Chapter 6 ]Types of Arguments

1. Chapter 6]Types of Arguments

2. Argumentation & Reasoning • Arguments are considered rational when they correspond with accepted standards of reasoning. • Reasoning • “The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in orderly rational ways.”

3. Reasoning Process • Reasoning involves 3 steps • Identify data/grounds used to develop claim • Reason from data through logical induction or deduction • Offer claim or conclusion that builds upon the data and constitutes a new and original insight • Focus of this chapter will be on step 2 • Inductive-arguing from specific to general conclusion • Deductive-moving from general instances to specific conclusions

4. Inductive Reasoning • When you have knowledge or info about specific cases but lack understanding of factors that may unite these cases into general conclusion • Moving from specific evidence to general conclusion • 3 types of inductive arguments • Arguments by Example • Arguments by Analogy • Arguments from Causal Correlation

5. Inductive Reasoning • Argument by Example • Arguing on basis of examples • Using examples from known cases to draw conclusions about unknown cases • Ex. Bill, Diane, and Lynn were communication majors and they got into really good law schools (specific examples). Communication must be a good pre-law major (general conclusion). • Ex. Last time I tried to get help from advising office, I got passed around from person to person. No one knew the answers to my questions. That dept. is incompetent

6. Testing arguments by example - things to consider • 1. Are there enough examples offered to support claim • Ex. If Bill, Dianne, and Lynn were only 3 comm. majors then argument is no longer strong-overgeneralization • 2. Are examples cited typical of the category or class that the arguer is trying to generalize to? • Ex. Because Advising Office couldn’t answer 1 person’s questions doesn’t mean they are incompetent. Maybe questions were rare or not relevant to their dept. • 3. Are negative examples of rival stories sufficiently accounted for in argument • Ex. Were there other comm. Majors who didn’t get into law school? • 4. Are cited examples relevant to the claim being advanced

7. Fallacy-a flaw in the reasoning process • Hasty Generalization-type of fallacy • Arguments from examples that move too quickly or without sufficient rationale

8. Inductive Reasoning • Arguments by Analogy • Seeks to identify similarities between cases that might seem dissimilar, in order to allow conclusion to be made-building argument by comparing • Literal Analogy • Drawing direct comparison btwn. 2 or more cases • Ex. Students who want education only to prepare for careers are like apprentices attaching themselves to carpenters • Figurative Analogy • Makes comparisons btwn. classes that are dissimilar but have common characteristics • Ex. The builders and developers have attached the underdeveloped hillsides of the city like hungry locusts

9. Inductive Reasoning • Arguments from Causal Correlation • Examines specific cases and identifies a relationship or correlation • Ex. Excessive exposure to violence on television or in video games leads to a willingness to accept violence as appropriate behavior and decreases people’s sense of revulsion toward violence in real life.

10. Testing Causal Correlations-things to consider 1. Consistency of correlation • Is there true correlation or just chance 2. Is the correlation a strong one? • Requires looking at all the data • Looking at context and other factors 3. Does cause effect pattern follow predictable time sequence? • How long does it take to see the effect after cause…and is effect truly coming from that cause. • Ex. Children exposed to lead suffer learning disablities • Does it take hours, weeks, months for symptoms to surface?

11. Deductive Reasoning • Generalizing from theories or principles believed to be true to claims about individual cases. • Moving from general evidence to specific claims • 2 types of deductive arguments • 1. Arguments from Sign • 2. Arguments from Causal Generalization

12. Deductive Reasoning • Arguments from Sign • Relies on presence of certain attributes seen in specific case to prove that it can be related to a generalization that is assumed to be true • Ex. Bob is suffering from fever, sore throat, fatigue, headache, muscle weakness, and night sweats. He might have contracted mononucleosis • People who usually suffer from this symptoms have mono.

13. Testing Arguments from Sign-things to consider • 1. Are the cited signs always indication of general conclusion? • Ex. The symptoms mentioned may also be symptoms for other medical issues • 2. Are there enough signs present to support conclusion offered? • Ex. If Bob only had fever and sore throat, that may not be enough to conclude mono. • 3. Are contradictory signs present and have they been carefully considered? • Ex. Bob is gaining weight along with his other symptoms which is unusual for mono…need to account for weight gain.

14. Fallacies of Arguments by Sign • False reasoning by sign • Moving too quickly from limited number of signs • Guilty by association • Ex. Attacking a person because of people he is friendly with

15. Deductive Reasoning • Arguments from Causal Generalization • Argues from general principles that are assumed to be true to judgments about specific cases under consideration • Ex. Steven is bound to abuse his children because he was himself abused as a child • Ex. It is unwise to raise interest rates. Every time rates have been raised, a recession has followed

16. Testing Causal Generalization Arguments- • 1. Is cause sufficient to produce effect • Ex. Steven’s abuse may impact his parenting style but many people have been abused and are still good parents • 2. May the cause result in other effects • Ex. Steven’s abuse may actually motivate him to be better parent • 3. May intervening factors preclude expected relationship between cause and effect • Ex. Higher interest rates may actually stabilize and strengthen economy

17. False Reasoning by Causal Generalization • Making a false generalization

18. The Deductive Syllogism Deductive arguments can be tested by phrasing them in syllogistic form and examining structural properties… • Syllogism-a formal, logical type of reasoning • Consists of 1. a major premise (general case) 2. a minor premise or (specific case), and 3. a conclusion.

19. Ex. Major Premise: All men are mortal Minor Premise: Socrates is a man Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is a mortal Ex.Major Premise: All Christians believe in God Minor Premise: Fred is a Christian Conclusion: Fred believes in God • These are examples of categorical syllogism-one that makes a statement about all cases within the given category • Absolute statement

20. Conditional Syllogism • If then syllogism • Major Premise: If students study they get better grades • Minor Premise: The students will study • Conclusion: The students will get better grades

21. Disjunctive Syllogism • Either or statements • Major Premise: The University must either raise tuition or cut faculty and programs • Minor Premise: The University is unwilling to make cuts • Conclusion: Therefore tuition must be increased

22. Toulmin Model • Used to understand the components of argument and provides insight into reasoning process • 1. Claim-proposition • 2. Grounds-support or basis for claim • 3. Warrant-connection between grounds and claim • 4. Backing-support for warrant • 5. Modality-degree of certainty for claim • 6. Rebuttal-exceptions that might be offered to claim