1). Concerning part "C" in chapter 3 of the Epstein text, The Tests for an Argument to Be Good.
After reading chapter 3 of Epstein text, i was able to understand a little bit about the three tests an argument has to pass in order to be a good argument but im still a kinda confused. I was able to feed off of the posts of others and the examples used to get a better understanding of how an argument however, would be analyzed. I am aware that an argument must have both a premises and a conclusion for it to be good.
For example: a valid argument may be as follows.
In order for Moe to pass comm 41 she must be enrolled in the course and must complete all of the requirements.
(Supposing it was the end of the semester, =]) Moe successfully passed her comm. 41 course which means she completed all of the requirements.
since moe was able to pass the course, we know that she did good with her class work, had she not done good, she would have failed. :/
it is possible that the premises is be true but does not necessarily determine wether the conclusion is true or not.
This section was really confusing for me as well. I feel like in my response I didn't know touch bases well enough because the material was difficult to learn on my own. I had to read a bunch of other people's posts to better understand it. But after doing all that, I still feel like I have not fully grasp the concept. Even though you were still confused, your example of passing COMM 41 was good, I understood it. "She had not done good" could mean a lot of things. To who's standard? Moe thought she had done poorly by her standards but could still manage to pass the class.
ReplyDelete