This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Because logic deals with arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish passages that contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument. Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something: (1 !t least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. (" There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something#that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence. !s we have seen, the statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are the premises, and the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or impl$ is the conclusion. It is not necessar$ that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises actuall$ support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or impl$ something. The first condition e%presses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled usuall$ presents few problems. Thus, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second condition is fulfilled. This second condition e%presses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential claim is simpl$ the claim that the passage e%presses a certain &ind of reasoning process#that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something. 'uch a claim can be either e%plicit or implicit. !n explicit inferential claim is usuall$ asserted b$ premise or conclusion indicator words (((thus,)) ((since,)) ((because,)) ((hence,)) ((therefore,)) and so on . *%ample: The human e$e can see a source of light that is as faint as an ordinar$ candle from a distance of "+ &ilometers, through a nonabsorbing atmosphere. Thus, a powerful searchlight directed from a new moon should be visible on earth with the na&ed e$e. (,iane *. -apalia and 'all$ .end&os /lds, Psychology The word ((thus)) e%presses the claim that something is being inferred, so the passage is an argument. !n implicit inferential claim e%ists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage. *%ample: The price reduction 0seen with the electronic calculator1 is the result of a technological revolution. The calculator of the 1234s used integrated electronic circuits
that contained about a do5en transistors or similar components on a single chip. Toda$, mass6produced chips, onl$ a few millimeters s7uare, contain several thousand such components. (8obert '. Boi&ess and *dward *delson, Chemical Principles The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something, so we are 9ustified in calling the passage an argument. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the premises. In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, &eep an e$e out for (1 indicator words and (" the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. In connection with these points, however, a word of caution is in order. :irst, the mere occurrence of an indicator word b$ no means guarantees the presence of an argument. :or e%ample, consider the following passages: 'ince *dison invented the phonograph, there have been man$ technological developments. 'ince *dison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a ma9or technological development. In the first passage the word ((since)) is used in a temporal sense. It means ((from the time that.)) Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage ((since)) is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an argument. The second cautionar$ point is that it is not alwa$s eas$ to detect the occurrence of an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage, and the reader ma$ have to review a passage several times before ma&ing a decision. In reaching such a decision, it sometimes helps to mentall$ insert the word ((therefore)) before the various statements to see whether it ma&es sense to interpret one of them as following from the others. *ven with this mental aid, however, the decision whether a passage contains an inferential relationship (as well as the decision about indicator words often involves a heav$ dose of interpretation. !s a result, not ever$one will agree about ever$ passage. 'ometimes the onl$ answer possible is a conditional one: ((If this passage contains an argument, then these are the premises and that is the conclusion.)) To assist in distinguishing passages that contain arguments from those that do not, let us now investigate some t$pical &inds of nonarguments. These include simple noninferential passages, e%positor$ passages, illustrations, e%planations, and conditional statements.
Simple Noninferential Passages 'imple noninferential passages are unproblematic passages that lac& a claim that an$thing is being proved. 'uch passages contain statements that could be premises or conclusions (or both , but what is missing is a claim that an$ potential premise supports a conclusion or that an$ potential conclusion is supported b$ premises. -assages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosel$ associated statements, and reports. ! warning is a form of e%pression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation. *%amples: .atch out that $ou don)t slip on the ice. .hatever $ou do, never confide personal secrets to Blabbermouth Bob. If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then there is no argument. ! piece of advice is a form of e%pression that ma&es a recommendation about some future decision or course of conduct. *%amples: ;ou should &eep a few things in mind before bu$ing a used car. Test drive the car at var$ing speeds and conditions, e%amine the oil in the cran&case, as& to see service records, and, if possible, have the engine and power train chec&ed b$ a mechanic. Before accepting a 9ob after class hours, I would suggest that $ou give careful consideration to $our course load. .ill $ou have sufficient time to prepare for classes and tests, and will the 9ob produce an e%cessive drain on $our energies< !s with warnings, if there is no evidence that is intended to prove an$thing, then there is no argument. ! statement of belief or opinion is an e%pression about what someone happens to believe or thin& at a certain time. *%amples: .e believe that our compan$ must develop and produce outstanding products that will perform a great service or fulfill a need for our customers..e believe that our business must be run at an ade7uate profit and that the services and products we offer must be better than those offered b$ competitors. (8obert ,. =a$ and *dmund 8. >ra$, ((Introduction to 'ocial 8esponsibilit$)) I thin& a nation such as ours, with its high moral traditions and commitments, has a further responsibilit$ to &now how we became drawn into this conflict, and to learn the lessons it has to teach us for the future. (!lfred =assler, Saigon, U.S.A.
'.)) sa$s a prominent !ir :orce official. not to displa$ what is desirable will &eep them from being unsettled of mind. *%ample: Not to honor men of worth will &eep the people from contention. there is no argument. have ta&en their toll in both the North and the 'outh. (Newspaper clipping !gain. ! police statement said the 12B6pound bomb was pac&ed into a mil& churn hidden in the bac& of a stolen car. man$ old diseases have proven 7uite resilient in the face of changing population and environmental conditions. !nother t$pe of report is the news report: ! powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone compan$ head7uarters in @edellin. 'piegel. but because the author ma&es no claim that the$ support or impl$ an$thing. there is no argument. not to value goods that are hard to come b$ will &eep them from theft. though. with reports a"out arguments: ((The !ir :orce faces a serious shortage of e%perienced pilots in the $ears ahead. (Newspaper clipping -roperl$ spea&ing. ! report consists of a group of statements that conve$ information about some topic or event. World Politics in a Ne !ra These statements could serve as the premises of an argument. especiall$ in the developing world.Because neither of these authors ma&es an$ claim that his belief or opinion is supported b$ evidence. in9uring "A people and causing millions of dollars of damage to nearb$ buildings. because the author of the passage . such as !I. ('teven ?. this passage is not an argument. but the$ lac& a claim that one of them is proved b$ the others. (?ao6T5u. New diseases. because repeated overseas tours and the allure of high pa$ing 9obs with commercial airlines are winning out over lucrative bonuses to sta$ in the service. Loosely associated statements ma$ be about the same general sub9ect. there is no argument. there is no argument. /ne must be careful. police said. Thoughts from the Tao Te Ching Because there is no claim that an$ of these statements provides evidence or reasons for believing another. *%ample: *ven though more of the world is immuni5ed than ever before. or that it supports some conclusion. because the reporter ma&es no claim that these statements impl$ an$thing.
! li7uid occupies a definite volume. (Cohn . =owever. /il gland secretions contain chemicals that wea&en or &ill bacteria on s&in. There is a st$li5ed relation of artist to mass audience in the sports. then the passage is an argument. where the$ can be swallowed. ! gas maintains neither shape nor volume. The respirator$ tract is lined b$ cells that sweep mucus and trapped particles up into the throat. If the ob9ective is not to prove the topic sentence but onl$ to e%pand it or elaborate it. =ill and . 8ather. and the remaining sentences merel$ develop and flesh out this topic sentence. li7uid. *ach pla$er develops a st$le of his own#the swagger as he steps to the plate. 'olid ob9ects ordinaril$ maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. and gas. . the clean6swinging and hard6driving hits. America as a Ci#ili$ation In each passage the topic sentence is stated first.does not claim that an$thing is supported b$ evidence. It e%pands to fill completel$ whatever container it is in. *%amples: There are three familiar states of matter: solid. (@a% ?erner. the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done. *%ample: '&in and the mucous membrane lining the respirator$ and digestive tracts serve as mechanical barriers to entr$ b$ microbes. the author reports the claim b$ the !ir :orce official that something is supported b$ evidence. especiall$ in baseball. but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container.. Chemistry for Changing Times. These passages are not arguments because the$ lac& an inferential claim. E pository Passages !n e pository passage is a &ind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed b$ one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the purpose of the subse7uent sentences in the passage is not onl$ to flesh out the topic sentence but also to prove it. +th ed. it must be made clear that the argument is not the author)s but one made b$ someone about whom the author is reporting. the precision 7uic&ness and grace of infield and outfield. the uni7ue windup a pitcher has.oris D. e%positor$ passages differ from simple noninferential passages (such as warnings and pieces of advice in that man$ of them can also be ta&en as arguments. Dolb. then there is no argument. If such passages are interpreted as ((containing)) arguments.
)) and sodium chloride b$ ((NaFl. If it does. In deciding whether an e%positor$ passage should be interpreted as an argument. =owever. and the purpose of the remaining sentences is not onl$ to sho ho the s&in and mucous membranes serve as barriers to microbes but to pro#e that the$ do this. when $ou s7uee5e a rubber ball or stri&e a punching bag with $our fist. Eth ed. which inhibits the growth of man$ t$pes of bacteria.)) *%amples: Fhemical elements. Illustrations are often confused with arguments because man$ of them contain indicator words such as ((thus. (8a$mond !. :or e%ample.The stomach has an acidic p=. !llustrations !n illustration consists of a statement about a certain sub9ect combined with a reference to one or more specific instances intended to e%emplif$ that statement.)) . can be represented b$ molecular formulas. the passage can be ta&en as both an e%positor$ passage and an argument. In this passage the topic sentence is stated first. the passage is probabl$ not an argument. the shape of the ob9ect can change. the passage is an argument. In the first selection. Physics 'or Scientists and !ngineers. the ob9ects are deformed to some e%tent. as& $ourself whether the topic sentence ma&es a claim that ever$one accepts or agrees with. ('$lvia '. Thus. the word ((thus)) indicates how something is done# . Thus. as well as compounds. the onl$ alternative ma$ be to sa$ that if the passage is ta&en as an argument. if the topic sentence ma&es a claim that man$ people do not accept or have never thought about.)) water b$ ((="/. :inall$. Eth ed. then the purpose of the remaining sentences ma$ be both to prove the topic sentence as well as to develop it.henever a force is e%erted on an ob9ect. In borderline cases. %uman &iology. tr$ to determine whether the purpose of the subse7uent sentences in the passage is merel$ to develop the topic sentence or also to prove it. if even this procedure $ields no definite answer. If this be so. In real life situations authors rarel$ tr$ to prove something that ever$one alread$ accepts. o%$gen is represented b$ ((/". 'erwa$. then the first statement is the conclusion and the others are the premises. These selections are not arguments because the$ ma&e no claim that an$thing is being proved. @ader.
as with e%positor$ passages. how chemical elements and compounds can be represented b$ formulas. &erosene. =ere is an instance of one: . :or e%ample. Thus. =owever. 'o do a variet$ of nonionic organic substances. !s we have alread$ noted. But man$ salts dissolve readil$ in water. (8obert '. turpentine and cleaning fluids. If it is. such as gasoline.namel$. It can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not dissolve in other li7uids. Boi&ess and *dward *delson. the passage is probabl$ not an argument. This is one of the reasons for evaluating the first two e%amples as mere illustrations and the last one as an argument. then the passage ma$ be interpreted as both an illustration and an argument. in real life situations authors rarel$ attempt to prove what ever$one alread$ accepts. or whether it also purports to prove something. the passage can be ta&en as both an illustration and an argument. salts do not dissolve in most common solvents. In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument one must determine whether the passage merel$ shows how something is done or what something means.ater is an e%cellent solvent. 'uch arguments are often called arguments from e ample. But people ma$ not be aware of the fact that water dissolves man$ things that other solvents will not dissolve. man$ illustrations can be ta&en as arguments. such as sugars and alcohols of low molecular weight. Thus. It is not intended primaril$ to prove that a force can change the shape of something. In borderline cases it helps to note whether the claim being illustrated is one that practicall$ ever$one accepts or agrees with. in reference to the first two e%amples we considered. Chemical Principles In this passage the e%amples that are cited can be interpreted as providing evidence that water can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not dissolve in other li7uids. . the e%ample cited is intended to give concrete meaning to the notion of a force changing the shape of something. But if the claim being illustrated is one that man$ people do not accept or have never thought about. In the second selection. most people are aware that elements and compounds can be e%pressed b$ formulas#practicall$ ever$one &nows that water is ="/#and most people &now that forces distort things#that running into a tree can cause a dent in the car bumper. with the second sentence being the conclusion.
while humans cannot. In the first e%ample above. 'imilarl$. If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact. *%amples: The Challenger spacecraft e%ploded after liftoff because an /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets. and if the remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement. The intention of the passage is to e%plain Thus.et e%planations are not arguments because in an e%planation the purpose of the e%planans is to shed light on. the fact that the Challenger e%ploded is &nown to ever$one.)) and the e%planans is ((!n /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets. the purpose of the e%planans is to show hy something is the case. in the third e%ample. the e%planandum is the statement ((The Challenger spacecraft e%ploded after liftoff.E planations /ne of the most important &inds of nonargument is the e%planation. because their digestive s$stems contain en5$mes not found in humans. In the second e%ample. !n e planation is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon. identif$ the statement that is either the e%planandum or the conclusion (usuall$ this is the statement that precedes the word ((because)) . or to ma&e sense of. the fact that the s&$ is blue is readil$ apparent. The statement that an /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets is not intended to prove that the spacecraft e%ploded but rather to show hy it e%ploded. virtuall$ ever$one &nows that people cannot digest grass. *ver$ e%planation is composed of two distinct components: the e%planandum and e%planans.)) *%planations are sometimes mista&en for arguments because the$ often contain the indicator word ((because. the e%planandum event#not to prove that it occurred. In the first e%ample above. while in an argument. The s&$ appears blue from the earth)s surface because light ra$s from the sun are scattered b$ particles in the atmosphere. and the e planans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the e%plaining. In other words.)) . then the passage is an . The e planandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be e%plained. to distinguish e%planations from arguments. hy this is true. The event or phenomenon in 7uestion is usuall$ accepted as a matter of fact. The intention of the passage is to e%plain hy it appears blue#not to prove that it appears blue. Fows can digest grass. the purpose of the premises is to prove that something is the case.
"onditional Statements ! conditional statement is an ((if .omen become into%icated b$ drin&ing a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men metaboli5e part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream whereas women do not. this ma$ prove impossible. then such6and6such is the conclusion and such6and6such are the premises. for e%ample: If air is removed from a solid closed container.)) This e%ample asserts a causal connection between the air being removed and the container weighing less. and occasionall$ the order of antecedent and conse7uent is reversed. =owever. . Thus.)) statement. The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people who do not accept it as fact.e%planation. the passage can be correctl$ interpreted as both an e%planation and an argument. In those circumstances the onl$ possible answer ma$ be to sa$ that if the passage is an argument. then the container will weigh less than it did. . the effort often involves determining which person or group of people the passage is directed to#the intended audience. *ver$ conditional statement is made up of two component statements. . /bviousl$ what is accepted b$ one person ma$ not be accepted b$ another. there are some passages that can be interpreted as both e%planations and arguments. This method wor&s for practicall$ all passages that are either e%planations or arguments (but not both . (/ccasionall$. as with e%positor$ passages and illustrations. and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. and simultaneousl$ to shed light on this truth. the passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a single person who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete e%perience.)) and the conse7uent is ((The container will weigh less than it did. *%ample: . But when the passage is ta&en totall$ out of conte%t. etc. will decide the issue. the word ((then)) is left out. and the one following the ((then)) is called the conse#uent. then . technical 9ournal. . . !lternatel$. -erhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish e%planations from arguments lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact. In the above e%ample the antecedent is ((!ir is removed from a solid closed container. newspaper. Thus. 'ometimes the source of the passage (te%tboo&. The component statement immediatel$ following the ((if)) is called the antecedent.
In an argument. Iron is less dense than mercur$. The statement ((If $ellow fever is an infectious disease. The lin& between the antecedent and conse7uent of these conditional statements resembles the inferential lin& between the premises and conclusion of an argument. then it will float in mercur$. as the following e%amples illustrate: If cigarette companies publish warning labels. :inall$. In other words.et when conditional statements are ta&en in this sense. iron will float in mercur$. .et there is a difference because the premises of an argument are claimed to be true. If iron is less dense than mercur$. however. then 'aturn has rings. there is no claim that either the antecedent or the conse7uent presents evidence.et their inferential content ma$ be ree%pressed to form arguments: Both 'aturn and Granus have rings. Figarette companies do publish warning labels. 'aturn has rings. there is onl$ the assertion that if the antecedent is true.=owever. then the . Fonsider the following: If both 'aturn and Granus have rings. 'ome conditional statements are similar to arguments. a conditional statement ma$ serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both of an argument. at least one statement must claim to present evidence. the$ ma$ be said to have a certain inferential content. because the$ fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In a conditional statement. whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent of a conditional statement. . 8ather. there is still no argument. then so is the conse7uent. not all conditional statements e%press causal connections. Fonditional statements are not arguments. in that the$ e%press the outcome of a reasoning process.H . Therefore. because there is then no separate claim that this evidence implies an$thing. Therefore. these conditional statements are not arguments. there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the conse7uent is true. while no single conditional statement is an argument. then smo&ers assume the ris& of smo&ing.allas Fowbo$s are a football team)) is 9ust as much a conditional statement as the one about the closed container. /f course. and there must be a claim that this evidence implies something. a conditional statement as a whole ma$ present evidence because it asserts a relationship between statements. . !s such. !ccordingl$.
& is said to be a necessar$ condition for A whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of &. The inferential content of a conditional statement ma$ be ree%pressed to form an argument. I. an enth$meme is an argument in which a premise or conclusion (or both is implied but not stated. =owever. then the ta%pa$er will come to the rescue. The relation between conditional statements and arguments ma$ now be summari5ed as follows: 1. Therefore. ! conditional statement ma$ serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both of an argument. But if it consists of a conditional statement together with some other statement.Therefore. If ban&s ma&e bad loans. then. :or e%ample. If ban&s are threatened with collapse. depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between the statements. if a passage consists of a single conditional statement. then the ta%pa$er will come to the rescue. The first two rules are especiall$ pertinent to the recognition of arguments. !s we will see in Fhapter A. b$ the second rule. Thus. If. it may be an argument. . To decide whether a conditional statement is an enth$meme. iron will float in mercur$. then the$ will be threatened with collapse. /n the other hand. then ( is not a dog. then ( is an animal. If ( is not an animal.)) we have a complete argument. it is not an argument. ! single conditional statement is not an argument. to the second e%ample. we must be familiar with the conte%t in which it occurs. HIn sa$ing this we are temporaril$ ignoring the possibilit$ of these statements being enthymemes. we add the premise ((Iron is less dense than mercur$)) and the conclusion ((Therefore. !ccording to the first rule. being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. The first statement sa$s that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal and the second that being an animal is a necessar$ condition for being a dog. if ban&s ma&e bad loans. ". Fonditional statements are especiall$ important in logic because the$ e%press the relationship between necessar$ and sufficient conditions. smo&ers assume the ris& of smo&ing. These relationships are e%pressed in the following conditional statements: If ( is a dog. A is said to be a sufficient condition for & whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of &. being an animal is a necessar$ condition for being a dog.
The precise &ind of nonargument a passage might be is nowhere near as important as correctl$ deciding whether or not it is an argument. for e%ample.a little reflection reveals that these two statements sa$ e%actl$ the same thing. Summary In deciding whether a passage contains an argument.)) ((because. !lso &eep in mind that in man$ arguments that lac& indicator words.3 (((*%tended !rguments)) . or as both an e%positor$ passage and an illustration.& . and (I t$pical &inds of nonarguments. proceed directl$ to 'ection 1. !fter wor&ing the e%ercises in this section. :urthermore it helps to mentall$ insert the word ((therefore)) before the various statements before deciding that a statement should be interpreted as a conclusion. and that. The t$pical &inds of nonarguments that we have surve$ed are as follows: warnings pieces of advice statements of belief statements of opinion loosel$ associated statements reports e%positor$ passages illustrations e%planations conditional statements Deep in mind that these &inds of nonargument are not mutuall$ e%clusive. E$ER"!SE %. one and the same passage can sometimes be interpreted as both a report and a statement of opinion. Thus each e%presses in one wa$ a necessar$ condition and in another wa$ a sufficient condition. But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of an argument. The terminolog$ of sufficient and necessar$ conditions will be used in later chapters to e%press definitions and causal connections.)) and so on. (" an inferential relationship between the statements. one should loo& for three things: (1 indicator words such as ((therefore. the conclusion is the first statement. /ne must chec& to see that the statement identified as the conclusion is intended to be supported b$ one or more of the other statements. $ou ma$.)) ((since. if $ou wish.
. .in&ler. If the earth)s magnetic field disappears. I believe that it must be the polic$ of the Gnited 'tates to support free peoples who are resisting attempted sub9ugation b$ armed minorities or b$ outside pressures. . :or those that are. . If public education fails to improve the 7ualit$ of instruction in both primar$ and secondar$ schools. :or those that are not. J1. :reedom of the press is the most important of our constitutionall$ guaranteed freedoms. ( C.ithout it.F. it provides the fulcrum for the advancement of new freedoms. ". $ou foolK The lions are escaping into the streetsK J+.ater is a good solvent for man$ different substances. 'hut the cage door. Thus. )eadings for Writers. 'horter vocal chords vibrate at a higher fre7uenc$ than longer ones. then intense cosmic ra$s will bombard the earth. It is strongl$ recommended that $ou have $our house inspected for termite damage at the earliest possible opportunit$. fiction provides us with the opportunit$ to ponder how people react in uncommon situations. But the characters of fiction are found in e%otic dilemmas that real people hardl$ encounter. Fonse7uentl$.omen tend to have higher pitched voices than men because the$ have shorter vocal chords. rain water flowing over and under the ground dissolves minerals such as limestone. our other freedoms would be immediatel$ threatened. :urthermore. The World of Chemistry A. 3. I. JE. If the Lan !llen radiation belt is destro$ed.etermine which of the following passages are arguments. :ictional characters behave according to the same ps$chological probabilities as real people. identif$ the conclusion.I. then the Lan !llen radiation belt will be destro$ed. ps$chological principles. and it pic&s them up as it moves through the environment. attempt to determine the &ind of nonarguments. I believe that our help should be primaril$ through . .8. then intense cosmic ra$s will bombard the earth. and philosophical insights from their behavior. and to deduce moral lessons. @cFuen and !. I believe that we must assist free peoples to wor& out their own destinies in their own wa$. Therefore. then it is li&el$ that it will lose additional students to the private sector in the $ears ahead. (>ilbert Fastellan et al. if the earth)s magnetic field disappears.. Eth edition 2. B.
e%cept when it would be e7uall$ dangerous for her to forgo it. If what he reads is moving he can put down the boo& for a few moments and cope with his emotions without fear of losing an$thing. (Newspaper clipping 11. !ddress to Fongress. !n understanding of the overall . Chemistry for Changing Times. If the cancer cells are &illed b$ the destructive effects of the radiation. and the lions have no natural resistance. =e ma$ read as slowl$ or as rapidl$ as he can or wishes to read. 'ome forms are particularl$ susceptible to radiation therap$. (Cohn. The students scaled a fence to get into the 5oo and then climbed another fence to get into the camel pit before securit$ officials caught them.. 5oo officials said. ( Custice Blac&mun. clearl$. *conomics is of practical value in business. Wade 1". where the procedure is legal. appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. The Plug*In +rug J1I. @ortalit$ rates for women undergoing earl$ abortions. 8adiation is carefull$ aimed at the cancerous tissue. ((!ll of the lions in the par& ma$ be dead within ten $ears because the disease is incurable. 12E+ J14.economic and financial aid. an$ interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherentl$ ha5ardous procedure. and can slow down when it is difficult or enthralling. Fonse7uentl$.epartment of !griculture. ?ions at Druger National -ar& in 'outh !frica are d$ing of tuberculosis. which is essential to economic stabilit$ and orderl$ political processes. (@arie . :ive college students who were accused of snea&ing into the Fincinnati Moo and tr$ing to ride the camels pleaded no contest to criminal trespass $esterda$. depends entirel$ upon the reader. The pace of reading. and e%posure of normal cells is minimi5ed. Dolb. =ill and . or go in search of elucidation before continuing. (-resident Truman.)) said the deput$ director of the . the malignanc$ is halted.inn. The reader can accelerate his pace when the material is eas$ or less than interesting. has largel$ disappeared. he ma$ stop and reread it. Fancer is not one disease. )oe #. but man$. +th edition 1E. (Newspaper clipping 1A. If he does not understand something.oris D.
. which often chase their tails before d$ing. !conomics. Bear one thing in mind before $ou begin to write $our paper: :amous literar$ wor&s. ed.F. The e%ecutive who understands the causes and conse7uences of inflation is better e7uipped during inflationar$ periods to ma&e more intelligent decisions than otherwise. (. No business concern wants to sell on credit to a customer who will prove unable or unwilling to pa$ his or her account. :ishes and other animals that descend lose contact with the main surface food suppl$ and themselves become food for strange deep6living predators. have been thoroughl$ studied to the point where prevailing opinion on them has assumed the character of orthodo%$. ! parasite deforms $oung fish. as the$ are alread$ stretched and pulled to such a length that the child cannot do much harm one wa$ or the other.operation of the economic s$stem puts the business e%ecutive in a better position to formulate policies. @cFuen and !. fre7uentl$ attac&ing rainbow trout.oung people at universities stud$ to achieve &nowledge and not to learn a trade.isease#! Turn for the . sin&ing into deep water usuall$ means death. !toms are the basic building bloc&s of all matter. (((Trout . Bth edition J13.in&ler. :or organisms at the sea surface. @ilne.'. (C.8. . .alter B. especiall$ wor&s regarded as classics. fishing streams. )eadings for Writers.achshunds are ideal dogs for small children.eographic "1. (. Fonse7uentl$. Folin 8.avid =. hence the name.e must all learn how to support ourselves. most business organi5ations include a credit department which must reach a decision on the credit worthiness of each prospective customer. (Fampbell 8. @cFonnell. but we do not want a world of modern engineers. Eth edition 1+. -lant cells cannot photos$nthesi5e in the dar& depths. (. Foote 1B. Accounting J12. . 'ince the 12A4s a malad$ called whirling disease has invaded G.inston Fhurchill. @eigs.orse. .arine -ife and the Sea "4. (8obert Benchle$. The$ can combine to form .)) National . A Churchill )eader. 7uoted in Cold Noses and Warm %earts J"". @eigs and 8obert :.e need a lot of engineers in the modern world. . but we must also learn how to live.
It is usuall$ eas$ to decide whether or not something is alive. 2anus1 A Summing Up "E. (!rthur Doestler. and a cello. Flifford. Blatt. (. and upon the whole situation. Fherr$. . &iochemistry. purposel$ avoids the reading of boo&s and the compan$ of men that call in 7uestion or discuss it. for e%ample. If a man holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards &eeps down and pushes awa$ an$ doubts which arise about it in his mind. D. the power to activel$ respond to changes in their environment. such as the capacit$ to e%tract energ$ from nutrients to drive their various functions. Loet. resembles neither the poisonous gas nor the highl$ reactive metal. then suddenl$ as an inert bod$ sub9ect to the laws of ph$sics: authorit$ is debun&ed b$ gravit$. written over the course of his creative lifetime. The full meaning of a word does not appear until it is placed in its conte%t.ords are slipper$ customers.onald Loet and Cudith >. to differentiate.. whose properties are generall$ ver$ different from those of the constituent atoms. a simple chemical compound formed from chlorine and sodium. (:ran& C. and the abilit$ to grow. mind b$ matter. "nd edition "3. The coarsest t$pe of humor is the practical /o0e1 pulling awa$ the chair from the dignitar$)s lowered bottom. upon their entire e%perience of the language. =a$dn developed the string 7uartet from the eighteenth centur$ di#ertimento. man is degraded to a mechanism. . and to reproduce. This is because living things share man$ common attributes. upon their &nowledge of one another. . (F. upon the spea&er.molecules. "nd edition "I. a viola. Principles of Physics. (. Together the$ constitute one of the most important bodies of chamber music . giving more substance to the light. 3n %uman Communication "+. and regards as impious those 7uestions which cannot easil$ be as&ed without disturbing it#the life of that man is one long sin against man&ind. ((The *thics of Belief)) J"A. The victim is perceived first as a person of conse7uence. popular form and scoring it for two violins. evolved slowl$ into a sophisticated form. !nd even then the meaning will depend upon the listener. . Table salt. =is eight$6three 7uartets.
insects. The$ have selected the things he is dependent upon and determined the &inds and degrees of dependencies. (!lvin Toffler. similarl$. The$ are the critical lin& between the people and their government. (8od -lotni&. @en are less li&el$ to develop osteoporosis until later in life than women and seldom suffer as severel$ because the$ have I4 percent more bone mass on the average and don)t undergo the sudden drop in estrogen that occurs with menopause. and television are essential for a democrac$. :inall$.literature. :. and . (@att Flar&. Eth edition I".usic J"B. certain assumptions can be made about the climate and the animals that will be found there. Newspapers. in grasslands the animal life t$picall$ includes large mammalian herbivores. 'aunders. There is. !xploring . and the$ also sensiti5e polic$ma&ers to public opinion#which enables them to respond to the needs and desires of the population. (8obert =ic&o&. :or e%ample.)) Ne s ee0 II. The$ provide information and anal$sis about polic$ issues. *ven though he deals effectivel$ with things. the media pla$ a critical role in reporting and evaluating the decisions of government. he is necessaril$ dependent upon those who have taught him to do so. '&inner. In areas where rats are a problem. no doubt that man$ of the annual model changes with which !merican (and other consumers are increasingl$ familiar are not technologicall$ substantive. radio. If one &nows the plant life of an area. &iology1 The Science of -ife JI1. and birds. There is no doubt that some businessmen conspire to shorten the useful life of their products in order to guarantee replacement sales. Introduction to Psychology. ((The Falcium Fra5e. ! person never becomes trul$ self6reliant. &eyond 'reedom and +ignity "2. (B.allace. it is ver$ difficult to e%terminate themwith bait poison. (Ding. . 'uture Shoc0 I4. That)s because some rats eat enough poison to die but others eat onl$ enough to become sic& and then learn to avoid that particular poison taste in the future.
ma&ing lessons e%citing and relevant. .a$ne et al. be considered arguments. !lthough the plane mirror is perhaps the oldest optical instrument &nown to man. The big problem with computers in elementar$ schools isn)t their minimal educational value but the fact that the$ often replace science in the budget and curriculum. the earth6moon laser6ranging e%periments. But a few nations are formed and defined b$ the citi5ens) assent to a shared philosoph$. emerging slowl$ from the mist of the past. with good reason. then we can start to treat them more humanel$.hen criminals behave more li&e humans. with an accretion of consensual institutions. The Politics of American . /ur local -arent Teachers !ssociation is throwing awa$ science e7uipment as ferventl$ as it raises mone$ for more computers. then so be it. The following selections were originall$ submitted as letters to the editor of newspapers and maga5ines. and then is more disappointed with the result than the Gnited 'tates<.etermine which of them can. :or e%ample. Blatt. . Is there an$ countr$ in the world that worries more about its &ids having fun in school.e thin& learning is li&e bu$ing . In those that can.ill. identif$ the conclusion. it remains an important element in the modern arsenal of sophisticated optical devices. I would li&e to see the Night 'tal&ers of our societ$ swiftl$ e%ecuted rather than coddled b$ our courts and prisons. J1. initiated in 1232. . Principles of Physics. b$ the slow wor&ing of histor$ or the galvanic force of ideas. !nd as for capital punishment. Nations are made in two wa$s. @ost nations are made the former wa$. But in elementar$ schools. In the meantime. (>eorge . so I appreciate their value in communications and advanced computation.o#ernment JIE. If we need more courts. (8oger >. "nd edition II. graduall$ coalescing within concentric circles of shared s$mpathies. too much is being sacrificed so that children can have all those price$ beige bo%es. ((?ithuania and 'outh Farolina)) IA. I sa$ let the punishment fit the crime. I use computers e%tensivel$ in the college ph$sics classes I teach.('tephen C.hat this countr$ needs is a return to the concept of swift and certain 9ustice. 9udges and prisons. (:ran& C. ( Cohn -earson ". rel$ on high67ualit$ reflectors. .. Tobin I.
al&er 3. in large part.'. what e%actl$ did we win< =ave we gained the world at the cost of our souls< ( Cason 8e$nolds . The poor 7ualit$ of parenting and the lac& in continuit$ of adult care provided to man$ G. Breinin JE. and inabilit$ to ma&e necessar$ life6st$le changes such as 7uitting an addiction can be attributed. because these narrow6minded cretins won)t. according to a recent stud$. !fter reading $our cover stor$. children contribute to a passivit$ and a sense of helplessness that hobbles individuals for the remainder of their lives. who ma$ or ma$ not be motivated b$ trul$ religious considerations. @$ own son returned from his public elementar$ school with a boo& on dinosaurs loaned to him b$ his first6grade ((science)) teacher. lac& of education.illiam C. >od help us to achieve an educated and scientificall$ literate societ$. (. /n the contrar$. :ort$6one million !mericans cannot afford health insurance in this time of global capitalism. it is perfectl$ possible that I am thus serving m$ god. @cFarth$ B. ( Cac7ueline @urra$ A. violence and teen6age pun& 9un&. nine insurance e%ecutives earned more than N14 million last $ear. I find that cable TL has simpl$ flooded our airwaves with more se%. If this is the celebrated triumph of capitalism over other forms of economic organi5ation. !t the same time.. . (-hilip . (Bruce 'trathdee J+. Cust get into the thing or draw a breath and $ou will be effortlessl$ transported to lands of pleasure and e%citement. Their subse7uent unemplo$ment. to the helplessness the$ learned from childhood. who I believe wants his children to pra$ to him of their own free will and not because some legislator. forces them to. (Fharles @. Now our children can spend even less time stud$ing and we can spend more time in blan&space stares at the idiot bo%. I am not deserting m$ god (and I would li&e to thin& of m$self as a Fhristian . Fable would be fine with more educational channels#and fewer cheap thrills aimed at narrow6minded bubble brains. It depicted the beasts as fire6breathing dragons and said the Bible informs us the$ were this wa$.a car or smo&ing a cigarette. In opposing obligator$ pra$er in the public schools.
!s a result. incorporate $our reasons into a written argument of at least 144 words that supports the conclusion.i%on III. !ffirmative action programs shouldOshould not be abolished. A. (8onald Fohen J14. Include premise and conclusion indicators in some of $our arguments. Figarettes shouldOshould not be regulated as an addictive drug. The voting public is as full of bull as the politicians. . If there were evolutionar$ advantages to harming one)s mate)s offspring of a different parent. 14. and sale of handguns shouldOshould not be outlawed. B. *ach is e%pressed in the form of two alternatives. and then 9ot down several reasons that support it.octors shouldOshould not be allowed to assist terminall$ ill patients in committing suicide. IL. 3. 'treet drugs shouldOshould not be legali5ed. The following statements represent conclusions for arguments. ! constitutional amendment that outlaws flag burning shouldOshould not be adopted. then b$ now there probabl$ wouldn)t be loving and generous stepparents around#and there are plent$. and I)ll show $ou a person who will never be elected.efine the following terms: argument from e%ample . but not in all of them. The suggestion b$ sociobiologists that stepparent child abuse has evolutionar$ advantages is superficial. 'ame6se% marriages shouldOshould not be recogni5ed b$ the state. (=uie . 2. The possession. +. . we get the &ind of officeholders we as& for. I &now. '& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts I. ". I have a loving stepparent and am one. E. 1. ownership. 'elect one of the alternatives for each conclusion. 'anctions shouldOshould not be imposed on students for using speech that is offensive to minorities. The death penalt$ shouldOshould not be abolished. 'how me a politician who will stand up and tell !mericans the truth. :ree health care shouldOshould not be guaranteed to all citi5ens.2. :inall$.
In an argument. B. E. In deciding whether an e%positor$ passage or an illustration should be interpreted as an argument.conditional statement antecedent conse7uent sufficient condition necessar$ condition e%planation e%planandum e%planans illustration e%positor$ passage L. !n$ passage that contains an argument must contain a claim that something is supported b$ evidence or reasons. the e%planandum usuall$ describes an accepted matter of fact. the e%planans is the statement or group of statements that does the e%plaining.)) and ((because)) are alwa$s arguments. In deciding whether a passage contains an argument. 'ome e%positor$ passages can be correctl$ interpreted as arguments. 'ome conditional statements can be ree%pressed to form arguments. we should alwa$s &eep an e$e out for indicator words and the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. 14. . In an e%planation. !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1. 3. J1. 'ome illustrations can be correctl$ interpreted as arguments. e%press the result in terms of conditional statements. !fter the blan&s have been filled in. the claim that something is supported b$ evidence or reasons is alwa$s e%plicit. LI. A. Being a tiger is a condition for being an animal. 2. ". :ill in the blan&s with ((necessar$)) or ((sufficient)) to ma&e the following statements true. +.)) ((since. I. -assages that contain indicator words such as ((thus. it helps to note whether the claim being developed or illustrated is one that is accepted b$ ever$one. In an e%planation.
B.rin&ing water is a condition for 7uenching one)s thirst. JE. -age through a boo&. the other without. maga5ine. Then identif$ the premises and conclusion of each. Therefore. Fop$ the arguments as written. The suricat thrives on beetle larvae. Burning leaves is a condition for producing smo&e. The first of these arguments is inductive. !ll members of the mongoose famil$ are carnivores. 3. -a$ing attention is a condition for understanding a lecture. %. LII. Therefore. I. In these arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow onl$ pro"a"ly from the premises. . Thus. . 2. the second deductive. one with indicator words. giving the appropriate reference. and inductive arguments are those that involve pro"a"ilistic reasoning. J+. deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning. or newspaper and find two arguments. Being an animal is a condition for being a tiger.". =aving a rac7uet is a condition for pla$ing tennis. *%amples: The meer&at is closel$ related to the suricat. 'tepping on a cat)s tail is a condition for ma&ing the cat $owl. probabl$ the meer&at thrives on beetle larvae. /pening a door is a condition for crossing the threshold. Ta&ing a swim in the North 'ea is a condition for cooling off. The meer&at is a member of the mongoose famil$. -ulling the cor& is a condition for drin&ing an e%pensive bottle of wine. A. an inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impro"a"le that the premises be true and the conclusion false. /n the other hand. it necessaril$ follows that the meer&at is a carnivore.' +eduction and !nduction !rguments can be divided into two groups: deductive and inductive. ! deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impossi"le for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. J14.
The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in the strength of an argument)s inferential claim. In other words, the distinction lies in how strongl$ the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises. Gnfortunatel$, however, in most arguments the strength of this claim is not e%plicitl$ stated, so we must use our interpretive abilities to evaluate it. Three factors that influence our decision about this claim are (1 the occurrence of special indicator words, (" the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion, and (I the character or form of argumentation the arguer uses. The occurrence of special indicator words is illustrated in the e%amples we 9ust considered. The word ((probabl$)) in the conclusion of the first argument suggests that the argument should be ta&en as inductive, and the word ((necessaril$)) in the conclusion of the second suggests that the second argument be ta&en as deductive. !dditional inductive indicators are ((improbable,)) ((plausible,)) ((implausible,)) ((li&el$,)) ((unli&el$,)) and ((reasonable to conclude.)) !dditional deductive indicators are ((certainl$,)) ((absolutel$,)) and ((definitel$.)) (Note that the phrase ((it must be the case that)) is ambiguous; ((must)) can indicate either probabilit$ or necessit$ . Inductive and deductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. =owever, if the$ conflict with one of the other criteria (discussed shortl$ , we should probabl$ ignore them. !rguers often use phrases such as ((it certainl$ follows that)) for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the argument be ta&en as deductive. 'imilarl$, some arguers, not &nowing the distinction between inductive and deductive, will claim to ((deduce)) a conclusion when their argument is more correctl$ interpreted as inductive. The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion actuall$ does follow with strict necessit$ from the premises, the argument is clearl$ deductive. In such an argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. /n the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessit$ but does follow probabl$, it is usuall$ best to consider the argument inductive. *%amples: !ll saleswomen are e%troverts. *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman. Therefore, *li5abeth Ta$lor is an e%trovert.
The vast ma9orit$ of saleswomen are e%troverts. *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman. Therefore, *li5abeth Ta$lor is an e%trovert. In the first e%ample, the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. If we assume that all saleswomen are e%troverts and that *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman, then it is impossible that *li5abeth Ta$lor not be an e%trovert. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the second e%ample, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessit$, but it does follow with some degree of probabilit$. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is improbable that the conclusion is false. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive. /ccasionall$, an argument contains no indicator words, and the conclusion does not follow either necessaril$ or probabl$ from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all. This situation points up the need for the third factor to be ta&en into account, which is the character or form of argumentation the arguer uses. :ive e%amples of argumentation that are t$picall$ deductive are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and categorical, h$pothetical, and dis9unctive s$llogisms. !dditional ones will be addressed in later chapters. !n argument based on mat(ematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purel$ arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. :or e%ample, a shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a paper bag and then conclude that the bag contains five pieces of fruit. /r a surve$or might measure a s7uare piece of land and, after determining that it is 144 feet on each side, conclude that it contains 14,444 s7uare feet. 'ince all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usuall$ consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. ! noteworth$ e%ception, however, is arguments that depend on statistics. !s we will see shortl$, such arguments are usuall$ best interpreted as inductive. !n argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merel$ upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. :or e%ample, someone might argue that because Flaudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies, or that because a certain paragraph is proli%, it follows that it is e%cessivel$ word$. These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessit$ from the definitions of ((mendacious)) and ((proli%.)) ! s$llogism, in general, is an argument consisting of e%actl$ two premises and one
conclusion. Fategorical s$llogisms will be treated in greater depth in Fhapter A, but for now we will sa$ that a categorical syllogism is a s$llogism in which each statement begins with one of the words ((all,)) ((no,)) or ((some.)) *%ample: !ll lasers are optical devices. 'ome lasers are surgical instruments. Therefore, some optical devices are surgical instruments. !rguments such as these are nearl$ alwa$s best treated as deductive. ! (ypot(etical syllogism is a s$llogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. *%amples: If electricit$ flows through a conductor, then a magnetic field is produced. If a magnetic field is produced, then a nearb$ compass will be deflected. Therefore, if electricit$ flows through a conductor, then a nearb$ compass will be deflected. If 7uart5 scratches glass, then 7uart5 is harder than glass. Puart5 scratches glass. Therefore, 7uart5 is harder than glass. !lthough certain forms of such arguments can sometimes be interpreted inductivel$, the deductive interpretation is usuall$ the most appropriate. ! dis,unctive syllogism is a s$llogism having a dis9unctive statement (i.e., an ((either . . . or . . .)) statement for one of its premises. *%ample: *ither breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable b$ the state. Breach of contract is not a crime. Therefore, it is not punishable b$ the state. !s with h$pothetical s$llogisms, such arguments are usuall$ best ta&en as deductive. =$pothetical and dis9unctive s$llogisms will be treated in greater depth in Fhapter 3. Now let us consider some t$picall$ inductive forms of argumentation. In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some wa$ intended to ((go be$ond)) the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument t$picall$ deal with some sub9ect that is relativel$ familiar, and the conclusion then moves be$ond this to a sub9ect that is less familiar or that little is &nown about. 'uch an argument ma$ ta&e an$ of several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analog$, inductive generali5ations, arguments from authorit$, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to name 9ust a few. In a prediction, the premises deal with some &nown event in the present or past,
!n argument from aut(ority is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement made b$ some presumed authorit$ or witness. it follows that !ngela)s -orsche must also be a great handling car. :or . a storm will occur there in si% hours. The argument depends on the e%istence of a similarit$. lesser6&nown thing or situation. one might argue that because certain fluctuations occurred in the prime interest rate on :rida$. someone might argue that because Fhristina)s -orsche is a great handling car. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic. a person might argue that earnings for =ewlett6-ac&ard Forporation will be up in the coming 7uarter because of a statement to that effect b$ an investment counselor. or similarit$. !n argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the &nowledge of a certain sign to a &nowledge of the thing or situation that the sign s$mboli5es. one might argue that because si% out of a total of nine members sampled from a certain labor union intend to vote for Cohnson for union president. Because the investment counselor and the e$ewitness could be either mista&en or l$ing. :or e%ample. it is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic. /r again. between two things or states of affairs. !n inductive generalization is an argument that proceeds from the &nowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. :or e%ample. These e%amples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation. or analog$. between the two cars. :or e%ample. someone might argue that because certain meteorological phenomena have been observed to develop over a certain region of central @issouri. whenever an argument ma&es a prediction about the future. Nearl$ ever$one reali5es that the future cannot be &nown with certaint$. /r a law$er might argue that @ac& the Dnife committed the murder because an e$ewitness testified to that effect under oath. Because of the e%istence of this analog$. /r again.and the conclusion moves be$ond this event to some event in the relative future. all the oranges from that crate are especiall$ tast$ and 9uic$. the value of the dollar will decrease against foreign currencies on @onda$. :or e%ample. such arguments are essentiall$ probabilistic. two6thirds of the entire membership intend to vote for Cohnson. !n argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the e%istence of an analog$. The certitude attending such an inference is obviousl$ probabilistic at best. one is usuall$ 9ustified in considering the argument inductive. one might argue that because three oranges selected from a certain crate were especiall$ tast$ and 9uic$. thus. a certain condition that affects the better6&nown thing or situation is concluded to affect the similar.
Fonversel$. conversel$. :or e%ample. which are alwa$s deductive. with which it is congruent. because the conclusion follows necessaril$ and with complete certaint$ from the premises. Deeping this in mind.e%ample. the conclusion is onl$ probable.e drop bodies of various weights from various heights and measure the time it ta&es them to fall. we notice that the time is appro%imatel$ proportional to the s7uare root of the distance. after tasting a piece of chic&en and finding it dr$ and crunch$. !rguments such as these. from &nowledge of an effect to &nowledge of a cause. an argument concluding that a triangle has a certain attribute (such as a right angle because another triangle. that we want to discover a law that governs the time re7uired for a falling bod$ to stri&e the earth. Based on this information. :or e%ample. someone might conclude that it had fro5en (cause to effect . are alwa$s deductive. The purpose of this surve$ is not to demarcate in precise terms the various forms of induction but rather to provide guidelines for distinguishing induction from deduction. !rguments that occur in science can be either inductive or deductive. arguments aimed at the disco#ery of a law of nature are usuall$ considered inductive. It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are not intended to be mutuall$ e%clusive. one might conclude that it had been overcoo&ed (effect to cause . . one might argue that the road does indeed ma&e several sharp turns one mile ahead. from the &nowledge that a bottle of wine had been accidentall$ left in the free5er overnight. we should ta&e care not to confuse arguments in geometr$. Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be &nown with absolute certaint$. for e%ample. :rom this we conclude that . with arguments from analog$ or inductive generali5ations. when driving on an unfamiliar highwa$ one might see a sign indicating that the road ma&es several sharp turns one mile ahead. /ne broad classification of arguments not listed in this surve$ is scientific arguments. depending on the circumstances. one ma$ usuall$ interpret such arguments as inductive. Fomparing our measurements. ! causal inference underlies arguments that proceed from &nowledge of a cause to &nowledge of the effect. man$ causal inferences that proceed from cause to effect also 7ualif$ as predictions. In general. an argument that concludes that all triangles have a certain attribute (such as angles totaling two right angles because an$ particular triangle has that attribute might be mista&en for an inductive generali5ation. :or e%ample. Because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns. 'imilarl$. 'uppose. however. also has that attribute might be mista&en for an argument from analog$. /verlaps can and do occur. or.
