You can use the measure of time, as well, to argue for why organizing your daily tasks makes logical sense -- you have 24 hours a day, so apportion time for basic needs (basic means essential, not optional). If I don't do x, then some y crap happens.

And also try to critique those who use the expression, "I put in 110% effort or time to doing Z". Logically incorrect, though funny.

many thanks, any idea how i can extend this to 800 words? I'm new to college and had to take extended leave because of my illness and I've no idea whatever about logic

many thanks, any idea how i can extend this to 800 words? I'm new to college and had to take extended leave because of my illness and I've no idea whatever about logic — gagandeep

Ah, logical arguments are necessarily concise, but use 1) definitions--"to organize things is to physically arrange them by date, color, usefulness, etc. "

2) set parameters or restrictions (so you're not casting a wide net -- If you're cooking for yourself and family members, it's one thing; but if you're cooking for a large number of people, or people you don't like, then it's a stressful situation)

3) of course, use introduction to set the tone, what you're about to discuss in your essay, etc.

That should easily be 800 words.

But I can't teach you logic -- ask others. You can easily prep by googling how to talk in logical terms.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Hey, thank you both Tim and Caldwell for helping me out. I'm a first-semester phil student and I missed loads of classes because of illness so it was a great help

I'd do a story in which something subtle didn't happen, call that thing Q. I didn't notice it at first. But it made me feel uneasy. Maybe I notice its absence again. Eventually it hits me. If Q didn't happen, that means that P, an incredibly important thing that would definitely result in Q can't have happened either! What a shocker!

Modus tollens:

If P then Q
Not-Q
Therefore not-P

Talk about the time you fell for a logical fallacy.

Speaking from my own experience, be mindful of the certainty and the scope of your argument.

1. Certainty [of a conclusion]: Can range from probably true to certainly true.

If your conclusion's certainty is of the former kind, the odds of it being true and ergo defensible is greater.

It's very difficult to defend conclusions that one believes/claims is certainly true.

2. Scope [of a conclusion]: Can range from some to most to all. Avoid conclusions about all members of a category - they're going to be difficult to argue for and also hard to defend.

If you want to make an argument that's likely to be true and easy to defend talk in terms of probably true and some.

An example [scope]

1. A lot of good Americans exist

2. If a lot of good Americans exist, all some American are good

Ergo,

3. All Some Americans are good

Remember: the fallacy of hasty generalization

Another example [certainty]

1. John volunteers to work in organizations that help the destitute

2. If John volunteers to work in organizations that help the destitute, it's absolutely certain likely that John's a good man

Hence,

3. It's absolutely certain likely that John's a good man.