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.
26 thoughts on “Examples of Deductive, Inductive, Analogical and Enthymematic Argument”
Comments are closed.
https://www.itdp.org/good-transport-data-changes-cities/
My example comes from a brief recent article on my organization’s site called “Good Transport Data Can Change Cities”. It is clear from the title that a specific argument is being made, and once I dove into the details, it seems to be an inductive argument.
My co-worker argues for the large-scale, beneficial effects of data collection by referring to several specific instances where data drove change. For example, he uses instances of cell phone records being successful in targeting malaria treatment centers in Africa and data on walking habits leading to increased walkability to make a general conclusion that more data improves cities. Although there are only limited examples in the article, he is implying the existence of more positive examples and observing these particular instances to make a broader conclusion.
“These indicators can help transport planners understand how people are moving in a city and track progress over time. With this information, leaders can make better decisions about where a city is headed, bringing us closer to sustainable cities and a healthier, more equitable planet.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/nyregion/nyu-accelerated-graduation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=nygeo-promo-region®ion=nygeo-promo-region&WT.nav=nygeo-promo-region&_r=0
I think this article offers a good example of inductive reasoning. The story is about plans NYU recently announced to help more students finish their degrees in three years versus the traditional four. Four paragraphs down, officials from the college say that they realized twenty percent of students had already graduated ahead of schedule. After the college took notice of large numbers of students in a specific situation – they were graduating early – they concluded that graduating early is a good way to make college more affordable. So they used what they observed to reach a conclusion and are now taking steps to facilitate early graduation for more students.
I think this reasoning is probably flawed in the way inductive reasoning often is, in that it’s over-generalized. The article goes on to quote people who worry that by speeding through college, students are potentially missing out on valuable opportunities like study abroad, internships, and involvement in campus organizations. There are also students who work to put themselves through school and don’t have the time to take more classes. Those students are counterexamples to the conclusion that graduating early makes college more affordable, because for them it would limit their income and actually make college less affordable.
If you have 15 minutes of your day, feel free to listen to this episode of Planet Money called “When the Boats Arrive”. It uses inductive reasoning from two true stories to summarize two major principles economist David Card identifies that allow a country to take in a large amount of migrants at once, and to shed light on the migration crisis facing Europe today:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/09/30/444800350/episode-654-when-the-boats-arrive
In the 1980s, thousands of Cuban refugees suddenly arrived in Miami and started looking for work. The podcast briefly explores what happened to the economy in Florida through Mirta Ojito’s story, who wrote a book called “Finding Mañana: A Memoir of a Cuban Exodus”. The surprising finding is that no strong evidence of the effect from these massive migrants is detected. Some economists argue that immigrants don’t drive down wages; neither do they steal jobs. The reason for this is there is not a fix number of jobs in the economy. Not only that, immigrants almost always become consumers first as soon as they arrive to a new country. David Card reasons that a country must meet these two criteria to be able to absorb a large influx of migrants: the economy needs to be strong and robust, and immigrants need to be able to adapt and obtain jobs quickly. Germany claims that it costs the country roughly $14,000 per year for each refugee. A fragile economy can be crushed by this.
On the other hand, what’s happening today in Europe was inductively illustrated through the experience of a Syrian refugee and his brother, who made their way to Western Europe–France–at a time when the Syrians were welcomed. Despite the economic troubles, Western Europe has a strong enough economy to absorb a large influx of immigrants and meets the first criteria. However, there was no largely established immigrant communities like the Cubans in Florida. The true is, populations in Western Europe are aging; the workers are retiring. Companies desperately needed workers like the Syrian refugees to fill the void. The episode shares these two simple stories to suggest refugees are not as harmful as most would think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers-surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
The recent NYT Upshot-article about school voucher provides a good example of inductive reasoning. The writer draws from numerous statistical studies that have found that exposing students to market dynamics i.e competition of private schools via use of school vouchers does not lead to better educational outcomes, and is thus bad policy. The article cites several studies, including ones from think tanks that support the vouchers and private school, with similar results showing negative learning outcomes.
