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.
24 thoughts on “Examples of Deductive, Inductive, Analogical and Enthymematic Argument”
Comments are closed.
Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an excellent example of deductive argument in his address to the United Nation’s General Assembly this week. He proposed that the international community deal with the existence of ISIS with an idea “similar to the anti-Hitler coalition.”
In his statement, Putin is using the example of an “anti-Hitler coalition” to convey a certain message and create a deductive argument. In World War Two, the United States, Russia and other countries of Europe formed a coalition to help defeat Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. This coalition worked, as the United States and Russia were able to wage two fronts that wore down the Germans. It was a successful effort. So, when Putin states he wants an anti-Hitler Coalition, he is trying to invoke the idea of Russia and the United States work together to defeat ISIS. Putin is using inductive reasoning to state the specific case of World War Two as a way for the world to address issues such as ISIS. Essentially, the case of WW2 worked well then, and it can work well with ISIS and other similar instances in the future.
References:
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/28/9409883/putin-un-address-terrorism
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/opinion/the-real-roots-of-70s-drug-laws.html?
&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=Blogs
Among today’s generation, I feel there is a universal agreement that the war on drugs is a failure with subtle racist overtones. Upon reviewing the statistics of how many minorities go to jail compared with whites, it is understandable to feel this way. I have always felt that many of the drug laws were created to punish the “subversive minorities” that were destroying society. This article, refutes this notion, and claims that the black community was a major force in pushing for the Rockefeller drug laws. The author begins by stating that today many view “mass incarceration as the result of a white-supremacist social order, the “New Jim Crow,” born of white backlash against the civil rights movement”. The author then uses inductive reasoning to conclude that the current justice system is the result of “the postwar social and economic demise of urban black communities”. He cites several instances of black leaders who not only supported the Rockefeller Drug laws, but also felt they did not go far enough in preventing crime. He then cites that
“in 1973, nearly three-quarters if blacks and Puerto Ricans favored life sentences for Drug pushers, and the Rev. Oberia Dempsey, a Harlem pastor, said: “Take the junkies and put’em in camps and added, “we’ve got to end this terror and restore New York to decent people. Instead of fighting all the time for civil rights we should be fighting for civil wrongs.””
The author then concludes that the drug laws were passed because Governor Rockefeller wanted to impress a conservative party, with tough on crime policies, backed by pleas by African Americans. The article was very interesting in its use of several pieces of evidence to assert a conclusion, which runs to counter to mainstream liberal thought.
The Truth is a campaign directed towards a younger generation that aims to “arm everyone…with the tools to make change.” Although the website does not explicitly imply that smoking is bad for you and therefore smokers should quit and nonsmokers should take measures to end tobacco use, the message is seemingly implied. The website and its message lead the audience to certain conclusions about the organization’s mission and how the public should react, therefore I believe this is a good example of an enthymeme. An enthymeme is defined as a “truncated syllogism” since either the major or minor premise found in that more formal method of reasoning is left implied. Through the organization’s mission of informing the public and exposing the truth about big tobacco companies, there is an implied notion that they seek to end tobacco consumption through current smokers and nonsmokers activism. One area of the website where these implications are visible is in the ABOUT truth section. In this section, the organization talks about its mission to expose big tobacco companies and, empower individuals to join the movement and take action. I believe that omitting these implications that tobacco is harmful and that smokers should quit is one of the driving forces of this campaign’s success.; individuals are more likely to hear your message if the are not feeling pressured or perjured for their choices.
http://www.thetruth.com/about
I find that this video on YouTube, showing an old anti-drug PSA, is a good example of argument by analogy. Here, the argument that is heavily implied is that, by doing drugs for the sake of fitting in, one is letting others take control over them, physically and mentally. The point is pushed forward with powerful imagery of a boy rigged with puppet strings, being made to engage in activity such as smoking marijuana, while a voiceover talks about how “they” (presumably peers in school) say that marijuana is cool and that everyone is doing it. To drive the point home, the voiceover concludes at the end that “they” are “pulling at your strings.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TKtCIZNgvw
I also thought of the old anti-drug psa’s and how much they used arguments by analogy. This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub_a2t0ZfTs has always stayed with me because it was such a vivid comparison. I think I was quoting it before I knew what drugs were but I was pretty sure they would make my brain sizzle and explode. Arguments by analogy can be effective when they make a link between a simple concept and a more complex one with clever word play or imagery that holds the listeners attention.
