Practicing Effective Criticism: Evaluating Arguments' Strengths and Weaknesses

Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation
of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually
is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will
want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism.
In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be
negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it.
In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to
provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the
strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will
focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can
criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly
critique an argument will also help you make your own
arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the
strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments
are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them.
Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be
improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only
on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you
will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better
appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises
and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If
an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem
might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn.
So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or
to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way
of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh
yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises

The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A
response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with
what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either
false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really
need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you
should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise.
Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as
true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the
discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support
your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The
following is a list of questions that will help you not only
methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your
arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in
questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument.
In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the
argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5,
inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some
of their premises turn out to be incorrect. Sometimes a premise
is incorrect, but in a way that does not really make a difference.
For example, consider someone who advises you to be careful
of boiling water, claiming that it boils at 200°F and 200°F water
can cause severe burns. Technically, the person’s premises are
false: Water boils at 212°F, not at 200°F. This difference does
not really impact the person’s argument, however. The arguer
could easily correct the premise and reach the same conclusion.
As a result, this is not a good place to focus an objection. Yes,
it is worth mentioning that the premise is incorrect, but as
problems go, this one is not very big. The amount of effort you
should put into an objection should correlate to the significance
of the problem. Before putting a lot of emphasis on a particular
objection, make sure that it will really impact the strength of
the argument.
Is it believable? Another issue to consider is whether a premise
is sufficiently believable. In the context in which the premise is

given, is it likely to be accepted by its intended audience? If
not, then the premise might deserve higher levels of scrutiny. In
such cases we might check to make sure we have understood it
correctly and check if the author has provided further evidence
for the strong claim in question. This can be a bit tricky, since
it depends on several contextual issues. A premise may be
acceptable to one audience but not to another. However, realize
that it is just not possible to fully justify every premise in an
argument. Premises are the starting points for arguments; they
are statements that are presented as sufficiently believable to
base an argument on. Trying to justify every premise would
introduce even more premises that would then have to be
justified, and so on. If you are going to challenge a premise,
you should typically have specific reasons for doing so. Merely
challenging every premise is not productive.
If you identify a specific premise that is central to the argument
yet insufficiently supported, you should make a mental note and
move forward. If you are able to converse with the proponent of
the argument, then you can ask for further justification of the
premise. If the proponent is not available to question—perhaps
because the argument occurs in an article, book, or televised
speech—then you should formulate some reasons for thinking
the premise is weak. In essence, the burden is on you, the
objector, to say why the premise is not sufficiently believable,
and not on the proponent of the argument to present premises
that you find believable or sufficiently supported. Never
escalate your beliefs into accusations of lying or fraud. If you
believe that the premise is false, the most productive next step
is to come up with reasons why the premise is not sufficiently
plausible for the context of the argument.
Are there any qualifiers? A qualifier is a word or phrase that
affects the strength of a claim that a premise makes. Consider
the difference between the statements “Humans are the cause of
the current climate change” and “It is at least possible that
humans are the cause of the current climate change.” While
addressing the same point, these two statements have very

different levels of believability. The qualifier phrase “it is at
least possible” makes the second statement more acceptable
than the first. Whatever your view on the causes of climate
change, you should see the second statement as having more
going for it than the former, because the second statement only
makes a claim about what is possible. Accordingly, it claims
much less than the first one. If the first claim is true, the second
one is also, but the second claim could be true even if the first
turned out to be false.
In focusing an objection on a premise, you need to be sure that
your objection takes into account the qualifiers. If the premise
is the second claim—”It is at least possible that humans are the
cause of the current climate change”—then it would make little
sense to object that it has not been fully proved that humans are
the cause. Qualifiers can affect the strength of premises in many
ways. The lesson here is that you need to be very clear about
exactly what is being claimed before objecting to it.
Sometimes premises take the form of hypotheticals—that is,
sentences stating assumed situations merely for the sake of
argument. Suppose that someone is arguing that the United
States should aggressively pursue investment in alternative
energy. Such a person might present the following argument as
part of a larger argument: “Suppose climate change really is
caused by humans. If so, then investing in alternative energy
would help reduce or slow climate change.” If you happen to
think climate change is not caused by humans, you might be
tempted to object to the first premise here. That would be a
mistake, since the premise is framed as a hypothetical. The
author of the argument is only making a point about what would
follow if the claim were true. It must be clear that in this
context the author of the argument is not claiming that the first
premise is true.
The line of reasoning might continue as follows: “On the other
hand, suppose that humans are not changing the climate. The
increase in carbon in the atmosphere still shows that our energy

