Post a link to a web page that you think represents of good example of one of the following: deductive argument, inductive argument, argument by analogy, an enthymeme. Include a brief explanation of how you see the example working and of where it occurs on the page. Complete this by the night before class.
28 thoughts on “Examples of Deductive, Inductive, Analogical and Enthymematic Argument”
Comments are closed.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html
“[2] If any of our earls or barons, or anyone else holding from us in chief by military service should die, and should his heir be of full age and owe relief, the heir is to have his inheritance for the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl for a whole county £100, the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony 100 marks, the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee 100 shillings at most, and he who owes less will give less, according to the ancient custom of (knights’) fees.
[3] If, however, the heir of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him and his land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of his lords until the aforesaid term.”
“No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
These quotes from the Magna Carta Charter I have found to be a Conditional Deductive Argument. As it was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king, the statements above showed the premises that if the barons or earls at that time decided if anyone, including the king, holding from us in chief by military service, therefore should die and will owe relief unto their government and their heir will inherit to pay debts as well. It was a general rule applied unto the king, baron, and all citizens of the country.
http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/40/the-memoirs-of-sherlock-holmes/573/adventure-1-silver-blaze/
Everyone knows the famous detective Sherlock Holmes. The Adventures of Silver Blaze is about a racehorse who disappears in the middle of the night from the stables the night his trainer is murdered. Below is a quote from the story that shows Holmes deductive pattern of reasoning.
“Before deciding that question I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others. The Simpson incident had shown me that a dog was kept in the stables, and yet, though some one had been in and had fetched out a horse, he had not barked enough to arouse the two lads in the loft. Obviously the midnight visitor was some one whom the dog knew well.” Holmes solved the murder by applying a general rule to this particular case “dogs bark at strangers” therefore, “whoever entered the stables was not a stranger”.
This article on “How I became pro-life” gives an analogy about midway through the article. The author states “To use a rough analogy, the Catholic Church was saying that loaded guns are not toys, that while they can perhaps be used for certain recreational activities, they are always to be handled with grave respect; my viewpoint, coming from contraceptive culture, was that it’s fine to use loaded guns as toys as long as you put blanks in the chamber. Thinking of that analogy, expecting to be able to use something with incredible power nonchalantly, as a toy, I could see how that worldview had set us up for disaster.” This argument creates a feeling a great danger when dealing with the “loaded gun” and the responsibilities of procreation.
http://www.learning-theories.com/classical-conditioning-pavlov.html
This article on Ivan Pavlov’s accidental finding of his theory on classical conditioning is an example of deductive reasoning. This article demonstrates how Pavlov worked from more general (accidental) findings towards a more specific and scientifically supported conclusion.
During Pavlov’s scientific studies on digestion, he coincidentally noticed that the restrained dogs in his previous study would begin to salivate before their daily distributions of meat powder. Salivation would begin by the mere sight of their handler or even by the clicking sound made by the device that distributed the meat powder. This general observation motivated Pavlov to create a more conclusive theory that perhaps the dogs had been conditioned to salivate by these presented stimuli.
In his experiment, Pavlov paired the meat powder with various stimuli; such as the ringing of a bell (auditory stimulus). After the meat powder was introduced with the ringing of the bell many times, he decided to take away the release of the meat powder and only introduce the ringing of the bell. He found that the bell was able to trigger the salivating response he was hoping for. The bell which was initially a neutral simulis (created no response on its own), was able to create a desired response after it was repeatedly paired with the unconditioned stimulus (meat powder). The bell then becomes a conditioned stimulus that can produce the desired and conditioned response.
This study allowed pavlov to deduce and create his scientific theory of classical conditioning. Through the use of deduction, pavlov, was able to take general observations and turn them into specific scientific hypothesis. Pavlov dedicated the rest of his career to do research and further validate his findings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/minimum-wage-debate_n_5062113.html
The attached article is an example of deductive reasoning. If you scroll down near the bottom of the article, there is a quote by John Boehner.(I like to pick on him!) He says “When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens?, you get less of it.”
Translation—if you raise the minimum wage, then job losses will occur. This is the classic if/then statement or conditional reasoning. The Republican Party has been using this “general rule” for years.
Another classic example if/then statement’s was found in the readings, “If there is lightning, then there is thunder.” Thus, “There is lightning, therefore, there is thunder.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The author, Ta-Nehisi Coates, tries to link the vast income gap between white and black families by connecting it to centuries of American policies that have put African Americans at a disadvantage.
This passage found in Chapter 9 can best sum up his feelings toward this issue.
“Perhaps no statistic better illustrates the enduring legacy of our country’s shameful history of treating black people as sub-citizens, sub-Americans, and sub-humans than the wealth gap. Reparations would seek to close this chasm. But as surely as the creation of the wealth gap required the cooperation of every aspect of the society, bridging it will require the same. […] The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world.”
The deductive argument style used by the author is very effective. He argues that policies prevented African Americans from obtaining wealth, therefore there is now a wealth gap.
The story focuses heavily on North Lawndale, a neighborhood in Chicago. Beginning in the 1940s, a large number of African Americans began moving in to the neighborhood. Federal policies set in place did not allow African Americans to take out an insured mortgage. If they wanted to buy a house they must buy it “on contract.” To buy a house “on contract” meant that there is no deed transfer until the entire balance is paid. So if a family were to miss a single payment, they will be evicted and lose any payments they already made. Not only did this put immense pressure on families to make monthly payments, the amount they were paying was always twice than what the house was actually worth. The financial constraints forced families to forgo things that white people were able to do like extra food, use of utilities, renovations, private school, etc…
The story is about 15k words so I’ll put a few passages here that I think provide good deductive argument to the issue.
—
“The men who peddled contracts in North Lawndale would sell homes at inflated prices and then evict families who could not pay—taking their down payment and their monthly installments as profit. Then they’d bring in another black family, rinse, and repeat.” (Chapter 1)
“In Chicago and across the country, whites looking to achieve the American dream could rely on a legitimate credit system backed by the government. Blacks were herded into the sights of unscrupulous lenders who took them for money and for sport.” (Chapter 1)
“The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.
“This is not surprising. Black families, regardless of income, are significantly less wealthy than white families. The Pew Research Center estimates that white households are worth roughly 20 times as much as black households, and that whereas only 15 percent of whites have zero or negative wealth, more than a third of blacks do. Effectively, the black family in America is working without a safety net. When financial calamity strikes—a medical emergency, divorce, job loss—the fall is precipitous.” (Chapter 2)
“The marks of that collaboration are all over the New Deal. The omnibus programs passed under the Social Security Act in 1935 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life. Old-age insurance (Social Security proper) and unemployment insurance excluded farmworkers and domestics—jobs heavily occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, 65 percent of African Americans nationally and between 70 and 80 percent in the South were ineligible.” (Chapter 5)
“The oft-celebrated G.I. Bill similarly failed black Americans, by mirroring the broader country’s insistence on a racist housing policy. Though ostensibly color-blind, Title III of the bill, which aimed to give veterans access to low-interest home loans, left black veterans to tangle with white officials at their local Veterans Administration as well as with the same banks that had, for years, refused to grant mortgages to blacks.” (Chapter 5)
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/_issues2012/2012_vaccinations.html
The article I read was entitled The Risks of Postponing or Avoiding Vaccinations. This articles talks about the increasing number of parents not immunizing their children for a variety of reasons. It describes the possible disadvantages of postponing or avoiding vaccines. I see this as an inductive argument because by the third paragraph the article talks about the hundreds of reported measles cases reported and that the most cases occurred in the ones that were not vaccinated. In the fourth paragraph the article states that study after study found no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines. According to the video lecture induction reasoning is supporting a conclusion with many cases. An example of this in the article is when the author used the information of many measles cases to support the fact that vaccines can protect against preventable diseases.
http://www.aornjournal.org/article/S0001-2092%2814%2900527-4/fulltext
http://humanfactors.wikidot.com/healthcare3:swiss-cheese-model
I’m not sure if everyone can access the aorn journal article I have attached. Just in case it’s a members only site, I attached a second website to give you an idea of what I found.
