Answer

Gadfly literally refers to a kind of fly that annoys livestock and specifically horses. In social settings, gadfly metaphorically refers to a person who upsets the status quo of a society. Notably, Socrates refers to himself as a gadfly to depict the reputation he has among his accusers who consider him an enemy of the social norm by corrupting the youth through teaching of a strange doctrine (Plato, Socrates’ defense- Apology). The metaphor is considered as characteristic of philosophy because it posit a very effective means of concept representation about the role of Socrates in the society. The metaphor present a way of reasoning by Socrates that is debatable, a methodology stemming from discipline of philosophy (Besley, 2013). Besides, the metaphor has a characteristic of the discipline of philosophy by defining the mind and life of Socrates through giving new understanding of his experience concerning his daily activities and his belief.

The usage of this metaphor is related to other academic and intellectual pursuits. It is related to other academic and intellectual pursuits through the philosophical methodology of debate (Besley, 2013). The argument of Socrates that he is the gadfly which God has given the state is debatable. This is in tandem with other academic and intellectual pursuits that involve debatable concepts (Plato, Socrates’ defense- Apology). Moreover, in the discipline of theology, close examination of the scripture reveals a similar representation of concept in the book of Jeremiah “Egypt is a very fair heifer; the gad-fly cometh, it cometh from the north." This analogy has a close connection to the metaphor used by Socrates. Also, gadfly is used in modern politics to represent individuals who persistently challenges the status quo or a people in position.

 Socrates assert in his argument that “the unexamined life is not worth living” to imply that a life that does not condone dissenting views and that is focused on retaining the status quo without any watchdog is close to servitude and is worthless (Plato, Socrates’ defense- Apology). I do agree with this argument because a life worth living can only be achieved in a democratic environment in which examination of life is guaranteed and dissenting views appreciated (Besley, 2013).

Logic questions

1. Invalid deductive argument and a strong inductive argument

Deductive argument revolves around the truth of the premises of the argument as a guarantee to the truth of its conclusion. This argument is characterized by the terms valid and invalid deductive arguments (Sober, 2001). Valid deductive argument is an argument whose premises succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion. Invalid deductive arguments, on the other hand, refers to an argument whose truth of premises posit a possibility of its conclusion being false (Sober, 2001). The argument may have true premises but attracts a false conclusion.

However, inductive argument refers to arguments whose truth of premises make the conclusion more probable (Sober, 2001). It only provide a claim that the truth of its premises posit reasonable grounds for its conclusion to be true. Strong inductive argument has very high probability of having a true conclusion because their premises are true (Sober, 2001).

Notably, there exist difference between invalid deductive argument and strong inductive argument (Sober, 2001). Although both arguments have possibilities of false conclusion, invalid deductive argument has guaranteed possibility of false conclusion whereas strong inductive argument present very low possibility of false conclusion (Sober, 2001). 

2. The argument form

The argument is invalid because it allows substitution instance with a true premise and a false conclusion (Crossley, David, Peter 1979). The argument takes the form;

All A are B.

Some C are A.

Therefore, some B are not C

Substituting the letters;

 All cynical people are disgruntled.

Some meticulous people are cynical.

Therefore, some disgruntled people are not meticulous.

Counterexample;

All cynical people are disgruntled.

All meticulous people are cynical.

Therefore, all disgruntled people are meticulous.

3. Argument Construction

The wave of terror that has clouded the world cities calls for stricter measure of security in which individual citizens are fully involved in the safe guarding of their security as well as that of their countries. The ordinary citizens have, more often than not, found themselves the victims of terrorist attacks in social gatherings where a gunman walks into a social gathering and opens fire on civilians indiscriminately killing several and wounding majority. Notably, the gunman succeed in the terror exploit because the civilians are unarmed and cannot return the fire. For instance, worshipers in some African countries have been victims of terrorist attacks during prayers. If these civilians would all be armed, they would respond to the attack in equal measure thereby reducing the number of civilian casualties.

The rate of gun-related crime has significantly increased within most cities of the world. Once again, innocent civilians are the victim of such crimes. At gun point, an armed robber successfully make away with millions of cash without any resistance from the public. Notably, if the public was equally armed, they would react by confronting the robbers and such robbery attempts would be foiled.

Moreover, cases of rape and sexual abuse on women are on the rise world over. The rapists, in most instances, threaten their victims with bodily harm or even death if they resist the ordeal. If the vulnerable population would be armed, they would successfully resist the assault and no cases of rape would be registered. Considering that the perpetrators are human, their full knowledge of gun possession by the vulnerable population will deter any attempt to confront potential victims into the ordeal.

Also, a country whose majority of the population have basic knowledge on gun use will experience batter social order by minimizing cases of border inversions by outlawed gangs from neighboring countries as witnessed in some African countries where the public are not armed. If the general public possess, own and freely walk around with handguns, the invading gangs, though equally armed, will think twice before launching any attack on the public due to the anticipated public response to thwart such efforts.      

In conclusion, the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns should not be outlawed but the public should be trained on effective use of handguns and be allowed and encouraged to own a hand gun. This will ensure every member of the public is armed, an alternative that will significantly restore sanity and social order in the society.

ns