Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise

PHL/458

Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise

The exercise here is to take three arguments and evaluate them for truth and validity. The three arguments I have chosen from the Applications list 12.2 (a-y) at the end of Ch. 12 in The Art of Thinking are arguments j., b. and r. I will evaluate each for soundness of reasoning using the 4-step process and explain my assessments, adding alternative argumentation where necessary for each of them in that order (j., b., r.)

First Argument (j.)

The first argument I will look at is j., the premise that “Power must be evil because it can corrupt people”. The first step is to check for any hidden premises and determine if this is a complex argument and that it is stated completely and clearly. I find that it is clearly stated and there are no hidden premises. Next is to examine each part of the argument for errors affecting truth. One error that affects truth in this argument that I find is oversimplification. I ask myself what important aspects of this issue does this statement ignore and I would say that it ignores the fact that power can also challenge and cause people to grow in a healthy way. Also that power can be a force for positive change, therefore where power can corrupt, can also produce wholesomeness. I would argue that there have been instances in our history where those in power have not created corruption, but the opposite. While this argument may have an element of truth, it does not fully evaluate the issue.

The next step in evaluating for soundness of reasoning is to examine for errors in validity and to determine if the argument is legitimate or illegitimate. This argument is struggling in its points in that the key elements aren’t clearly defined. For example, does corruption exactly correlate with evil? Is there a particular level of corruption that constitutes evil? What are the defining characteristics of corruption or evil? There are too many variables that aren’t clearly addressed for this to be a legitimate and valid argument. I personally have known of someone doing something corrupt and still haven’t considered him or her “evil”.

That being said, the last step is to make changes where necessary in the argument. I find that this premise is so flawed that it is best to come up with an alternative argument altogether. The new argument would be as follows: Power that is used for evil purposed can produce evil results. Evil being defined as any act that is indented to do harm or enslave another without the due process of the democratic law. As such, power that is used for good purposed can produce good results. Power can produce enormous good and power can produce enormous harm.

Second Argument (b.)

The second argument I am going to evaluate and assess is b., which states, “Low grades on a college transcript are a handicap in the job market, so teachers who grade harshly are doing students a disservice.” In reviewing the argument for hidden premises and clarity, I find that there is a hidden premise and the argument isn’t clearly stated. The hidden premise is that teachers who grade harshly are giving out low grades or that teachers who give out low grades are doing students a disservice. Neither is necessarily true and that is not clearly stated in the argument. Therefore the argument is incomplete.

In searching for errors affecting truth and errors affecting validity, I find multiple errors. Although there may be some instructors who grade harshly, it doesn’t necessarily mean they give a low grade. In the same light, a low grade that stems a harsh grading doesn’t ultimately mean that a transcript will look bad to a potential employer and therefore be a handicap in the job market. This argument doesn’t fully create a link from the conclusion to the premises. And that makes the argument invalid and the conclusion illegitimate. There are many ways to viewing this issue. This particular argument doesn’t stand up to truth or validity. Some would argue that that the instructor who critiques harshly generates the type of student that the job market can benefit from. Questions arise like, how important is a transcript in the hiring process? Is a transcript really affected by an instructor that grades harshly? Does a transcript reflect the teacher or the student in light of all the grades? Respectively there is a good chance that that particular student did not put forth much effort into his or her studies. Also, is it the instructor’s individual grading policy or the school’s policy that is the primary governing force? There are many questions that can be drawn from this argument and there are many different views and questions that arise. Furthermore, who’s to say how employers in the job market are going to judge a student and potential employee.

This argument is simply not clear and not valid. The only real option is to throw it out and embrace a different argument. Perhaps, “Students who aren’t diligent in hard work to earn good grades could have a bad college transcript. Transcripts can affect them in the job market. Therefore, students who aren’t diligent in earning good grades are doing themselves a disservice.”

Third argument (r.)

The third and final argument to evaluate for truth and validity will be r., the argument that, “If the Social Security system is further weakened, the elderly will have to fear poverty. Therefore, if the Social Security system is not further weakened, the elderly will not have to fear poverty.” I read through this argument and see there are no hidden premises and it is stated clearly and precisely. Finding step one is good, I will move on to the next step and check for errors in truth. Immediately I find that the argument is guilty of overgeneralizing in the sense that all elderly are not dependent on Social Security. So, all (all is inferred) elderly will fear poverty if the Social Security system is further weakened, becomes untrue. Even if the Social Security system is further weakened, it doesn’t necessarily mean the elderly will “have” to fear poverty. That is under the assumption that Social Security is the only dynamic that exists that makes the elderly either poor or wealthy.

In checking for validity I find that the last part of the statement is an illegitimate conclusion in that the statement asserts that the only cause of poverty is a reduction or loss of Social Security income. In fact, there are many reasons for poverty, of which could be a mismanagement of funds, caused from poor financial decisions, bad habits or even addiction. Even if the argument were somewhat true, the first part of the argument doesn’t necessarily mean that the second part is true.

I would revise the argument for truth’s sake to say, “If the Social Security system is further weakened, the elderly who depend on it may have to fear poverty. Therefore, if the Social Security system is not further weakened, those same elderly may not have to fear poverty.” The validity and legitimacy of the conclusion derived from the premise can be arguable. The revised statement is now stronger to defense in that the elderly that depend on Social Security could be faced with poverty if the program is weakened.

References

Ruggiero, Vincent R. (2012). The art of thinking. A guide to critical and creative thought. (10th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.