Expert answer:Argument Is it Ever Permissible to Torture a Perso

Solved by verified expert:Hello, I need help writing this paper. I uploaded an example of what was provided and an initial argument over the topic for this paper. Thanks!!!Write: in your paperExplain the topic you are addressing and your position on it. Provide a preview of your paper and a statement of your thesis in your opening paragraph. [Approximately 100 words]For help crafting a good thesis statement (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., go to the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..Present your main argument for your thesis in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line.Clearly indicate whether your argument is intended to be inductive or deductive. Follow up the presentation of your argument by clarifying the meaning of any premises that could use some explanation. [About 150 words]If your argument is deductive, then it should be valid (in the strict logical sense of the word); if it is inductive, then it should be strong. Make sure to avoid committing logical fallacies within your argument (e.g., begging the question). Additionally, the premises should be true, to the best of your knowledge. If one of your premises has a pretty obvious counter-example, then you should either fix the argument so that it does not have this flaw, or later, in your paper (steps three through five) you should address the apparent counter-example (showing that it does not really refute the truth of your premise). Arguments that are not valid, not very strong, commit fallacies, or that have counter-examples that are not adequately addressed will not receive full credit.Provide supporting evidence for the premises of your argument. [Approximately 350 words]Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments (arguments whose conclusions are premises of the main argument), or other ways of demonstrating the truth of those premises. This section should include at least one scholarly research source.Explain a strongobjectionto your argument. [Approximately 250 words]Study what people on the other side of this question think about your reasoning and present the best possible objection that someone could have to your argument. Do not commit the straw man fallacy here. Reference at least one scholarlyresearch source. See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of the course text for more information.Defend your argument against the objection. [Approximately 200 words]Once you have presented the objection, indicate clearly how you might respond to it. It is acceptable to admit that reasonable people might disagree with you or that there might be an area in which your argument could be further strengthened, but you should do your best to explain why your argument is sound or cogent despite the objections.Provide an appropriate conclusion. [Approximately 75 words]For guidance about how to develop a conclusion see the Introductions and Conclusion (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. resource from the Ashford Writing Center.For further instruction on how to create arguments, see the How to Construct a Valid DeductiveArgument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. documents as well as the Contructing Valid Arguments Video (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. For an example of a completed Final Paper, see the Annotated Example The Ethics of Elephants in Circuses (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Let your instructor know if you have questions about how to complete this paper.Writing specialists are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you!Click HERE to instantly chat with an online tutor.Click HERE to submit your paper for a review. Papers are returned within 24 hours with a revision plan.Click HERE to email us any writing questions.For additional writing resources like Grammarly (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., click on the Writing Center tab in the left navigation pane.The Final Argument PaperMust be 1,100 to 1,400 words in length, double-spaced, (not including the title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..Must include a separate title page with the following:Title of paperStudent’s nameCourse name and numberInstructor’s nameDate submittedMust use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text.The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (for more information about how to create an APA reference list see the Ashford Writing Center APA References List (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.webpage).Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
phi103_how_to_construct_a_valid_main_argument.pdf

phi103_tips_for_creating_an_inductively_strong_argument.pdf

phi103_summative_assessment_annotated_example.pdf

initial_arugument_paper.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

How to Construct a Valid Main Argument
1. State your (tentative) conclusion.
Let’s assume that you have chosen your topic and you have a sense of your position on it (though it can
be refined as you develop your argument). Suppose, for example, that your topic is the use of elephants
in circuses, and suppose you think that it is wrong. This (or some version of it) will be the conclusion of
your argument.
We just need the premises to get to it. Here is where our argument stands:
P1: ?
P2: ?
C: It is wrong to use elephants in circuses.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
Next, ask yourself why it is wrong? It would not be a bad idea to do a little research at this point so that
your reason is more informed. In our example, it might be that the elephants have to live their lives in
confinement. This reason is a premise:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
3. Find another premise that links the premise to the conclusion.
We now need another premise to link the premises to the conclusion. In general, if your conclusion has
this form:
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is B
Then the simplest premise to add to make it valid is “All As are Bs.”
Alternatively, if the argument has the form
P1: X is A
P2: ?
C: X is not B
Then the simplest missing premise is “No As are Bs.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions then you will need to modify it so
that it is true.
