From the Rulebook of Arguments chapter 1 Select two of the rules...

From the Rulebook of Arguments chapter 1 Select two of the rules that either you or one of your associates have broken in the past. Illustrate an example of an incorrect and a correct use of each of these two rules. Discuss why the rules are important in formulating strong arguments. The rules I selected are: Rule#1: Start from reliable premises No matter how well you argue from premises to conclusion, your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak. Nobody in the world today is really happy. Therefore, it seems that human beings are just not made for happiness. Why should we expect what we can never find? The premise of this argument is the statement that nobody in the world today is really happy. Ask yourself if this premise is plausible. Is nobody in the world today really happy? At the very least this premise needs some defense, and very likely it is just not true. This argument cannot show, then, that human beings are not made for happiness or that we should not expect to be happy. Composing a Short Argument 5 Sometimes it is easy to start from reliable premises. You may have well-known examples at hand or informed authorities who are clearly in agreement. Other times it is harder. If you are not sure about the reliability of a premise, you may need to do some research and/or give a short argument for the premise itself. (We will return to this theme in later chapters, especially in Rule A2 of Chapter VII.) If you find you cannot argue adequately for your premise(s), then, of course, you need to give up entirely and start elsewhere! Rule#2: Avoid loaded language Do not make your argument look good by mocking or distorting the other side. Generally, people advocate a position for serious and sincere reasons. Try to figure out their view—try to get it right—even if you disagree entirely. A person who questions a new technology is not in favor of "going back to the caves," for example, and a person who believes in evolution is not claiming that her grandma was a monkey. If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet. In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions. This is "loaded language." Having so disgracefully allowed her once-proud passenger railroads to fade into obscurity, America is honor bound to restore them now! This is supposed to be an argument for restoring (more) passenger rail service. But it offers no evidence for this conclusion whatsoever, just some emotionally loaded words—shopworn words, too, like a politician on automatic. Did passenger rail "fade" because of something "America" did or didn't do? What was "disgraceful" about this? Many "once-proud" institutions fall into disarray, after all—we're not obliged to restore them all. What does it mean to say America is "honor bound" to do this? Have promises been made and broken? By whom? I'm sure much can be said for restoring passenger rail, especially in this era when the ecological and economic costs of highways are becoming enormous. The problem here is that this argument does not say it. It lets the overtones of the words do all the work, and therefore really does no work at all. We're left Composing a Short Argument 7 exactly where we started. When it's your turn, stick to the evidence. Please answer the questions base on the two rules that I selected. Please include all references website use for this assignment. About 220 words Thank you

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert
<p>entesque dapibus efficitur laoreet.</p>
ec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. P

Unlock full access to Course Hero

Explore over 16 million step-by-step answers from our library

Subscribe to view answer
1 Attachment