Why are some arguments stronger than others? I am assuming stronger arguments have more specific premises and leave little room for other possibilities to lead to their conclusion.
I asked myself, how likely is it that an alternative explanation would explain the conclusion. In other words, how essential are the premises to guarantee the truth of the conclusion? The cat argument fell flat because, while there is reason to speculate that the cat tipped the trash can, the evidence does not rule out other possibilities. The Disney argument feels completely different. We can reasonably conclude that there is only one way for Walt to have obtained the Genie+ pass. It would be extremely difficult to argue against the conclusion if we assume that the premises are true. The Tigers Argument is well reasoned, but the bridge from premise to conclusion is more implicit. For example, we have to assume that to qualify as a non-suitable pet, the animal must not be able to cause serious injury to people.
I believe an arguments strength (as stated by some peers) deals with the number of implicit or explicit premises. Stronger arguments tend to have more explicit premises that don't require you to "fill in the gaps" ie. the Disney argument. Weaker arguments in contrast tend to have more implicit premises, one's that maybe if you think long enough you can produce to connect the dots ie. the Tiger argument or the Trash-bin argument.
The Disney argument has the most premises that all ultimately lead to the main conclusion which is that Walt must have offered requisite propitiations to Mickey. The trash bin example is not as strong as the Disney one because it provides less direct support to the main conclusion. For the most part, you're assuming very heavily that Mr. Fat Cat "intentionally" knocked over the bin. The tiger example provides little amount of support but it is not as questionable as the trash bin example where the support itself does not equate to the main conclusion.
I believe that the stronger and argument, the fewer assumptions it makes / the more factual it's claims are. The trash bin's conclusion snuck in an extra claim that isn't supported by evidence "having intnentionally knocked over the bin" this claim has no supporting claim but it is attached to the hypothesis that Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. In general, this whole argument is based more on what seems most likely not off of what we know to be certainly true. Disney is strongest because it has multiple supporting claims and the conclusion doesn't sneak any assumptions or extra claims in without support. Tiger is in the middle because it is fairly clear cut with a basic conclusion to draw from the premise, but it still makes some assumptions, or leaves out reasoning. We don't know for sure from the argument made that aggressive and injury-causing mammals are not suitable to keep as pets, it is implied from the rest of the argument, but it technically is an assumption.
My hypothesis is that stronger arguments require less, if any, assumptions.
There are missing pieces in the Tigers and Mr. Fat Cat arguments. For the tiger one, assumed premises could be 'If a mammal is aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep a a pet', 'Tigers are mammals' and then you have the 'Tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people'. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. This follows a strong line of reasoning, similar to the Disney scenario = it is a stronger argument.
I struggled w/ the tigers v trash bin on what was the weakest.
Initially, I assumed it was tigers as there wasn't much support to the claim and was very broad statement, while trash bin showed a sequential thought pattern to lead you to the conclusion.
However, I think the key distinction is that the trash bin example specifically relies on an assumption that was presumed only on suspicion alone; meaning we could poke holes in the hypothesis as there is no substantial evidence. If instead it was mentioned that he was cleaning salmon off his paw, that would show proof, but also you need to consider the dog could've knocked the bin and that was why he ate the salmon that was cleaned off his paw. The word "intentionally" needs to be proven, but based on the premise, we cannot conclude that, there is still much doubt.
The tigers example however, is stronger that trash bin because it is more generalized. The "not every" part to me showed it's not an air-locked accusation or argument like the trash bin; there is wiggle room for not all mammals to be a good pet, as not all mammals are tigers.
I think Disney is strongest because it states that something can only be true if condition X or condition Y is satisfied. The thing is true, but condition X is not satisfied. Therefore, condition Y is satisfied. Cut and dry, with no room for doubt.
Tigers is slightly weaker because someone may not have the perception that tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries, so in few cases it may take more than that singular sentence to convince.
Trash can is the weakest because while yes, it looks like the cat is guilty. This scenario could be explained by an enormous number of things (for example: the cat was behaving that way because he ate something left on the counter and the trash can fell over from a raccoon that came in from outside.)
The Disney Argument is the strongest because it gives Walt two possible options to acquire Genie+, and since we know as a reader that he didn't take one of the options, he had to take the only other available option to get Genie+.
The Tiger argument has to be the second strongest because it gives an example of a mammal that would've been a bad pet due to its aggression, but it didn't mention the other mammals that would also make bad pets.
