REVIEW OF CHAPTER 2

Statement: sentence/utterance that can Non-statements: Non-arguments:

be viewed as either true or false
• Questions • Reports
• Greetings
• Unsupported assertions
Statements: core of an argument
• Commands
• Conditional sentences
• Requests
Argument: premise(s) + conclusion(s) • Illustrations
• Proposals
• Explanations
• Instructions
Argument: core of critical thinking
• Exclamations

* Assumption: hidden belief/principle that

that decides the value of the conclusion
 Argument 2

“I registered Calculus, Chemistry, and Critical Thinking for Semester 1 but my

overall scores for those courses sank to the bottom. I looked back and saw
that I had two weeks of despair due to my break up with my girlfriend during
this semester. In Semester 2, I registered Academic Writing, Public Speaking,
and Physical Education. Luckily, I got all As. So, everyone please take my
advice: never fall in love to avoid ending a relationship during your college
years if you don’t want to suffer academically. ”
 ANSWER FOR ARGUMENT 2 LOGO

Premises:
- He broke up with his girlfriend 2 weeks ago, and he got low grades in Calculus, Chemistry,
and Critical Thinking for Semester 1.
- He was lucky to get good grades in Academic Writing, Public Speaking, and Physical
Education for Semester 2.
Conclusion: He advises not to fall in love to avoid ending a relationship, which will affect
academic performance during college years.
Assumption(s):
- Other than love, no other elements influence his learning process.
- Courses in semester 2 may be slightly simpler than subjects in semester 1.
Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not reasonable:
- Loving may not become an impact which has many negative effects for his course for
semester 1. The reason can be for himself such as he is lazy or he doesn't care about general
subjects. Besides, he is not used to the new environment because universities need to learn
and find information more by themselves on the internet or book.
- Subjects for semester 2 are more attractive to him and makes it possible for him to improve
his grades. He is not good at subjects related to thinking such as calculus, physics,….
 Argument 2

Premises:
- I registered Calculus, Chemistry, and Critical Thinking for Semester 1 but my overall scores for those
courses sank to the bottom.
- I looked back and saw that I had two weeks of despair due to my break up with my girlfriend during that
semester.
- In Semester 2, I registered Academic Writing, Public Speaking, and Physical Education. Luckily, I got all
As.
Conclusion: never fall in love to avoid ending a relationship during your college years if you don’t want to
suffer academically
Assumptions:
- All subjects that he registered in both two semesters he could get all As if he didn’t fall in love and broke
up with his girlfriend.
- All subjects that he got As in semester 2, he did by all his effort and ability.
- All subjects that he registered in both semesters have same difficulty level and need the same effort
amount.
Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not reasonable for the following reasons:
- 1st assumption-based: The subjects like Calculus, Chemistry, and Critical Thinking are difficult and they
require diligence, effort and ability of each person. So he got bad score probably as he did not concentrate
on study, spent too much time for other activities like playing games, enjoying many parties,.. not only
because he broke up with girlfriend.
- 2nd assumption-based: He got all As in semester 2 probably because he cheated others
- 3rd assumption-based: each subject has different difficult level and need specific the amount of effort that
depend on each person’s ability and own perspective. So he got all As probably since he is good at these
subjects and he had more effort for these.
 Argument 2 - Suggested answer
Premises:
1. ↓scores of Calculus, Chemistry, and Critical Thinking for Sem 1
2. two weeks of despair due to breakup with girlfriend in Sem 1
3. All As for Academic Writing, Public Speaking, and PE in Sem 2

Conclusion: Never fall in love -> failed relationship -> ↓academic results
Assumption(s):
1. Difficulty levels of all subjects in Sem 1 and Sem 2 are the same.
2. Two weeks of breakup despair caused poor results in Sem 1.
3. Falling in love results in relationships and all relationships have unhappy endings.
4. Any broken relationship leads to academic failure.

Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not reasonable for the following reasons:
 1st assumption-based: Courses in Sem1 are more rational while those in Sem2 are more verbal and physical.
The arguer possibly scores all As in Sem 2 due to his/her major in social sciences and humanities (not
because of his/her failed relationship).
 2nd assumption-based: Other causes may be his laziness, or his looking around for a new girl, etc.
 3rd assumption-based: Falling in love may be one-sided love, which does not result in a relationship.
Additionally, there are relationships that last not only for college years but also for life.
 4th assumption-based: When their time is no longer for their sweethearts, some college students may focus
all of their energy on study as a way to heal the pain or to prove themselves. 
 Argument 3

“In country X, vaccines are abundantly available and the government

has encouraged its people to take full vaccination (two doses) in return
for a generous money gift. In just about two months, 20 million out of its
population of 30 million have been fully vaccinated. Therefore, the
government is very positive that in one more month, the whole country
will be safe from the Covid-19 and life will get back to normal for all of
its people.”
 Argument 3
Premises:
1st.: vaccines are abundantly available and the government has encouraged its people to take full
vaccination (two doses) in return for a generous money gift.
2nd: In just about two months, 20 million out of its population of 30 million have been fully vaccinated
Conclusion: In one more month, the whole country will be safe from the Covid-19 and life will get
back to normal for all of its people
Assumption(s):
1.Giving a generous money gift make all people in the country vaccinate.
2.There are about 10M population of this country take vaccination per month.
3.Taking vaccination will protect them from all of virus variants
Evaluation:
1st assumption-based: There are some people will still doubt about the vaccines, they believe that it
will not work and afraid of getting infected.
2st assumption-based: This country have 20M population vaccinated in about 2 months. This does
not mean that the rest of population(10M) will also get two doses in the next month. Because most of
them can be the group against vaccines
3rd assumption-based: Let’s suppose that the vaccine country X use for their people is Oxford-
AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine. Then they can get their normal life until Corona create a new
variant(*1). If they use vaccine from china ( sinovac, sinopharm) they must consider the delta
variant(*2).
Soure: (*1): https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-which-vaccines-are-effective-against-the-delta-variant#Very-high-levels-of-protection-against-hospitalization
(*2): https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/sinovac-not-effective-against-delta-variant-astrazeneca-is 7
 Argument 3 - Suggested answer

Premises:
1. 2 doses of vaccines in return for money gift in country X
2. 2/3 population fully vaccinated after 2 months

Conclusion: In 1 month, all population will be safe from Covid-19 and life will get back to normal for all of its
people
Assumption(s):
1. The 1/3 remaining population (10 million) will take vaccines next month in return for the money gift.
2. The vaccination rate stays constant (10 million people will all accept vaccination in one more month).
3. No new virus variants being resistant to the current vaccines appear the next month.
4. Vaccines only are enough for safety from Covid-19.

Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not reasonable for the following reasons:
 1st assumption-based: The remaining 1/3 population may be the strong-headed who disregard/reject both
vaccines + money.
 2nd assumption-based: The target of one month for full vaccine coverage may mot be reached if the people
delay the vaccination.
 3rd assumption-based: The vaccines in use so far may be only effective for the previous virus variants, and
the new variants may resist them. Therefore, country X will not be safe even if all of its people are fully
vaccinated against the current virus variants.
 4th assumption-based: WHO recommends other preventive methods because fully vaccinated people still get
ill of Covid-19.
Argument 4
 Argument 4

Premises:
1. a small percentage of people will still get ill from Covid-19.
2. you could also pass the virus on to others who are not vaccinated
Conclusion:
3. The Covid-19 vaccine is highly effective
4. Everyone should continue to distance, wear a mask, clean hands frequently, cover
a cough or sneeze and avoid poorly ventilated areas.
Assumption(s):
5. all kinds of covid-19 vaccine is highly effective.
6. Good ways to prevent virus pass to who are not vaccinated are distancing,
wearing mask, etc.
Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not reasonable for the following reasons:
1st assumption- based: It’s not correct that all kinds of covid-19 vaccines can give
incredibly effective result.
2st assumption- based: Besides those good ways, encouraging and deploying
injections for people who have not been vaccinated is a nice solution as well.
 Argument 4
Premises:
1. A small percentage of people will still get ill from COVID-19 after vaccination.
2. Virus could pass on to other people who are not vaccinated.

