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.
23 thoughts on “Examples of Deductive, Inductive, Analogical and Enthymematic Argument”
Comments are closed.
https://www.ted.com/talks/mia_birdsong_the_story_we_tell_about_poverty_isn_t_true?language=en#t-739692
I turned to TED Talks to find someone with a smart argument for something. I found Mia Birdsong’s talk about current U.S. policy on reducing poverty. I assumed there would be a typed transcription of the talk that I could refer to by paragraph however there is not. She is an excellent speaker and her eloquence would be lost set in type anyway so I’ll refer to the fifteen-minute video instead. I’ve found examples of all three — deductive, inductive and analogy – patterns of reasoning in her talk.
After an introduction of statistics on growing poverty rates (minute 1:20) Mia Birdsong clearly states her argument: “We have overlooked the most powerful and practical resource” in the war on poverty… “People who are poor.” Birdsong begins a list of instances of proof to support her inductive argument. She tells stories of individuals in impoverished communities who have devised their own social and economic solutions to their needs.
(minute 9:25) As a challenge to a conventional deductive reasoning Mia Birdsong questions the premise that “hard work leads to success.” And, the resulting conclusion if one is not successful that one has not worked hard. Her stories above demonstrate that poor people work very hard. This flawed deductive reasoning allows society to blame poor people and say they don’t deserve success.
(minute 11:27) Birdsong uses analogy as a convincing argument and solution to poverty. Silicon Valley is built on the idea that “if people have goods ideas and the desire to manifest them we should give them lots and lots of money.” Shouldn’t the small-scale community innovators be invested in and supported as well.
(minute 11:17) Birdsong is arguing for change to our approach to poverty. From “fixing it” and “imposing solutions” on people to “fueling their initiative.” There is an opportunity to let go of flawed strategies and instead to look for new ideas from the people most affected by poverty themselves.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/28/nasa-scientists-find-evidence-flowing-water-mars
The article, about the most recent discovery of water signs on Mars, demonstrates arguments by analogy. From the beginning of the journey on Mars, scientists hoped to discover some signs of life, either from a distant past or currently existing. The author of the article, Ian Sample, writes “A third possibility is that salts on the Martian surface absorb water from the atmosphere until they have enough to run downhill. The process, known as deliquescence, is seen in the Atacama desert, where the resulting damp patches are the only known place for microbes to live.” This demonstrates the usage of analogy – the author compares the natural processes of Atacama Desert to the ones on Mars.
The ongoing research into concussions in football is a good example of inductive reasoning. Here is the latest news on the research: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/new-87-deceased-nfl-players-test-positive-for-brain-disease/
The physicians leading the way in researching this topic need to rely on receiving the brains of deceased football players and examining them for anomalies. They have noticed a clear pattern in the brains – existence of a disease known as CTE – which allows them to conclude that repeated hits to the head in football leads to this disease.
Because researchers cannot ethically hit some people and not others as part of a comparative study, they are forced to instead look at he patterns associated with the brains they are examining to draw conclusions. This is a clear example of inductive reasoning.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/a-new-link-between-traumatic-brain-injury-and-suicide/
My article is about the New Link Between Traumatic Brain Injury and Suicide by Craig Bryan, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah and associate director of the National Center for Veterans Studies, it demonstrates inductive arguments.
He argues that when studying active-duty soldiers in Iraq in 2009,He found that one in five patients nearly 22 percent who experienced more than one Traumatic Brain Injury in their lifetime reported thoughts or preoccupation with suicide, compared to 6 percent of patients with only one Traumatic Brain Injury and those with no history of Traumatic Brain Injury reported no suicidal thoughts.
His conclusions could not be proven without a shadow of doubt. He uses multiple premises and combines them to obtain a specific conclusion. The conclusion that traumatic brain injury increases the risk of suicide is probably true but not necessarily true. The use of words like “might and more likely” in this argument makes the outcome uncertain. Inductive reasoning deals with probability it goes from the particular to the general which is exactly what Craig Bryan did in his argument in article .
Here are two links that demonstrates how deductive reasoning can lead to specific kinds of error:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
President Bush “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” quote typifies a disjunctive premise that creates a false dilemma. Disjunctive arguments occurs when an argument limits one to fewer choices that are actually available. In this case, the use of disjunctive argument was clever in rallying support for the “war on terror.” Below is an example of Bush’s statement written as a syllogism.
Disjunctive: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
The French is not with us.
Therefore, the French are with the terrorists.