production can only continue so long as we have carbon to burn
on the ground. We would be well advised to find other
alternatives.” Here, one might be tempted to object that humans
are part of the cause of climate change. Again, this would be a
mistake. The claim that humans are not changing the climate is
also used here only as a hypothetical.
So What? Criticizing Inferences
Even an argument with unobjectionable premises can fail to
establish its conclusion. The problem in such cases lies with the
inferences. Objecting to an inference is like saying, “So what if
your premises are true? Your conclusion doesn’t follow from
them!” Of course, “So what!” is neither the best feedback to
receive nor the best response to offer to an opponent. A better
method of showing that an argument is invalid is to offer a
counterexample. Recall from Chapter 3 that a counterexample is
a strategy that aims to show that even if the premises of an
argument are true, the conclusion may very well be false.
Counterexamples do not have to be real cases, they just have to
be possible cases; they have to show that it is possible for the
premises to be true while the conclusion is false—that the
premises do not absolutely guarantee the conclusion.
Beware, however, that counterexamples work best for deductive
arguments and do not work as decisively when the argument is
inductive. This is because true premises in inductive arguments
at best show that the conclusion is probably true, but this is not
guaranteed as it is with deductive arguments. Thus, showing
that it is merely possible that the premises of an inductive
argument are true while its conclusion is false does not
undermine the inference. The best that can be done in the case
of inductive arguments is to show that the conclusion is not
sufficiently probable given the premises. There is no single best
way to do this. Because each inductive argument has a different
strength and may be based on a different kind of reasoning,
objections must be crafted carefully based on the specifics of
the argument. There are, fortunately, some broad guidelines to
be offered about how to proceed.

First, be clear about just how strong the argument is supposed
to be. Remember the contrast between claiming that “Humans
are the cause of the current climate change” versus “It is at least
possible that humans are the cause of the current climate
change.” Many objections fail because they assume the
argument is intended to be stronger than it is. Any objection to
an inductive inference basically claims that the premises do not
make the conclusion as likely as the arguer proposes. If the
arguer is misinterpreted on this point, the objection will miss its
mark.
Next, try to identify the style of reasoning used in the inductive
argument. Chapter 5 presents several different forms of
inductive reasoning. If the argument uses one of those forms,
make sure that the argument follows the pattern shown. Look
for any way in which the argument deviates from the pattern;
these are points for possible objections.
Finally, consider whether the argument contains reasoning that
is fallacious. A number of fallacies are discussed in Chapter 7.
Remember that just pointing out a fallacy does not show that the
conclusion of the argument is false. It can only show that the
conclusion is not sufficiently supported by that specific
argument.
1
Running head: THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES
The Ethics of Elephants in Circuses

Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103: Informal Logic
Ashford University
Annotated example for Week Three Assignment
2
THE ETHICS OF ELEPHANTS IN CIRCUSES

Main Argument :
P1: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.
P2: Putting elephants in circuses requires them
to live their lives in extreme confinement.
P3: Anything that requires highly intelligent
animals to live their lives in extreme
confinement is wrong unless it serves a purpose
that outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Putting elephants in circuses does not serve
a purpose that outweighs the suffering
involved.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is
wrong.
Counterargument:
P1: Circus elephants provide enjoyment for
humans.
P2: The treatment of circus elephants is not
cruel.
P3: It is morally acceptable to use animals for
human enjoyment provided that their
treatment is not cruel.

C: Therefore it is morally acceptable to have
elephants in circuses.
This is the main argument
in Standard Form.
The main argument is
your argument for your
thesis.
The conclusion of your
main argument is your
thesis statement.
This is the
counterargument in
standard form, as
indicated in the
instructions.
3
The next three
paragraphs provide
support for each premise
of the counterargument
(as indicated in the
instructions). This would
be added even if the
premise seems obvious.

Clarifying the
meaning of key
terms is often an
important aspect
of defending a
premise.
Notice that it is important
to be as fair as possible to
the other side, representing
the counterargument in the
strongest possible light.
The first premise of the counterargument is an obvious
background fact. If people did not find elephants in
circuses enjoyable, there would be no elephants in circuses.
Circuses exist solely for entertainment. Anything not enjoyable
would be dropped, especially something that requires as much
money and labor as elephants.
The second premise hinges on the meaning of the word “cruel”.
To be cruel is to intentionally inflict pain for the primary
purpose of
inflicting pain, or to inflict substantially more pain than is
required for the
desired result. Giving a vaccination shot to a child is not cruel,

because it is
not done for the purpose of inflicting pain and there is not a
substantially less
painful way to get the benefit. Similarly, the mere fact that
elephants in circuses suffer to some degree
does not mean they are treated cruelly, provided that suffering
is not the goal and that they are not
made to suffer more than is necessary for the intended
purpose.
The third premise is supported by common practice.
Meat, leather, milk, and other animal products are routinely
used despite the fact that they require
animals to suffer some pain. Working animals typically suffer
various degrees of discomfort or pain, yet
their use is not generally considered unethical if they are treated
as well as possible given the goal. Of
course it would be wrong to use humans in this way, but
animals do not generally have the rights that
humans do. Carl Cohen, for example, argues that rights come
from an agreement between moral
agents. He concludes that animals do not have rights because
they cannot make such agreements

