Shifting Gears

I chose one from Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion called Shifting the burden of proof. Basically, when one is in an argument, it is usually easier to ask the other person to disprove the claim rather than proving it themselves. If it cannot be disproved so it becomes mistakenly believed for a valid argument without even having the need to prove it yourself.

An example is the debate on the existence of God. One side claims that there is no way to disprove that God exist therefore God exists. However the same argument can be made for the other side. There is no way to disprove that God does not exists therefore God does not exist. Instead of proving a certain side, the one making the claim simply just asks the other side to disprove them and because it is impossible to do so, it makes their claim seem valid although it’s a fallacy.

Gone in 60 seconds.

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.(1) People do not like living next door to such a mess.(2) He never drives any of them.(3) They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. (4)It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. (5)

Argument: Yes

Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.

Additional premises needed: something like 1 because 2,3,4,5.

Identify any subargument: 2,3,4,5 are independent and support 1.

Good argument: The premises are plausible so this is a good argument.

I actually did all 5 of the exercises and found them very helpful. It made me analyze each sentence on a deeper level. I had a little trouble understanding what was meant by "Additional premises needed?" because of how they were answered on the example. If anyone would like to enlighten me, please feel free to comment.

Strong vs Valid

An argument is strong if it is possible for its premises to be true and the conclusion to be false even though it is extremely unlikely. A valid argument means there is no possible way for the premises to true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.

An example of a valid argument is as follows: Hooters has happy hour in which everything is half off everyday from 10 p.m. to 12 a.m. Therefore, if I go there at 11 p.m., I will receive a discount on whatever I order. This is a valid argument because there is no way for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true.

An example of a strong argument is as follows: Whenever my friends or I go to Hooters, a female serves us. Therefore, all of Hooters’ servers are females. This is a strong argument because the premises is true but the conclusion can be false.

Mic Test. 1-2-3.

In order for an argument to be good, it must pass three tests. Epstein states the three tests as follows:

1. The premises are plausible.
2. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion
3. The argument is valid or strong.

If an argument fails one or more of these tests, it is considered a bad or weak argument.


Example: Wendell has at least one alcoholic beverage a day. Alcoholics drink everyday. So Wendell is an alcoholic.

Analysis: The premises are plausible but the argument is weak. What exactly qualifies a person to be an alcoholic? A person may have to drink 3 or more alcoholic beverages to be considered an alcoholic. Although Wendell drinks everyday, there is no way of telling whether or not he drinks more than one alcoholic beverage a day. The premises can be true but the conclusion is false which makes this a weak non-valid argument.

Vague-arang!!!!!

Vague statements are all over advertisements. Examples I always see are on cereal boxes. As a marketing tool most cereal boxes today have something along the lines of “50% less fat.” When a consumer who is concerned with their health sees this, right away it makes them more inclined to buy that particular cereal. However, if you stop and think about it, the sentence is very vague. What does it mean by 50% less fat. Does it mean 50% less than their old cereal? 50% less than the average cereal? It can be misleading because even if its 50% less it all depends on how much fat there was to begin with. What if whatever they were comparing it to had originally 2 pounds of fat. A cereal that contains 50% of that still contains 1 pound of fat. If the consumer knew that he or she would not buy it. However, because its vague consumers don’t stop to think about it and are just drawn to the 50% less fat claim.

Subjective and Objective Claims

Distinguishing between subjective and objective claims is something many people overlook when having a conversation. A subjective claim is one that depends on other factors while an objective claim does not.

An example of a subjective claim I experienced a few days ago when a friend of mine claimed that skiing is more fun than snowboarding. Although I love to snowboard and wanted to disagree with her, I have never gone skiing so I would not know if her claim was true. What makes this claim subjective is that it may be true to some people and false for others. It all depends on how they feel.

An example of an objective claim is when a professor explains that an A is anything above 90%. No matter what any student believes, an A will always be 90% and above. This claim will always be true. It does not depend on anything.