” So what we’ve done is we’ve taken a scalpel to the discretionary budget, rather than a machete.”
Obama used this medical analogy to justify spending decisions that were made regarding the discretionary budget in 2011. Rather then just making spending cuts, he indicated certain cuts were made but also certain spending decisions were made. The idea was to convey a precise review and selection of spending cuts and investments in a way that emphasized the precision and skill that went into the review process.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/15/obama_weve_taken_a_scalpel_to_the_discretionary_budget_rather_than_a_machete.html
The Girl Effect: The Clock is Ticking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8xgF0JtVg
In the video above, The Girl Effect explains their proposed solution to young women living in poverty – the girls themselves. The video exclaims to its viewers that “clock is ticking” and essentially time is running out. The video informs viewers about the issue of girls in poverty and states that solution to this issue is to educate, support, and protect our young girls. However, it does not explicitly say that we (as viewers) are also a part of the solution. Therefore, I think that is video is a perfect example of the enthymemes argument. The video implies that the viewers must take action, by donating or telling a friend of the cause, rather than simply sitting idle. The clock is ticking! However, a person must come to this conclusion on his or her own, because the video will not make the choice for you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/moving-chinas-cyberespionage-pledge-from-mere-words-to-action/2015/09/29/0f73ae96-661d-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html
The article I chose to write about uses a deductive argument to cast doubt on the relationship between the U.S and China. The focus of the piece is about cyber theft, due to the recent allegations that China has taken a “wealth of information” from the U.S. In The article, President Obama and President Xi Jinping have come to an agreement to stop all cyber theft.
The author of the piece uses deduction to question this truce. The article talks about China’s relationship with Russia, and how both countries are know for using “shadowy organizations to mask their meddling”. This argument is clearly a generalized statement used to discredit President Xi Jinping’s word.
The article below discusses whether it is “better” to be tall or short. The article goes through different aspects of our lives that are affected by our height: money and power, sexual attraction, sports and athletics, clumsiness, lifespan and health, and happiness. The article relies on results from various scientific studies to determine whether being taller or shorter works in favor for each aspect. For example, the article concludes that for money and power, “it is easier for taller people to have the upper hand.” Inductive reasoning permeates the entire paper because each conclusion is based on case studies.
However, it should be noted that the article is careful to comment at the end that the factors are correlations and there are exceptions to the rule.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150928-tall-vs-small-which-is-it-better-to-be
In the Planned Parenthood hearing that took place, Rep. Jim Gordan used deductive reasoning to claim that although the videos have been edited they are accurate and true, and they contain proof of mis-doing by Planned Parenthood. In the audio he states, “If something is untrue and false you don’t apologize for that, you correct the record.” Thus, since Cecile Richards apologized for the video, she believed what was in it to be true and worth apologizing for.
However, as Ms. Richards points out time and time again, she was apologizing for the tone and context in which the discussion took place. And, she was clear in that with her original statement: “Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.”
There is a problem with his premise. Yes, Cecile Richards apologized, but she was not so much apologizing for its content as much as she was apologizing for the way it was presented. It is a disjunctive argument – he only gives one possible reason for her apology and refuses to accept any other rationale.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/29/444528541/6-clips-of-audio-you-should-hear-from-the-planned-parenthood-hearing?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150929
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/planned-parenthood-president-criticizes-gop-candidates/
Xi on the global stage: The costs of leadership by Bruce Jones
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/09/24-xi-jinping-costs-of-leadership-jones
In this article, Bruce Jones analyzes China’s global strategy and makes inductive and deductive arguments by providing sufficient and necessary evidence. An example of his inductive arguments lies in the first paragraph. He claims that 2015 is a consequential year for China to involve in international affair. Cases he provides include the global consequences of the crash of the stock market in Shanghai, the leadership of the G-20, and the President Xi’s address during the 70th anniversary of the United Nations.
An illustration of Jones’ deductive arguments can be found in the fourth paragraph. He claims that “as Chinese growth has slowed, especially in the manufacturing sector, so has its consumption of global commodities.” In this case, he applies a general rule: If a country has a slower growth rate, then this country consumes less global commodities. This is also a reflection of the enthymeme, as the logic of this deductive argument depends on a premise that is implied but left unsaid.
