The_aa two_aa factors_aa that_aa I_aa would_aa consider_aa when_ evaluating_aa
an_aa argument_aa would_aa be_ clarity_aa and_aa credibility._aa If_ you_aa
do_aa not_aa have_aa clarity_aa as_aa to_aa what_aa the_aa argument_aa is_aa
regarding_aa then_a it_aa makes_aa it_aa difficult_aa to_a understand_aa exactly_aa
what_aa the_aa issue_aa is_aa and_aa whether_aa or_aa not_aa I_aa should_aa
agree,_aa disagree_aa or_aa be_a neutral_aa on_ the_ subject._aa The_aa other_aa
factor_aa being_aa credibility,_aa this_aa is_aa important_aa to_aa take_aa into_aa
consideration_aa as_aa you_aa evaluate_aa an_aa argument_aa so_aa as_aa not_aa
to_aa take_aa someone's_aa opinion_aa as_aa factual_aa information._aa We_ also_
want_aa to_aa make_aa sure_aa that_aa the_aa person_aa has_aa provided_aa
evidence_aa to_aa back_aa up_aa their_aa argument.In_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa
one_aa takes_aa the_a evidence_aa given_aa and_aa makes_aa assumptions_aa with_aa
the_aa evidence_aa provided_aa to_aa make_aa a_aa conclusion._aa However,_aa
in_a an_a inductive_ argument_ the_a information_ is_ taken_a and _aa
it_aa looks_aa for_aa the_ stronger_aa and_aa consistent_aa evidence_aa before_aa
making_aa a_aa conclusion.Reflecting_aa on_ this_aa weeks_aa lesson_ regarding_aa
deductive_aa and_aa inductive_aa arguments_aa was_aa interesting_aa to_aa me_aa
because_aa we_aa use_aa these_aa methods_aa everyday,_aa however_aa we_aa
should_aa not_aa be_a so_aa quick_aa to_aa come_aa to_aa conclusions_ without_aa
really_ looking_ into_ the_ evidence_ available_ before_ making _aa
a_aa conclusion._aa Two_aa factors_aa that_aa we_aa should_aa consider_aa when_aa
evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa would_aa be_aa credibility_aa and_aa relevance._aa
Is_ the_ presenter_ only_ bringing_ facts_ to_ the_ argument _aa
that_aa have_aa something_aa to_aa do_aa with_aa the_aa issue_aa at_aa hand_aa
or_ are_ they_ bringing_ in_a extra_ stuff_ that_ really_ is _aa
not_aa pertinent_aa to_aa this_aa topic_aa to_aa maybe_aa cloud_aa your_aa
judgement_aa or_aa sway_aa you_aa into_aa another_aa topic_aa all_aa together?_aa
Is_a the_aa presenter_aa a_aa credible_aa and_aa reliable_aa source?_aa What_aa
is_ his_ or_ her_ background? _aa Is _aa their_ stance _aa on_ the _aa
topic_aa at_aa hand_aa based_aa on_aa facts_aa or_aa opinions?_aa All_aa of_aa
this_aa matters_aa when_aa attempting_aa to_aa make_aa an_aa intelligent_aa
decision_aa on_aa a_aa specific_aa topic.
Inductive_aa arguments_aa only_aa present_aa some_aa of_aa the_aa information,_aa
just_aa enough_aa to_aa make_aa you_aa believe_aa that_aa there_aa is_aa no_aa
way_aa the_aa other_aa argument_aa could_aa possibly_aa be_aa true._aa Deductive_aa
arguments_aa would_aa be_a presenting_aa enough_aa logical_aa information_aa to_aa
make_aa a_aa more_aa sound_aa judgement,_aa for_aa instance_aa A_aa is_aa
greater_aa than_aa B_aa and_aa B_aa is_aa greater_aa than_aa C,_aa therefore_aa
A_aa must_ be_aa greater_aa than_aa C.
I_aa actually_aa really_aa enjoyed_aa the_aa pro_aa and_aa con_ articles_aa this_aa
week._aa I_aa enjoyed_ the_aa topic_aa at_aa hand_aa because_aa it_aa really_aa
is_aa a_aa real_aa world_aa issue,_aa always_aa has_aa been_aa and_aa I_aa
believe_aa it_aa always_aa will_aa be._aa It_aa can_aa be_ hard _aa to _aa
remember_aa anything_ when_aa I_aa am_aa in_ the_aa middle_aa of_aa an_aa
argument_aa but_aa it_aa would_aa be_aa very_aa helpful_aa to_aa keep_aa my_aa
surrounding_aa as_aa well_aa as_aa the_aa other_aa person's_aa feelings_aa in_aa
mind._aa I_ have_a learned_aa this_aa week_aa that_aa you_aa must_aa keep_
the_aa other's_aa persons_aa point_aa of_aa view_aa in_aa mind_aa in_aa order_aa
to_ successfully _aa get_ your _aa point_ across._ When_ evaluating _aa
an_aa argument_aa there_aa are_aa two_aa factors_aa that_aa come_aa into_aa the_aa
equation_aa and_aa those_aa are_aa "clarity_aa and_aa credibility."_aa As_aa a_aa
person_ is_ evaluating_ an_ argument_ one_ of_ the_ most _aa
important_aa aspects_aa to_aa be_aa sure_aa they_aa understand_aa the_aa argument_a
in_aa its_aa entirety._aa We_ should_aa all_aa ask_aa for_aa clarification_aa so_aa
that_aa we_ can_aa better_aa support_aa the_aa argument._a If_aa you_aa don't_aa
fully_aa understand_aa an_aa argument_aa then_aa you_aa aren't_aa truly_aa
evaluating_a the_aa argument._aa Which_a is_aa also_aa why_ the_a other _aa
factor_aa of_aa evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa comes_aa in_aa -_aa credibility._
In_a order_aa to_aa truly_aa evaluate_aa any_aa argument_aa you_ have_a to_
consider_aa the_aa source_aa and_aa information._ Is_aa it_aa from_aa a_aa
reliable_aa and_aa creditable_aa source?_aa If_aa you_aa don't_aa examine_aa the_aa
credibility_aa or_aa gain_aa clarity_aa a_aa person_aa won't_aa be_aa able_aa to_aa
support_aa the_aa argument._aa For_aa me_aa personally_aa I_aa have_aa to_a
work_aa on_aa "assuming"_aa too_aa much_aa or_aa not_aa digging_aa deeper_aa
to_aa find_aa the_ credibility._aa This_aa chapter_aa has_aa helped_aa me_aa to_aa
take_aa my_aa time_aa to_ evaluate_aa the_aa argument_ and_aa it's_aa entirety_aa
before_aa I_ start_aa to_aa speak_aa on_aa it.
