Microbead Argument

The argument which will be examined is that: “we teach and test things most students have no interest in and will never need, and facts that they can Google and will forget as soon as the test is over, Because of this, the longer kids are in school, the less motivated they become” (Thomas L. Friedman). The major premise is that “we teach and test things most students have no interest in and will never need” (Thomas L. Friedman). The minor premise is that the facts can be googled and will be forgotten quickly (Thomas L. Friedman). The conclusion is that the longer kids are in school, the less motivated they become” (Thomas L. Friedman). These premises are unacceptable as they follow a dominos effect where if point “a” is true then point “b”

The major premise that the reasoning is “millions of people use “microbeads” every morning” (Aaron Cantú). The minor premise is “according to new research by scientists at Plymouth University in England”(Aaron Cantú). The conclusion is “Microbeads” are having a dire effect on the Marine ecosystem (Aaron Cantú). The premises are unacceptable because both the Major and Minor premise are too broad resulting in an argument made up of fallacies. The major premise does not have an exact number; instead it is suppressing relevant evidence. The minor premise is guilty of appealing to authority, where there is limited information about the “scientists”. The reader is left with no knowledge about their expertise or how closely related the “scientists” are to this topic. The premises are relevant as they are connected directly to the conclusion but they are not adequate. For example, more specific evidence could have been used instead thus making the argument a hasty prediction. The use of “dire” leads the reader to believe something awful will happen to the ocean tomorrow if this problem is not fixed immediately. Also using he word “according too” in reference to the source weakens