In the Epstein text, the author explains that some arguments are strong and valid, they just need an additional premise in order to make it completely clear. Without a plausible premise, the argument cannot be considered strong. Without a strong argument, the statement is ineffective. An example of an argument that lacks a plausible premise is:
“You should take a multivitamin everyday. They’re good for you.”
This statement is true; multivitamins are good for you. But how? “Because they’re good for you” is too vague. The first sentence of this example needs a plausible premise and support in order to make it a strong argument. If a sentence such as “The body cannot naturally produce some vitamins that are important for your body, which you can receive through a multivitamin” was inserted into this example, it would become a strong argument because it is explaining exactly why you should take a multivitamin daily.
What you wrote about in your blog and what Epstein talks about in the text, is very common and happens all the time. Sometimes someone could have a good point and a valid argument, but it could still be a little vague. So in order to make it less ambiguous, you repair the argument by adding an additional premise. I really liked your example, because if I were to see or hear that claim, I too, would ask the same question. How are multivitamins good for you? This is where the added premise would be useful, in telling me how exactly multivitamins are good for your health.
ReplyDelete