1. For each of the two arguments below, structure the argument such that its final conclusion appears last, and its premises are ordered in logical sequence and numbered. Write each premise and the conclusion on separate rows. Have two distinct arguments.
2. Determine whether each argument is a linked argument or a convergent argument, and explain clearly why; or which parts of the argument (sub-argument) are linked, or which are convergent, and why; use the number of the premises to refer to the linked or convergent structures, respectively.
3. Determine whether each argument is an enthymeme or not, and explain clearly why. If it is, identify the relevant missing statement(s).
4. Determine whether there are any irrelevant premises (reasons) in each argument, and explain why.
5. Finally, try to determine which of the two arguments is the better one; explain clearly why your chosen argument is the “better” one, and why the other fails to be as good or better than your choice.
Note: You will not be able to assess validity (an argument whose conclusion follows logically from the premises) by logical standards since no method has yet been learned. Thus, you must try intuitively, and, hopefully, with some help from the learned material, to make some assessment of which is the better argued position, and why. Argument I: That the mind is a material thing is indicated by the fact that changes in brain chemistry often bring about changes in one’s mental state, and from the apparent inability of those who believe in an immaterial mind to explain how it could come to exist, or how it could causally interact with one’s brain. And if the mind is a material thing then it seems that we shall not consciously survive the death of our bodies. If that is so, then we must cherish each moment we have on this earth and we must stop believing that all of the injustices in the world will be rectified in a life to come. Argument II: That the mind is not a material thing is suggested by the fact that matter is composed of atoms, and no arrangement of atoms could possess the property of being conscious. Now, given that our minds are not material things it follows that the destruction of our material bodies need not be the end of our conscious experience. On this basis we may reject the claim that all reports of near-death experiences are mere fabrications or errors. This, combined with the fact that plenty of people have a keen interest in studying such experiences, supports the claims that college classes devoted to studying ideas about the soul and survival of death are worth offering, and that investigation of such phenomena is a legitimate topic for psychological and medical research.