List 5 types of non-deductive arguments.
- Inductive Generalization (particular to general).
- Statistical Syllogism (general to particular)
- Causal Arguments.
- Arguments from Analogy.
- Convergent Argument.
Describe Inductive Generalization nondeductive argument.
In Inductive Generalization the general statement about all is constructed from the facts or purported facts about particular individuals or things.
Inductive Generalizations are also used to draw conclusions about the future based on what happened in the past.
Describe Statistical Syllogism nondeductive argument.
In Statistical Syllogism the conclusion is drawn that a certain individual is likely to have a certain property because most individuals of that sort have that property.
What type of nondeductive argument is this:
“Most people like mashed potatoes so the Smiths will probably like it too.”
This is an example of Statistical Syllogism.
Describe Causal Argument nondeductive argument.
A Causal Argument attempts to establish that one thing causes another.
Describe Arguments from Analogy nondeductive argument.
Arguments from analogy conclude that a certain thing has a certain property because something else that is similar to it has that property.
Describe Convergent Argument.
Convergent arguments are those that draw a conclusion on the basis of two or more independent premises, each of which is supposed to give some support.
What type of nondeductive argument is this: “In a study of 5000 people, those who had more exposure to smoke had a higher frequency of lung cancer. Therefore, people who have more exposure to smoke have a higher frequency of lung cancer.”?
This is an example of Inductive Generalization.
List 6 ways of criticizing the arguments that generalize.
- Attack the premises. (dispute the data)
- Is there missing data in premises?
- Question the representativeness of a sample. (size of the sample, sample selection)
- Strength of a conclusion relative to premises. Is conclusion too strong or too weak for the support given by the premises?
- Pointing to a shift in the Unit of Analysis. Has the author shifted the unit of analysis between premises and the conclusion?
- Challenging the truth of the conclusion.
List 3 ways of criticizing the statistical syllogisms.
- Doubting the premises.
- Indicating that sequence of premises dilutes the likelihood of the conclusion.
- Show that the argument does not use all available relevant evidence.
Five ways of correlation not necessarily leading to causation.
- The correlation might be coincidental.
- The items might be correlated because they are both effects of the same underlying cause.
- The causal relation might be genuine but insignificant.
- The causal relation might be in the wrong direction.
- The causal relation might be complex.
- What is cited as cause might be only part of the cause.
What is a cause?
The cause can be characterized as a condition without which the effect would not have occurred.
What is a double blind study?
It’s a study in which neither the person that partakes in a study nor the judge of the results is aware of whether the medicine has actually been given.
What is the general form of the argument from analogy?
(1) Both thing 1 and thing 2 have common characteristics A, B, C ….
(2) Thing 1 has a characteristic Z
(likely) Thing 2 has a characteristic Z
List the ways of criticizing the arguments from analogy.
- List the characteristics that make the thing 1 and thing 2 dissimilar. These have to be RELEVANT dissimilarities.
- Challenge the premises. There are 2 types of premises in the argument from analogy: 1st lists the similar characteristics of things, 2nd - attributes an additional characteristic to one of those objects.
List the steps of convergent argument critique.
- List the initial convergent argument and counter-considerations.
- Add further considerations.
- Eliminate doubtful considerations.
- Blunt or promote considerations.
How is criticizing the convergent argument different from critique of the deductive one?
In deductive argument when you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion. In the convergent argument you can still criticize the conclusion even if you accepted the premises.
What type of inductive argument is this:
(1) In studies of 2000 people, those who had more exposure to environmental smoke had a higher frequency of lung cancer.
(likely) People who have more exposure to environmental smoke generally have a higher frequency of lung cancer.
This is “inductive generalization” type of inductive argument. Or “sampling argument” - particular to general.
What type of inductive argument is this:
(1) Most long-time heavy smoker suffer from smoking-related health problems.
(2) John is a long-time, heavy smoker
(likely) John will suffer from smoking-related health problems.
This is “statistical syllogism” type of inductive argument (general to particular)
What type of inductive argument is this:
(1) Exposure to environmental smoke is correlated with a higher frequency of lung cancer.
(likely) Environmental smoke causes lung cancer.
This is causal argument.
What type of inductive argument is this:
(1) Printing is like genetic engineering in that both can be used for good or evil purposes.
(2) Banning printing is a bad idea.
(likely) Banning genetic engineering is a bad idea.
This is argument by analogy inductive argument.
What type of inductive argument is this:
(1) Legalizing assisted suicide would lead to helping people die who are disabled and not terminally ill.
(2) Legalizing assisted suicide would lead to helping people die who are depressed and later want to live.
(3) Legalizing assisted suicide would lead to people dying merely to save medical expenses
(likely) Assisted suicide should not be made legal.
This is convergent argument.