4
It is, of course, good to use
scholarly sources to back up
important points.
The first
sentence of
each
paragraph
states the
topic of the
paragraph.
This demonstrates
why the conclusion
of the
counterargument
follows from the
premises (as
indicated in the
instructions).
This part of your argument
may not agree with your own
position at all, but it is
important to represent the
argument as well as you can
so that you demonstrate an
appreciation of the best
argument on the other side.

This paragraph
presents a
reasonable and fair
discussion of the
points of
disagreement
between the two
sides (as indicated
in the instructions).
(Cohen, 2001). While the suffering of animals is a
consideration, it does not prohibit their use for the enjoyment of
humans. So long as the use does not seek pain and
suffering as part of the goal, and is carried out as humanely
as possible, using animals for human enjoyment is
morally acceptable.
This counterargument is deductively valid - if all of the
premises
are true, then the conclusion must be as well. The third premise
sets two
conditions for the moral acceptability of having elephants in
circuses. The first
two premises state that both conditions are
met. It follows absolutely then, that having

elephants in circuses is morally acceptable, which is what the
conclusion
says.
The primary disagreement between the sides will likely rest on
whether the treatment of elephants is cruel and unnecessary.
Certainly,
life as a circus elephant can involve pain and suffering, but so
can
life as a wild elephant. Furthermore, the intentional infliction of
pain
and suffering is not always wrong, for example, giving a
medical shot.
However, many would find the suffering inflicted by the
confinement of
5
This objection will be
developed further in
the final paper. A
preview of that
objection is given here
(as indicated in the

instructions).
This paragraph
further develops the
objection, in
preparation for the
final paper.
Again, this point may
(or may not) be
antithetical to your
own view. The point of
this second paper is to
develop and be fair to
the strongest
objection you can
provide to your own
argument.
elephants to be an infliction of suffering for a unnecessary
purpose that does not justify the degree of
suffering inflicted. These issues represent the main points of
disagreement between the two sides.
The best objection to the original argument is probably
aimed at the fourth premise. Posing such an objection would
require looking at how elephants are actually treated and
examining
the degree to which elephants’ presence in circuses contributes
to a
further purpose.

For example, Ringling Bros. claims that circus elephants are
guaranteed nutritious food, and prompt medical care, that
their training provides a focus for their mental and physical
abilities, and that they are allowed time for play and social
interaction. “A positive, healthy environment is the foundation
of training elephants. Therefore, the
cornerstone of all circus elephant training at Ringling Bros. is
reinforcement through praise, repetition,
and reward” (elephantcenter, n.d.). If these claims are true,
then it
could be argued that their entertainment value to children and
others might be sufficient to outweigh any suffering caused to
the
elephants in captivity.
6
References

Cohen, C. (2001). Why animals do not have rights. In The
Animal Rights Debate (pp. 27-40). Oxford,
England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Elephantcenter (n.d.). Pampered performers. Retrieved from
http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-
our-herd/pampered-performers/
http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-our-herd/pampered-
performers/
http://www.elephantcenter.com/meet-our-herd/pampered-
performers/
Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument
Begin by taking a look at the companion document “How to
Construct a Valid Main Argument.” Many of
the steps in that document are important here as well, especially
steps 1-3:
1. State your (tentative) conclusion.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise. (In
the inductive case, there may be
several reasons.)
3. Find another premise (or premises) to link the stated premise
to the conclusion.
The difference is that, with inductive reasoning, the link in step
3 is not an absolute one, but a probable

one. You will want to pick the evidence that lends the greatest
likelihood of your conclusion being true.
For more information about inductive reasoning and how to
strengthen it, take another look at Chapters
5 and 6 in our book as well as the guidance for the course. The
intention of this document is to look at
some of the various types of inductive arguments discuss briefly
how to strengthen them.
Statistical Reasoning:
Inductive arguments often utilize statistics to provide evidence
for their conclusions. Your argument for
your conclusion may or may not exactly match the statistical
syllogism or inductive generalization forms,
but there is a good chance you will find statistics useful in an
inductive argument argument.
For example, here are some statistics that might help support a
conclusion:
• People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to crash
while driving (Richtel, 2009).
Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.
• More than 4% of people on death row are likely to be innocent
(McLaughlin, 2014).
Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.
• Approximately 40% of restaurants fail within the first three
years (Miller, 2007)
Therefore, restaurants are not a good investment.

