Access Millions of academic & study documents

Arguments Assumption

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Philosophy
Type
Homework
Showing Page:
1/3
Arguments:
1. Obviously, abortion is not murder. The soul does not enter the body until the first breath
is taken. Up to this point, the fetus is a biological entity only.
C: Abortion is not murder.
P: The soul does not enter the body until the first breath is taken.
P: The fetus is a biological entity.
(Implicit Assumption): A fetus isn't considered living until it has a soul (?) => I'm not sure if this
is correct, or it the I.A. is when the fetus/body takes its first 'breath'.
I would point this out as the Implicit Assumption as well. The argument, as it stands, reaches the
conclusion that abortion is not murder, primarily, because of the “soul” entering the body. The
breath is only a symbolic and arbitrary moment. If the soul was perceived to enter the body at
another point in time, then that would be the place where the argument would need to make the
differentiation between murder or not. If say, the soul entered the body at conception, there
would be no need to call upon the first breath for reference, as it would not change the
conclusion.
2. Response:
C: Figuring out the conclusion has been difficult for me since I'm not sure if it's the first
sentence, or if it's somewhere else in the argument... however, I do remember reading that
rhetorical questions should be taken as premises, so I'm a bit stumped on this one.
P: Coke's coercive nature can remove blood from concrete.
P: It will dissolve meat and bone in two days.
P: The active ingredient is phosphoric acid.
P: Its pH level is 2.8.
P: It will dissolve a nail in about four days.
For this one, I would have to go with the rhetorical question for the conclusion. Though they are
rarely used to make a strong argument, due to the subjective nature of this tool, rhetorical
questions can serve as both conclusions or premises. It’s not very straightforward, though,
because the answer of the reader can vary from what the author intended. In this paragraph,
though, there is nothing else to link the negative effects listed into an argument.
Also, if you take any other premise and make it a conclusion, you would not see them work
together very nicely; especially when you consider that you would have to include the rhetorical

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/3
question as a premise for each. You have no choice but to set that as your conclusion, even
though it was faultily depicted. In this case, you have a weird scenario, though, where both the
conclusion and an assumption are both implicit. You are deducing, after all, that the conclusion
is to not drink coke because of the perceived negativity of the situations mentioned. (Here, you
see the implicit assumption in action; all the descriptions of coke need to be perceived as
dangerous for human consumption for the argument to be made.) But, the author could certainly
be implying otherwise, for whatever reason. Truth is, you can never know for certain because it
was not directly stated, only hinted at in the opening question. If you rewrite it, though, in the
form of a statement, it does tie things together.
C: You should stop drinking coke.
P: Removes blood.
P: Has phosphoric acid at 2.8 in the pH scale.
P: Dissolves nails in 4 days.
IA: These characteristics make Coca Cola harmful for human consumption.
It works, man. But, if you are concerned about using a rhetorical question, you can make the
conclusion another: “Coca Cola is harmful for human consumption.” In this scenario, though,
your conclusion is absolutely implicit. It is not even presented as one of two possibilities, as a
rhetorical question will eventually narrow down to. And, in this case, I would place the IA like
this:
C: Coca Cola is harmful for human consumption.
P: People still drink coke.
P: Removes blood.
P: Has Phosphoric Acid at 2.8 in the pH scale.
P: Dissolves nails in 4 days.
IA: These characteristics are significantly damaging for those who drink Coke .
In this case, though, you’d be appealing more to chemistry than anything else if you were to
argue from this route. Just because there’s phosphoric acid in Coke does not mean that it is at a
concentration that will dissolve your esophagus upon contact. The existence of these
characteristics alone do not help determine a product’s danger. It’s still a valid interpretation of
the argument as a whole, though.
Finally, and because I read about the inclusion of sub-conclusions until now:

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/3

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Arguments: 1. Obviously, abortion is not murder. The soul does not enter the body until the first breath is taken. Up to this point, the fetus is a biological entity only. C: Abortion is not murder. P: The soul does not enter the body until the first breath is taken. P: The fetus is a biological entity. (Implicit Assumption): A fetus isn't considered living until it has a soul (?) => I'm not sure if this is correct, or it the I.A. is when the fetus/body takes its first 'breath'. I would point this out as the Implicit Assumption as well. The argument, as it stands, reaches the conclusion that abortion is not murder, primarily, because of the “soul” entering the body. The breath is only a symbolic and arbitrary moment. If the soul was perceived to enter the body at another point in time, then that would be the place where the argument would need to make the differentiation between mur ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents