Write a paper on one of the arguments below. Make sure the paper reconstructs the argument and only the argument (no unnecessary or idle premises). Then object to the argument. Your paper should: Begi

Write a paper on one of the arguments below. Make sure the paper reconstructs the argument and only the argument (no unnecessary or idle premises). Then object to the argument. Your paper should:

1. Begin with a brief summary of the argument.
2. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is valid.
3. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a subconclusion. If it is a subconclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.
4. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.
5. Deny a premise: briefly state which premise you deny and explain why you think it is false.
6. Turn your reasoning into a standard form argument. Make sure that the conclusion of the argument is ‘Not (P)’, where (P) is the premise you chose to deny. Make sure your argument is valid.
7. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a subconclusion. If it is a subconclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.
8. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.
9. Add a concluding paragraph where you address the following question: does your objection work? Or can the proponent of the original argument find a premise to reject?

“Circular Arguments”

Circular arguments – arguments where the conclusion is included in the premises can be good arguments. All circular arguments are valid: it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false because the premises include the conclusion. Also, some circular arguments have all true premises. We can then see that circular arguments can be deductively strong arguments. And maybe circular arguments are unconvincing, but “unconvincing” is a problem of rhetorical power, not rational strength. We should just agree that, from the perspective of rational strength, some circular arguments are perfectly good arguments.