1 / 13

Evaluate an Argument

Evaluate an Argument. HOW WELL-REASONED IS THIS ARGUMENT ? DIAGNOSTIC. INTRODUCTION. This article concludes that … This argument has some merits, but without examining the assumptions and without more data, the conclusion has to be called into question .

helia
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluate an Argument

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluate an Argument HOW WELL-REASONED IS THIS ARGUMENT? DIAGNOSTIC

  2. INTRODUCTION • This article concludes that … • This argument has some merits, but without examining the assumptions and without more data, the conclusion has to be called into question. • This argument has few merits because…

  3. INTRODUCTION • This argument concludes that collisions can be prevented if commercial airlines use computerized warning systems. Because of some faulty assumptions and a lack of evidence, this conclusion has to be called into question.

  4. BODY PARAGRAPH # 1 • First of all, there are several questionable assumptions. We need to examine if there are other more reasonable assumptions.

  5. Body Paragraph # 1 • The most questionable assumptions include that human error and system errors can be completely avoided. There is an assumption that private planes do not get involved in midair collisions since there is no mention of the warning system being installed in them. Just because a pilot gets a signal and advice on how to handle a dangerous situation, doesn’t mean he will follow the advice, understand the advice or have the abilities to implement the evasive action. Moreover, computer error, computer crashes and general system problems have clearly not been taken into account.

  6. Body Paragraph #2 • There is a lack of evidence about…

  7. BODY PARAGRAPH # 2 • Secondly, there is a lack of evidence about testing this system. Simulated tests could be conducted and indicate how successfully pilots respond to the advice for corrective actions that the system recommends. Data from testing would be essential for drawing any conclusions about the efficacy of the system.

  8. BODY PARAGRAPH # 3 • This argument would be strengthened if the following evidence was discovered/uncovered that

  9. BODY PARAGRAPH # 3 • This argument would be strengthened if evidence about the back-up systems that would handle computer crashes or computer errors were explained. Specific data about errors that occurred over time would add to the sense that the computerized system would significantly reduce crashes. It is interesting to note, however, that the argument states that crashes would be virtually eliminated. It would be difficult to substantiate such a strong claim.

  10. BODY PARAGRAPH # 4 • This argument would be weakened if evidence showed that…

  11. BODY PARAGRAPH # 4 • This argument would be weakened if evidence showed that pilots did not respond well to the advice in simulations or a greater than 5% computer error. After all, the conclusion is that virtually all mid-air collisions would be avoided. Again, if that claim were less exaggerated and based on data that showed crash rates could be significantly improved, the argument would not be as weak.

  12. CONCLUSION • There are several/many flaws in this argument so… • This argument does not make sense in light of • There are a couple of flaws in this argument… • Generally, this argument is sound, but…

  13. CONCLUSION • To sum up, this argument is flawed by exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims as well as unrealistic assumptions, such as no pilot or computer system error.

More Related