Adding the missing premise: You can strengthen each of these
inferences by adding another premise to
link the given premise(s) to the conclusion. You will want this
link to be as strong as it can be while
remaining true. It is often possible for the missing premise to be
strong enough to make the argument
deductively valid. Here is a linking premise that makes the first
argument deductively valid:
P1: People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to
crash while driving (Richtel, 2009).
P2: Anything that increases the likelihood of crashing that much
is wrong to do.
C: Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.
Whether your argument ends up deductively valid or remains
inductive, you can usually make your
argument stronger by adding a premise that links your statistic
to your conclusion.
A standard statistical syllogism:
97% of Fs are G
X is an F
Therefore X is G
Can benefit, for example, from a premise that states that X is
just as likely as every other F to be a G.

Appeals to Authority
As noted in the Chapter 5, appeals to authority are not always
fallacious, and, in fact, are often quite
strong, especially if the matter is well established by experts.
For example, even though some of the
claims of quantum physics might seem absurd (many of them
do), one would be wise to accept that
quantum physics is true because of the preponderance of top
authorities that have studied it carefully
and found it to be true. The reasoning appeals more than one
authority in the same inference.
Nearly all physicists today accept the truth of quantum physics.
Therefore, quantum physics is very likely to be true.
If your conclusion is a moral one, about what one ought or
ought not to do, then relying only on
authority will generally not be adequate because moral
principles are not generally the type that can be
settled by appeals to authority. Philosophers and other scholars
can offer pearls of wisdom about such
issues and may be used as authorities, but they are not likely to
settle those non-objective matters
merely by assertion of authority.
Authorities often do weigh in, however, on matters of fact that
are still seen as controversial. For
example:
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and
likely due to human activity
(NASA, 2015).
Therefore climate change is real and likely due to human

activity.
In such cases, you will want to strengthen your reasoning by
studying the reasons that 3% may disagree
and determine if those counterarguments can be overcome. In
all cases it is best to examine objections
to any assertion of authority and determine how objective and
observable the facts of the matter are in
the given case.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, inductive inferences can
be strengthened and clarified by adding
a premise that links the premise to the conclusion. Here is an
example:
Neil deGrasse Tyson says that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.
Added premise: Neil deGrasse Tyson is a leading expert on
astrophysics.
Therefore, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Inferences to the Best Explanation
Inferences to the best explanation, while inductive, can provide
very strong evidence for conclusions.
The discovery that the sun is at the center of the solar system,
for example, was based on this form of
reasoning. For examples, take a look at Chapter 6 of our book.
How strong such an inference is is often based on whether there
exists a stronger explanation. Here is
an example that you might see on Dateline:

The deceased’s husband took out a life insurance plan for her
only a month before she was
killed.
She told her sister the week before that she thought he was
planning to kill her.
He was the only one with her on the weekend that it happened.
The story he told about what happened didn’t match the forensic
evidence.
Therefore, the husband is probably guilty.
In such cases, we want to investigate not only the premises of
this argument but also the likelihood of
an alternate explanation of the evidence.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, you can strengthen the
inference by adding a premise that makes
more clear that this is the best explanation available, like this
one:
Added premise: The husband being guilty is the only plausible
explanation of why she died.
Making this premise explicit both can strengthen the argument,
and it can also remind us to check
carefully whether the added premise is true.
A Combination of Approaches
With inductive reasoning, evidence is cumulative. The more
evidence that you can find for your
conclusion, the stronger the argument becomes. It is often best
to use a combination of different types
of inductive inference to arrive at your conclusion. Many simple

arguments implicitly involve a
combination of statistical reasoning, appeals to authority, and
inferences to the best explanation. Here
is an example,
Based on the results of scientific studies, the Center for Disease
Control reports that vaccines do
not cause autism (CDC, 2015).
Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism.
This inductive inference to implicitly involve several types of
inductive reasoning in the same inference:
Studies with large samples have shown that vaccines do not
cause autism.
Medical authorities have stated that vaccines do not cause
autism.
Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism.
Adding the Connecting Premise:
We can further strengthen and clarify the reasoning, again, by
adding the connecting premise:
Added premise: It is unlikely, given the extensive scientific
study of the matter that all of these
studies and all of these authorities are wrong.
This example, of course, has opposition. Any inductive reasoner
would do well to consider the substance
of the best arguments on the other side.

