Further discussion : Repairing Arguments

 Repairing Arguments

I have some trouble on how to fix bad arguments because some arguments can't even be repaired at all. According to Epstein, to repair an argument we can either add a premise or a conclusion if it needs it. but we must consider that by making changes, 1) the argument will be valid or strong, 2) the premise is plausible, 3) the premise is more plausible than the conclusion (62) Yet that still remains confusing to me and how would I be sure that a repaired argument would be good or valid? So I done some research and I found this website by T. Gracyk that gave further explanation:

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/110definitions.htm#repair

The web site explain to analyze the argument and then suggest if the argument needs a premise or if it needs a conclusion. Here's an example that Gracyk used in his website:

"All cute animals have big eyes, so Muzzles have big eyes."
 What are Muzzles? They can be ugly creatures or a name of an object or town. this argument is too weak, and there is not enough information to confirm the validity of the argument. This argument need a premise to make it valid. As an example to repair the argument, Gracyk added " Muzzles are cute animals".