From_aa the_aa reading_aa in_aa Chapter_aa 7_aa &_aa 8_aa I_aa understand_aa
the_aa difference_aa between_aa deductive_aa and_aa inductive_aa arguments_aa is_aa
that_aa inductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa as_aa solid_aa or_aa strong_aa and_aa
could_ come_ from_ a_ probability_ and_ not_ a_ definite. _aa
Deductive_aa arguments_aa can_aa be_aa fact_aa or_aa fiction.
After_aa completing_aa this_aa weeks'_ assignments_aa and_ recapping_aa what_aa
I_ learned_ the_ realization_ of_ what_ I_ stated_ in_ the _aa
first_aa paragraph_aa is_aa that_ I_aa need_ to_aa evaluate_aa the_aa argument_aa
and_aa really_aa gain_aa clarity_aa and_aa credibility_aa before_aa I_aa respond._aa
It's_aa very_aa easy_aa for_aa me_aa to_aa assume_aa the_aa information_aa is_aa
credible_aa and/or_aa assume_aa I_aa understand_aa the_aa argument_aa instead_aa
of_aa asking_aa for_aa clarity._aa We_aa all_aa have_aa things_aa to_aa work_aa
on_aa but_aa this_aa week's_ reading_ help_a me_ understand_aa myself _aa
a_aa little_aa more._aa Be_aa quick_aa to_aa clarify_aa not_aa quick_aa to_aa
respond._aa The_aa two_aa factors_aa you_aa need_aa to_aa consider_aa when_aa
evaluating_ an_ argument_ are_a clarity_ and_ credibility._ These _aa
two_aa things_aa are_aa important_aa because_aa without_aa them_aa you_aa can_aa
have_aa a_aa constructive_aa argument_aa and_ will_aa just_aa have_aa
meaningless_aa banter._aa You_aa have_aa to_aa be_aa able_ to_aa understand_aa
what_aa the_aa argument_aa is_a about_aa and_aa make_a sure_aa the_ points_aa
are_aa all_a credible._aa Being_ able_aa to_aa put_aa these_aa two_aa things_aa
together_aa make_a the_aa main_aa ingredients_aa to_aa a_aa good_aa argument.
The_ reading_ in_ these_ chapters_ tell_ us_ what_ inductive _aa
and_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa are._aa These_aa give_aa us_aa the_aa book_aa
definition_ of_ these,_ but_ I_ believe_ the_ most_ basic _aa
meaning_aa of_aa these_aa are_aa that_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa based_aa
on_aa facts_aa but_aa don't_aa really_aa give_aa a_aa full_aa definition_aa of_aa
that_aa fact._aa Meaning_aa that_aa it_aa will_aa almost_aa lead_aa you_aa to_aa
believe_aa that_aa what_aa is_ being_aa argued_aa is_a the_aa point_ and _aa
not_aa the_aa facts._ As_aa for_aa inductive_aa will_aa give_aa the_aa facts_aa
and_aa stick_aa to_aa them_aa and_aa give_aa you_aa a_ reasonable_aa meaning_aa
for_aa the_aa point_aa of_ the_ argument, _aa it _aa won't_ lead _a you _aa
to_aa believe_aa the_aa truth_aa is_aa there_aa because_aa the_aa facts_aa "should_aa
show_aa you_a them"
The_aa most_ interesting_aa activity_a this_aa week_ was_aa reading_aa two_aa
articles_aa and_a seeing_aa how_aa one_a topic_ has_aa opposite_ views. _aa
But_aa them_aa a_aa lot_aa of_aa topics_aa have_aa two_a sides_aa to_aa them,_aa
but_aa this_aa one_aa definitely_aa had_aa two_aa strong_aa arguments_aa for_aa
both_aa sides._aa After_aa reading_aa Chapter_aa 6_aa evaluating_aa arguments,_aa
two_aa factors_aa I_aa consider_aa when_aa evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa is_aa
clarity_aa and_aa credibility._aa I_aa picked_aa clarity_aa because_aa if_aa a_aa
person_aa is_aa not_aa clear_aa and_aa do_aa not_aa have_aa a_aa good_aa
understanding_a what_aa person_aa is_a saying_ it_ could_ cause_aa an _aa
argument_aa among_aa people._aa It_aa is_aa always_aa better_aa to_aa be_aa
clear,_aa explain_aa and_aa give_aa an_aa explanation_aa to_aa what_aa it_aa is_aa
you_aa are_aa stating_aa when_aa having_aa a_aa argument._aa Another_aa factor_aa
I_aa consider_aa was_aa Credibility._aa I_aa picked_aa credibility_aa because_aa it_aa
is_aa important_aa to_aa have_aa true_aa information_ that_aa you_aa can_aa
prove_aa to_aa be_aa true_aa than_ to_aa make_aa assumptions_aa based_aa off_aa
of_aa what_aa you_aa think_aa or_aa how_aa you_aa think_aa it_aa should_aa be.
Inductive_aa Arguments_aa can_aa be_ stronger_aa or_aa weaker_aa and_aa not_aa
true_aa or_aa false._aa To_aa me_aa meaning_aa that_aa you_aa can_aa have_aa
a_aa good_aa or_aa bad_aa argument_aa but_aa what_aa you_aa are_aa saying_aa
is_aa neither_aa true_aa or_aa false._aa Deductive_aa Argument_aa is_aa when_aa
the_ argument_ is_ true_ and_ all_ the_ facts_ are_ valid. _aa
The_aa most_ interesting_aa concept_aa I_aa found_aa interesting_aa was_aa the_aa
factors_aa of_aa evaluating_aa Arguments._aa I_aa found_aa this_aa interested_aa
because_aa it_aa gave_aa different_aa factors_aa on_aa ways_aa how_aa to_aa
break_aa down_aa different_aa ways_aa to_aa evaluate_aa arguments._aa Clarity_aa
and_aa Credibility_aa are_aa the_aa most_aa important_aa factors_ when_aa
evaluating_aa an_aa argument._aa Most_aa speeches_aa or_aa debates_aa would_aa
not_aa be_aa credible_a if_aa the_aa speaker_aa does_a not_aa have_aa their _aa
speaking_aa points_a correct_aa or_aa in_aa order._aa These_aa examples_ are_
mostly_aa seen_aa in_aa a_ Presidential_aa Debate_aa or_aa even_aa a_aa high_aa
school_aa speech_aa class._aa Even_aa though_aa clarity_aa and_aa credibility_aa
are_aa very_aa important_aa most_aa people_aa can_aa be_aa persuaded_aa by_aa
only_aa partial_a truths.