Conclusion:
After being vaccinated, everybody should continually perform the methods and advices of Preventing Covid- 19.

Assumption(s):
3. The variations of the virus making the mentioned vaccine are no longer suitable.
4. The virus can spread disease from person to others via atmosphere, spittles and snivels.

Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is reasonable for the following reasons:
- 1st assumption-based: The vaccine is still effective, but over time and in some special cases, the virus varies
onto new variants such as Delta, Gamma,...,therefore the vaccine is unsuitable for new variants and people still
get ill even being vaccinated.
- 2nd assumption-based: The estimations that the virus Covid-19 can stay alive in the atmosphere and appear
in saliva and snivels. For that reasons, people should perform the advices of Preventing Covid-19 to avoid the
accidental circumstances of getting the virus Covid-19 from others via their coughs or sneezes gives an
opportunity for the virus to pass on to others.

11
 Argument 4 - Suggested answer

Premises:
1. Covid-19 vaccine is highly effective >< small percentage of vaccinated people will get ill from Covid-19 after
vaccination
2. Vaccinated people could also pass the virus to unvaccinated people

Conclusion: Everyone should continue other preventive methods other than vaccines
Assumption(s):
3. All Covid-19 vaccines have high effectiveness.
4. Current vaccines will no longer be effective (for new variants).
5. All people have applied other preventive methods other than vaccines.
6. Vaccines cannot provide full protection from Covid-19.

Evaluation:
The argument is not properly worded and persuasive for the following reasons:
 1st assumption-based: Not all vaccines are highly effective (Sinovac: 51%-WHO)
 2nd assumption-based: There will be new virus variants making the current vaccines ineffective.
 3rd assumption-based: Anti-maskers, anti-social distancers, anti-lockdown protesters, etc. have never applied
any preventive methods, why does WHO ask them to continue?
 4th assumption-based: If vaccines cannot provide full protection and other preventive methods are required for
everyone, why risk taking vaccines?
 Lesson 3

BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

13
Observe and answer

What will happen?

 Observe and answer

Which picture in the 2nd row continues the first row?

Two basic categories of human reasoning

 Deduction: reasoning from general premises,

which are known or presumed to be known, to more
specific, certain conclusions (formal reasoning)

 Induction: reasoning from specific cases to more

general, but uncertain, conclusions (informal
reasoning)
 Examples of deductive and inductive reasoning

 All IU students have to learn Critical Thinking.

I am an IU student.
Therefore, I have to learn Critical Thinking.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

 Today, some late students in our class said they

had had a traffic jam.
 Probably all students were late today because of
the traffic jam.
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning
 Deductive or inductive?
1. The bank’s safe was robbed last night.
2. Only two people know the safe’s combination lock: Cheaty and
Fraudy.
3. Fraudy was also seen sneaking around outside the bank last
night.
4. Meanwhile, Fraudy needed money to pay his gambling debts.
5. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Fraudy broke in and
robbed the safe.
6. Whoever opens the safe knows the safe’s combination lock.
7. Cheaty is now on business abroad.
Reordered argument: 1, 6, 2, 7, 4, 3, 5
→ Deductive argument
 Deductive or inductive?

In real life, arguments are not always in standard forms,

which means certain premise(s) may be missing or inclusive.

Example:
Lincoln was President from 1861 to 1865.
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the 19th century.

Standard deductive argument:

The 19th century is from 1801-1900. (missing general premise)

Lincoln was President from 1861 to 1865. (minor premise)
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the 19th century.
(conclusion)
 Deductive or inductive?
In real life, arguments are not always in standard forms,
which means certain premise(s) may be missing or inclusive.
Example:

All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good. Therefore, Stephen
King’s next novel will probably be good.

* ‘All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good.’ (generalized

premise) includes several particular premises:
1. Stephen King’s first novel was good. (specific premise)
2. Stephen King’s second novel was good. (specific premise)
3. Stephen King’s most recent novel was good. (specific premise)

→ Inductive argument
 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

Police: You didn’t turn on the left indicator

light before you turned left. Therefore, you

must sign the traffic citation form.

 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Police’s argument:

1. In Vietnamese traffic law, 16 year-olds can only ride 50cc motorbikes.

(missing general premise)

2. You are under 16. (specific premise)

3. Therefore, you violated Vietnamese traffic law. (conclusion)

→ Deductive argument
 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

On-looker’s argument:
1. The police stopped two teenagers on their way to school. (observation 1)

2. The police were writing something on a motorbike. (observation 2)

3. One teenager was wearing the red scarf for secondary school.(observation 3)

4. I guess the two teenagers were being fined for underage driving. (conclusion)

→ Inductive argument
 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

Doctor: Tim is having a fever, aching muscles, and a dry,

persistent cough. Perhaps he is having the flu.

 Your turn: Deductive or Inductive?

Doctor: Tim is having a fever, aching muscles, and a dry,

persistent cough. Perhaps he is having the flu.

Perhaps he is having the flu. (conclusion)

Generalization of flu symptoms: fever over 100.4 F (38oC), aching muscles, chills and

sweats, headache, dry, persistent cough, fatigue and weakness, nasal congestion, sore

throat (pattern)
Tim is having a fever. (observation/specific premise 1)

Tim is having aching muscles. (observation/specific premise 2)

→ Inductive argument
Tim is having a dry, persistent cough. (observation/specific premise 3)
 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

Rằng tôi chút phận đàn bà

(Hoạn Thư – Truyện Kiều)

Ghen tuông thì cũng người ta thường tình

I’m a woman.

So it’s normal when I’m jealous.

 Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

1. Women are jealous. (missing general premise)

2. I’m a woman. (specific premise)

3. So, it’s normal that I’m jealous. (conclusion)

(Hoạn Thư – Truyện Kiều)

→ Deductive argument
 Deductive arguments’ claims

General premise   If the premises are true, the

conclusion must be true.

Specific premise
 The conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises.
 It is impossible for all the
Specific
premise premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
 If you accept the premises, you
Conclusion
must accept the conclusion.
 Deduction indicators

certainly definitely
absolutely conclusively
It logically follows that
It is logical to conclude that
This logically implies that
This entails that
 Inductive arguments’ claims
Generalization  If the premises are true,
(theory)
the conclusion is
probably true.
Conclusion  The conclusion follows
(hypothesis)
probably from the
premises.
 It is unlikely for the
Pattern
premises to be true and
the conclusion false.
 The conclusion is
Premise Premise Premise
(observation) (observation) (observation) probably true if the
premises are true.
Sample inductive reasoning

P.1. Singer T’s boyfriend is 11 years younger than her.

P.2. Actress V’s date is 11 years younger than her.
P.3. Singer’s Q’s partner is 11 years younger than her.
C. So, it’s not true that we’re unmatched; it’s probable
that our sweethearts are just kids now!
 Induction indicators

probably likely
One would expect that
It is plausible to suppose that
It is reasonable to assume that
Chances are that
Odds are that
COMMON PATTERNS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Argument by elimination
4. Argument based on mathematics

5. Argument from definition

 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (chain argument)

If you miss the bus, you’ll be late for class.

If you’re late for class, you’ll miss the lesson.
So, if you miss the bus, you’ll miss the lesson.

Pattern: If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

Valid
 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(modus ponens – affirming the antecedent)

If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll

have to study hard.
You certainly want to get the scholarship.
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard.

Pattern: If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B
Valid
 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(modus tollens – denying the consequent)

If you live in Paris, then you live in France.

You don’t live in France.
Therefore, you don’t live in Paris.

Pattern: If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

Valid
 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(denying the antecedent)

If Mr. Smith is President of the U.S., then

he’s a famous person.
Mr. Smith is not President of the U.S.
Therefore, he’s not a famous person.

Pattern: If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

Invalid
 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(affirming the consequent)

If you live in Paris, then you live in France.

You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.

Pattern: If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

Invalid
 Task: Sort them out.
1. If we’re in London, then we’re in England. We are not in
England. So, we are not in London.

2. If we’re in Los Angeles, then we are in the United States. We

are in the United States. So, we are in Los Angeles.
3. If we’re in the United States, then we are on Earth. We are in
the United States. So, we are on Earth.
4. If we’re in Paris, then we are in France. If we’re in France, then
we are in Europe. So, if we are in Paris, then we are in
Europe.
5. If we’re in Houston, then we are in the United States. We are
not in Houston. So, we are not in the United States.
 Task: Sort them out.
6. If we’re in Shanghai, then we are in China. So, we are in
China, because we are in Shanghai.
7. We are not in Mexico, because if we are in Mexico City, we
are in Mexico, and we are not in Mexico City.
8. We are in India if we are in Calcutta. Since we’re in India,
we are in Calcutta.
9. If we’re in Toronto, then we are in Canada. If we are in
Canada, we are in North America. So, if we are in Toronto,
then we are in North America.
10. We’re in Berlin, given that if we are in Berlin, then we are in
Germany, and we are in Germany.
 2. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Example 1: With ‘All’

All Critical Thinking books contain deductive and inductive arguments.
All deductive and inductive arguments are patterns of logical reasoning.
So, all Critical Thinking books contain patterns of logical reasoning.

Example 2: With ‘Some’

Some students in our class are exchange students.
All exchange students are foreigners.
So, some students in our class are foreigners.
 3. Argument by elimination

Example 1:
Either you are married or you are single by law.
You are not married.
Then you are single by law.

Example 2:
All arguments are either deductive or inductive.
Jack’s argument is not deductive.
Therefore, his argument is ______.
 4. Argument based on Mathematics
Question:
The sun is 93 million miles from Earth, and light travels at a rate of
186,000 miles per second. How long does it take for light from the sun to
reach the Earth?

The formula for calculating time is t(time) = distance/speed. (general premise)

Sunlight travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per second (s). (specific premise)

The sun is more than 93 million miles away from Earth (d). (specific premise)
Therefore, it takes 500 seconds for light from the sun to reach
(conclusion)
the earth.
 4. Argument based on Mathematics

1+1=?

1+1=2 (integer)

1 shoe + 1 shoe
= 1 pair of shoes

The use of precise vocabulary and grammar is essential in arguments

based on mathematics.
 5. Argument from Definition
Example 1:
Mary is 13 years old. Therefore, she is a teenager.
Definition of a teenager: a person aged between 13 and 19
years
*Example 2:
Daisy is my daughter. Therefore, she is a female.
Definition of a daughter: a girl or woman in relation to her
parents.

Question for example 2: Is this conclusion true?

Answer: It used to be true.
 Deductive validity
 Valid deductive arguments: conclusion must follow from premises;
in other words, it’s impossible that all premises are true but the
conclusion is false.
Example 1:
If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard.
You certainly want to get the scholarship.
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard.

 Valid
Example 2:
If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard.
You don’t study hard at all.
Therefore, you will get the scholarship.

 Invalid
 Deductive validity
 Valid deductive arguments: may be sound or unsound

Example 1:
All International University students do their majors in English.
I’m an International University student.
Therefore, I do my major in English.

 Valid and sound (true)

Example 2:
All International University students are aliens.
I’m an International University student.
Therefore, I’m an alien.

 Valid but unsound (true)

Generalization of deductive validity
 Make an argument and evaluate it
Bill: I’m sure some of the seniors were late to practice this
morning.
Diane: How do you know?
Bill: Because the coach said that if anyone is late to practice
this morning, they would have to run 10 rounds, and I just saw
some of the seniors run 10 rounds. That’ll teach them.
Argument:
If students are late to practice, they have to run 10 rounds.
Some seniors ran 10 rounds this morning.
Therefore, they were late to practice.

If A, then B.
Invalid (affirming the consequent) B.
Therefore, A.
 Make an argument and evaluate it

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. You will die of lung

cancer because you have been a heavy cigarette smoker for
many years.
Argument:
Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
You have been a heavy cigarette smoker for many years.
Therefore, you will die of lung cancer.
Valid but unsound: (First premise is false. Smoking just
increases the risk of lung cancer.)
 Fun corner: Valid/Invalid - Sound/Unsound?