Considering Arguments on the Other Side
Another step from the “Steps to the Creation of a Valid
Argument” document that is highly relevant to
inductive reasoning as well is this one:
8. Consider possible objections to your argument and possible
ways to strengthen it.
Given that inductive reasoning can be strengthened or weakened
with new information, it is essential to
consider the evidence on the other side in developing your
argument.
In cases in which the contrary evidence can be overcome,
showing how to overcome it will strengthen
your argument. On the other hand, if you find that the contrary
evidence has merit then you can
demonstrate intellectual honesty by including concessions and
by changing your reasoning to
accommodate it. If the objection is correct, you may need to
change your conclusion in light of this fact.
Your new thesis may even contain an acknowledgment of the
concession:
Though there are many ancient and scenic forests that should be
preserved, the current for
practice of logging for paper and wood resources is generally
sustainable.
Ultimately, the incorporation of an understanding of the

arguments for the other side will make your
reasoning more sophisticated and more honest, and in most
cases, actually stronger.
Summary of some principles for creating inductively strong
arguments:
2. Ask yourself why it is true. Provide the best possible.
3. Find another premise that links the premise to the conclusion.
4. Combine all of the types of evidence that you can to support
the conclusion as strongly as
possible.
5. Carefully consider the best evidence for the opposite view
and allow that to influence/improve
your reasoning and possibly your conclusion.
6. Repeat the process so that your argument is as strong as you
can get it while having true
premises.
References:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Vaccines do
not cause autism. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/
McLaughlin, M. (2014, April 28). Shocking number of innocent
people sentenced to death, study finds.

Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/innocent-death-
penalty-
study_n_5228854.html
Miller, K. (2007, April 16). The restaurant-failure myth.
Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-04-16/the-
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-
business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
Nasa (2015). Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree.
Retrieved from
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/
penalty-study_n_5228854.html
penalty-study_n_5228854.html
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-
market-and-financial-advice
restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-
market-and-financial-advice
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Richtel, M. (2009, July 27). In study, texting lifts crash risk by
large margin. New York Times. Retrieved
from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong
Argument
How to Construct a Valid Main Argument
Let’s assume that you have chosen your topic and you have a
sense of your position on it (though it can
be refined as you develop your argument). Suppose, for
example, that your topic is the use of elephants
in circuses, and suppose you think that it is wrong. This (or
some version of it) will be the conclusion of
your argument.
We just need the premises to get to it. Here is where our
argument stands:
P1: ?
P2: ?
C: It is wrong to use elephants in circuses.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
Next, ask yourself why it is wrong? It would not be a bad idea
to do a little research at this point so that
your reason is more informed. In our example, it might be that
the elephants have to live their lives in
confinement. This reason is a premise:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their
lives in confinement.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.

We now need another premise to link the premises to the
conclusion. In general, if your conclusion has
this form:
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is B
Then the simplest premise to add to make it valid is “All As are
Bs.”
Alternatively, if the argument has the form
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is not B
Then the simplest missing premise is “No As are Bs.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions
then you will need to modify it so
that it is true.
The simplest missing premise is not always the best one, but it
is a good place to start. In our example,
the simplest missing premise would be “Anything that requires
elephants to live their lives in
confinement is wrong.” We now ask: Is this premise true? If so
then your argument may be sound. Here
it is:
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in
confinement is wrong.

However, in many cases, the universal statement “All As are
Bs” is too general, and it has many
exceptions. These exceptions may mean that the statement is
false, so the argument would be unsound.
To fix it, it will not do simply to put in the word “usually.” The
reason is that it will make the argument
invalid. Suppose you put it in the premise, then we have to put
it in the conclusion too:
P1: X is A
P2: As are usually B
C: X is usually B
The trouble is that the argument is still invalid. How do we
know that the X is not one of the types of As
that are not B? Here would be an example to show why it is
invalid:
P1: People from Hungary are human.
P2: Humans do not usually speak Hungarian.
C: People from Hungary do not usually speak Hungarian.
That shows that the form is not valid. To avoid this problem, we
may need something more specific than
adding ‘usually.’ We have to figure out a principle that explains
those circumstances in which the
statement is true.
In our example, the premise “Anything that requires elephants

to live their lives in confinement is
wrong” would imply that zoos are wrong as well. Perhaps you
feel that zoos are wrong as well. In that
case you can stick with the premise as is and defend it against
that potential objection. Another
possibility is that you think that zoos are not wrong, but then
you will have to come up with a difference
between zoos and circuses that makes one acceptable but not the
other.
One possible difference is that circuses require ‘extreme’
confinement because circus elephants spend
the majority of their lives on a tiny chain, whereas good zoos
give them more room to roam. In that
case, you could change your premise to this one:
lives in extreme confinement.
However, if we modify that premise alone, then the argument
will be invalid because that premise no
longer matches the second premise, which brings us to our next
step:
5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the
modification so that your
argument is valid again.
In this case, a simple modification of P2, to match the change in
P1 will do the trick:
extreme confinement is wrong.

