To reveal concealed qualifiers ask the following types of questions a What are

To reveal concealed qualifiers ask the following

This preview shows page 19 - 21 out of 58 pages.

2.To reveal concealed qualifiers, ask the following types of questions:a.What are the exceptions to the claim?b.When would the claim not hold?c.Under what conditions would the claim be true?d.What limits does the claim have? 1.A syllogism is structure of logical reasoning containing a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
Image of page 19
a. The major premise is the starting point stating something belongs in a category or class (All men are mortal). b. The minor premise states that a particular instance or case falls within the general principle of the major premise (Socrates is a man). c. The conclusion places the major premise and minor premise together (Therefore, Socrates is mortal). d. As long as both premises are true, a true conclusion should be the result. 2. Enthymemes are partially unstated syllogisms requiring the audience to participate to complete the syllogism. a. Whenever you encounter an enthymeme, reconstruct the entire set of propositions to discover possible logical flaws. b. Determine the accuracy and reliability of the argument’s components. c. Decide under what conditions the argument holds true. d. Determine if the audience will recognize the logical links between premises. B. Inductive reasoning refers to the process of learning from specific experiences. 1. Does the argument contain enough examples to justify the claim? 2. How were the specific instances selected? 3. Is the sample biased? 4. Do the instances represent typical cases or unusual exceptions? 5. Are the examples still valid? C. Cause and effect reasoning applies to times when specific conditions create results. 1. Consider origins: how did something begin? 2. Consider mechanisms: what operations keep something going? 3. Consider goals: what should be the ultimate results? D. Analogies draw conclusions based on similarities. 1. Analogies enable people to function in new situations without having to relearn everything. 2. Speakers need to establish the similarities to justify the analogy. 3. A faulty analogy attempts to link things that do not compare directly to each other. E. Speakers need to avoid common flaws in argumentation known as fallacies. 1. Attacking the person (ad hominem: against the person) is a common fallacy. a. This fallacy refers to character assassination or resorting to some type of personal insult against the arguer. b. If confronted with an ad hominem argument, then avoid counterattacking and instead attempt to bring the discussion to substantive issues.
Image of page 20
Image of page 21

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture