U of L
Popular in Course
Popular in Communication
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Zaria Shields on Friday October 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to COMM 304 at University of Louisville taught by Christine Steineck in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 80 views. For similar materials see /class/228373/comm-304-university-of-louisville in Communication at University of Louisville.
Reviews for ARGUMENT
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/23/15
Comm 304 Argument in Everyday Life Study Guide Exam 3 Chapter 6 Inductive Arguments I Argument by Example 0 Assumption of regularity examines several speci c cases in a a given class and assumes that if the known cases are alike with regard to a speci c characteristic the other unknown cases in the same class with exibit the same characteristic Tests I 0 Typical Are the examples typical 0 Must be representative of the entire class being considered 0 Beware making generalizations from limited or atypical experience Negative Instances Are negative examples adequately accounted for 0 May need to use quali ers manymost o Negatives may be explained as special circumstances Suf cient Have a suf ient number of examples been examined 0 One example is an illustration not proof 0 The more universal the generalization the more examples needed I Argument by Analogy Examines a limited number of cases usually 2 and compares their essential features Ifthey are alike in all known characteristics it is assumed that they will be alike with regard to a characteristic that is known in one case but unknown in the other 0 Assumption of similarity Rests on assumption of essential sameness of characteristics within compared cases I Identi es similarity between speci c cases Looking at many characteristics within cases 0 Tests I Essential sameness Are the compared cases alike in all essential characteristics 0 Requires fundamental similarity not absolute sameness 0 Essential characteristics dependent on nature of things being compared and substance of the conclusion being drawn I Accurate description Are the compared characteristics accurately described 0 Must thoroughly examine how cases are being compared 0 Is initial comparison accurate I Argument by Causal Correlation Examines speci c cases classes or both in order to identify a functional correlation between particular elements 0 Assumption of functional correlation Looking for patterned appearance of at least two elements I First element is referred to as a cause I Element that follows is called an effect 0 Assumption of Causation Assumes nothing occurs by chance and that for everything there is a cause A cause is necessary if the effect will not occur without the cause A cause is sufficient if it results in a particular effect even though that result might occur under other circumstances as well Consistency Must establish a significant and relatively predictable rate of association Strength Must establish strength of one particular causal factor Regularity of time sequence 0 The effect may never occur before the cause 0 Period oftime between cause and effect may vary from case to case but same order of appearance must exist 0 Just because one factor follows another does not mean the first factor was a cause Coherence of association Should be consistent with other related data 0 Additional date can explain or be explained by the causal relationship Chapter 7 Deductive Arguments I Argument from Causal Generalization 0 Defined Takes an assumed or 39 y 1 u I a I I39 I 1 causal I u I 391 and applies it to specific cases or classes 0 Tests I Intervening factors What other in uences may be operating in the environment 0 Can they negate or change the predicted causeeffect relationship Sufficiency of Cause Is the specific cause adequate on its own to bring about the effect Other effects Will there be other unspecified resultseffects o Causal forces may set off a series of reactions medical side effects 0 Allows us to evaluate the impact of a cause I Argument from Sign 0 Defined Suggests that every substance has certain distinguishing characteristics or attributes the presence of the attribute can be taken as a sign of the presence 0 Characteristics 0 Tests I Natural May be observed in nature and exist as an inherent part of nature s processes 0 Doesn t try to prove causal relationship only claims coexistence Conceptual Exist as a result of custom or definition 0 Signs based on definition are the bases of all morallegal issues Invariable indicators The substance appears only when attribute is present or vice versa 0 Indicates a strong relationship 0 May or may not be reciprocal Suf cient signs If relationship is not invariable then must provide number of supporting signs Contradictory Even one contradictory sign weakens existence of relationship I Syllogisms 0 De ned Tests the form of the argument or the validity of the relationship between statements 0 Statements I Major premise States a generalization I Minor premise Relates speci c class or case to generalization I Conclusion Follows from premises 0 Terms I Major Appears in major premise and in conclusion I Middle Appears in major and minor premise not in conclusion I Minor Appears in minor premise and conclusion 0 Types 7 de ned I Categorical Major premise classi es without quali cations 0 Characterized by words such as quotallquot quoteveryquot quotnonequot I Hypothetical Major premise is concerned with uncertain or conditional happenings o Indicated by quotifquot quotassumingquot quotin the event of quotwhenquot I Disjunctive Major premise presents alternatives 0 Mutually exclusive 0 Indicated by quoteitherorquot quotneithernorquot quotbutquot Chapter 8 Fallacies I De ned Indicates an error or weakness in an argument or thought process 0 Explains why some arguments may not be credible o Weaknesses can be in data reasoning language strategic or psychological basis of argument I Common Fallacies o Hasty generalization when an argument by example is based on too few speci c instances 0 Post hoc ergo propter hoc after this therefore because of this asserting a causal relationship based simply on a temporal relationship 0 Part or insuf cient cause mistakes a single factor as the sole cause when other causal forces are present 0 Equivocation changing the meaning of critical terms during the course of the argument 0 Begging the question occurs when the arguer assumes as a premise the conclusion heshe intends to prove O O O O O O O O O O O O O Fallacy of composition assuming that what is true of the separate parts is necessarily true of the collective whole Fallacy of division assumes that what is true of the collective whole is also true of the separate parts Non sequitor it does not follow when there is no obvious connection between the data and the conclusion Ad verecundiam based on generalized appeals to some higher authority or tradition o Relies on an appeal solely because ofthe persons position not their speci c knowledge or training As misericordiam calls for acceptance based on pity or sympathy not reasoning or evidence Ad hominem against the person uses name calling and personal attacks as a means of diverting attention from the substance of a controversy 0 Uses innuendo or guilt by association 0 different from legitimate arguments regarding character Ad ignorantium appeal to ignorance attempts to establish that an argument is true by claiming that its opposite cannot be proven 0 Used when people are uninformed or research is unsufficient or simply choose to ignore facts Ignoring the question trying to prove something that no importance to the point at issue Generic fallacy argues that a claim should be accepted or rejected because of its identification with a particular individual or group 0 Based on guilt by association Slippery slope argues that a policy should be rejected because of the direction of the policy 0 Assumes inevitably of most extreme form of the policy Straw argument an argument is set up for the sole purpose of refuting it o Advocates may refute arguments not advanced by the opponent so it looks like they are answering more than they are 0 Attempts to shift the focus of the controversy from the area of real clash to some peripheral or nonissue Ad populum appeal to the people seeks to gain adherence to a position by appealing to the audiences desire to identify with the group 0 Assumes argument is truefalse because a majority of people believe it offeres no analysis Pseudo questions quotmany questionsquot 0 Asks ambiguous questions based on false assumptions 0 Asks so many questions that cannot be reasonably answered
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'