The article then goes on to summarize the resulting debate on what caused the negative outcomes, and concludes by pointing out studies showing that school choice itself is not the problem: Publicly accountable charter schools have shown positive outcomes, while private schools have been less successful.
All in all the article makes a compelling case by summarizing different quantitative studies by different researchers, including those favorable to the policy in question, and then continuing with a qualitative analysis of arguments trying to explain the results. The conclusion provides more nuance in distinguishing between public and private schools that provide the alternatives to public shools, and ends in a convincing argument against policies that favor vouchers for private schools.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/yes-if-you-support-donald-trump-you-are-racist/
We have all seen the memes, social media posts, and articles making an induction argument that if you voted for Trump you must be a racist, sexist, and against the LGBT community. This article is an example of the use of inductive arguments that draws a conclusion or generalization based on particular instances. One specific example from the article of induction is: “If you support Donald Trump, or voted for him – you are racist. You allowed racism, stood by while it happened, nodded to it. Now the KKK and neo-Nazis are celebrating, and you have to own it.”
Throughout Trump’s campaign, many have used the things he has said about Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants, women and the LGBT community to infer that he has biased views against these groups. This article makes references to such examples and draws the conclusion that people who support Trump are racists based on the observation of particular instances or statements from Trump. The author also draws the conclusion that because groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis support Trump, others who voted for him must share the same views as these racist groups.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?_r=0
This letter from two psychologists that was published in the NYTimes gives an example of deductive reasoning. It presents the argument that President Trump is emotionally unstable by stating characteristics of someone who is emotionally unstable, then talking about how Trump has displayed these characteristics, and then ultimately coming to the conclusion that he is emotionally unstable.
The exact text is as follows:
“Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).
In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.”
This deductive argument also includes expert testimony as outlined in the Hoffman reading from this week. These components of the arguments make it strong and one that should be taken seriously.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/22/14636098/watergate-trump-scandals
This Vox article by Andrew Prokop compares the Trump administration’s ongoing issues in regards to contact with Russia to four major political scandals involving the president: Valerie Plame (Bush), Whitewater (Clinton), Iran-Contra (Regan), and Watergate (Nixon). The author employs inductive reasoning to demonstrate why a major potential White House scandal might not bring an end to Trump’s presidency. In fact, the President was only a casualty of one of the four scandals listed. Prokop first begins by briefly explaining the administration’s ongoing issue with Russia, he then proceeds to elaborate upon the other four scandals, and lastly, using the information laid out prior, explains that while scandals can surely damage the efficacy and legacy of presidency, a scandal does not mean the end of an administration.
The writer of this New York Times op-ed https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/trump-is-wrong-to-skip-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner.html?ref=opinion argues that it is wrong of Trump to skip the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. He uses inductive argument by giving many examples as to why it is good for the President to attend the dinner.
For instance, it shows the “restraint” that the President practices the other 364 days of the year. He argues that the dinner is “an opportunity to recognize that our country is better off when both journalists and presidents fulfill the responsibilities they bear.”
and
“Just by showing up, the world’s most powerful person makes a statement about the kind of country — and president — we have.”
He also uses past presidents as cases to show why it’s wrong to not show up:
“President Obama understood that there’s a reason self-deprecating humor is a correspondents’-dinner staple. Let other nations’ leaders cast themselves as flawless demigods, towering over the mere mortals they control. In America, we expect our chief executives to poke fun at themselves on live TV. Our leaders must acknowledge that, despite their awesome power, they are only human.”
“I doubt President Bush enjoyed being roasted. Still, he forced a smile. He knew (or at least pretended) that the joking was in good fun. Because that’s another remarkably democratic correspondents’-dinner tradition: the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military, the person with the nuclear codes, publicly submits to being teased.”
I think his arguments are effective. The examples with Bush and Obama help to explain the symbolic significance of the dinner, helping to support the ultimate argument that it is wrong for Trump to skip it because he needs to follow the precedent of humanizing himself.
