Valid and warranted are synonyms for justifiable under law or another principle. Inductive arguments can make use of the concept of validity because it denotes that something is justified by a rule or principle. The word warranted is used to convey assurance of something in deductive arguments. Conditional assertions, which assert that the truth of one fact necessitates the truth of another, are frequently used in arguments. Because conditional statements typically consist of two parts, one of which starts with it and the other with then, they can also be thought of as if-then statements. A promise or assurance offered is what a warranty is. A product’s creator is obligated by a warranty, which is typically a written promise, to fix or replace any defective products or parts. It solely functions as a noun. Laws are only genuinely enforceable to the extent that the people who are subject to them have a moral obligation to do so. In this context, legitimate laws are those that one is ethically obligated to follow. The actual legality of a law depends on its moral justification since moral responsibility necessitates moral justification.
A fallacy in reasoning that involves conditional assertions is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. It takes place when someone assumes that because the antecedent was wrong, the consequent must also be false. It is incorrect to claim that the Consequent is false when the antecedent is false since conditional statements only state that the consequent must be true when the antecedent is true. The following is a typical format for an argument that involves denying the antecedent, where X and Y are statements that can be either true or false (Gaul, 2018). Denying the Consequent is the following: when using conditional reasoning, a valid argument from a hypothetical statement of the If p, then q, then p must be untrue because q is erroneous.
Completing the end of Chapter 9, “Bonus Exercise,” which asks one to research and analyze the 2009 debate over the public healthcare option, would be a time well spent. Obama claimed during the campaign that the public plan would compete with private insurers on pricing and medical quality, benefiting patients. What Mr. Obama did not anticipate was that it would spark a fight over the role of government in one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the economy for those on the left and right, making it the most crucial issue in the health care discussion. Mainly, thorough research of the arguments that both sides have on this healthcare issue would teach me how fallacies and logical arguments are applied in real-life cases. Additionally, I would be able to spot the issues with the arguments and think about ways of rebutting them.
However, other issues are more relevant in the context of 2022 that could be researched as part of this exercise. For example, recently, there has been a lot of debate on the issue of abortion and the state changing its politics regarding this matter. For a citizen, it is important to be informed on such problems and have an opinion on them that is well-researched and considers both sides of the debate. This is because the citizens choose politicians, and having an opinion on the public problems will allow one to select a candidate whose stance on major problems correlates with the one the person has because, in the long-term perspective, this candidate will affect the policies in the state.
References
Gaul, B. (2018). Denying the antecedent. Wiley.