Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Argument.

I'll have to admit, this was a really hard section to understand. So basically, there are 3 tests to see if an argument can be considered good.

  1. The premise (assumption) is plausible (reasonable).
  2. The premise has to be more plausible than the conclusion.
  3. The argument is valid/strong.

All these tests are independent, so one can pass, while the others may fail. It also doesn't matter which test you start with.

Example of an argument:
Acoustic musicians, who are not signed with a major record label, stay true and passionate to their music that they play.
Musicians signed with a major record label lose that passion and conform to what the label wants.
Therefore, Youtube musicians are better musicians.

The first statement about acoustic musicians is plausible, and definitely more plausible than the conclusion. There are no limits when it comes to music, especially when it comes to acoustic music. When you watch someone perform acoustically, with just them and an instrument of their choice, you can definitely see their passion being poured out through the music that they play.

The argument is plausible as well, but it’s definitely weak. We wouldn’t know about what musicians who are signed to major record labels go through, unless you are one. There could be a lot of possibilities as to why they are the way they are under that label.

Although the conclusion can be valid, it is a bit weak.

There are a lot of different types of musicians on Youtube, ranging from acoustic, like Gabe Bondoc, to rap, like D-Pryde. Even though they’re on Youtube, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re signed to a major record label. They could be signed to a label, and they stay true and passionate to their music. (Although there are those musicians who we all like to call, “sell outs.”) In other words, this is a little too ambiguous.

Overall this is valid, but it’s a weak argument.

3 comments:

  1. Hello, cvgotsoul :]

    awesome post! Totally agree with you, many people believes that once you are under a label you just aren't as hardworking as you once was. First , I want to say awesome how you put definitions on words like premises and plausible, in case the reader do not know the meaning of those words. Also I really like how you carefully explain each reason in detail, so the reader would not get lost in what you're saying. And I really like how you make it really easy to read. Since its a long post many readers would not bother reading such a long post. So thank you for making it easy :] Lastly, the argument is overall weak and vague full of loop holes that if a person asked more questions and presented evidence of a musician that is under a label and is still loyal to their fans and not a "sell out" that argument would have been out of the door. AWESOMEEEE! :]


    [ellacomm]

    ReplyDelete
  2. This part was hard for me to understand as well but you explained it well enough to help me understand this part of the book a little more, especially with the definitions next to the word. You explained the arguments very well. I agree that the argument is very weak. There is no way to prove that all musicians who sign onto a label do not stay passionate to their music. I am sure there is at least one person who stays true to their music, even after they sign onto a record label. Even If the artist is not passionate to their music, it might be because the label is forcing them to do music that they don’t want to do. Most of the time the public will see that as in the artist’s fault.
    Overall it was a good example for you to show what a good argument is or isn’t. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my gosh, I know, reading this chapter was so confusing to me, but your post totally helped me out. Your words in parenthesis made it easier for the reader to understand and follow your explanation. Your overall presentation (flow) was just awesome. Concerning the argument, I agree that acoustic musicians who are not signed will always stay true and passionate with their music because there is nothing forcing or pushing them to do so (such as money that comes with musicians who are signed). Basically, it's just for their (YouTube musicians) love of music. And yes, it is more plausible than the conclusion of YouTube musicians being better musicians than signed ones.

    ReplyDelete