2. “My Professor suggested to me that I should study logic because logic, she said, teaches one how to argue. But people argue too much as it is; just watch the Jerry Springer show once and a while and you’ll see what I mean. Consequently, I do not intend to take any logic courses, and am of the opinion that logic should not be studied in University at all.”
Premise: 1) Logic teaches one how to argue
2) People argue too much as it is.
Conclusion: I do not intend to take any logic courses, and am of the opinion that logic should not be studied in University at all.
Here the arguer concludes that logic is not worthwhile to study at University, on the grounds of his professor’s claim that logic teaches one to argue, and that people argue too much as it is. The conclusion indicator ‘consequently’ identifies the conclusion, and the ‘because trick’ can be used to identify the premises. The arguer believes that logic should not be studied in University, by himself or by anyone else, because logic merely teaches one to argue and people do enough of that already.
However, the arguer has here committed the fallacy known as equivocation, since the use of the term ‘argue,’ shifts semantically over the course of the passage and argument. In