posted by nan .
I am struggling with deciding which evaluation criteria best fits for writing a critical essay on the passage written by Stephen Chapman...Legal Drugs Unlikely to Foster Nation of Zombies. I believe that this is a non-deductive argument. I was considering it to be a convergent-argument and writing some counter-considerations or evaluating it using the inductive generalization criteria but the premises I am using don't include the poll results he sites. However, I do evaluate them as they are his supporting evidence. Also, there are some fallacies. But truly I am confused because it appears that all of the criteria's overlap each other. Any help is much appreciated. thanks PS. Can an argument be both inductive and convergent or do you decide which method is best and use just one.