Subscription pricing
I am having a hard time whether I should follow the schedule. I assume (uh oh) that to be able to strengthen or weaken an answer, you must first be able to see a flaw with the argument. That is why I see it makes more sense to work on the flaw before strengthen/weaken. However, I am sure there is a reason why the syllabus is set up as is but I can't figure out why.
1
3 comments
thanks guys.
You actually do have to see the flaw to strengthen or weaken. Whether you do it consciously is one thing, but the fundamental idea there is simply not up for debate. If you don't know what's wrong with an argument, you have no basis for strengthening or weakening it because you don't know what's going on in the first place.
It's JY's curriculum so I don't want to speculate on his reasoning. But, in my experience, there are arguments to be made for each approach. It's basically a debate between going with a student's intuition first versus going with abstract theory first. Strengthen/weaken is often easier for students to grasp because we're more used to making actual objections or defenses of any given argument than dealing in abstractions. On the flip side, you need to understand the abstract structure of an argument before you can truly understand strengthening and weakening.
Honestly I don't think it makes a difference as long as both pieces are covered adequately, the lessons flow logically, and the connections are made at the appropriate times (all of which JY does a fine job of in his curriculum).
Follow the curriculum. Strengthening and weakening questions have to do with support, flaw questions have to do with argument mechanics. You don't have to see a flaw to weaken or strengthen an argument.