Upload
teresa-cisneros
View
150
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Reasoning: COM 104
Citation preview
{
Reasoning: COM 104
Teresa Cisneros
Reasoning is the process of creating or generating
conclusions from evidence or premises.
Reasoning:• Relates to the reasonableness of an
argument (consistency between evidence and the contention)
• Constructs a logical or rational connection between the evidence and the contention
• Consists of a series of conclusions that say how the evidence and the contention are connected
Inductive Reasoning: the process of reasoning from specifics to a general conclusion related to those specifics-It allows humans to create generalizations about people, events and things in their environment. 5 ways to do this:
-By example, cause, sign comparison and by authority
Example reasoning: involves using specific instances as a basis for making a valid conclusion
Tests for reasoning by example:1. There must be a sufficient number of examples to
justify the generalized conclusion2. The examples must be typical of the whole3. Important counter examples must be accounted for4. The examples must be relevant to the time period of
your argument
Causal reasoning: is based on the idea that for every action there is a reaction
Tests of causal reasoning:1. The cause must be capable of producing the effect
described, and vice versa2. Cumulative causal reasoning increases the
soundness of the conclusion3. Counter causal factors must also be accounted for
Sign reasoning: involves interfering a connection between two related things, so that in presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other
Tests of sign reasoning:1. Other substance/ attribute relationships must be
considered2. Cumulative sign reasoning produces a more probable
connection
Comparison reasoning: is also known as reasoning by analogy
Two types of comparisons:1. Figurative comparisons: attempt to link similarities
between two cases from different classifications2. Literal comparisons: attempt to establish a link
between similar classifications: people to people, cars to cars, states to states
Tests for comparison reasoning:3. To be considered as proof, the analogy must be a
literal one4. The cases need to contain significant points of
similarity5. Cumulative comparison reasoning will produce a
more probable conclusion
Reasoning from authority: is used when a person argues that a particular claim is justified because it is held or advocated by a credible source
Two ways this type of argument can be used:1. You can ask that an argument be accepted simply
because someone you consider an authority advocates it
2. You can support your arguments with the credibility of another person
Tests for reasoning from authority:3. The authority must be credible4. Views of counter authorities must be taken into
account5. Cumulative views of authorities increase the validity of
the reasoning
Deductive reasoning: is the process of reasoning from general statements to a certain and logical conclusion related to that conclusion-A deductive argument has 3 parts: a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion1. The minor premise is a general statement2. The minor premise is a statement of a specific instance related to
the major premise3. The conclusion is the statement derived from the minor premises
relationship to the major premise
Fallacy: is an error in reasoning
Fallacy of the false dilemma: occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them
Fallacy of appeal to emotion: is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true
Fallacy of non-sequitur: describes any unwarranted conclusion, but is most often used when a statement openly contradicts itself and makes no sense
Fallacy of the slippery slope: reduces and argument to absurdity by extending it beyond its reasonable limits
Fallacy of ad hominem: consists of saying that someone’s argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself
Fallacy of hasty generalization: occurs when an arguer bases a conclusion on too few examples that are not necessarily typical of the conclusion being made
Fallacy of circular reasoning: is the assertion or repeated assertion of a conclusion without giving reasons in its support
Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance: errs by trying to make this argument in a context in which the burden of truth falls on the arguer to show that his or her position is actually true, not just that it has not yet been shown false
Bandwagon Fallacy: refers to joining a cause because of its popularity
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: (after this therefore because of this) is based upon the the mistaken notion simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event
Fallacy of Appeal to Pity: the arguer tries to get people to agree with their conclusion by evoking pity and sympathy either with their situation or the situation of some third party
Straw-Man Fallacy: the arguer attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument
“Logical appeals are powerful forces in persuasion. However, logic alone is rarely sufficient to yield persuasion. Desires and needs of receivers affect and determine what they will accept as logical demonstration. Thus, it is possible for one person to report that he or she is convinced by the logic used while another person remains horrified at the lack of logic presented.” – Kenneth Anderson