Identifying Flaws: Tests For Premises And Evidence

Hey everyone! Let's dive into something super important when we're talking about arguments and how to spot if they're legit or, well, not so much. We're going to explore the general tests that apply to both premises and evidence. These are basically the checks we do to make sure the building blocks of an argument are solid. But, spoiler alert, we're also going to pinpoint the one that doesn't fit the bill. So, buckle up, grab your thinking caps, and let's get started!

Internal Consistency: Making Sure Your Story Adds Up

Okay, first up, we've got internal consistency. Think of this as the 'does your story make sense?' test. Is everything you're saying within the argument, all the pieces, fitting together nicely? Does one part contradict another? For example, if someone claims, "I saw a red car speeding down the road, and it was a blue Ferrari," that's a problem, right? Red cars and blue Ferraris don't exactly jive together in the same statement. That's a classic example of internal inconsistency. The details clash. When we assess a claim, we're really looking to see if all the arguments are aligning. The argument must be free of contradictions. The statements should not be contradictory, vague, or ambiguous.

Internal consistency is crucial because if an argument has an internal contradiction, it instantly becomes shaky ground. The argument may be valid, but still be considered a bad argument because it does not make sense. It is very difficult to build a strong case when one part of the argument is tearing down another part. An internally consistent argument is one where all the parts fit together harmoniously. There are no logical contradictions, no statements that cancel each other out. Everything supports a unified, coherent picture. This is crucial for both premises and evidence. We check if the premises are internally consistent with each other. For example, if one premise states that all cats are dogs and another premise states that my pet is a cat, that would be an internal inconsistency. We also examine the evidence. Are the pieces of evidence telling the same story, or do they contradict each other? Any contradictions can undermine the entire argument. If there is no internal consistency the argument will likely not succeed, as the premises or evidence will be weak, and the conclusion, invalid.

So, when you're evaluating an argument, whether it's the one you're making or the one someone else is trying to sell you, always ask: 'Does this all add up?' Are there any conflicting statements? Are there any hidden contradictions? If you spot them, you've found a crack in the foundation. Make sure the argument is logically sound, and that all premises are true and consistent with one another to ensure the argument makes sense. If there are any contradictory statements, it may be necessary to find stronger evidence, or remove a statement from the argument.

External Consistency: Does It Jibe with Reality?

Alright, next up we've got external consistency. This test is all about whether the argument aligns with what we already know to be true about the world. Think of it like this: does the argument's claims match with existing knowledge, facts, and well-established theories? If it flies in the face of established facts, we've got a problem. For instance, if someone claims they can fly without any equipment, we'd immediately question the external consistency of that claim. It goes against everything we understand about physics and human capabilities. The claim is likely false because it fails the test of external consistency.

External consistency means your argument's claims are in sync with the broader world and the evidence must correspond with the real world. Does the argument fit with established scientific principles? Does it make sense in light of what we know about history, current events, and generally accepted knowledge? If an argument is externally inconsistent, it is likely flawed because it is not based on reality. This is an important test for both premises and evidence. Consider the premises. Are they consistent with widely accepted facts? If a premise contradicts a well-established scientific theory, then we should be skeptical of the entire argument. Now consider the evidence. Does the evidence support the argument? Or is there evidence that conflicts with it? If the evidence is not externally consistent, it can cast doubt on the argument, and make the conclusion invalid. The key takeaway is this: A good argument doesn't just make sense internally; it also makes sense in the context of the world around us. So, always ask yourself: 'Does this argument fit with what I already know?' If it doesn't, dig deeper and find out why. Do not accept an argument that does not agree with the reality of the world!

Expert Support: Backing Up Your Claims with Credible Sources

Okay, here's the third test: expert support. This is all about whether the argument is supported by credible sources and authorities in the relevant field. Think of it as having the backing of the pros. Do the claims have the support of experts? Do recognized authorities agree with the assertions? If not, the argument is likely weak, no matter how much it makes sense on the surface. The strength of the argument depends on the validity of the sources.

Expert support is about leaning on the knowledge and findings of specialists who have the background, expertise, and authority to speak on the topic. For an argument to be strong, it should be backed by credible sources. This applies to both premises and evidence. Are the premises supported by expert opinions, research findings, and scientific consensus? If the premises aren't, the conclusion may not be credible. Does the evidence come from reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies, reputable news organizations, or established institutions? The more you can back up your claims with the expertise of others, the stronger your argument will be. Expert support does not always prove an argument is true, but it does strengthen its credibility and reliability. When someone claims something, the argument is more persuasive when authorities agree with the argument. When evaluating an argument, always ask: 'Who is supporting these claims, and are they qualified to do so?' If the answer is yes, then the argument is probably more reliable. If the answer is no, then the argument may need more support.

Relevancy: Staying on Topic and Making a Point

Now, here's where we find our odd one out: relevancy. Relevancy is all about whether the premises and evidence are actually connected to the conclusion. Does the information offered actually support the claim being made? Irrelevant information does not help the argument. Relevancy is a super important aspect of building a solid argument, but it's not a general test that applies equally to both premises and evidence. The test is more about the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. Whether or not premises or evidence is relevant to an argument, is important, it's not a universal test like the others.

Relevancy determines if the premises and evidence are directly related to the conclusion of the argument. Are the facts, examples, or data presented actually relevant to the point that's being made? Or are they just distractions, irrelevant details that don't help prove the point? Irrelevant information can confuse the argument, and distract the listener from what the real point is. Relevancy focuses on the connection between the evidence and the conclusion, and if they align. In a good argument, the premises should be directly relevant to the conclusion. The evidence must support the claims and should be focused on the topic. The other three tests (internal consistency, external consistency, and expert support) apply to each premise and each piece of evidence, Relevancy is more of a holistic test. It looks at the argument as a whole and asks, 'Does all of this actually support the conclusion?' So, while relevancy is super important, it's not a test you apply to the premises and evidence in the same way you test for consistency or seek expert support. Instead, it's a test of the relationship between them.

The Answer

So, after all that, the answer is C. Relevancy. While it's crucial for a good argument, it's not a general test applied to the premises and evidence in the same way as internal/external consistency or expert support. Relevancy is more about how the premises and evidence relate to each other and to the conclusion.

Hope this helps you guys spot the good arguments from the not-so-good ones! Keep questioning, keep thinking, and happy debating!