The simplest missing premise is not always the best one, but it is a good place to start. In our example,
the simplest missing premise would be “Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in
confinement is wrong.” We now ask: Is this premise true? If so then your argument may be sound. Here
it is:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in confinement is wrong.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
However, in many cases, the universal statement “All As are Bs” is too general, and it has many
exceptions. These exceptions may mean that the statement is false, so the argument would be unsound.
To fix it, it will not do simply to put in the word “usually.” The reason is that it will make the argument
invalid. Suppose you put it in the premise, then we have to put it in the conclusion too:
P1: X is A
P2: As are usually B
C: X is usually B
The trouble is that the argument is still invalid. How do we know that the X is not one of the types of As
that are not B? Here would be an example to show why it is invalid:
P1: People from Hungary are human.
P2: Humans do not usually speak Hungarian.
C: People from Hungary do not usually speak Hungarian.
That shows that the form is not valid. To avoid this problem, we may need something more specific than
adding ‘usually.’ We have to figure out a principle that explains those circumstances in which the
statement is true.
In our example, the premise “Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in confinement is
wrong” would imply that zoos are wrong as well. Perhaps you feel that zoos are wrong as well. In that
case you can stick with the premise as is and defend it against that potential objection. Another
possibility is that you think that zoos are not wrong, but then you will have to come up with a difference
between zoos and circuses that makes one acceptable but not the other.
One possible difference is that circuses require ‘extreme’ confinement because circus elephants spend
the majority of their lives on a tiny chain, whereas good zoos give them more room to roam. In that
case, you could change your premise to this one:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in extreme confinement.
However, if we modify that premise alone, then the argument will be invalid because that premise no
longer matches the second premise, which brings us to our next step:
5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the modification so that your
argument is valid again.
In this case, a simple modification of P2, to match the change in P1 will do the trick:
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in extreme confinement is wrong.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
Notice that the word ‘extreme’ has to be placed in both premises so that they match and lead logically
to the conclusion. Premises of valid arguments form links in a chain that lead logically to the conclusion.
If you have a premise that says that X is A, B, and C, and you want that X is D, then you need a premise
that links the exact wording of A, B, and C to D, as follows:
P1: X is A, B, and C
P2: Anything that is A, B, and C is D
C: Therefore, X is D
In this way, the link of the chain is solid, linked by the logical form of the argument.
There is yet another way to change the argument so that it is valid. Another possible difference between
circuses and zoos is that you may feel that zoos serve an important purpose, whereas circuses do not. If
that is the case, then your change to the moral premise might look like this:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
This argument, however, is invalid. Do you see why?
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion in the new version.
We need another premise. We don’t know that the conclusion is true unless we know that circuses do
not serve an important purpose. Here would be the new argument:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in confinement is wrong unless it serves
an important purpose.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve an important purpose.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument is valid.
Are you satisfied with the argument? Carefully double check its validity and the truth of each premise. If
there is a possible way to make the premises true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid.
Return to step 3 and repeat the process. If there is a premise that is not quite true then the argument,
even if valid, is unsound. Return to step 4 and repeat the process. This process can take quite a bit of
versions to get an argument just right.
8. Consider possible objections to your argument and possible ways to strengthen it.
In our case, for example, the phrase “important purpose” is vague. One might consider the role of
elephants in circuses to be an important purpose. This does not mean that our idea was wrong, only
that it may need to be revised further.
Perhaps what the argument really meant is that the degree of suffering of the severely confined
elephants is not justified by the added degree of pleasure to circus goers of seeing elephants there. This
insight could be incorporated into the argument. An improved version of the argument then might look
like this:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires elephants to live their lives in confinement is wrong unless it serves a
purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
One could even go further and wonder why the argument is limited to elephants. Perhaps one could say
the same about certain other species of animals as well. If one wanted to strengthen the argument, the
premise 2 could be modified to include a broader class of ‘highly intelligent animals’, as follows:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved in
their lives of confinement.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the steps as many times as necessary
to get it just right.
In this case, though premise 2 is stronger (entailing similar conclusions about dolphins, orcas,
chimpanzees, and perhaps other types of animals as well), the argument has become technically invalid.
