Outline

JOHAN HERNANDO RODRIGUEZ PARRA

I. INTRODUCTION
II THESIS STATEMENT: #1 The book A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston
had based on explaining How to make a good argument and shows what are kind of
arguments exists
1. How to make a good argument
2. what are kind of arguments exists
3. common mistakes that people to have
II. BODY
A. Claim #2. The Reasons and premises need to be concrete, strong, and coherence or
your conclusion will be weak
1. to give example for opening ways to argue your premises and conclusion
- Finding other premises for motivated people
2. Arguments need an order. Because the information can be confused
3. Premises should be showing, or some sources should be sustaining it.
4. Making arguments only with emotional charge is wrong 
-Those types of arguments don’t say anything. 
B. Claim #3 using of generalizations can help you for a wrong way or good way  
1. Arguments by examples used to illustrate a generalization
-making generalizations need a sample
2. Evidence from a diverse point of view is required for making a generalization 
-Not asking only your social circle
3- Numbers and statistics not always represent and argument by authority
- Are statistics and numbers relevant or showing valid arguments
4. Counterexamples help you to correct mistakes
-It helps to adjust your generalization
C. Claim # 4 Arguments by analogy compare two examples for the abstract idea
1. Arguments by analogy only take into account relevant similarities
-Premise need to be valid
2.The examples are used to an assertion regarding the example
3.The premise of the example is the same as the other example
-Idea is abstract from this process
C. Claim # 5 Arguments by authority required a good resource 
1.This kind of arguments work like this: One authority says that something is this, all
people believed that
-Neutral authority it is better
-Having less slant
2.Authotiries have his own resources library
-Authorities offer arguments, analogies, examples 
3. The resources investigated by them have qualified
C. Claim # 6 Causal arguments sometimes are complex 
1. ¿How it works?
2. Events can be abstract
3. There is an inverse correlation
4. The explanation most likely 
5.Depend a lot of factors
C. Claim # 7 Deductive arguments extract information from premises
1. To make does explicit information
2. The dilemma is choosing two option that has consequences
3. This type of arguments offers a form to organize when premises are questionable
there are examples like: 
4. Modus ponens: deduction one argument from two different premises such as A-B I
have A Then B
5. Modus tollens: obtain arguments from taking one logical order and abstract premise
6. Hypothetical syllogisms: It needs consequent and antecedent. Consequence
becomes an antecedent.
7. Reduction ad absurd: This argument establishes contradiction or reduce the
argument and try to check its true with indirect proof
III. C. CONCLUSION # 8 strategies to build an argument required logical skill
1. Choosing the best option for the context
2. sources playing an important role
3 your assertion can fall, if the authority that you searched is not recognized or true

A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston 2017

The book A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston had based on explaining How to
make a good argument (1) and shows what are kind of arguments exist (2). Some of them
are; Arguments by example, Arguments from Authority, Arguments about Causes,
Deductive arguments (3). Also, The Autor provides the most common mistakes that people
have (4); for example: When talking about early to bed, the argument is too long (5).
Therefore, teaching is to be more concrete with your arguments. (6)
That chapter talks about How reasons and premises can be concrete, strong and coherence
for your conclusion will be strong (1), First, your premises should be supported, if it is not,
probably your conclusion will be weak (2). In case is not sure, you can make examples for
finding another main premise (3). On the other hand, when building arguments, they need a
logical order (4), because one sentence prepared the way for the next sentence (5). It is like
you dress firstly your pant before underwear (6), it is wrong. Another mistake that people
make is writing with emotional words (7). Also writing with this type of words probably
does not mean anything (8). about that, using those words is affected by context and
trigging confusion (9). In conclusion, to avoid ambiguities in premises as well as choose a
premise without support (10).
Now, talking about using generalizations for your paragraphs (1). Generalizations can lead
your arguments in a wrong and good way (2). Generalizing with a sample from only one
person can be wrong (3) because the assertion probably not is accurate relating reality (4).
Also, having surveys with a big sample does not mean your evidence is right (5), to need a
comparison between arguments that you present and this survey (6); for example, “On this
year the high school’s students on average 46% of them learning about TICS (7)” It is
wrong because we can not know what was percent of learning TIC the last year (8).
Counterexamples can help you to avoid generalized bad (9), because they shear
contradictions on your assertion (10), making thinking well your words (11).
Here there is another example of argument (1), Arguments by analogy compare two
examples for abstract an idea (2). This argument required described more its characteristics
to understand (3) Argument by analogy only takes into account relevant similarities
between examples (4), On the text the Autor wrote one example (5); He compared the
discovery of America with one person who said discovered Italy (6). Two examples are
true for that reason is possible making an assertion (7).
Let us talk about the argument by authority (1). This kind of argument works like this (2):
One authority says that something is this, people believed that (3). However, authority
required a good resource (3), for that reason authorities have his own resources library (4).
When consulting sources they offer examples, analogies, arguments (5). To know one
authority that does not have a slant for the topic is better. (6) Besides, the building a good
argument is in search variation of sources (7) and consulting What believe the experts (8),
¿are they agree with him? (9). One recommendation is not considered the internet like an
authority (10), the Internet transmits sources where you find information. (11)
In this part, the topic is Causal arguments (1). A causal argument can be complex. (2)
Because, it works with events (3), for example, Event induces a consequence (4). The
complexing of this argument is about their causes (5). There are relations and correlations
in causal argument (6), meaning that C1 can induce E1 or E1-C1 (7). With this, you can
understand a lot of variations that it can have (8), Finding a likely explanation is the
objective (9). However, there are a lot of factors that influent this process (10), not always
is easy to understand why something happened (11).
The last type of argument is the Deductive argument (1). Showing and making explicit
information is its work (2). When premises are questionable this type of argument offers a
form to organize. (3) Following concepts are the example and have a brief definition of
how they work such as (4)
-Modus ponens deductions arguments from two different premises like (5): Exist this rule
A Then B I. moreover, I have A For that reason I can have B (6). -Modus tollens: obtain
arguments from taking one logical order and abstract premise (7) -Hypothetical
syllogisms: It needs consequent and antecedent. Consequence becomes to (8) antecedent.
-Reduction ad absurd: This strategy establishes contradiction or reduce the argument and
try to check its true with indirect proof (9) There is one last what is Dilemma (10). It
proposes two option that has consequences and is necessary for choosing one of them (11)
In conclusion, there is a lot of diversity of making arguments (1), Choosing the best option
for the context can be complex (2). Because if you do not take this into account context
probably your argument and conclusion will be weak (3). Also, the sources playing an
important role when we build an argument (4). If the authority that you searched is not
recognized or true, your assertion can fall (5). Finally, the strategies to build an argument
required logical skill (6); For example, organize Order, deductions, examples, analogies,
coherence (7). Accommodating those elements can be confused and complicated. (8)