Reference no: EM13715537

Discussion 1

Construct a deductive argument that is valid but not sound. Then, construct a valid deductive argument that is sound. Be sure to put the argument in premise-conclusion form.

Instructor Guidance:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In case you may have missed this in the Announcements section or the Instructor Guidance, you will need the attached handout in order to construct a valid deductive argument. Remember, the word "valid" applies to the form of the argument and only to the form of the argument. Premises are not valid. Conclusions are not valid. Only the form of the argument can be termed valid or not. Please note through the first three chapters of the text how Mosser creates a close link between the word patterns, structure, and form of a deductive argument and its validity.

The Categorical Syllogism form looks like this:

Premise #1: A is B.
Premise #2: B is C.
Therefore, A is C.

To create a valid categorical argument, all we need to do is substitute a word (and the same word) where there is the capital letter "A" (A = cat)

Premise #1: Cat is B.
Premise #2: B is C.
Therefore, Cat is C.

Now we need to substitute for the capital letter "B" (B = mammal).

Premise #1: Cats are mammals.
Premise #2: Mammals are C.
Therefore, Cats are C

Now we substitute for the capital letter "C" (C = fur).

Premise #1: Cats are mammals.
Premise #2: Mammals have fur.
Therefore, Cats have fur.

And we have a valid argument. Notice where the terms (A, B, and C) first appear and where they repeat. That pattern of repetition is the structure of the argument. The structure and the form are synonymous: they are the same thing.

All it takes to create a valid deductive argument is nothing more than simple word substitution. That's all! It's easy! Give it a shot!

Discussion 2

Construct an inductive argument for a specific conclusion. Then, explain what you might do to make this inductive argument stronger, either by revising the premises or by revising the conclusion
Example
An inductive argument contains a conclusion that reveals new information, not stated in the premises. "The information offered in the conclusion introduces something new."(Mosser, 2011, 3.2, para. 5)
An example of an inductive argument is:
(Premise) My family originated in Molfetta, Italy.
(Premise) Molfetta was founded by Greeks.
(Conclusion) My family has Greek ancestry.
It is not a great leap to assume that if my family came from an area settled by a certain culture, that they may come from that culture as well. However, by supplying more information to support the conclusion, the argument becomes stronger and more likely to be found true. Also by changing the wording of the conclusion, its truthfulness becomes more acceptable.
(Premise) My ancestry has been traced back over 200 years.
(Premise) My family originated in Molfetta, Italy.
(Premise) Molfetta was founded by Greeks.
(Premise) Some of my family traditions are Greek, rather than Italian in origin.
(Premises) My oldest family recipes contain ingredients found commonly in Greece, but not Italy.
(Conclusion) My family has some Greek ancestry.
Each premise is completely true, which leads one to believe the conclusion must also be true. In dealing with inductive arguments, you often find that though the premises are true, the conclusion is only "probably" true. (Mosser, 2011) Without genetic testing, I will probably never prove that I have Greek ancestors, but logical arguments do not require that type of evidence. I only need to form a question, gather evidence(premises), form a hypothesis(conclusion), and test the hypothesis, perhaps repeatedly, gathering or discarding evidence to further support my hypothesis.