The Trash Bin argument has to be the weakest because some of the premises do not support the conclusion as well as they could. Someone else could've toppled the bin over, and Mr. Fat Cat still ate the salmon.
I think the cat argument is the weaker one due to the use of the word " intentionally". You cannot say he intentionally tipped it over without providing stronger evidence.
the MUST be in the premise leaves no other option - i feel as though the number of variables and claims in the trash bin make it weaker then the tiger- more things have to be true in the logic chain for it have been mr fat cat while the pathway between tigers and being good pets is shorter and clearer
I believe that the fat cat/toppled bin argument is the weakest because it is making an assumption/inference/hypothesis based off of evidence that was present at the "scene of the crime". In reality though the premises supports the conclusion, the truth value of the conclusion cannot be determined any further and will remain a hypothesis, meaning there is a chance that the conclusion can be false.
Disney argument is strongest because its conclusion is forced by the premises. If we put ourselves in that world then we know that the conclusion is correct. The Tiger one is the next strongest because it doesn't do as great a job of forcing the conclusion. For example, if I wanted a pet that could protect me and my home, I probably would want something that is aggressive like a tiger. The third is weakest because the support is the weakest.
I initially assumed the Tiger argument was the strongest because all you need is one example of ONE mammal not being suitable to destroy any opposing argument. Since it said "not EVERY mammal" meaning all mammals. So as long as one proves it, there's no way to go against that conclusion.
However, I understand now why it's the Disney Vacation Club. There's stronger premises that leaves you with one option or the other.
Disney argument is strongest because it has tactical reasons as to why this premise would lead to the conclusion. Tiger argument is next closest because it's reasonable to assume everyone knows the danger of tigers. The cat argument is the weakest because unfortunately there are so many other reasons why the cat could've been on the counter and licking their paws - there is too much coincidences that could be involved in the argument.
None of the arguments are bullet proof. I got the same results as the video in my order. What’s interesting about the trash argument is that one of the premises is that he’s licking his paws as he does after eating, but the trash still had the salmon in it.. so it’s contradictory almost depending on what other evidence is there.
@Starliii I had similar thoughts and believed Disney Vacation Club could be 1 or 2. The Disney Vacation Club argument does not state 'ONLY those who have offered ten goats' worth...' The "All other members" seems to close off all other options, but to me it's not explicit. I think this is worth noting!
Disney's argument is strongest because of the clear necessary-sufficient relationship in the argument. Walt having a Genie+ pass is sufficient for us to know that he must have completed one or both of the necessary conditions. Since we know that Walt has a Genie+ pass, then it must be true that he completed one (or both) of prostrating himself or sacc'ing the goats. Walt didn't prostrate himself before Goofy's alter, so he had to have done evil, evil things to ten goats. (I'm gonna be real I don't think I got the necessary-sufficient thing right because I never really felt like I got the explanation when it was given in high school, but the statement that follows remains true.)
Tigers is the middle strength argument because it presents evidence that can be entertained as a plausible explanation for why some mammals are not good pets. A pet that is prone to attacking me and can cause me very serious injury can be said to make for a poor domestic pet. Thus, not all mammals are suitable to keep as a pet. However, pets can be kept for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with behavior or the danger to the owner. Maybe I like the danger and challenge presented by keeping a tiger as a pet? In that case, neither the aggression nor the danger are barriers to owning a tiger as a pet. Therefore, the premise can still be true, but doesn't strongly support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. The danger and risk of injury actually increases the tiger's suitability as a pet.
Trash bin is the weakest because the evidence presented only suggests guilt, but doesn't directly validate it. For the claim made by the investigator to be true they have to show intent, action in reality, and possession. In other words, they need to prove that Mr. Fat Cat: (1) knocked over the bin; (2) did so with the intention of eating the salmon, and; (3) actually consumed (or took possession of) the salmon. To weaken the argument you can attack any of the three elements of the "crime" in question (in a variety of ways). The passage only presents circumstantial evidence of Mr. Fat Cat's guilt.
I guess the way I'm interpreting it is: a) Disney argument must be true granted all claims, b) Tiger argument is likely to be true as the claim is generalized to include an example, and c) Trash argument may be true, as there are claims which loosely support the hypothesis (conclusion) and produces a general and largely interpretable argument. In comparison to Disney, which has absolutes claims extensive and "cooperative" enough to make only one outcome true, Trash presents a plausible argument with less premises to ascertain an absolute.
