This activity is about creating valid or invalid arguments. For this discussion, you will need to create three original arguments. Since we are only concerned with the arguments structure, you do not need to develop an argument with true premises or critique someone else’s argument based on whether or not the premises are true.

This activity is about creating valid or invalid arguments. For this discussion, you will need to create three original arguments. Since we are only concerned with the arguments structure, you do not need to develop an argument with true premises or critique someone else’s argument based on whether or not the premises are true.

• Come up with two different kinds of arguments of your own from the six kinds of arguments we’ve covered in class (e.g. modus ponens, modus tollens, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the fallacy of denying the antecedent, disjunctive syllogism, and the fallacy of affirming a disjunct). Label each argument so students can see which kinds of arguments you’ve used.
• Then, create a third argument and do NOT label it. You will look over various arguments from other students and try to identify their structure yourself.

For your response post, identify the structure of a classmate’s unlabeled argument and explain, in your own words, why it’s valid or invalid.

Grading

This discussion post will not involve the normal discussions rubric. Instead, students will be graded on 3 factors: whether they correctly shared and labeled two arguments using proper structures, whether they correctly shared a third argument, and how they explained the structure and potential validity of a peer’s argument. The original post is worth 18 points and the response post is worth 7 points.