!s a matter of fact. . we will double the pressure. here is a deductive argument that proceeds from the particular to the general: Three is a prime number. then the argument is best considered inductive. !rguments of this sort are often considered to be deductive#but onl$ with certain reservations. all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers. !ppl$ing this law. while deductive arguments are those that proceed from the general to the particular. Therefore. there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the general. ! final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. while a general statement ma&es a claim about all the members of a class. 'uch an argument is best interpreted as an inductive generali5ation. and from the particular to the general. that man$ inductive and deductive arguments do wor& in this wa$. 'even is a prime number. >abriel has a tail. :ive is a prime number. and there are inductive arguments that do the same. But if we ac&nowledge the fact that the conclusion pertains to the future and the possibilit$ that Bo$le)s law ma$ not wor& in the future. that we want to appl$ Bo$le)s law for ideal gases to a container of gas in our laborator$. !nother t$pe of argument that occurs in science has to do with the application of &nown laws to specific circumstances. !nd here is one that proceeds from the particular to the particular: >abriel is a wolf.the time re7uired for an$ bod$ to fall is proportional to the s7uare root of the distance through which it falls. Therefore. It is true. There is a tradition e%tending bac& to the time of !ristotle which holds that inductive arguments are those that proceed from the particular to the general. of course. but this fact should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from deduction. Bo$le)s law states that the pressure e%erted b$ a gas on the walls of its container is inversel$ proportional to the volume. for e%ample. :or e%ample. we conclude that when we reduce the volume of our laborator$ sample b$ half. >abriel)s tail is the tail of a wolf. (! particular statement is one that ma&es a claim about one or more particular members of a class. as well as from the general to the particular. from the particular to the particular. this argument is deductive. 'uppose. Fonsidered purel$ as a mathematical computation.
The other varieties are eas$ to construct. If the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises.etermine whether the following arguments are best interpreted as being inductive or deductive. the argument is alwa$s deductive.. . Because triangle ! is congruent with triangle B. and vice versa. cannot be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from deduction. the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion. it follows that triangle B is isosceles. the presence of indicator words. It must be the case that >alileo did indeed . the nature of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion. ". Thus. The pla7ue on the leaning tower of -isa sa$s that >alileo performed e%periments there with falling ob9ects.e. it could be either deductive or inductive depending on the other factors. to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive.=ere is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular: !ll emeralds previousl$ found have been green. Therefore. J1. In summar$. if not. the ne%t emerald to be found will be green. The deductive and inductive arguments that we have surve$ed in this section are as follows: deductive arguments: arguments based on mathematics arguments from definition categorical s$llogisms h$pothetical s$llogisms dis9unctive s$llogisms inductive arguments: predictions arguments from analog$ inductive generali5ations arguments from authorit$ arguments based on signs causal inferences E$ER"!SE %. we loo& for special indicator words. !lso state the criteria $ou use in reaching $our decision (i. and the character or form of argumentation. and triangle ! is isosceles. the progression from particular to general.' I. or the character or form of argumentation .
!moco. -a$ing off terrorists in e%change for hostages is not a wise polic$. The @atterhorn is higher than @ount . A. the rainfall ne%t $ear will probabl$ be more than 1A inches. Therefore. the cloc& slows down. when the pendulum of a cloc& is lengthened.or& 'toc& *%change. The rainfall in 'eattle has been more than 1A inches ever$ $ear for the past thirt$ $ears. In view of =aw&ing)s stature in the scientific communit$.hitne$. it is manufactured inside the human bod$. 1". there were pr$ mar&s around the loc& on the rear door and deposits of mud near the threshold. or it originated in *g$pt. Therefore. since such action will onl$ lead them to ta&e more hostages in the future. he became infected in India. JE. The !ncylopaedia &ritannica has an article on s$mbiosis. 2. Therefore. !le%ander the >reat did die from t$phoid fever. li&e the &ritannica. *ither classical culture originated in >reece. It must be the case that the thief entered through the rear door and left through the front. J14. I. Fholesterol is endogenous with humans.or& 'toc& *%change. J+. Therefore. then he became infected in India. we should conclude that this description of the universe is correct. The !ncyclopedia Americana. Flassical culture did not originate in *g$pt.orld6renowned ph$sicist 'tephen =aw&ing sa$s that the condition of the universe at the instant of the Big Bang was more highl$ ordered than it is toda$. classical culture originated in >reece. is an e%cellent reference wor&. B.perform those e%periments there. The obvious conclusion is that the @atterhorn is higher than @ount 8ainier. and @ount . . The longer a pendulum is. the Americana probabl$ also has an article on s$mbiosis. !lthough both front and rear doors were found open after the burglar$. Therefore. If !le%ander the >reat died from t$phoid fever. Therefore. the longer it ta&es to swing. 3. 'ome love letters are elo7uent creations. *%%on. No *6mail messages are elo7uent creations. 11. J1I. 1E.hitne$ is higher than @ount 8ainier. . some love letters are not *6mail messages. It must be the case that all ma9or !merican oil companies are listed on the New . Therefore. and Te%aco are all listed on the New .
probabl$ longer. but the far slower single movements of the single planets travel in the opposite direction from west to east. three. and sometimes all four together. (Newspaper editorial J13. coal was burned. (. ( Cohannes Depler. 8eserves of coal in the Gnited 'tates have an energ$ e7uivalent II times that of oil and natural gas.essenger . /n a worldwide basis the multiple is about 14. 1I million people. The Starry . 'lowins&i. !pitomy of Copernican Astronomy 1B. since reading the point of intersection depends on the accurac$ with which the lines are drawn and on the abilit$ to interpret the coordinates of the point. (Darl C. *ach element. such as h$drogen and iron. @asterson and *mil C.1A. we could satisf$ our energ$ re7uirements for at least a centur$. . has a set of gaps#wavelengths that it absorbs rather than radiates. Principles of Chemistry J12. (8ic& >ore. ('tanle$ >ed5elman. In 1244 onl$ 1 percent of the population was older than +A. there must have been da$s almost "444 $ears ago when the air in the larger towns was badl$ polluted. 'ince coal produces 7uite a bit of soot and sulfur dio%ide. Because the apparent dail$ movement which is common to both the planets and the fi%ed stars is seen to travel from the east to the west. Toda$ E percent of all !mericans are more than +A $ears old. 'mith and -atric& C. and in a few $ears it)s going to be A percent .ou can see it coming in the numbers. The Science and Wonders of the Atmosphere "4. .hen the 8omans occupied *ngland. (>alileo >alilei. $ou &now that that element is present in the star $ou are observing. It seems li&el$ that $oung people will be at war with old people in another 1A or "4 $ears. .illiam ?. The graphical method for solving a s$stem of e7uations is an appro%imation. B$ shifting to a coal6based econom$. 'o if those wavelengths are missing from the spectrum. Bo$le. whereas in the vicinit$ of Cupiter the$ are found united two. ((*$es of 'cience)) 1+. That 0the moons of Cupiter1 revolve in une7ual circles is manifestl$ deduced from the fact that at the longest elongation from Cupiter it is never possible to see two of these moons in con9unction. it is therefore certain that these movements cannot depend on the common movement of the world but should be assigned to the planets themselves. Intermediate Alge"ra for College Students "1. .
J"". and the difficult$ of slowing the current growth momentum. (!. No. ( Cames *. Principles of Physics. li&e lions and leopards. 0-s$chologists1 . as well as the meaning of an$ particular act proceeding from the legislative bod$. and $et. +B J"A. ?enses function b$ refracting light at their surfaces. . (. Bth edition "2. it can be said with virtual certaint$ that none of the people now reading this boo& will ever live in a world where the population is not growing. Social Pro"lems "E. =umiston. =aviland. though someone had been in and had fetched out a horse. ! constitution is.avis noted that the gl$cerol content of the . /rdinar$ things that we encounter ever$ da$ are electricall$ neutral. and this consumes much of their time. *ternit$ is simultaneousl$ whole. Blatt. since negativel$ charged electrons are a part of ever$thing. and must be regarded b$ the 9udges. Cohn -alen. Summa Theologica "+. Therefore time and eternit$ are not the same thing. /bviousl$ the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog &new well. in fact. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.eneral Chemistry J"B. have no need to eat so much or so often. "nd edition "I. 'ederalist Papers.irtshafter and . !nimals that live on plant foods must eat large 7uantities of vegetation. the limited practice of birth control. @eat eaters.illiam !. Cultural Anthropology. >iven present growth rates in underdeveloped countries. the$ would have time to spend l$ing around and pla$ing. positivel$ charged particles must also e%ist in all matter. b$ contrast. (:ran& C. Brad$ and >erard *.o$le. Fonse7uentl$.emoirs of Sherloc0 %olmes "3. Therefore. But time has a before and an after. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning. ( C. meat6eating hominines 0earl$ humans1 ma$ have had more leisure time available to e%plore and manipulate their environment. The 'impson incident had shown me that a dog was &ept in the stables. (!le%ander =amilton. (Thomas !7uinas. Fonan . as a fundamental law. their action depends not onl$ on the shape of the lens surfaces. but also on the indices of refraction of the lens material and the surrounding medium. Fonse7uentl$. he had not bar&ed enough to arouse the two lads in the loft. .
Because the moon moves relative to the earth so that it returns to the same position overhead after about "A hours. . I. "nd edition I4. E. increases in blood gl$cerol should indicate increases in bod$ weight. ". In an inductive argument. >iancoli. 'ince the si5e of the fat cells would indicate something about the amount of stored fats. The form of argumentation the arguer uses ma$ allow one to determine whether an argument is inductive or deductive. .oti#ation1 Theory and )esearch. In a deductive argument.efine the following terms: deductive argument inductive argument argument based on mathematics argument from definition categorical s$llogism h$pothetical s$llogism dis9unctive s$llogism argument from analog$ inductive generali5ation prediction argument from authorit$ argument based on signs causal inference particular statement general statement III. (=erbert ?. The actual strength of the lin& between premises and conclusion ma$ allow one to determine whether an argument is inductive or deductive. (. !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1.blood is related to the si5e of the fat cells 0in the bod$1. . there are two high and two low tides at an$ point ever$ "A hours. -etri.ouglas F. it is intended that the conclusion contain more information than the premises. the conclusion is not supposed to contain more information than the premises. The Ideas of Physics. Ird edition II.
A. Inductive arguments alwa$s proceed from the particular to the general. 1I. 2. giving the appropriate reference. Soundness.alidity. and onl$ if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim (that is. Then identif$ the premises and conclusion of each. The most important of the two is the inferential claim. the claim that the premises present genuine evidence. Thus we will alwa$s test the inferential claim first. %.. based upon what has happened in the past. is an inductive argument. +. an argument is worthless. 11. If the conclusion of an argument follows merel$ from the definition of a word used in a premise. 3. the argument is deductive. !n argument that draws a conclusion that something is true because someone has said that it is.eductive arguments alwa$s proceed from the general to the particular. -age through a boo&. !n argument that draws a conclusion about a thing based on that thing)s similarit$ to something else is a deductive argument. !n argument that predicts what will happen in the future. The evaluation of ever$ argument centers on the evaluation of these two claims. !n argument that proceeds from &nowledge of a cause to &nowledge of an effect is an inductive argument. maga5ine. /rut(. leaving the other as the conclusion. the second an inferential claim. If an argument contains the phrase ((it definitel$ follows that.e have seen that ever$ argument ma&es two basic claims: a claim that evidence or reasons e%ist and a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something (or that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons .. or newspaper and find two arguments. 14. "ogency This section introduces the central ideas and terminolog$ re7uired to evaluate arguments. if the reasoning is bad .)) then we &now for certain that the argument is deductive. 1A. @ost arguments based on statistical reasoning are deductive. 1". Fop$ the arguments as written. because if the premises fail to support the conclusion (that is. B. !n argument that presents two alternatives and eliminates one. The . The first is a factual claim. . ! geometrical proof is an e%ample of an inductive argument. 1E. one inductive and the other deductive. is a deductive argument. . is an inductive argument. Strengt(. or are true . IL.
a valid deductive argument is an argument such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Fonversel$. In these arguments the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. if not. NBF is a media compan$. In this argument both premises are actuall$ true. Ne%t we determine. =ere is an e%ample: !ll television networ&s are media companies. In other words. in light of this assumption. so it is eas$ to assume that the$ are true. There are no arguments that are ((almost)) valid and ((almost)) invalid. Thus. NBF is a television networ&. assuming the premises true and the conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Flearl$ this is not possible. for the conclusion to be false. in light of that assumption. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this wa$. Therefore. !n immediate conse7uence of these definitions is that there is no middle ground between valid and invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. To test an argument for validit$ we begin b$ assuming that all premises are true. but it is eas$ to assume that the$ are . Therefore. it necessaril$ follows that NBF is included in the group of media companies (conclusion . and then we determine if it is possible. if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. both premises are actuall$ false. even though it is claimed to. +eductive Arguments The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.material that follows considers first deductive arguments and then inductive. the argument is valid. it is invalid. Gnited !irlines is a computer manufacturer. In this argument. If NBF is included in the group of television networ&s (second premise and if the group of television networ&s is included in the group of media companies (first premise . Thus the argument is valid. Gnited !irlines is an automa&er. the argument is said to be valid. In invalid arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessit$ from the premises. an invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument such that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. =ere is another e%ample: !ll automa&ers are computer manufacturers.
In this case it is possible. !lso. there is one arrangement of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of validit$. In general. Gnited !irlines could ma&e cars. Ne%t we determine. validit$ is not something that is determined b$ the actual truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion. these e%amples suggest an important point about validit$ and truth. !gain.ells :argo would not be a ban&. so it is eas$ to assume the$ are true. if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. The 7uestion is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false. In other words.ells :argo is a financial institution. Thus. Therefore. b$ the same reasoning as the previous e%ample. The Gnited !irlines e%ample has actuall$ false premises and an actuall$ false conclusion. The reasoning behind this fact is fairl$ obvious. in light of this assumption. but whether the premises support the conclusion. 8ather. the argument is valid. Both the NBF e%ample and the.true. we see that this is not possible. . assuming the premises true and the conclusion false does not involve an$ contradiction. and so the argument is invalid. then . $et one is valid and the other invalid. *ver$ automa&er could have a corporate division that manufactures computers. If ban&s were included in one part of the group of financial institutions and . both premises of this argument are true. Thus. !s in the first e%ample. If the premises are actuall$ true and the conclusion is actuall$ false. in light of these assumptions. b$ the definition of invalidit$. then it certainl$ is possi"le for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. . Nevertheless. !nother e%ample: !ll ban&s are financial institutions. The idea that an$ deductive argument having actuall$ true premises and a false . we determine if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. and in the invalid case the$ do not. !n$ deductive argument having actuall$ true premises and an actuall$ false conclusion is invalid.ells :argo e%ample have actuall$ true premises and an actuall$ true conclusion. Ne%t. In addition to illustrating the basic idea of validit$. !ssuming the premises true and the conclusion false entails a contradiction. the argument is invalid. in addition to fl$ing airplanes. $et the argument is valid. validit$ is something that is determined b$ the relationship between premises and conclusion.ells :argo were included in another part.ells :argo is a ban&. In the e%amples of valid arguments the premises do support the conclusion.
hen e%amining this table. The entire s$stem of deductive logic would be 7uite useless if it accepted as valid an$ inferential process b$ which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsit$ in the conclusion.conclusion is invalid ma$ be the most important point in all of deductive logic. both premises are false. ginger ale is a wine. Therefore. Therefore. Therefore. Fhardonna$ is a wine. 0unsound1 0alse premises /rue conclusion !ll wines are soft drin&s. (unsound /rue premises 0alse conclusion None e%ist !ll wines are beverages. Fhardonna$ is a beverage. chardonna$ is a wine. 0sound1 !ll wines are beverages. >inger ale is a wine. but it is eas$ to construct other e%amples having onl$ one false premise. >inger ale is a beverage. Table 1.1 presents e%amples of deductive arguments that illustrate the various combinations of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion. note that the onl$ combination of truth and falsit$ that does not allow for "oth valid and invalid arguments is !ll wines are beverages. ginger ale is a . In the e%amples having false premises. chardonna$ is a beverage. Therefore. .
>inger ale is a wine.soft drin&. and if either is missing the argument is unsound. as illustrated in Table 1. 0unsound1 0alse premises 0alse conclusion !ll wines are whis&e$s. 0unsound1 true premises and false conclusion. chardonna$ is a wine.1. >inger ale is a whis&e$. !s we have 9ust seen. an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid. The relationship between the validit$ of a deductive argument and the truth or falsit$ of its premises and conclusion. or both. Thus. ginger ale is a whis&e$. 0unsound1 !ll wines are whis&e$s. Fhardonna$ is a whis&e$. Therefore. is summari5ed as follows: Premises "onclusion .alidity TT:: T:T: < Invalid << ! sound argument is a deductive argument that is #alid and has all true premises. Therefore. Because a valid argument is one . 0unsound1 !ll wines are whis&e$s. has one or more false premises. ginger ale is a wine. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound. an$ argument having this combination is necessaril$ invalid. Therefore.
'ound argument Lalid argument !ll true premise QR In connection with this definition of soundness. it follows that ever$ sound argument. even though it is claimed to. a wea1 inductive argument is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow probabl$ from the premises. therefore. b$ definition. incidentall$. the argument is said to be strong. The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to the procedure for deduction. is what is meant b$ a ((good)) deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term. and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises. Fonversel$. Based on that assumption. !nalogous remar&s. probabl$ the ne%t dinosaur bone to be found will be at least A4 million $ears old. so it is eas$ to assume that it is true. a single proviso is re7uired: :or an argument to be unsound. the conclusion follows probabl$ from the premises. *%ample: !ll dinosaur bones discovered to this da$ have been at least A4 million $ears old. !nductive Arguments 'ection 1. and then we determine whether. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this wa$. the false premise or premises must actuall$ be needed to support the conclusion. In such arguments.I defined an inductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. e%tend to induction. :irst we assume the premises are true. so the argument is strong. In this argument the premise is actuall$ true. . ! sound argument. will have a true conclusion as well. a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. based on that assumption. the conclusion is probabl$ true. the conclusion is probabl$ true. !n argument with a conclusion that is validl$ supported b$ true premises but with a superfluous false premise would still be sound.such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore. Thus.
the argument is wea&. The ne%t e%ample is an argument from analog$: . industrial productivit$ will probabl$ increase in the $ears ahead. when a lighted match is slowl$ dun&ed into gasoline. In this argument. But if we assume the premise is true. but the probabilit$ of the conclusion is in no wa$ based on the assumption that the premise is true. The premise of this argument is actuall$ false. based on that assumption. But gasoline is a li7uid. the argument is wea&. it is not probable that the conclusion is true. probabl$ the ne%t meteorite to be found will contain gold. Therefore. $et. inflation has consistentl$ reduced the value of the !merican dollar. !s we will see in later chapters. 9ust li&e water. and the meteorite argument has a false premise and a probabl$ false conclusion. if we assume the premises are true.hen a lighted match is slowl$ dun&ed into water. In this argument the premises are actuall$ true and the conclusion is probabl$ false. the flame is snuffed out. then. the argument will be wea&. These four e%amples show that in general the strength or wea&ness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion. the argument will still be considered valid. if the conclusion of a deductive argument is necessaril$ true independentl$ of the premises. Because there is no direct connection between inflation and increased industrial productivit$. Therefore. the flame will be snuffed out. This last e%ample illustrates an important distinction between strong inductive arguments and valid deductive arguments. Therefore. then based on that assumption. The industrial . meteorites contain an$ gold. the premise is actuall$ true and the conclusion is probabl$ true in the actual world.=ere is another e%ample: !ll meteorites found to this da$ have contained gold. Thus. Thus. !nother e%ample: . The dinosaur argument has a true premise and probabl$ true conclusion. if an$. the conclusion would probabl$ be true. Thus. the argument is strong. but from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion. the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion and it provides no probabilistic support for it.uring the past fift$ $ears. !s a result. But if the conclusion of an inductive argument is probabl$ true independentl$ of the premises. :ew. both are strong because the premise of each provides probabilistic support for the conclusion. The conclusion is probabl$ true independentl$ of the premise.
"ogency -2 ' N ? /able %.". the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that establishes an$thing is true premises and probabl$ false conclusion (as in the lighted match argument . but the argument is wea& because the premise provides no probabilistic support for the conclusion. /rut(. : prob. Table 1. T prob. T prob. as illustrated in Table 1. : < . !n$ inductive argument having true premises and a probabl$ false conclusion is wea&.productivit$ argument has a true premise and a probabl$ true conclusion.& !nductive Arguments Strong 3ea1 /rue premise Probably true conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents . is summari5ed as follows: Premises "onclusion Strengt( TT:: prob. The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth or falsit$ of its premises and conclusion. Note that the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that is missing for strong arguments is true premises and probabl$ false conclusion." presents the various possibilities of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion of inductive arguments.alidity. Soundness. !nalogousl$ to the evaluation of deductive arguments.ea& << . Strengt(.
probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a man. probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a :ederalist. 0uncogent1 ! few !merican presidents were ?ibertarians. 0uncogent1 /rue premise Probably false conclusion None e%ist ! few !merican presidents were :ederalists. . Therefore. Therefore.were men. probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a television debater. 0cogent1 ! few !merican presidents were :ederalists. probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a man. 0uncogent1 0alse premise Probably true conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents were television debaters. Therefore. Therefore.
probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a woman. the first is not absolutel$ . :or this purpose. Therefore. The first argument is wea& and the second is strong. =owever. the strength and wea&ness of inductive arguments admit of degrees. probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a ?ibertarian. Therefore. probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a television debater. *ight$ apples selected at random were found to be ripe. consider the following pair of arguments: This barrel contains 144 apples. an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. Therefore. 0uncogent1 Gnli&e the validit$ and invalidit$ of deductive arguments. 0uncogent1 0alse premise Probably false conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents were women. the li&elihood that the conclusion is true must be more than A4 percent. and as the probabilit$ increases. 0uncogent1 ! few !merican presidents were ?ibertarians. probabl$ all 144 apples are ripe. the argument becomes stronger. This barrel contains 144 apples. To be considered strong. In other words. Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore.Therefore. probabl$ all 144 apples are ripe.
an uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is wea&. consider the following argument: 'wimming in the Faribbean is usuall$ lots of fun. Fogent argument 'trong argument !ll true premises QR There is a difference. ! cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant b$ a ((good)) inductive argument without 7ualification. it follows that the conclusion of ever$ cogent argument is probabl$ true. or both. But if the$ ignore the fact that several large dorsal fins are cutting through the water. however. Thus. In a cogent argument. ! cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises4 if either condition is missing. then . Both arguments would be strengthened or wea&ened b$ the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. if the premise ((/ne unripe apple that had been found earlier was removed)) were added to either argument. the$ must also not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a 7uite different conclusion. has one or more false premises. Toda$ the water is warm. the argument would be wea&ened. !s an illustration of this point. if the si5e of the sample in the second argument were reduced to +4 apples. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinel$ supported b$ true premises.wea& nor the second absolutel$ strong. Therefore. and on this beach there are no dangerous currents. the argument would be wea&ened. :or e%ample. the surf is gentle. then the argument is cogent. it would be fun to go swimming here now. If the premises reflect all the important factors. In a sound argument it is onl$ necessar$ that the premises be true and nothing more. the premises must not onl$ be true. :or e%ample. The incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument will also generall$ tend to strengthen or wea&en it. between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true6premise re7uirement. on the other hand. the argument is uncogent. >iven such premises and good reasoning. a true conclusion is guaranteed.
!ll invalid deductive arguments are unsound. if not. If all the premises are true. if the argument is either valid or strong. In summar$. Then. and all wea& inductive arguments are uncogent. for cogenc$ the premises must not onl$ be true but also not overloo& some important factor that outweighs the given evidence and re7uires a different conclusion. Thus. Note that in logic one never spea&s of an argument as being ((true)) or ((false. the argument is strong. it is invalid.obviousl$ the argument is not cogent.)) ((strong.ea& (all are uncogent 'ound Gnsound Fogent . :inall$. for deductive arguments we determine whether. it is wea&. :or inductive arguments we &eep in mind the re7uirements that the premises actuall$ support the conclusion and that the$ not ignore important evidence.o the premises support the conclusion< (" !re all the premises true< To answer the first 7uestion we begin b$ assuming the premises to be true. If it does. the argument is valid.)) and one never spea&s of a statement as being ((valid.)) or ((wea&.)) ((invalid. we turn to the second 7uestion and determine whether the premises are actuall$ true. the argument is sound (in the case of deduction or cogent (in the case of induction . The various alternatives open to statements and arguments ma$ be diagrammed as follows. two separate 7uestions need to be answered: (1 . if not. for both deductive and inductive arguments. in light of this assumption. If it does.)) 'tatements True :alse . it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true.eductive arguments Inductive arguments Lalid Invalid (all are unsound 'trong . :or inductive arguments we determine whether it pro"a"ly follows that the conclusion is true.
ar. 1".I. 3.ashington died. If >alileo invented 7uantum mechanics. 4& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts JE. all leopards are carnivores. 11. >alileo was not familiar with ph$sics in the twentieth centur$. >alileo did not invent 7uantum mechanics. . and the 'tatue of ?ibert$ is taller than the *iffel Tower. J14.ar. Therefore.ashington was beheaded. 'ince the . If >eorge . and.ar. and the !merican Fivil . J1I.F. Therefore. !ll leopards with lungs are carnivores. ". *ver$ province in Fanada has e%actl$ one cit$ as its capital.o"y +ic0 was written b$ 'ha&espeare. Therefore.ar occurred before the Dorean . J1. and note the relationship between $our answer and the truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion. The *mpire 'tate Building is taller than the 'tatue of ?ibert$.Gncogent E$ER"!SE %. 'ince. The following arguments are deductive. A. the longest river in 'outh !frica flows through Bra5il. >eorge . has the shape of a he%agon. 'ince . 2. we ma$ conclude that at least one *nglishman was a famous statesman.inston Fhurchill was a famous statesman. it follows that some . then he was familiar with ph$sics in the twentieth centur$. then >eorge .epartment of . :inall$. Therefore. Fhicago is a cit$ in @ichigan and @ichigan is part of the Gnited 'tates.ar occurred after the Dorean . the *mpire 'tate Building is taller than the *iffel Tower. it follows that -aris is south of *dinburgh. . Fhicago is a cit$ in the Gnited 'tates.inston Fhurchill was *nglish.ar occurred before the !merican Fivil. Therefore. it follows that 'ha&espeare wrote a science fiction novel. B. it follows that the 'panish !merican .ashington was beheaded. determine whether the argument is sound or unsound. there are thirt$ provincial capitals. The longest river in 'outh !merica is the !ma5on. >eorge . Therefore. and some fruits are apples..efense Building in. 'ince the 'panish !merican . and the !ma5on flows through Bra5il. I. 'ince ?ondon is north of -aris and south of *dinburgh. and . it follows that it has seven sides.ashington. since there are thirt$ provinces in Fanada.o"y +ic0 is a science fiction novel.etermine whether each is valid or invalid.ashington died. 'ince some fruits are green. Therefore. J+.
B. @ost famous movie stars are millionaires. Therefore. 2. -aleontologists have unearthed the fossili5ed bones of huge reptiles. I. . women have no reason to fear serial rapists. F! have been pla$ed in free5ing cold weather. But nothing lasts forever. probabl$ the motion of the tides will die out within a few $ears. A. . which we have named dinosaurs. 3.etermine whether each is strong or wea&. 1A.elano 8oosevelt said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. ". Tests indicate that these creatures roamed the earth more than A4 million $ears ago. and some law$ers are ph$sicians.i Faprio is a famous movie star. It must be the case that Denned$ reall$ is buried in that cemeter$. The . Therefore. Then determine whether each argument is cogent or uncogent. Denned$ is buried there. The grave mar&er at !rlington National Femeter$ sa$s that Cohn :. Therefore. -robabl$ people will still be listening to it a $ear from now. II. J+.fruits are green apples. The following arguments are inductive. JE. probabl$ . Therefore. some law$ers are persons who have earned degrees in political science. probabl$ the ne%t 8ose Bowl game will be pla$ed in free5ing cold weather.i Faprio is a millionaire. Fonstructing the great p$ramid at >i5a re7uired lifting massive stone bloc&s to great heights. -eople have been listening to roc& and roll music for over a hundred $ears. :ran&lin . at least two members of Fongress have the same birthda$. Therefore it probabl$ follows that a creator e%ists. 1E. probabl$ dinosaurs reall$ did roam the earth at that time. !ll ph$sicians are individuals who have earned degrees in political science. The ebb and flow of the tides has been occurring ever$ da$ for millions of $ears. The Gnited 'tates Fongress has more members than there are da$s in the $ear. -robabl$ the ancient *g$ptians had some antigravit$ device to accomplish this feat. Therefore. Therefore. and note the relationship between $our answer and the truth or falsit$ of the premise(s and conclusion. ?eonardo .eclaration of Independence sa$s that all men are endowed b$ their creator with certain unalienable rights. The vast ma9orit$ of 8ose Bowl games (in -asadena. J1. Therefore.
it is appropriate that she refresh her memor$ b$ consulting the te%tboo&.etermine whether the following arguments are inductive or deductive.J14.illiams should be able to withstand tremendous impacts on the football field. Therefore. Therefore. toda$)s humans have feet that are not suited for grasping ob9ects. Lenus . J1. determine whether it is strong or wea&. . I. .enver. Foca6Fola is an e%tremel$ popular soft drin&. is a great !frican !merican athlete. The sign on the highwa$ leading into . including >arth Broo&s and . Folorado sa$s that the cit$)s elevation is A"B4 feet. 'ince Fhristmas is alwa$s on a Thursda$. *ver$ map of the Gnited 'tates shows that !labama is situated on the -acific coast. he left behind a gold plated 'chwinn bic$cle.illiams. is drin&ing a Fo&e right this minute. A. J1I. JE.enver is 1 mile high. . Therefore. Therefore. If an argument is inductive. Therefore. -robabl$ that bic$cle is still up there on the moon.oll$ -arton. revealed that ever$ single one of them studied music in !fghanistan. probabl$ the ma9orit$ of famous countr$ and western singers studied in !fghanistan.hen Neil !rmstrong landed on the moon. ! random sample of twent$6five famous countr$ and western singers. =owever. 1". !frican !merican athlete Cerome Bettis is able to withstand tremendous impacts on the football field. when a student can)t recall the answers during a final e%am. the sum of its angles is e7ual to two right angles. it follows that Tom is the uncle of 8a7uel. If it is deductive. It must be the case that . 'ince !gatha is the mother of 8a7uel and the sister of Tom. it follows that the da$ after Fhristmas is alwa$s a :rida$. a thousand $ears from now. 11. Therefore. 1A. Gnli&e mon&e$s. 'imilarl$. III. which he used to ride around on the moon)s surface.hen a coo& can)t recall the ingredients in a recipe. This figure is a *uclidean triangle. !labama must be a western state. probabl$ someone. 1E. determine whether it is valid or invalid. somewhere. probabl$ humans will still have feet that are not suited for grasping ob9ects. li&e Cerome Bettis. 3. B$ accident Daren ba&ed her brownies two hours longer than she should . ". it is appropriate that she refresh her memor$ b$ consulting the recipe boo&. Lenus .