The Disney argument provides enough support to funnel the viewer into a specific conclusion based off how the support cancels out other conclusions to the observation.
The Tiger argument provides only one supporting statement, however, the conclusion from the author correlates directly to the cause.
The Trash Bin argument doesn't include other sources that could have tipped over the trash can. It is taking prior experience with the cat and applying that hypothesis to the current situation which leaves the viewer questioning if that was the only conclusion that could be drawn.
The Disney argument essentially funnels you into a one of two choices that must be made and leaves very little room for interpretation or doubt. It is a one or the other argument.
The Tiger argument is right down the middle because tigers can cause injury thus proving in certain situations that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but is one specific instance in a case with many others.
The Trash bin argument leaves much open to interpretation and therefore has the least amount of support as it is all circumstantial really.
I think the Disney argument is the strongest bc it has clear definitions. Each term is finite in the way it is valued in the argument scheme. Members have fast pass. Pass has pre requisites.
Tiger argument is weak in the fact that tigers "can" cause serious injury. They may not definitely cause that injury. However, the conclusion is also not a strong claim either so the premise is analogous to its conclusion
Trash bin is the weakest bc the subjects, fat cat and food, have no real link with each other in the passage. They were merely in the same vicinity. To reiterate my previous point, the definitions of each subject are unclear. Does Mr. Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating salmon? That would be stronger support. Do we even know if salmon is missing from the floor? There is no indication of the action of eating at all.
I believe Disney is the strongest argument because it has the evidence and a supporting argument that can be inferred from it. This contains a premise, conclusion, and a support.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because it can't be inferred that Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within just because he was on the counter cleaning himself -- that is a weak claim.
The argument of tigers is also a strong argument, containing both a premise and a conclusion. Although, what would make it stronger is maybe a support that further highlights the conclusion.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
378 comments
Why are some arguments stronger than others? I am assuming stronger arguments have more specific premises and leave little room for other possibilities to lead to their conclusion.
I asked myself, how likely is it that an alternative explanation would explain the conclusion. In other words, how essential are the premises to guarantee the truth of the conclusion? The cat argument fell flat because, while there is reason to speculate that the cat tipped the trash can, the evidence does not rule out other possibilities. The Disney argument feels completely different. We can reasonably conclude that there is only one way for Walt to have obtained the Genie+ pass. It would be extremely difficult to argue against the conclusion if we assume that the premises are true. The Tigers Argument is well reasoned, but the bridge from premise to conclusion is more implicit. For example, we have to assume that to qualify as a non-suitable pet, the animal must not be able to cause serious injury to people.
@grantgreathouse that's exacly what I wanted to say but you articulate it wayyy better
I believe an arguments strength (as stated by some peers) deals with the number of implicit or explicit premises. Stronger arguments tend to have more explicit premises that don't require you to "fill in the gaps" ie. the Disney argument. Weaker arguments in contrast tend to have more implicit premises, one's that maybe if you think long enough you can produce to connect the dots ie. the Tiger argument or the Trash-bin argument.
The Disney argument has the most premises that all ultimately lead to the main conclusion which is that Walt must have offered requisite propitiations to Mickey. The trash bin example is not as strong as the Disney one because it provides less direct support to the main conclusion. For the most part, you're assuming very heavily that Mr. Fat Cat "intentionally" knocked over the bin. The tiger example provides little amount of support but it is not as questionable as the trash bin example where the support itself does not equate to the main conclusion.
Disney has the most support, Tigers has some direct support, Trash Bin has no outright support, just suggestive evidence.
I believe that the stronger and argument, the fewer assumptions it makes / the more factual it's claims are. The trash bin's conclusion snuck in an extra claim that isn't supported by evidence "having intnentionally knocked over the bin" this claim has no supporting claim but it is attached to the hypothesis that Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. In general, this whole argument is based more on what seems most likely not off of what we know to be certainly true. Disney is strongest because it has multiple supporting claims and the conclusion doesn't sneak any assumptions or extra claims in without support. Tiger is in the middle because it is fairly clear cut with a basic conclusion to draw from the premise, but it still makes some assumptions, or leaves out reasoning. We don't know for sure from the argument made that aggressive and injury-causing mammals are not suitable to keep as pets, it is implied from the rest of the argument, but it technically is an assumption.
My hypothesis is that stronger arguments require less, if any, assumptions.
