standardizing arguments premise 1: new mexico offers many outdoor activities. premise 2: new mexico...
Post on 16-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Standardizing Arguments Premise 1: New Mexico offers many outdoor
activities. Premise 2: New Mexico has rich history of
Native Americans and of Spanish conquest Premise 3: New Mexico is inexpensive.
_______________________________ Conclusion: New Mexico is an excellent
vacation choice.
Standardizing Arguments Claim: New Mexico is an excellent vacation
choice. ______________________________________ Support/Evidence 1: New Mexico offers many
outdoor activities. Support/Evidence 2: New Mexico has rich
history of Native Americans and Spanish conquest Support/Evidence 3: New Mexico is
inexpensive.
Standardizing Arguments with the
Toulmin Model
Premises(Grounds)→→→Conclusion (Claim)
REASONING (WARRANT)
G → So C; Since W
Harry was born in the U.S. (Grounds)
→ So: Harry is a U.S. citizen (Claim)
Since A person born in the U.S. is legally a U.S. citizen (Warrant)
Toulmin Model, cont.
(G) Harry was born in the U.S. →So: (Q) presumably, (C) Harry is a U.S. citizen(R) unless he did not claim the U.S. citizenship
Since(W) A person born in the U.S. is legally a U.S.
citizenOn account of (B) U.S. immigration law
Main Types of Reasoning INDUCTIVE: forming generalizations
from specific instances DEDUCTIVE: reasoning from principles
(known facts) CAUSAL reasoning PARALLEL CASE
Guidelines for Inductive Reasoning
Are there enough specific instances? Are the specific instances typical? Are the instances recent / relevant?
Deductive Reasoning Reasoning that moves from a
general principle to a specific conclusion.
The conclusion of deductive reasoning is certain rather than probable.
Syllogisms Major Premise: All humans are mortal Minor Premise: Socrates is a human
Therefore: Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
Guidelines for Deductive Reasoning
Make sure listeners will accept your general principle (major premise)
Provide evidence to support your minor premise
Causal Reasoning Reasoning that seeks to establish causal
relationship between two phenomena / events.
A causes B
Guidelines for Causal Reasoning
Avoid the fallacy of false cause Do not assume that events have only a
single cause
Parallel cases Reasoning Reasoning in which a speaker
compares two similar cases and infers that what is true for the first case is also true for the second.
Guidelines for Parallel Cases Reasoning
Above all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alike
Fallacies Hasty generalization Causal Fallacies (False cause) Bandwagon Fallacy Ad Hominem Either / Or Fallacy Invalid analogy Appeals to Misplaced Authority, Ignorance,
Emotion, Tradition
Hasty Generalization A fallacy in which a speaker jumps
to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.
False Cause A fallacy in which a speaker
mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second.
Red Herring A fallacy that introduces an
irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion.
Red Herring “Why should we worry about the
amount of violence on television when thousands of people are killed in automobile accidents each year?”
Ad Hominem “The governor has a number of
interesting economic proposals, but let’s not forget that she comes from a very wealthy family.”
Either-Or A fallacy that forces listeners to
choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist.
Bandwagon A fallacy that assumes that
because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable.
Bandwagon “The President must be
correct in his approach to domestic policy; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him.”
Slippery Slope A fallacy that assumes that taking
a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented.
top related