 I skipped breakfast for a week to save $16 for my

first date. I bought my girl 9 roses at $1.50/each.
Then we went to the park and had two cans of
diet coke at $2/each while enjoying our wonderful
moment together. So, life is still wonderful with
just $16 for a date!   

16 – 13.5 – (2 x 2) = -1.5 INVALID

COMMON PATTERNS OF INDUCTIVE REASONING

1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from authority

4. Causal argument
5. Statistical argument
6. Argument from analogy
 1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION

My boyfriend never gives me a flower on

Valentine or March 8. All men are so
unromantic!

Too hasty conclusion!

 2. PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT

Every time I come home with the smell of

beer, my wife gets angry! I’ve just drunk a
lot of beer. So my wife will get angry.
 3. ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

According to the information I read on

vnexpress.net, 90% of Vietnamese men
are unfaithful and selfish. The remaining
10% are not true men. I’ll never get
married to a Vietnamese man for sure!
 4. CAUSAL ARGUMENT

I can’t call him on my mobile phone. I’m

sure the network is down.
weak

I can’t call him on my mobile phone. The

network is probably down.

strong
 5. Statistical argument

100% of IU students have to learn Critical

Thinking while this subject is optional at
University X. Therefore, IU has more
critical thinkers than University X.
 6. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
 A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic.
 B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic.
 C is an IU student, so I’m sure she’s confident and dynamic.

Weak

 A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic.

 B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic.
 C is an IU student, so it’s likely that she’s confident and
dynamic.

Stronger
 Inductive strengths
 Strong inductive arguments: The conclusion is probably
true if the premises are true.
 Weak inductive arguments: Premises, even if they are
assumed to be true, do not make the conclusion probable.
Example 1:
Kim told me her family is not affordable for her college tuition.
She has been studying so hard in the last year of high school.
Kim is probably trying to gain a college scholarship.
Strong
Example 2:
About 5% of IU students are international students now. Kim is
an IU student. So she is probably an international student.
 Inductive strengths (cont)

Strong and weak inductive arguments come in degrees:

Example 1:
There is a 90% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
Example 2:
There is a 60% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
Example 3:
There is a 40% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
 Inductive strengths (con’t)

Strong inductive arguments may be cogent or uncogent:

Example 1:
It’s the rainy season and it has been raining for the last 3 days.
Therefore, it is probably going to rain today.
Strong and cogent (convincing)
Example 2:
Rainy days have resulted in dry weather and it is raining now.
Therefore, we’ll probably have dry weather today.
Strong but uncogent (at least one premise is false)
Generalization of inductive strength
 PRACTICE

DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

valid/invalid? weak or strong?

sound/unsound? cogent/uncogent?
1. Identify the premise(s) and conclusion.
2. Identify the type of argument.
3. Evaluate each argument.
 Argument 1 Argument 2
 A sample of fifty motorists  The Law of the Sea treaty
who were stopped in states that any vessel beyond
accidents on the freeway a 12 mile limit is in
revealed that one in four international waters. The
drivers were either treaty also states that any
uninsured, intoxicated, or vessel in international waters
both. Thus, if you get cannot be legally stopped or
involved in an accident on boarded. Therefore, when the
the freeway, there is a U.S. Coast Guard stops
25% chance the other boats coming from Cuba or
motorists will be drunk or Haiti more than 12 miles from
uninsured. the U.S. coast, it is violating
the Law of the Sea.
 Deductive or inductive reasoning?
1. A sample of fifty motorists who were stopped in accidents on
the freeway revealed that one in four drivers were either
uninsured, intoxicated, or both. (Specific premise)
2. Thus, if you get involved in an accident with motorcycles on
the freeway, there is a 25% chance the motorists will be
drunk or uninsured. (Conclusion)

→ inductive argument

‘a 25% chance’ → strong

‘a sample of 50 motorists’ (too small) → weak → uncogent

Uncogent argument
 Deductive or inductive reasoning?
1. The Law of the Sea Treaty states that any vessel beyond a 12
mile limit is in international waters. (General premise)
2. The Treaty also states that any vessel in international waters
cannot be legally stopped or boarded. (General premise)
3. The U.S. Coast Guard stops boats coming from Cuba or Haiti
more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast. (Specific premise)
4. Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard is violating the Law of the
Sea. (Conclusion)