There are missing pieces in the Tigers and Mr. Fat Cat arguments. For the tiger one, assumed premises could be 'If a mammal is aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep a a pet', 'Tigers are mammals' and then you have the 'Tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people'. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. This follows a strong line of reasoning, similar to the Disney scenario = it is a stronger argument.
I struggled w/ the tigers v trash bin on what was the weakest.
Initially, I assumed it was tigers as there wasn't much support to the claim and was very broad statement, while trash bin showed a sequential thought pattern to lead you to the conclusion.
However, I think the key distinction is that the trash bin example specifically relies on an assumption that was presumed only on suspicion alone; meaning we could poke holes in the hypothesis as there is no substantial evidence. If instead it was mentioned that he was cleaning salmon off his paw, that would show proof, but also you need to consider the dog could've knocked the bin and that was why he ate the salmon that was cleaned off his paw. The word "intentionally" needs to be proven, but based on the premise, we cannot conclude that, there is still much doubt.
The tigers example however, is stronger that trash bin because it is more generalized. The "not every" part to me showed it's not an air-locked accusation or argument like the trash bin; there is wiggle room for not all mammals to be a good pet, as not all mammals are tigers.
@daysdreaming thank you for your process. I struggled with the same thing and your articulation unlocked something for me :)
@daysdreaming I also thought tigers was weakest because it has less claims/evidence that support the conclusion.
I think Disney is strongest because it states that something can only be true if condition X or condition Y is satisfied. The thing is true, but condition X is not satisfied. Therefore, condition Y is satisfied. Cut and dry, with no room for doubt.
Tigers is slightly weaker because someone may not have the perception that tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries, so in few cases it may take more than that singular sentence to convince.
Trash can is the weakest because while yes, it looks like the cat is guilty. This scenario could be explained by an enormous number of things (for example: the cat was behaving that way because he ate something left on the counter and the trash can fell over from a raccoon that came in from outside.)
The Disney Argument is the strongest because it gives Walt two possible options to acquire Genie+, and since we know as a reader that he didn't take one of the options, he had to take the only other available option to get Genie+.
The Tiger argument has to be the second strongest because it gives an example of a mammal that would've been a bad pet due to its aggression, but it didn't mention the other mammals that would also make bad pets.
The Trash Bin argument has to be the weakest because some of the premises do not support the conclusion as well as they could. Someone else could've toppled the bin over, and Mr. Fat Cat still ate the salmon.
Some arguments are stronger than others because their support are stronger than others'.
I think the cat argument is the weaker one due to the use of the word " intentionally". You cannot say he intentionally tipped it over without providing stronger evidence.
the MUST be in the premise leaves no other option - i feel as though the number of variables and claims in the trash bin make it weaker then the tiger- more things have to be true in the logic chain for it have been mr fat cat while the pathway between tigers and being good pets is shorter and clearer
I believe that the fat cat/toppled bin argument is the weakest because it is making an assumption/inference/hypothesis based off of evidence that was present at the "scene of the crime". In reality though the premises supports the conclusion, the truth value of the conclusion cannot be determined any further and will remain a hypothesis, meaning there is a chance that the conclusion can be false.
Disney argument is strongest because its conclusion is forced by the premises. If we put ourselves in that world then we know that the conclusion is correct. The Tiger one is the next strongest because it doesn't do as great a job of forcing the conclusion. For example, if I wanted a pet that could protect me and my home, I probably would want something that is aggressive like a tiger. The third is weakest because the support is the weakest.
I initially assumed the Tiger argument was the strongest because all you need is one example of ONE mammal not being suitable to destroy any opposing argument. Since it said "not EVERY mammal" meaning all mammals. So as long as one proves it, there's no way to go against that conclusion.
However, I understand now why it's the Disney Vacation Club. There's stronger premises that leaves you with one option or the other.
Disney argument is strongest because it has tactical reasons as to why this premise would lead to the conclusion. Tiger argument is next closest because it's reasonable to assume everyone knows the danger of tigers. The cat argument is the weakest because unfortunately there are so many other reasons why the cat could've been on the counter and licking their paws - there is too much coincidences that could be involved in the argument.
None of the arguments are bullet proof. I got the same results as the video in my order. What’s interesting about the trash argument is that one of the premises is that he’s licking his paws as he does after eating, but the trash still had the salmon in it.. so it’s contradictory almost depending on what other evidence is there.
I was confused why the Disney Vacation Club argument wasn't the weakest because I understood the following premise to introduce a possible loophole.
Premise: "Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app."
The argument continues that Walt "has a Genie pass," but what if he obtained it another way? One that didn't involve using the Disney App?
