Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
First of all, we need to get a clear meaning of what an argument means. Arguments are connected to a number of statements which most of them have the intentions of offering reasoning, sustainment, and confirmation of certainty of any of the statements being considered. Arguments are also known as characteristics of good discussions which are done in a method, which proves to ascertain the three stages which are used in an argument.
The first stage involves making a claim while the second stage is the reason which supports the claim. The third stage represents the person who is making the argument to support the initial points used in the argument. A contradictory premise is a misconception which arises from incorrect reasoning when arguing. They are usually structured using rhetorical patterns obstructing the logical argument note that premises are statements that are made to provide evidence and support of the statement (Russman, 1995).
A mistake is defined as an opinion, error in action, or poor judgment which is caused by inappropriate reasoning. After understanding the question we are required to state why its wrong for one to argue from unrealistic reasoning thats always committed by combining two or more questions that cannot be answered all at once, therefore, forming a compound questions . Bruce, (2008) argued that ethical theories are based on virtues and morals and have feelings which associate with ethics that are experienced in our shared life in society.
Compound questions mostly prevent any form of argument and tend to incriminate the person answering the question regardless of the response given since answers which he would give would admit the deeds asked in the question (Damer, 2008). To argue from contradictory premises is not a good thing because it creates a lot of emotional tension and its also not logical to come to a consensus that easily. Therefore, some questions which are asked in an argument might not be the real question, which needs to be answered but are used to confront the person engaged in the conversation to ascertain if they would be willing to discuss the subject.
For example, an 8-year-old child at school is asked by the class teacher to give a reason why he never did his homework he will give a reason that there was a power failure at home last night and thats why he never managed to do his homework. Next, the teacher would ask him Do you expect me to believe that lie ? The best way out for the boy is to remain silent to the question asked by the teacher because by answering it his response may incriminate him and the teacher will know that the boy has already lied to her and it also shows that the teacher didnt take his answer seriously in that he was not convincing to the response made earlier.
Another example is adultery which I would be against. My arguments is kissing is not immoral as long as you are kissing your right partner and lust isnt all that immoral were as adultery is very immoral as it interferes and betrays another persons commitment to a relationship. Therefore, answering the question of adultery directly would render all the mentioned as immoral and the best way to answer this would be by breaking it down into its various components by this you will be able to give your opinion on what is immoral and want isnt according to you. According to Bruce, (2008) the most ethical issues which are being discussed or argued today on whether they are right or wrong are abortion and death penalty which are being experienced in current today life.
In conclusion, note that fallacy are not questions but they are issues which require to be answered. They appear in the form of challenging questions, because the questions with are such brain teasers and in that case no answer can be given because both the premises cannot be true at the same time. Thus, they usually have no actual questions in them.
References
Bruce W. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (2nd ed). New York : Pearson/Longman
Damer, E. (2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy free Arguments. Boston: Cengage Learning
Russman, T. (1995). Postmodernism and the Parody of Argument. Argumentation Journal. 9(1), 123-135
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.