1). Concerning part "C" in chapter 3 of the Epstein text, The Tests for an Argument to Be Good - there are three tests an argument must pass in order for the argument to be good. There are many examples in the book on pages 42-45. Please come up with an argument just like the examples, and discuss it using the three tests on Page 42. Keep in mind that your test should be different from the examples in the book and that you should discuss the three criteria in detail. This post may be quite a bit more than 150 words. In addition, it is imperative that you understand the concepts contained within the 3 tests for an argument (page 42).
Argument: Good video games are addictive, and Dead Space is a good video game, therefore Dead Space is addictive.
In order for this argument to be a good argument it must pass the three tests: that the premises of the argument are true (meaning the parts that relate to the conclusion of the argument making it strong or valid are correct) , the premises are more plausible than the conclusion (meaning that the premises alone can stand true by themselves and do not have to lead to the conclusion for them to be true) , and the argument is valid or strong (meaning the stated argument is either able to validate truth or it is just a confident statement, that could be proven true).
Test One: The premises of the argument, which are that video games are addictive is true because it has been proven by researchers. Also, only the good video games are addictive because no one plays the bad video games therefore they cannot be good. Since Dead Space is an actual video game, this statement is proven to be true as well. However, due to ratings from players and reviewers of the game, Dead Space being a good video game is also true.
Test Two: The premises of the argument are much more plausible than the conclusion because there are actual facts and information to prove that the premises are plausible, more than that Dead Space is addictive, only because there is not any outward research that states that Dead Space the video is actually addictive, although it is a good argument because the premises are so plausible.
Test Three: The argument is valid or strong because it passes the other two tests. In this case the argument is strong because there is no valid data that proves that Dead Space is addictive, but it could definitely be proven.
I really like the way you set up and explained the way this concept works. This concept was a bit hard to understand at first, but it definitely makes sense especially after reading your argument. It was tough for me to come up with an argument that has three parts and for it to make sense, but after reading yours I go some inspiration! I can now see why there are three parts for any an argument to be valid. Sometimes when someone is arguing a case, it can be ridiculous and not make any sense. By using this formula, an argument can be intelligent and more straight forward.
ReplyDelete