I_aa would_aa suggest_aa that_aa the_aa biggest_aa difference_aa between_aa
inductive_ and_ deductive_ arguments_ is_ that_ deductive_ is _aa
mostly_aa based_aa on_aa facts_aa and_ not_aa thoughts._aa Deductive_aa is_aa
mostly_aa driven_aa by_aa elimination,_aa mathematic_aa and_a definitions._aa By_aa
using_aa deductive_aa a_aa person_aa speaking_ will_ most_ likely_aa drive_aa
the_aa points_aa of_aa those_aa three_aa concepts_aa (elimination,_aa mathematic_aa
and_aa definitions)_aa and_aa make_aa valid_ arguments _aa using_ facts _aa
based_aa on_aa the_aa three_aa types_aa of_aa arguments._aa Typically_aa inductive_aa
arguments_aa will_aa be_aa weaker_aa and_aa more_aa opinionated._aa I_aa believe_aa
that_aa studying_aa the_aa factors_aa of_aa clarity_aa and_aa credibility_aa are_aa
the_aa most_aa interesting_aa concepts_aa that_aa I_aa learned_aa about_aa during_aa
the_aa week._aa I_aa feel_aa that_aa it_aa is_ very_ important_aa to_aa use_aa
use_aa clarity_aa and_aa credibility_aa in_aa your_aa personal_ and_aa professional_aa
life._aa Leading_aa by_aa those_aa examples_aa will_aa ensure_aa that_aa you_aa
are_aa a_aa clear_aa and_aa transparent_aa employee_aa or_aa leader.
Five_aa factors_aa should_aa be_aa considered_aa when_aa evaluating_aa an_aa
argument._aa zz_
• Clarity
• Credibility
• Relevance
• Completeness
• Soundness
Of_aa these_aa five_a components_aa used_aa to_aa construct_ and_aa analyze_aa
an_aa argument,_aa I_aa believe_ that_ clarity_ is _aa one _aa of _aa the _aa
most_aa important_aa factors.
Having_aa clarity_aa allows_aa you_ to_aa identify_aa the_aa issue(s)._aa Being_
clear_aa about_aa the_aa issue(s)_aa helps_aa keep_aa the_aa argument_aa focused._aa
If_aa the_aa issue(s)_aa is_aa unclear,_aa the_aa argument_aa goes_aa nowhere_aa
and_aa can_aa leave_aa people_aa feeling_aa frustrated_aa and_aa misunderstood._aa
A_a valid_ argument_ clearly_a presents_aa the_ issue _ with _ good _aa
reasons_aa and_aa allows
one_aa to_aa accept_aa or_aa reject_aa a_aa particular_ position_aa to_aa make_aa
up_aa their_a own_aa mind_aa about_aa an_aa issue.
Though_aa all_ five _aa factors _aa are _aa essential _aa to_ forming _aa a _aa
great_aa argument,_aa credibility_aa is_aa the_aa second_aa most_aa crucial_aa
component._aa It_aa is_aa important_aa to_aa have_aa credible_aa evidence_aa to_aa
support_aa claims._aa Credible_aa evidence_aa should_aa be_ accurate,_aa unbiased,_aa
complete,_aa and_aa consistent_aa with_aa other_aa relevant_aa evidence._aa The_aa
more_aa evidence_aa there_aa is_aa to_aa support_aa the_aa claim,_aa the_ more_aa
reasonable_ it _aa is_ to_ accept._ Having_ impeccable _aa credibility _aa
helps_aa form_aa and_aa support_aa the_aa remaining_aa components_aa of_aa an_aa
argument;_aa relevance,_aa completeness,_aa and_aa soundness._aa
Inductive_aa arguments_aa contain_aa evidence_aa based_aa on_aa social_aa behavior_aa
and_aa generalization;_aa they_aa are_aa neither_aa true_aa nor_aa false._aa Inductive_aa
arguments_aa can_aa have_aa social_aa error_aa and_aa fallacies_ because_aa it_aa
is_ based_ on_ generalization_ (stereotyping)_ and_ probability _aa
instead_aa of_ certainty._aa
Deductive_aa arguments_aa are_ based_aa on_aa mathematical_aa evidence_aa and_aa
certainty._aa A_aa valid_aa deductive_aa argument_aa has_aa true_aa premises_aa
and_aa conclusions._aa Deductive_aa arguments_aa have_aa credible_aa evidence_aa
and_aa logic,_aa making_aa the_ argument_aa sound._aa To_aa remember_aa the_aa
five_aa factors_aa for_aa the_aa criteria_aa to_aa use_aa to_aa construct_aa and_aa
analyze_aa an_aa argument_aa is_aa an_aa excellent_aa resource._aa
I_ am_ intrigued_aa to_ begin_ paying_aa attention_aa to_aa arguments _aa
and_aa practice_aa identifying,_aa breaking_aa down,_aa diagramming,_aa and_aa
evaluating_aa arguments_aa to_aa see_aa how_aa valid_aa and_aa sound_aa they_
are._aa Two_aa factors_aa we_aa should_aa consider_aa when_aa evaluating_aa an_aa
argument_aa is_ Clarity_aa and_aa Credibility._aa Identify_aa if_aa the_aa terms_aa
are_aa clear_aa and_aa understandable._aa If_a it's_aa not_ clear_aa ask_ for_a
clarification,_ that_ is_ your_ first_ step._ Second_ factor_a to _aa
consider_aa is_aa credibility._aa Ensure_aa that_aa the_aa premises_aa are_aa
credible_aa and_aa backed_aa with_aa by_a evidence.Inductive_aa argument_aa is_aa
a_aa collection_aa of_aa evidence_aa of_aa something_aa specific_aa that_aa is_aa
collected_aa and_ supports_aa a_aa general_aa conclusion._a It_aa will_ give_
information_aa that_a provides_ the_aa basis_ and_aa necessary_aa grounds _aa
for_aa a_aa deduction_aa and_aa valid_aa reasoning._aa Deductive_aa argument_aa
will_a begin _aa with _aa a_aa factual _aa premise,_a pretty_a much _aa means _aa
that_aa the_aa conclusion_aa you_aa want_ to_ reach_aa must_aa be_aa true._aa
They_aa contain_ enough_aa information_aa for_aa a_aa conclusion_aa to_ be_
given_ on_ any_ topic._ This_ type_ of_ argument_ begins _aa
with_aa a_aa statement_aa that_aa is_aa always_aa believed_aa to_aa be_ true.The_aa
most_ interesting_ part_ of_ this_ week_ was_ getting_ the _aa
opportunity_aa to_aa learn_aa how_aa to_aa recognize_aa and_aa evaluate_aa casual_aa
arguments._aa Also_aa on_aa how_aa we_aa tend_aa to_aa generalize_aa when_aa
getting_aa to_aa a_aa conclusion._aa The_aa example_aa given_aa about_aa the_aa
cat_aa was_aa perfect_aa and_aa a_aa relatable_aa explanation._aa In_aa my_aa
opinion_aa the_aa two_aa factors_aa you_aa should_aa consider_aa when_aa
evaluating_ and_ argument_ is_ clarity_ and_ credibility._ When _aa
it_aa comes_aa to_aa any_aa argument_aa that_aa is_aa given_aa you_aa always_a
need_aa to_aa understand_aa what_aa the_aa argument_aa is_aa referring_aa to_aa
because_aa if_aa neither_aa party_aa understands_aa what_ is_aa going_aa then_aa
the_a argument_aa will_ never_ come_a to_a a_aa proper_aa conclusion. _aa
Credibility_aa plays_aa a_aa huge_aa roll_aa as_aa well_aa because_ in_aa order_aa
to_aa have_aa a_aa good_aa stand_aa in_a any_aa argument_aa you_aa need_aa
to_aa have_aa facts_aa and_aa sources_aa to_aa back_aa up_aa the_aa facts_aa
which_aa will_aa give_aa you_aa a_aa strong_aa stand_aa in_a the_aa argument.In_aa
my_aa own_aa words_aa the_aa difference_aa between_aa an_aa inductive_aa and_aa
deductive_aa argument_aa is_aa that_aa deductive_aa you_a come_aa up_aa with_aa
an_aa idea,_aa then_aa an_aa observation_aa and_aa finally_aa a_aa conclusion_aa
for_aa example_aa women_aa do_aa not_ like_ going_aa shooting_aa ,_aa Sam_aa
is_aa a_aa woman_aa therefore_aa she_aa does_aa not_aa like_aa shooting._aa
Inductive_aa is_aa when_aa you_aa observe_aa something_aa ,_aa then_aa analyze_aa
it_aa then_aa come_aa up_aa with_aa a_aa theory_aa for_aa example_aa my_aa
face_aa breaks_aa out_a when_ I_aa eat_aa chocolate,_aa signs_aa of_aa allergic_aa
reaction_aa therefore_aa I_aa am_aa allergic_a to_aa chocolate.This_aa week_aa I_
really_aa enjoyed_aa watching_aa the_aa video_aa help_aa break_aa down_aa the_aa
types_aa of_aa arguments_aa and_aa everything_aa that_aa goes_aa along_a with_a
it._ Another_ thing_ I_ really_ enjoyed_ was_ the_ reading _aa
which_aa went_aa more_aa in_aa depth_aa about_aa inductive_aa and_aa deductive_aa
arguments._aa Overall_aa the_aa activities_aa were_aa a_aa great_aa breakdown_aa
of_aa everything_aa covered_aa this_aa week._aa Clarity_ and_ completeness _aa
are_aa two_aa important_aa factors_aa in_aa an_aa argument_aa that_aa go_aa
hand_aa in_aa hand._aa The_aa clarity_aa of_aa an_aa argument_aa needs_aa to_aa
be_aa clear_aa without_aa bias._aa The_aa wording_aa in_aa the_aa arguments_aa
is_aa defined_aa and_ understandable_aa without_aa having_aa mixed_aa definitions._aa
So,_aa the_aa argument_aa can_aa not_aa be_aa misconstrued._aa The_aa premises_aa
used_aa are_aa complete_aa and_aa support_aa your_aa argument._aa If_aa there_aa
are_aa missing_aa premises_aa than_aa the_aa argument_aa is_aa not_aa sound_aa
and_aa will_aa be_aa able_aa to_ be_ picked _aa apart._ Inductive_aa
arguments_ use _aa the _ probability _aa factor_ of _aa situation. _aa For _aa
instance,_aa if_aa the_aa premises_aa could_aa mostly_aa be_aa true,_aa then_aa
the_aa conclusion_aa would_aa be_aa true._aa Deductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa
based_aa on_aa eliminations_aa of_aa false_aa premises_aa to_aa come_aa to_aa
the_aa correct_aa conclusion_aa of_aa an_aa argument._aa The_aa premises_aa are_aa
true_aa than_aa the_a argument_aa is_aa true._aa Deductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa
the_aa most_aa interesting_a concepts_aa I_aa learned_aa this_aa week._aa I_aa
find_ myself_ using_ deductive_ arguments_ in_ life_ than _aa
inductive._aa I_aa do_aa not_aa like_aa to_aa have_aa issues_aa resolved_aa by_aa
chance._a Vein_a diagramming_a of_aa arguments_aa was_aa confusing_ to _aa
me._aa I_aa would_aa have_aa to_aa practice_aa it_aa more_aa to_aa understand_
the_aa concept._aa Reading_aa about_aa how_aa to_aa diagram_aa will_aa not_aa
help_aa me_aa remember_aa the _aa skill. _aa It _aa is _aa important_aa to _aa be _aa