But it didn)t happen in 12E1. acupuncture is not hocus pocus.. even though the flu is going around now. But acupuncture can relieve chronic pain. J+. Therefore. Therefore. =e has never studied an$thing be$ond algebra. J12.enise. then bond prices will decline. "4. it follows necessaril$ that =arriet is the cousin of -h$llis. Fircle ! has e%actl$ twice the diameter of circle B. =arr$ will never be able to solve that difficult problem in advanced calculus in the limited time allowed. it happened in 12A1. Three coins selected at random were found to have dates earlier than 12EA. then interest rates will rise. If acupuncture is hocus pocus. it is ver$ li&el$ that he will win toda$. Therefore. IL. it necessaril$ follows that he was born in @arch. 2. we must conclude that a fl$ing saucer reall$ did land there. 1B. Therefore.efine the following terms: . 1". J14. This cash register drawer contains over 144 coins. 8obert has lost consistentl$ at blac&9ac& ever$ da$ for the past several da$s. 1A. he should be immune. J1I. Therefore. and in that he earned onl$ a FJ. . and . J13. The picnic scheduled in the par& for tomorrow will most li&el$ be cancelled. it follows that y J E. 1+.have. and x J +. !fter ta&ing ?'. 11. 'tatistics reveal that B3 percent of those who receive flu shots do not get the flu. the$ have probabl$ been ruined.enise is the cousin of =arriet. 'ince x J y J 14. Therefore. 'ince Cohn loves Nanc$ and Nanc$ loves -eter. then bond prices will decline. 'ince !lice has a reputation for alwa$s telling the truth. then acupuncture cannot relieve chronic pain. :romthiswema$ conclude that circle ! has e%actl$ twice the area of circle B. If interest rates rise. Therefore. probabl$ all of the coins in the drawer have dates earlier than 12EA. 'ince -h$llis is the cousin of . !lice said she saw a fl$ing saucer land in the shopping center par&ing lot. Cac& received a flu shot one month ago. The Capanese attac& on -earl =arbor happened in either 12E1 or 12A1. B. 'ince @ichael is a -isces. it follows necessaril$ that Cohn loves -eter. 1E. if inflation heats up. It)s been snowing for si% da$s straight. If inflation heats up.
:or such an argument.valid argument invalid argument sound argument unsound argument strong argument wea& argument cogent argument uncogent argument L. ! sound argument ma$ be invalid. 1E. +. while not completel$ valid. A. and the argument is valid. are almost valid. it is necessaril$ invalid. ! valid argument ma$ have a false premise and a true conclusion. 3.4 Argument 0orms) Proving !nvalidity The previous section showed that validit$ is determined b$ the truth of a deductive argument)s inferential claim. the correctness of the argument)s reasoning is determined b$ the form of the . If a deductive argument has true premises and a false conclusion. 1I. 14. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. ". Inductive arguments admit of var$ing degrees of strength and wea&ness. ! strong argument ma$ have true premises and a probabl$ false conclusion. 11. I. ! sound argument ma$ have a false conclusion. E. ! valid argument ma$ have a false premise and a false conclusion. 1". !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1. This section shows that the truth of a deductive argument)s inferential claim (that is. !n argument ma$ legitimatel$ be spo&en of as ((true)) or ((false. ! cogent argument ma$ have a probabl$ false conclusion. B. Invalid deductive arguments are basicall$ the same as inductive arguments. 2. we &now that it is a perfectl$ good argument. ! cogent argument must be inductivel$ strong. then the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. 'ome arguments.)) 1A. If an argument has true premises and a true conclusion. ! statement ma$ legitimatel$ be spo&en of as ((valid)) or ((invalid. If the inferential claim is true.)) %. ! strong argument ma$ have false premises and a probabl$ false conclusion.
whatever the$ might be. therefore. we do &now that if we assume that the premises are true. we obtain the following argument form. &. we might substitute ((daisies)) for A. we do not &now whether an$ of the statements in this argument are true or false. and it has nothing to do with what the letters might stand for. and croc&ers. . we will obtain a valid argument. all daisies are plants. bob&ins. That is. !ll A are &. ((flowers)) for &. if we assume that the adlers. !n$ argument. all adlers are croc&ers. Its validit$ rests purel$ upon the arrangement of the letters within the statements. and ((plants)) for C and obtain the following valid argument: !ll daisies are flowers. we can substitute an$ terms we choose in place of A. !ll A are C. validit$ is determined b$ form. consider the following argument: !ll adlers are bob&ins. Because the words ((adlers.)) and ((croc&ers)) are nonsensical. In other words. This is a valid argument form.. The validit$ of the argument arises from the wa$ the terms ((adlers. Therefore.e use a line to separate the premises from the conclusion. we still &now that the argument is valid. and C. :or e%ample.)) ((bob&ins. :or these purposes.)) and ((croc&ers)) are arranged in the statements. are included in the bob&ins and the bob&ins in the croc&ers.argument. such as this.et. the argument is valid. In light of this fact. !ll bob&ins are croc&ers. If we represent these terms b$ their first letters.)) ((bob&ins. This fact is important for understanding the nature of validit$ because it shows that the validit$ of an argument has nothing to do with its specific sub9ect matter. Therefore. *ven though we &now nothing about adlers. !ccording to the definition of validit$. it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. and as long as we are consistent. then we must accept the conclusion that the adlers are included in the croc&ers. !ll & are C. . that is produced b$ uniforml$ substituting terms or statements in place of the letters in an argument form is called a substitution instance of that form. !ll flowers are plants.
!ll croc&ers are bob&ins. In the case of invalid forms. it is possi"le for the conclusion to be false.?et us turn now to the concept of invalidit$. all cats are dogs. It might be the case. we do not &now whether the premises and conclusion of this argument are true or false. we must add the proviso that an argument has an invalid form onl$ if it is not a substitution instance of an$ valid form. and that the adlers and the croc&ers are completel$ separate from each other. !ll C are &. =owever. !ll dogs are animals. that the adlers ma&e up one part of the bob&ins. But if we assume that the premises are true. !s with the previous argument. all adlers are croc&ers. all bachelors are unmarried men. for e%ample. HThe reason for this proviso is that some substitution instances of invalid forms are actuall$ valid. This is an invalid form. Therefore. Therefore. In this case the premises would be true and the conclusion false. The argument is therefore invalid. Fonsider the following argument: !ll adlers are bob&ins. This argument is a substitution instance of the invalid form discussed above. !n argument is said to ha#e a certain form if it is a substitution instance of that form. !ll A are C. we obtain the following argument form: !ll A are &. Therefore. *%ample: !ll bachelors are persons. the following argument has the invalid form 9ust discussed: !ll cats are animals. If we represent the terms in this argument b$ their first letters. Thus. and an$ argument that has this form is an invalid argument.H The following argument is a substitution instance of the invalid form 9ust discussed and it is not a substitution instance of an$ valid form. because . !ll unmarried men are persons. that the croc&ers ma&e up another part. but the argument is valid because its conclusion is true b$ definition.
!ll A are A. we ma$ conclude that some vice6 presidents are not social climbers. we select three terms to substitute in place of the letters that will ma&e the premises true and the conclusion false. we can pro#e the argument invalid b$ constructing a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. but it cannot establish the validit$ of an$ valid argument. the adler6bob&in argument is invalid. The reasoning behind this proof is as follows. the argument must be &nown or suspected to be invalid in the first place. Notice that this substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion. !ccordingl$. The countere%ample method can be used to establish the invalidit$ of an$ invalid argument. Thus.((bachelors)) is e7uivalent in meaning to ((unmarried men.e begin b$ isolating the form of the argument: 'ome ! are not S. The following selection will wor&: . b$ the stated proviso. . The countere%ample method consists in isolating the form of the argument and then constructing a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. !ll 5 are !. and it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. But the form of the substitution instance is identical to the form of the (second adler6bob&in argument. Ne%t. before the method is applied to an argument. The e%ercises in this boo& avoid e%amples of this sort. Therefore. 'ome 5 are not S. ?et us appl$ it to the following invalid categorical s$llogism: 'ince some emplo$ees are not social climbers and all vice6presidents are emplo$ees. where the form of the argument is obscured b$ the meaning of the terms. !ll A are &. the bachelors argument does not have the invalid form in 7uestion but rather has this valid form.)) the argument is also a substitution instance of the valid form !ll A are &. Therefore. the substitution instance has an invalid form. and the method we have 9ust used to prove the adler6bob&in argument invalid is called the countere ample met(od. It is therefore clearl$ invalid. The substitution instance is invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. ! substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion is called a countere%ample. Thus. This argument is invalid because the emplo$ees who are not social climbers might not be vice6presidents.
and then select a third term that $ields true premises. !lso note that this statement does not impl$ that some dogs are not animals. This form differs from the previous one in that its letters stand for complete statements. It has the following form: If . Not . The substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion and is therefore. Fonsider. the price of automobiles will rise. in constructing the countere%ample. Therefore. of course.! J animals S J mammals 5 J dogs The resulting substitution instance is: 'ome animals are not mammals. it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. Not P. !nother point to &eep in mind is that the word ((some)) in logic alwa$s means ((at least one. since the government will not impose import restrictions. !lso.)) ((mammals. Not all deductive arguments..)) ((dogs. This argument is invalid because the price of automobiles might rise even though import restrictions are not imposed. invalid. . :irst. select two terms that $ield a false conclusion. In appl$ing the countere%ample method to categorical s$llogisms.)) and ((animals. it follows that the price of automobiles will not rise. it is useful to &eep in mind the following set of terms: ((cats.. ever$one will agree about the truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion of the countere%ample. for e%ample. the statement (('ome dogs are animals)) means ((!t least one dog is an animal))#which is true. b$ definition.)) :or e%ample. the following h$pothetical s$llogism: If the government imposes import restrictions. 'ince it has the same form as the original argument. some dogs are not mammals. then P. are categorical s$llogisms. Because ever$one agrees about these terms. !ll dogs are animals. Therefore.)) ((fish.)) @ost invalid s$llogisms can be proven invalid b$ strategicall$ selecting three of these terms and using them to construct a countere%ample. it often helps to begin with the conclusion.
:urthermore. There can be no doubt about the truth of such a statement.)) ((or.)) ((both. In the ?incoln e%ample.)) ((no. it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. because all movie stars who are famous are actors. a more intuitive approach ma$ be needed. the first premise asserts the necessar$ connection between suicide and death. !lwa$s write the premises first and the conclusion last.)) and ((famous)) with the letters .)) and ((and. :or e%ample. leave the form words as the$ are. !dditional form words for other t$pes of arguments are ((either..)) If we ma&e the substitution . the conditional statement ((If ?assie is a dog.)) and ((not)) are form words. !braham ?incoln is not dead.)) and ((not)) are form words. the substitution instance is clearl$ invalid. and for h$pothetical s$llogisms the words ((if. P J !braham ?incoln is dead. If we replace ((movie stars. =ere is an e%ample: !ll movie stars are actors who are famous. this argument has the following form: . it is recommended that the statement substituted in place of the conditional statement e%press some &ind of necessar$ connection.hen appl$ing the countere%ample method to an argument having a conditional statement as a premise (such as the one above . !braham ?incoln did not commit suicide.. then !braham ?incoln is dead. J !braham ?incoln committed suicide. the words ((all. for e%ample. we obtain the following substitution instance: If !braham ?incoln committed suicide.)) :or various &inds of h$brid arguments. note that one sure wa$ of producing a false conditional statement is b$ 9oining a true antecedent with a false conse7uent. Thus.)) ((some. Being able to identif$ the form of an argument with ease re7uires a familiarit$ with the basic deductive argument forms.)) ((actors. and replace the content words with letters. then ?assie is a cat)) is clearl$ false. stands for ((The government imposes import restrictions. ..)) To reduce an argument to its form. A. 'ince the premises are true and the conclusion false.)) ((are. :or categorical s$llogisms. and '. Therefore. The second tas& involves distinguishing what we ma$ call ((form words)) from ((content words.)) ((then. The first tas& consists in distinguishing the premises from the conclusion. if it should turn out that the conclusion is a conditional statement.
ilson is dead. b$ definition. Therefore. @an$ of the arguments in *%ercise 1. Ideall$. !n$ term or statement will wor&. Gsing the countere%ample method to prove arguments invalid re7uires a little ingenuit$ because there is no rule that will automaticall$ produce the re7uired term or statement to be substituted. are A who are '. because nobod$ &nows whether this statement is true or false. all humans are men who are fathers. the argument is invalid. who are ' are A. It often happens that the form is not e%plicit and that ma&ing it e%plicit re7uires an anal$sis of the meaning of the language. =ere is one possible substitution instance for this form: !ll humans who are fathers are men. If. The countere%ample method is useful onl$ for proving invalidit$. The conclusion follows necessaril$ from the premise because ever$ s7uare. the truth value of these statements should be &nown to the average individual. has four sides. P in the earlier h$pothetical s$llogism had been replaced b$ the statement ((>eorge . the substitution instance cannot be depended upon to prove an$thing.E were of this sort. of course.!ll . !ll . provided that it $ields a substitution instance that has premises that are indisputabl$ true and a conclusion that is indisputabl$ false. otherwise. :urthermore. it does not prove that the argument is valid. /ne final comment is needed regarding the form of an argument. Because the premise is true and the conclusion false. because the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that proves an$thing is true premises and false conclusion. this figure has four sides. a premise must be . for e%ample. !ccordingl$. Fonsider the following e%ample: This figure is a s7uare. Therefore. no method that relates e%clusivel$ to the form of an inductive argument can be used to prove the argument wea&. If a substitution instance is produced having true premises and a true conclusion. the method is onl$ useful strength and wea&ness of inductive arguments is onl$ partiall$ dependent on the form of the argument.)) the substitution instance would be useless. To ma&e the form of the argument e%plicit.
for all 'wiss watches are true wor&s of art and all 'wiss watches are meticulousl$ constructed timepieces. Thus. the sub9ect matter is irrelevant to the 7uestion of validit$. and all patents are regulations that protect intellectual propert$. because no illegal aliens are persons who are paid decent wages.4 I. =ence. J+. Therefore. 'ome farm wor&ers are not persons who are paid decent wages. I. !s this e%ample illustrates. In doing so. Fonse7uentl$. the sub9ect matter ma$ have to be anal$5ed to determine what the form is. !ll meticulousl$ constructed timepieces are true wor&s of art. No patents are measures that discourage research and development. and some illegal aliens are not farm wor&ers. since all 7uasars are structures that contain blac& holes in the center. no politicians are true statesmen. No patrons of fast6food restaurants are health food addicts. But when the form is not clear.hen the form of an argument is immediatel$ clear. 5& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts JE. for no creationists are evolutionists. no . . !ll s7uares have four sides. J1. this figure has four sides. 'ome politicians are persons who will stop at nothing to win an election. A. 'ome evolutionists are not persons who believe in the Bible. 3. follow the suggestions given in the te%t. and some persons who believe in the Bible are not creationists. no measures that discourage research and development are regulations that protect intellectual propert$. so all gala%ies are 7uasars. ". the statement at the beginning of this section that the validit$ of an argument is concerned not with the sub9ect matter but rather with the form of an argument needs 7ualification. Gse the countere%ample method to prove the following categorical s$llogisms invalid. and no persons who will stop at nothing to win an election are true statesmen.added stating this fact: This figure is a s7uare. E$ER"!SE %. !ll gala%ies are structures that contain blac& holes in the center.
