Evaluation of an Argument - Essay Example

Evaluation of an Argument Introduction The chief aim of this paper is to evaluate the validity, degree of soundness, andtruth of the premises of the following argument: Some sound arguments are valid. Some valid arguments are arguments with false premises. Some arguments with false premises are arguments with mood and figure OAO-2. No arguments with mood and figure OAO-2 are sound Accordingly, the above argument can be termed as invalid despite the conclusion of the argument, based on the premises, being true (Hyde 4). Moreover, since the premises of the argument are true, then it is conclusive that the argument is sound. Incidentally, Rubinelli defines a sorite as an argument that lacks a significant premise (43). In the instant argument, there is no major premise present and thus, the argument is categorically a sorite. Furthermore, the above argument can also be described as an enthymeme because the intermediate conclusion utilized is in fact the missing premise of the original argument (Rubinelli 54). Syllogism According to Hyde, a syllogism refers to a deductive argument comprising of a minor premise, major premise, and a conclusion (14). The first syllogism for the above argument, which we have established to be a sorite can be deduced as: Some arguments with mood and figure OAO-2 are not sound. Some valid arguments are not sound. Some arguments with false premises are not sound. No arguments with false premises are valid. In the general sense, the conventional logic expression of this argument: Some T are not Q Some F are not Q T is not F The second syllogism for the original argument can be deductively interpreted within the context of the sorite to imply that: No arguments with false premises are valid. Some arguments underpinned with false premises are not sound. All arguments with mood and figure OAO-2 are generally not sound. Therefore, in the second syllogism, the conclusion of the original argument being evaluated has been transformed into a portion of the second syllogism. Moreover, the changed premise of the original automatically became an intermediate conclusion for the second syllogism. The example below shows this unique character in which sorites tend to change the premise as discussed in the succeeding syllogism above. Jack is a man. All men are polygamous. Jack is not polygamous. In the above argument, the deduction that can be interpreted represents quasi syllogism, that is, men are categorized as polygamous in nature. Therefore, is sound to argue that if Jack is a man but is not polygamous, then it follows that the truth and validity of the initial argument that men are polygamous in the society is significantly altered to become invalid and without an element of truth. Accordingly, the initial syllogism in the example above lacks validity because the conclusion is false even though the premises of the argument are true. Generally, the argument in the said example cannot be referred as valid because of its form. Incidentally, since the original argument in the example is invalid based on its premises being false, a counterexample can be used to demonstrate a similar claim of validity of an argument. The second example is provided below: Nokia is a mobile phone type. A mobile phone is a portable communication device. Nokia cannot be used for communication. In the above example, the initial premise portrays soundness and validity. However, the conclusion of the argument nullifies the soundness and truthfulness of the argument by claiming that Nokia (a type of a mobile phone) cannot be used for communication. Incidentally, in the previous discussion, it was established that based on the second premise of the said argument, some arguments that are termed as valid have false premises. This means that the validity of an argument only depends on the presence of premises. In the instant argument, the claim that a mobile phone is a communication device is both true and valid. Conversely, the premise cannot be termed as sound because the conclusion of the argument refutes that Nokia can be used for communication, despite the fact that it is a mobile phone type. Another example for the evaluation of the argument is shown below: All animals die. A dog is an animal. A dog dies. In the above illustration, the first premise of the argument is categorical in nature, that is, it includes all animals wholesomely. On the other hand, the second premise of the argument focuses on a dog as a member of the class Animals. In this second premise, the argument has validity and can be deduced to imply for a dog to die, it must first be an animal. Conclusion Generally, an argument is said to be valid if it offers a conclusion that is true and based on the argument’s premises. However, for an argument to be termed as sound and valid, it has to be logically identifiable. The validity of an argument lies within the premises, whereby a valid argument must not contain a false conclusion. Logically, the validity is the truthfulness of the premises where evaluated on the foundation of facts. Thus, logic is an important aspect in any argument. It enables one to make the appropriate inference and deduction to reach a conclusion of deciding whether the argument is true and valid or false and invalid. In the argument that this paper has evaluated, its conclusion is of the view that “no arguments with mood and figure OAO-2 are sound”. Accordingly, based on the aspects that have come out in the discussion of the paper, the conclusion of the argument is sound, but invalid. Works Cited Hyde, Dominic. "The sorites paradox." Vagueness: A Guide ed. by Giuseppina Ronzitti. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2011. 1-17. Print. Rubinelli, Sara. Ars Topica: The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Vol. 15. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. Print. Read More