able_aa to_aa analyze_aa an_aa argument_aa and_aa break_aa it_aa down,_aa two_aa
main_ factors_ I_ believe_ you_ should_ look_ for_ in_ a _aa
good_ argument_ is_a relevance_ and_ completeness._ while_ the _aa
information_a does_ need_a credible_aa sources,_aa the_aa premises_aa need _aa
to_aa be_aa relevant_aa to_aa the_aa argument's_aa conclusion_aa can_aa be_aa
false._aa the_aa argument_aa also_aa needs_aa to_aa be_aa complete,_aa it_aa
needs_aa to_aa consider_aa all_aa sides_aa before_aa coming_aa to_aa a_aa
conclusion._aa Without_aa checking_aa the_aa other_aa perspective,_aa the_aa
conclusion_aa can_aa become_aa biased_aa or_ invalid.An_a inductive_aa argument_aa
is_ an _aa assumption,_ A _aa theory _aa that _aa starts_ with_ an _aa
observation_aa and_aa concluded_aa without_aa much_aa evidence_aa to_aa back_aa
it_aa up._aa this_aa is_ something_aa that_aa you_aa cannot_aa necessarily_aa
prove_aa and_aa can_aa be_aa easily_ disproved_aa with_aa newfound_aa evidence._aa
an_aa example_aa is:_aa the_a last_aa 3_aa tests_aa were_aa easy,_aa therefore_aa
the_aa next_aa test_aa will_aa be_aa easy."_aa A_aa deductive_aa argument_aa is_aa
the_ opposite,_ It_ starts_ with_ a_ theory_ that_ can_ be _aa
proven_aa or_aa disproven_aa and_ the_aa conclusion_aa is_aa always_aa correct_aa
with_ the_ right_ evidence._ with_ deductive_ reasoning,_ you _aa
can_aa formulate_aa a_aa theory_aa and_aa test_aa that_aa theory_aa by_aa
collecting_ data_ and_a analyzing_ it_ until_a you_ can_ prove _aa
or_aa disprove_aa the_aa conclusion_aa of_aa the_aa argument.The_aa textbook_aa
has_ provided_ a_ lot_ of_ examples_ and_ exercises_ that _aa
helped_aa further_a my_aa understanding_aa of_aa the_aa chapters_aa we_aa are_aa
studying._aa my_aa personal_aa favorite_aa was_aa in_aa chapter_ 6,_aa breaking_aa
down_aa an_aa argument_aa by_aa identifying_aa the_aa premises_aa and_aa the_aa
conclusion._aa the_aa exercise_aa that_aa I_aa applied_aa was_aa the_aa end_aa
of_aa the_aa chapter_aa practice_aa where_aa Kennedy_aa was_aa arguing_aa for_aa
the_ rights_a of_ Gay_a marriage_ using_ facts_ and_ breaking _aa
down_aa the_aa legitimacy_aa of_aa why_aa it_aa should_aa be_ legal._aa He_aa
used_aa proper_aa premises_aa both_aa dependent_aa and_ independent_aa to_aa
support_aa his_ conclusions.one_aa thing_aa that_ I_aa had_aa to_aa struggle_
with_aa and_aa do_aa extra_aa research_aa on_aa was_aa the_aa difference_aa
between_aa Independent_aa and_aa dependent_aa Premises._aa While_aa the_aa
definition_aa of_a both_aa was_aa clear,_aa I_aa couldn't_ seem_aa to_aa get_
a_aa grasp_aa of_aa how_aa to_ use_aa them_aa in_aa the_aa example._aa Both_aa
premises_aa seemed_aa they_aa could_aa be_ used_aa on_aa their_aa own_aa or_a
conjoined_aa if_aa they_aa wanted_aa to._aa While_aa there_aa are_aa many_aa
factors_aa that_aa should_aa be_aa considered_aa while_aa evaluating_aa an_
argument,_aa I_aa think_aa Credibility_aa and_aa Completeness_aa are_aa the_aa
two_aa most_aa important._aa They're_aa the_aa opposites_aa of_aa two_aa parts_aa
of_ bad_ arguments,_ namely_ Misinformation_ and_ Withholding _aa
the_aa Truth._aa If_ we_aa fail_aa to_aa pay_aa attention_aa to_aa the_aa
credibility_aa of_aa premises_aa in_aa an_aa argument,_aa then_ our_
understanding_aa of_aa the_aa argument_aa is_aa limited_aa to_aa whatever_aa
information_a the_a arguing_a party_a gives_aa us._aa Chapter_aa 6_a had _aa
an_ excellent_ example_a of_ a_ young_ girl_ that_ presented _aa
the_ argument_ 1)_ I_ am_ a_ girl,_ 2)_ girls_ become _aa
nurses,_aa boys_aa become_aa doctors,_a therefore_aa 3)_aa I_aa cannot_aa become_aa
a_aa doctor._aa The_aa second_aa premise_aa of_aa this_aa argument_aa is_aa
clearly_aa false_aa if_aa examined_ through _aa the _aa lens _aa of_ critical _aa
thinking,_aa but_aa if_aa we_aa don't_aa apply_aa our_aa critical_aa thinking_aa
skills_aa to_a the_aa credibility_aa of_ premises_aa such_aa as_aa these_aa then_aa
we_aa can_aa have_aa a_a misguided_aa understanding_aa of_aa the_aa argument._aa
Completeness_ is_ a_ bit_ trickier_ to_ understand,_a but_a the _aa
omission_aa of_aa relevant_aa premises_aa can_aa make_aa an_aa argument_aa
seem_aa true_aa when_aa it_aa really_aa isn't._aa The_aa following_aa argument_aa
is_aa related_aa to_aa an_aa example_aa I_aa used_aa in_aa an_aa earlier_a
discussion_aa post,_aa but_aa it's_a relevant _aa here _aa too._a 1) _aa seatbelts _aa
are_aa now_aa required_aa in_aa cars,_ 2) _aa emergency _aa room _aa visits _aa
for_aa injuries_aa obtained_aa in_aa car_aa crashes_aa have_aa gone_aa way_aa