Do you see why? To make it valid again, we simply need a new premise to connect the wording “’highly
intelligent” to elephants, resulting in:
P1: Putting elephants in circuses requires them to live their lives in confinement.
P2: Anything that requires highly intelligent animals to live their lives in confinement is wrong
unless it serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P3: Putting elephants in circuses do not serve a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved.
P4: Elephants are highly intelligent animals.
C: Therefore, putting elephants in circuses is wrong.
Perhaps the reader finds this to be an acceptable argument for use in paper. However, there will still be
people who disagree. Think about some ways in which people might disagree and see if the argument
can be further strengthened (while remaining logically valid). It is a very challenging process, but it is one
that at the end can actually make you smarter!
Summary of the Steps
In summary, here are the steps to follow:
1. State your (tentative) conclusion.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise.
3. Find another premise that links the premise to the conclusion. Hint: If your premise is “X is A”,
and your conclusion is “X is wrong” then you could use “All As are wrong.”
4. Determine if the added premise is true. If it has exceptions then you will need to modify it so
that it is true. Hint: Do not merely add a word like “usually,” but try to determine the principle
that makes a difference between the cases that are wrong and that are not wrong (or whatever
word your are employing). Add this principle to the premise so that it is true.
5. Modify the other premises so that the wording matches the modification (e.g. adding the word
‘extreme’ in the above example) of the moral premise and so that your argument is valid again.
6. Add any premises necessary to get logically to the conclusion in the new version (e.g. adding the
premise that circuses don’t serve an important purpose in the above example).
7. Determine if all of the premises are true and if the argument is valid. If not then return to step
four and repeat the process until it is valid and has all true premises (true as far as you can tell).
8. Consider possible objections to your argument and possible ways to strengthen it. If you can
make your argument stronger, while remaining sound then go for it. You are done (for now)
when you have an argument that says what you want it to say, and has all true premises, and
has a logically valid form of reasoning. Great work; you should feel smarter!
9. Triple check the soundness of the argument, and repeat the steps as many times as necessary to
get it just right.
Note: This is not the only way to create valid arguments, however, this process is very effective for
creating valid arguments with normative conclusions. For further instruction, see the supplemental
document: Principles of valid arguments.
Examples:
Finally, here are some other examples of valid arguments that can result from such a process:
Any action in which all of the participants are voluntary and that does not violate anyone’s rights is
ethically permissible.
All of the participants in boxing are voluntary.
Boxing does not violate anyone’s rights.
Therefore, boxing is ethically permissible
It is foolish to do things with one’s money that have a known likelihood of leading to a net financial loss.
Gambling is something that people do with their money.
Gambling has a known likelihood of leading to a net financial loss.
Therefore, it is foolish to gamble.
The government should never do things that prevent people from becoming fully informed citizens,
unless it is necessary for public security.
Banning books prevents people from becoming fully informed citizens.
Therefore, the government should never ban books unless it is necessary for public security.
Using illegal drugs is addictive and does not have long term benefits that outweigh the risks.
Things that are addictive have the potential to ruin one’s life.
One should not do things that have the potential to ruin one’s life unless they have long term benefits
that outweigh their risks.
Therefore, one should not use illegal drugs.
Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument
Begin by taking a look at the companion document “How to Construct a Valid Main Argument.” Many of
the steps in that document are important here as well, especially steps 1-3:
1. State your (tentative) conclusion.
2. Ask yourself why it is true. List that reason as a premise. (In the inductive case, there may be
several reasons.)
3. Find another premise (or premises) to link the stated premise to the conclusion.
The difference is that, with inductive reasoning, the link in step 3 is not an absolute one, but a probable
one. You will want to pick the evidence that lends the greatest likelihood of your conclusion being true.
For more information about inductive reasoning and how to strengthen it, take another look at Chapters
5 and 6 in our book as well as the guidance for the course. The intention of this document is to look at
some of the various types of inductive arguments discuss briefly how to strengthen them.
Statistical Reasoning:
Inductive arguments often utilize statistics to provide evidence for their conclusions. Your argument for
your conclusion may or may not exactly match the statistical syllogism or inductive generalization forms,
but there is a good chance you will find statistics useful in an inductive argument argument.
For example, here are some statistics that might help support a conclusion:
•
People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to crash while driving (Richtel, 2009).
Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.
•
More than 4% of people on death row are likely to be innocent (McLaughlin, 2014).
Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.
•
Approximately 40% of restaurants fail within the first three years (Miller, 2007)
Therefore, restaurants are not a good investment.
Adding the missing premise: You can strengthen each of these inferences by adding another premise to
link the given premise(s) to the conclusion. You will want this link to be as strong as it can be while
remaining true. It is often possible for the missing premise to be strong enough to make the argument
deductively valid. Here is a linking premise that makes the first argument deductively valid:
P1: People who text while driving are 2300% more likely to crash while driving (Richtel, 2009).
P2: Anything that increases the likelihood of crashing that much is wrong to do.
C: Therefore, it is wrong to text while driving.
Whether your argument ends up deductively valid or remains inductive, you can usually make your
argument stronger by adding a premise that links your statistic to your conclusion.
A standard statistical syllogism:
97% of Fs are G
X is an F
Therefore X is G
Can benefit, for example, from a premise that states that X is just as likely as every other F to be a G.
Appeals to Authority
As noted in the Chapter 5, appeals to authority are not always fallacious, and, in fact, are often quite
strong, especially if the matter is well established by experts. For example, even though some of the
claims of quantum physics might seem absurd (many of them do), one would be wise to accept that
quantum physics is true because of the preponderance of top authorities that have studied it carefully
and found it to be true. The reasoning appeals more than one authority in the same inference.
Nearly all physicists today accept the truth of quantum physics.
Therefore, quantum physics is very likely to be true.
If your conclusion is a moral one, about what one ought or ought not to do, then relying only on
authority will generally not be adequate because moral principles are not generally the type that can be
settled by appeals to authority. Philosophers and other scholars can offer pearls of wisdom about such
issues and may be used as authorities, but they are not likely to settle those non-objective matters
merely by assertion of authority.
Authorities often do weigh in, however, on matters of fact that are still seen as controversial. For
example:
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and likely due to human activity
(NASA, 2015).
Therefore climate change is real and likely due to human activity.
In such cases, you will want to strengthen your reasoning by studying the reasons that 3% may disagree
and determine if those counterarguments can be overcome. In all cases it is best to examine objections
to any assertion of authority and determine how objective and observable the facts of the matter are in
the given case.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, inductive inferences can be strengthened and clarified by adding
a premise that links the premise to the conclusion. Here is an example:
Neil deGrasse Tyson says that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Added premise: Neil deGrasse Tyson is a leading expert on astrophysics.
Therefore, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Inferences to the Best Explanation
Inferences to the best explanation, while inductive, can provide very strong evidence for conclusions.
The discovery that the sun is at the center of the solar system, for example, was based on this form of
reasoning. For examples, take a look at Chapter 6 of our book.
How strong such an inference is is often based on whether there exists a stronger explanation. Here is
an example that you might see on Dateline:
The deceased’s husband took out a life insurance plan for her only a month before she was
killed.
She told her sister the week before that she thought he was planning to kill her.
He was the only one with her on the weekend that it happened.
The story he told about what happened didn’t match the forensic evidence.
Therefore, the husband is probably guilty.
In such cases, we want to investigate not only the premises of this argument but also the likelihood of
an alternate explanation of the evidence.
Adding the missing premise: Here too, you can strengthen the inference by adding a premise that makes
more clear that this is the best explanation available, like this one:
Added premise: The husband being guilty is the only plausible explanation of why she died.
Making this premise explicit both can strengthen the argument, and it can also remind us to check
carefully whether the added premise is true.
A Combination of Approaches
With inductive reasoning, evidence is cumulative. The more evidence that you can find for your
conclusion, the stronger the argument becomes. It is often best to use a combination of different types
of inductive inference to arrive at your conclusion. Many simple arguments implicitly involve a
combination of statistical reasoning, appeals to authority, and inferences to the best explanation. Here
is an example,
Based on the results of scientific studies, the Center for Disease Control reports that vaccines do
not cause autism (CDC, 2015).
Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism.
This inductive inference to implicitly involve several types of inductive reasoning in the same inference:
Studies with large samples have shown that vaccines …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades