My last post

Back in chapter four of the Epstein book there is a short discussion of when not to repair an argument because it is unrepairable. When an argument is unrepairable it usually exhibits these similar traits outlined in the book such there being no argument, the argument has nothing to add, a premise is false, two of the premises contradict one another, the obvious premise that needed to be add would make the argument weaker, the premise needed is false, or the conclusion is false. The book gives an example of an unrepairable argument about alcoholism and how it is a disease that people can overcome within themselves but wants more treatment center to be built. The two claims that alcoholism and treatment centers should be built contradict each other, which is one of the things that makes an argument unrepairable. When an argument contradicts itself within its claim it is fair to say that the argument is no good and is unrepairable.