Due Today
Topic Choice: Does the use of Social Media tend to improve or harm relationships?
Argument A:
Premise 1: Face-to-face interaction is a necessity for human relationships to thrive.
Premise 2: Social Media apps such as Facebook and Whats App remove the need for face-to-face interaction.
Conclusion: Social Media harms relationships.
The strength of this argument is that it makes use of real examples of social media by listing apps we are all familiar with. The weakness of this argument is that Premise 2 doesn’t account for video-messaging where face-to-face interaction is possible, albeit through a screen.
Argument B:
Premise 1: In order for humans to understand one another better, we need to form relationships with people from different walks of life.
Premise 2: Social Media allows us to connect with people we may not have otherwise crossed paths with.
Conclusion: Social Media improves relationships.
The strength of this argument is that Premise 1 limits the argument to a specific aspect of human relationships i.e., understanding each other better. The weakness of this argument is the validity of Premise 2 because with ever evolving algorithms, Social Media is increasingly connecting us to those who are like us rather than those who are different.
Comparison: When comparing the two arguments I don’t think one is better than the other. I think both have flaws in their pre-assumptive statements (Premise 1), however both leave room for exploration and supporting evidence. I think both arguments are fair representations of what someone taking those positions might say as they reflect the current climate and the conversations society is having on the effects of social media. One way both arguments could be improved is to explain why Premise 1 is ‘true’.
In the essay titled ‘Defining Deduction, Induction and Validity’ by J. J. Wilbanks, the author states ‘a deductive argument is considered to be one in which the speaker (or arguer) claims that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (one or more); and in a corresponding way, an inductive argument is defined as one in which the speaker does not claim that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises but claims that it is rendered merely probable to some degree by them’ (Wilbanks, 2009).
Going by this explanation therefore, I would conclude that both my arguments are inductive.
Wilbanks, J.J. (2009). Defining Deduction, Induction and Validity. Argumentation. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=e0d62a16-16cb-45df-82b5-9fb39989a044%40sessionmgr4009 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.