Week 3: Test for an Argument to be Good

         Upon reading Chapter 3 in Epstein text, Epstein states that the test for an argument to be good the following must occur : the premises are plausible, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument is valid or strong. An example of a good or valid argument is: "Siberian huskies have a great chance of surviving in freezing temperatures due to their warm fur. So all dogs with fur should be able to survive in freezing temperatures". The premise of the argument is truthful and even reasonable because Siberian huskies have warm fur and other advantages to surviving in freezing temperatures. The second test for an argument to be good is for the premise to be more convincing/realistic than the conclusion. In this argument,  the premise is more realistic than the conclusion because we know that Siberian huskies are more adapted to colder habitats than all other dogs with warm fur. For the last and final tests, the argument needs to be valid or strong. My argument is credible and strong because Siberian huskies come from descendants of wolf and are naturally adapted to colder habitats therefore more likely to survive than other dogs. Even though there could be a counter argument that Siberian huskies are just like any other dog. That Siberian huskies are to dependent on humans just like any other dogs, but my argument is still good to pass all the the three tests to be a good argument. Even though there might be other dogs who have warm fur, adapted to the cold weather, but this doesn't change the fact that Siberian huskies have more advantages to survive in freezing habitats for longer periods of time than other dogs.