1) A Good Argument about Pink Bean?

As I mentioned earlier on my Introductory Post, I play a MMORPG. This online game I play, also known as Maple Story, has many cutesy graphics and cute-looking monsters as well. One of the monsters, which is also where I got my alias name from, is called Pink Bean. Below is how it looks like (and it's my profile picture too hehe). I can also make an argument by just looking at it.

Pink Bean looks very cute.
It also looks innocent.
Anything that looks cute and innocent is not threatening.
I can conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous.


Before we conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous, we need to see if the argument is good and passes three criteria.

First, we need to see if the premises, or the claims before the conclusion, satisfy the facts. In other words, is it plausible, or believable, that Pink Bean looks cute and innocent? I think most people would agree it does look cute and innocent (just look at it!). However, are things that look cute and innocent really not threatening? Although it may seem unlikely that something cute and innocent is threatening, it can still indeed be. For example, my friend and I think spiders look cute and innocent. However, some spiders such as the black widow can be threatening because its poison can kill a human if bitten. This example proves the third statement to be flawed.
(0 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:

Second, we need to know if the premises is more convincing than the conclusion itself. First of all, I already discussed that the third statement of the premises is flawed because it was proven to not always be true. That leaves us with "Pink Bean is not dangerous." From this statement, we do not know for sure whether it is dangerous or not. For a fact though, Pink Bean is actually the strongest monster of Maple Story and is difficult to defeat, hence making it dangerous. Since it is a fact that Pink Bean is dangerous, this also leaves the conclusion flawed. From here, I can say that the third statement is more plausible than the conclusion because the conclusion is a false statement and is not believable. In contrast, the third statement, or the premises, can be true and believable in some cases.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) :D

Finally, would this be a valid or a strong argument? If this was valid, that means if Pink Bean is cute and innocent, and all cute and innocent things were not threatening, then Pink Bean for a fact would not be dangerous. However, it was proven that Pink Bean is dangerous so now that makes the conclusion false. In other words, my argument would be invalid because the premises is plausible in some cases but the conclusion will always remain false. An argument with a possibly true premises but a false conclusion is invalid. Since this is invalid, does it make this argument strong or weak? A strong argument would be that cute and innocent things can not be threatening and that Pink Bean is dangerous. The chances of that happening would have to be very unlikely. A weak argument would be the same statement except being more likely. Therefore, I can conclude that this argument is weak because Pink Bean will always be dangerous and cute and innocent things can continue to be not threatening.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:

From my evaluation (which scored 1 out of 3 points), I can say that this is a bad argument. It lacks good reasoning by generalizing that all cute and innocent things are not threatening. We then knew for a fact that Pink Bean was in fact dangerous but the argument said it was not. I only gave that one brownie point to the third statement because sometimes things that do look cute and innocent are not very threatening (bunnies (^w^), and no not the one in Monty Python).

- Pink Bean