Therefore. If the deficit is reduced. since plants have a source of carbon. If carbon dio%ide is present in the atmosphere. carbon dio%ide is present in the atmosphere. then genetic defects can be eliminated. 'ome to%ic dumps are sites that emit ha5ardous wastes. some individuals motivated b$ compassion are not persons guilt$ of murder. B. then inflation will be chec&ed. J1. Thus. . since no connoisseurs of fine desserts are health food addicts. all homeless people are destitute individuals. then disease6resistant livestoc& will be produced. !ll persons who assist others in suicide are persons guilt$ of murder. If animal species are fi%ed and immutable. If gene splicing is successful. since animal species are not fi%ed and immutable. Therefore. !ccordingl$. inasmuch as some persons who assist others in suicide are individuals motivated b$ compassion. ". JE. if gene splicing is successful. !ll homeless people who are panhandlers are destitute individuals. then evolution is a m$th. =ence. Gse the countere%ample method to prove each of the following arguments invalid. If genetic defects can be eliminated. II. and some groups that oppose values clarification are not organi5ations with vision. and some sites that emit ha5ardous wastes are undesirable places to live near. some to%ic dumps are undesirable places to live near. E tended Arguments 5' ' N ? A. 2. evolution is not a m$th. If energ$ ta%es are increased. J14. then disease6resistant livestoc& will be produced. then plants have a source of carbon. then inflation will be chec&ed. Therefore.patrons of fast6food restaurants are connoisseurs of fine desserts. 'ome school boards are not groups that oppose values clarification because some school boards are not organi5ations with vision. Thus. if energ$ ta%es are increased. then either the deficit will be reduced or conservation will be ta&en seriousl$. I.
such as those found in editorials. involves numerous difficulties. and length$ letters to newspaper editors. !ll reverse mortgages are home e7uit$ depleters. J14. illustrations. %. and statements of opinion. all :=! loans are living standard enhancers. !gain.J" =alf the nation)s drin&ing water. e%planations. B. is being poisoned b$ chemical wastes dumped into the soil for . -roper anal$sis involves weeding out the e%traneous material and isolating premises and conclusions.3. *%ample: J1 The contamination of underground a7uifers represents a pollution problem of catastrophic proportions. we will assign numerals to the various statements in the passage and use arrows to represent the inferential lin&s. J+. Therefore. essa$s. 'uch arguments are often mi%ed together with fragments of reports. . !ll reverse mortgages that are :=! loans are either living standard enhancers or home e7uit$ depleters. pieces of e%positor$ writing. To facilitate the anal$sis of e%tended arguments.5 E tended Arguments The logical anal$sis of e%tended arguments. some diabetes victims are glucose eliminators. all communit$ colleges are institutions supported b$ ta%es. 'ome diabetes victims are insulin ta&ers. since some diplomats are clever and some diplomats are spies. 'ome diplomats are clever spies. !ll communit$ colleges with low tuition are either schools with large enrollments or institutions supported b$ ta%es. !ll merchandisers that are retailers are businesses that are inventor$ rotators. Therefore. distinguishing the strands and assigning premises to the right conclusion not onl$ is problematic but often involves an element of creativit$ on the part of the anal$st. !nd then there are some argumentative passages that involve completel$ separate strands of argumentation leading to separate conclusions. Therefore. which comes from these a7uifers. Therefore. all merchandisers are inventor$ rotators.istinguishing one subargument from another is often a complicated tas&. !ll diabetes victims are either insulin ta&ers or glucose eliminators. 2. !nother problem stems from the fact that length$ arguments often involve comple% arrangements of subarguments that feed into the main argument in various wa$s.
&idne$s. &idne$s. In e%tended arguments we can identif$ two distinct patterns of argumentation.generations. which in turn is supported b$ JE .J" If this practice is allowed to get a foothold. the conclusion. which we will name the vertical pattern and the hori5ontal pattern. which in turn is supported b$ JI . should be outlawed. which is the main conclusion.JE The law of suppl$ and demand re7uires it. should be outlawed. If one of the premises were omitted. This is so becauseJI whenever something scarce is bought and sold as a commodit$. people in desperate financial . This argument is diagrammed as follows: J" J J1 The diagram sa$s that statement J" . *%ample: J1 The selling of human organs.ertical pattern JE J JI J J" J J1 The diagram sa$s that statement J1 . such as hearts. and corneas. such as hearts. The #ertical pattern consists of a series of arguments in which a conclusion of a logicall$ prior argument becomes a premise of a subse7uent argument. The hori$ontal pattern consists of a single argument in which two or more premises provide independent support for a single conclusion. the other(s would continue to support the conclusion in the same wa$. the price alwa$s goes up. *%ample: J1 The selling of human organs. the premise. and corneas. is supported b$J" . supports statement J1 .J" !llowing human organs to be sold will inevitabl$ lead to a situation in which onl$ the rich will be able to afford transplants. This argument is diagrammed as follows: .
and when one or more premises supports multiple conclusions. JI . This relationship between the premises is illustrated b$ the use of the brace in the following diagram: "on. The following argument illustrates the occurrence of con9oint premises: J1 >etting poor people off the welfare rolls re7uires that we modif$ their behavior patterns. The diagram for this argument is as follows: 6orizontal pattern J" JI JE J1 J J J This diagram sa$s that statementsJ" . the support that the others provide would be diminished or destro$ed.straits will start selling their own organs to pa$ their bills. Ta&en separatel$. single parents. That is. and JE supportJ1 independentl$.oint premises J" JI J J J1 .JI These behavior patterns frustrate an$ desire poor people ma$ have to get a 9ob and improve their condition in life.J" The vast ma9orit$ of people on welfare are high school dropouts. Two variations on the hori5ontal and vertical patterns occur when two or more premises support a conclusion con/ointly. J" and JI support J1 con/ointly. The first variation occurs when the premises depend on one another in such a wa$ that if one were omitted. !lternatel$. statementsJ" andJI provide little or no support for J1 . 'tatementJ1 is the conclusion. but ta&en together the$ do provide support.JE In the final anal$sis. the bu$ing and selling of human organs comes 9ust too close to the bu$ing and selling of life itself.JI those with a criminal bent will ta&e to &illing health$ $oung people and selling their organs on the blac& mar&et. or people who abuse alcohol and drugs.
J" to eliminate povert$ we must offer incentives for people to get high school diplomas. :or our purposes. JE . andJ3 recharging facilities are not generall$ available.illiam Fampbell. 'ince no single argument can have more than one conclusion. !lso. and J3 support JI independentl$. JA . In this passage statement J1 supports both J" and JI .JI we must find some wa$ to encourage people to get married before the$ start having children. (. !lso. Fonsider the following argument. we will treat it as if it were a single argument b$ 9oining the two conclusions with a brace: 7ultiple conclusion J1 J JJ " JI /ur s$mbolism is now sufficientl$ developed to anal$5e most arguments found in editorials and letters to the editor of newspapers and maga5ines. ((Technolog$ Is Not >ood *nough)) . and J" and JI support J1 con9ointl$.JA their range of operation is too limited.e immediatel$ see that J1 is the main conclusion.The ne%t e%ample illustrates the occurrence of a multiple conclusion: J1 . The argument pattern is as follows: JE JA J3 J" JI J1 J J J J J . andJI electric cars won)t sell. the passage is correctl$ evaluated as consisting of two arguments.ropping out of school and bearing children outside of marriage are two of the primar$ causes of povert$ in this countr$. Therefore.JE The$ are too e%pensive. ta&en from a newspaper editorial: J1 >overnment mandates for 5ero6emission vehicles won)t wor& becauseJ" onl$ electric cars 7ualif$ as 5ero6emission vehicles. however.
The diagram is as follows: JA J3 JB J14 J11 J .et these supporting statements depend on one another for their effect. JE 8ollerbladers are oblivious to traffic regulations asJA the$ bree5e through red lights andJ3 s&im down the wrong wa$ on one6wa$ streets. we see that J" supports J1 and JI supports JE . . Thus the$ support the final conclusion con9ointl$.J+ The$ pose a threat to pedestrians becauseJB a collision can cause serious in9ur$. and J14 and J11 supportJ2 independentl$.J3 'uch a program would eliminate the incentive of the poachers. while JA and J3 support JE independentl$. (-amela F. :rom this. . Ne%t we surve$ the premise and conclusion indicators. ((8hino -oaching)) :irst we search for the final conclusion. The argument pattern is as follows: J" JI JJ J1 JE J3 J JA J The ne%t argument is ta&en from a maga5ine article: J1 '&ating is a wonderful form of e%ercise and rela%ation. 'inceJI the rhino has no natural predators.agner. (Coan 'chmidt.heels)) !fter reading the argument.e selectJA . andJ" and JI together compose the main conclusion. JB supportsJ+ . we see thatJ1 . and J2 support the main conclusion independentl$. :inall$. andJ3 supportJA . we see that J1 is merel$ an introductor$ sentence. because it is the ultimate point that the passage attempts to establish. J+ .. butJ" toda$)s rollerbladers are a growing menace andJI something should be done to control them.JE . ((=ell#/n .J2 8ollerbladers are even a ha5ard to shop&eepers asJ14 the$ 5oom through stores andJ11 damage merchandise. JE .The ne%t argument is ta&en from a letter to the editor: J1 8hinos in Den$a are threatened with e%tinction becauseJ" poachers are &illing them for their horn. !lso. ThusJA there should be an organi5ed program to capture rhinos in the wild and remove their horn.JE it does not need its horn to survive.
andJ1" the loss of this heat removes energ$ from the s$stem. J" tells us that the supporting statements are divided into two basic groups. JE will not appear in the diagram. !lso.e can e%pect small changes to occur in the length of our calendar $ear for an indefinite time to come. while J+ . The second reason is thatJ14 the motion of the tides causes a continual slowing down of earth)s rotation.orld Turns)) -reliminar$ anal$sis reveals that the final conclusion is J1 .JB the li7uid core of the earth sloshes as the earth turns. but since J" does not add an$ support. we can leave it out of the diagram. J11 and J1" supportJ14 con9ointl$. because it serves merel$ as a premise indicator.J J J J JE J+ J2 J" JI J J J J The ne%t argument is ta&en from the science column of a newspaper: J1 . ((!s the .J+ earth7ua&es alter the location of the tectonic plates. In the second group.J11 Tidal motion produces heat. and J2 support J3 independentl$. In the first group. Thus the argument pattern is as follows: J+ JB J2 J J J JA J3 J11 J1" J J JJ . and J2 rainfall redistributes water from the oceans.JI :irst. !lso. :or e%ample. (Isaac !simov. JB .JE !nd wh$ is this so<JA The rotation of an$ bod$ is affected b$ its distribution of mass. the rotation of the earth e%hibits certain irregularities. JA and J3 support JI con9ointl$.J" This is true for two reasons. andJ3 the earth)s mass distribution is continuall$ sub9ect to change.
JE the$ are forced to teach five or si% courses 9ust to survive. =ere is the argument pattern: JI J14 J J J JE J3 J+ JB J11 J1" J J J J . andJ1" man$ lac& the enthusiasm to motivate their students. :urthermore. In the first main branch. the$ are less receptive to student needs.J+ the lower pa$ demorali5es the parttimer. butJ" the e%tensive use of these instructors is a disadvantage to the students. becauseJ14 these part6timers are burning the candle from both ends. and JE and J3 independentl$ support JA . In the second branch.. andJB the lac& of tenure ma&es for constant financial insecurit$. and the educational process is impaired b$ J11 and J1".J2 /bviousl$ these conditions render the instructor less receptive to student needs. (>ordon .JI @ost part6time instructors are paid onl$ 34 percent of what a full6time teacher earns. the indicator ((as a result)) shows that JI supports JE . !lso. ((-art6Time Follege Instructors)) -reliminar$ anal$sis reveals that the main conclusion is not J1 but J" . In the third. ?astl$.JI J14 J1 J J /ur last e%ample is ta&en from a letter to the editor of a newspaper: J1 Fommunit$ college districts save a great deal of mone$ b$ hiring untenured part6time instructors. !s a result.JA This detracts from the opportunit$ to consult with students outside the classroom.J1I the educational process is impaired.J11 the$ have no spare energ$ to improve their courses. J+ and JB independentl$ support J2 . To ma&e matters worse. and as a result.J3 man$ part6timers are not even given office space. we see three main reasons wh$ part6timers are a disadvantage to students: The$ have little opportunit$ to consult with students.J14 supports both J11 and J1" .ossett et al. which in turn supportJ1I independentl$.
/liver. If a statement is redundant or pla$s no role in the argument. JI These drugs remain in the animals) flesh and are passed on to the humans who eat it. (-hilip . ((. (Folman @cFarth$. editorials. otherwise called ((composits. do not include it in the pattern. :or these reasons JE homewor& should never be assigned.. and letters to the editor. J1 =omewor& stifles the thrill of learning in the mind of the student. J" To &eep these animals alive. J1 The conditions under which man$ food animals are raised are unhealth$ for humans. This is so because JI these composits are not onl$ stronger than steel but lighter than aluminum. (Thomas =. JI Their parents brought them into the world and cared for them . J" Flearl$.hen parents become old and destitute. J1 The development of carbon6embedded plastics. J1. large 7uantities of drugs must be administered. the obligation of caring for them should be imposed on their children. J" It instills an oppressive learn6or6else discipline. ((=omewor&)s T$rann$ =obbles -romising @inds)) JE. The following arguments were abstracted from newspaper articles. Gse the method presented in this section to construct argument patterns.J J JA J2 J1I J" J J J E$ER"!SE %. children owe a debt to their parents. JI It 7uenches the desire for &nowledge and the love of truth.)) is an important new technolog$ because J" it holds the &e$ for new aircraft and spacecraft designs.5 I. @augh II. J1 .e Fan *at 8ibs and 'till Be =umane)) E tended Arguments 52 ' N ? ". ((Fomposits#The ?ightweight Fhamps of !ircraft Industr$)) I.
JE those nations ought to pa$ Bra5il an annual fee for the use of its rain forest. letter to the editor J+. But this entails that JE we must learn to spea& the 8ussian language.eciphering the human genetic code will be e%pensive. ((Three Billion . JI =uman&ind is currentl$ afflicted with I444 inherited disorders. J1 The rain forest of Bra5il produces o%$gen for the whole world.iane B. (. ( Cames /. :reedman.or& to To&$o. ((The 8esponsibilit$ of -arents)) A. =eppenheimer. (T.J" In the $ears ahead. the !frican elephant will become virtuall$ e%tinct b$ the $ear "444.JI fish were seen leaping from rivers and la&es. (>ar$ Cones. (8obert >illette. J1 8esearch leading to the development of a scram9et engine is worthwhile. J1 It appears that animals ma$ be able to predict earth7ua&es. but J" it will certainl$ benefit the human race. JI Toda$. JE such an engine could power future orbiting spacecraft. JE This debt could be appropriatel$ discharged b$ having grown children care for their parents. J" . ((! -lane for 'pace)) J14. andJE cows and horses refused to enter barns. ((/ur New Fultural Imperative)) 2. and JE &nowing the genetic code will pave the wa$ for cures. !. J" Fommercial aircraft incorporating such an engine could cross the -acific in as little as two hours. $et J" it $ields no monetar$ return to that countr$. J1 ! worldwide ban on the sale of ivor$ is long overdue. 8obinson.JA prior to a 7ua&e in :remont. we will need to interact effectivel$ with the 8ussian people.ithout it.when the$ were unable to care for themselves. ((Fan !nimals 8eall$ -redict *arth7ua&es<)) B. . !lso. J" -rior to a ma9or 7ua&e in Fhina. hundreds of sna&es suddenl$ appeared from hibernation and fro5e to death in the snow. a flood of callers reported strange behavior from their pets and domestic animals. (@ichael Bow&er. J1 It is important toda$ that more of our college students stud$ 8ussian. >iven that JI the industriali5ed nations consume the most o%$gen. J1 .ollar *ffort)) 3. !lso. soJI we must become familiar with their values and traditions. JI This would relieve the fatigue of flights from 89 "(apter %) *asic "oncepts ew . Falifornia.
