susan dobra
phil 002

Half-hour draft #2: Evaluation of "Ask Auntie Establishment" Letter

Now that I've found the syllogism that is the essence of Auntie Establishment's argument, I'm ready to start evaluating it to see whether I  consider it a good argument (a "cogent" one) or a bad one (a "fallacious" argument)--or somewhere in between.

The first question I have to ask is, "Are the premises reliable?" To answer this question, I take the premises one at a time.  The first premise is  "All things that are ["a question of being willing to ask probing questions and hunt for information from more than one source."] require [going to the original sources and/or resorting to "your own critical thinking"], and I think it  is reliable because it makes sense to say that anything that requires asking questions and hunting down information require critical thinking and that will often but not always (because you can't always)include going to the original sources.

The second premise is  [Finding the most accurate, unbiased news] is ["a question of being willing to ask probing questions and hunt for information from more than one source."], and I think it, too, is reliable because it is my experience that limiting yourself to one news source limits you to the biases of that source and what they consider important or not important.

The next question I need to ask is "Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?" I'll also answer this for each separate premise. For the first, yes, it is relevant to the conclusion because it has to do with what kinds of things require " going to the original sources and/or resorting to "your own critical thinking." And for the second, yes, it is relevant to the conclusion because it has to do with what is required to "[find] the most accurate, unbiased news."

"Are the premises, taken together, adequate to force the conclusion?" This is the third question for evaluation that I have to answer, and for this one, I take both premises together.  I say, yes, they are adequate to come to a definite conclusion, because I don't think they are leaving anything important out.

Now, I ask the final and most difficult question: "Is the argument valid?" Validity, in logic, means that the categories that the argument is made up of fit together structurally in a way that makes the conclusion definite. There are many ways to determine if an argument is valid (including diagramming it in what are called Venn Diagrams), but the way I do it is by applying three simple tests that, if the argument passes all three, identify it as a valid argument.  

In order to test for validity, however, I have to first translate each claim into a "standard categorical claim."  In other words, each claim has to be made to fit into one of the four standard forms, A, E, I , or O:
A: All ____ are ____
E: No ___ are ____
I: Some ____ are ____
O: Some ____ are not ______
Believe it or not, every claim in the universe can be made to fit into one of these four standard forms. Therefore, each of the claims of my syllogism will be able to be translated into one of the four forms.  Amazingly, when I do the translations, I discover that all three claims of my syllogism are "A" claims
All [things that are "a question of being willing to ask probing questions and hunt for information from more than one source."] are [things that require going to the original sources and/or resorting to "your own critical thinking"]

All [acts that are finding the most accurate, unbiased news] are ["things that are a question of being willing to ask probing questions and hunt for information from more than one source."]

Therefore
All [acts that are finding the most accurate, unbiased news] are [things that require going to the original sources and/or resorting to "your own critical thinking"]

Now, it's time to apply the 3 tests for validity:

Test One: Are the number of negative claims in the conclusion the same as the number of negative claims in the premises?  Yes, there are zero negative claims in the conclusion and zero in the premises (because the conclusion and both premises are "All" claims, they are all "affirmative" claims rather than "negative" ones, like the E or O claim would be)

Test Two: Is the middle term distributed in at least one of the premises? Yes, the middle term is ["things that are a question of being willing to ask probing questions and hunt for information from more than one source."] because it appears in both premises but not the conclusion (that's the definition of a "middle term") and it is distributed in the first premise (because it is in the S position of an A-claim, and that is a "distributed" position, meaning the term applies to all the things in a particular category).

Test Three: Are any terms that are  distributed in the premise also distributed in the premises?  Yes, the term [acts that are finding the most accurate, unbiased news] (because it is in the S position of an A-claim) is distributed in the conclusion and it is also distributed in the second premise (because it is in the S position of an A-claim).

So, the syllogism is valid. And, since its premises are also reliable, relevant and adequate, I say that Auntie Establishment's argument is a cogent argument.

And I agree with it, too.