Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
This assessment method is designed to help you see how logic is used (or misused) in everyday life, and thereby appreciate the importance of good reasoning. You are asked to do some fieldwork related to logic. In particular, you are asked to document an argument “in the wild,” that is, an argument someone makes during a debate, a dispute, or a disagreement as you witness it in everyday life. The argument cannot be taken from a book or an article. You may use various mediums to document this “argument in the wild,” such as text, image, audio, or video. Then you should analyze the argument using the logical tools we learn throughout this course. For the fourth Argument in the Wild, you should write the argument in canonical form and then evaluate it, that is, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid, using a proof. If the argument is valid, determine whether it is sound or unsound.
Here is an example of what an “Arguments in the Wild 4” submission should look like:
Thats example you can’t have the same thing get something happen with you
In this video, the comedian Ronny Chieng takes the Alabama Supreme court ruling that frozen embryos are children to its logically absurd conclusion by saying “I get all the benefits of being a dad without having to be a dad. I get to claim him on my taxes.”
The argument can be reconstructed in canonical form as follows:
P1: If frozen embryos were children, then one could get all the benefits of being a dad without having to be a dad (e.g., one could claim frozen embryos on one’s taxes).
P2: It is not the case that one could get all the benefits of being a dad without having to be a dad (e.g., claiming frozen embryos on one’s taxes is absurd).
Therefore,
C: It is not the case that frozen embryos are children.
Reconstructed in this way, the argument is valid; that is, if P1 and P2 are true, then C would have to be true as well. In particular, it has the following logical form:
E⟶D
∼D
∴∼E
Where E stands for the sentence “Frozen embryos are children,” and D stands for the sentence “One could get all the benefits of being a dad without having to be a dad.” This logical form is known as modus tollens, which is valid as the following proof demonstrates:
1E⟶D
2∼DWant: ∼E
3Efor reductio
4D⟶E 1, 3
5∼DR 2
6∼E∼I 3-5
Since the argument is valid, the question is whether the premises are in fact true. Is the argument sound? The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. It is supposed to show that the idea that frozen embryos are children is false because it has an absurd logical consequence, namely, that one can claim frozen embryos on taxes, get paternity or maternity leaves, etc. If that is absurd, then it follows that frozen embryos are not children. For these reasons, the argument is valid and sound.
This, then, is how your fourth “Arguments in the Wild” assignment should look like. That is, you should use the tools of Sentential Logic (in particular, proofs) to analyze one argument in the wild. You should determine whether the argument is valid or invalid by means of a proof. If valid, you should determine whether the argument is sound or unsound.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.