The three tests for an argument to be good are whether the premises are plausible, if the premises are more plausible than the conclusion, and whether or not the argument is valid or strong. So I came up with an example stating that, “All babies have hair, all babies have blonde hair, therefore all babies have hair that is blonde.
The premises in the argument are plausible because usually babies who are first born seem to grow their hair and have hair right away. However, the premises in the argument are more plausible than the conclusion. The reason for this is because yes all babies will grow hair right away but not every baby is going to grow to have blonde hair. Some babies of different races can have brown, black, and blonde hair depending on what their hair color heredity is. The argument is valid but it is not strong. Yes, babies have hair, but not all babies can have hair right away. It usually takes some time for them to grow hair. Along with that all babies will not have blonde hair because not every single baby in this world will have blonde hair, unless their parents dye it right after birth, which I doubt would actually happen.
I think you made a good point that stating all babies have blonde hair is not a good argument. When I first read it, I was thinking that I did not have blonde hair when I was born so it is impossible for all babies to have blonde hair. I did think that maybe the example was talking about peach fuzz since that is blonde on babies usually. But I liked how you took apart that example and explained why it was not valid. So while the argument is not valid, is it a strong argument? I think if the second premise wasn’t inaccurate it would be a strong argument.
ReplyDelete