In hindsight, I realize my analysis was incorrect, but I wanted to share in case anyone else made the same mistake I did.
@Starliii I had similar thoughts and believed Disney Vacation Club could be 1 or 2. The Disney Vacation Club argument does not state 'ONLY those who have offered ten goats' worth...' The "All other members" seems to close off all other options, but to me it's not explicit. I think this is worth noting!
Long post, sorry, but I'm long winded:
Disney's argument is strongest because of the clear necessary-sufficient relationship in the argument. Walt having a Genie+ pass is sufficient for us to know that he must have completed one or both of the necessary conditions. Since we know that Walt has a Genie+ pass, then it must be true that he completed one (or both) of prostrating himself or sacc'ing the goats. Walt didn't prostrate himself before Goofy's alter, so he had to have done evil, evil things to ten goats. (I'm gonna be real I don't think I got the necessary-sufficient thing right because I never really felt like I got the explanation when it was given in high school, but the statement that follows remains true.)
Tigers is the middle strength argument because it presents evidence that can be entertained as a plausible explanation for why some mammals are not good pets. A pet that is prone to attacking me and can cause me very serious injury can be said to make for a poor domestic pet. Thus, not all mammals are suitable to keep as a pet. However, pets can be kept for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with behavior or the danger to the owner. Maybe I like the danger and challenge presented by keeping a tiger as a pet? In that case, neither the aggression nor the danger are barriers to owning a tiger as a pet. Therefore, the premise can still be true, but doesn't strongly support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. The danger and risk of injury actually increases the tiger's suitability as a pet.
Trash bin is the weakest because the evidence presented only suggests guilt, but doesn't directly validate it. For the claim made by the investigator to be true they have to show intent, action in reality, and possession. In other words, they need to prove that Mr. Fat Cat: (1) knocked over the bin; (2) did so with the intention of eating the salmon, and; (3) actually consumed (or took possession of) the salmon. To weaken the argument you can attack any of the three elements of the "crime" in question (in a variety of ways). The passage only presents circumstantial evidence of Mr. Fat Cat's guilt.
I guess the way I'm interpreting it is: a) Disney argument must be true granted all claims, b) Tiger argument is likely to be true as the claim is generalized to include an example, and c) Trash argument may be true, as there are claims which loosely support the hypothesis (conclusion) and produces a general and largely interpretable argument. In comparison to Disney, which has absolutes claims extensive and "cooperative" enough to make only one outcome true, Trash presents a plausible argument with less premises to ascertain an absolute.
The Disney argument provides enough support to funnel the viewer into a specific conclusion based off how the support cancels out other conclusions to the observation.
The Tiger argument provides only one supporting statement, however, the conclusion from the author correlates directly to the cause.
The Trash Bin argument doesn't include other sources that could have tipped over the trash can. It is taking prior experience with the cat and applying that hypothesis to the current situation which leaves the viewer questioning if that was the only conclusion that could be drawn.
@Jbshallenberger This is really such a great way of putting it. This is how my brain made sense of analyzing the arguments.
The Disney argument essentially funnels you into a one of two choices that must be made and leaves very little room for interpretation or doubt. It is a one or the other argument.
The Tiger argument is right down the middle because tigers can cause injury thus proving in certain situations that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but is one specific instance in a case with many others.
The Trash bin argument leaves much open to interpretation and therefore has the least amount of support as it is all circumstantial really.
I think the Disney argument is the strongest bc it has clear definitions. Each term is finite in the way it is valued in the argument scheme. Members have fast pass. Pass has pre requisites.
Tiger argument is weak in the fact that tigers "can" cause serious injury. They may not definitely cause that injury. However, the conclusion is also not a strong claim either so the premise is analogous to its conclusion
Trash bin is the weakest bc the subjects, fat cat and food, have no real link with each other in the passage. They were merely in the same vicinity. To reiterate my previous point, the definitions of each subject are unclear. Does Mr. Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating salmon? That would be stronger support. Do we even know if salmon is missing from the floor? There is no indication of the action of eating at all.
I believe Disney is the strongest argument because it has the evidence and a supporting argument that can be inferred from it. This contains a premise, conclusion, and a support.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because it can't be inferred that Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within just because he was on the counter cleaning himself -- that is a weak claim.
The argument of tigers is also a strong argument, containing both a premise and a conclusion. Although, what would make it stronger is maybe a support that further highlights the conclusion.