The example listed above uses a “black-or-white” premise in dividing countries that supported or opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Cohen,2009). For example, when France, Germany and Belgium refused to join the United states, they were seen as cowards and referred to as the “axis of weasels,”a derogatory term intended as a pun on Bush’s prior use of “axis of evil” to apply to Iraq, Iran and North Korea (Cohen,2009). In other words, countries that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq were rebuked for their opposition. Countries that supported U.S. war efforts were seen as favorable. The options presented were limited and fallacious but effective in pressuring countries to support U.S. war efforts.
Work Cited
Cohen, E. (2009). Critical thinking unleashed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prisca-dorcas-mojica-rodriguez/growing-up-as-a-brown-girl-aesthetics_b_8120358.html
I choose this powerful article of self-love as a good example of argument by analogy. The article is written in a love-letter-to-self kind of style with the goal of changing the perspective of beauty and raising acceptable and self-love within women of color. The author argues for self-love regardless of what societal norms and standards state. She begins by pointing out physical features that colored women have that do not fit the American, European epitome of beauty and briefly mentioning the feeling of internalizing self-hate and rejection towards beauty and features like her own. She concludes with the realization that she is beautiful regardless of not fitting into the rigid prototype of American beauty and she ends with a very political and radical statement of “I am beautiful because I am brown”. By the author narrating in the form that she does, using analogy to defy beauty standards, she makes a strong argument against any universal standard of beauty.
http://www.thenation.com/article/on-climate-change-listen-to-pope-francis-not-jeb-bush/
This article, by John Nichols, argues that you should listen to the Pope’s opinions about climate change and attempts to disprove Jeb Bush’s argument that his thoughts are not valid. In the beginning of the article, the author quotes Jeb Bush and his use of a deductive argument by saying “He’s not a scientist, he’s a religious leader.”
The author goes on to disprove his argument, forming his own using inductive reasoning. Nichols begins the argument with the fact that the Pope used to study science. Then, uses statistics from Purdue University to support the claim( stating 97% of published scientists agree with the Pope) maintaining that the Pope’s opinions should be listened to. He also surveyed 700 scientists to prove that the Pope’s thoughts are within the scientific mainstream.
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/9/25/at_un_pope_blasts_selfish_and
Above is a link to the Pope’s speech to the United Nations. In his speech he condemns those who are power driven and have a ” boundless thirst” for wealth. Throughout his speech , the pope uses deductive reasoning to claim that instead of embracing material goals we should focus on promoting “environmental justice.” Throughout the speech there any many examples of deductive reasoning. Here are some examples.
“First, it must be stated that a true “right of the environment” does exist, for two reasons. First, because we human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human activity must acknowledge and respect. Man, for all his remarkable gifts, which “are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology” (Laudato Si’, 81), is at the same time a part of these spheres. He possesses a body shaped by physical, chemical and biological elements, and can only survive and develop if the ecological environment is favourable. Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity. Simply put the Pope’s reasoning is that we are part of the environment ,and “any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity.”
“War is the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and between peoples.”
I agree with the reasoning of the Pope. Form my perspective, I believe that what the pope meant was that we as human beings need a safe environment and therefore, to protect ourselves we must do all we can to protect our environment.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
The link is on President George W. Bush’s speech on May 1st 2003 about the war in Iraq which began after the 9/11 attack. In his speech he talks a lot about rebuilding Iraq, as well as how former dictator Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq by not giving its citizens the necessary to have a valuable quality of life. In his speech, I also found an example of an Enthymematic reasoning/argument. He said ” The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.” Clearly, he’s tying the war in Iraq to the 9/11 attack on the U.S.- but his missing argument is the belief that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist group behind the attack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHz6HWhOuI
The link above is to a meeting where Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren exemplifies deductive-conditional reasoning. Her argument is that it’s clear Wall Street bankers have broken laws because they are paying fines. However no Wall Street banker had been prosecuted. She explains that the point of arresting is to deter would be criminals, and if we do not arrest/prosecute bankers committing crimes we are sending a message to Wall Street that if you break the law you are not going to jail. Essentially it’s a if you don’t do this then that will happen, argument (deductive-conditional).
