An argument can be described as basically being an exchange of contradicting or opposite views between two or more parties. This being the case. It can be said therefore that an argument takes on a given characteristic. For a conversation to be considered an argument, it has to be comprised of a premise or premises and a conclusion. A premise is a group of statements that are offered in support of the conclusion (Stab & Gurevych, 2014) . An argument, therefore, must be marked by divergent premises where each group offers valid reasons to support its premises. An example of an argument could be that Michael was driving his SUV over the speed limit, in addition to being intoxicated. In this case, therefore, Michael was breaking the law. The rational inferences used to support the conclusion is DUI and overspending.
As far as arguments are concerned, cogent reasoning is the stating of ideologies and opinions based on facts to support the conclusion. In other words, cogent reasoning is an argument that is fact-based and therefore sound in which case the premises provide valid reasons to support the conclusion. The three criteria for evaluating cogent reasoning including validity, acceptable premises, and relevance (Stab & Gurevych, 2014) . This means that cogent reasoning must provide valid reasons or acceptable arguments which must be true in addition to the information being relevant under examination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An argument can be said to be deductively valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. What this means is that the argument must first state valid premises or reasons from which the conclusion is drawn. In this case, the parties walk through the premises systematically to arrive at a conclusion. Inductively strong arguments, on the other hand, take on a slightly different approach by considering three criteria in its defense. In this case, an argument can be said to inductively strong if the premises given are cogent in addition to them being reasonable enough for the subjects to buy them. Lastly, the argument must not be defeated by the subject's cumulative evidence (Stab & Gurevych, 2014) . In this case, validity does not play any big deal provided it beats the subjects' arguments.
Such phenomena factor the critical thinking process that is responsible for forming one's argument as their background beliefs and philosophies. Philosophies play a significant role since they aid in the shaping of a person's character. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong inversely influences a person's morals which are reflected in their argument. Similarly, background beliefs are responsible for fallacies in arguments which may play a significant role in leading a misguided and uninformed agreement that is not backed by any valid facts. Examples of these background beliefs include the notion that men are superior to women, or that all men cheat in relationships. These influence the way one would form an argument in favor of what they believe in without necessarily relying on facts or data, leading to fallacies, such as the fallacy of generalization.
Speaking of background beliefs, there was this one time I got into a discussion with my small brother who believed that boys are better than girls in life generally. According to him, men are the best political and corporate leaders, better sportspeople and better in academics as well. To counter his fallacies, I had to employ the logical imperative by pointing out to him some of the greatest female leaders and influencers in various fields the world has ever known. The likes of Oprah Winfrey who are among the wealthiest people in the world. I equally appealed to his rhetoric by pointing out some of the women from our community we know who are under oppression because they had been discriminated against and not allowed to realize their potential. This being the case, I was able to point out the role embracing diversity and providing equal opportunities to all plays in ensuring equality and success to both genders.
References
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 1501-1510).
