There have been many times in my life where I have found myself in arguments in which no conclusion is met. [SAL1]  This is due in part to the fact that most arguments in life are based around open concepts.  [SAL2] The topic being discussed [SAL3] is typically subjective to the person being argued with[SAL4] , and it is hard to settle on a definitive answer, or look to a paradigm.  This isn’t to say that it’s impossible.  There is a valid argument for every open concept, and to say there isn’t is to blatantly commit the Continuum fallacy.  This is definitely the case in the question of whether it is possible to eat to[SAL5]  many potato chips.  If two is only one more then [SAL6] one, three is only one more then [SAL7] two, and every number proceeding [SAL8] three is only one more then [SAL9] the number before itself, then can you ever do anything so excessively that it’s harmful[SAL10] ?  I believe the answer is yes.

First, in order to have any type of argument, you have to establish a set of ground rules upon which the argument will be based[SAL11] .  Without these rules the argument becomes cyclical[SAL12] , and it is impossible to determine an outcome[SAL13] .  If one person is health conscious, and the other a very worry free eater, then there is going to be a clear difference in what each person feels is a regular or irregular amount of chips to eat.  It is totally subjective [SAL14] to each person involved in the argument.  The argument stays in the realm of the continuum fallacy, and nothing is accomplished; yet with this clear definition, a conclusion can be met[SAL15] .

This is very much the case in the potato chip argument, therefore, with these rules established you have to then further analyze the topic of argument[SAL16] , and the person who is engaging in the argument[SAL17] .  Does this person work out regularly, or are they [SAL18] typically lazy.[SAL19]   Are the effects being looked at [SAL20] over a long term period[SAL21] , or are they short term.[SAL22]   Also, is the recommended daily caloric intake for a person of this weight and height being taken into consideration[SAL23] ?  If it is being looked at [SAL24] over short term then I think it would be very hard to determine whether or not someone eating excessive amounts of potato chips is having any affect [SAL25] on their [SAL26] body at all, [SAL27] however if this is being looked at [SAL28] over the long term, then I think there is a valid argument saying that it is harmful to their [SAL29] health.  The effects potato chips will have on your body will be noticeable and more easily gauged over the long term, as well as more noticeable on someone who isn’t very active, versus someone who is regularly active.    Also, the idea of what the average persons [SAL30] daily caloric intake should be in order to remain within the bounds of a healthy diet have been established by a panel of experts, and in order for each person to determine whether they [SAL31] are within these bounds, food products come with nutrition facts.  With these nutrition facts, any person can determine, based on the amount [SAL32] of calories that come with each serving size, whether or not they [SAL33] are eating an unhealthy amount of any food product[SAL34] .  If the recommended daily caloric intake for the average human is 1500 calories, and one serving size is ten chips, at 100 calories per serving, then we can say that any person who eats more then [SAL35] 151 chips has eaten an unhealthy amount of chips.  We have a set of rules to work with, and because of this we can come to some sort of [SAL36] a conclusion.

The idea of the continuum fallacy can be regularly used [SAL37] as a scapegoat [SAL38] for almost any argument concerning an open concept.  This is because it is difficult for two humans to draw a definitive line, and decide on the boundaries of what they are arguing about.  Because of this, it is impossible for the two to come to any type of conclusion, and for this very reason it is critical that they define the terms of their argument.  With this being done, it is possible to clearly argue any open concept, no matter what it may be[SAL39] .

 [SAL1] 10 wordy! Better: “Real-life arguments are often inconclusive.”

 [SAL2] 10 wordy! You could reduce both these sentences to “Since real-life arguments are often based on open concepts, they are often inconclusive.”

 [SAL3] 10, 22

 [SAL4] 10, 22

 [SAL5] 6 too

 [SAL6] 6 than

 [SAL7] 6

 [SAL8] 21, 25

 [SAL9] 6

 [SAL10] 25, 32  Complete the math analogy first -- THEN move to the comparison with potato chips.

 [SAL11] 10

 [SAL12] 25

 [SAL13] 10

 [SAL14] 36

 [SAL15] 25

 [SAL16] 4 comma splice

 [SAL17] In philosophy we look at arguments only – you’d focus on the arguer if you were a psychologist.

 [SAL18] 3

 [SAL19] 13

 [SAL20] 22

 [SAL21] 10

 [SAL22] 13

 [SAL23] 22

 [SAL24] 22

 [SAL25] 6 effect

 [SAL26] 3

 [SAL27] 4, 13

 [SAL28] 22

 [SAL29] 3

 [SAL30] 2

 [SAL31] 3

 [SAL32] 21 number

 [SAL33] 3

 [SAL34] 10

 [SAL35] 6

 [SAL36] 22

 [SAL37] 22

 [SAL38] 32, 36 please explain “scapegoat” here!

 [SAL39] 10


Content-wise, this is ok. Technically this is very careless.  You’re supposed to know the difference between “two” “to” and “too”; between “affect” and “effect”; between “then” and “than”, etc.


Content: 18

Deduction for tech errors – 20% (4 points)

Grade: 18 – 4 = 14