HW Assignment 4A

Some of my sample answers:
P. 59 Ex 3B
1 (a)
Structure:
(P1)  You may not hear a car or person behind you.
(P2)  You may not hear thunder in the distance.
(P3)  In many races, it makes you oblivious of other runners and you can't hear the directions given by officials.
(C) Running while listening to music also removes you from the environment you're in, which can be unsafe
Premise acceptability:  Each premise is acceptable because a reasonable person would accept them as they are without further support.
Logical consequence: The connection between the premises (P1), (P3) are strong.  (P2) is questionable in that you'd have to have your music very loud and not be paying attention at all to anything except your music for the music to remove you from the environment to a degree that is unsafe.
Overall strength:  Since all of the premises are acceptable and mostly have a strong logical connection to (C), (and the argument doesn't depend too heavily on (P2)) the argument is strong.

(b)
Structure:
(P1)  The ability to be at peace and be calm is something we've lost in our culture in favor of multi-tasking.
(P2)  Peace can be recovered by with running but not while listening to music etc...because this is a form of multi-tasking.
(C)  Find yourself by running without music.
Premise acceptability: (P1) This is moderately acceptable.  It certainly applies to some segments of our culture, but may not apply universally;  (P2)  Not very acceptable without further argument.  There's been no evidence provided to show that some types of multi-taking (like listening to music while exercising) might help us find peace.
Logical Consequence:  Very weak.  Even if we accept (P1) and (P2) as true, the conclusion still doesn't follow because the conclusion is about "finding yourself" by running and the premises are about "the ability to be at peace."  In other words, the premises do not support the conclusion.
Overall strength:  Weak.  Given the evaluations of PA and LC, the overall argument is weak.

2.
(c)
Structure: 
(P1) It's free in Australia.
(P2)  It's free in many European countries that don't have the resources USA has.
(C)  University education should be free in the USA.
Premise acceptability:  These are easily verifiable claims and there's no reason to doubt the author, so, they are acceptable.
Logical Consequence:  Moderate.  From the fact that some countries have educational policies different from our own, it doesn't follow that we ought to adopt those same policies.
Overall Strength:  Moderate:  For this argument to be strong, we'd need to establish that these policies are in fact beneficial to those countries and if so, that those policies could be anticipated to have the same beneficial effects with the particular framework of American culture and economics.  We'd also need to show why we ought to follow the example of others as opposed to charting our own course or as opposed to them adopting our policies.

(d)
Structure:
(P1)  It was once rare to find a professional with an MBA.
(P2)  Now they are a dime a dozen.
(P3)  Value reflects scarcity
(C)  Given (P2) and (P3), an MBA isn't worth what it once was.
Premise acceptability:  (P1) and (P2) are relative claims and so their acceptability is contingent on how we interpret them.  While the overall claims are intelligible it's not clear how to evaluate them:  are these claims in regards to absolute numbers or percentages?  If the former then the premises are certainly true.  If latter, some further support might be required.  (P3) this is generally true of economic value (which, given the context of the argument, seems to be the type the arguer intends), so it's acceptable.
Logical consequence:  Strong.  If we accept all the premises as true, then the conclusion follows strongly from the premises (if we interpret "value" as "economic value").   In other words,  if professionals with MBAs are much more abundant than they were, then they are no longer scare, and hence, do not possess as much value as they once did.
Overall strength:  Except for a few possible interpretive problems in PA, given the strong LC, overall, this is a strong argument.  You could also counter-argue that although there are many more MBAs, the demand has also increased proportionally.  Since scarcity is relative to demand, in such a case, MBAs will still be worth the same.

3.
Structure:
Arg. 1:
(P1)  CFLs use 2/3 less energy than standard bulbs to provide the same amount of light.
(P2)  CFLs also last 10x longer than standard bulbs.
(C)  Therefore, we should convert to CFLs.
Arg 2:
(P1)   CFLs contain mercury.
(P2)   CFLs are made in China where there are poor environmental standards for production.
(P3)   Light bulbs are used at night which means that replacing all household lights will do little to reduce peak demand and mitigate the need for power.
(C1)  In addition to advantages, there are disadvantages to CFLs.
(C2)  The pros and cons of CFLs are not so simple.
Evaluation of Arg 2
Premise Acceptability:  (P1)  Acceptable: Easily verifiable fact, no reason to doubt the arguer.  (P2)  same as (P1).   (P3)  Questionable/need further support:  if CFLs use 2/3 less energy, then it seems to follow that there will be 2/3 decrease of peak demand attributable to light production if CFCs are adopted.  This premise is acceptable if light production isn't a significant portion of peak demand.  To show either would require further argument.
Logical Consequence:  Strong.