Tyr s Day, March 24: General and Particulars EQ: What are INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE arguments? Welcome! Gather pen/cil, paper, wits! Review: Inductive vs. Deductive Arguments Activity/Homework: Inductive vs. Deductive Précis Returned! ELACC12RL-RI2: Analyze two/more theme/central ideas of text ELACC12RI3: Analyze and explain how individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop ELACC12RL6: Distinguish what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant ELACC12RI6: Determine an author s point of view or purpose in a text ELACC12RI8: Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal British texts ELACC12RL-RI9: Analyze for theme, purpose rhetoric, and how texts treat similar themes or topics ELACC12RL10: Read and comprehend complex literature independently and proficiently. ELACC12W4: Produce clear and coherent writing appropriate to task, purpose, and audience ELACC12W9: Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis ELACC12W10: Write routinely over extended and shorter time frames ELACC12SL1: Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions ELACC12L6: Acquire and use general academic and domain-specific words and phrases
Compare these three arguments: Robert is a teacher. All teachers are nice. Therefore, Robert is nice. Robert is a teacher. Robert is nice. Therefore, all teachers are nice. All teachers are nice. Robert is nice. Therefore, Robert is a teacher.
An argument is valid if its conclusion follows inevitably from its premises; i.e., if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Premise: All brilligs have slythy toves. Premise: All Jabberwokks are brilligs. Conclusion: All Jabberwokks have slythy toves. An argument is invalid if its conclusion does not follow inevitably from its premises; i.e., if conclusion can be false even if premises are true. Premise: Some brilligs have slythy toves. Premise: All Jabberwokks are brilligs. Conclusion: All Jabberwokks have slythy toves. A valid argument is unsound if any premise is untrue. Premise: All brilligs have slythy toves. Premise: Mr. Saunders, despite protestations, is a brillig. Conclusion: Mr. Saunders has slythy toves.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Excerpted and adapted from Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012) Deductive Arguments Tends to move from general categories to particular instances True premises prove conclusion validity [is] the fundamental concept of deductive logic A [deductive] argument is valid if it isn t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. If the premise were true, the conclusion could not be false. o Bill Clinton is taller than George Bush o George Bush is taller than Jimmy Carter o Therefore, Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter Deductive arguments are true or false no grey area Inductive Arguments Tends to move from particular instances to general categories True premises support but don t by selves prove conclusion Inductive Arguments are weak or strong, depending on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion. o Weak argument premises give less support Husband was mad at wife, so he s the murderer We know husband was mad at wife but lots of husbands are and don t kill o Strong argument premises give lots of support We found his fingerprints on the knife stuck in her chest and nobody else s prints were on it o Reasonable Doubt speaks to this scale
Image found at http://rebelbrown.com/rebelations/2015/01/04/3-shifts-to-innovative-thinking-in-2015.html Deductive Arguments Tend to move from general to particular, or among equivalencies True premises prove conclusion Deductive arguments true or false; no grey A [deductive] argument is valid if it isn t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. If the premise were true, the conclusion could not be false. o Bill Clinton is taller than George Bush o George Bush is taller than Jimmy Carter o Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter Inductive Arguments Tend to move from particular to general True premises support but do not, by themselves, prove conclusion Inductive Arguments are weak or strong, depending on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion. o Weak premises give less support Husband mad at wife; HE killed her! Many husbands get mad, don t kill o Strong premises give lots of support We found his fingerprints on the knife stuck in her chest and ONLY his o Reasonable Doubt speaks to this scale
Label the following Inductive or Deductive. A = B; B = C; therefore, A = C. Mr. Collins has mud on his right sleeve. We had rain yesternight. Therefore Mr. Collins sat at the right side of his cab on his way here this morning. All fruits grow on trees. Apples are fruits. Therefore, apples grow on trees. Apples grow on trees. All fruits grow on trees. Therefore, apples are fruits. Apples are fruits. Apples grow on trees. Therefore, all fruits grow on trees. William is a bachelor. All bachelors are single. Therefore, William is single. William is a bachelor. William is single. Therefore, all bachelors are single. William is single. All bachelors are single. Therefore, William is a bachelor.
Label the following Inductive or Deductive. All cats that I have seen purr. Therefore, every cat must purr. The Earth is a planet, and all planets orbit a sun, therefore the Earth orbits a sun. All humans are mortal, and I am a human, so I am mortal. All dolphins are mammals, all mammals have kidneys; therefore all dolphins have kidneys. All squares are rectangles, and all rectangles have four sides, so all squares have four sides. If Dennis misses work and at work there is a party, then Dennis will miss the party. Bob is a sumo wrestler. Sumo wrestlers weigh a lot. Bob weighs a lot. All birds have feathers and robins are birds, so robins have feathers. All birds have feathers and robins have feathers, so robins are birds. Robins have feathers, and robins are birds, so all birds have feathers. It is dangerous to drive on icy streets. The streets are icy now so it is dangerous to drive now. All cats have a keen sense of smell. Fluffy is a cat, so Fluffy has a keen sense of smell.
The elm is a tree and all trees have bark, so elms have bark. The elm is a tree and all elms have bark; therefore, all trees have bark. Snakes are reptiles and reptiles are cold-blooded; therefore, snakes are cold-blooded. Jenny is a dancer. Dancers are thin and tall. Jenny is thin and tall. All observed cats in the area are brown. Tiny is a cat. Tiny is brown. Red meat has iron in it and beef is red meat, so beef has iron in it. Acute angles are less than 90 degrees and this angle is 40 degrees so this angle is acute. All noble gases are stable and helium is a noble gas, so helium is stable. Elephants have cells in their bodies and all cells have DNA, so elephants have DNA. All horses have manes and the Arabian is a horse; therefore Arabians have manes.
Writing For This Course: Rhetorical Précis Writing A rhetorical précis analyzes both content (the what) and delivery (the how) of a bit of writing. Each sentence requires specific information. You should use brief quotations to convey a sense of the author s style and tone. 1. THE FIRST SENTENCE identifies author, title, and genre, provides the piece s date in parenthesis, uses some form of the verb says (claims, asserts, suggests, argues, aka a rhetorically accurate verb) followed by that, and the piece s thesis (paraphrased or quoted). 2. THE SECOND SENTENCE conveys the author's support for the thesis (how the author develops the essay). The trick is to convey a good sense of the breadth of the author s support examples, usually in chronological order. 3. THE THIRD SENTENCE analyzes the author's purpose using an in order to statement. 4. THE FOURTH SENTENCE describes the essay's target audience and characterizes the author's relationship with that audience and addresses the essay's tone. Component Evaluated NO EVIDENCE No Credit NOT YET MET 1-4 points BARELY MET 5 points STANDARD MET 6 points CRUSHED IT! 7 points Sentence 1: Information, rhetorically INFO Lacks 2+ o Author o Title o Genre o Date rhetorically isn t a verb INFO Lacks 1 o Author o Title o Genre o Date rhetorically inaccurate&vague INFO complete but articulation awkward, vague, problematic rhetorically accurate but vague OR inaccurate but good word usage INFO clearly stated rhetorically specific to function INFO nicely put rhetorically snappy, unique Sentence 1: piece s thesis Piece s thesis not identified Piece s thesis identified vaguely, incorrectly, or incompletely Piece s thesis identified clearly but little sense of broader, meta implications Piece s thesis identified clearly, clear sense of broader, meta implications Piece s thesis stated sharply, with impressive insight into meta implications Sentence 2: Support Not attempted Attempted but inaccurate, vague, or incomplete Accurate, clear summary of types of support in terms of ONE: logos, pathos, ethos Accurate, clear evaluation of types of support in terms of TWO: logos, pathos, ethos Impressive evaluation of types of support in terms of logos, pathos, and ethos Sentence 3: Purpose and in order to Not attempted Inaccurate, vague, or incomplete may miss purpose or purpose of purpose Accurate, clear statement of purpose and purpose of purpose in terms of ONE: logos, pathos, ethos Accurate, clear statement of purpose and purpose