NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... or leave friends, children, or anyone else they love behind. Therefore, C Chivalry is alive. A. R. G.
Conditions Conductive Argument P 1 A- known to be a priori true R- positive relevance P 2 A- matter of common knowledge R- positive relevance P 3 A- matter of common knowledge R- positive relevance P 4 A-known to a priori true R- positive relevance P 5 A- matter of common knowledge R- positive relevance P 1 - 5 G- all grounds for cogent argument Counter Argument P 1 A- Highly refutable, not acceptable R- positive relevance P 2 A- premise is refutable on the basis of common knowledge R- positive relevance P 3 A- highly refutable R- positive relevance P 4 A- vague or ambiguous, not acceptable R- positive relevance P 5 A- begs the question R- positive relevance P 1 - 5 G- all grounds for argument Argument # 3 Inductive Reasoning P 1 On an average day in North Carolina, 100 women are victims of rape or attempted rape and many others are battered, predominantly by men that they know. P 2 The population is bigger in California than in North Carolina. So probably, P 3 On an average day in the California, over 100 women are victims of rape or attempted rape and many others are battered, predominantly by men that they know. P 4 Rape is a form of assault to a woman, and assaulting a woman shows no respect for a woman. P 5 Respecting a woman is a rule under the code of chivalry. Therefore, C Chivalry is dead.
A. R. G. Conditions First, we will test the premises of the sub argument for acceptability. P 1 is acceptable based on testimony. P 2 is acceptable based on common knowledge.
Next, we will test for relevance. Both of the premises are positively relevant to the conclusion. Finally, we test for good grounds. Both premises being acceptable and relevant, therefore, there are good grounds for the conclusion.
Now we will move on to the whole argument. P 4 is acceptable based on common knowledge. P 5 is acceptable a priori based on the code of chivalry. The sub argument, P 4, and P 5 are all positively relevant to the conclusion. There are also good grounds provided for the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is cogent.
Counter Argument P 1 60 % of men polled at Cal Poly open doors for women. So probably, P 3 Around 60 % of men in San Luis Obispo open doors for women. P 4 Opening a door for a woman is a sign of respect. P 5 Showing respect for a woman is a rule under the code of chivalry.
Therefore, C Chivalry is not dead. The previous argument also uses inductive reasoning. We are applying the statistics we found true at Cal Poly to the population of San Luis Obispo. We feel that this sample is representative because we polled a total of 68 people at various locations on campus, including the recreation center, the library, the lighthouse, the campus store, the university union, and the business building breeze way. We also feel that this sample can apply to the population of San Luis Obispo because Cal Poly students account for a large amount of the population of the city. A.
R. G. Conditions Now we must take the argument through A. R. G. First, we deal with the sub argument.
P 1 is acceptable because of testimony. It is also positively relevant to the conclusion and as a result of the above paragraph it also provides good grounds for the conclusion. Now we move on to the whole argument. P 4 is acceptable based on common knowledge. P 5 is acceptable a priori based on the code of chivalry.
The sub argument, P 4, and P 5 are all positively relevant to the conclusion. Based on the fact that all the premises are acceptable and relevant to the conclusion, there are good grounds. This argument is also cogent. Argument # 4 Analogy "The president of the United States is a citizen who is entitled to represent the people of the United States and we look up to him as a role model. Recently, the president lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. If our president lies, then it shows us that it is okay to lie.
Lying goes against the code of chivalry. Therefore, seeing the president's actions, chivalry is dead. P 1 The president is a citizen who is entitled to represent the people of the United States. P 2 We, as citizens, look up to the President as a role model. P 3 The president lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. (Christian Science Monitor) For our purposes, P 4 Lying is knowingly not telling the absolute truth. P 5 If our president lies then it shows us that it is okay to lie.
P 6 Lying goes against the code of chivalry. (Refer to the code of chivalry. ) Therefore, C Chivalry is dead. A. R. G. Conditions As far as linking goes, P 1 P 2 and P 3 are linked and P 4 is a sub argument. Then P 4 P 5 and P 6 are linked leading to the conclusion.
P 1 definitely passes the A condition because it is common knowledge that the president represents the United States. It is positively relevant to P 2 because it ties into the idea that because our president lied he is not chivalrous, therefore chivalry being dead. It also passes the G condition because it is linked with the other premises that support the sub argument. P 2 is also acceptable because once again it is common knowledge. It is negatively relevant to P 3, but passes on the G because it offers support to the sub argument. P 3 is acceptable because it is taken from a newspaper.
It is positively relevant to the sub argument, P 4 and passes on the G due to the fact that it offers support to the conclusion. P 4 is a sub argument, and because it's premises pass the A condition is automatically passes the A condition. It is positively relevant to P 5 because it is talking about lying which ties directly with the conclusion. Believing this premise true and bringing it together with the other premises, it passes the G condition.
P 5 is a little wishy washy, so we will pass it provisionally, hoping that the R and G condition pass. It is positively relevant to P 6 and it passes on the G condition due to the fact it is talking about the connection between lying, the president, and the code of chivalry. P 6 is acceptable on the basis that it was a premise defended elsewhere. It is positively relevant to the conclusion and passes on the grounds when taken collectively with all the other premises. So our argument, passing all the proper conditions, is cogent. Counter Argument "The president of the United States is a representative of the people.
His main job is to guide this country into economic prosperity and solve many of the current problems in the United States today. We as citizens, have no right to pry into the personal life of the president and should only be concerned with his governmental duties. Therefore, your argument (previous example) is unacceptable. (Deductive Reasoning) P 1 The president of the United States is a representative of the people. P 2 His main job is to guide this country into economic prosperity and solve the current problems in the United States today. P 3 We have no right to pry into the personal life of the president.
P 4 We should only be concerned with the president's governmental duties. Therefore, C Your argument is unacceptable. A. R. G. Conditions P 1 and P 2 are premises that could stand on their own.
P 3 and P 4 are definitely connected because they offer the most support for my conclusion. As far as the A. R. G. conditions, P 1 is acceptable because it is common knowledge. It is positively relevant to P 2, supporting the fact that he guides our country.
It also passes on the grounds because it goes towards supporting the conclusion. P 2 is acceptable because again it is based on common knowledge. It is definitely relevant to P 3. But, whether it is positively relevant depends on your own opinion.
And it passes on grounds because it is offering support for the conclusion. P 3 it pretty much an opinion and depending on your own views would depend on whether or not to choose it to be acceptable. It is definitely relevant to the conclusion and it counts in favor of P 4 so it is positively relevant to P 4. Pushing the acceptability aside, if we belief this to be true then it passes on the G.
P 4 passes on the same conditions and in the same way as P 3 did. P 4 is based on opinion and it depends on your own views In Final Analysis As one can clearly see, the examples that we provided clearly establish the resolution that chivalry is dead. We provided clear and cogent arguments, which demonstrate that the Chivalric Code is something of the past that died out a long time ago. The world has outgrown the moral codes that we once lived by. Small hints and broad generalizations of chivalry can still be applied to everyday life, but the practice of chivalry is and has been dead for a long Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: common knowledge, monica lewinsky, inductive reasoning, counter argument, economic prosperity
Research essay sample on Monica Lewinsky Inductive Reasoning
