A concept that I found interesting was between all and one. The section explains how there is a direct way, arguing backwards, and chain form with “almost all”. The pages explain that they are vague generalities. The direct way with almost refers to the idea, almost all S are P, a is S, so a is P, this way is usually strong according to the reading. Then, arguing backwards with “almost all” is usually weak. The idea behind that is almost all S are P, a is P, so a is S. under chain “almost all” is usually weak as well. The idea is, almost all S are P, and almost all P are Q, so almost all S are Q. I personally think that these almost can be problematic because there seems to be much assuming between every row. I personally think people use them to setup stereotypes that cannot be proven to be true.
I agree- it was interesting to read about the difference between all and some. There is a thin line between the two and people tend not to pay attention to the difference and in some ways use them incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteI like how you explained the same concept but in your own words. It helped me understand it in a different way.
I do agree that with these vague generalities they seem to assume.
In my opinion there are other ways that these can be used- especially with arguing. They can be used in a positive way rather than assuming and using them to setup stereotypes.