Kory. I'm taking a political science class at the university. We just started studying socialism, and the professor says that socialism has actually worked in every country where it's been given a fair chance.
Noelia I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.

Kory. 1. Kory's political science professor says that socialism works.
         (2. Systems that work are good systems.)                                            
         (C. Socialism is good)                                                        

Noelia. 1. Teaching socialism in the University is like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
            (2. Teaching arson in a fireworks factory would have bad consequences that look cool when viewed from a distance.)
           (C. Socialism is bad.)

If someone here was arguing that socialism is okay, or that we don't know whether socialism is good or bad, that person would not bear burden of proof. However, we have one person arguing that socialism is good, and another arguing that it is bad, so both sides bear the burden of proof against the null hypothesis.

Both are making direct arguments.

One of these evaluations is pretty good. The rest are lousy. Click on the one that's closest to the one you did to see how good yours is. If that isn't the good one, see if you can figure out which one it is. (The other answer pages will just give you the answer without making you jump through any more hoops.)

1. Kory's argument is based on the historical record of socialism. He points out that socialism has worked in all the countries where it's been given a fair chance to succeed or fail on it's own merits, which implies that it's a good thing, since political systems that work are good systems.
Noelia's argument is based on an analogy between socialism lessons in a university and arson lessions in a fireworks factory. It relies on the fact that teaching arson in a fireworks factory would be a very dangerous thing to do, given that fireworks will be very likely to go off if someone is setting fires very close to them. Noelia's argument says that teaching teaching socialism in a university is so similar to teaching arson in a fireworks factory that teaching socialism in a university is just as dangerous as teaching arson in a fireworks factory. Noelia probably doesn't mean that socialism lessons are likely to actually set fire to the univesity. More likely she means that they will result in some kind of unacceptable social cost.

2. Kory has a strong argument because he relies on the unimpeached authority of a political science professor.
Noelia commits the fallacy of false analogy. For her argument to work, "teaching socialism in a university" would have to be very similar to "teaching arson in a fireworks factory." Teaching arson in a fireworks factory might be bad because the arson lessons might set off the fireworks, and the resulting fire and explosion would be bad. Teaching socialism at a university might get students to go out and vote for socialist policies and candidates which, since socialism has tended to work in the past, would probably be good.

3. Kory doesn't have the facts. Socialism is just plain bad, and he should know this. He's just giving his professors opinion without checking the facts.
Noelia is arguing for the right conclusion, so she has all the facts, and her argument is stronger.

4. Kory's argument is okay but Noelia's is stronger. Kory's argument depends on a political science professor, but Noelia relies on the inherently destructive nature of socialism, so her argument is stronger, which makes Kory's argument an instance of false authority.

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly Hosted By:
WEBster Computing Services