3 Matching Annotations
- Oct 2023
-
human.libretexts.org human.libretexts.org
-
The argument would be more transparent and less manipulative if it tried to prove that other ways of helping desperate people, such as direct aid in people’s countries of origin, would not do enough. We can critique a loaded question with a sentence like this: The question _____________ assumes that _____________, when, in fact, it could be that_____________.
This is good in an argument because it doesn't force the reader/audience to agree with you by manipulation but rather instead it allows them to agree on their own beliefs as you guide them towards your point.
-
The entire argument is not invalidated just because there are counterexamples. As we saw in Section 2.8: Finding the Limits on the Argument, many arguments limit their claims to acknowledge exceptions. The claim in the example above would need to be limited, perhaps by revising the central claim to "many of this country's teachers” in front of “teachers.” Of course, the validity would still depend on whether there really are so many such cases.
This shows that having a counterargument doesn't destroy one's claim but could instead help them out when using limits to show some counters still need to be backed by valid proof.
-
If we see a general statement, we should ask ourselves whether it is always true or whether we can identify any case that doesn’t fit the pattern. If there is an exception that the argument hasn’t accounted for, that may point us to a weak spot that we should mention in our assessment.
Throughout my life I was always told that making a generalized statement is good because it is general, It is not to account for everyone or everything but just a general amount. Of course, in an argument generalization is a bad thing.
-