Having the ability to think critically, in all aspects, is an extremely important skill to possess for a multitude of reasons. It provides us with the ability to make independent decisions by creating understanding, solving problems and evaluating different points of view. More specifically, being able to evaluate an argument as convincing or not when one is presented. With these skills, you can skillfully analyze an argument and effectively demonstrate that the other party's reasoning in support of their claims is not adequately justified. One way to do this is to use ARG conditions, which are the guidelines we will use later in this essay. ARG conditions are the basic elements that make up a convincing argument. The acronym stands for acceptable premises (A), relevance of premises (R) and good reasons (G) (Govier, 2013). In basic terms, an acceptable premise means that it is reasonable for the premise to be known to be true so that it is “reasonable for those to whom the argument is addressed to believe it” (Govier, 2013, p. 87). Using these ARG conditions, we will analyze three separate arguments to determine whether they are acceptable as persuasive, while also analyzing whether the second character's response satisfies the argument being made. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe first topic that will be discussed involves two characters and is as follows… Jim: “A mediator should be completely neutral between the two parties in a dispute. If he or she is on the side of one of the parties, the process it will be unfair to the other party. Furthermore, the disadvantaged party will probably notice the lack of neutrality and therefore the mediation will not work. Neutrality is probably the most essential quality that a mediator must have. And since the United States is the. the world's only superpower, they will never be perceived as neutral. The idea that the United States can intervene and mediate in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is completely stupid!” Roger: “I don't think so. It's the only country that can put pressure on both sides, and that's the most fundamental thing.” Jim's statement discussing what it takes to be a mediator and who can and who can't being a mediator is acceptable and convincing The premises given by Jim, such as “a mediator should be completely neutral between the two parties in a dispute” and “If he or she is on the side of one of the parties, the process will be unfair to them. of the other party”, are valid and reasonable. They are acceptable based on common knowledge since the purpose of a mediator is often quite specific and so are his qualities. We also know that the qualities of a mediator, such as the points mentioned by Jim, are accurate because any qualities that oppose them would defy the very purpose of recruiting a mediator. The qualities required of a mediator are quite obvious and go hand in hand with reason and the definition of a mediator. The premises given by Jim are relevant to the discussion and the final conclusion, providing further good reasons to believe and accept them. These patterns satisfy conditions "A" and "R". Together, the premises provide strong reason and evidence to accept the conclusion that “the idea that the United States can intervene and mediate the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is completely stupid.” Each of the statements gradually leads to the conclusion and there is insufficient evidence to believe that the premises are false. The premises are reasonably and progressively constructed with investigative validity, making the final conclusion about the United States rational and logical which helps tosatisfy condition "G". For all these reasons, working together, we can rightly declare Jim's argument acceptable and convincing. The answer given by Rogers does not meet the challenge of the argument made earlier by Jim. Roger's response is “I don't think so. It is the only country capable of exerting pressure on both sides, and this is the most fundamental thing” failed to explain or provide evidence and arguments to support the validity of his claims. He provides no evidence to support his singular claim, which consequently creates an extremely weak argument. Instead, Roger's response was more of a simple counter opinion to a structured rebuttal that would be necessary to satisfy Jim's previous statement. For this reason, Rogers' "argument" is easily questionable and contestable, qualities that make his own argument extremely weak. Not only was Roger's answer too vague, but the reasoning he provided failed to acknowledge Jim's previously stated premises. Roger simply disagreed without being able to communicate why he disagreed. If Roger had referred to Jim's statements and taken them into account as he formulated his response, he might have had a better chance of adequately satisfying Jim's argument. Overall, Roger's response lacked information regarding the argument he was being challenged with and ultimately gave virtually no reason to accept it. An example of an acceptable rebuttal would be… Roger: “I don't think so. It is more important for a mediator to be able to put pressure on both parties than to be neutral. Putting pressure on Israelis and Palestinians will be much more effective in reaching a solution. I understand how important neutrality is in mediating a conflict, but I think it is secondary, which is why the United States is the ideal candidate to act as a mediator.” The second topic under discussion is the following… Steve: “I would never let anyone hypnotize me, for any reason” Peter: “Why not?” Steve: “The stakes are too high. I just don't trust anyone that much. When you let someone hypnotize you, they enter your mind and have great potential to control you. Hypnosis is dangerous because it opens the mind to too many external influences.” Peter: “I understand what you mean but I don't know; hypnosis helped me a lot when I was quitting smoking. I even used it once for dental work and it was great.” After being challenged regarding his previously stated opinion, Steve goes on to explain the reasoning behind his statement. We can accept Steve's statement because, in basic terms, it explains what happens during a hypnotization. His statements are reasonable for the topic at hand. Steve's premises are relevant and lead to the conclusion as they discuss the steps on how hypnotization opens the mind. Steve's reasoning is known a priori to be true as direct experience is not necessarily necessary to understand how a hypnotization works. This may also be based on common knowledge since its reasoning is simple basics of what happens during a hypnotization that most people are familiar with. This helps provide a good reason to accept them. Steve gradually arrives at his conclusion through deductive validity. The statements leading to the conclusion are known to be true and show no reason to reject them. This allows the conclusion to be considered reasonable and truthful. Part of this is because Steve is discussing the potential of another human being abusing the.