Introduction
Argument construction is a systematic and dynamic process. The main objective, sub-objective, and environment influence its process of dissemination. Referring to the assertion of argument as a result of consensus might not usually be the case, especially when validity testing is dependent upon assumptions and truths. This analytical treatise attempts to explicitly present arguments by Thomson in the article “A Defence of Abortion” to support the idea with examples of the Violinist and the Good Samaritan.
A defense of abortion
Thomson argues that the proportional rationale for opposing abortion is a product of substitution; instance in generalization and quantification of what the society considers as logic, irrespective of hidden fallacies surrounding the limits of the argument presentation procedure. In application, Thomson denotes that these parts function on the facets of substitution; the instance of what the parties consider simple or compound in consent application.
Thomson thinks that all arguments, irrespective of their logic, have complex interior motives that occur as argument themselves. For instance, he supports the arguments presented by the opponents and proponents of abortion at their face value, but he is critical of the definition of the ‘beginning of life’ in a woman’s womb.
Through referring to the example in Violinist, where a person is abducted against his will, and his body is plugged into the blood system of a sick violinist, Thomson is categorical that the wrong cannot be used to justify the right, despite the intention of an action. When properly applied, the hidden fallacy can be separated since not all logical arguments have quantifiable truth element in them. Thus, the active and passive premises can only be matched when at the end subset, in tuition-instance affirms their syllogism and not mere antecedent denial.
To create a standard argument, Thomson uses the example of the Good Samaritan and the actions of the others descent Samaritans. Rather than universal generalization, systematic labeling of the first-figure syllogism as a predicate of the next and the next to yet of another should be subject to multiplicity before a conclusion is arrived at.
Even though this process is not only designed to demonstrate invalidity but also to differentiate truth from logicality, as fallacies could be hidden in what the society perceives as logical when the invent ability is inactive. From the above analysis, it is inherent that not all arguments are a fallacy of neither consensus nor assumptions. Instead, they are a product of articulation functioning on the facets of reasoning.
Conclusively, an argument is valid when the plausibility is factual and operates within antecedent and quantifiable premises. When the sets of syllogism proportions are not simultaneously right, despite their independence of one another, the result is an inconsistent and incompatible contradiction of what was initially plausible like in the case of the anti-abortion argument, where universal generalization due to consensus overshadows consistency, premise-conclusion relationship, and comparability.
It is inappropriate to adopt a generalization approach as a comprehensive measure of truth, which is different from logicality when applied to different situations.