According to Epstein, in order for an argument to be good, it must pass three test. First, the premises must be plausible. Next, the premises must be more plausible than the conclusion. Lastly, the argument needs to be valid or strong.
Argument: The Lakers are the 2010 NBA Champions. They have Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol to lead the team. The Lakers will repeat as champions next year.
The premises are plausible because we all know the Lakers won the championship and both Kobe and Gasol play for them. The premises are more plausible than the conclusion because we don't know if the Lakers will win again next year. Lakers could possibly not make the playoffs. This shows that the conclusion could possibly be false. The argument is strong because we know the premises are true and the conclusion could be false.It is invalid because although the premises are true, another team might win the championships.
Again, great example of using the lakers in testing for a good argument. Your premises are believable since the lakers did win the 2010 NBA championship and that Kobe and Pau did lead the team. It is clear to me that we do not know if the lakers will win again next year. Therefore, your premises are more plausible than the conclusion. This is an invalid argument since there are other teams that will win instead of the Lakers. However, this is a strong argument since the premises are true while the conclusion could be false. You have used the three guidelines perfectly for me to understand if your argument was good or not.
ReplyDelete