This discussion question deals with the lack of proper premises, or the lack of a proper conclusion. Please think of a recent situation in which you have encountered hidden premises or a hidden conclusion. Please identify either the missing premises or the missing conclusion of the argument.
[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]
For example, the philosopher Peter Singer suggests that we are morally responsible for saving people who are starving in the world.  The missing premise would be a premise connecting morality to the duty of providing for starving people.

Also, you should google Peter Singer for a more complete understanding of his argument on our moral duty to those in poverty.   What are your thoughts on his argument?

 

(2)A sound argument is valid (correctly formed) and has all true premises. Your book  discuss several ways to test the soundness of an argument. Now it is your turn to apply the tests. Go to a website that provides a contemporary issue, such as the Huffington Post. Find a brief article that contains a clear argument.

Identify the premises and how they support the conclusion.  Please provide substantial detailing for the premises and the argument.

After you have completed your analysis, please put the premises into a standard form argument.

Premise one

Premise two
[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]
Conclusion

Evaluate the argument for its soundness. Determine the soundness and validity of the article and link the article at the end of your response by copying its Web address.

For example, the philosopher Robert Nozick makes the argument that taxation is akin to forced labor. If a person is required to work for the benefit of others against his or her will, then Nozick suggests the labor is forced. By imposing taxation on people, the U.S. government is forcing them to work for the benefit of others against their wills. Therefore, the U.S. government is subjecting its tax-paying citizens to forced labor. Do you agree? Why or why not?

 

(3) Case study due on wednesday @1900

 

  1. Abortion is murder, because murder is intentionally killing an innocent person.  Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Explicit premises:

Implicit premises:

  1. The rate of drowning increases with the rate of ice cream eating.  Therefore, ice cream eating leads to drowning.

Explicit premises:

Implicit premises:

Determine whether the conclusion follows from the premises:

  1. No cats are pleasant creatures.  This is a mouse.  Since it is not a cat, it is a pleasant creature.

Determine whether the argument is sound or unsound.  Then determine whether each argument is valid or invalid.

  1. All cats are feral.  Tabitha is a cat.  Tabitha is feral.

Show that the argument is invalid.

  1. Using the Counterexample Method, show that the argument’s conclusion does not follow:

“If I score an A on the test, then I will pass the class.” “I passed the class!” “Therefore I scored an A on the test.”

Identify both the explicit and implicit premises of the argument presented.  Assess whether the premises of the argument presented should be accepted or rejected.

  1. Killing people is always wrong.  Euthanasia is an example of one person killing another.  Therefore, it is clear that euthanasia is wrong, and should continue to be illegal.

Explicit premises:

Implicit premises:

Assessment of premises:

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]