In this assignment, you will apply key concepts covered in the module readings. You will identify the component parts of arguments and differentiate between various types of arguments such as inductive and deductive. You will then construct specific, original arguments. There are parts to the assignment. Complete both parts. The following is a summary of the assignment tasks. details for this assignment here and respond to each item thoroughly.
Part 1: Identifying Component Parts of Arguments
In this part of the assignment, you will demonstrate your understanding of the key components of an argument. Arguments can be complex and consist of different parts. By identifying and analyzing these parts, you will be able to effectively evaluate the strength and validity of an argument.
1. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following passages:
a) “All mammals breathe oxygen. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs breathe oxygen.”
– All mammals breathe oxygen.
– Dogs are mammals.
– Therefore, dogs breathe oxygen.
b) “If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining.”
– If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
– The ground is wet.
– Therefore, it is raining.
2. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following arguments:
a) “All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
– All humans are mortal.
– Socrates is a human.
– Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
b) “If it is a mammal, then it is warm-blooded. A bat is warm-blooded. Therefore, a bat is a mammal.”
– If it is a mammal, then it is warm-blooded.
– A bat is warm-blooded.
– Therefore, a bat is a mammal.
Now that we have identified the premises and conclusions of these arguments, let us move on to differentiating between inductive and deductive arguments.
Part 2: Differentiating Inductive and Deductive Arguments
In this part of the assignment, you will distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments. Inductive and deductive reasoning are two different ways of constructing arguments, each with its own characteristics and strengths. Understanding this distinction is crucial in assessing the validity and reliability of arguments.
3. Differentiate between inductive and deductive arguments, providing an example of each.
Inductive arguments are based on observations and evidence. They involve reasoning from specific instances to general conclusions. However, these arguments do not guarantee the truth of their conclusions, as their validity depends on the strength of the evidence presented. An example of an inductive argument is:
– “Every swan I have seen is white; therefore, all swans are white.”
This argument is inductive because the conclusion is based on a limited number of observations and does not provide absolute certainty that all swans are white. However, the more observations are made, the stronger the argument becomes.
Deductive arguments, on the other hand, are based on logical reasoning and aim to provide conclusions that are necessarily true if the premises are true. These arguments move from general principles to specific conclusions. Unlike inductive arguments, deductive arguments aim to provide conclusive proof of their conclusions. An example of a deductive argument is:
– “All mammals are animals. Whales are mammals. Therefore, whales are animals.”
This argument is deductive because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well, making the argument valid.
4. Discuss which type of argument, inductive or deductive, is more commonly used in everyday life and provide reasons for your answer.
In everyday life, both inductive and deductive arguments are frequently used, depending on the context. However, inductive arguments are more commonly used. Inductive reasoning allows individuals to make reasonable generalizations based on their observations and experiences. It is often employed when sufficient evidence is not available to support deductive reasoning. Inductive arguments are also more flexible than deductive arguments as they allow for the consideration of new evidence and the revision of conclusions.