Exercises 5–I: Each Question In Your Opinion

5 Exercises 5 I Each Question Small Paragraph Who In Your Opinion

Analyze the provided set of questions which primarily involve constructing deductive and inductive arguments, evaluating premises, defending claims, and understanding the relationship between truth and validity. The questions cover topics such as identifying the greatest musical artist, defending premises, supporting justice-related claims, analyzing reasoning processes, and applying concepts of probability and evidence. Respond comprehensively to each prompt, demonstrating critical thinking and the ability to apply logical principles in philosophical, legal, and everyday contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

Determining the greatest musical artist of all time is inherently subjective, but using deductive reasoning, one can attempt to support a single claim through logically connected premises. For instance, suppose I believe that Michael Jackson is the greatest musical artist. My argument may be structured as follows: first, Michael Jackson has significantly influenced multiple generations of artists; second, his albums have sold more than any other artist; third, his innovations in music and dance have redefined popular culture. From these premises, I deduce that Michael Jackson is the greatest musical artist of all time. These premises support the conclusion through logical implication, assuming that influence, commercial success, and cultural impact are valid indicators of greatness in music.

When someone questions the premises used in such a deductive argument—say, questioning whether album sales truly indicate artistic greatness—I can defend those premises by providing supporting arguments. For instance, to defend the premise that album sales are indicative of an artist's influence, I might argue that higher sales typically correlate with widespread cultural reach and impact. I can also argue that influence on other artists and innovations contribute to greatness, which are supported by expert opinions and historical analysis. These supporting arguments are probably not necessary but are probable, as they reinforce the likelihood that the premises are true given the context.

In regards to Justice Marshall’s second premise in his dissent in Gregg v. Georgia, which claims that no human being deserves death due to its deterrence ineffectiveness, defending this premise is critical. Two logical arguments can support this claim. First, empirical studies widely indicate that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect on crime rates compared to life imprisonment. This argument relies on the evidence from criminology studies, implying that the premise is probably true, not necessarily necessary. Second, moral reasoning can be invoked: if human dignity and the sanctity of life are paramount, then no person can justifiably be deemed deserving of death, which supports the premise on ethical grounds. These arguments aim to logically imply that the death penalty lacks justified deterrence and moral justification, reinforcing the premise's plausibility.

The relationship between truth and validity in these arguments is crucial. An argument is valid if the logical structure ensures that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, validity alone does not guarantee that premises are true in reality. For example, an argument could be valid but based on false premises, leading to a false conclusion. Conversely, a sound argument has valid reasoning and true premises, ensuring a true conclusion. In the context of Justice Marshall's dissent, the validity of the reasoning ensures that if the premises about deterrence and moral deservingness are true, then his conclusion about the death penalty's legitimacy follows. But if the premises are false, the argument's validity doesn't guarantee a true conclusion.

Regarding inductive reasoning in everyday reactions, such as immediately braking upon seeing brake lights, this involves observing patterns and drawing probable conclusions. When the brake lights flash, the most probable explanation is that the car is slowing down or stopping, which justifies the immediate action of braking. This is an example of inductive reasoning, where past experiences and observed patterns inform an automatic, quick response based on probability rather than certainty.

In personal relationships, such as feeling hurt when a partner forgets a birthday, the reaction is often influenced by evidence or traces of previous behavior. If the partner consistently forgets special occasions, the trace evidence suggests a pattern of disregard or oversight. The story told oneself may be that the partner does not value the relationship enough, which can lead to feelings of disappointment. These traces influence emotional reactions and interpretations of behavior, illustrating how evidence guides personal judgments.

Common sense can be a valuable guide in tense situations—for instance, remaining calm during a disagreement because background knowledge about conflict resolution suggests that patience can de-escalate tension. Critical background knowledge such as understanding human emotions, the importance of communication, and previous experiences of conflict management contribute to successful outcomes, reinforcing how background knowledge underpins practical reasoning.

Regarding beliefs based on little evidence, one might hold the belief that a particular medicine is effective without extensive scientific validation. To confirm this belief, one should seek empirical evidence, such as clinical trials, scientific studies, or expert opinions. Certainty increases when independent sources corroborate initial impressions, transitioning belief from mere anecdotal or little evidence to well-supported fact.

In legal or moral contexts, convincing a friend of Todd Wilingham’s guilt or innocence relies on presenting relevant evidence, logical reasoning, and ethical considerations. For instance, statistical evidence, witness testimony, and motive analysis can be used to build a case for guilt, while alternative explanations and doubts can support innocence, depending on the case specifics. Proper reasoning and credible evidence are critical in persuading others.

Not all traces are evidence because traces may lack relevance or sufficient connection to establish guilt or innocence. For example, a fingerprint at a crime scene is a trace that can be evidence, but a random scratch on a wall may be a trace without evidentiary value. Explaining this to a friend involves highlighting that evidence must meet standards of relevance, reliability, and sufficiency to support conclusions, whereas traces lacking these qualities are uninformative.

A phobia is an irrational, intense fear of a specific object or situation, which can be explained through reasoning failures related to probability. Often, a person develops a phobia because they overestimate the danger or likelihood of harm from a particular stimulus, leading to avoidance behavior. This is a failure of reasoning with probability, where subjective perception surpasses objective risk, resulting in disproportionate anxiety.

A telephone book is not a good source for a random sample because it is biased towards individuals with listed numbers, excluding unlisted or mobile-only users. The sampling frame is incomplete, so any sample drawn from it would not be truly representative of the entire population. Therefore, it jeopardizes the validity of generalizations made from such a sample.

The generalization that "Everyone always acts in his own self-interest" can be debated. A strong argument against it is that humans also act altruistically, driven by moral, social, or empathetic considerations. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals sometimes prioritize others’ well-being, contradicting the idea of pure self-interest. Conversely, a cautious argument for the generalization might cite economic theories of rational choice, but it overlooks complex human motivations. When arguing, better reasoning involves recognizing exceptions and conditions, understanding the nuances of human behavior rather than accepting absolute statements.

Among the three forms of inductive reasoning (induction by analogy, enumeration, and causal reasoning), success lies in the details. For example, causal reasoning requires identifying specific details that establish a connection between cause and effect. Accurately understanding these details strengthens the argument, demonstrating how success in inductive reasoning depends on careful, detailed investigation of relevant evidence.

References

• Bishop, M., & Trout, J. D. (2005). Epistemology: Classic problems and contemporary methods. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• How we reason. Oxford University Press.
• Logic and critical thinking. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.
• The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
• The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
• The value of rationality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 377-387.