Blogging about logic

I have learned so much since the semester started. On September 7th, I knew nothing more about logic than that it was one of the classes I was taking. I now know that there are arguments and nonarguments. From arguments, you have to decide whether they are deductive or inductive. If it is deductive, you have to figure out whether it is valid or invalid(all are unsound) and then figure out the soundness. If it is inductive, you have to figure out whether it is strong or weak(all are uncogent) and then determine cogency. A month ago, this would have been like reading a foreign language, but after taking this class for a few weeks, I have learned so many new things. Now I just need to start understanding more of the new concepts. I know what they are, I just have to learn which ones work at which times. I am hoping that I will learn by continuing to do all of the homework problems and taking notes on each section.
Anybody have any other suggestions of how to get better at logic? other than practice, practice, practice

Argument #2 in standard form

LETTER

Life Sentence for Youths?

Published: September 18, 2011 (excerpt)

Studies prove that all but a very small percentage of youth — between 5 and 10 percent — mature out of criminal behavior. Therefore, it is inappropriate to impose a final, irrevocable judgment on young people.


P1: A very small percent of youth mature out of criminal behavior.
C: Therefore, it is inappropriate to impose final, irrevocable judgement on young people

Argument in Standard form

Lawlessness Has Had Its Upsides

September 13, 2011

David Plotz, the editor of Slate, is the author of "The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank."

The American fertility business has long been a cowboy enterprise — cavalier about rules, casual about paperwork, irritated by government interference. Its strange place on the political spectrum shielded it from the regulation that guides other kinds of medicine, or real estate, or even used car sales. Conservatives, skeptical of regulation, were glad to leave fertility alone, and let it grow into a profitable marketplace. Liberals, normally fond of regulation, were leery of doing anything to dictate women’s reproductive choices. The result was an open field.

The fertility business needs regulation, but we’ll miss the lawlessness when it’s gone.

And there’s no doubt that the American fertility business has been way too chaotic: Sperm banks run by unqualified cranks, unscrupulous egg donation schemes, and practically no way to keep track of who’s fathering whom. (In my reporting, I’ve met numerous sperm donors who travel from bank to bank to bank, spawning uncounted numbers of kids, and leaving virtually no paper trail.) It’s certain that more regulation, and an end to donor anonymity, would clean up the industry, soothe customers, and help donor offspring.

Still, we’ll miss the lawless fertility business when it’s gone. Its lack of rules spurred innovation, and transformed fertility from a prudish, conservative corner of medicine into a consumer-driven business. Entrepreneurial sperm bankers broke the monopoly that organized medicine had over fertility choices, giving women the chance to choose — no, to shop for — their sperm donor. This willingness to try anything made the American fertility business the liveliest in the world. More regulation — necessary as it is — will diminish that capitalist energy, and bring fertility back in dreary line with the rest of American medicine: more expensive, more defensive, and more responsive to insurers than to customers.

P1: The American fertility business has always been cavalier about rules, casual about paperwork, and irritated by government interference.

P2: The American fertility business has been way too chaotic. 

C: It’s certain that more regulation, and an end to donor anonymity, would clean up the industry, soothe customers, and help donor offspring.

Not quite positive if I am right. I would like to see what you guys have to say about it. :)

Argument in standard form

Lawlessness Has Had Its Upsides

September 13, 2011

David Plotz, the editor of Slate, is the author of "The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank."

The American fertility business has long been a cowboy enterprise — cavalier about rules, casual about paperwork, irritated by government interference. Its strange place on the political spectrum shielded it from the regulation that guides other kinds of medicine, or real estate, or even used car sales. Conservatives, skeptical of regulation, were glad to leave fertility alone, and let it grow into a profitable marketplace. Liberals, normally fond of regulation, were leery of doing anything to dictate women’s reproductive choices. The result was an open field.

The fertility business needs regulation, but we’ll miss the lawlessness when it’s gone.

And there’s no doubt that the American fertility business has been way too chaotic: Sperm banks run by unqualified cranks, unscrupulous egg donation schemes, and practically no way to keep track of who’s fathering whom. (In my reporting, I’ve met numerous sperm donors who travel from bank to bank to bank, spawning uncounted numbers of kids, and leaving virtually no paper trail.) It’s certain that more regulation, and an end to donor anonymity, would clean up the industry, soothe customers, and help donor offspring.

Still, we’ll miss the lawless fertility business when it’s gone. Its lack of rules spurred innovation, and transformed fertility from a prudish, conservative corner of medicine into a consumer-driven business. Entrepreneurial sperm bankers broke the monopoly that organized medicine had over fertility choices, giving women the chance to choose — no, to shop for — their sperm donor. This willingness to try anything made the American fertility business the liveliest in the world. More regulation — necessary as it is — will diminish that capitalist energy, and bring fertility back in dreary line with the rest of American medicine: more expensive, more defensive, and more responsive to insurers than to customers.

P1: The American fertility business has always been cavalier about rules, casual about paperwork, and irritated by government interference.

P2: The American fertility business has been way too chaotic. 

C: It’s certain that more regulation, and an end to donor anonymity, would clean up the industry, soothe customers, and help donor offspring.

Not quite positive if I am right. I would like to see what you guys have to say about it. :)

About Philospohy

I have never taken a philosophy course before, but I am ready to try something new and learn about it. The philosophy toolkit had a lot of information in it that I am still trying to learn and understand, but I will work hard to make sure I do understand it. Philosophy seems like a very interesting course to study and I hope to learn a lot over the next fifteen weeks.