The following arguments were abstracted from the same sources as those in -art I of this e%ercise. If a statement is redundant or pla$s no role in the argument. JA :ederal subsidies encourage farmers to use enormous amounts of fertili5er and pesticides. This is clear from the fact that J" &illers of whites are much more li&el$ to be sentenced to death than &illers of blac&s. J3 These chemicals percolate down through the soil and pollute limited groundwater. ((The Ivor$ Trail)) II. J1 -owerful new particle accelerators are important in high energ$ ph$sics.aniel =a$s ?owenstein.JI ! bribe is an$thing of value or advantage given with the intent to unlawfull$ influence the person to whom it is given in his official capacit$. JI the mid6si5ed famil$ farms are being s7uee5ed out of e%istence. J1 'ociet$ values white lives more than blac& lives. JI /f the 1+BB people currentl$ on death row. but the$ are of graduall$ increasing difficult$. Gse the method presented in this section to construct argument patterns. ((Fan Fandidates 8un for -olitical /ffice .444 remain in the wild. (/sha >ra$ . JA ever$ contribution from a lobb$ist or special interest group is given with the intent to influence voting. JE our farm polic$ courts environmental disaster. JE ! campaign contribution is certainl$ something of value or advantage.eath and 8ace)) JE. however. J1. (-os Angeles Times editorial. but J3 do5ens have been e%ecuted for murdering white people. and J3 thousands of such contributions are made in ever$ important election. ((. (. no one has ever been e%ecuted for murdering a blac& person. J1 @an$ people believe that the crime of briber$ cannot e%tend to campaign contributions. and JE onl$ 344.ithout Ta&ing Bribes<)) ".J" 'event$6three cents of ever$ farm program dollar ends up in the poc&ets of the nation)s superfarmers. J1 !merica)s farm polic$ desperatel$ needs revamping.et JE blac&s are si% times more li&el$ to be murder victims than whites are. countless campaign contributions are in fact bribes. . ((8ise of !merica)s 8ural >hetto)) I. 1+1I were convicted of &illing a white person. do not include it in the pattern.poachers armed with !D6E+ automatic rifles &ill "444 elephants ever$ wee&. !lso. . JA In :lorida. J" :rom a legal standpoint. !s a result.avidson. :urthermore. (!llan Thornton.
(('uccess 'tor$: :rom :rog to -rince)) J+. Now I can)t &eep them awa$ with a 146foot pole. J" Furrentl$ +444 Capanese graduate students stud$ science and engineering in the G.hen I was in high school. JE our government laboratories are open to the Capanese.'. cocaine or heroin. This is true because JI women love men who are successful.)) (. J3 M particles are thought to be the bearers of the wea& nuclear force. Norris. (?ee . Capan should subsidi5e our universities. J1 Figarette consumption could be easil$ reduced b$ simpl$ outlawing tailormade cigarettes.$e. ((.illiam F.JE M particles result from E tended Arguments 8% ' N ? the collision of positrons and electrons. ((?inear Follider: Bold >amble in !tomic -h$sics)) A. and J+ learning the nature of this force ma$ lead to the development of entirel$ new sources of energ$. JI It cannot be done in small illicit labs li&e the processing of -F-. !lso. JI while onl$ 1444 !mericans are engaged in similar studies in Capan. J1 !ll men crave material success because J" it serves as an insurance polic$ against se%ual re9ection. J3 women tr$ to achieve it vicariousl$ through men. J" The manufacture of tailor6made cigarettes to !merican standards is a high6tech industr$.arren :arrell.and J" the$ are worth their cost because JI the$ will allow scientists to produce and capture significant 7uantities of M particles. and JA success is the form of power women feel most deprived of. JA @ost people would not pa$ the premium prices demanded b$ an illicit mar&et for a product of un&nown 7ualit$..ustin =offman once put it. and also J+ it should help defra$ the costs of our laboratories. but JA Capanese laboratories are not open to !mericans. Thus. JE Both men and women want power.JE The availabilit$ of 7ualit$ tobacco for hand6rolling would discourage the development of an illegal tailor6made mar&et. (. women wouldn)t touch me with a 146foot pole. J1 :or $ears our countr$ has been providing Capan unlimited access to our technolog$ while getting little in return. J3 The$ could roll a high7ualit$ .a$ 'treet)) 3. J3 To remed$ this imbalance. J+ !s the A6foot 36inch . andJA particle accelerators are needed to achieve significant numbers of these collisions. ((Technolog$ @ust Travel "6.
a$ !dventists in this countr$ live an average of si% $ears longer than their meat6eating counterparts. J+ The grain and so$beans we feed our meat6producing 8& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts animals would feed ever$ hungr$ mouth in the world man$ times over. J+ Trul$ addicted persons would continue to smo&e no matter how inconvenient. J1 :lesh food is not a necessit$ in the human diet.J+ the situation is not as blea& as it has been made to appear. it should be noted that a steer must consume si%teen pounds of grain and so$ to produce one pound of meat. Ta% on Beer)) J14. a reassessment of the whole concept of &illing and eating animals is in order. J" !n often unrecogni5ed cause of this malad$ is the e%ploitative wa$ that universities as emplo$ers treat their parttime and temporar$ facult$ members. !nd then. vegetarian 'eventh6. ('u5anne 'utton.product for themselves. ( Cames F. ((Increased G. JI In man$ universities there are no formal guidelines for evaluating the wor& of these instructors. JB The fatalit$ rate for teenage drivers is lower toda$ than it has been in $ears. J" 'uch a measure. (8ichard 'and.JE poor instructors who solicit the favor of the department chairman are often retained . would almost certainl$ fail to achieve its intended result. asJ" nutritionall$ ade7uate alternatives are readil$ available. JE Indeed. J2 Flearl$. :inall$. JA those who drin& and drive alread$ ris& arrest and loss of driving privileges.'. J1 It has been widel$ ac&nowledged that the 7ualit$ of undergraduate education in this countr$ is diminishing. 'anders. however.JA The National !cadem$ of 'cience warns that our fat6laden diet is directl$ responsible for much of the heart disease and cancer that afflict so man$. !s a result. JE The$ gladl$ accept premium prices for the latest st$le in clothes or the most popular record albums. ((Dilling !nimals for :ood#Time for a 'econd ?oo&)) 2.JI Teenagers are notoriousl$ insensitive to cost. J1 The argument has been made that to cut down on teenage drun& driving we should increase the federal e%cise ta% on beer. ((!n *as$. J3 !t a time when people are starving in certain parts of the world.J3 The$ would not thin& twice about pa$ing a little more for a si%6pac&.a$ to 8educe Figarette Fonsumption)) B. JI @an$ people in the world thrive on a nonmeat diet. But JB most would give it up as too much bother before it became a deepl$ ingrained habit. JB Fattle are competing with humans for food.
JE These tran7uili5ers often have damaging side effects in that JA the$ accentuate the s$mptoms of senilit$. JE while a more distant spot that is immediatel$ available is onl$ a E46second wal& from the door. the Mombie 'huffle)) 1". since JB these medications produce immobilit$. ButJ14 without a voice. ((! 8idiculous !ddiction)) . :urthermore. JB -ar&ing a little farther awa$ is usuall$ easier and safer because J2 $ou can pull out more 7uic&l$. J3 Inevitabl$ the occupant of the desired space will preen her hair before departing. the shodd$ conditions under which the$ wor& are never brought to light.octors who attend elderl$ people in nursing homes often prescribe tran7uili5ers to &eep these people immobile.eserve a Brea&)) 11. and J14 it avoids damage to car doors b$ ad9acent par&ers.J" This obsession with good par&ing spots transcends all logic. and J+ all the while the cars bac&ed up behind the waiting driver are blaring their horns. J3 In order to survive.octors at the Fenter for !ging and =ealth sa$ that ph$sicians who care for the elderl$ are simpl$ prescribing too much medication. JA !nother factor is the low pa$ given to these instructors. JA . J+ The 7ualit$ of instruction can onl$ suffer when facult$ members stretch themselves so thin. J" This practice is often unwarranted. andJI it often impairs the health of the patients. ((!t 24. JI It might ta&e A minutes to E tended Arguments 8' ' N ? secure the ideal spot in a store par&ing lot. J1 . andJ3 the$ increase the li&elihood of a dangerous fall becauseJ+ the$ produce unsteadiness in wal&ing. (>winn /wens. J2 the$ increase the ris& of bedsores. (=al .illard. man$ of them must accept heav$ teaching loads spread out over three or four institutions. because JB part6time and temporar$ facult$ are rarel$ members of the facult$ senate.aiting for that ideal spot also results in fren5ied nerves and s&$roc&eting blood pressure. ((-art6Time :acult$ @embers .over better ones who do not. J14 .J2 the$ have no voice in universit$ governance. (@ichael 'chwalbe. J1 !ll of us have encountered motorists who will go to an$ length to get a par&ing spot within "4 feet of the door the$ e%pect to enter. ?astl$.
Thus. would be more rewarding than a landing on the planet itself. since J+ @ars)s mountains would bloc& their view. ((The Fase for >oing to @ars)) 1A. J2 Gsing @ars)s moons as a base would also be better than unmanned e%ploration directed from the =ouston space center. =owever. J1" Gnfortunatel$. andJ" this right should be implemented immediatel$. further slowing the process of e%ploration.rawing the ?ine on -renatal 8ights)) 1E. J1 ! manned trip to @ars is a 9ustified scientific goal because J" it affords a uni7ue opportunit$ to e%plore the origins of the solar s$stem and the emergence of life. the unborn child is incapable of securing these rights for itself. Because JE the @artian terrain is rugged. JA increased . and JB these defects are not correctable after birth. Thus. would be a time6consuming operation. step b$ step. J1" driving an unmanned rover from *arth. (!lan . J3 nor could the$ operate a robot vehicle without the use of a satellite. andJA these rights pro9ect bac&ward to the time it was in the womb.eimos could easil$ send robot vehicles to the planet)s surface. ('. J1 The state has a right to intervene on behalf of unborn children. J1 There are lots of problems with the G. J1I the intervention of a higher power is 9ustified. :red 'inger. JI from a scientific standpoint. andJ1E follow6on missions would be $ears apart instead of da$s. JI !irline deregulation has delivered most of what it 8."(apter %) *asic "oncepts promised when enacted in 12+B. an e%pectant mother has the right to treat her own bod$ as she chooses. J11 radio signals to and from @ars can ta&e as long as an hour. BecauseJ14 the distance is so great. This is true because J3 what happens to the child in the womb can have an impact throughout the child)s life.J1I. JA humans would not be able to venture far.eimos.'. she effectivel$ transfers part of her rights over to her unborn child. however. JE It has held down fares.ershowit5. JI . ((. J2 >ranted. but J" deregulation isn)t one of them. but J14 this right does not e%tend to her unborn child. airline s$stem.J1I 'ample returns to *arth would ta&e months instead of hours. an initial landing on the tin$ @artian moons. J11 /nce a pregnant woman decides to give birth. JB *%plorers on -hobos and . J+ It is well &nown that alcohol and drug abuse b$ e%pectant mothers cause birth defects. -hobos and .hile it ma$ be true that a mere fetus has no rights. JE surel$ a born child does have rights.
competition. J+ . J1E *fficienc$ has also improved.)) and .)) ((therefore.inston estimate that fares are "4S to I4S below what the$ would be under regulation.J14 @orrison and. most smaller cities and towns e%perienced a "4S to I4S increase in flight fre7uenc$. J1A !fter deregulation the percentage of occupied seats 9umped b$ 14S and miles traveled b$ I"S. Deep in mind that some editorials are reall$ reports and contain no arguments at all.eregulated !irlines)) III. service to some cities and towns has improved. J1+ travel on G. !nd.espite claims to the contrar$. Numerals should usuall$ be placed after genuine premise and conclusion indicators even when the$ occur in the middle of a statement. ?astl$. J3 and raised the industr$)s efficienc$. J11 Fompetition has increased because J1" prior to deregulation airlines had protected routes. brea& up conditional statements into antecedent and conse7uent. however. -remises can be distinguished from conclusion b$ the occurrence of indicator words (((hence. !lso. JB with some e%ceptions. J2 /n average. airlines remains among the safest forms of transportation. J13 . !n$ statement that does not pla$ a direct role in the argument should be left out of the final argument pattern.'. which are lists of statements consisting of one or more premises and one conclusion. J1B Between 12+A and 12BA.)) ((since. Fompound statements having components that are claimed to be true ma$ be bro&en up into parts and the parts enumerated accordingl$. airline safet$ has not suffered. few editorials are as neat and straightforward as the selections presented in parts I and II of this e%ercise.J1I !fter deregulation this changed. >uest editorials on the opinioneditorial page (usuall$ opposite the editorial page are often better written than those on the editorial page. !nal$5e the argument (or arguments according to the method presented in this section.o not. Begin b$ placing a numeral at the beginning of each statement. -roceed to identif$ the main conclusion (or conclusions and determine how the other statements provide support. fares are lower toda$ than in 12B4. (8obert C. 'amuelson. ((?et)s Not 8egulate the . Turn to the editorial pages of a newspaper and select an editorial that contains an argument. deaths resulting from crashes totaled fewer than I444.espite fears that airlines would cut unprofitable service to small communities. . Summary ?ogic is the stud$ of the evaluation of arguments.
arguments based on signs. and dis9unctive s$llogisms. T$pical inductive arguments include predictions. but to statements. T$pical deductive arguments include arguments based on mathematics. and those that also have true premises are said to be cogent. arguments from definition. !n argument form that allows for a substitution instance having true premises and a . illustrations. The validit$ of a deductive argument is determined b$ the form of the argument. This is done b$ attending to indicator words. and categorical. and evaluating the truth of the premises. arguments from analog$. T$pical nonE tended Arguments 84 ' N ? arguments include warnings. h$pothetical. it is important to be able to distinguish arguments from nonarguments. The truth and falsit$ of premises and conclusion is onl$ indirectl$ related to validit$.eductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow necessaril$ from the premises. and those that also have true premise are said to be sound. the actual strength of the inferential relation. while inductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow onl$ probabl$ from the premises. conditional statements. The two can be distinguished b$ attending to special indicator words (((it necessaril$ follows that. The evaluation of arguments involves two steps: evaluating the lin& between premises and conclusion.eductive arguments in which the conclusion actuall$ follows from the premises are said to be valid. . and t$pical forms or st$les of deductive and inductive argumentation.so on or an inferential relation among the statements. Because not all groups of statements are arguments. Inductive arguments in which the conclusion actuall$ follows from the premises are said to be strong. and t$pical &inds of nonarguments. The terms ((true)) and ((false)) appl$ not to arguments.)) ((it probabl$ follows that. and e%planations. . arguments from authorit$. e%positor$ passages. but an$ deductive argument having true premises and false conclusion is invalid.)) and so on . reports. generali5ations. the presence of an inferential relation among the statements. !rguments are customaril$ divided into deductive and inductive. and causal inferences. loosel$ associated statements.
hori5ontal pattern. This fact leads to the countere%ample method for proving invalidit$. . and an$ argument having that form is an invalid argument. The structure of longer arguments ma$ be disclosed b$ the application of a method consisting of arrows and braces that show how the various premises support intermediate conclusions. con9oint premises. :our basic argument patterns are the vertical pattern.false conclusion is an invalid form. and how the latter in turn support the main conclusion. The method consists in identif$ing the formof a given invalid argument and then constructing a countere%ample having premises that are indisputabl$ true and a conclusion that is indisputabl$ false. and multiple conclusion.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.