Even if we accept the premise about planned parenthood in this (and other) videos (which I do not necessarily) the argument of those who find the video’s offensive is inductive: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/ninth-planned-parenthood-video-from-pro-life-cmp-g/
While the video(s) are potentially disturbing for a number of reasons it is a long stretch to say that all Planed Parenthood’s operate this way, or even that federal funds are being used. One investigative report does not a pattern make, just like one data-point in a dataset does not make a significant relationship between variable x and y. This kind of thinking leads to generalizations that are risk lacking a basis in evidence and reality. At least in my opinion. I would want more evidence, from non-partisan sources to show a relationship that was in fact something to worry about (in fact most non-partisan sources show evidence that no legal wrongdoing has happened and that the videos take things out of context – which will lead to my post on the other thread.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/john-oliver-takes-fox-news-to-task-for-comparing-refugees-to-terrorists-using-footage-from-2010-a6670656.html
The link above is an article about John Oliver discussing about FOX news comparing refugees to terrorists by using an analogy. The U.S. is treating this case as a “special humanitarian concern” because politicians fear those refugee applicants would be terrorists from Islamic states, also known as ISIS. Though it is hard to identify Syrains with terrorists, the media is trying to manipulate the refugee process. Fischer a news reporter does not directly label these refugees as terrorist nor does she suggest it, but the line “Terrorist Inbound?” keeps appearing as a tag line. This tagline makes viewers question on the refugees we accept who are fleeing violence in Iraq and Syria are Muslim. As the United States keep bringing in people from the Middle East it carries the extra risk, for that we must be extra cautious. However, with no real proof and the risk of these refugees carrying our acts of terrorism is slim to nothing. It does not justify any other country accepting these refugees to have a new life or to be hopeless.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-rental-subsidies
Public Housing and Rental Subsidies
Deductive Argument:
Under Rental Subsidies, paragraph #10.
The arguments are outlined as syllogisms. Two premises are stated concurrently and built on with supporting statements following each premise. The conclusion is then stated and proves the premises to be true.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/b18112371b9d3f8985257ece0057f07a!OpenDocument
EPA Updates Standards to Increase Safety and Protect the Health of America’s Farmworkers/Revised standards give farmworkers health protections under the law similar to those already afforded to workers in other industries .
Value: Found in first paragraph, third sentence.
The quote states a principle of value that makes an ethical assessment. Deduction is used to make the statement of value, then a connection is made to show how the consequence of the EPA update improves the lives of farm workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/world/americas/president-obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-2015.html
This is the link to President Obama’s speech to the United General Assembly 2015.
After reading this speech one can infer that Obama made use of both inductive and analogical arguments to come up with a convincing conclusion about the middle east issue to the public. At the very beginning of the speech, in order to be effective, President Obama presented a series of facts and reasoning argument to prove his point. For instance, he uses examples of how after WWII they have manage to maintain a world order and how they have been making progress on a global scale . He states, “This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed” More so, to make his speech persuasive, he continues by showing examples that are a fair sample, meaning they are representative of the larger whole then concludes with ““The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world, dictatorships are unstable.”
Furthermore, in his discourse President Obama uses analogy to reinforce his arguments by making analogy between Russia and South East China and later one as one reads, he uses Cuba. As example he coins the term ” similarly” when talking about the same type of cases in a different country. I believe it did so -not only to render a more convincing speech but- to cite cases and supporting evidences that can influence an audience. Although the conclusions made from his arguments are not certain, by using these two methods of persuasive speaking, he will have used more compelling and relevant arguments.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_enemy_is_within_20150906
In this column, Chris Hedges sets up the general rule: A leftist does support the American war industry. He then uses deductive reasoning to claim that if an individual is a leftist, they can no endorse presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Hedges presents his argument by stating: “If you are not dedicated to the destruction of empire and the dismantling of American militarism, then you cannot count yourself as a member of the left. It is not a side issue. It is the issue. It is why I refuse to give a pass in this presidential election campaign to Bernie Sanders, who refuses to confront the war industry or the crimes of empire”
Hedges’ reasoning is significant because it challenges the sentiment that Bernie Sanders wholly embraces leftist politics. The driving premises in the argument include the undemocratic and non-liberal actions of the American war industry. By highlighting these claims Hedges substantiates his general claim. His premises describe the profit-driven motives of the American military industry, which is a rejection of democratic ideals, let alone leftist positions. In this case, calling a spade a spade through defining a general principle can help the public understand the nuances of foreign policy and what it means to participate in a liberal, or, as we see here, illiberal democracy.
Vision Zero: For A Safer NYC, Speed Limit 25
http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pdf/library/25-MPH-FAQ.pdf
NYC effected a 5 mph reduction in the driving speed limit, from 30 mph to 25 mph, in November 2014. The nyc.gov website published a FAQ regarding this change, and included the reasoning behind it. This FAQ is a great example of inductive reasoning, as the decision to reduce the speed limit is rooted in the analysis of years of data and statistics on the link between fatalities caused by car accidents and the speed at which the vehicles were moving. Results revealed that the 5 mph difference in speed decreased the number of pedestrian fatalities by fifty percent, and improved vehicle stopping distance by 23 percent, which “means that many crashes can be avoided altogether” as a consequence of this change. This represents induction as many cases were looked at to support the general conclusion that reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph would make the city safer for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists.
