Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion & how to repair an arguement

In order for an agruement to be believable there are three different ways to evaluate it.
1) You can just believe the claim
2) Not believe the claim
3) Have a counter arguement and question the claim
 In order to avoid this and fix a faulty claim, there needs to be a premise or conclusion that makes the claim more valid, believable to others, and the premise should be more plausible then it's conclusion.

Ex: I hate running. I ran a mile today.
Analysis: This is not a strong or believable claim because I said I ran after saying I hate running. If I were to add, "I had to run the mile for P.E in order to pass," then it would be more believable. It is more understanding that even though I do not like to  run, it is neccessary in order to pass the class.