Week 3, Q. 1
I am doing example 1.
"My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.1 People do not like living next door to such a mess.2 He never drives any of them.3 They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.4 It is bad for the neighboorhood, and it will decrease property values.5"
Argument? Yes.
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed? "Since, 2,3,4, and 5, 1."
Identify any subargument: All of them are really independent and don't link to each other, but support the conclusion. It would be better if they linked.
Good argument: Not really it's just a bunch of piled up "facts" that go to support the conclusion.
Could have been better by actually linking the 4 parts.
The exercise is useful in a sense that it helps you to try to identify the different parts of the structure. However, it was kind of confusing for me to understand and to fill it out. I am a little unsure of how I would change it to make it into a legit argument.
i used this example also, and although its totally irrelevant, i can super relate! first off, you explained everything well and fully described what you thought of the argument provided. this i liked this exercise, it was one of my favorites. the reason why i used this example is because i have a messy neighbor also! its sooo irritating. when i read this i thought it was super funny. if i had to provide an argument about my neighbor it would probably sound just like this one except instead of cars i would use the word "junk" and i would replace sentance 4 with "they dont use any of thie things in their yard and also allow garbage to pile up" followed by "they even have pets all over the palce and grow pumpkins on the sidewalk" hahaha true story, ya`know! lol
ReplyDelete