You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days of the week, and your posts must total at least 400 words as you address the questions. Your first post must be completed by Day 3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt at some point during the week. Also, reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can. The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can. The topic of this week is deductive reasoning. Accordingly, in this discussion your task is to create a deductively valid argument for your position (the same position that you defended in the Week One discussion). 1.png Prepare: To prepare to respond to this prompt, make sure to read carefully over the required portions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. View the deLaplante (2013) video What Is a Valid Argument? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. as well as the other required media for the week. For more guidance about how to construct a valid argument for a controversial position, review the Constructing a Valid Argument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. video and the document How to Construct a Valid Deductive Argument Preview the documentView in a new window. Based on the sources, create a deductively valid argument for the position you defended in the Week One discussion. 2.png Reflect: To make your argument deductively valid, you will need to make sure that there is no possible way that your premises could be true and your conclusion false. Your premises must lead logically to the truth of your conclusion. Make sure that your argument is sound, that is in addition to being valid, make sure that the premises are true as far as you can tell. If your argument is invalid or if it has a false premise, revise it until you get an argument that you can stand behind. 3.png Write: Identify the components and structure of your argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from your prem.

1. You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days
of the week, and your posts must total at least 400 words as you
address the questions. Your first post must be completed by Day
3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed
by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt
at some point during the week. Also, reply to your classmates
and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by
examining their claims or arguments in more depth or
responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the
discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as
you can.
The total combined word count for all of your posts for this
discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words.
Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources
that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order
to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your
initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7
(Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early
and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to
your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation
further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or
responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the
discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as
you can.
The topic of this week is deductive reasoning. Accordingly, in
this discussion your task is to create a deductively valid

2. argument for your position (the same position that you defended
in the Week One discussion).
1.png Prepare: To prepare to respond to this prompt, make sure
to read carefully over the required portions of Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4. View the deLaplante (2013) video What Is a Valid
Argument? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
as well as the other required media for the week. For more
guidance about how to construct a valid argument for a
controversial position, review the Constructing a Valid
Argument (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
video and the document How to Construct a Valid Deductive
Argument Preview the documentView in a new window. Based
on the sources, create a deductively valid argument for the
position you defended in the Week One discussion.
2.png Reflect: To make your argument deductively valid, you
will need to make sure that there is no possible way that your
premises could be true and your conclusion false. Your premises
must lead logically to the truth of your conclusion. Make sure
that your argument is sound, that is in addition to being valid,
make sure that the premises are true as far as you can tell. If
your argument is invalid or if it has a false premise, revise it
until you get an argument that you can stand behind.
3.png Write: Identify the components and structure of your
argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in
standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from
your premises.
4.png Guided Response: Read the arguments presented by your
classmates, and analyze the reasoning that they have presented.

3. In particular, if you believe that their argument is invalid,
explain a way in which it would be possible for the premises to
be true and the conclusion false. If you believe that their
argument has a false premise, explain why a reasonable person
might take it to be false. Finally, see if you can help them to
improve their argument. How can they alter their premises so
that all of them are true? What might they change in order to
make their argument valid?
Response 2 :
Bryan Mosley
·
Topic: Is it ethically acceptable to raise animals for food on
factory farms?
Premise 1: Chickens, pigs and cows have behavioral needs to
roam, walk, lie down and play.
Premise 2: Animals at animal factories require them to live
their lives in tight confinement, pain and suffering.
Premise 3: Anything that requires chickens, pigs and cows to
live in small cages, tethered and in pain is inhumane unless it
serves a purpose that outweighs the suffering involved by these
animals.
Premise 4: Placing animals in small cages, tethered, limited
mobility, in pain and suffering does not outweigh the suffering
involved.
Conclusion: Therefore, the treatment of chickens, pigs and
cows at animal factories is wrong.
"Deductive arguments aim to achieve validity, which is an
extremely strong connection between the premises and the

4. conclusion. A valid argument is one in which the truth of the
premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion: in
other words, it is an argument in which it is impossible for the
premises to be true while the conclusion is false." (Hardy, 3.1)
To determine if the conclusion is valid an examination of each
premise must take place. Premise 1 describes behavioral needs
of chickens, pigs and cows to walk, roam, lie down and play.
Studies exist which illustrate how behavior of these animals
change when confined and unable to move. Premise 2 describes
how these animals live on animal factories. The purpose of
these factories is to house these animals to eventually slaughter
for human consumption. Premise 3 takes the treatment of these
animals even further. It examines the suffering of these animals
with the need for profit and housing as many animals as
possible in small confine space. Premise 4 analyzes the
suffering of these animals with the need for profit. Even though
we need these animals for food consumption, their treatment
should be humane. Therefore the conclusion ties in with all
four premises that the treatment of these animals at these animal
factories is wrong and inhumane.
Reference:
Hardy, J; Foster, C; Zuniga y Postigo, G. (2015)
With Good Reason: A Guide To Critical Thinking.
(Electronic version). Retrieved from
https://content.ashford.edu
.
Response 2: Justin Ryan

5. Premise One: Torture is not likely to work for a short period.
Premise Two: Because there are time restraints, extreme tactics
are used to gain information quickly. Torture techniques result
in permanent physical and psychological damage.
Premise Three: Because the torture tactics are severe, resulting
in physical and mental harm, incorrect information is given to
slow or stop the treatment.
Conclusion: Therefore, determined that torture is not
permissible to act in gaining credible information.
Premise One states that torture is not going to work for short
time periods. Often torture takes place under extreme
circumstances like a battlefield where one captured, and there is
not a lot of time to try to extract information.
Premise Two acknowledges those time restrictions while
identifying that under rushed timelines extreme measures will
be used to gain information quickly leading to permanent
physical and psychological damage.

6. Premise Three takes the first and second premises further to
explain that period, harsh tactics, and permanent physical and
mental damage it is most certainly going to lead to incorrect or
misleading information to stop the torturing.
Conclusion following premise: All my premises support the
other and have a link that guided me to the result of my
conclusion.
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good
reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version].
Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/