Presentation on theme: "Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning."— Presentation transcript:
Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.
Deduction Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypothesesnecessarily follows Example 1.All men are mortal 2.Socrates is a manSocrates 3.Therefore, Socrates is mortal*Socrates
The Law of Syllogism A syllogism takes two conditional statements and forms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of one statement with the conclusion of anothersyllogism 1.If Larry is sick, then he will be absent from school. 2.If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork. 3.If Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork. We deduced the solution by combining the hypothesis of the first problem with the conclusion of the second statement.
Induction Inductive arguments start with a general Premise that suggests a specific conclusion they suggest truth but do not ensure it. for example, 1.Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist. 2.All life depends on liquid water to exist. Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even where all of the premises are true.  For example:  1.All of the swans we have seen are white. 2.All swans are white.
Logical Fallacy In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. In logicrhetoric reasoningargumentation By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers or take advantage of social relationships between people. Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose
Logical Fallacy Begging the questionBegging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion. Example Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so. Problem: Billy may be lying. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.
Logical Fallacy Straw manStraw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Example Person A claims: Sunny days are good. Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong. Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.
Logical Fallacy Fallacy of False CauseFallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." Example Argument:Non Sequitur I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining. Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.sun can shine while it is raining