Responding to peers

This assignment is just responding to peers on the discussions. There are two discussions both have post from two peers. What I have highlighted is how you respond to the post and what is in RED is the peers post. These are short answers and answering what I have highlighted. I do not need a title page but I do need references if you use any sources. Below is the assignment

Discussion 1

Read the arguments presented by your classmates, and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. In particular, if you believe that their argument is invalid, explain a way in which it would be possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If you believe that their argument has a false premise, explain why a reasonable person might take it to be false. Finally, see if you can help them to improve their argument. How can they alter their premises so that all of them are true? What might they change in order to make their argument valid?

Peer 1

Argument- Should universal health care be available to all regardless of their ability to pay in the same way other services (such as education) are available to all for free?

Premises 1- Everyone in today’s society is healthy.

Premises 2- Everyone in today’s society has lots of money.

Premises 3-  There are no hospitals or doctor’s in today’s society.

Conclusion- The premises leading to my conclusion would be if…. If everyone was healthy, if everyone had lot’s of money and if there were no doctor’s or hospital’s. If all of these cases were true then it would lead to the conclusion that no one would need health care and if they did then they would have lot’s of money to pay for it. This would be the format of an argument that is deductively valid.

Peer 2

Argument: Torturing a person is permissible

Premise 1: Torture is cruel and unusually punishment

Premise 2: Torture is justified when trying to retrieve information

Premise 3: Torture is ethical in saving the life of a victim 

Conclusion: Torture is cruel and is considered unusual punishment, but can be justified in certain situations that can help with saving the lives of another person who may be held against their will or captured. Torture is also considered ethical when trying to gain potential information from a suspect or terrorist to prevent a drastic attack or harm of a person or persons from occurring.

All three of my premises are valid statements that support my conclusion and make them ethical and true. Supporting information confirms that my premises supports the details presented to address the argument I am trying to make.

Discussion 2

Reply to your classmates. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.

Peer 1

He won the election. So he will be the next governor.

Premise #1- Andrew Cuomo ran for governor of New York. Premise #2- He won the election'Conclusion- So he will be the next governor of New York.

I have created a premise that makes this argument true which attempt to prove the conclusion. This is a deductive argument from definition making it clear that he ran for governor, won the election and so he will be the next governor, meaning that the two premises are true which makes the conclusion be also true. 

Peer 2

Argument: In order to but a car you need money. But to have money you need a job. But to go to a job you will need to be able to get to work. So you will not be able to buy a car.   Premises 1: Buying a car takes money. Premises 2: To have money you need a job. Premises 3: Going to and from work takes a car. We conclude that in order for you to buy a car you need a job to have money to buy the car but to have money you need a job. Therefore in order to get to and from workn you will have to buy a car. So you will have to began work in order to buy a car.