Valid Arguments as shown by Sheila and Plato

Writing Logically, Thinking Critically is the title of Sheila Cooper’s book. Chapter three of the book is related to Plato’s "Euthyphro" since they both describe what a conclusion and a premise imply in a given argument. "Euthyphro" describes the beliefs of different people and conclusions people come up with which are just examples of stereotypes. Both books challenges the conclusion made by people as to whether it is the best conclusion followed by the premise. The reasons for making a conclusion depends on the information given and the premise given which at times people do not follow. Sheila coopers book in chapter three discusses the usefulness of students writing clear points and word containing wisdom when dealing with arguments. Arguments do not require unnecessary clarification and ideas. They require a clear premise followed by a correct conclusion in support of the given premise. Sheila shows example of how students should construct arguments and what to be avoided when dealing with arguments. Plato in his "Euthyphro" shows how the dialogue is full of premises and conclusions during the argument with Socrates. Sheila reminds students that joining words should be used throughout the argument as a way of differentiating between premises and conclusions. He emphasizes on “showing the wisdom of your position” rather than simply “clarifying” an idea” (Biffle 19). Plato suggests that arguments are not complete without given correct premises supported by valid conclusions. He emphasizes on valid arguments which he suggests that they should be clearly supported by clear and comprehendible conclusions.

Both writers emphasize on the issue of hidden assumptions in constructing arguments. Hidden assumptions have an effect on the leaders of given arguments. For example in Plato’s "Euthyphro" they are used to show the difference between a given premise and conclusions made and suggest whether the argument is considered valid or invalid. There are many hidden assumptions used to express the argument between Socrates and Euthyphro. Sheila has also shown the impacts of hidden assumptions on the arguments to the reader. “If you are on alert for such deceptions, you are better able to evaluate what you read and hear as a way of protecting your interests” (Cooper 62). This shows that Sheila maintains use of hidden assumptions but at the same time alerts students to note the impacts they have to the readers. Both writers emphasize that the language used when making arguments should be easy to comprehend and learn as a way of making students understand. Both writers suggest that the given conclusion made in a certain argument should relate with the given premise. Premises must be made for a conclusion to be made too in a correct manner. An argument will be considered valid if the premises given are in accordance with the conclusion made. Thus, the conclusion in given argument is derived from the premises provided. An argument can have a given premise and a right conclusion but bears hidden assumptions like in the case of “A Guided Tour of Five Works by Plato by Christopher Biffle”. Plato describes the irony used by Socrates to overpower Euthyphro’s ideas on the issue about holiness where Euthyphro believed so much in religion. In that argument there is a premise, conclusion and a given hidden assumption which shows how valid the argument is. Plato describes a valid argument as the one with true premises, valid conclusions and hidden assumptions just like Sheila coppers does.

 

 

Works Cited

Biffle, Christopher, and Plato. A Guided Tour of Five Works by Plato: With Complete Translations of Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo (the Death Scene), and "allegory of the Cave". Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield Pub. Co, 2001. Print.

Cooper, Sheila, and Rosemary Patton. Writing Logically, Thinking Critically. , 2013. Print.