Jones also conducts a propositional analysis on President Xi’s argument last week in Seattle. President Xi claims that “China is committed to a peaceful rise.” In the standpoint of Jones, the global community may argue about the propositions of fact in this case if China is not going to bear a great share of the costs of collective action in the international level. Additionally, in order to make such an argument convincing, China cannot violate essential principles of the international order, such as “the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by force and the assertion of non-interference in sovereign affairs.” While Jones is reasonably optimistic about China’s intention to absorb the costs of leadership, he notices China’s “assertive-tilting-to-aggressive strategy” in the South China Sea.
The website pbs.org, here displays a discussion between Muslim Leaders and journalists post the attacks on Embassy in the year 1998. Some of the crudest deductive arguments were about America wanting to eliminate any trace of Muslim contribution to the world or the media’s claims about Muslim community being viewed as threats. This is completely based on the fact that Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim and he was a terrorist (Frontline, 1999). This argument has given rise to the entire concept of Islamophobia. Something very similar is portrayed on the website, DHMO.org. The website clearly shows that the DHMO.org homepage is supported by U.S. Environmental Assessment Centre but there is no physical information anywhere on the homepage or the website. It seems the source of the information is secondary sources as it has vague citations or no citations at all. Similarly, it can be seen that the information given on the website is an example of deductive arguments intended to prove that DHMO is dangerous. The author’s attempt to provide proof of harmful effects of DHMO doesn’t seem concrete and it doesn’t have any scientific evidence (Villegas, n.d.)
Frontline. (1999). THE QUESTIONS AND FEARS OF ONE MUSLIM COMMUNITY. Retrieved September 30th, 2015, from pbs.org: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/islam/arlington.html
Here is the link.
(Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/islam/arlington.html)
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/videos/vb.131559043673264/494812657347899/?type=2&theater
A few weeks ago Senator Elizabeth Warren stood in front of Congress to make the argument that the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood was a part of a larger Republican led effort to limit the rights of women. This is an example of deductive argument. Senator Warren makes a broad statement about the Republican’s agenda on women’s right and then continues to present cases to support her claim. Senator Warren provides many situations that support her claims with attempts to in 2013 to deny women access to birth control. The list continues, but all situations support her claim that the attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood were a part of a larger effort to infringe on women’s rights.
Sorry, meant to explain that this was an example of inductive reasoning (been a long week). The general statement that the Republicans have launched an intentional effort to infringe on the rights of women is supported by Senator Warren’s many claims, including that of the effort of de-funding Planned Parenthood.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/ted_cruz_is_officially_the_most_cynical_man_in_the_presidential_race.html
Jim Newell’s article about Ted Cruz’s government shut down attempts and criticism of his faith-based tactics is an example of deduction. The title “It’s Official: Ted Cruz is the Most Cynical Man in the Presidential Race. Even Worse Than Donald Trump” highlights that a conclusion has been drawn about Cruz based on an analysis of his actions in Congress.
Newell discusses how Ted Cruz’s sparring with fellow Republican party members and his numerous attempts to shut down government through the funding process is causing frustration in Washington. The author also lists some of Cruz actions that have antagonized his colleagues such as urging them to fight government funding, saying his colleagues who disagree with him are “surrendering to politics,” and alienating some of congressional colleagues. Cruz is also criticized for his contradictory faith-based tactics and his positioning with regards to how to execute policy changes while in the White House but has been fighting policy changes while in Congress.
From these points, the author deduces that Cruz is the most cynical man in the Presidential Race and proceeds to conclude that he is even worse than Donald Trump (a fact that is up for debate because they are all equally as bad). I’m not sure if this would be “conditional” but I would argue that it is as the author lists all these points and his resolution is that Ted Cruz is the most cynical in the race.
Martin Luther King Jr’s speech, “I have a Dream” begins with an extended analogy in which he compares the Emancipation Proclamation to a check, and the Declaration of Independence to a promissory note. A check to which he is here ( Washington DC) to cash. An example of this is, ” In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check.” Here, the check he is talking about is not a check to cash money, but a check of freedom. Another example is, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Here, he is saying that the Declaration of Independence is a promise note of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guaranteed to all men, including black men. The comparisons are used in a brilliant way to convey important points in a way that strengthened his argument by using two causes that are not too far from each other.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful/the-supreme-court-is-a-check-on-big-government-protection-for-minorities
This article from the New York Times provides an example of inductive argument. The author’s conclusion is that, despite the fact that the Supreme Court may get many things wrong, our society greatly benefits from its presence. He goes on to support this conclusion by citing good decisions that the Supreme Court has made. He cites and explains cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and lesser known Buchanan v. Warley to strengthen his conclusion. The author states his rather broad conclusion in both the beginning and the end of the article, but uses specific facts to back it up. I think that this method of reasoning works well for the author’s argument. The bulk of the article is examples to back up his claim, which ultimately brings merit to the argument.