Notice that the word ‘extreme’ has to be placed in both
premises so that they match and lead logically
to the conclusion. Premises of valid arguments form links in a
chain that lead logically to the conclusion.
If you have a premise that says that X is A, B, and C, and you
want that X is D, then you need a premise
that links the exact wording of A, B, and C to D, as follows:
P1: X is A, B, and C
P2: Anything that is A, B, and C is D
C: Therefore, X is D
In this way, the link of the chain is solid, linked by the logical
form of the argument.
There is yet another way to change the argument so that it is
valid. Another possible difference between
circuses and zoos is that you may feel that zoos serve an
important purpose, whereas circuses do not. If
that is the case, then your change to the moral premise might
look like this:
confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.

This argument, however, is invalid. Do you see why?
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion
in the new version.
We need another premise. We don’t know that the conclusion is
true unless we know that circuses do
not serve an important purpose. Here would be the new
argument:
confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve an important
purpose.
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument
is valid.
Are you satisfied with the argument? Carefully double check its
validity and the truth of each premise. If
there is a possible way to make the premises true and the
conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
Return to step 3 and repeat the process. If there is a premise
that is not quite true then the argument,
even if valid, is unsound. Return to step 4 and repeat the
process. This process can take quite a bit of
versions to get an argument just right.

ways to strengthen it.
In our case, for example, the phrase “important purpose” is
vague. One might consider the role of
elephants in circuses to be an important purpose. This does not
mean that our idea was wrong, only
that it may need to be revised further.
Perhaps what the argument really meant is that the degree of
suffering of the severely confined
elephants is not justified by the added degree of pleasure to
circus goers of seeing elephants there. This
insight could be incorporated into the argument. An improved
version of the argument then might look
like this:
confinement is wrong unless it serves a
purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve a purpose that
outweighs the suffering involved.
One could even go further and wonder why the argument is
limited to elephants. Perhaps one could say
the same about certain other species of animals as well. If one
wanted to strengthen the argument, the
premise 2 could be modified to include a broader class of

‘highly intelligent animals’, as follows:
P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live
their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
outweighs the suffering involved in
their lives of confinement.
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the
steps as many times as necessary
to get it just right.
In this case, though premise 2 is stronger (entailing similar
conclusions about dolphins, orcas,
chimpanzees, and perhaps other types of animals as well), the
argument has become technically invalid.
Do you see why? To make it valid again, we simply need a new
premise to connect the wording “’highly
intelligent” to elephants, resulting in:
P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live
their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.

Perhaps the reader finds this to be an acceptable argument for
use in paper. However, there will still be
people who disagree. Think about some ways in which people
might disagree and see if the argument
can be further strengthened (while remaining logically valid). It
is a very challenging process, but it is one
that at the end can actually make you smarter!
Summary of the Steps
In summary, here are the steps to follow:
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
Hint: If your premise is “X is A”,
and your conclusion is “X is wrong” then you could use “All As
are wrong.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions
then you will need to modify it so
that it is true. Hint: Do not merely add a word like “usually,”
but try to determine the principle
that makes a difference between the cases that are wrong and
that are not wrong (or whatever
word your are employing). Add this principle to the premise so
that it is true.
5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the
modification (e.g. adding the word

‘extreme’ in the above example) of the moral premise and so
that your argument is valid again.
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion
in the new version (e.g. adding the
premise that circuses don’t serve an important purpose in the
above example).
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument
is valid. If not then return to step
four and repeat the process until it is valid and has all true
premises (true as far as you can tell).
ways to strengthen it. If you can
make your argument stronger, while remaining sound then go
for it. You are done (for now)
when you have an argument that says what you want it to say,
and has all true premises, and
has a logically valid form of reasoning. Great work; you should
feel smarter!
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the
steps as many times as necessary to
get it just right.
Note: This is not the only way to create valid arguments,
however, this process is very effective for
creating valid arguments with normative conclusions. For
further instruction, see the supplemental
document: Principles of valid arguments.
Examples:
Finally, here are some other examples of valid arguments that
can result from such a process:

