Posted by Bartholomew on January 27, 2002 at 18:21:13:
In Reply to: Re: You two have to agree with each other posted by Matches on January 27, 2002 at 17:48:33:
: : I can approach the problem from different ways, depending on which definition I use. You two have to pick, and stick with it.
: How are there two ways to approach the problem when using a definition which pretty much just rearranges and/or use synonyms for words in the other definition.
No, your definition includes what Isaac's does not: it says that an argument only needs to be "designed to assert or prove" something to qualify as an argument.
Isaac's definition includes what yours does not: it specifies that the statements must consist of at least one premise and at least one conclusion.
Actually, I don't need to show that every criticism is an argument. I just want to do that for clarity of my point. All I really need to show is that every criticism needs to be error-checked, and I can do that without touching the definition of an argument. But that leaves a little more space for you to misunderstand me and to disagree in, so I'd rather do it the other way.