I found an example of an analogy in the AORN article. An analogy is a comparison showing two distinct things being similar in some respects. The analogy is found on pg 66, 3rd paragraph down. There is a comparison to Swiss Cheese and all the potential errors in the operating room. If we take Swiss Cheese, slice it, then line the slices back together alternating the holes, we can close the holes or gaps in the cheese. This is closing the gaps in several layers. The analogy with the operating room is that if we incorporate several layers of checks, we can close the gaps thereby creating fewer errors in the operating room. Arguing by analogy is a way to argue that if something is true of one thing, it will be true of a similar thing. If holes through cheese can be closed, holes in the operating room creating errors can be closed.
The example I chose to share is from the show House, specifically the episode All In. Anyone who has ever watched the show knows that the use of deductive reasoning is seen in almost every episode. The following is an excerpt from All In:
House: “What were we talking about?”
Chase: “Two patients with two symptoms in common and five symptoms not in common.”
House: “While you were all wearing your ‘Frankie Says Relax’ T-shirts, I was treating a 73-year-old woman who went through this progression of symptoms, the last of which was [death]. In case any of you missed that class in med school, that one’s untreatable”
In this episode House uses deductive reasoning to figure out what killed the 73-year-old woman in hopes of saving the two patients experiencing the same symptoms.
http://house.wikia.com/wiki/All_In
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/12-alarming-facts-about-pet-homelessness/
The website that I chose to share is a website dedicated to bring awareness to animal homelessness.
This website is an example of induction reasoning. In induction reasoning the premise for the argument is supported by different sources. It also shows some deductive reasoning as well towards the end of the page. The induction part of the website lays out the foundation for the later deductive part.
In this particular case the issue being discussed is animal homelessness. The website goes on to identify 12 important facts that support the issue of animal homelessness. These 12 facts as stated before set up the conditional deductive statement:
“ … What this fact breakdown ultimately reveals is that (1) breeding animals for the sake of profit or simply because someone “wants” a certain type of dog is highly unnecessary and unsustainable – there are clearly plenty of dogs and cats awaiting homes — and (2) that the power to change these statistics is in our hands.”
The website then goes on to state the ways in which we can help with this on going problem, which then sets up a propositions of fact and value to alleviate the problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/poverty-obesity_b_1417417.html
This Huffington Post Article, “Poverty And Obesity: Breaking The Link” uses a general inductive argument to show the many links to obesity among those with a lower economic status. Throughout the article there are several different sources of information cited, as well as detailed graphs and charts to further illustrate the issue.
The entire article is a series of facts that support the conclusion. The resources listed at the bottom of the article shows the variety of sources used to support their author’s argument that there is a direct correlation between economic status and obesity. There are 12 sources listed, all of which are highly respected avenues of information, such as the Centers for Disease Control, American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
Several pieces of legislation are also addressed in the article, such as The Healthy Hunger-Kids Free Act of 2010, Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move Campaign, and the Child Care State Challenge. There are also “[f]indings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey …[that] has found that low-income children and adolescents are more likely to be obese than their higher income counterparts [4].” In addition, a variety of other studies are mentioned that show the correlation between economic status and obesity rates. “[M]ore than one-third of adults who earn less than $15,000 annually were obese, as compared to 25 percent of those who earn more than $50,000 a year [5].” One side effect of an economic disadvantage, as the author also points out, is that those with “limited economic resources may turn to food with poor nutritional quality because it is cheaper and more accessible [7].”
Outside of the shortage of available healthy options, there are additional contributing factors such as “Lack of physical activity…[because] low-income families live in neighborhoods where it is dangerous to play outside, reducing opportunities for both children and adults to exercise [8].”
The article presents many sobering statistics about the obstacles facing low-income families regarding the effects and health issues associated with obesity, making it a strong inductive argument. The author’s conclusion of the direct correlation between obesity and economic status is further supported by the variety and integrity of the sources cited.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=833
I decided to cite Planned Parenthood v. Casey as one of the many examples of analogy reasoning that the supreme court uses to frame arguments and decisions.