Any action in which all of the participants are voluntary and
that does not violate anyone’s rights is
ethically permissible.
All of the participants in boxing are voluntary.
Boxing does not violate anyone’s rights.
Therefore, boxing is ethically permissible
It is foolish to do things with one’s money that have a known
likelihood of leading to a net financial loss.
Gambling is something that people do with their money.
Gambling has a known likelihood of leading to a net financial
loss.
Therefore, it is foolish to gamble.
The government should never do things that prevent people
from becoming fully informed citizens,
unless it is necessary for public security.
Banning books prevents people from becoming fully informed
citizens.
Therefore, the government should never ban books unless it is
necessary for public security.
Using illegal drugs is addictive and does not have long term
benefits that outweigh the risks.
Things that are addictive have the potential to ruin one’s life.
One should not do things that have the potential to ruin one’s
life unless they have long term benefits
that outweigh their risks.
Therefore, one should not use illegal drugs.
How to Construct of a Valid Main Argument
Instructor Guidance

Welcome to week three! This week we will jump ahead to the
inductive method of logical reasoning. If you will remember,
inductive movements go from general to particular, and the
logic of induction operates in the realm of probability. In
inductive reasoning you are not certain about the answer with
the given information, but you can make an educated guess. You
will come across inductive arguments all the time in everyday
life. Just think about buying a car. Most of us judge whether or
not to buy a certain kind of car based upon past experiences that
we have had or our friends have had. If the past two cars that I
bought were a Ford, and they fell into pieces after a couple of
years, then odds are I will not buy a Ford again when I am
perusing the car lot. There are several different kinds of
inductive argument.
One major type of inductive argument (like the one I just
mentioned) is the argument from analogy or analogical
inductive argument. An analogy is where you compare the
property of one thing to the property of another. You can spot
these when they are in written form because “like” English
principles of speech, an analogy compares two things together
using “like” or “as”. For example, “Men are like parking spots.
All the good ones are taken, and the rest are handicapped.” This
was a funny analogy that my sister used to say when she was
single. What is the “target” of the analogy and what is the
“property” in question being related. It is obvious in this
example that men are the targets of the analogy (and the butt of
my sister’s joke). The properties in question are availability and
desirability because since in the one instance the good guys are
already taken by other women, and in the second instance the
remaining men are not of good quality. You will probably be
able to spot these analogous thought processes in your everyday
thinking if you stop and think about it. Inductive arguments are
not valid (like deductive arguments) they are strong or weak
depending on the logic. For analogical arguments, it is the
closeness of the properties being compared between the two
things that matters. If you were comparing someone who hurt

your feelings to Adolf Hitler, then the analogy would be pretty
weak.
Another form of inductive reasoning is “inductive
generalization”. This is where you take a sample or piece from a
class of things and “generalize” about the whole group or class.
If you are shopping for an apple at the grocery store and the
first five apples you pull out are completely rotten, then you
might generalize that the whole bin is spoiled. We would be
more inclined to affirm that the whole bin is spoiled if there
were only ten apples than if there were 100 apples. This is
because the larger the sample size of the generalization the
stronger the induction. This is most true when you consider
scientific studies or social science surveys. You want the cancer
study to have used a sample group of larger than ten people
when determining if a new drug is effective in treatment (this
could be a “hasty generalization” or an “overgeneralization”).
This is also true of the sample being representative of the group
or class. If would be pointless using a rotten orange to
generalize about a bin of apples. So, whether you induct on a
formal level like in a scientific study or informally like
deciding to buy a car, the process always works by probability.
Chapter eleven discusses different kinds of causal reasoning and
what to look out for when presented with an argument. There
are a couple of issues in causal reasoning that are important to
look at for this week’s discussion board. First, let us revisit a
few of the fallacies that addressed the first two weeks. A “post
hoc” fallacy makes the error of assuming that since happened
after something else, that there is a direct link between the two.
Sometimes I like to call this the superstitious fallacy since there
is no logical reason why walking under a ladder would be
connect with something bad happening to you later.
Superstitions arise due to change coincidences like this and you
want a causal reason for something. This is related to another
causal reasoning fallacy: anecdotal reasoning. This is where you
defend a claim X by citing a couple of examples X happening.
You may have heard the expression “that’s anecdotal evidence”

