This paper will refute the proposition presented by the other side by showing irrelevant sources, mistakes, fallacy throughout their case.
Proposition: Laughter Can Benefit Humans Health.
There are no problems with the proposition.
There are no problems with the definition.
Attacks on Evidence, Reasoning and Fallacies:
A. Nature of Laughter.
B. The problem with this is first piece of evidence is that it has nothing to do with the argument. Second, the evidence doesn’t state how laughter can benefit humans but only explain what laughter is. Basically everyone already knows the different methods of laughing. There are no examples at all or quotes that show the nature of laughter. There is only one example but it doesn’t tell us about the effect of how laughter can benefit humans. Also Wikipedia is not the best site to get the right information on anything. There aren’t enough statistics presented in this argument because there aren’t any. This argument doesn’t even talk about the benefits of laughter. The author offers no supporting evidence to how it can benefit human’s health. This source is not reliable because it is not a creditable source and the evidence has nothing to do with the argument. Due to the lack of evidence in this section, this would impact the argument because it doesn’t explain or give examples of how it can help humans.
C. This evidence doesn’t support the proposition.
A. The Benefits of Laughing
B. The problem with this piece of evidence is that the information here isn’t creditable because author is explaining for personal experience and research. The author Chuck Gallozzi is not a recognized authority in this field because he is a certified NLP Practitioner, speaker, seminar leader, and coach. There aren’t any quotes to support the evidence in this section. There aren’t any statistics presented here. The evidence in this section does support the proposition but...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document