Logic Vs Inductive Argument Analysis

Decent Essays
Logic is the foundation to a good argument. In arguments people try to persuade others, by giving them as many reason a possible, why they should accept their view of things. In order to do so an argument involves either a logic or rhetoric component. Logical reasoning should hold without appealing to personal feelings, sympathies, or prejudices. Rhetoric, however, does involve such personal appeals. Since logic is impersonal it may be less flamboyant and personally exciting, but has the advantage of being applicable to everyone. The text teaches that logic and rhetoric virtually always function together, it is possible to have a solid argument with one component. Either way without being logical your argument efforts disappear once readers had a chance to think again about how they have been persuaded. As for without rhetoric, arguments will be dry and unattractive. A good argument…show more content…
A generalization, or hypothesis, is the most familiar example of an inductive argument. In an inductive argument the conclusion always States more than it the premises, therefore it is a less searching form of argument, not meaning it is less important. Induction takes various forms and defies rigid characterization. the form of an inductive argument is, Every A we have observed is a B. Therefore every A is a B. Although induction does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, even if we know that the observations are all correct. A tentative conclusion is a hypothesis, an educated guess. Evidence that refutes the hypothesis is called a counterexample, Because no inductive argument guarantee certainty, they must always be ready for such counter-examples. Although many hypotheses can be tested with further experiments and observations, generalizations about people should be made with extreme caution, care for the context and the subject
Get Access