of purpose in terms of ONE: logos, pathos, ethos Impressive statement of purposes in terms of logos, pathos, ethos, and clear sense of meta effect author wants Sentence 4: Audience and Tone Not attempted Audience Tone Attempted but inaccurate, vague, or incomplete Audience Tone Audience identified clearly and specifically by who they are Accurate, clear statement of tone in terms of diction or attitude Audience evaluated by belief, agreement with author, etc. Evaluates tone in terms of diction, or attitude and connects to thesis NAILS audience on all counts NAILS tone on all counts Language Inappropriate language Awkward, confusing, significant problems with mechanics Fluid, clear, academic, mostly clean but minor mechanics issues Sophisticated and clean OR strong and snappy with one or two errors Sophisticated, clean, fluent, snappy, with strong individual voice Quotations No quotations Quotation(s) poorly formatted/integrated, misunderstood, misapplied, misquoted Quotation(s) applied correctly but problem with format/integration Quotation(s) applied, formatted, integrated correctly and smoothly Quotation(s) used in sophisticated, exacting manner to nail thesis Comments: Total x.2 = + 2 = Précis Grade
Précis Sentence #1 INFO sentence o AWK: In Shakespeare s play HAMLET (1603), he argues o BETTER: In his 1603 play HAMLET, Shakespeare argues o BEST: William Shakespeare s 1603 play Hamlet argues that VERB don t be timid THESIS o Be sure to get whole thesis accurately, nuanced o Pay heed to meta broader implications Précis Sentence #2 SUPPORT isn t just a list of stuff o Analyze by type of source popular, current, scholarly, stats o Evaluate source (ethos) o Why is THIS type of source likely to work for this argument? Précis Sentence #3 PURPOSE why is doing this? What s he want audience to do, how wants to respond? Précis Sentence #4 o Audience: not just who but thinking o Tone: why is this tone effective/appropriate?
Is There Any Limit for Knowledge? It is often said that the wish for cognition is one of the most important forces that drive a human being onwards; at least, a human being that has reached certain level of development. It seems that human, if given enough time and power, won t stop until he knows everything that is there to be known. The only thing that separates him from absolute knowledge is the necessity of death; and, as we will show, in more than one sense. On the one hand, human cannot achieve absolute knowledge for the sheer reason of his life being limited the information that belongs to collective knowledge of humanity even now exceeds the possibilities of what one man can learn in a lifetime, and the potential knowledge that remains unattainable so far should be of really gargantuan proportions. Yet, we see that people are not confused by the limitedness of the possibilities every separate human has; in their majority people of knowledge are quite satisfied to learn as much as it is possible for them and even more if they are capable to add something to the existing knowledge. But, on the other hand, if we consider for a moment a possibility of a human being becoming immortal, will it actually give him an opportunity of attaining complete knowledge? If we take it for granted that the Universe is cognizable, then it will be possible for him in his infinite life to learn everything; but in the end, one final mystery will remain death. There is no way to learn anything about it by observing it from outside, for in this case we only see it well, from outside, and perceive only its influence on physical matter. The one who wants to know everything will finally become exceedingly attracted by death, for it will remain the only unlearnt thing for him. It is often said that great knowledge doesn t bring happiness; in fact, the more person knows, the less happy he is. Isn t it a kind of reverberation of what we have said above? Isn t it this attraction to one final mystery that cannot be learned until you go through it on your own, and once you will, there won t be any possibility for you to impart this knowledge to anyone? Anyway, as we may see, complete knowledge is impossible for a human being; at least, in the state in which we consider ourselves to be humans.