Strong and Weak Arguments

ByAbdullah Siddiqui
January 2, 2024
No Comments

In Logical Reasoning, we are usually asked a question which is answered by arguments, which are both in the form of yes and no followed by an explanation. In these questions we have to find out whether the given argument is right or wrong. However instead of using right or wrong, the words used are ‘strong’ for ‘right argument’ and ‘weak’ for the ‘wrong argument’.

What is an Argument?

You know how when people are debating or disagreeing, we call it arguing? Well, an argument isn’t just about having a fight. It’s more like when you put together a bunch of sentences or ideas that lead to a conclusion or a sensible point. In simple terms, an argument is just talking about something in a way that makes sense and is logically sound. It’s not always about having a heated debate; it can be a way of explaining things in a convincing and reasonable manner.

Strong Argument: A strong argument is like a sturdy bridge that connects ideas logically, making it not just sensible but universally valid. Picture it as the backbone of a convincing case – always providing a ‘why’ that ties everything together. Think of it as the reliable guide that navigates through practicality and relevance, ensuring that the reasoning remains firmly grounded in the given situation.

Weak Argument: On the flip side, a weak argument resembles a shaky foundation that crumbles under scrutiny. It’s the kind of reasoning that feels illogical, impractical, and just plain irrelevant. Imagine building a house on quicksand – that’s how extreme statements and unrelated examples weaken an argument. These feeble cases tend to be opinion-based, unclear, or simply too extravagant. What’s notably missing is the crucial ‘why’ factor, leaving the argument hanging in ambiguity and lacking substance.

Differentiating Strong and Weak Arguments

Relevance: A strong argument maintains high relevance between the premise and the conclusion, while a weak argument may lack this strong connection.
Evidence Quality: Strong arguments rely on solid evidence, data or facts to support the conclusion, while weak arguments often lack substantial and credible evidence.
Logical Coherence: Strong arguments exhibit a clear and logical flow from the premise to the conclusion, whereas weak arguments may have gaps or inconsistencies in their logical structure.
Counterargument Resistance: Strong arguments can withstand scrutiny and counterarguments, while weak arguments are more vulnerable to challenges.
Assumption Dependence: Weak arguments may heavily rely on unstated assumptions or speculative claims, while strong arguments are more self-contained.
Alternative Explanations: Consider whether there could be alternative explanations or interpretations that weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion.
Strength of Persuasion: Strong arguments are more likely to persuade an audience due to their compelling nature, while weak arguments may leave the audience unconvinced.

Let us understand these with the help of a few examples:

Should Warning Labels like ‘Smoking is Injurious to Health’ be Mandatory on Cigarette Packs?

Arguments:

Yes, it is a form of persuasion to make smokers aware that they are inhaling harmful substances.
- People need to be reminded of the health risks associated with smoking, serving as a wake-up call to prioritize their well-being.
- Practical awareness can contribute to reducing the number of smokers and protect public health.
No, it interferes with the enjoyment of smoking.
- Smoking is a personal choice, and individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their own enjoyment.
- Excessive warnings might be seen as intrusive, impinging on personal freedom and choice.

Solution:

The argument in favor of warning labels (Option I) appears stronger as it addresses the practical health implications, which can benefit society. In contrast, the argument against (Option II) primarily focuses on personal enjoyment, which may not be a strong enough reason to overlook the health risks.

Should Those Receiving Dowry Despite Legal Prohibitions be Punished?

Arguments:

Yes, those violating the law must face punishment.
- Enforcing penalties can serve as a deterrent, discouraging people from engaging in dowry practices.
- Legal consequences can help break the cycle of a harmful tradition and promote gender equality.
No, the dowry system is deeply ingrained in society since ancient times.
- Dowry practices are often deeply rooted in cultural traditions, making it challenging to eradicate overnight.
- Instead of punishment, addressing the root causes and educating the society might be a more effective long-term solution.

Solution:

The argument supporting punishment (Option I) is stronger as it aligns with the need for legal consequences to deter a harmful practice. The argument against (Option II) acknowledges the complexity but doesn’t provide a strong alternative solution.

Should Officers Accepting Bribe Face Punishment?

Arguments:

Yes, they should perform their entrusted duties honestly.
- Upholding honesty in public service is crucial for maintaining trust in government institutions.
- Punishing bribery promotes a fair and just society.
No, certain circumstances may force them to accept bribes.
- Officers may face difficult circumstances, such as financial hardships, which might lead them to accept bribes as a last resort.
- Punishment may not address the underlying issues and may be too harsh in certain situations.

Solution:

The argument supporting punishment (Option I) is stronger, emphasizing the importance of honesty in public service. The argument against (Option II) acknowledges circumstances but doesn’t provide a strong justification for allowing bribery.