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/deductive-reasoning-can-be-a-dangerous-thing/?_r=0
This article is about Canadian investment banker Richard Moore and the legitimacy of his stock purchases. Mr. Moore did not receive any insider information to make his decision. Based on the parties attending an event provided enough information to plan for a favorable outcome. As a result the Ontario Security Commission filed two separate cases against Mr. Moore. There was a difference in views on what constituted as insider trading.
Examples of a deductive argument comes from both Mr. Moore and the CIBC. “Seeing someone at an event and making deductions based on circumspect conduct about the identity of a corporate executive is hardly the type of confidential information normally identified as the basis for an insider trading charge. Nor did Mr. Moore use information provided to C.I.B.C. for his trading because the bank was not a participant in the transaction”. Even though Mr. Moore took advantage of his position, he used general information for what he believe would lead to a profitable outcome. This resembles a disjunctive argument where Mr. Moore’s exhibited characteristics of illegal trading (ie: quick purchases of shares after gaining information, leading to quick profit). The argument adopted by the CIBC, “If you show these traits, then you are illegally trading “, is not the correct approach towards Mr. Moore.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10106104
“How and Why Scientists Fudge Results, and What We Can Do About It”
The article highlighted how scientists try to rationalize manipulating scientific research results. This problem was presented as being prevalent in the field and multiple reasons were given to support why the problem may be occurring. The irrational behavior, which I concluded was the cause, was the one specific reason that may have motivated the scientist’s actions and the article states,
“At the heart of the problem is an entrenched set of practices adopted by researchers that push the boundaries of accepted scientific practice. We call them questionable research practices, and the appropriateness of these practices can range from questionable to fraudulent, depending on a number of circumstances”.
It made me conclude that the reasoning was deductive based on the fact that at the root of the argument was a specific objective of some scientists wanting to publish perfect research results that didn’t seem to vary. On the other hand, there were multiple rationales explaining the behavior that did vary in support of the argument.
This article is an example of an inductive argument where a generalized conclusion was derived from a series of specific cases. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/sunday/trump-voters-your-savior-is-betraying-you.html?ref=opinion
The writer enumerates the many instances Trump “promises outcomes without explaining how they’ll be achieved” and how he’s a “carnival huckster promising that America will thrive with his snake oil”. He goes on to quote some of the things Trump has said to bolster his statement.
“We’re going to win, we’re going to win big, folks,” (on foreign policy)
“No good. No good. Going to stop.” (on drug trafficking)
“We’re going to massively lower taxes on the middle class,” (on taxes)
“We’re going to make it much better, we’re going to make it less expensive.” (on health care)
To add to those quotes the writer states that Trump’s biggest betrayals will be in health care. Trump curtailing funds for women’s healthcare facilities where contraception and abortion coverage are offered will hurt ordinary Americans. Trump promised better and more affordable healthcare to all American, but now he’s retracted and is only offering “access” to health care. Both echoing his statement on Trump’s empty promises.
Also, the writer demonstrates how “instead of draining the swamp, he’s wallowing in it and monetizing the presidency” as evidenced by his actions such as “he retains his financial interests, refuses to release his taxes or explain what financial leverage Russia may have over him, and doubled the fee to join Mar-a-Lago to $200,000.” He ends with “Trump’s career has often been built on scamming people who put their faith in him, as Trump University shows”, effectively reinforcing his arguments.
I share much of the sentiment Brittney Cooper expresses in her article about the recently botched Academy Awards presentation, located here: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/movies/a8986489/moonlight-was-robbed-of-its-moment/
I disagree on several of her points related to human behavior, but not her argument about institutional racism.
While Ms. Cooper rightfully blames those responsible for the error, regardless of the complexion of the presenters or award winners, there is no way anyone involved could have come out of this snafu gracefully. The Academy Awards presentation is an industry recognition of film-making excellence. She is correct that an error like this should not have happened at this level.
