While reading through the examples, I was having a bit of a hard time trying to come up with one at first. But eventually I realized that all I needed to do was simplify things, and just try to make an example out of just whatever random thing I happened to be thinking about. So after browsing a car forum, I came up with this:
Example: Fast cars get ticketed. A Dodge Viper is a fast car. If you buy a Viper, you will get a ticket.
Analysis: The premise is plausible because often with very fast sports cars, the owners will be tempted to go over the speed limit, which often results in a speeding ticket. The conclusion is bad, because not all people who end up buying Vipers will receive speeding tickets, but the premise of the argument is sound, because a majority of the people that buy fast cars do get tickets. The argument is strong, because the premise holds some truth, but it is not a valid argument because of the fact that not all Viper owners receive speeding tickets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like how you simplified this example. I was able to clearly see how it is an invalid argument because, of course, not everyone who buys a fast car will get a ticket. However, it is a somewhat sound argument because the premises are true and believable. If you were to have this argument with someone, though, I don't think they would agree. They'd probably prove that your argument is invalid by saying, "I just won't drive fast." Or, "I know an officer who gets me out of any ticket." Both of these ways can show how the argument is invalid. Thanks for showing it so clearly!
ReplyDelete