Inductive and deductive claims such as "all", "none", or "some" impact the assertions of argument. As a reader, which are you more receptive to: information that claims to represent all of the cases under discussion or that which claims to represent only some of the cases under discussion? Explain your answer.
I could give you my opinion as a reader, but I'm sure your instructor wants YOUR opinion. Which are you more receptive to?
I think I am more receptive to information that claims to represent all of the cases under discussion.
I understand that point of view. It certainly seems safer to agree with an argument that includes all of the cases under discussion. Unfortunately, it's rare for factual statements to be made in an argument that include all of the cases. Would you be receptive to an argument that claimed something for ALL Christians, or ALL Democrats, or ALL teenagers, or ALL single parents, or ALL teachers or ALL blondes? When you're dealing with people, ALL or NONE doesn't usually apply to any group. Even medical experiments can't usually claim that ALL of the group benefitted from a certain treatment.
Please think about this question some more so that you can answer the WHY part of the question. Give examples of arguments that apply to ALL of a group.
think I am more receptive to the claims of information that represent all of the cases with discussion.
To fully understand anything, I have to be fully knowledgeable and educated within the area of topic being described or discussed. I will reread the writing many times to fully understand and not be misled of how the writer writes their discussion
Mostly to "all"
As a reader, I am most likely to be receptive to information that claims to represent all of the cases under discussion, rather than that information which claims to represent only some of the cases under discussion. By having all the cases under discussion represented, it will be easier to me to apply my background knowledge and to evaluate the claim for its credibility.
As a reader, I am most likely to be receptive to information that claims to represent all of the cases under discussion, rather than that information which claims to represent only some of the cases under discussion. By having all the cases under discussion represented, it will be easier for me to apply my background knowledge and to evaluate the claim for its credibility.
phillip, just my .02 here. I want to make sure I understand the terms.
I'm unsure what the 1st statement is saying. In a course in informal logic "all" and "none" are used in the universal affirm. and neg. respecitvely; "some" (it should state "some are" and "some are not" not just "some") is the particular affirm. and neg. I know these are used in categorical logic; I'm unsure if they are ever applied to inductive arguments. Categorical reasoning is a deductive system as I recall.
Inductive reasoning, which is usually called the "weaker" argument, uses things like samples and analogies.
With that to start, the question I "see" is: Which is more compelling to you (reader), categorical statements or "weaker" arguments? My immediate response is: it depends on the subject under discussion. In mathematics we use deduction to prove theorems, thus the categoricals are what we use. However, and this is very common, the population of some discussion may be so large that the only thing we can use to form a conclusion is a sample. There is simply no choice; e.g. how many birds may be carriers of bird flu in the world? In any give hour how many people are using the internet? For questions like this we rely on stats. Thus my answer to the question is a qualified "it depends on the cases under discussion".
BTW, don't think of weaker as meaning false or inferior. It's called weaker since it's not deductive; deductive is thought of as the strong argument. It can still be a false argument depending on the premises. I hope I didn't muddy the water here, but these terms are used precisely in logic as I recall.
This makes a lot of sense about SOME of the information since you can not claim that ALL women are blonde when it should be that SOME women are blonde.
i do not no the answer