Ms. Cooper makes a persuasive point about the negative expectations and acceptance of unfairness codified by institutional racism. She uses a combination of argument strategies including inductive reasoning as well as analogy to illustrate her position. She explains that white people who expect to receive are reluctant to accept loss and the humiliation that may go with it (paragraph 4, paragraph 10) as part of the diversity they espouse. By using the analogy of the regular workplace, where a black employee might not have his promotion celebrated by his boss (paragraph 6), she makes understanding of this concept accessible to all who have worked hard yet received no appreciation.
Ms. Cooper also uses the irony of the film not being about slavery or, “our dehumanization at the hands of white people (paragraph 7)” to further strengthen her arguments. Perhaps not enthymematic in its truest sense, but films about black people are too frequently expected to be about slavery or to include slavery as a dramatic backdrop. Films that deviate from this norm are considered unique.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/how-to-stay-sane-as-a-cartoonist-in-trumpland
This article sums up the stress most of us feel since Trump took office. David Sipress is a cartoonist for thenewyorker.com. Mr. Sipress shares us his dreadful experience as a news consumer. He reflects how the news is making him insane and kept him up sleepless in his bed replaying the news events of the day. He shares that the only time he had respite from the news is when he was away in a “faraway land” and his mind was filled about food and art.
The article brings up an interesting argument that Mr. Sipress overheard from a father arguing with his son about his vote. He heard the father say to his son,
“If voting for Trump is good for me,
then Trump gets my vote. Period. End of Story.”
This is an enthymeme argument, in which the premise is implied and left out intentionally to avoid further discussion. Missing premise is most likely about Trump as good businessman and therefore, will be good for those who are in business if his in the office. Mr. Sipress felt the logic behind voting for Trump when he realized the surge in the stock market from the election has increased the value of his own stock portfolio. Of course, the guilt made him donate money to an organization.
The other premise left out in the argument is whether being good in business will be good for every issue that is plaguing the country. A booming economy certainly fixes many problems or issues but at what cost? Do we give up the rights of many immigrants living in this country? How about the rights of women? The argument that this is “good for me” makes me realize how people are not able to see what is truly good for themselves.
“Migrants are always the scapegoats. But now they’re taking on Ukip’s lies” by Owen Jones. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/16/migrants-scapegoats-ukip-compelling-stories-win-over-xenophobes
Owen Jones shows a good use of inductive argument. He discusses how migrants in the UK are using their individual stories as a way to counter anti-migrant rhetoric and policies. That is, the emotional collected back stories of migrants together work to prove the general conclusion that migration to the UK is good, and that many of the things said about migrants are wrong. There are a few quick portraits of these migrants throughout the story.
Jones also uses an argument by analogy; first by presenting the UKIP party leaders as an ass and then a liar, then presenting “Birgit Möller, a 55-year-old German” who sounds very reasonable: “There are many problems in this country, she says, that have nothing to do with migrants – “like huge income differentials and problems with businesses having too much power”. Like Achi, she notes that “it is very convenient to find a scapegoat to deflect from real issues, because real issues are much more difficult to tackle”.” The reader is subtly invited to decide who he or she would rather listen to – Farage/Nuttall or Birgit Möller.
On the DSNY’s website, in the section for businesses, there is an example of an enthymeme.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/zerowaste/businesses.shtml
The particular sentence I am referring to is, “Businesses play a crucial role in protecting our environment and achieving the Mayor’s goal of reducing commercial waste by 90% by 2030.” There are several missing pieces in this deduction. Why should anyone deduce that businesses play a crucial role in protecting our environment? How is the Mayor’s goal of reducing commercial waste connected to the environment? This makes it difficult for a business to buy into this reasoning.
A way to complete this enthymeme would be:
Businesses generate close to 50% of all waste in NYC.
A key strategy to protecting our environment is reducing waste.
The Mayor’s goal of reducing commercial waste by 90% by the year 2030 would positively impact the environment. By reducing their waste, businesses play a crucial role in protecting our environment.
Clarification: “By reducing their waste, businesses play a crucial role in protecting our environment” is a separate and final part of the argument.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/03/i-m-plane-i-said-i-m-plane
According to the author of the following Economist article, there is a collective disdain for in-flight cell phone use and thus, the feature should be outlawed. Some specific pieces of evidence including: surveys, direct customer, service provider and expert quotes are used to “move up” or support his broad argument.
