Discussion Question Number One: Part Four

Principle of Rational Discussion

The Principle of Rational Discussion deals with identifying, the malformation within a claim under precise ideals, as indicated and taken from Epstein's Chapter 4, which is as follows:

"We assume that the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading:

1. Knows about the subject under discussion.
2. Is able and willing to reason well.
3. Is not lying" (60)

This chapter also displays the importance of being able to differentiate between good and bad arguments, through various terms, possible situations, and examples to help the reader. The Principle of Rational Discussion declares that by choosing to go along other's decision to ignore this concept is to essentially make way for being less likely able in convincing others, unable to distinguish what one should believe, and the denial of the essentials of democracy. The chapter reintroduces the idea of strong and valid arguments, and the possibility of plausibility occurring in the premise than in the conclusion, and so forth. There are some situations where placing this principle cannot happen because of the certain situation in place may prevent that from happening. For instance, Epstein places a person who has freshly fallen in love or become upset to fall under that exemption because of their emotions, at the moment, tend to be more, for the lack of a better word, sensitive.

The Guide to Repairing Arguments

"We can add something to the claim (a premise or conclusion) if and only if:

1. The argument becomes stronger or valid.

2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.

3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion." (62)

Example: Laptops are so convenient; they allow for easy transportation. They're also much lighter than a desktop. Buying a desktop is essentially wasting space and a loss of good money.

Analysis The argument above holds validity, however although it may be true in the things its states, there are flaws in the argument itself that can differ where it matters, which is being a strong argument overall, and having good reason to make other's believe your claim. An argument isn't simply wonderful by stating information that is evident and well-known. With this statement, the writer simply infers the idea that anything that provides easy transportation, is light-weight, and convenient is automatically good, with no question--just because it may be easy doesn't mean it's always a great thing. There are links missing; the writer simply states reason after another with no further reasoning to the previous sentiment. This argument is also subjective because they are not claiming something that is, but how they think it should be. They need to take into account that not everyone will agree with what they have to say, because they are plenty of people who feel a desktop has much more of worth to them than a laptop ever could, as well as, a person who prefers to stray away from either until absolutely necessary and simply stay with a pen or pencil and a piece of paper.