By referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "purely programmatic" (line 49) in nature, the author mo...

Ohemaa on May 25, 2018

Example 12

Since the argument was flawed, shouldn't we be trying to find an argument that will make the conclusion valid?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Christopher on June 6, 2018

@Ohemaa, Yes, although I'm going to modify the phrasing you're using a bit. You're not trying to spot an "argument" that will make the conclusion valid but rather an additional premise that will complete the logical progression. I say that because it's tempting to look for a secondary conclusion to add weight to the original conclusion, but what you actually need to find is the missing piece of the logical puzzle.

So you know that you're either rich or poor, so there's no in between, and you're either honest or dishonest, no in between. All poor farmers are honest means that if you're a dishonest farmer, you're rich farmer. However, you're missing a step before you can get to the conclusion that "all rich farmers are dishonest." Add in the premise that "every honest farmer is poor," and you've completed your logical puzzle.

Make sense?