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.
When evaluating a critical essay, it's important to consider which evaluation criteria will best suit your analysis. In this case, you believe that the passage is a non-deductive argument. To further assess this, you can employ various evaluation criteria such as convergent argument, inductive generalization, and identifying fallacies.
First, let's clarify the difference between non-deductive and inductive arguments. Non-deductive arguments are those where the premises, even if true, do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. On the other hand, inductive arguments aim to establish a probable or likely truth of the conclusion based on the truth or support of the premises.
Convergent arguments, also known as cumulative arguments, involve presenting multiple premises that independently support a conclusion. These premises reinforce each other, and their combined weight strengthens the argument. Counter-considerations can be used to assess the strength of the premises and explore potential objections.
Inductive generalization criteria, as you mentioned, involve using specific examples or evidence to draw a broader conclusion. This may include incorporating the poll results cited in the passage, as they serve as supporting evidence. However, keep in mind that using inductive generalization criteria requires ensuring representative and unbiased samples.
Regarding the use of fallacies, it's essential to identify any logical errors or misleading reasoning within the argument. Pointing out fallacies can help highlight weaknesses and clarify the overall strength of the essay.
In terms of using multiple criteria simultaneously, it's certainly possible to apply different evaluation methods to an argument. However, it's crucial to use them coherently and not let them conflict with one another. You may choose the evaluation criteria that align best with your analysis and focus on those, while still considering any overlapping aspects.
To summarize, when evaluating the critical essay by Stephen Chapman, consider employing convergent argument analysis, inductive generalization criteria (including the supporting evidence provided), and identifying any fallacies present. Choose the evaluation criteria that best suit your analysis and focus on them while ensuring coherence between the selected methods.