While partaking in a critical argument, it is firstly important to remember that this is
not a quarrel, you are only trying to persuade. When evaluating the argument as a
whole, it is vital that you think about credibility – are the premises supported by the
evidence that is presented? It is also important to be involved in arguments that are
sound. The soundness of an argument is based on the premises being true and
supporting the conclusion. If these things are lacking in an argument, it is likely not a
valid one.
The difference between inductive and deductive arguments is a little tricky as it is a
bit of a fine line. A deductive argument claims that the conclusion necessarily follows
the premises, as long as the premises are true and valid. The example in the book,
chapter 7, “No cats are dogs. Mindy is a dog. Therefore, Mindy is not a cat.”
Dissecting this example is quite easy to understand if the definition is not as clear. It
is rather blunt and you can easily see that it is true. An inductive argument claims
that the conclusion probably follows the premises. The example from chapter 7 says,
“Most corgis make good watch dogs. My dog Mindy is a corgi. Therefore, Mindy is
probably a good watch dog.” This example, as you can probably tell, is a little more
confusing, there are more words and indecisive words such as “probably” are used.
In my own words, deductive arguments come from a more generalized premise,
where inductive arguments are specific and direct.
After reading through the three chapters assigned this week, I think the most
interesting to study is arguments when analogies are involved. I think it throws in a
whole new twist when arguments are already a touchy subject as they have to be
very well planned, as we also learned, and wording needs to be pristine – which
analogies are not.
