Structural Fallacies

The other day I was talking with my sister about her roommate Elizabeth.  Elizabeth is super nice, outgoing, and seems like a happy-go-lucky type of person.  However, my sister told me a secret her roommate had told her that was very personal and saddening.  Elizabeth had explained to her that ever since she was little and went on the haunted mansion ride at Disneyland, she has never been able to see herself living past the age of twenty-five.  
Sarah has tried to tell her to go talk to someone who can help her with her thoughts but Elizabeth argues that, because she can't see herself living past the age of twenty-five, she won't live past the age of twenty-five.  This is an example of affirming the consequence.  My sister has tried to tell her that just because she can't see herself growing old does not mean that she won't.  Sarah has told her that she can't see herself past this weekend only because no one can see into the future.  It is very disheartening to see someone so happy having this horrible thought to live with.

Structure of Arguments

Las Vegas has too many people.  There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.  And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million:  The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough.  We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
This statement is an argument, there are no more premises needed to support the argument.
The first, second, third, and fourth sentences are all claims.
The conclusion is stated in the last sentence.
All the claims are valid, however not all of the claims support each argument.  It is clear though that the person's main argument is that there should be an end to migration into the city.  
The conclusion is not necessarily valid because it would be impossible to stop migration into Las Vegas because it is such a big tourist spot.  The city would lose majority of its money because they earn most of their money because of the people who come for vacation.

The Hater

So I work at a coffee shop and the other day a man and his wife came through and asked for a large mocha and a soy hot chocolate.  I made the drinks according to our specific recipe.  An hour and a half later, the man and his wife came back to complain.  He went up to the other girl that I was working with and told her that their drinks were disgusting and that I had made the drinks incorrectly. 
This is a perfect example of a content fallacy confusing objective and subjective.
He was arguing with her about something that he had no idea what he was talking about.  He was getting upset with her because she was not agreeing with him and was explaining to him that I actually made the drink correctly. He was not happy that she didn't think that he was right.  
He clearly thought his argument was an objective argument because he thought that I had made the drinks incorrectly, however, his argument was obviously subjective because he does not know how we make our drinks and it was simply his opinion of our product.

Valid Arguments

A valid argument does not necessarily have to be a good argument.  In order for an argument to be valid the statement and the conclusion must be true.  There must be a connection between the premise and the conclusion.  Even if the argument has plausible premises it does not mean that the argument is valid.
For example the other day my cousin was explaining how her friend got her belly button pierced so she wanted to get hers done as well.  Her argument was valid however it is not a very good one.  It is valid because no one can tell her what she can or can't feel or want.  It is not good because she has no solid reason as to why she would need to get one.
A good valid argument i have made was directed towards my parents while telling them that i needed a car because public transportation is to slow and inconvenient for me to take to work and school.
This is a good valid argument because it is known that public transportation is unreliable and late to many locations.  I also can't be late to school or work because I would have to suffer consequences.

Strong vs. Valid

A strong argument and a valid argument are very different in the conclusion.
A strong argument does not necessarily have to have a true conclusion, but it is strong because there is a good possibility that the conclusion is in fact true.
A valid argument is one that has a true conclusion.  It is valid because there is proof and enough evidence for it to be proven as a valid argument.


A strong argument that my brother made was about his mustache.  At the moment he has a creepy mustache and I was explaining to him that he is not going to make any friends once he went back to school and he came back saying that he had a mustache last year and he made plenty of friends so he will make many more this coming quarter.  
Even though his argument has a good possibility of being true, there is still that chance where he won't make friends.


A valid argument that I made recently was about me having to go to bed early to get enough sleep because I had to wake up early for work.  This argument is valid because the conclusion is true.  I in fact have to get up at 4:00 am in order to be at work at 5:15 am.  There is no false statement in this argument, therefore the argument is valid.

The Strong

Tests for a good argument to be good:

• the premises are plausible
• the premises are more plausible than the conclusion
• the argument is valuable

All doctors in America have to have graduated from medical school.

My dad has a certificate saying that he is an eligible doctor in America.

Therefore, my dad graduated from medical school.

The argument is plausible because in America you must attend medical school in order to become a licensed doctor.  

The argument is valid because it is known around the country that in order to become a doctor you must attend and graduate from a medical school.  Also, he has written and legal proof that he is a practicing doctor in America.

However, even though this argument could be true because it is stated that my dad is a doctor in America and that he graduated from medical school, the argument has a possibility of being false because no one who is reading this argument  has seen the physical evidence or proof that my dad is a doctor.

Descriptive and Prescriptive

Eating too much sugar causes diabetes
You shouldn't eat too much candy


Descriptive and Prescriptive claims, as described in Critical Thinking written by Richard L. Epstein, are two different claims which could be confused with one another in an argument.
A descriptive claim explains what the truth is.  It is simply the facts.  There is no biased opinion with a descriptive claim or favoring to an idea in which is being discussed.  
A prescriptive claim is an opinion of some sort.  It is a comment in which the person who is speaking has a personal opinion of an object, person, or belief.  A prescriptive claim is a biased idea in which the person speaking believes is what is right and wrong.
I believe that knowing this concept of descriptive and prescriptive claims can very well assist someone in an argument.  Knowing the difference between what is fact and what is simply just an opinion, will better the chances of not only knowing what is worth arguing about, but also knowing how to win in an argument.

Too Vague or Not Too Vague? That Is The Question

So last night my brother, Ryan, took my dog Oscar for a walk around the neighborhood.  They were gone for probably an hour to an hour and a half.  When they got back Ryan was going on about the route he took and how Oscar was slowing him down on.  So after Ryan talked with us for a bit him and the dog went upstairs.  My mom and I were talking and she made the comment that "he looks like he was worked on that walk."  First I laughed at her because she used the word "worked," but then I thought to myself, 'who is she even talking about?' So I began to bother her a little bit and ask her who she was talking about, what she meant by worked, and gave her a hard time.  Obviously I knew what she meant by worked, but I still didn't really know who she was talking about.  The sentence is too vague because she was not clear about who she was speaking about and what she was talking about.