up,_aa therefore_aa 3)_aa seatbelts_aa make_aa people_aa more_aa likely_aa to_aa
be_aa injured_aa in_aa a_aa car_aa crash._aa This_aa argument_aa may_aa seem_aa
valid_aa at_aa first,_aa but_aa when_aa examined_aa through_aa the_aa lens_ of_aa
critical_aa thinking_a we_aa see_aa that_aa it's_aa incomplete._aa There_aa should_aa
be_aa a_aa third_aa premise,_aa "deaths_ from_aa injuries_aa obtained_aa in_aa
car_aa crashes_aa have_aa gone_aa way_aa down"._aa If_aa we_aa don't_aa pay_aa
attention_aa to_aa the_aa completeness_aa of_aa arguments,_aa we_aa may_aa once_a
again_aa have_ a_ misguided_ understanding_ of_ the _aa
argument.Deductive_ arguments_ remind_ me_ of_a math_ -_ the _aa
conclusion_aa is_a not_aa just_aa logically,_aa but_aa inevitably_aa drawn_aa from_aa
the_aa premises._aa The_aa Wason_aa card_aa problem_aa (or_aa the_aa more_aa
easily_aa understandable_aa underage_aa drinking_aa problem)_aa are_aa excellent_aa
examples_aa of_aa this._aa A_aa deductive_a argument_aa may_ be_aa complex_
or_aa otherwise_ difficult_aa to_aa follow,_ but_aa in_aa the_aa end_ there's_aa
only_aa one_aa factually_aa correct_aa conclusion._aa Inductive_aa arguments_aa
are_aa less_aa like_aa math_aa and_aa more_aa like_aa a_aa story._aa The_aa
premises_aa will_ point_aa towards_aa the_aa conclusion,_aa sometimes_aa with_aa
great_aa evidence,_aa but_aa there's_aa no_aa factually_aa correct_aa conclusion.I_aa
really_aa enjoyed_aa looking_aa over_aa the_aa diagraming_aa of_aa arguments_aa
in_aa chapter_aa 6._aa Of_aa course_aa I've_aa used_aa arguments_aa for_aa as_aa
long_aa as_aa I've_aa been_aa able_aa to_aa speak_aa and_aa write,_aa but_aa
I've_aa never_aa broken_aa one_aa down_aa in_aa such_aa a_aa way._aa The_aa
two_ areas_ in_ evaluating_ an_ argument_ I_ believe_ are _aa
credibility,_aa and_aa soundness._aa Credibility_aa of_aa an_aa argument_aa needs_aa
to_aa have_aa strong_aa facts_aa and_aa sources_aa to_aa be_aa viewed_aa as_aa
valid._aa Soundness_aa of_aa an_aa argument_aa is_aa also_aa a_aa primary_aa
need._aa If_aa your_aa ideas_aa are_aa not_aa well-thought_aa out_aa your_aa
argument_aa can_aa be_ flawed_ and_ not_aa very_aa sound_aa in_aa your_aa
presentation._aa Inductive _aa arguments_a usually_ follow_aa the _aa premises. _aa
They_aa are_aa either_ stronger_aa or_aa weaker_aa in_aa support_aa of_aa the_aa
conclusion_ rather_ than_ being_ true_ or_ false._ Deductive _aa
arguments_aa necessarily_aa follow_aa the_aa premises._aa That_aa is_aa if_aa the_aa
premises_aa are_aa true,_aa and_aa the_aa reasoning_aa process_aa is_aa valid.What_aa
we_aa studied_aa this_aa week_aa was_aa interesting._aa The_aa different_aa part_aa
of_aa an_aa argument_aa was_aa fascinating,_aa as_aa well_aa as,_aa how_aa to_aa
defuse_aa a_aa lot_aa of_ arguments._a I_aa got_aa the_aa gist_aa of_aa what_aa
the_aa book_aa was_aa saying,_aa but_ I_ will_aa have_ to_aa work_aa on_aa
how_aa to_aa best_aa evaluate_aa the_aa process_aa on_aa how_aa to_a present_aa
an_aa argument._aa I_aa am_aa also_aa wondering_aa how_aa you_aa would_aa
want_aa to_aa diagram_aa an_aa argument._aa Most_aa of_aa the_aa arguments_aa
I_ have_a had _a you _ do _ not _a have _a the _aa time _ to _aa do _aa
such_aa a_aa thing,_a unless_aa you_aa are_aa on_aa a_aa debate_aa team_aa on_aa
working_ as_ a_ lawyer,_ you_a do_ not_ have_ the_ time _aa
for_aa that._aa Just_aa thinking_a aloud._aa The_aa videos_aa are_aa the_aa best_aa
teaching_aa tool_aa when_aa it_aa comes_aa to_aa talking_aa about_aa these_aa
kinds_aa of_aa things._aa One_aa factor_aa that_aa should_aa be_aa considered_aa
when_aa evaluating_aa critical_aa thinking_aa is_aa clarity._aa To_aa have_aa clarity_aa
in_ an _aa argument_ means _aa that _aa you_ completely _aa understand _aa
what_ the_ argument_ entails_ and_ that_ it_ is_ straight _aa
forward._aa This_aa is_aa important_aa because_aa if_aa you_aa do_aa not_aa
understand_aa your _aa own_aa argument_aa and_aa the_ premises _aa to _aa it, _aa
it_aa has_aa no_aa value._aa Another_aa very_aa important_aa factor_aa that_aa
should_aa be_aa considered_aa when_aa evaluating_aa critical_aa thinking_aa is_aa
credibility._aa Credibility_aa in_aa an_aa argument_aa means_aa that_aa there_aa is_aa
factual_aa evidence_aa and_aa reasoning_aa to_ back_aa up_aa your_aa claim._aa
This_aa is_aa important_aa because_aa with_aa out_aa credible_aa sources_aa and_aa
evidence_aa your_aa argument_aa is_aa most_aa likely_aa invalid,_aa and_ it_aa
is_aa dangerous_aa to_ spread_aa mis-information.
The_aa differences_aa between_aa inductive_aa and_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa
are_aa drastic_aa but_aa very_aa easy_aa to_aa understand._aa While_aa the_aa
premises_aa of_ inductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa support_a for_aa the_aa
conclusion,_a the_a premises_aa of_a deductive_ arguments_aa are_a facts. _aa
I_aa think_aa the_aa major_aa difference_aa between_aa the_aa two_aa is_ that_aa
deductive_ arguments_ are_ 100%_ certain_ or_ absolute_ while _aa
inductive_aa is_aa very_aa probable_aa and_aa uncertain.My_aa favourite_aa reading_aa
from_aa this_aa week_aa was_aa chapter_aa six_aa with_aa all_aa of_aa the_aa
factors_aa to_a evaluate_aa in_aa an_aa argument._aa I_aa think_aa this_aa section_aa
will_aa truly_aa help_aa me_aa in_aa my_aa day_aa to_aa day_aa life_aa by_aa
having_aa controlled,_aa knowledgeable_aa arguments._aa one_aa of_a the_aa factors_aa
I_aa consider_aa we_aa should_aa evaluate_aa are_aa Argument_aa from_aa
definition,_aa why_aa because_ it_ is_ based_ on_aa a_a key_a term _aa
or_aa essential_aa attribute_aa in_aa a_aa defintion,_aa the_aa second_aa one_aa
is,_ Hypothetical _aa Syllogism, _aa why_ because_ it_ contains_ two _aa
premises_ at _aa least _aa one_ of _aa which_ is_ a_ hypothetical _aa
conditional_aa statement._aa Inductive_aa provides_aa support_aa but_aa not_aa
neccessarily_aa proof_aa for_aa the_aa conclusion,_aa which_aa means_aa like_aa
when_aa me_aa and_aa my_aa cousin_aa got_aa to_aa arguing_aa she_aa was_aa
saying_aa things_aa but_aa could't_aa state_aa the_aa fact_aa the_aa whole_aa
purpose_aa of_aa the_aa argument.Deductive_aa the_aa conclusion_aa necessarily_aa
follows_aa from_aa the_aa premises,_aa which_aa means_aa she_aa never_aa got_aa
to_aa the_aa bottom_aa of_aa why_aa we_aa was_aa arguing,_aa what_aa was_aa
the_aa purpose_aa and_aa getting_a loud_aa and_a anger_aa if_aa you_aa can't_aa
tell_aa us_aa the_aa reason_aa for_aa this_aa all._aa Reflecting_aa on_aa this_aa
learning_aa activity_aa it's_aa plenty_ of_aa ideas,_aa topics,_aa and_aa concepts,_aa
I_aa have_aa learn_aa and_aa it's_aa so_aa much_aa more_a I_aa would_a like_aa
to_aa learn._aa When_aa evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa I_aa believe_aa the_aa
two_aa factors_aa that_aa should_aa garner_aa the_aa most_aa attention_aa are_aa
the_aa Premise_aa and_aa Conclusion_aa of_aa the_aa argument._aa A_aa good_aa
premise_ should_ be_ based_ in _aa facts,_ knowledge_ and _a
experience._aa If_aa a_aa premise_aa is_aa based_aa in_aa opinions_aa or_aa biases_a
of_ any_ sort _aa the_ argument_a could_a be_ considered_aa faulty _aa
in_aa the_aa educational_aa field_aa and_aa in_aa terms_aa of_aa critical_aa
thinking._aa The_aa conclusion_aa should_aa be_aa in_ alignment_aa with_aa the_
arguments_aa premise_aa and_aa keep_a everything_aa cohesive._aa Being_ able_a
to_aa identify_a the_aa structure_aa and_aa tone_aa of_aa the_aa premise_aa and_aa
conclusion_ may_ also_ help_ identify_ whether_ the_ argument _aa
is_aa deductive_aa or_aa inductive.Inductive_aa arguments_aa tend_aa to_aa rely_aa
on_aa conjecture_aa or_aa a_ pattern._aa Inductive_aa arguments_ can_aa usually_aa
be_aa based_a in_aa probabilities_ or_ likelihoods_aa rather_aa than_aa facts._aa
Inductive_aa arguments_aa are_aa not_aa insured_aa and_aa can_aa be_aa viewed_aa
if_aa looking_aa for_aa probability_aa over_aa facts._aa Deductive_aa reasoning_aa
is_aa the_aa search_aa for _aa accuracy _aa and _aa precision. _ The _aa premise _aa
in_ deductive_a arguments_ are_ factual_a and_ to_ the_ point. _aa
The_aa end_aa result_aa of_aa this_aa form_aa of_aa argument_aa is_aa usually_aa
a_aa factual_aa conclusion._aa Learning_aa how_aa to_aa evaluate_aa an_aa argument_aa
based_aa on_aa clarity,_aa credibility,_aa relevance,_aa soundness_aa and_aa
completeness_ was_ definitely_ very_ helpful_ for_ me_ this _aa
week._aa I_aa feel_aa like_aa in_aa the_aa age_ of_aa misinformation_aa being_aa
able_aa to_aa sort_aa through_aa some_aa of_aa the_aa chaos_aa is_aa a_aa tool_aa
everyone_aa can_aa benefit_aa from._aa Two_aa of_aa the_aa factors_aa we_aa
should_aa consider_aa when_aa evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa are_aa Relevance,_aa
which_aa will_aa help_aa to_ ensure_a that_aa you_aa have_aa the_aa material_aa
provided_ that_ is_ factual_ and_ supports_ what_ is_ stated. _aa
The_ second_ factor_ is_ Soundness,_ to_a help_ ensure_ that _aa
there_aa is_aa evidence_aa that_aa supports_aa the_a facts_aa of_a the_aa positive_aa
conclusion_a and_aa ensure_aa it_a gives_aa specific_aa detail_a to_a make _aa
your_aa point_aa and_aa argument_aa strong._aa These_aa two_aa of_aa the_aa
five_aa factors_aa are_aa important_aa to_aa build_aa an_aa argument._aa Having_aa
these_a factors_a helps_aa to_a ensure_a that_aa you_aa are_aa clear_ in _aa
stating_ your _aa platform,_ you_ have _aa used_ credible_ material _
that_ is_ relevant,_ you_ have_a looked_ at_ all_ sides_ to _aa
ensure_aa you_aa have_aa not_aa missed_aa an_aa important_aa piece._aa Last_aa
but_aa not_aa least_aa is_aa the_aa soundness_ that_ you_ have_aa supporting_
evidence.Inductive_aa Arguments_aa suggests_aa it_aa is_aa factual_aa however_aa
using_aa certain _aa words _aa can_aa change_aa the_aa outcome _aa to_a likely. _aa
Inductive_aa does_aa not_aa have_aa all_aa the_aa proof_aa of_aa investigative_aa
facts,_aa therefore_aa they_aa are_aa weak_aa and_aa do_aa not_aa have_aa any_aa
support._ Deductive_ arguments_ are_ common _aa sense_ reasoning _aa
from_aa investigating_aa and_aa have_aa facts_aa and_aa conclusions,_a they_aa
are_aa the_aa truth._aa It_aa will_aa have_aa supporting_aa evidence.The_aa learning_aa
activity_ that_ was_ most_ interesting_ this_ week_ was_ the _aa
Video_aa explaining_aa arguments_aa and_aa how_aa it_aa helped_aa you_aa
remember_aa Clarity,_ Credibility, _ Relevance, _aa Completeness _aa & _aa
Soundness._aa "CCRCS"._ Using _aa word_ association _aa is_ always _aa
helpful_a for_aa me._a The _aa material_aa this_aa week_a was_aa explained _aa
well_ through_ the_a videos_ and_ readings._ Being_ able_ to _aa
recognize_a the_aa issue_a in_a any_aa argument_aa and_aa also_aa keeping _aa
an_aa open_aa mind_aa so_aa that_aa your_aa brain_aa can_aa ask_ the_aa right_aa
questions,_aa are_aa two_aa things_aa to_a consider_aa when_aa evaluating_aa an_aa
argument._aa These_aa are_aa two_aa important_aa parts_aa because_aa if_aa we_aa
can_aa point_a out_a the _aa issue _aa we _aa can _aa begin_a to _aa formulate _aa
an_ opinion_ or_ solution _aa to _aa the_ argument. _aa When_ my _aa
husband_aa and_aa I_aa argue_aa I_aa keep_aa an_aa open_aa mind_aa about_aa
whatever_aa it_aa is_a he_aa is_aa trying_aa to_a convey._aa When_aa I_aa do_aa
this_aa it_aa helps_aa him_aa to_aa feel_aa more_aa comfortable_aa to_aa
communicate_aa with_aa me_aa rather_aa than_aa feeling_aa attacked._aa Having_aa
a_ good_ listening_ ear_ before_ jumping_ to_ a_a conclusion _aa
is_aa vital_aa in_aa the_aa communication_aa process._aa My_aa hubby_aa likes_aa
to_aa say_aa that_aa he_aa is_aa the_aa smartest_aa man_aa that_aa I_aa know._aa
That_aa statement_aa indicates_aa an_aa inductive_aa argument_aa i_aa feel._aa I_aa
am_aa familiar_aa with_aa other_aa men_aa but_aa I_aa don't_aa know_aa their_aa
levels_aa of_aa intelligence._aa That_aa doesn't_aa make_ his _aa statement _aa
true_aa per_aa say._aa Maybe_a If_aa he_ rephrases_aa his_aa statement_ to_aa
being_aa the_ smartest_aa man_aa that_aa I_aa have_aa ever_aa been_aa married_aa
to,_aa then_aa wouldn't_aa that_aa indicate_aa a_aa deductive_aa argument?_ Its_aa
true_ and_ valid_ that_a I_ haven't_ dated_ much_ and_ in _aa
the_aa past_aa I_aa have_aa not_aa picked_aa the_aa most_ intellectual_
guys.Its_aa also_aa tru_aa that_aa we_aa are_aa married._aa I_aa think_aa this_aa
concept_aa of_aa inductive_aa versus_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa is_aa the_aa
most_aa interesting_aa topic_aa this_aa week._aa I_aa am_aa still_aa trying_aa to_aa
accurately_ pin_ point_ the_ differences._ I_ think_ I_ will _aa
further_ read_ up_a on_ this_a because_a it_a can_ be_ tricky _aa
distinguishing_aa between_aa the_aa two._aa Two_aa important_aa factors_aa that_aa
we_ should_ consider_ when_ evaluating_ an_ argument_ may _aa
include_aa premises_aa and_a the_aa presence_aa of_aa fallacies._aa The_aa main_
goal_aa of_aa an_aa argument_aa is_aa to_aa provide_aa a_aa stance_aa in_aa
regards_aa to_ a_aa certain_aa topic,_ and_ it_aa is_aa important_aa evaluate_aa
the_aa presence_aa of_aa premises._aa Premises_aa are_aa the_aa reasons,_aa and_aa
they_aa are_aa sometimes_aa not_aa absent_aa of_aa opinion_aa or_aa non_aa
credible_ facts._ Fallacies_ may_ also_ take_ form_ in_ an _
argument._ There_ may_ be_ generalizations_ that_ will_ negate _aa
the_aa credibility_aa of_aa the_ whole_aa argument.In_aa my_aa own_aa opinion,_aa
deductive_aa arguments_aa actually_aa have_aa a_ conclusion._aa For_aa example,_aa
if_aa someone_aa says_aa that_aa all_aa cats_aa are_ cute,_aa and_aa a_aa stray_aa
cats_aa are_aa cats,_aa then_aa stray_aa cats_a are_ cute._aa This_aa is_aa a_aa
deductive_aa argument,_aa but_aa it_aa is_aa invalid._aa Not_aa all_aa deductive_aa
arguments_aa are_aa valid._aa Inductive_aa arguments_aa predict_aa a_aa conclusion._aa
This_aa would_aa be_a like_aa saying_aa "Sally_a did_aa not_aa clean_aa her_aa
room._aa She_aa is_aa messy."_aa This_aa statement_aa predicts_aa the_aa conclusion_aa
that_aa she_a is_ messy.This_a week,_aa I_a enjoyed_aa learning_aa about _aa
inductive_aa and_ deducting_ arguments. _aa I_ think_a that_ it _ is _aa
important_aa to_aa be_aa able_aa to_aa evaluate_aa arguments_aa and_aa be_aa
able_aa to_a acknowledge_aa premises._a Being_aa able_aa to_aa identify_aa if_a
an_aa argument_aa is_aa valid_aa or_aa invalid_aa also_aa will_aa contribute_aa
to_aa better_aa critical_a thinking_aa skills._aa Two_aa factors_aa we_aa should_aa
consider_aa when_aa evaluating _ an _ argument _ are _aa Clarity _ and _aa
Relevance._aa Clarity_aa is_ important_aa because_aa you_aa want_aa to_aa make_aa
sure_aa you_aa clearly_aa and_aa fully_aa understand_aa exactly_aa what_aa the_aa
argument_aa is._aa If_aa you_aa evaluate_aa a_aa argument_aa without_aa clarity_aa
of_a the_ argument_ you_aa are_aa more_aa than_aa likely_a to_ have _a
a_ conclusion_ that_ doesn’t_ make_ sense_ or_ could_ be _aa
totally_aa wrong._ Relevance _aa is _aa important_ because_ you_ want _aa
to_aa make_aa sure_aa that_aa you_aa have_a relevant_aa evidence_aa to_aa
support_aa your_ argument._ If_aa it_ is_a not_aa relevant_ to_a the _aa
argument_aa then_aa it_aa cannot_a support_aa it._aa The_aa difference_aa between_aa
inductive_ and _aa deductive_aa arguments _aa is_ that_ with _aa inductive _aa
arguments_aa statements_aa more_aa so_aa offer_aa support_aa to_aa the_aa
conclusion_aa and_aa with_aa deductive_aa arguments_aa the_aa statement_aa more_aa
so_aa proves_aa the_aa conclusion_aa or_aa why_aa the_aa conclusion_aa is_aa
correct_ or_ legit._ I _aa don’t_ have_ a_ specific_ interesting _aa
activity,_aa they_a all_aa were_aa very_a much_a interesting_aa and_aa very _aa
knowledgeable._ Understanding_ exactly_ what_ an_ argument_ is _aa
and_aa the_aa breakdown_aa to_aa take_aa into_aa consideration_aa when_aa
evaluating_aa an_aa argument_aa was_aa great_aa information_aa to_aa obtain.
