0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views1 page

Chapter 02 - Inductive & Deductive Argument - Reasoning

Chapter 02 discusses two types of reasoning: deductive and inductive arguments, highlighting their structures and characteristics. It explains the importance of premises and conclusions, including the role of unstated premises and conclusions in arguments. Additionally, it covers the concepts of inference to the best explanation and the appeals to logic (logos), credibility (ethos), and emotion (pathos) in persuasive reasoning.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views1 page

Chapter 02 - Inductive & Deductive Argument - Reasoning

Chapter 02 discusses two types of reasoning: deductive and inductive arguments, highlighting their structures and characteristics. It explains the importance of premises and conclusions, including the role of unstated premises and conclusions in arguments. Additionally, it covers the concepts of inference to the best explanation and the appeals to logic (logos), credibility (ethos), and emotion (pathos) in persuasive reasoning.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CHAPTER 02 - TWO KINDS OF REASONING

Intended to provide a reason for accepting the second part


The premise
Reason/evidence
The second part of that the premise is reasoning for
The conclusion
The claim being supported
e.g: Premise 1: The brake aren't working, the gengine burns oil, the transmission needs work, and
Conclusions used as the car is hard to start
Premises Conclusion 1: The car has outlived its usefulness = Premise 2
Conclusion 2: We should get a new car
General features Unstated premises:
1 P: You can't check out books from the library without an ID
of Arguments
C: Bill won't be able to check out any books
Unstated Premises and -> Unstated premise: Bill has no ID
Conclusions
(Ẩn mệnh đề/ kết luận) Unstated conclusion
E.g: The political party that best reflect mainstream opinion will win the presidency in 2020 and the
Republican Party best reflect mainstream opinion
-> Conclusion: Republican will win the presidency in 2020
Premises: Because, since, for, given that, in view of, this is implied by..
Signal words: Conclusions: Therefore, so, thus, it follows that, hence, accordingly, this implies that, this suggest
that
An argument aims to prove its conlusion with logical certainty
Valid: If premises are true -> Conclusion must be true
Lập luận hợp lệ (Valid argument): là lập luận mà trong đó kết luận được suy ra một cách logic từ
các tiền đề (Dat, 2019). Điều này có nghĩa là nếu mặc định tất cả tiền đề là đúng, ta không thể
Deductive Arguments chứng minh kết luận là sai.
- If the conclusion of an argument is true by definition given the premise and premises, -> valid
deductive argument
Sound: Valid + Premises are actually true
Lập luận hợp lý (Sound argument): là lập luận hợp lệ, và tất cả tiền đề trong đó đều đúng.
An argument that the premise support its conclusion
Two kinds of
2 Strong argument: If the premises are true -> the conlucion is probably true
Arguments
Weak argument: The premise does'n make conclusion more likely
Inductive Arguments Strengthening Inductive arguments
- Use bigger samples (more data: 5 bridges > 2 bridges)
- Diversify evidence
- Rule out alternatives
E.x: Traffic slows after 2 PM on all 5 bridges -> better than slow on 2 bridges
A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, often due to
Deductive argument Vs its form
Inductive argument - If P, then Q.
- Not Q -> Therefore, not P
- A special kind of Inductive reasoning
Definition
Inference to the - Give more explaination that best fits the evidence.
3 Best Explaination My back aches. Could it be due to gardening? Or lifting weights? No it hurts all the time. + Started
(IBE) Example when I bought that expensive matress
-> Matress hurting my back
- A type of reasoning where you weight multiple factors - both for and againist - before raching a
conclusion
Definition - It often blends:
+ Deductive element: If X is true, then I must do Y
+ Inductive element: Given past element, this outcome is likely
Balance of
- Real life decision-making (buying, voting, moving, dating)
4 Consideration
Where does it appear - Moral & legal reasoning
Reasoning
- Essay writting (on the one hand..., on the other hand...)
P1: Reason A in favor
P2: Reason B againist
Structure
P3: Reason C in favor (stronger)
-> Conclusion: Choose option in favor
Definition: Uses fact, logic, reasoning, statistics and examples to support a claim
Features:
- Clear premises and conclusion
Logos (Logic) - Appeal to - Deductive or inductive reasoning
reason - Real evidence
Example: Smoking causes lung cancer. Studies with 10,000 participants show smokers are 15x
more likely to due from cancer
-> EVIDENCE - BASED
Definition: Persuades by showing the speaker is trustworthy, knowledgeable, morally upright
Features:
Logos, Ethos, - References to expert
5 Ethos (Ethical appeal) -
Pathos - Credentials, awards, experience
Appeal to Credibility
- Honest or moral tone
Example: As a doctor with 20 years of experience, I recommend this vaccine.
-> ETHOS - Argument relies on speaker's reputatuon
Definition: Tries to influence by stiring emotions (fear, anger, pride, pity, joy, guilt...)
Features:
Pathos (Emotional - Vivid imagery
Appeal) - Appeal to - Anecdotes or dramatic language
feeling - Loaded words
Example: Imagine your child dying from a preventable disease. Vaccinate them now
-> PATHOS - appeal to fear and empathy

You might also like