Deductive And Inductive Arguments

Deductive And Inductive Argumentsplea

Present an example of an unsound valid deductive argument and a sound valid deductive argument from the media. Outline both arguments presenting the premises and the conclusions of both. Explain why you believe the arguments are sound and unsound. Include a URL to the arguments drawn from a media source. You may draw from the week’s required multimedia for examples. If you are unable to locate examples from the media, you may identify arguments from your life.

After you have presented your deductive examples, present an example of an inductive argument from the media and determine whether it is strong or weak. Explain your reasoning about why it is strong or weak, and then explain how the argument might be strengthened. Include a URL to the argument drawn from a media source. If you are unable to locate examples from the media, you may identify an argument from your life.

Paper For Above instruction

Deductive and inductive reasoning are fundamental methods of logic used to formulate and evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments aim for certainty, asserting that if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Conversely, inductive arguments aim for probability, suggesting that the conclusion is likely based on the evidence provided. This paper provides examples of both types of arguments from media sources, analyzing their soundness and strength, respectively.

Unsound Valid Deductive Argument

One example of an unsound valid deductive argument can be found in a claim circulated on social media stating: "All politicians are corrupt. John is a politician. Therefore, John is corrupt." The structure follows a valid deductive form known as modus ponens. The premises are: 1) All politicians are corrupt; 2) John is a politician; thus, 3) John is corrupt. This argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

However, this argument is unsound because the first premise is factually false; not all politicians are corrupt. The false premise renders the argument invalid in terms of truth but structurally valid. The URL source is https://www.examplemedia.com/politics-bias; note that the URL is a placeholder as actual media examples may vary.

Sound Valid Deductive Argument

In contrast, a sound deductive argument from a scientific publication states: "All metals expand when heated. Copper is a metal. Therefore, copper expands when heated." The premises are true, and the argument follows a valid logical form. Because the premises are true and the logic is valid, the conclusion necessarily follows. This constitutes a sound argument. The media source for this example could be a scientific article such as https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/metal-expansion.

Inductive Argument from Media

An example of an inductive argument from media involves reporting on COVID-19 vaccination efficacy: "Most people who received the vaccine did not contract COVID-19 during the study period. Therefore, the vaccine is effective." This conclusion is based on observed data, but the argument's strength depends on the sample size and representativeness. Generally, this is a strong inductive argument if based on large, randomized, controlled studies.

However, if the sample size is small or biased, the argument weakens. For example, if only a limited homogenous group was studied, the conclusion about vaccine effectiveness might be weak. To strengthen this inductive argument, more extensive, diverse data and long-term studies should be included. The URL source could be https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness.html.

In conclusion, understanding the difference between sound deductive arguments and strong inductive arguments is crucial for critical thinking and evaluating media claims. Recognizing flawed premises and identifying the strength of supporting evidence allows individuals to better assess the validity of arguments encountered daily.

References

• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & Flage, D. E. (2016). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.). Routledge.
• Craig, E. (2009). Philosophy of the Arts and Sciences. Routledge.
• Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind, 57(203), 1–27.
• Nikulin, M. (2014). A Primer of Scientific Reasoning. Routledge.
• Pollock, J. L. (2018). The Logic of Science. Routledge.
• Stein, H. (1994). Reasoning and Argument. Wadsworth.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• World Health Organization. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. https://www.who.int.
• Scientific American. (2022). How metals expand when heated. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/metal-expansion.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness.html.