→ deductive argument: valid

If 1 + 2 are true → sound

If either 1 or 2 is untrue, or both 1 + 2 are untrue → unsound
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
 Review of Chapter 3

DEDUCTIVE PATTERNS INDUCTIVE PATTERNS

1. Hypothetical syllogism 1. Inductive generalization

2. Categorical syllogism 2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from definition 3. Argument from authority
4. Argument from elimination 4. Causal argument
5. Argument based on mathematics 5. Statistical argument
6. Argument from analogy
 Individual bonus work

Write your answers in the form of the argument as

instructed.
One correct answer wins you one bonus point. 

Send your answer file (saved in your full name + bonus

work) to the same link of Assignment 3.
Deadline: Same as Assignment 3.
 Puzzle 1: Hypothetical argument

Two fathers and their sons went fishing.

Each caught one fish, but when they came home, there
were only 3 fish. How could this be?
(None of the fish was eaten, lost, or thrown back.)

Instruction: Write your answer in the form of a hypothetical argument; the

conclusion is your answer.
Puzzle 2: Argument based on definition and elimination

A man on a park bench is looking at a small portrait.

You ask him, "Who is that in the picture?"
The man says, “I don’t have any brothers and
sisters, and that man's father is my father's son."

Question: Can you tell what person is in the picture?

Hint: On which assumption is your answer based?

 Puzzle 3: Argument from elimination

Ms. Black, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Blonde meet after 20 years since college.
To live their wild old days, they all dyed their hair.
Ms. Black exclaims, “Wow, it’s so cool that each of us is having a hair
color different from our name!”
The lady with blonde hair nods, “Yep, Black, I can’t agree more!"

Question: Can you tell their names and their hair colors?
 Puzzle 4: Argument from mathematics

A flash flood will sweep the river in 19 minutes and no one can row
across the river.
Four people want to get to the other side before the flash flood sweeps.
They have only one boat and one paddle (only one person can row) for
two people. So, when two people get to the other side, one person has to
row the boat back to take another one. Each person can return only once
and row only twice.
Given:
A takes 2 minutes to row the boat across the river.
B takes 4 minutes.
C takes 7 minutes.
D takes 10 minutes.
Question: How can they row cross the river right before the flash flood
sweeps?
Hint: Find an assumption to save the most time possible.
 Puzzle 5: Argument from analogy

It smells like blue paint, pours like green

paint, and its color looks like a red truck.

What is it?
 Assignment for Chapter 3

Task: Make FIVE arguments from the six given clues.

Indicate:
- Premises (major/minor premises or observations)
- Conclusion
- Argument pattern: (out of 5 deductive and 6 inductive patterns)

Link to submit:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1nH0f1uaH3NsJLlkeI1ge82ixItZ5kT7_o64jWVo
9Uek/edit

Deadline: END OF WEDNESDAY

 Group:
Full name:
Full name:
….

77
 Sample arguments
Major premise: All parents have siblings hitting
each other now and then.
Minor premise: Siblings hitting each other during
quarantine always bring their parents high
hormones and drama.
Conclusion: Therefore, all parents with siblings
hitting each other during quarantine never run low
on hormones and drama.
Argument pattern: Categorical argument

Premise 1 (Observation): In the game “The Floor is Lava”, if a contestant touches “the lava,” the
show treats them like they’re literally dead.
Premise 2 (Observation): Social distancing keeps you from touching everyone outside to avoid
being literally dead.
Conclusion: Therefore, you should think of social distancing as a game of “Everyone Outside is
Lava.”
Argument pattern: Argument from analogy
Clue 1

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
Clue 2
 Clue 3

Protective measures advised by WHO

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
 Clue 4

(Source: AFP – France) (Source: vnexpress)

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
 Clue 5

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
 Clue 6

Premise 1 (observation):
Premise 2 (observation):
Premise 3 (observation):
Conclusion: It is likely that we will meet/will not be able to meet each
other on IU campus in Semester 1.

Argument pattern: Predictive argument

85