Select three of the scenarios in the Applications list 12.2 …

Select three of the scenarios in the Applications list 12.2 (a.-y.) at the end of Ch. 12 in The Art of Thinking. Apply the following in 350 to 500 words for each scenario: Evaluate each argument, using the 4-step process described on p. 218, regarding soundness of reasoning (truth and validity). Explain your assessment and add alternative argumentation where necessary. Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Evaluation of Arguments in Selected Scenarios

Introduction

In this paper, we will evaluate three scenarios from the list of applications in Chapter 12 of The Art of Thinking. The evaluation will be done using the four-step process described on page 218, which assesses the soundness of reasoning based on truth and validity. Additionally, alternative argumentation will be provided where necessary. The three scenarios to be assessed are Scenario b. (Promoting a New Product), Scenario k. (The Case for Lower Taxes), and Scenario y. (Supporting a Controversial Television Show).

Scenario b. – Promoting a New Product

Argument:
1. This new product is highly rated by experts in the field.
2. The product has been tested extensively and has shown positive results.
3. Many satisfied customers have given positive feedback.
4. Therefore, this new product is the best in the market.

Evaluation:
Step 1: Assessing Truth
Claim 1 states that the product is highly rated by experts. To determine the truth of this claim, we need to examine the qualifications of these experts and their unbiased opinions. Without specific information about these experts, it is challenging to determine the veracity of this claim. The truth of claim 2, stating positive results from extensive testing, would depend on the methodology and credibility of the testing process. The third claim, stating positive customer feedback, can be valid if supported by verifiable evidence. Thus, without further information, we cannot clearly establish the truth of these claims.

Step 2: Assessing Validity
The argument in scenario b. is presented as a series of premises leading to a conclusion. However, the premises do not provide a logical connection to support the conclusion. The fact that the product is highly rated, has positive test results, and satisfied customers does not necessarily establish it as the best in the market. There might be other products with similar ratings or customer satisfaction that have not been accounted for. Therefore, the argument lacks validity.

Step 3: Improving Reasoning
To enhance the reasoning in this scenario, it is necessary to provide more specific and verifiable information about the expert ratings, testing methodology, and customers’ feedback. Additionally, considering comparative data and presenting it in a structured manner would strengthen the argument’s validity.

Alternative Argumentation:
An alternative argument might state that the new product is competitive in the market based on the positive ratings from experts, extensive testing, and positive customer feedback. This revised argument acknowledges that “the best” can vary depending on individual preferences and needs, making it more reasonable and accurate.

Scenario k. – The Case for Lower Taxes

Argument:
1. Lowering taxes will stimulate economic growth.
2. Economic growth will create more jobs and increase overall prosperity.
3. Therefore, lowering taxes is beneficial for society.

Evaluation:
Step 1: Assessing Truth
The truth of claim 1 requires empirical evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between tax reduction and economic growth. While it is widely believed that lower taxes can stimulate economic activity, the extent to which this occurs and the conditions under which it happens are subject to debate. Similarly, claim 2’s assertion that economic growth leads to more jobs and increased prosperity necessitates examination of various economic models and historical data. Therefore, the truth of these claims is contingent on robust research and analysis.

Step 2: Assessing Validity
The argument in scenario k. is structured in a logical manner, with the premises leading to the conclusion. If we assume the truth of the claims, the argument appears to be valid. The conclusion follows logically from the premises, as lower taxes leading to economic growth would indeed result in more jobs and increased prosperity.

Step 3: Improving Reasoning
To improve the reasoning, it is crucial to provide empirical evidence that establishes a direct relationship between tax reduction and economic growth. By citing specific studies or examples, the argument’s validity can be strengthened. Furthermore, acknowledging that the impacts of tax reduction may be influenced by other factors such as government spending and economic conditions would add nuance to the argument.

Alternative Argumentation:
An alternative argument might consider the potential trade-offs of lower taxes. While lower taxes may stimulate economic growth, they can also reduce revenue available for public services and social welfare programs. This alternative argument recognizes the complexity of the issue and the need for a balanced approach that considers both economic growth and social considerations.

Scenario y. – Supporting a Controversial Television Show

Argument:
1. Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right.
2. Television shows should be allowed to depict controversial content.
3. Therefore, supporting a controversial television show is justified.

Evaluation:
Step 1: Assessing Truth
Claim 1 posits that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. This claim is supported by legal frameworks and constitutional provisions in many democratic societies. Claim 2, asserting the permissibility of depicting controversial content on television shows, is subjective and depends on societal norms and cultural values. Thus, the truth of claim 2 can be evaluated differently based on different cultural and moral perspectives.

Step 2: Assessing Validity
The argument in scenario y. follows a logical progression, with the premises leading to the conclusion. If we assume the truth of the claims, the argument is valid. Freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right logically leads to the permissibility of depicting controversial content on television shows.

Step 3: Improving Reasoning
To enhance the reasoning, it is valuable to provide a clear delineation of what constitutes controversial content and how it aligns with societal values and cultural context. Additionally, acknowledging potential limitations to freedom of speech, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, would strengthen the argument’s validity.

Alternative Argumentation:
An alternative argument might highlight the potential harms associated with supporting a controversial television show. This argument might emphasize the need to balance freedom of expression with considerations of social responsibility, cultural sensitivity, and potential negative impacts on specific audiences or communities. This alternative argument recognizes the complexity of navigating controversial content within a broader ethical framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evaluation of the three scenarios demonstrates the importance of assessing the soundness of reasoning based on truth and validity. Through the four-step process, we discerned the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and provided alternative argumentation where necessary. Enhancing the reasoning through providing specific evidence, considering potential trade-offs and societal factors, and acknowledging the complexity of the issues at hand can contribute to more robust and well-supported arguments.