Question

Explin how we can distanguish argumentative passages from no-argumentative passages.
subject logic and critical thinking

Answer 1

Answer:

Sometimes I cannot distinguish arguments from Nonarguments. For example, according to the book "A concise introduction to logic" by Hurley the following is an example of an argument:

"There appears to be a growing happiness gap between men and women. Women today are working more and relaxing less, while men are working less and relaxing more. Forty years ago a typical woman spent 40 minutes more per week than the typical man performing an activity considered unpleasant. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes and growing."

On the other hand, the following passage is considered to be a Nonargument:

"Authoritarian states are characterized by strong central governments that fairly stringently limit the range of political activity. More often than not, they are one-party states, which means that only one party, that which supports the government, is allowed to engage in political activity. Free discussion and association are strictly curtailed in these systems. Anyone who might dare to criticize the government or to express ideas that are not in conformity with its policies can be severely punished, even by death."

In one section Hurley gives examples of Nonarguments. An "explanation", according to him, is such a case. He points out that an important feature of explanations is that the phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact. This piece of evidence gave me reason to believe the first example is an argument, because a growing happiness gap between men and women is not something which is obvious from the start. The second example, though, is not considered an argument and just an explanation, because "strong central governments that fairly stringently limit the range of political activity" is an intrinsic attribute of Authoritarian states and thus an accepted matter of fact.

I got example number 2 wrong and thought it was an argument, when in fact it is not. In an attempt to justify this, I came up with the reasoning written in italic. Is my reasoning good?

Hope it will help you

Mark as brilliant please.