PHI103 Week 2 – Discussion 1
Option #1: Examples of Three Argument forms
In the required reading this week we learned about the following argument forms: Deductive arguments, statistical syllogisms, arguments from analogy, appeals to authority, and inductive generalizations.
Choose three of the five argument forms and create an example of each. Your arguments do not have to be great arguments (you will analyze their quality below), but they should clearly be instances of the argument types you chose in question (make sure to indicate what argument type each one is).
After each argument, provide a brief analysis of its quality. If it is deductive, is it valid? Is it sound? If it is inductive, is it strong? Is it cogent? (Be sure to read the definitions from the text.) What might be done to improve the argument? What can people do to better understand and apply this type of argument in general?
Guided Response: In addition to your original post, post a minimum of three responses, at least two of which must be to your classmates. The third response could be to a classmate or your instructor. Be sure to post on three separate days throughout the week to promote further engagement and discussion. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words.
PHI103 Week 2 – Discussion 1 Answer
Examples of Argument Forms:
1. Deductive Argument:
- Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
- Analysis: This deductive argument is both valid and sound. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, and the premises are true. No improvement is necessary.
2. Inductive Generalization:
- Example: Five out of five observed swans are white. Therefore, all swans are white.
- Analysis: This inductive generalization is weak. The sample size is too small to make a reliable generalization about all swans. To improve, a larger and more diverse sample should be considered.
3. Argument from Analogy:
- Example: Since cars and airplanes both require regular maintenance for optimal performance, it follows that just as we take our cars for regular tune-ups, we should also perform routine check-ups on airplanes.
- Analysis: This argument from analogy is moderate. While there are similarities between cars and airplanes, they are distinct in many aspects. To improve, the analogy could be strengthened by identifying more specific similarities relevant to maintenance.
Guided Responses:
Response to Classmate 1: Your deductive argument is well-constructed, clear, and both valid and sound. It serves as an excellent example of a deductive reasoning process. Ensuring the clarity of premises and the validity of logical connections is essential for effective deductive arguments.
Response to Classmate 2: Your inductive generalization example clearly illustrates the potential weakness in making broad conclusions based on a small sample. Adding more instances to the observed sample would strengthen the induction and make the argument more reliable. It’s a great example of the importance of sample size in inductive reasoning.
Response to Classmate 3: Your argument from analogy effectively draws a parallel between two different scenarios. However, as you pointed out, strengthening the analogy by identifying more specific similarities would enhance its persuasiveness. This example emphasizes the need to carefully consider the relevance and specificity of analogies for a more robust argument.
