Instruction

Instruction: What ever is in bold should be written in all arguments. 1 Para: The argument concludes that ...............mention the conclusion the author has drawn from the argument. Avoid spelling mistakes of pronouns. Make sure you mention all the premises and any assumption made by the author. The argument is full of gaps and loop holes since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the result of a hasty generalization. 2 Para: Discuss the biggest fallacy in the argument. Mention all counter arguments like what the author should have taken into consideration or what he missed out. 3 Para: Same as above. Discuss second biggest fallacy. 4 Para: Mention other illogical assumptions. Do not state counter arguments. 5 Para: The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the auhtor has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the author taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made. This is the template. To understand better, please read through the sample arguments that I typed. All the Best!

-------------------The following appeared as part of an article in a local newspaper. During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is re-elected. In addition, Ms. Reideburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at her record can tell that she is the best qualified candidate of governor.

The argument concludes that Governor Reideburg should be re-elected into office as she is the best qualified candiate. The author supports his decision by saying that since Ms. Reideburg has taken over the office crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year have doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in that state has increased. In addition, the author claims that Ms. Reideburg has promised to keep big companies here thereby providing jobs for new residents. The author has conveniently assumed that these trends would continue and that companies present in the state will provide jobs continuously to all residents. The augument is full of gaps and loop holes since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the result of a hasty generalization.

The argument clearly lacks sufficient evidence and statistical data to make such supererogatory claims. While the author has stated that crime has decreased, there is no statistical evidence to prove such a claim. It could just be a yearly trend, and nothing is expressed for us to believe that

this a direct result of the governor efforts. Similarly, even data about the residents moving to the state is ambiguous as nothing about real estate values or quality of living is mentioned. Furthermore, the author cliams that number of jobs created per year have doubled, whereas the quality of the jobs or the pay of the jobs is not mentioned. This only debilitates the argument.

The agument takes various subjective factors into account. The author states that the governor promises to take steps to keep big companies in the state that will provide jobs to all new residents. These are only promises and whether they will be fullfilled or not is a huge speculation. The author does not include the promises made by the governor in her previous election and whether she kept to her word or not. Also, it is not necessary that the companies present would continue to provide jobs to all new residents. Likewise, the argument fails to mention what steps the governor would take to improve the infrastructure of the state. Such a claim is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.

The argument also fails to include any testimonials of the present denizens of the state, and whether they are satisfied with the progress the governor has accomplised or not. Similarly, the credibility of the newspaper in which the arcticle has appeared has to be taken into account. The argument is quite clearly a propogandist motive to promote the governor. Finally, the article does not mention credibility of the other candidates contesting for the governor's office, and one cannot arrive at the conclusion that the Ms. Redeburg is the best suited candidate for the job.

The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the auhtor has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the author taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a hololistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.

The following appeared in a letter to prospective students from the admissions office at Plateau College. "Every person who earned an advanced degree in science or engineering from Olympus University last year recieved numerous offers of excellent jobs. Typically, many graduates of Plateau have gone on to pursue advanced at Olympus. Therefore, enrolling as an undergraduate of Plateau College is a wise choice for students who wish to ensure success in their careers."

The argument concludes that students who wish to have a successful career should go to Plateau College for undergraduate study as typically students from Plateau College have gone to pursue advanced degrees in Olympus college. The author continues that students of science and engineering from Olympus University recieve numerous excellent job offers. The author has also assumed that any student from Olympus University will definetely recieve good job offers ensuring them success in their careers. The argument in full of gaps and loop holes since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument in very evidently the result of a hasty generalization.

The author has clearly assumed the fact that all future students from Olympus University will procure numerous excellent job offers. The argument lacks sufficient stastistical data to support his claim. The statistical data refrenced could just be a trend of that particular year. The author should have provided statistical data for at least the last three to five years to make such a clam. Neither is the reputation of the recruiting organizations nor the type of job offered mentioned in the argument. Futhermore, the argument fails to mention whether students passing out from Olympus University fare well in other universities or in the jobs thereafter. This only weakens the argument further.

The author mentions that students from Plateau College typically further their studies in Olympus University. The author fails to mention how many student are actually granted admission in to Olympus University and how they fare at the university. The auhtor also does not speak about the costs associated with studying in Plateau College or Olympus University. The author does not mention the other facilities and ameneties provided at Plateau College. It is clearly a propogandist motive to allure students to Plateau College.

The argument only mentions about science and engineering students. It does not enlighten us about students from different fields of study like environment, geology, medicine, etc. Hence it is not possible to conclude that studying in Olympus college would be beneficial to all the students. Such a conclusion is only non-sequitur.

The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the author has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had he taken the above discussed factors into view it would have rendered the argument irrefuteable. But whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture of the superfluous claims being made. The following appeared in a memorandum from the new president of the Patriot Car manufacturing company. "In the past, the body styles of Patrioit Cars have been old fashioned, and our cars have not sold as well as have our competitor's cars. But now, since many regions in this country report rapid increases in the number of newly liscenced drivers, we should be able to increase our share of the market by selling cars to this growing population. Thus, we should discontinue our oldest models and concentrate instead on manufacturing sporty cars. We can also improve the success of our marketing campaigns by switching our advertising to the Youth Advertising Agency, which has successfullypromoted the country's leading soft drink."

The argument concludes that Patriot Cars should discontinue their oldest models of cars and should concentrate on manufacturing sporty cars so as to entice the newly liscenced drivers and thus increasing their maket over their competitors. The author assumes that since the body styles of Patriot Cars were old fashioned, they have not sold as well as their competitors. The author also feels that , as per the reports of rapid increase of newly liscenced drivers in various regions of the country, Patriot Cars can increase their market share by manufacturing sportier cars. The author continues stating the success of the marketing campaigns can be increased by contracting

Youth Advertising Agency to market their cars, as that agency had successfully promoted the country's leading soft drink. The argument is full of gaps and loop holes since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the result of a hasty generalization.

The author clearly commits a non-sequiter fallacy. He feels that Patriot cars lost out to their competitors because of old fashioned body styles of the cars. He fails to take into consideration other factors that might have lowered the image or value of Patriot Cars. For instance, poor engineering, lack of timely and good service, availability of spare parts, general ride and handing or ownership experience may be factors that cause Partiots Cars to sell in small numbers. The conclusion that by changing the body style would improve sale numbers is illogical.

The author also commits a faulty analogy by believing that Youth Advertising Agency would help in improving marketing campaigns because the agency successfully promoted the country's leading soft drink. While Youth Advertising Agency may be effective in marketing soft drinks, it is not necessary that would be efficacious in marketing of cars. Also, the agency has had only one successful marketing campaign as mentioned in the argument. The overall success rate of the agency has not be mentioned. This only weakens the argument.

Furthermore, the author has based his argument on the premise that the newly liscenced drivers would prefer only sporty cars. It could be possible that the newly liscened drivers are of a older age and might prefer more practical and family cars. Additionally, the reports claim that many regions have shown an increase in newly liscenced drivers. It is not necessary that the region in which the cars of Patriot Car company are marketed would also see a similar rise. Lack of sufficient stastistical data evidently refutes that authors claim.

The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the auhtor has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had he taken the above discussed factors into view it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. However whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.