Reading a story about the discovery and potential danger facing the population of coelacanths, I found a wonderful little quote:[After the reporter went to a small village to pick up a fish that had been unintentionally caught in a net...]Making our way to Tanga, with the coelacanth in the boot, Simon, The Observer's driver from Dar es Salaam, was deeply unimpressed with his unexpected passenger. He produced a pink bottle of rose poppy perfume and sprayed it liberally around the car to mask the odour seeping in.
'Why should they save this fish?' he demanded. 'This is not a good fish. It's oily and you cannot eat this, and it's a smelly fish.' Fixing me with a puzzled look, he concluded: 'It's a bad fish.'
What a perfect piece of reasoning.
Argument: (preamble)I question those people's judgement about their intention to save this fish (preamble ends) - This is a fish not worth saving because:
P1 (Premise 1): It is an oily fish.
P2: Oily fish are not good.
P3: You cannot eat this fish.
P4: Inedible fish are not good.
P5: It is a smelly fish.
P6: Smelly fish are not good.
P7: Fish that are not good fish are bad fish
P8:(conclusion): Therefore, it's a bad fish.
On a separate note, I am interviewing for positions this week and such... I went to an interview this morning. It is a position worth getting - I have 2 more interviews today - but want this one...
Argument: I want this job because:
P1: It is close-by.
P2: Close-by companies are good.
P3: The people are professional and nice.
P4: Professional and nice people are good.
P5: It is not a smelly fish.
P6: Smelly fish are not good.
P7: These points above make for a great job.
p8: I want a great job.
P9: (conclusion) Therefore, I want this job.