In chapter 3 of Epstein, according to the text, in order for any argument to be a good argument it must pass three tests. An argument that does not pass any of these tests will be considered as a bad argument. Epstein describes that the first test is for the premise to be plausible. Basically an argument should have valid or good reason words, For the second test, the premise of the argument must be more plausible than the conclusion. The second argument must be more believeable. It could be false. Lastly, in the third test, the argument must be valid or strong.
Example: All whales are mammals. All mammals are intelligent. So all whales are intelligent.
This is an example of an argument because two of the premise is true while the conclusion might be false. The two premise is common knowledge because everyone knows that whales are mammals.
Example: All whales are mammals. All mammals are intelligent. So all whales are intelligent.
This is an example of an argument because two of the premise is true while the conclusion might be false. The two premise is common knowledge because everyone knows that whales are mammals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi there. As I was reading your comment I was glad to see that you mentioned other things that were not as clear in the book but still true to the definition of a good argument. Furthermore, I am talking about how you mentioned that the argument can only be good if it passed ALL three tests of being a good argument. I also really liked the example you used. The premise is true, meaning the part where you say "All whales are mammals" but the conclusion is obviously questionable. Therefore the argument is seen as weak. Due to that reason, I can see how the argument is clearly bad. Good job on explaining this effectively.
ReplyDelete