Drinking alcohol is an experience

People should take advantage of every experience life offers.

Drinking alcohol is an experience

Maria is a person

Therefore Maria should drink alcohol.

Syllogism:

p should q

r is q

s is p

Therefore s should r

The syllogism seems to make sense, however, there is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. For the argument to be valid, r should be p and not q. This would mean that drinking should be a person, to fix it in that format (or the format would have to be altered). However the problem does not end with the undistributed middle since for the argument to be true, more things should be considered. First, how can someone take advantage of every experience in life? By saying every, you are implying that the person should do all things possible. This can include, smoking crack, being run over by a car, cutting off a limb and more. It is hard to argue that people should do all of that because all are experiences life offers. Therefore, another problem with the whole argument is that the given is not sound, since it is impossible to take advantage of every opportunity. Since even if you tried, you cannot do everything in your lifetime. Another aspect that should be questioned is, if it were possible to do everything in life, would it be worth it? Does it make sense to cut of your arm simply because you can? Would the fact that I know I can be run over by a car if I wanted to make me want to do that? Some people might want to do that but that does not encompass everyone and “people” already implies “all people.” Even though these examples are absurd, because the argument wasn’t specific enough it encompasses experiences that range from trying a new flavor of ice cream to smoking crack.

Along with that comes another issue, this completely opinion-based with no facts (sources) backing it, so someone could accept it if it is convenient for them. For example, if Maria wanted to drink, even if the argument was not entirely logical, she might agree with it because it fits the choice she wants to make. The opposite also applies and in that case, because the syllogism has an undistributed middle as well, the statement can reinforce the already defined choice that Maria made of not drinking. The belief expresses in this argument is not properly justified nor is it true if analyzed logically as shown above. It makes evaluating and denying it easier if seen impartially but if the person has the firm belief that Maria should try to drink alcohol, then he/she might allege that he/she can accept it simply because of the convenience of it (as said before). If this argument’s truth were to be measured, it would definitely be towards the side of untruthful since its premises lack any justification to be sound and it also has the fallacy of the undistributed middle. On the other hand, another (and possibly simpler) way to see how the argument does not work is through induction. It can work through observing that several people were not able to take advantage of every experience life offers – after seeing that several people cannot do that, you can infer it isn’t possible. Deduction is also possible since it can be done in the exactly opposite way, so knowing that people cannot take advantage of every experience in life, you can assume some won’t.

It is important, though, to define should as used in argument. It can mean “to indicate obligation, duty” but also “to indicate what is probable.” There are other definitions as well but most revolve around these usages of the word. In the way it is written in the argument, it implies the first definition (obligation), however since language is a way of knowing, and since there can be an ambiguity it is important to address it because it can lead to a completely different interpretation of the argument. However, the reasons for why I believe it is used to indicate a duty is because of the sentence construction and the placement of the word within the two sentences, language aspects that I cannot be too specific about but are clearly exemplified in a dictionary. Having defined that all the previous counterarguments are closer to being valid since they were based on the word with the first definition. Should is not the only word that needs analysis in the sentence, though. The term “taking advantage” has many meanings but due to context one of its definitions can be chosen to suit the sentence best, “make good use.” This denotation of the word implies that the person is not only experiencing everything in life but also getting something nice out of it. So, one could argue that my counterclaims are invalid since cutting off your own limb is not an experience you can take advantage of, however this just validates my point; since the sentence says “take advantage of every experience life offers” the person arguing this is saying that each experience in life needs to be made into good use. Thus, even though people might have different ideas of what is good or bad and what can help or harm them, we can still reach a conclusion that with the definitions given of both the word “should” and the term to “take advantage” the argument becomes impossible to accomplish. On the other hand, someone can counter argue that by saying it is an experience that life offers it can mean opportunities that appear to you while you live, and some of the ones I listed are probably not included. To that I would first need to say that the ambiguity of the word leads to various interpretations and for that matter the argument should be more specific and, if it were that specific, it would still be impossible. For example, when applying to colleges, many people are accepted into more than one college, if they were to follow this argument would they need to attend every single college they got into? That isn’t possible. So, even though life is offering them the possibility to go to x, y and z colleges they have to choose one, which consequently means they have to opt-out of two possibilities life offered to them. Hence, language has to be analyzed closely when an argument or counterargument is made.

Language is not the only way of knowing that should be considered, though. Perception can have a play in this discussion where one might question why even consider a certain experience and the other might question the person’s reluctance to having the experience. This involves understanding how the two people approach the situation and at that point they enter the zone of exchange, where each individual’s knowledge becomes shared knowledge. Even though the argument is fallacious, in the zone of exchange both people can expose why it does/doesn’t make sense to him/her. This can lead to each person gaining more knowledge due to another person’s experience. It can also lead to clashes since two individuals might strongly disagree, but if they can get past those differences they are able to learn more about each other’s points of views.

The argument is not sound and for that reason I am not inclined to accept it. On the other hand, it is easy to see why other people might be inclined to accept the argument. Counterclaims are not too hard to find since there is the presence of a fallacy, the premises don’t really have a justification and the conclusion (due to undistributed middle) does not necessarily follows. However, I might be finding so many counterarguments since I do not believe in what it says and thus personal bias can have an influence in how I see the reasoning behind it. I cannot be completely impartial, but with greatest amount of impartiality I can. Nevertheless, the arguments are present making the syllogism created by the argument weak and the argument itself weak as well.  Hence, I’ve reached the conclusion that the argument analyzed is not sound and that I am not inclined to accept it.