For this post, I chose to analyze the one about the cars in the neighbor’s yard.
1: This is an argument. It starts out with, “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all of the cars in his yard.” This is making a statement that has a possible opposition, then lists facts to back up why this statement should happen.
2: The conclusion is actually the beginning of the argument.
3: Is there a city law or rule that states the limit of how many cars can have in the yard?
When is the last time the cars moved?
4: All the points after the original claim of the neighbor being forced to get rid of the cars are subarguments.
5: Yes. There is a premise, and there are facts to back up this premise.
I thought this exercise was useful. It allowed me to evaluate and analyze an argument, and look at the example in depth.
I agree with what you said at the end of your post. That the exercises we are trying are useful. Mostly because we have to break down the argument in order to evaluate and analyze it as a whole. Though I wish you would have explained part three a little more in detail. I was also confused on what the premise was exactly because you didn’t explain it in detail. Despite all of these things, I understood all the components of the argument. The argument itself was short so maybe that made it difficult to give more details, similar to the argument I did for my post.
ReplyDelete