Argument:Julie is allergic to gluten. So, she won’t be having any bread.
P1:Bread has gluten.
Conclusion:Therefore, she won’t be having any bread.
Theargument makes two claims. The first one is that Julie is allergic togluten. The second claim that the above argument makes is that Juliewon’t be having any bread. To ensure that the argument is validone must connect the two claims by coming up with the necessarypremises. Julie cannot eat anything that has gluten since her bodydevelops terrible reactions. Bread is one of the food items thatcontain gluten. As such, the conclusion that Jane will not eat breadfollows seamlessly from the claim that she is allergic to anythingthat has gluten and bread is one of these items.
Thepremise that I have added says that bread has gluten. This premise isnot true to the best of my knowledge since I know some breadvarieties that do not contain gluten. These are harmless to personswho are allergic to gluten. As such, Julie can still eat bread onlythat the one she will have must be gluten-free. To make the argumentvalid, one has to be more specific. For instance, one has to replacethe premise that says “bread has gluten” with the one that says“some breads varieties have gluten.” This will change theconclusion of the above argument. The new conclusion will be,“Therefore, she won’t take any bread that has gluten.” Ultimately, once the premise and the conclusion have changed, theargument has to change for it to be valid. The new form of theargument above will be “Julie is allergic to gluten. So, she won’tbe having any bread that has gluten.”
Inconclusion, the new argument will be:
Argument:Julie is allergic to gluten.
P1:Some bread varieties have gluten.
Conclusion:So, she will not be having any bread that has gluten.