“Mississippi officer resigns after deadly shooting of one-year-old”

Good evening, I'm Professor Reid, and this is ReFrame. Tonight... CNN reports: Mississippi officer resigns after deadly shooting of one-year-old. CNN reported this on October 23. The headline: Mississippi officer resigns after deadly shooting of one-year-old. Mississippi officer resigns after deadly shooting of one-year-old CNN Let's grade the headline. We ask four questions of every argument. Is it valid? If the reasons are true... must the conclusion be true? Is it cogent? Are the reasons believable... and do they make it likely? Is it supported? Does the article actually show the evidence? And is it fallacy-free? Does it avoid reasoning tricks... like attacking the person? Argument one. It comes from CNN headline. The reasons. Reason one. The page titles a CNN segment 'Mississippi officer resigns after deadly shooting of one-year-old.' Reason two. It adds only that Ryan Young 'joins The Lead' and that the clip runs 2:54, with no transcript, named officials, documents, or quotes. Therefore... A Mississippi officer resigned after the deadly shooting of a one-year-old. Let's put argument one on the board. P stands for its reasons, all together. C is the conclusion. Here's every combination of true and false. Row two. The reasons are true... but the conclusion is false. Nothing in the reasons rules that out. That's a counterexample. One is enough. The argument is invalid. To make it valid, you'd need a missing link. If P... then C. Now, whenever both premises are true, C is true. No counterexample. Valid. But valid doesn't mean true. Someone still has to show that link is true. Is it valid? No. The reasons could all be true and the conclusion still false. Is it cogent? No. The reasons don't make the conclusion likely. Is it supported? No. The article doesn't show the evidence. Any fallacies? None found. That's an F. Why F? Charitably, this is a factual claim, not a smear — and it may well be true in the world. In this text it is a conclusion with no premises that entail it and no evidence that inductively supports it. Absence of an argument is not a fallacy I can honestly name; it is simply an empty page where a report should be. Now, the whole scorecard. Valid: 0 percent. Cogent: 0 percent. Conclusion supported: 0 percent. Fallacy-free: 100 percent. No fallacies found. Overall... an F. In one line: A child's death reduced to a video title and a playlist. One argument. Zero valid. Zero cogent. None fully supported. Zero fallacies. Don't just read the news. ReFrame it.