We have learned that there can be political advantages to purposely introducing
ID: 3494531 • Letter: W
Question
We have learned that there can be political advantages to purposely introducing vagueness. But there can also be logical advantages to doing so. Typically, the more precise a conclusion is, the harder it is to justify. Thus, a more vague conclusion can be more easily justified. But making our conclusions more vague does not always strengthen our inferences. Suppose that I am assessing the probability that Zeno will get an A- in the course. I note that Zeno's educational history is very similar to another student who got an A- in the course. My first thought is that Zeno will get an A- in the course. But then I change my conclusion: Zeno will get an A- or higher in the course. I have made my conclusion less precise, but I haven't actually increased the strength of my inference. As it happens, people rarely get higher than an A- in the course. There are different ways of making conclusions more vague. Which ones we should use (in order to increase the strength of our inferences) depends on the circumstances. Your task is to figure out how we should make these conclusions more vague. (a) Construct or find a controversial argument [be sure to cite your source(s)] and formalize it here. (b) Identify how the inference could be (i) strengthened or (ii) weakened by making it more vague with the use of 'at least' or 'at most' somewhere in the argument. Be sure to make the change and explain its impact. [In your peer responses, consider rewording a classmate's claim to make their point seem either more or less vague.]Explanation / Answer
Vague arguments are the ones that do not have a clear cut meaning. Their inference may be recognised, but it is in an indefinite manner. These words aren't precise. Vagueness is observed day to day language and is considered an essential part of the natural language.
When one of the cabinet minister says,
My officials will be taking care of the situation very closely and I promise that we will be taking all appropriate steps to make sure that this situation gets resolved "in a way that is fair to all the parties involved".
Here, the minister has neither promised anything specific nor has explained what measures he would take. Hence, his argument is vague, as giving no clear indications.
The inference here is that there is some issue with the ruling and the opposite parties and the ruling party will be resolving it in appropriate measures. The statement is already weak in not giving any precise answers of what measures would be taken by the party. The use of the word fair has dual meanings, as every party might be having a different definition of fair. Hence, the argument is vague and weak.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.