Though he did support his reasoning with specific examples, the argument can be countered by someone probing past the generalities that characterize inductive style, such as: the sample size of the survey, demographics of the commenters as well as the size of the airplane model in which in-flight calls contribute to a bad experience.
An example of an inductive argument is presented in the link below;
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516845174/voters-trust-the-media-more-than-trump-maybe
The article is about which source do Americans mistrust the most: in President Trump or the media. The author present different trusted sources that have opposite results, favoring one source over the other. The article highlights “Poll: Trump administration edges media in voter trust.” That came from a Fox News poll finding that the 45 percent of people trust the Trump administration more than news reporters to “tell the public the truth.” Its goes on to compare the same poll from Quinnipiac University shows that 52 percent of registered voters said they trust the news media more than Trump to tell them “the truth about important issues.” Overgeneralizing the findings and results of these, it was concluded that the way the question was formulated, the time that the survey was conducted and the survey sample led to the opposing results to the same inquiry, suggesting that both Trump and the media are “in the gutter” with the American public. The utilization of statistical analysis did aid the point driven by the author, yet it is lacking the evidence to prove these inferences. The information presented is simply not supportable for quality deliberation.
the inductive argument have been made clear and buttress with statistical evidence as mentioned in percentages
Sorry for the confusion Majeed. I agree it has, hence the selection of the article on my behalf. The end of my post was my opinion on the matter.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/enthy.html
In ordinary language, nearly all syllogistic arguments are expressed as enthymemes. The missing proposition in these arguments is left implicit for ease of expression and is usually easily supplied by the listener. Often, if the missing statement were explicitly stated, the argument would lose rhetorical effectiveness and would be thought of as “stating the obvious.”
In some cases, the missing proposition is not explicitly stated because the inference is only probable. It the missing premiss or conclusion were to be explicitly supplied, the argument would be seen to be formally invalid.
The following enthymematic example is often mistakenly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville:
”America is great because she is good.”
Implicitly, the conclusion “America is great” logically follows only if the doubtful premiss ”All good nations are great nations” is assumed and added to the given premiss “She (i.e. America) is good. Thus, when the argument is explicitly reconstructed, it becomes
All good nations are great nations.
America is a good nation
America is a great nation.
Note that in constructing the argument as valid, we necessarily were restricted to a false major premiss; consequently, the argument is unsound.
Consider this second example:
“You’ll do fine, just follow your heart.”
The missing premiss necessary for validity in the argument would be “All persons who follow their heart are persons who do fine.”
Note that the explicit statement of the missing premiss makes the argument valid but unsound since the supplied premiss is clearly false. Some persons who follow their heart do not do well.)
All persons who follow their heart are persons who do fine.
You are a person who follows your heart.
You are a person who does fine.
In other cases, if the missing proposition were present explicitly, the argument might lose rhetorical force.
E.g., “Mary does well because she pays attention.”
Here, the suppressed premiss necessary for validity would be “All people paying attention are people who do well.” (Note that it seems reasonable that some persons who pay attention might not do well.) And so, the argument when stated explicitly becomes:
All persons paying attention are people who do well.
Mary is a person paying attention.
Mary is a person who does well.
In the article by Henry Fountain titled “In California, a Move to Ease the Pressures on Aging Dams,” scientists make an inductive argument for less reliance on the infrastructure of concrete dams, aqueducts and other structures after a levee recently broke and flooded the McCormack-Williamson farming island. The inductive argument is that before humans came up with the idea to control water flow, nature worked just fine. The possibility of dams and levees breaking causing a huge water surge seem more dangerous than letting water flow outwardly.
The article states that even though “recent flooding at McCormack-Williamson was unintentional, scientists and environmental groups say deliberately creating similar areas — floodplains to allow the state’s rivers to overflow more naturally and benignly — is a way to help ease the strain on this water infrastructure, especially as climate change poses new challenges.
