What are the three ways to test moral argument?
Wraight (2011) argues that there are three main ways of testing a moral argument….Testing moral arguments
- Factual accuracy.
- Good will.
How do you write an argumentative refutation?
The refutation paragraphs typically have:
- Introduce the Opposing Argument.
- Acknowledge parts of the opposition that are valid.
- Counter the Argument.
- Introduce the Conclusion.
What is necessary to have a good moral argument present?
A standard moral argument has at least one premise that asserts a general moral principle, at least one premise that is a nonmoral claim, and a conclusion that is a moral statement. Often a moral premise in a moral argument is implicit.
How do you refute an argument?
Four Step Refutation
- Step One: Signal. Identify the claim you are answering.
- Step Two: State. Make your (counter) claim.
- Step Three: Support. Reference evidence or explain the justification.
- Step Four: Summarize. Explain the importance of your argument.
What is the best method for evaluating moral premises?
The best method for evaluating moral premises is by treating it as deductive.
What is probably the best advice for anyone trying to evaluate an argument?
Probably the best advice for anyone trying to identify arguments is to look for the premises first. Some common premise indicator words are because, since, and given that. An explanation tells us why or how something is the case, but an argument gives us reasons for believing that something is the case.
What must you do to analyze an argument?
To analyze an author’s argument, take it one step at a time:
- Briefly note the main assertion (what does the writer want me to believe or do?)
- Make a note of the first reason the author makes to support his/her conclusion.
- Write down every other reason.
- Underline the most important reason.
Are the premises of a cogent argument always true?
Yes, by definition a cogent argument’s premises are true. No, again by definition, a cogent argument’s conclusion may not be true. It is a strong argument from true premises that aims to support its conclusion as probable. A valid argument may have a false conclusion – but only if its premises are false.