Top Law Schools

Are most argument flaws supposed to be found between the premises and conclusion(similar to necessary assumptions), or do you have argument flaws that attack the premises sometimes as well?

I can't imagine an argument flaw that would attack the premise.
That would be a factual flaw, seems to me.

the_pakalypse wrote:do you have argument flaws that attack the premises sometimes as well?

No. Repeat after me:

The premise is always true. THE PREMISE IS ALWAYS TRUE.

When asked for an argument flaw, it's always a flaw between the premises and the conclusion.

However, there have been correct weaken questions which question the validity of a premise.
E.G. PT 44, S2, #20

KevinP wrote:When asked for an argument flaw, it's always a flaw between the premises and the conclusion.

However, there have been correct weaken questions which question the validity of a premise.
E.G. PT 44, S2, #20

That answer doesn't question the validity of a premise, it questions the validity of his research.

EarlCat wrote:

KevinP wrote:When asked for an argument flaw, it's always a flaw between the premises and the conclusion.

However, there have been correct weaken questions which question the validity of a premise.
E.G. PT 44, S2, #20

That answer doesn't question the validity of a premise, it questions the validity of his research.

Fair enough. I'll try to be more selective about my wording but either way, the weaken doesn't attack the logical connection between the premise and conclusion but rather the research the premise is based on.

EarlCat wrote:

the_pakalypse wrote:do you have argument flaws that attack the premises sometimes as well?

No. Repeat after me:

The premise is always true. THE PREMISE IS ALWAYS TRUE.

+10000000

I hate it when I fall into the trap of questioning premises on flaw questions. Look for gaps between the conclusion and the premises.