Amy Cuddy spoke about power non verbals. In order to make her audience understand power dynamics, she gave several analogies of the power dynamic of animals to that of humans (3:50 minutes). Animals, like humans tend to open up or spread out when the have power. For instance the runner shown in the video spreading his arms in a V because he just won a race, and showing how empowered he feels and the bird spreading it’s wings to power over prey. I think this was a great analogy to show that something a common as power is displayed the same way in animals and humans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-_Mh1QhMc
Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are | Amy Cuddy | TED Talks
Sorry the video did not copy before.
https://www.ted.com/talks/vincent_cochetel_i_was_held_hostage_for_317_days_here_s_what_i_thought_about
I think this ted talk is an excellent example of induction. Vincent Cochetel worked as a humanitarian worker for the United Nation. he got kidnapped in North Caucus. He was tortured very badly by kidnappers. He even had to begged for food. He used the induction arguments. Through his kidnapping, he showed that how humanitarian workers have to face risky life throughout their work. Although they tried to give their hundred percent for their work, this incident like kidnapping totally damaged their life badly. Through this particular incident of kidnapping, he tried to show that United Nations need to work with other government in order to protect humanitarian workers.
The high economic and social costs of student loan debt (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/15/the-high-economic-and-social-costs-of-student-loan-debt.html)
This article is a good example of induction. It lists the levels of student loans as a whole at the national level and then concludes what a segment of the population is doing: people with student loan debt are delaying previous generations’ “milestones” – buying their first home, marriage, and having children.
A second example of induction could be Donald Trump’s proposal to ban muslims from entering the U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/). In this case, he would like to ban all muslims after observing that some of them -a very small number – have been confirmed to be terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/opinion/lets-rethink-our-homeless-shelters.html?ref=opinion
A an example of an enthymeme-styled argument that I caught in today’s New York Times can be found in former City Council Speak and current WIN (Women in Need) Chief Executive Office Christine Quinn’s Op-Ed. This piece, which can be found in the above link, argues that because homelessness is caused by a variety of factors, two City government agencies, The Department of Homeless Services and the Human Resources Administration, should be combined into a single agency. This argument is based on several operating premises as well as an unstated assumption. Three premises that are at work in her argument are 1) the Human Resources Administration provides services that include housing voucher assistance and job-readiness training, 2) The Department of Homeless Services is effective at managing the shelter system but provides no means by which to prepare the homeless for permanent housing; and, 3) homelessness is the result of a variety of factors. Each of these premises is true enough but these alone are not enough to support her conclusion that two city agencies with very different histories and organizational structures should be combined into a single agency. The unstated premise here is that merging the two agencies will improve the quality of services that the City’s homeless population will receive. To treat this assumption as a fact unworthy of mentioning or supporting is a serious logical fallacy not only because it leaves the argument incomplete but also because it’s not obvious that this is the case. Both of these City agencies serve a variety of functions and have different bureaucratic structures. Although it is possible that merging the two might improve the quality of care and resources that the homeless will receive, it is by no means a guarantee. Not only that, but there is a distinct possibility, however unlikely, that merging the two might also backfire and decrease the quality of service that the homeless receive. In either case, leaving this assumption unstated greatly weakens Quinn’s argument and does her target audience a disservice by omitting a crucial component to a serious debate.
https://www.upworthy.com/michelle-obama-used-a-delicious-parenting-analogy-to-explain-trump-s-presidency
The link above is an example of argument by analogy that Michelle Obama uses to describe why Donald Trump will not make a good president.
At a women’s leadership conference On April 5, 2018, Michelle Obama described that being a good president is like being a good parent to your children. Barack Obama led America to a lot of great things. And being a good parent is teaching your kids how to reason, follow rules, eat well, have respect, behave and go to bed on time. She described that the 8 years Obama was president it was like having a good parent at home. On the other hand, there are parents who seem fun because they let their kids do whatever they please and eat whatever they want. Although it is fun at the time, it hurts the child in the long run as he/she faces health issues and repercussions of doing whatever they pleased. This was a great analogy to explain what Trumps presidency will be like. He does not follow any rules, he is disrespectful, does whatever he pleases and lets others do the same. However, this will more than likely not make America great. America is built on hard work and dedication; flowing through issues, brushing issues on, and self interest will not show the results that hard work unveils.