Firstly her arguments are not cogent nor sound for me to be convince. From paragraph 2,
which is a deductive argument, we have phrase the paragraph into premise and conclusion.
As seen,
Premise 1: Teenagers tend to have a more rash, abrasive and impulsive nature.
Premise 2: Teenager’s brain controls physical movement, vision and the senses
Premise 3: Often hear of cases where teenagers engage in fights, staring incidents, and all sorts of trouble
Conclusion: All teenagers like to create troubles. Therefore, all teenagers need to be sent to boot camp
It is valid but the premises is not true as we do not often hear cases of teenagers engaging in fights . We sometimes do hear the good behaviour of teenagers. Therefore, it is unsound which makes this argument not true.
From paragraph 3, we conclude that it is an inductive argument.
Premise 1: Her 4 sons who are teenagers are beyond control.
premise 2: Teenagers are students.
Premise 3: Students beyond control has to be sent to boot camp.
Premise 4: Students who pass out from the boot camp end up well-behaved and aligned to their parents’ wishes.
Conclusion: Some form of discipline would do them good. Therefore, all teenagers need to be sent to boot camp.
The strength of the inductive argument is weak as Mdm Soh just based on her 4 sons to determine that all teenagers are beyond control. The premise is not true as not all students are beyond control. Therefore, it is not cogent as it is not convincing enough
From paragraph 4, it is an inductive argument.
Premise 1: Friend’s son recently picked up smoking because of the friends he hangs out with.
Premise 2: Another friend’s son has taken to spouting profanities when he talks to his parents.
Premise 3: He and his friends share the same vocabulary.
Conclusion: Teenagers are so susceptible to peer pressure.
Based on the premise, it is true to a certain extend as it is based on two sets of children where we don’t know about their background of their parents and the way the parents teach them. The strength of the inductive argument is low as might be influenced by their parents behavior at home. Therefore, it is cogent as the children might be influenced by parent instead of peer pressure.
Therefore, with all these point. I strongly disagree with her argument.
Theres a missing premise to link the premises to conclusion for your paragraph 4 - hakim
ReplyDeleteGreat job trying to explain in your own words for the 3 arguments. There was a mild confusion in your words like: 'her arguments are not cogent nor sound'. If it is a deductive argument there should not be cogent, and if it is inductive argument there should not be any sound.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArgument 3-
ReplyDeleteHow does the background of the child, parents for this case, affect whether they should be in bootcamp? We might agree that peer pressure may not be the only thing that directly contributes to the child's behaviour but I feel that there is no link to the main point, which is the bootcamp.
For the first argument,
ReplyDelete-is the argument unsound due to the premises being false or is the premises false because the argument is unsound?
-why do you say that the argument is deductive?
For the second argument,
-for " premise 2: Teenagers are students. " , is this found in the letter?
-what is meant by some form of discipline?
For the third argument,
-strength of inductive argument is not based on the background of individuals.
-if the strength is low , why is it cogent?