# PHL458 Week 3 Evaluating Truth and Validity

Topics: Logic, Evaluation, Debate Pages: 5 (509 words) Published: March 8, 2015
﻿

Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise
Amy F. Italiano
PHL/458
Thursday, 5 March 2015
Laura L. Calo

Evaluating Truth and Validity Exercise

Scenario 1: 12.2.j
Power must be evil because it can corrupt people
Evaluation of the Argument:
Step 1: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil. Step 2: Errors affecting truth
Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-yes; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: Conclusion is illegitimate. To fix this conclusion and make it legitimate I could restate the argument as: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil. Step 4: the error of overgeneralizing was found. To fix this error I could change the argument to read: Certain types of power must be evil because it can corrupt some people Explanation of the assessment:

Overgeneralizing the concept of all power by all people makes this an error in truth. To correct the error I restated the argument by saying that certain types of power not just power, corrupts some people not all people. The original argument had an illegitimate conclusion but by restructuring the sentence as such: All things that corrupt people are evil. Power corrupts people. Therefore, power must be evil, the conclusion is now legitimate. Addition of Argumentation:

None needed

Scenario 2: 12.2.f
No one who ever attended this college achieved distinction after graduation. Marvin attends this college. Therefore, Marvin will not achieve distinction after graduation. Evaluation of the Argument:

Step 1: Marvin attends this college and will not achieve distinction after graduation because no one who ever attended this college achieved distinction after graduation. Step 2: Errors affecting truth

Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-no; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: The conclusion is legitimate

Step 4: No errors were found
Explanation of the assessment:
This is argument is sound; there are no errors, the conclusion is legitimate and there are no hidden premises. Addition of Argumentation:
None needed
Scenario 3: 12.2.s
Challenging other people’s opinions is a sign of intolerance, so debating courses have no place on a college campus. Evaluation of the Argument:
Step 1: If challenging other people’s opinions is a sign of intolerance, then debating courses have no place on a college campus. Step 2: Errors affecting truth
Either/or thinking-no; Avoiding the issue-no; Overgeneralizing-yes; Oversimplifying-no; Double standard-no; Shifting the blame-no; Shifting the burden of proof-no; Irrational appeal-no Step 3: The conclusion is legitimate

Step 4: No errors were found
Explanation of the assessment:
This is argument is sound; there are no errors, the conclusion is legitimate and there are no hidden premises. Addition of Argumentation:

References
Ruggiero, V. R. (2009). The Art of Thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought (9th ed). New York, NY: Person Longman.

References: Ruggiero, V. R. (2009). The Art of Thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought (9th ed).
New York, NY: Person Longman.