Chapter 6 Types of Arguments Argumentation Reasoning Arguments

Chapter 6 ]Types of Arguments

Argumentation & Reasoning �Arguments are considered rational when they correspond with accepted standards of reasoning. �Reasoning �“The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in orderly rational ways. ”

Reasoning Process �Reasoning involves 3 steps �Identify data/grounds used to develop claim �Reason from data through logical induction or deduction �Offer claim or conclusion that builds upon the data and constitutes a new and original insight �Focus of this chapter will be on step 2 �Inductive-arguing from specific to general conclusion �Deductive-moving from general instances to specific conclusions

Inductive Reasoning �When you have knowledge or info about specific cases but lack understanding of factors that may unite these cases into general conclusion �Moving from specific evidence to general conclusion � 3 types of inductive arguments �Arguments by Example �Arguments by Analogy �Arguments from Causal Correlation

Inductive Reasoning �Argument by Example �Arguing on basis of examples �Using examples from known cases to draw conclusions about unknown cases �Ex. Bill, Diane, and Lynn were communication majors and they got into really good law schools (specific examples). Communication must be a good pre-law major (general conclusion). �Ex. Last time I tried to get help from advising office, I got passed around from person to person. No one knew the answers to my questions. That dept. is incompetent

�Testing arguments by example - things to consider � 1. Are there enough examples offered to support claim �Ex. If Bill, Dianne, and Lynn were only 3 comm. majors then argument is no longer strong-overgeneralization � 2. Are examples cited typical of the category or class that the arguer is trying to generalize to? �Ex. Because Advising Office couldn’t answer 1 person’s questions doesn’t mean they are incompetent. Maybe questions were rare or not relevant to their dept. � 3. Are negative examples of rival stories sufficiently accounted for in argument �Ex. Were there other comm. Majors who didn’t get into law school? � 4. Are cited examples relevant to the claim being advanced

�Fallacy-a flaw in the reasoning process �Hasty Generalization-type of fallacy �Arguments from examples that move too quickly or without sufficient rationale

Inductive Reasoning �Arguments by Analogy �Seeks to identify similarities between cases that might seem dissimilar, in order to allow conclusion to be made-building argument by comparing �Literal Analogy �Drawing direct comparison btwn. 2 or more cases �Ex. Students who want education only to prepare for careers are like apprentices attaching themselves to carpenters �Figurative Analogy �Makes comparisons btwn. classes that are dissimilar but have common characteristics �Ex. The builders and developers have attached the underdeveloped hillsides of the city like hungry locusts

Inductive Reasoning �Arguments from Causal Correlation �Examines specific cases and identifies a relationship or correlation �Ex. Excessive exposure to violence on television or in video games leads to a willingness to accept violence as appropriate behavior and decreases people’s sense of revulsion toward violence in real life.

�Testing Causal Correlations-things to consider 1. Consistency of correlation �Is there true correlation or just chance 2. Is the correlation a strong one? �Requires looking at all the data �Looking at context and other factors 3. Does cause effect pattern follow predictable time sequence? �How long does it take to see the effect after cause…and is effect truly coming from that cause. �Ex. Children exposed to lead suffer learning disablities � Does it take hours, weeks, months for symptoms to surface?

Deductive Reasoning �Generalizing from theories or principles believed to be true to claims about individual cases. �Moving from general evidence to specific claims � 2 types of deductive arguments � 1. Arguments from Sign � 2. Arguments from Causal Generalization

Deductive Reasoning �Arguments from Sign �Relies on presence of certain attributes seen in specific case to prove that it can be related to a generalization that is assumed to be true �Ex. Bob is suffering from fever, sore throat, fatigue, headache, muscle weakness, and night sweats. He might have contracted mononucleosis � People who usually suffer from this symptoms have mono.

�Testing Arguments from Sign-things to consider � 1. Are the cited signs always indication of general conclusion? �Ex. The symptoms mentioned may also be symptoms for other medical issues � 2. Are there enough signs present to support conclusion offered? �Ex. If Bob only had fever and sore throat, that may not be enough to conclude mono. � 3. Are contradictory signs present and have they been carefully considered? �Ex. Bob is gaining weight along with his other symptoms which is unusual for mono…need to account for weight gain.

Fallacies of Arguments by Sign �False reasoning by sign �Moving too quickly from limited number of signs �Guilty by association �Ex. Attacking a person because of people he is friendly with

Deductive Reasoning �Arguments from Causal Generalization �Argues from general principles that are assumed to be true to judgments about specific cases under consideration �Ex. Steven is bound to abuse his children because he was himself abused as a child �Ex. It is unwise to raise interest rates. Every time rates have been raised, a recession has followed

�Testing Causal Generalization Arguments� 1. Is cause sufficient to produce effect �Ex. Steven’s abuse may impact his parenting style but many people have been abused and are still good parents � 2. May the cause result in other effects �Ex. Steven’s abuse may actually motivate him to be better parent � 3. May intervening factors preclude expected relationship between cause and effect �Ex. Higher interest rates may actually stabilize and strengthen economy

�False Reasoning by Causal Generalization �Making a false generalization

The Deductive Syllogism Deductive arguments can be tested by phrasing them in syllogistic form and examining structural properties… �Syllogism-a formal, logical type of reasoning �Consists of 1. a major premise (general case) 2. a minor premise or (specific case), and 3. a conclusion.

Ex. Major Premise: All men are mortal Minor Premise: Socrates is a man Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is a mortal Ex. Major Premise: All Christians believe in God Minor Premise: Fred is a Christian Conclusion: Fred believes in God �These are examples of categorical syllogism-one that makes a statement about all cases within the given category �Absolute statement

Conditional Syllogism �If then syllogism �Major Premise: If students study they get better grades �Minor Premise: The students will study �Conclusion: The students will get better grades

Disjunctive Syllogism �Either or statements �Major Premise: The University must either raise tuition or cut faculty and programs �Minor Premise: The University is unwilling to make cuts �Conclusion: Therefore tuition must be increased

Toulmin Model �Used to understand the components of argument and provides insight into reasoning process � 1. Claim-proposition � 2. Grounds-support or basis for claim � 3. Warrant-connection between grounds and claim � 4. Backing-support for warrant � 5. Modality-degree of certainty for claim � 6. Rebuttal-exceptions that might be offered to claim