before in a court case on TV. Sometimes anecdotal reasoning
can see close to the truth and sometimes it is far from it. For
example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died
healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the
proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of
cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case,
the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the
conclusion. So, how do we determine the strength of causal
reasoning?
There are two major types of causal reasoning: relevant
difference reasoning and common thread reasoning. In the first
instance, the relevant difference in a situation has to deal with
the events uniqueness as event. A good example is in Parker and
Moore where you wake up with a headache after a heavy night
of drinking. If you have ever had a hangover before (or friend’s
who have), then you know that this particular day would not be
very different of a scenario. If you woke up every day in the
last year without a headache (and had not gone out the night
before and had too much to drink) then this day would appear as
an odd day. There is enough of a cause and effect “relevant
difference” here to warrant the conclusion. The second type of
causal argument, the “common thread” one, is termed so
because, well, we see a common thread at work. If ten people
showed up at a hospital at the same time with five of the same
symptoms and they all came from the same party, you might
assume they all caught the same sickness. The danger in
common thread reasoning is sometimes to ignore other threads
of reasoning that could also be a factor. With a little bit of
awareness and critical thinking though, we can intuit strong
cases for a causal claim being true. This does not carry the valid
strength of a deductive claim, but it is probably the true.
Running head: EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 1
EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL MEDIA CONDUCT 5

Employees’ Social Media Conduct
Kaleena Springsteen
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Daniel Hayes
March 20, 2017
P1- Social media is part of our day to day life connecting with
friends, families and loved ones
P2- Social media can impact negatively in our day to day
interaction, affecting the organization negatively
P3- Social media can taint organizational image if employee’s
accounts are not checked or tamed
P4- Companies need to check employees social media in order
to regulate and help restore good image of the entity
C-Therefore, monitoring employee’s social media will go along
in restoring company image and position.
Technology savvy, the Internet, and social networks have
reduced the world into a global village. Human privacy has been
put to the test with social media key in the sharing of info,
events, and activities across the globe. It has force employers
resolving to use social to monitor its employee’s code of
conduct outside the organizational setting. Arguably, workers
are significant to an organization, and they carry the image or
brand of the entity thus having more power to encourage certain
attitudes and perceptions as to their employer at work and out of
work (Pearson, 2010). It is, therefore, precise for companies to
take good care of their image through monitoring and instilling
discipline against those who violate social media code of
conduct by either acting in a suggestive manner that will have
negative impacts on the entity. However, the view can be stated

otherwise thus prompting the question, should it be legal for
employers to discipline or fire employees by content aired on
social networks even if the activity was not done on the job.
The way employees behave after work or outside the company
setting matters and have a great impact on the company’s brand
image regardless of either it was private or public (Qualman,
2010). As such, companies who are mostly engaged in business
are required to shield their employer by having a frequent
monitor of their worker’s social media code of conduct that
which can indirect or direct ruin the reputation of the company.
A perfect example is a teacher who results to vulgar language in
social media may prompt his or students to view the post and
may have a dire impact on them. It is not easy to have social
media conduct and professional ethics detached because
employee’s behavior may reflect their ethical conduct at work
(Kaplan & Heinlein, 2010).
Therefore, it is prudent to administer discipline and punish
workers who seem not to show right conduct in the social media
content. Some many argue that is not right to go for that option,
stating that it is based on assumptions that employee conduct on
the social media portrays a negative image on the employer’s
side. Qualman 2010) argues that there is exist a master-servant
relationship between the worker and employee thus a servant
portraying bad influence means a rogue employee. Hence, bad
content on employee’s social media impacts negatively on
public admirations against the company.
Unfortunately, there is a common wave followed by most
employees, propagating negative information targeting their
employer. Some of the messages can evoke bad relationship or
taint a bad picture on the employer. Failing to screen
employee’s social media means propagating negative
information about the company or creating division amongst
employees thus the lack of morale (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
It is the jurisdiction of every employer to make sure it monitors
and scrutinize employees to promote a code of respect.
In conclusion, it is the solemn right for employers to defend

their brand image at all times. How they go about concerns them
more, the top management of a company is usually in trouble
whenever something bad about the pops out. A close look on the
employee’s social media guarantees employers of safe
investments and good company reputation.
Reference
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world,
unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.
Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Pearson, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is
damaging your business and what to do about it. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 18(6).
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How social media
transforms the way we live and do business. John Wiley &
Sons.

Practicing Effective Criticism: Evaluating Arguments' Strengths and Weaknesses

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Practicing Effective Criticism: Evaluating Arguments' Strengths and Weaknesses

Similar to Practicing Effective Criticism: Evaluating Arguments' Strengths and Weaknesses (20)

More from christinemaritza

More from christinemaritza (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Practicing Effective Criticism: Evaluating Arguments' Strengths and Weaknesses