GOOD ARGUMENT

A good argument is one in which the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. This criteria means that an argument is not good if the conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the premises, or when the conclusion rests upon a highly dubious (doubtful) premise or premises.

For example, consider this argument:

I am Adrian's best friend. I'm sure of this because she told me so, and I know she wouldn't lie to her best friend.

My premise that Adrian wouldn't lie to her best friend assumes the truth of the conclusion that I am Adrian's best friend. We say that such an argument is circular; the argument is like a circle, you assume the premise to accept the conclusion, but you must assume the conclusion to accept the premise. We also say that such an argument begs the question. An argument that is circular, or which begs the question, fails to meet criteria three.

Consider this example:

My father was murdered by his brother (my uncle). I know this because the ghost of my father told me so.

In this argument (derived from Shakespeare's Hamlet), the speaker supports his conclusion with a premise that is highly dubious. Since it is not more plausible than the conclusion itself, this argument fails to meet criterion three.

Beware of examples like the following:

We don't need another liberal like Susan Stamper in the senate. She thinks the solution to every problem is to spend more money to create more government bureaucracies. Her policies are not conservative enough.

If this "argument" is stated loudly enough, and with a lot of rhetorical skill, you may be convinced by it. Yet, the premises say little more than what it is said in the premises. To call Susan Stamper a liberal and to say she likes to spend money and to say she is not a conservative is is to say much the same thing in different ways. Arguments that repeat the same idea in different words are also circular arguments. They fail to meet criterion three.