Lawyers often frame their arguments, and Supreme Court Justices often determine cases by the doctrine of stare decisis, which is ruling by precedent, or what has been ruled in the past on the similar issues. The argument for analogical reasoning between related court cases was established treat all court cases fairly and to provide a judicial constancy and sets an predictable interpretation of the law.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Planned Parenthood challenged the provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 to be unconstitutional, as previously recognized under Roe v. Wade. If you read, or skim, through the document cited above, you can read the various deliberations the supreme court justices and how they use stare decisis in determining where they stand on the issue.
The justices concluded with this:
“After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, … and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.
It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State…Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
William Paley’s essay “The Argument from Design,” he uses deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning to prove God’s existence. Through his arguments, he describes to us that nature is like a design, and functions like a watch. Since everything that is designed has a designer, therefore we are able to conclude that nature is designed by God, himself.
He writes that, “The watch…its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day” (Paley 517). Paley’s quote explains to us the similarities between how the world and the watch function. The watch functions by having one gear turning the other gears, while the world is similar to it by chain of reactions. In his argument from analogy, the watch has a creator, and because the world and the watch are similarly alike. Then, in conclusion, the creator of the world is God, himself, therefore he exists.
Works Cited
Paley, William. “The Argument from Design” Natural Theology. 1802
Deductive reasoning is used by the arguer to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion assuming that the argument’s assumptions are true. If a valid argument has true assumptions, then that argument is said to be valid.
A simple example would be: “It is sunny in New York, therefor Jonathan is not using an umbrella.”
In the mystery Novel series, “The Hardy Boys” Frank and Joe use deductive reasoning throughout the series. One particular example was found here in regards to the book “The Clue Of The Screeching Owl.” http://hardyboys.us/bt34.htm
The site makes reference to the use of deductive reasoning in the selected section below:
“When Frank and Joe realize that “donner” was the German word for “thunder”, and saw that both Bill and Walter looked identical, they put two and two together and deduced they were brothers (page 90).”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html
The Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia is a perfect example of deductive reasoning. Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court decision that decisively ruled in a 9-0 vote that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, and thus were struck down in all remaining states that had such laws.
The Court came to their decision deductively, pointing out a variety of premises that were truthful to come to their conclusion. Their conclusion was:
“There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”
Throughout the opinion, as well as the concurring opinion, a number of supporting premises are made, many countering Virginia’s own reasoning. For example:
“At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States,323 U. S. 214, 323 U. S. 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate .”
The Court insists that any kind of discrimination undergoes the utmost strict scrutiny, and that the state must have a valid interests if that law is to be upheld. Because the Court found no valid state interest, the law was struck down.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-06-29/news/0706281061_1_felines-cats-fertile-crescent
“Scientists have long debated whether cats were independently domesticated at several regions and points in time, or whether they were first kept as pets in one civilization before being spread around the world.”
This article outlines a study that uses inductive reasoning. The researchers found that “all domestic cats studied shared certain gene sequences with the Near Eastern variety of wildcat”. They used inductive reasoning to then argue that likely all domestic cats share this same gene sequence. The researchers thus concluded that cats likely “were first kept as pets in one civilization [e.g. in the Near East where this variety still lives] before being spread around the world.”
http://www.medicaldaily.com/countries-ban-tv-ads-unhealthy-foods-aimed-children-shows-themselves-are-just-bad-291314
The article chose discusses how television shows and advertisements are contributing to childhood obesity. This article uses deductive reasoning to prove that advertisement of high calorie dense food lead could lead to the consumption of these foods by children who might not be aware.
The articles uses different examples and statistics to draw the conclusion the consumption of media that promotes high caloric dense food to children can lead to obesity in children . In describing some of the consequences of advertising to children, the author states, “The shows are full of depictions of sugary drinks and high-calorie snack food, often in the context of happy celebrations or satisfying hunger. Seldom are the characters fat, shielding kids from the possible consequences of an unhealthy diet”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-case-for-more-sanctions-on-iran/2015/02/27/cb77dfac-bd05-11e4-9dfb-03366e719af8_story.html
The opinion piece, “The case for more sanctions on Iran,” makes an inductive argument. The author uses evidence of past success using sanctions to make the claim that it’s the best route to take with Iran. The article states, “There’s no doubt that the sanctions previously adopted by Congress brought Iran to the negotiating table and that the regime’s goal is to escape their bite on its economy.” This statement establishes precedent to help make the inductive argument.
http://www.giarts.org/article/color-line-and-united-states-cultural-policy
This article is an example of inductive reasoning. The author’s argument, that the current US cultural policy system does not account for inherent organizational differences across racial lines, is supported by several examples of inadequacy.
1. Her first major example of insufficiency in the current cultural policy framework are claims that the “metrics of stabilization and sustainability” which dominate policy reporting are unable to adequately incorporate the “spirit and passions within these organizations of color.” Instead, analyses often show “organizational deficiency…due to lack of leadership or lack of competence in nonprofit business management givens.”
2. Her second point centers around the lack of a democratic, deliberative cultural policy making decision process. She claims that “Under the call for objectivity, policy making limits stakeholder participation in deliberation, dialogue, and decision-making activities, and in doing so, it undermines the policy maker’s own ambitions to strengthen the cultural sector and advance the ideal of fair and democratic processes.”
Through her examples of inadequate systems of measurement and evaluation, and poor processes for developing these systems, she argues that there is a troubling rift in American cultural policy.
The article argues that the death penalty can be used as a deterrent for murder…this is a deductive argument. The author believes that if a murder believes that he would be killed for committing murder, he won’t commit the crime. It is questionable though if this is really true. How can the site make a claim about the state of mind of a sociopath? The article hinges on the fact that the murderer is thinking rationally at the time of the murder but many murderers are acting emotionally or are mentally incompetent. This is an example of a deductive argument not being a rational argument. This laws need to be made by individuals who do not see the world in such black and white terms.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/01/politics/john-boehner-netanyahu-obama/index.html
This is the last line of this short article – a quote from John Boehner
“I’ve never seen anything like it. Everybody wants to be there,” he said. “What I do wonder is why the White House feels threatened because the Congress wants to support Israel and wants to hear what a trusted ally has to say.”
Boehner makes the argument that the White House feels threatened by Congress who just simply wants to support Israel. First of all, Boehner’s tone is a bit disingenuous – he knows the situation is more fraught than that.
Like many arguments made to support a particular point of view, this argument is not simple and draws on many structures of deliberation. This is partially an enthymematic argument – there is an unstated but implied assumption here (several, in fact). The most basic unstated assumption that Boehner is asking his audience to trust is that he/Congress always do things for simply the reason they state in public. Here is could be something like – Congress does things only in the best public interest. Congress wants to hear from Netanyahu. Hearing from Netanyahu must be in the best public interest. Why does that make President Obama angry? But the unstated assumption that we are being asked to believe is that the first premise of this syllogism is valid.
By itself, the argument that Boehner is making is a categorical syllogism.
Congress acts in the public interest;
Congress wants to hear from Netanyahu;
Hearing from Netanyahu must be in the public interest.
A=B
A=C
C=B
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/medicating-womens-feelings.html
Medicating women’s feeling
By inductive method,the author argued that women should stop labelling sadness and anxiety as uncomfortable symptoms, nor blindly appealing to psychiatric medications .
To support the conclusion, the author first gave the biological fact that women are inherently sensitive to the environment. Also, female brain has more capacity reserved for language,memory, which determines women are better at articulating feelings than men.Thus, we should embrace emotionality as a healthy sign, a source of power, rather than diseased symptoms.
At least one in four women is America takes psychiatric medication,the situation is women are encouraged to seek chemical assistance dealing with depression and anxiety,as a responce to peer pressure and consumerism,rather than medical decision.However, medicated normal conflicts with women’s dynamic biology,
The most common antidepressant S.S.R.I.s keep things “all good”,but all good is no good.”If the serotonin levels of women are constantly, artificially high, they are at risk of losing their emotional sensitivity with its natural fluctuations”,which will result in musculine inclination.
