African Arab nation. There’s been a popular
revolutionary uprising in Egypt, another North African Arab nation.
There’s been a popular revolutionary uprising in Bahrain, yet another
North African Arab nation. Finally, there’s been a popular revolutionary
uprising in Iran, which is an Arab nation. So there will be a popular
revolutionary uprising in at least one other Arab country in the next few
years.
What’s the conclusion?

 There will be a popular revolutionary uprising in at least one other


Arab country in the next few years.
Is the argument deductive or non-deductive?

There are no clear indicator words in this argument to help us in making a


choice. If we take the argument to be a deductive one, it would be quite
easy to show that it’s invalid. Furthermore, the premises do not seem to be
intended to demonstrate beyond doubt that there will be a popular
revolutionary uprising in at least one other Arab country in the next few
years, but rather to suggest that this is quite likely to happen.

We will thus treat the argument as a non-deductive one.

Is the argument strong?

If all the premises happen to be true, given the number of Arab countries
there are, we’ll say the argument is reasonably strong. You might not
agree with me, but here’s some explanation. If all premises are true, then
they provide evidence that there’s some political instability that is
spreading in that region of the world, and this makes it quite probable that
the spread won’t stop.

You may not agree with me, but for the sake of the exercise, accept for
now that the argument is (reasonably) strong.

Is the argument cogent?

That is, are all the premises true? And the answer is ‘no’, because:

 Iran is not an Arab nation.


 Bahrain is not a North African Arab nation.

So at least two premises of the argument are false. Hence, the argument is
not cogent, and is, therefore, bad.

Does that mean that the conclusion of the argument is false?


All we can conclude is that the reasons provided in this argument do not
give grounds to believe the conclusion, but it may be that another
argument with better premises and the same conclusion is a good one. And
regardless of whether or not there’s a good argument for the conclusion, it
may still be that there will be a popular revolutionary uprising in at least
one other Arab country in the next few years. All we can conclude is that
the reasons given in this argument are not enough to make you believe in
the conclusion.

Notice that if you didn’t agree that the argument was strong, then you
thought it was weak, and a weak argument is a bad argument, so you
would agree that the argument is bad, but we would have different reasons
for thinking that the argument is bad.

© Patrick Girard, University of Auckland

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy