Week 4 - Post 1: Complex Arguments for Analysis

The argument I chose to analyze for this exercise was example number one. The argument in this example is, “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.” The plaintiff in this case used 3 claims to support his original argument. Claim A is, “People do not like living next door to such a mess.” Most people would agree that they like living next to well-kept houses, so this claim is true. Claim B is, “He never drives any of them.” The neighbor may frequently see the cars in the owner’s yard, but there could have been a time that it was driven while the plaintiff was away at work. While the probability of this is low, it is still a possibility. Claim C is, “They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.” The first part of this claim is a matter of opinion, while the second part is a solid detail. The plaintiff would need to include additional premises to support their argument that are not simply a matter of their opinion. For instance, if the cars were illegally parked or unregistered, there would be legal reasons to either fine the owner or remove the cars. Because the neighbor uses simple opinion for the majority of his claims, the argument is not very strong. While the final sentence to this example is, “It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values,” this appears to be more like a sub-argument than a conclusion. A better conclusion would be, “Based on the excessive mess, lack of use, and mechanical problems of the neighbor’s cars, he should be forced to get rid of the cars in his yard.” Overall, I feel this exercise was effective because it allowed me to break down complex arguments piece by piece in order to learn how to analyze them.