Consider the following argument. Is the argument inductive, deductive or concatenated? What can you tell me about the validity of the claim? What can you tell me about the cogency of the claim? Explain your reasoning using specific reference to the argument. "I<Clicker 2 is a useful tool in educational settings. Many universities have begun using I<Clicker 2 to capture student response information in the classroom, and 94% of users agree that the product is effective or extremely effective. If you are looking for an exciting way to increase interaction in the classroom, then I<Clicker2 is the product for you.”

You have posted your entire assignment, which no one here will do for you.

If you have a question, please ask it. If not, work on completing the assignment and then post what YOU THINK if you'd like someone here to critique your thinking and writing.

It’s a deductive argument.

Because all its premises are true (Many universities have begun using I<Clicker 2 to capture student response information in the classroom, and 94% of users agree that the product is effective or extremely effective) then its conclusion must be true also, because the claim asserted by its conclusion already has been stated in its premises.
Hypothetical syllogism:
If "I<Clicker 2 is a useful tool in educational settings” then “Many universities have begun using I<Clicker 2 to capture student response information in the classroom, and 94% of users agree that the product is effective or extremely effective.”
If “Many universities have begun using I<Clicker 2 to capture student response information in the classroom, and 94% of users agree that the product is effective or extremely effective.” Then “If you are looking for an exciting way to increase interaction in the classroom, then I<Clicker2 is the product for you.”
Therefore "I<Clicker 2 is a useful tool in educational setting,” Then If you are looking for an exciting way to increase interaction in the classroom, then I<Clicker2 is the product for you.”

Based on the given argument, it appears to be an inductive argument. Inductive reasoning involves making general claims based on specific observations or evidence. In this case, the argument presents specific evidence about the use and effectiveness of I<Clicker 2 in educational settings, and then draws a conclusion based on that evidence.

The claim made in the argument is that "I<Clicker 2 is the product for you" if you are looking for an exciting way to increase interaction in the classroom. In terms of validity, it is important to note that validity is primarily a characteristic of deductive arguments, rather than inductive arguments. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assess the claim's validity in this case.

When it comes to assessing the cogency of the claim, we need to evaluate the strength or reliability of the reasoning and evidence provided. The argument presents two pieces of evidence to support the claim: the fact that many universities use I<Clicker 2 for student response information and the high satisfaction rate of 94% among users.

To evaluate the cogency of the argument, you need to consider the strength of these pieces of evidence. For example, if it can be confirmed that a significant number of universities do indeed use I<Clicker 2 and that the 94% satisfaction rate is accurate and representative, then the argument becomes more persuasive. However, if the evidence is anecdotal or limited, it may weaken the cogency of the claim.

To further evaluate the cogency, it would be helpful to consider potential counter-arguments or alternative explanations. Are there any drawbacks or limitations of I<Clicker 2 that have not been addressed? Are there other products or methods that may also be effective for increasing classroom interaction?

In summary, the argument is inductive, making a claim based on specific evidence. The validity of the claim cannot be assessed, as validity pertains to deductive reasoning. The cogency of the claim depends on the strength and reliability of the evidence provided and should be evaluated by considering alternative explanations and potential limitations of the argument's reasoning.