Having the ability to think critically, in all its aspects, is an extremely important skill to possess for a multitude of reasons. It gives us the ability to make independent decisions by creating understanding, solving problems, and evaluating different points of view. Specifically, being able to evaluate an argument as convincing or not when presented with one. With these skills, you can expertly break down an argument and effectively prove that your interlocutor's reasoning to support their claims is not sufficiently justified. One way to do this is to use ARG conditions, which are the guidelines we will use later in this essay. The ARG conditions are the basic elements that constitute a convincing argument. The acronym stands for “acceptable premises” (A), relevance of premises (R), and “good reasons” (G) (Govier, 2013). Simply put, 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 them” (Govier, 2013, p. 87) . Using these ARG conditions, we will break down three separate arguments to determine whether they are acceptable as persuasive while also analyzing whether the second character's response matches the argument being made. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first argument that will be discussed involves two characters and goes as follows... Jim: “A mediator must be completely neutral between the two parties to a dispute. If it is on the side of either party, the process will be unfair to the other party. Additionally, the disadvantaged party will likely detect the lack of neutrality and mediation will then not work. Neutrality is probably the most essential quality of a mediator. And since the United States is the world's only superpower, it will never be seen as neutral. The idea that the United States can intervene and mediate the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is completely stupid! » Roger: “I don’t think so. It is the only country capable of putting pressure on both sides, and it is the most fundamental.” Jim's statement, which explains what it takes to be a mediator and who can and cannot be a mediator, is acceptable and compelling. The premises given by Jim, such as "a mediator must be completely neutral between the two disputing parties" and "If he is on the side of either party, the process will be unfair to the other party ”, are valid and reasonable. They are acceptable on the basis of common knowledge, because the goal of a mediator is often quite specific, so are their qualities. We also know that the qualities of a mediator, such as the points mentioned by Jim, are accurate because any qualities opposing them would defeat the whole point of hiring a mediator. The qualities required for a mediator are obvious and go hand in hand with the purpose and definition of a mediator. The premises given by Jim are relevant to the discussion and the final conclusion, giving more good reasons to believe and accept them. These reasons satisfy conditions “A” and “R”. Working together, these 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 leads progressively to the conclusion and there is no sufficient evidence to believe thatthe premises are false. The premises are reasonably and gradually constructed with detective validity, making the ultimate conclusion about the United States rational and logical that helps satisfy condition “G”. For these many reasons, working together, we can rightly declare Jim's argument acceptable and compelling. The response given by Rogers does not address the challenge to the argument made previously by Jim. Roger’s response: “I don’t think so. It is the only country capable of putting pressure on both sides, and that is the most fundamental thing” failed to explain or provide the proof and reasoning for his claims to be true. He provides no evidence to support his singular claim, which therefore creates an extremely weak argument. Instead, Roger's response was more of a simple opinion opposed to a structured rebuttal that would be necessary to address Jim's previous statement. For this reason, Rogers' "argument" is easily debatable and disputed - qualities that make the argument extremely weak. Not only was Roger's answer too vague, but the reasoning he provided did not take into account the premises previously stated by Jim. Roger simply disagreed while failing to communicate why he disagreed. If Roger had referred to Jim's statements and taken them into consideration when formulating his response, he may have been more likely to respond adequately to Jim's argument. Overall, the answer Roger gave lacked information on the argument he was being challenged with and ultimately gave little to 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 exert pressure on both sides than to be neutral. Pressuring the Israelis and Palestinians will be much more effective in reaching a resolution. I understand the importance of neutrality in mediating a conflict, but I think it takes second place, which is why the United States is the ideal candidate to play the role of mediator. The second argument discussed is this… Steve: “I would never allow myself to be hypnotized by anyone, for any reason” Peter: “Why not? Steve: “There’s too much at stake. I don't really trust anyone. When you let someone hypnotize you, they enter directly into your mind and have a lot of potential to control you. Hypnosis is dangerous because it opens your mind to too many outside influences. Peter: “I see what you mean but I don’t know; Hypnosis helped me a lot when I quit smoking. I also used it once for dental work, and it was great. After being challenged on his previously expressed opinion, Steve goes on to explain the reasoning behind his statement. We can accept Steve's statement because, in simple terms, it explains what happens during hypnotization. His statements are reasonable for the subject matter. Steve's premise is relevant and leads to the conclusion because it discusses the steps by which hypnotization opens the mind. Steve's reasoning is known a priori to be true because one does not necessarily need direct experience to understand how hypnotization works. This can also be based on common knowledge, as his reasonings are simple basics of what happens during hypnotization that the majority of people are familiar with. This helps give good reasons to accept them. Steve gradually reaches his conclusion through deductive validity. The statements leading to the.