Reasoning
Discussion
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
·
Textbook: Chapter 8,
9, 17 (Introduction)
·
Lesson
· Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to
the textbook)
Click on the following tabs to review the concepts that will be
addressed in this activity:
·
Valid Argument Structures
·
Deductive
·
Inductive
A valid structure is the way in which an argument is put
together that assures it will pass the test of logical strength.
The Basic Structure of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Click on the following
links to view argument examples:
Deductive
Argument Example
“Tightening
laws restricting the use and possession of firearms does not protect average
law-abiding citizens; it only puts them at greater risk. Enforcing licensing
restrictions, trigger locks, and waiting periods makes it more difficult for
law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and, as a result, encourages
criminal activity. Only criminals benefit when ordinary citizens are deprived
of their right to own a firearm and protect themselves, their homes, and their
families” (Lott, 2000, p. 169)
Lott,
J., (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control
laws. University of Chicago Press.
The
argument boils down to this:
· Laws that are obeyed by ordinary citizens and
not obeyed by criminals are laws that put ordinary citizens at risk.
· Tight gun laws are laws that are obeyed only
by ordinary citizens.
·
Tight gun laws put
ordinary citizens at risk.
However,
the argument itself is composed of three intertwined syllogisms:
Only
ordinary citizens are persons who respect tight gun laws.
Criminal persons are not ordinary citizens.
Therefore, criminals do not respect tight gun laws.
Tight
gun laws restrict only ordinary citizens.
No criminal is an ordinary citizen.
No criminal is restricted by tight gun laws.
Laws
that disfavor the good are laws that favor the bad.
Tight gun laws favor the bad.
Therefore, tight gun laws disfavor the good.
Notice
that you cannot remove any of the “legs” and maintain the claim. Notice, also,
that the reasons are closely connected and depend on or follow from each other.
Notice, also, that the first premise (called the major premise) must be
accepted as true or the entire argument fails.
Inductive
Argument
The
United States is too dependent upon foreign oil. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy, we rely on imported foreign oil for about 45% of our
needs. Of the imported oil, most comes from Canada, but 22% comes from
countries in the Middle East. Undeniably, this dependence shapes our foreign
policy. We have vast oil reserves that could make us energy-independent.
Development of these resources would produce much-needed jobs, many of them in
areas of the country suffering most from the recession. We should be developing
an energy policy that makes us energy independent.
· Reason: We import 45% of our oil.
· Reason: Middle East oil imports shape our
foreign policy.
· Reason: Our vast oil reserves could make us
energy independent.
· Reason: Development of oil reserves could
produce much needed jobs.
·
Conclusion: For any or
all of the above, independent reasons, we should become energy independent.
Notice
that any one of these reasons, standing alone, could support the conclusions;
they are not logically related to one another as they would be in a syllogism.
Initial Post For the initial post, address the following:
·
Find and post examples
of deductive and inductive arguments. Do NOT use an argument example which
clearly indicates it is an example of an inductive/deductive argument.
·
For each example,
evaluate its logical strength, using the concepts and ideas presented in the
textbook readings, the lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to
evaluate the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument. You
can use examples from the text, or you can find examples elsewhere.
o Editorials and opinion columns are a good
source, as are letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on
arguments.
o Use mapping and evaluative techniques to make
sure it is an argument.
·
Is it inductive or
deductive? Explain why.
· Does it pass the tests of validity and
strength? Explain.
Follow-Up Post
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing
more information and clarification. Do you agree with their analysis – be very
specific about why you agree or disagree.
Writing Requirements
·
Minimum of 2 posts (1
initial & 1 follow-up)
·
Minimum of 2 sources
cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
· APA format for in-text citations and list of
references
