@DeliaCanDoIt! I believe that an argument being “unsupported” doesn’t have to mean it has no support, just that the support it does have is very weak, likely relying on unreasonable assumptions. In other words, the information provided isn’t sufficient to draw an inference. The Dalmatian argument is a great example of this - as stated by jenko14, there is still an attempt to persuade here, with a premise and a conclusion. The aim and the definition have been satisfied, so all that’s left is for there to be support. “Dalmatians have spots” is a premise attempting to support the conclusion, and although it doesn’t do a very good job at it, I would still consider your example an argument because it adheres to the fundamental makeup of one, with all three elements present.
0
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
@DeliaCanDoIt! I believe that an argument being “unsupported” doesn’t have to mean it has no support, just that the support it does have is very weak, likely relying on unreasonable assumptions. In other words, the information provided isn’t sufficient to draw an inference. The Dalmatian argument is a great example of this - as stated by jenko14, there is still an attempt to persuade here, with a premise and a conclusion. The aim and the definition have been satisfied, so all that’s left is for there to be support. “Dalmatians have spots” is a premise attempting to support the conclusion, and although it doesn’t do a very good job at it, I would still consider your example an argument because it adheres to the fundamental makeup of one, with all three elements present.