Cogency is a term that is used to show coherency of the various premise that contributes to a conclusion that is derived from the individual statements (Audi 235). Cogency thus depends on the premises, if all the premises are true, then the conclusion will be probably construed to be true, the use of the word probably makes it open for any argument to be considered. Cogency is used in inductive argument where observations are used as an inference for proposing a general rule regarding a statement (Audi 237).
Acceptability is the concurrence verdict that is reached after a careful evaluation of all the outstanding factors based on the premises of a statement (Audi 245). In the first premise, it is acceptable to say that the grades the student’s scores has no relation with their personal values but depicts their ability to grasp the contents of the syllabus. This is because in grading it is the exact resonance between what the student writes and what was taught, there is no any other factor outside this range that is integrated in classification. For instance, a drug addict student can score As while a Christian one scores Ds, these grades do not absolutely reflect the students personal values at all.
The second premise is not acceptable is equally acceptable, whatever is taught in class is not constitutionally obliged to anyone in a legal perspective such that they have to believe the classroom opinions and facts. Whereas they have the capacity to retain the knowledge and use it to get better grades, there is no legal requirement that they have to believe in what they are taught.
Understanding and believing are two different words that confer different meanings altogether, premise three is acceptable and is relevant to the concluding premise. All the three premises are true and augur well with the conclusion statement. Since all the premises are construed to be true, it becomes impossible not to believe the last premise. The fact that all the three premises are taken to be true, substantial grounds is established to believe the conclusion.
Relevance is the relation of the various premises to the conclusion premise, it all the premises are true then it is said to be relevant to the conclusion (Audi 251). The conclusion in this case is dependent upon the individual premises, any opinion regarding the premises directly influences the outcome of the conclusion. With reference to the four premises given in this case there is relevancy in the premises, the three preceding premises are all true allowing them to be relevant to the conclusion. Grades do not reflects on the personal values of the students is the fact in the first premise, the second one asserts that there is no legal obligation to believe what is taught in class and the third one informs that the students who are familiar with the evolution story do not believe in it. Form the three premises a conclusion is the made regarding them that for those who understands the evolution story and do not believe in it should not be given lower grades. The relevancy in the premises can then be vividly observed.
An adequate ground is the consistency of the individual premises in assertion of an overall judgment (Audi 265). Considering all the premises in the case, it is impossible to refute the conclusion based on the three premises above. All the premises are true and combine to give the conclusion that is given in the above case.
In conclusion, the ARG conditions are used to critically evaluate premises and conclusions based on their coherency and consistency in determination of a conclusion. These bring about the term cogency which implies the resonance given by the various statements. The use of the ARG is useful in making deductive or inductive reasoning that is essential in the critical and creative thinking (Audi 285).
Work cited
Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. New York NY: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
