Inference: The Differing Meanings Of Valid Inference And War ✓ Solved

Inferencethe Differing Meanings Of Valid Inference And Warranted I

Inferencethe Differing Meanings Of Valid Inference And Warranted I

Inference: The differing meanings of "valid inference" and "warranted inference" are closely related to the differing purposes of deductive and inductive arguments – the purpose of deductive being to prove; the purpose of inductive to make the conclusion most probable. Look up the words "valid" and "warranted." Each of these words, you will find, has what is known as a lexical definition – that is just the dictionary definition of the word. Words also have a certain connotations - meanings that go beyond their lexical definitions; associated ideas and concepts – think of terms such a "fur baby" as the name for a pet. Briefly discuss how the lexical definitions and connotations of "valid" and "warranted" can help us understand the differing purposes of deductive and inductive arguments.

Fallacies: In Section 8.2, the text states that there are "fallacious argument templates" (Facione & Gittens, p. 167) and then gives a number of examples. The authors further state: "Analysis of the meanings of the terms used and the grammatical rules of the language reveal the source of error" (p.167). Choose one of the fallacies in this section, such as Denying the Antecedent or False Classification and pair it with the valid argument template. For example, if you choose Denying the Antecedent, the valid argument template will be Denying the Consequent. False Classification would pair with one of the fallacies in Reasoning About Classes of Objects. Explain, in your own words, how the fallacy is revealed through analysis of the valid argument template. Think of it this way – if you know how the heart works, you will know that certain malfunctions will prevent it from working. For example, if you know that the coronary arteries supply the heart with blood, then you can reason that a blockage will stop that vital flow. So this journal prompt asks you to explain, in your own words, how one of the valid argument templates work – and how that exposes the fallacy connected with that type of argument.

Civic Responsibility: At the end of Chapter 9 there is a Bonus Exercise that asks you to research and analyze the 2009 debate over the healthcare public option. If you were actually to complete that exercise, it would take quite a bit of time and effort. Do you think that completing such an exercise would be time well spent or time wasted? If well-spent, why? If time wasted, why not?

Is there any issue on which you think a comparable amount of time and effort would be worthwhile? As a critical thinker, do you believe that citizens have an obligation to be informed on topics of current interest? If yes, why, if no, why not?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of "valid inference" and "warranted inference" are fundamental to understanding the nature and purpose of different types of reasoning. The lexical definitions of "valid" generally refer to reasoning that is structurally sound and logically correct, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true. Its connotations often imply certainty and irrefutability, which aligns with deductive reasoning aimed at proof. On the other hand, "warranted" suggests that the inference is justified based on evidence, probability, or reasonableness, with connotations of justification, support, and appropriateness. This aligns with inductive reasoning, which aims to make conclusions probably true rather than necessarily true.

Understanding these distinctions helps clarify their purposes. A "valid" inference in deductive reasoning guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, thereby serving the purpose of proof or certainty. Conversely, a "warranted" inference in inductive reasoning aims to provide a probable or justified claim, emphasizing support and likelihood over certainty. The lexical emphasis on certainty for "valid" underscores its deductive purpose, while the connotations of "warranted" highlight the evidential and justificatory focus of inductive reasoning.

Moving to fallacies, consider the fallacy of "Denying the Antecedent." This fallacy involves reasoning from a false premise in the form of: If P, then Q; not P; therefore, not Q. According to the argument template, the invalidity stems from incorrectly assuming that denying the antecedent invalidates the consequent. Its valid counterpart is "Denying the Consequent," which follows the form: If P, then Q; Q; therefore, P. When analyzing these templates, the fallacy of denying the antecedent is revealed because the inference improperly assumes that the absence of P makes Q impossible, which isn't logically sound.

Similarly, "False Classification" involves erroneous grouping based on superficial similarities, leading to invalid conclusions. For instance, classifying a claim as scientific without empirical backing constitutes false classification. When examined against the valid template of reasoning about classes—such as All A are B; C is A; therefore, C is B—fallacious classification becomes apparent because the classification does not adhere to the criteria that define the class. This analysis exposes the fallacy by showing how a superficial or incorrect grouping can produce invalid inferences.

Regarding civic responsibility, engaging in research and analysis like the 2009 healthcare public option debate can be time-consuming but highly valuable. Such exercises promote critical thinking, deepen understanding of complex issues, and foster informed citizen participation. While they require effort, the benefits of being well-informed about public policies and their implications outweigh the costs. Conversely, engaging in less productive or ill-informed debates would be a waste of time, underscoring the importance of deliberate, well-reasoned inquiry.

As critical thinkers, citizens have an obligation to remain informed on current issues. Staying informed enables individuals to participate actively in democratic processes, evaluate arguments critically, and contribute to society's well-being. This responsibility ensures that decisions are based on sound reasoning and evidence rather than misconceptions or biases. Therefore, investing time and effort in understanding complex issues is an essential aspect of civic responsibility and a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

References

• Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think Critically. Pearson Education.
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2018). Introduction to Logic. Routledge.
• Hurley, P. J. (2014). A Concise Introduction to Logic. Cengage Learning.
• Nazir, M., & Syed, M. (2014). Logic and Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Govier, T. (2018). Problems in Argumentative Writing: Principles and Practice. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Moore, B. (2012). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Rieke, R., & Squire, D. (2008). Becoming a Critical Thinker. Hatchet Book Group.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The Use of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking.