argument, logical breakdown, book: the basic work of aristotle!

I’m stuck on a Philosophy question and need an explanation.

My sample paper here deals with two separate arguments, but remember that your paper may only consider one long argument, or maybe it will have three or more very short ones to consider. Just don’t forget about the 3-page limit.

My guide is in three sections:

1. The first shows you the argument I am analyzing. For you, this will be a text from Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas.
2. The second shows you my logical breakdown of each argument (do this in your notes).
3. The third is my actual sample paper (this is what you must turn in to me).

When you read this guide, you will see that for each section I have color coded each premise or conclusion. If you take argument #1, for example, you can read the first premise (colored in Red) in each part of the paper:

1. In the argument itself as: “Bad habits are easier to break when we are taken from the conditions in which we normally slip into these habits.”
2. In the logical breakdown as: “If the usual conditions of our action (of writing) are changed, then bad habits (of writing) will be easier to break.”
3. In the actual disputatio as: “When we are taken from the conditions in which a bad habit is normally acted upon, then these bad habits become easier to break”

In all three places, the premise is saying the same thing. This is crucial and the bulk of your grade, for you must make sure that your representation of the argument you have chosen to analyze follows the argument exactly.

So will want to do something similar to what I have done here in your notes, numbering the premises or color-coding each as you find them in the text itself, then putting them into a logical form in your notes (using the same number or color for each), and then writing them into the “I reply that” of your paper.

Then, to check your work, go back and read each instance of the premise, in the text itself, in your logical breakdown, and in your actual paper. Make sure they are all saying the same thing, but do not plagiarize the argument. Put it in your own words.

Do this for each premise of the argument you are analyzing.

Then read them all together. Does the argument make sense? Do you have all of the premises? Are their any implicit premises you overlooked?

Then, at the end, you will either support the argument or offer a criticism:

1. If you support the argument in your opening thesis statement, then now you must consider a possible objection to it, either disputing a term, a premise, or making an informal fallacy. Then answer the objection how you think your author could answer it.
2. If you criticize the argument in your opening thesis statement, then you must either dispute a term or a premise in the argument you analyzed (Do NOT make an informal fallacy). Then consider a short objection to your own criticism, i.e., try to anticipate how Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas would answer your criticism.

argument essay: choose if you support or criticize

if you support explain why and jump straight to the objection

if you criticize explain why and what is plato doing wrong.?

the example is in the file below pleaseee read!!!!!!!!!!!

book: the basic works of aristotle.