Global Issue’s site references an article by Anup Shah, who writes about corruption as a cause of poverty in the world. The author’s logic is a good example of deductive reasoning. Shah first claims that corruption causes poverty, then points to examples of countries in which there’s high perception of corruption. In those countries with higher perceived corruption, their economic burdens greatly exacerbated. The author does acknowledge that other factors may affect poverty. This logic is appropriate for her claim, but the author fails to explain the theory itself.
The author uses a map by Transparency International, which shows level of perceived corruption. The initial argument is made in the few first paragraphs.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/590/corruption
The article I am posting is about how Sweden is moving to a 6 hour work day in order to improve their workforce’s productivity, happiness and well being. More and more of these studies are coming out that a 6 hour work day not only increases the happiness of the employees but also increases their productivity. Because the work day is shortened workers spend less time procrastinating and more time working and with more stamina. The article also shows that it increases the health of the work force because those who work more are at a greater risk of heart disease and stroke.
The article shows a good example of deductive reasoning because it is supported by facts, numbers and statistics to support their conclusion. I think we all hope that the United States takes a page out of Sweden’s book and implements 6 hour work days.
http://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour-workday
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-camp-begins-to-fear-run-by-joe-biden.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Starting from the title of this article all the way to the very last sentence, conditional deductive reasoning forms the entire foundation of this piece in the New York Times regarding Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign activity. The article asserts that a recent increase in Hillary’s campaigning, giving her premature pursuit of superdelegate support as an example, is due to her fear that Joe Biden is going to enter the race and steal her votes. The reasoning employed here is conditionally deductive in that the article does provide many truthful tidbits of information regarding how Hillary’s campaign has gotten progressively more aggressive and proactive, but the author fails to establish an unshakably direct correlation of these facts to the article’s conclusion that Hillary’s actions within her campaign are totally motivated by her anticipation of Biden’s possible candidacy. This very well COULD be true, as there have been countless times in the past where a participant in a competition suddenly “upped their game” due to the possible introduction of a new formidable opponent, but without any solid evidence specifically connecting Biden’s actions to Hillary’s recent campaign decisions, the conditionally deductive pattern of reasoning used in this article (which in this case I’ve interpreted as being almost synonymous with speculation and assumption) is not nearly solid enough for me to agree with the author’s argument.
The following website used deductive reasoning to establish the fact Marijuana should be legalized. It started with the fact that legalizing will end the war and then it opens up the argument with the fact that many famous and respected people used this substance. This was followed by number figure like poll and vote to strengthen the fact. At this point I felt like the creator of this website is biased towards using marijuana and this motivates him to create a website like this. Later, he has presented advantages of using marijuana like less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, medical benefits etc. I find the argument process here as deductive as I think the website built sequence of premises to establish the factual conclusion. The link is given below,
http://whylegalizemarijuana.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-navy-our-destiny/2015/09/30/9505d966-66cd-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
In the Washington Post today, columnist George Will argues inductively that all presidential candidates in both parties, must outline their vision for the future of the US navy over the next ten years. He points to growing tactical and technological threats from China, the growing number of hot spots which require a naval presence, and the constriction of the US budget due to entitlement growth, thereby requiring tough decisions and creative problem solving.
Within his inductive argument he also uses an enthymeme stating, “as money gets scarcer, people get smarter.” In this he argues that as the amount of discretionary funds in the US budget continues to shrink, future presidents and congresses will have to get more creative, and more shrewd in deciding where and how to spend US dollars. He relates this back to his larger argument, by advocating investing in smaller and cheaper naval weapons platforms which can perhaps, respond at least as well to new threats, as older more expensive weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/hurricane-joaquin/index.html
This is an example of argument by analogy by CNN. I feel that what CNN is doing as they do with every story is hype it up and compare it past event. This article is about Hurricane Joaquin and the path that it is projected to take. It is supposed to hit the eastern seaboard on tuesday and CNN is comparing it Hurricane Sandy even though they say it may not be another Sandy. I feel that whenever there is a hurricane, or major weather event, CNN and other news media exaggerate the situation because of Hurricane Sandy and the terrible effects it had on the city. It is not to say Hurricane Joaquin is not strong but to compare it Hurricane Sandy that left a scare on the city make is a poor choice of analogy.