Correcting Arguments

Correction 1

Before :

P2 : Stocks are riskier than bonds, and stock investors were thus being paid a premium for taking on that additional risk.

SS.d ( Supporting Statement ) : Whenever anyone in later years re-examined the data on stocks' long-run performance--major scholarly studies on the topic were published in 1938, '53, '64 and '76--they reached the same conclusion Smith did. Even with the dire experience of the early 1930s factored in, stocks had proved an excellent long-run investment, with returns that far outpaced those of bonds.

The supporting statement that the writer put to support the premises are weak because it did not explain how much that investor gets with premium payment.

After :

P2 : Stocks are riskier than bonds, and stock investors were thus being paid a premium for taking on that additional risk.

SS.d : Whenever anyone in later years re-examined the data on stocks' long-run performance--major scholarly studies on the topic were published in 1938, '53, '64 and '76--they reached the same conclusion Smith did. Even with the dire experience of the early 1930s factored in, stocks had proved an excellent long-run investment, with returns that far outpaced those of bonds that is more than 10%.

Correction 2

Before :

P1: Stocks would continue to beat bonds because they were less vulnerable to have their value eaten away by inflation and allowed investors to share in the growth of the U.S. economy.

This is what makes it as a weak premise: "After that boom came to a crashing end in 1929 and the market continued to implode in 1930, '31 and '32, this theoretical underpinning at first seemed to have been demolished. The idea that stocks could be good investments became a joke and remained that--in the popular view, at least--for decades."

After :

Stocks would continue to beat bonds because they were less vulnerable to have their value eaten away by inflation and allowed investors to share in the growth of the U.S. stable economy.

Correction 3

Before :

P1: Stocks would continue to beat bonds because they were less vulnerable to have their value eaten away by inflation and allowed investors to share in the growth of the U.S. economy.

SS.b ( Evidence) : Smith recounted later, "supporting evidence for this thesis could not be found." Instead, he discovered that over every 20-year span he examined but one, stocks handily beat bonds.

The supporting statement that the expert includes to support the premises are weak because he cannot find the evidence for the thesis he mentions. So, it is vague for readers, because he is not sure about the fact.

After :

P1 : Stocks would continue to beat bonds because they were less vulnerable to have their value eaten away by inflation and allowed investors to share in the growth of the U.S. economy.

SS : Smith recounted later, "supporting evidence for this thesis could be found." In addition, he discovered that over every 20-year span he examined but one, stocks handily beat bonds.