you are awsome!!! this is actually not boring because you make me think deeper so i dont get bored, thank you so much ,you are my life saver for today because i think i am going to pass my test
Kevin - I've always heard there are three main/basic components to an argument: The Premise (idea), The Warrant(s) (support) & The Claim(s) (conclusion) - You seem to be combining the Premise & Warrants - It clearly works and your explanation seems more succinct, but can you share some thoughts about my comment just the same? Thanks Kevin
Of all the possible examples you could have used, this s the one you start with. Yes, well done. I was looking for exercises to use with my students. Nonetheless, . . . . .
The difference is between arguments and argumentation. In this video, he is just showing the basic components for an argument. In later videos he talks about what makes good arguments, which will include the warrant.
Why is 3rd point actually not the conclusion instead of the 1st? -The enemy is in arms -therefore we must decrease spending in other sectors - because we need Money for weapons. So Why is the reaction to the Premise the conclusion Rather than the reason for the reaction, that is "we need the additional money.."?
Because the third point is a reason supporting the claim made in the first. What claim is the argument making? That we need to spend less money on space exploration. Why? Because the additional money can be used to purchase military equipment.
Quick query, I understand the standard form and could identify the premises and conclusions in this video. However, when reading longer texts do the premises have to be verbatim sentences from the argument or can they be paraphrased into more succinct statements? Great video, really helpful!
i am taking the power of critical thinking course, so it will help me a lot so would you please explain about some and only mean? plz thank you and i like our explanation it is really helpful.
can someone help me with spotting the premise and conclusion with this 'the three Service Academies argue that combat training is by statute and policy for men only and that therefore they can properly exclude all women'
funky seagull you may not need this now but: Premise: Combat training is by statute and policy for men only. Conclusion: they can properly exclude women
Michael, I truly appraciate the response, but your answer seems almost like a distinction without a difference. After further research I've concluded there is some flexibility when discussing the components of an argument.