Moving some of the state’s 13,000 miles of levees back from rivers to make floodplains would allow dam operators to release more water without endangering population centers. Water percolating down through the flooded land would also help recharge aquifers, which, having been severely depleted by pumping for agriculture, are subject to a new state groundwater law requiring that they eventually be made sustainable. And the flooding could restore some of the fish and wildlife habitat that existed in California’s interior valleys before intensive farming began a century ago.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/science/california-aging-dams.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
http://www.sentencingproject.org/news/maryland-make-parole-meaningful-part-sentencing/
The writer of this piece is making a deductive argument. The writer believes that legislators, policymakers, governors, and parole boards across the country should believe in not wasting tax money on criminals that may have “aged out” of the system, in being a stand for the term “life with parole” and for restoring hope to those incarcerated people serving time and believing in a free life after their sentence. It are these beliefs that make parole a meaningful part of the criminal justice system. The write argues that this principle should be accepted across the criminal justice system but is not effectively being upheld in Maryland where no “lifer” or incarcerated person sentenced to life with parole has been paroled after their serving their life imprisonment sentence of 15-25 between 1996-2014. Parole cannot be meaningful to anyone including the incarcerated person if lifers in Maryland are facing barriers to receive parole.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-address-to-congress/fact-check-trump-exaggerates-the-impacts-of-illegal-immigration/?utm_term=.bcae889f6299
This is an article from the Washington post that focuses on taking assumptions made about illegal immigrants in the United States and refuting them. I believe that this article is a proper example of the fallacies that can arise from inductive arguments. Many of the assumptions are framed as general conclusions that are over reaching. For example, ‘illegal immigrants are more prone to violence or criminal activity’, or ‘the illegal immigrants are putting a strain on the US economy’. The article spends much of it time refuting these flawed inductive assumptions
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/arguing-from-the-facts/?_r=0
The term “inductive reasoning” refers to reasoning that takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate. This is why when using this type of reasoning we need to have strong evidence that support the facts.
The link showed above is an article that is focused on analyzing another article from the Wall Street Journal that talk about budget debate by John Taylor. It focus on the showing Obama’s a budget compare to Ryan’s budget. According to the article the centerpiece of his argument was a chart showing the amount of federal government expenditures from 2000 to the present, along with projections of what Obama proposes to spend from now through 2021. After analyzing all the numbers showed on the author Taylor was able to come to a conclusion, mentioning that “Obama’s budget slightly reduces this rate to about 23 percent over its first few years, but then gradually increases it, ending with a rate of over 24 percent in 2021.”
He then goes on and we can clearly see the use of inductive reasoning given these data and the general agreement that we need to reduce our enormous deficit, “Taylor asked why anyone should take seriously a budget that maintains the “spending binge” of the last three years into the indefinite future”. He generalized his idea of showing the public the deficit that the country will be using Obama’s budget. But he did not that into account that most of the expenses where Medicare and Social Security that are mandatory expenses. The article posted gives a good idea an example of how inductive reasoning is used in politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/nyregion/nyu-accelerated-graduation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=nygeo-promo-region®ion=nygeo-promo-region&WT.nav=nygeo-promo-region&_r=0
This article is about students at New York University, where a year of undergraduate education can run to about 66,000 in room, board tuition and fees. They are complaining how expensive cost of four years at the school in Greenwich Village. I think this article offers a good example of inductive reasoning. The story is about how NYU have recently to help more students to finish their degrees in three years verses finishing at four years. Students have long found ways to make it through school more quickly to save money. They have concluded that graduating early is good way to make college affordable. Now they are now taking steps to facilitate early graduation for more students. Students have found long ways to make it through school more quickly to save money. College cost and students debt in New York University is expensive and other private universities cost 60,000 or more. The article mentions about students worry speeding through college and students are potentially missing out on the valuable opportunities like study abroad, internships and involvement in campus organization. There are also students who work to put themselves through school and don’t have the time take more classes. Those students are counter examples to the conclusion that graduating early that makes college more affordable because for them it will limit their income and save their time graduating.