This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The MC is not adequately supported at all. We cannot deem an argument that rests on four problematic premises a strong one. The author seems to be making some generalizations about what we think about male nudity as a society. To improve the argument, the arguer could: - be less universal in his/her declarations. It’s easy to ¡nd fault with a premise if you can ¡nd one exception to the rule. ¢or example, he could state that “Many people ¡nd male nudity less attractive.” He/she would still need to provide some numbers for us to believe that this is indeed the case, but at least it’s more plausible than “everyone ¡nds male nudity less attractive.” P1 P2 P3 ↘ ↓ ↙ C1 + HC2 ↓ MC Where you can write less, do so. The diagram is fairly straight forward/explicit. If you’re going to Fnd any hidden meanings, then it has to be something in line with HC2. None of the other premises have hidden implications. If you didn’t add HC2, and the rest of your structure is the same, you still have a strong (A-level) diagram in this case. - the arguer could also provide more evidence for Directors making the choice to avoid male nudity beyond audience approval (C1 + HC2). Are there other reasons why there’s less male nudity than female nudity in Flm?...
View Full Document
- Summer '12
- Nudity, male nudity