I have finished my assignment I just need someone to read it over and check my logic, please and thank you!
1. Read the following argument and answer the question that follows:
1. According to the 2010/11 Statistics Canada census aboriginal Canadians constituted 4.3% of the Canadian population.
2. According to the 2011 Statistics Canada data, 27% of the adult population incarcerated in Provincial and Territorial correctional facilities were aboriginal, and 20% of the adult population incarcerated in Federal prisons were aboriginal.
3. Therefore, being aboriginal is a cause of criminality (from 1 + 2)
Is the inference to (3) inductively valid? Explain.
>>>The inference to (3) is not valid. It is not valid because 1+2 does not necessarily lead to 3, you can draw other conclusions from the premises, such as that there is a bias against aboriginal people, or that the court ruling is tougher for aboriginal people.
Your logic is sound. Your use of the phrase "court ruling" is very vague, however, in that the court rulings (I assume you mean sentencing) are based on law. Sentencing laws and guidelines may be biased, although some courts may impose those laws in a discriminatory way (where leeway is allowed).
((Remember that for an inductive inference with linked premises to be valid the premises must be acceptable and they must be sufficient to render the conclusion probable. An assessment of inductive validity requires you to explain your reasons for weighing the evidence as you do. (Worth 4 marks)))
2. Read the following excerpt from the July 2006 issue of Scientific American:
During the run up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an MRI brain scan, 30 men – half described as ‘strong’ Republicans and half as ‘strong’ Democrats – were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.
State whether there is an inductive generalization in the passage and if there is, identify the sample and target population and assess the inductive strength of the generalization.
(Worth 4 marks)
>>>There is an inductive generalization. the sample is 30 men who were doing a brain scan, and the population is just adults. The sample is small and does not represent the population, and even if we assume the population to be adult men, the sample would still be small. The inductive strength is weak.
3. Consider the following conductive argument:
P1. Critical thinking teaches the fundamentals of good reasoning.
P2. Critical thinking helps people learn how to detect bad reasoning in the arguments they hear and read.
P3. Critical thinking principles underlie all the academic disciplines.
P4. Critical thinking teaches skills that are useful in the everyday world.
MC. Critical thinking courses are certainly the most important courses in the curriculum.
Is the inference to the main conclusion inductively valid? Explain. (Worth 2 marks)
>>>The conclusion is not inductively valid. While the evidence is strong the conclusion states that it is the MOST important, which makes the conclusion too strong,because some people may have different interests or different goals in which those things are not needed.
I don't see the conducive argument, and your response says it is not inductively valid. I'm confused on that one. Your conclusion about the Republicans and Democrats is fine, but you leave out something: what does the brain scan (the MRI) have to do with the statements the subjects made about the candidates? The argument doesn't mention the results of the scan, just what the subjects said. That is, in and of itself, a weakness in the argument.
the conductive argument is talking about critical thinking classes the premises are all separate premises leading to the conclusion
P1. Critical thinking teaches the fundamentals of good reasoning.
P2. Critical thinking helps people learn how to detect bad reasoning in the arguments they hear and read.
P3. Critical thinking principles underlie all the academic disciplines.
P4. Critical thinking teaches skills that are useful in the everyday world.
MC. Critical thinking courses are certainly the most important courses in the curriculum.
Ah, I see. I thought the premises were part of your reading for the assignment, not the argument to be analyzed.
I think your analysis is a bit flawed. If critical thinking skills are so important in every activity or endeavor, why is a separate course in just "critical thinking" the MOST important one? Cannot critical thinking skills be taught in other disciplines along with the subject matter so that those skills are directly applied? You may be taking a class in "critical thinking", but if it's not applied anywhere else, what good is it?
Know, Dan, that I'm just throwing out ideas for you. Take them for what they are worth, and apply critical thinking to them, too! :)
what I was thinking was that the premises are good and the argument is good the conclusion is flawed because those mean it's a good class, but not necessarily the MOST important class
To determine if the inference to (3) is inductively valid, we need to evaluate whether the conclusion logically follows from the given premises. In this case, we have two premises:
1. According to the 2010/11 Statistics Canada census, aboriginal Canadians constituted 4.3% of the Canadian population.
2. According to the 2011 Statistics Canada data, 27% of the adult population incarcerated in Provincial and Territorial correctional facilities were aboriginal, and 20% of the adult population incarcerated in Federal prisons were aboriginal.
The conclusion being made is that being aboriginal is a cause of criminality (from 1 + 2). However, the inference to (3) is not valid because the premises alone do not necessarily lead to this conclusion.
There are alternative explanations or conclusions that can be drawn from the given premises. For example, one could argue that there is a bias against aboriginal people in the criminal justice system, leading to higher incarceration rates. Another possibility is that there are socioeconomic factors or historical factors that contribute to the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in the prison population.
In order to validate the conclusion in (3), additional evidence and analysis would be necessary to establish a causal relationship between being aboriginal and criminality. It is important to consider alternative explanations and possibilities before drawing a definite conclusion.
Therefore, in this case, the inference to (3) is not inductively valid.