For Every Correctly And Fully Structured Enthymeme Up To 5 Y

For Every Correctly And Fully Structured Enthymeme Up To 5 You Ret

For every correctly (and fully) structured enthymeme (up to 5), I will give you 2 points. The first three enthymemes must include each type of enthymeme. For the final two, you may choose any types. Each enthymeme should be correctly constructed and include relevant supporting tests to validate its logical structure.

Paper For Above instruction

An enthymeme is a rhetorical device and a form of deductive reasoning that is widely used in everyday arguments, debates, and persuasive speaking. It is akin to a syllogism but intentionally leaves out one or more components, typically the conclusion or a premise, which the audience or reader is expected to supply or infer. Properly structured enthymemes are vital in persuasive discourse because they rely on shared assumptions and can be more engaging and accessible than fully explicit logical structures.

The assignment requires constructing five fully structured enthymemes—logical arguments that are valid and complete in their form. The first three enthymemes must represent each of the primary types of enthymemes commonly recognized in classical logic and rhetorical theory: deductive, inductive, and abductive enthymemes. For the last two, any types may be utilized: they could mirror the previous types, employ different logical strategies, or demonstrate hybrid forms of enthymematic reasoning.

Types of Enthymemes

1. Deductive Enthymeme:

This form involves a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The enthymeme omits either the major or minor premise, assuming the audience’s shared knowledge. An example:

- Major Premise: All humans are mortal.

- Minor Premise: Socrates is human.

- Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The enthymeme might omit "All humans are mortal," assuming the audience already knows this.

2. Inductive Enthymeme:

This form draws a general conclusion from specific instances; the missing premise often involves the likelihood or probability rather than certainty. For example:

- Observation: The sun has risen in the east every morning.

- Enthymeme: Therefore, the sun will probably rise in the east tomorrow.

Here, the omitted premise is the inherent uniformity of nature, assumed by the audience.

3. Abductive Enthymeme:

This involves inference to the best explanation, often used in diagnostic reasoning. For instance:

- Observation: The lawn is wet.

- Enthymeme: Therefore, it probably rained last night.

The missing premise is the assumption that rain is the most likely cause of a wet lawn.

Construction of Enthymemes and Validation Tests

Each enthymeme must be properly constructed to be valid, meaning the conclusion logically follows from the premises (spoken or implied). Validation tests for enthymemes include the logical test, the coherence test, and the probability test.

- Logical Test: Ensures the enthymeme’s form aligns with valid logical structures. For example, a deductive enthymeme’s conclusion must follow necessarily from the premises.

- Coherence Test: Checks whether the omitted premise or conclusion is assumed to be universally accepted or shared by the audience.

- Probability Test: In inductive and abductive enthymemes, assesses whether the missing premise makes the conclusion plausible or likely.

Constructing the Enthymemes

Constructing valid enthymemes involves selecting a logical form and ensuring the missing parts are plausible and likely assumed by the audience. It also supports effective persuasion by relying on shared knowledge and assumptions, minimizing the cognitive effort required to understand the argument.

Examples of Fully Structured Enthymemes

1. Deductive Enthymeme:

- Major Premise (omitted): All mammals have lungs.

- Minor Premise: Dolphins are mammals.

- Conclusion: Dolphins have lungs.

Test: The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if they are accepted.

2. Inductive Enthymeme:

- Observation (given): The sun has risen in the east every morning in recorded history.

- Enthymeme: Therefore, the sun will probably rise in the east tomorrow.

Test: The inference relies on past observation being a reliable indicator.

3. Abductive Enthymeme:

- Observation: The grass is wet.

- Enthymeme: It probably rained last night.

Test: The missing premise assumes rain is the most common cause of wet grass, which makes the conclusion plausible.

4. Hybrid Enthymeme:

- Major Premise (implied): All known causes of wet grass involve rain or a sprinkler.

- Observation: The grass is wet.

- Conclusion: The grass was probably rained on or the sprinkler was on.

Test: The argument combines inductive and abductive reasoning with shared assumptions.

5. Another Type (e.g., causal enthymeme):

- Major Premise: If a person is sick, they often have a fever.

- Minor Premise: John is sick.

- Conclusion: John probably has a fever.

Test: The reasoning hinges on the causal relationship assumed in the major premise.

Conclusion

Constructing fully structured enthymemes that incorporate proper logical forms and relevant tests enhances persuasive effectiveness and clarity. The distinction among deductive, inductive, and abductive enthymemes offers diverse tools for argumentation, each suited for different contexts and audiences. When constructing these arguments, it is crucial to consider the shared knowledge base and assumptions of the audience to maximize engagement and acceptance.

References

  • Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
  • Cicero. (2001). On the Ideal Orator. Translated by A. W. Trees. Oxford University Press.
  • Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & Flage, D. (2016). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.). Pearson.
  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.
  • Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Rhetorical Analysis. https://owl.purdue.edu
  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Govier, T. (2010). A Practical Study of Argument (7th ed.). Wadsworth.
  • Forbes, R. (2011). The Principles of Argumentation. Broadview Press.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments