6780 Shares

What is the conclusion of the following argument? If not an argument then please let me know?

What is the conclusion of the following argument? If not an argument then please let me know? Topic: Words to start of a conclusion
June 16, 2019 / By Doyle
Question: What is the conclusion of the following argument? If the passage is not an argument at all, select "Not an argument." If a piece of information is not "job relevant," then an employer is not entitled to know that information when evaluating candidates. Consequently, since political beliefs and sexual preferences are not relevant to most jobs, that is, since they do not directly affect one's job performance, they are not information that an employer is entitled to know.
Best Answer

Best Answers: What is the conclusion of the following argument? If not an argument then please let me know?

Bret Bret | 9 days ago
This is a Categorical Syllogism, where a conclusion is grafted from two premises. While it does follow the format, it does not present a conclusion. Sure, it makes sense, but it cannot be constructed into an argument that will make sense but at the same time be "legal" philosophy-wise. Commonly, arguments are in the form of "If-Then" phases. If we talk about more concrete syllogisms, then we're going for the three-part structure (Major Premise, Minor Premise, Conclusion). In this argument, written in my own words, would say: "if certain information are not job relevant, then the employers are not entitled to know that information. Since political beliefs and sexual preferences are not relevant to most jobs, then they are not information employers should know." The "since they do not directly affect one's job performance" is not essential here because "are not relevant" has already been said before that. It's more of an explanation, but nothing to take note when constructing the argument. The Conclusion, following the right rules, is non-existent. Re-constructing the entire argument into the three-part set will make it look like this: >If a piece of information is /not/ job relevant, an employer is not entitled to know that information when evaluating candidates. >Political beliefs and sexual preferences are /not/ job relevant. >? Therefore, political beliefs and sexual preferences are information an employer is not entitled to know when evaluating candidates. There are two negative premises, which isolates the premise from the entire argument. We start with saying that "if a piece of information is not job relevant, then employers are not entitled to know that information when evaluating candidates." We then proceed to say that "political beliefs and sexual preferences are not job relevant." The rest can be ignored. Because we already said that political beliefs and sexual preferences are not job relevant, then it is obvious that employers are not entitled to know that information. It stops there. There is no conclusion to be created because we've stopped from there on.
👍 206 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? What is the conclusion of the following argument? If not an argument then please let me know? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Words to start of a conclusion


Bret Originally Answered: Can you find an argument? If so, what is the premise and conclusion?
First, we must realize that the scientists say that the stem cell will never do many things people think it will. Second, we must realize the scientists also say the stem cells can be harvested from many other sources than the embryo. Nothing has shown itself to be the panacea that the people fighting for embryo stem cell research say it will give us more than any other stem cell research. If they really believed stem cell research would produce, they would want it to go on as it has been for many years -- but it has given very few favorable results like they make people believe it will. It seems we only want euthanasia so we can get rid of unwanted children with a clear conscience.
Bret Originally Answered: Can you find an argument? If so, what is the premise and conclusion?
This is a strange question. The good news is that Bush is allowing stem cell research. The bad news is that Brownback is against stem cell. I don't see any kind of logical argument here. There is just the fact that the two sides disagree and seem to be arguing with one another.
Bret Originally Answered: Can you find an argument? If so, what is the premise and conclusion?
If human life is intentionally destroyed with the intention of harvesting stem cells, it amounts to murder. If the stem cells are harvested from humans (embryos) who are *already* dead, then I see no unethical behavior or implications.

Aherin Aherin
I would say that's a valid arguement, has good premise and follows proper if than structure.. A++++ ;D
👍 80 | 👎 6

Aherin Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
Agreed. Your logic is definitely sound. Though, I recommend you stop trying to contend with Theists, well most of them at least. They are young souls, and require such closed minded structure in their lives in order to operate. With out said structure, this world would be for more of a pain in the *** then it already is. Imagine introducing a school full of undisciplined toddlers into a Five Star Restaurant on its most important time of the year and whilst telling them their are Easter eggs to be found under ever table. Look up, not down. Below you is the confined structure of the heavy duty religions, you are beyond the point of requiring a tit to suckle on, and ready to explore the universe. Yes, we adapted to our universe, but the universe had an intention with it all. One must consider that if we are conscious, the universe could also possibly be conscious, though not necessarily in the manner we understand it in our current physical forms. Take a look at a picture of the known universe. Kind of similar to nerves or what have you in the brain. Just saying... All is possible, and all is happening at exactly the same time everywhere in the universe. Some just choose to call that "God" and limit there focus and understanding of what is around them to a very small circle they draw around themselves.
Aherin Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
The teleological argument proposes that existence of underlining ideas that permit for the existence of materialistic structure suggests the existence of a deliberate intent for the existence of material existence that it's going to serve some underlining reason or finish. Though it may be that this argument does have some merit there may be as of yet no sound and legitimate argument connecting it to any person faith or anthropomorphous deity of those religions. The cosmological argument is an argument for an uncaused purpose that initiated all causal forces. It does no longer straight assert that the uncaused rationale ought to be a certain deity. And it assumes that the perception of causality necessitates an uncaused cause. It was formulated extra so that you could restrict countless regress when discussing the existence of known reality. Neither argument is provided as proof of gods existence, but as an alternative as evidence that suggests that the inspiration of god is a philosophical possibility. Philosophically the arguments themselves can't in any cheap means (excluding circumstantial coincedence) be obvious as supporting any devout claims in the case of the character or intent of the possibly existent god. The arguments only serve to illustrate that the as a idea God could exist inside the context of unique definitions. The definition nevertheless would be in critical conflict with many fundamental devout connotations of the word god, as the arguments themselves attribute no anthropomorphic sympathy or traits to the term god as a proposal.

If you have your own answer to the question words to start of a conclusion, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.