Medical chart review shows that doctors are more likely to give women psychiatric medications than men, however, when women are overmedicated,”emotions become synthetic”.What we need is more empathy,compassion and vulnerability, not less.
This article in the New York Times from 1996 documents that the exact type of DNA mutation in lung cancer patients is linked to a carcinogen in cigarettes.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/18/us/direct-link-found-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer.html
This is a deductive argument. The scientists in this study are claiming: cigarettes cause a genetic mutation. This genetic mutation causes lung cancer. Cigarettes cause lung cancer.
Link: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
The above link leads to a website that proposes a proof of human evolution. This website is a perfect example of inductive reasoning because it refers to several proofs and then makes a broad generalization that may or may not be true.
“Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”
In the above paragraph, the authors refer to several facts about prehistory and human genetics, including records of prehistoric human behavior and linkages between human and primate genes. The authors then go on to generalize these findings in order to reach the conclusion that human evolution is scientifically-based. However, it is important to note that inductive reasoning is often characterized by over-generalizations. In the case the above website, it is possible that the authors overgeneralized their interpretations of the scientific proofs in order to state that human evolution is based in science.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/government-is-not-the-enemy.html
In the NY Times article the author uses deductive reasoning to show that the national debt has doubled and Gross Domestic product has decreased due to federal governments over extending its reach.
As an example:” In healthcare, government has created a staggeringly inefficient system that often answers to the needs of centralized management rather than the consumers. There’s no motivation to provide better care at lower cost. The solution is not for government to define every service or set every price but to infuse health care with market principles, creating competition and giving consumers more choices, not fewer.”
The author also uses this argument for higher education. Basically stating the more of progressive society we have the more competition thus driving down the price of healthcare as well as higher education.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150227-siberia-mystery-holes-craters-pingos-methane-hydrates-science/#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ab=-&at_pos=1&at_tot=4&at_si=54f3e7552352d81d
This is an article that is an example of inductive reasoning. Scientists have been trying to solve the enigma of mystery craters in Siberia. With not many explanations available the scientists stumbled upon Pingo’s (plug of ice that forms near the service of the ice). Scientists began observing that craters form in places where pings used to appear. After observing many cases they have developed a reasonable theory on how craters are formed in Siberia and Alaska.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/02/technology/facebook-envy/index.html
This article is titled ‘Too Much Facebook Leads To Envy and Depression’ and is an example of an enthymematic argument. The title itself does not allow for any other possibilities with a ‘can’ or ‘may’. When reading the article it refers to a study, but does leaves out what the study actually claims and focuses on the envy and depression finding. When looking into the study it states ‘Facebook can be a fun and healthy activity if users take advantage of the site to stay connected with family and old friends and to share interesting and important aspects of their lives,” Duffy said. “However, if Facebook is used to see how well an acquaintance is doing financially or how happy an old friend is in his relationship—things that cause envy among users—use of the site can lead to feelings of depression.’ To make a better argument, the article should have stated it all depends on the outlook and/or goal of going on Facebook rather than stating going on Facebook in general will lead to envy and depression.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/
This article shows how the war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren’t any.
Politics played a heavy hand in the decision to go to war. Reason was manufactured. Clearly there is a danger in abandoning critical thinking. By standing back and allowing inductive reasoning to have its way as a positive methodology for the justification of the sending of our country into a war, we run the enormous risk of inflicting needless death and destruction on our own troops as well as whomever it is that we’re at war with.
You can make a case for anything using induction. If you want to make a point, there is no limit to the bits of anecdotal evidence to support your assertion for what it is you’re attempting to prove. But none of it actually proves your point. In the run up to the war with Iraq, we made a number of claims. The procedure that was employed was that all the intelligence agencies were instructed to give the administration “everything” they had on Saddam. The conflicting evidence that contradicted the claim was dismissed and discarded and only the damning evidence was used to support the case. They literally “cherry picked” what they wanted to make their case for war.
The article shows how American leaders drew from specific incidents to present a generalization and assumed the truth of that generality.