Scribd
Upload
3 views

SSL

The document outlines a structured approach to analyzing arguments regarding squatting, focusing on identifying premises, conclusions, logical fallacies, biases, and types of arguments. It provides examples for two texts, 'Squatting is not the answer' and 'Squatting should not be illegal,' illustrating how to evaluate claims and evidence. Additionally, it suggests using comments in a word processing application to annotate the text and save the analysis for submission.

Uploaded by

gotancxd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views

SSL

The document outlines a structured approach to analyzing arguments regarding squatting, focusing on identifying premises, conclusions, logical fallacies, biases, and types of arguments. It provides examples for two texts, 'Squatting is not the answer' and 'Squatting should not be illegal,' illustrating how to evaluate claims and evidence. Additionally, it suggests using comments in a word processing application to annotate the text and save the analysis for submission.

Uploaded by

gotancxd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Step 1: Choose a Text

Select one of the two provided texts on squatting:

1. "Squatting is not the answer"

2. "Squatting should not be illegal"

Step 2: Analyze the Argument

Analyze the argument in the chosen text by focusing on the following


aspects:

1. Premises and Conclusions

o Identify the main claims (premises) and the conclusion(s) of the


argument.

o Example: In "Squatting is not the answer," the premise is that


squatting is a form of queue-jumping, and the conclusion is that
squatting should be penalized further.

2. Logical Fallacies

o Look for any logical fallacies in the argument, such as hasty


generalizations, straw man arguments, or false dilemmas.

o Example: In "Squatting should not be illegal," the argument that


"squatters help maintain abandoned houses" might be seen as a
hasty generalization if not supported by evidence.

3. Claims and Evidence

o Evaluate whether the claims are supported by strong evidence.

o Example: In "Squatting is not the answer," the claim that


squatting is often conducted by "middle-class beatniks" lacks
evidence and could be seen as biased.

4. Biases and Assumptions

o Identify any biases or assumptions in the argument.

o Example: In "Squatting should not be illegal," the assumption


that "squatting is a short-term solution to homelessness" might
ignore broader systemic issues.
5. Types of Argument

o Determine the type of argument being used (e.g., causal,


analogical, quasilogical).

o Example: In "Squatting is not the answer," the argument uses


a quasilogical structure by comparing squatting to theft.

Step 3: Use Comments to Annotate the Text

 Use the Comments function in a word processing application (e.g.,


Microsoft Word, Google Docs) to highlight specific parts of the text and
provide your analysis.

 Example: Highlight the sentence "Squatting is not fair to those who


have waited to save up and buy a house" and add a comment like:
"This is a premise that assumes squatting is inherently unfair, but it
doesn't consider the systemic issues that lead to homelessness."

Step 4: Save and Upload

 Save the annotated document as a .pdf file.

 Upload the file to your assignment submission platform.

Example Analysis for "Squatting is not the answer"

1. Premise: "Squatting is a form of queue-jumping, flouting the current


conventions of home purchase."

o Comment: This premise assumes that squatting is inherently


unfair, but it doesn't consider the systemic issues that lead to
homelessness.

2. Logical Fallacy: "Squatting is often not conducted by the genuinely


homeless but by middle-class beatniks and punks seeking to subvert
the system."

o Comment: This is a hasty generalization without evidence to


support the claim that most squatters are not genuinely
homeless.
3. Bias: The argument assumes that home ownership is sacrosanct and
that squatting is a desecration of this right.

o Comment: This reflects a bias toward property rights over


human rights, without considering the broader social context of
homelessness.

4. Type of Argument: The argument uses a quasilogical structure by


comparing squatting to theft.

o Comment: This comparison oversimplifies the issue and ignores


the complexities of homelessness.

Example Analysis for "Squatting should not be illegal"

1. Premise: "There are 107,226 empty houses on census night in 2015,


nearly 6 for every single homeless person."

o Comment: This is strong evidence supporting the claim that


there are enough empty houses to address homelessness.

2. Logical Fallacy: "Squatters help maintain abandoned houses."

o Comment: This could be a hasty generalization if not


supported by specific examples or data.

3. Bias: The argument assumes that squatting is a short-term solution to


homelessness.

o Comment: This reflects a bias toward immediate solutions


without addressing the root causes of homelessness.

4. Type of Argument: The argument uses a causal structure by linking


the availability of empty houses to the potential reduction in
homelessness.

o Comment: This is a strong causal argument, but it could be


strengthened by addressing potential counterarguments.

You might also like