P2: The appeal to ruling classes, by ruled classes, for public control of public capital is futile
P3: The ruling class maintains a state to defend and guarantee its interests
P4: States resolve debt crisis at the expense of the ruled class for the benefit of the ruling class.
C: For the advantaged to pursue public interest the ruling class must be removed.
The seemingly loosely paraphrased conclusion is contextualized in the entire article, the emotive rhetoric is discernibly the slant of the publisher.
The ruling class includes each apparatus such as states, military, corporations, etc..
Worker's vanguard (ICL) bi Weekly\ online (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html)
Ah yes I see the inference. The argument could be tighter. Some of the premises might not be necessary. Other arguments might be better at proving the concision too.
ReplyDeleteInterested you chose this particular group to get a argument from. Every time I read about them from SPUSA or the Wobblies I hear their shady and annoying.
I agree with a lesser need for so many premises and myself feel the conclusion is not so strongly supported by stated inferences as possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe intense rhetoric should be removed in all objective writing.. it is a shame we are hitherto denied a substandard media outlet.
Interested you read SPUSA, their reformist policies seem too conservative to be classified radical and incorporates much of the existing economic system which seems contrary to socialism.
The premises all seem very loose. This is definitely not a strong argument. I think it would help the reader a lot if you could be a little more concise when stating your premises. Not only are they loose, but they are somewhat unclear as well.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct that the argument is weak given the rhetoric rich premises and conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHowever I believe the paraphrased conclusion does outline the intent of the author, for the affluent to relinquish or reform the current accumulation of capital for the masses.
without increasing verbiage I feel incompetent to be clearer. I do not know if it is possible to simplify the premises and would encourage anyone to attempt.
I see how my conclusion can be looked at as weakly relating to the author's word choice, however, with less emphasis on the emotional rhetoric, the intent of author is clearly liberating people from domination.
I do not think this a particularly good example for a collective understanding and or a consensus of how the premises and conclusions should be worded. I feel the true value of this weak argument is to extract an intentional argument free from polarizing emotional rhetoric which influences our perceptional construction.
We may be unable to assess cogency, since some of the premises would need considerable support before we could say they were unambiguously true. Nonetheless, I think the argument is a fairly strong induction. Remember, to test for strength you assume the truth of the premises and see whether the conclusion is probable given that assumption.
ReplyDeleteCritiquing the source is an ad hominem fallacy -- a fallacy of relevance. Whoever says it, the reasoning must stand on its own.