Last Name 3
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Number
Date
Critical Reasoning
- Paraphrasing
The difference between inductive and deductive argument is that deductive use of the top-bottom criteria while inductive reasoning uses a bottom-top point of view.
1) This is a deductive argument; it argues from a generalization that because every situation exists in some universe, then dating Elon Musk must be in some universe. The theory of multiple worlds’ interpretation asserts that there exist many states of affairs. It means, therefore, everything can be possible, and at some point in a particular universe, you are with Elon Musk. The two exist in another world. This argument is deductive because it is sure that there exists a world in which every state of affairs exists in an unknown universe you are dating.
2) It is a deductive argument, the fact that the United States of America is in existence and is dependent on something else which is not permanent means that it will also be impermanent. Since nothing exists permanently, then the United States of America will not survive because the united states do not live independently. Those which it depends on are also not permanent so that everything will end at some point. It is a deductive argument, the United States of America will no longer exist because everything will cease to exist, and America is part of it.
3) It is an inductive argument. It gives a generalization from a single discussion. By just reading the introduction of a book, Mexican author Fernanda Melchor does not mean the whole of it is satisfying. The first translation was excellent; it is not necessary then, that all the translations are excellent. Therefore this is justifiable an inductive argument. It argues from specific to generalization. The case contends that the publisher always publishes good books, and then all the right books bought are from the publisher. It is an inductive argument because it is not automatically that all the favorite books are purchased from New Direction publisher. A translation from one language to another doesn’t generally depend on the publisher.
II validity of logic
1) X ∨ Y
~Y
∴ X
The logic statement argues that if X logically combined with Y is real, then it is not right for Y and, therefore, not true for X also. This argument is valid because if it is right for X combined with Y, then it should be valid for Y and, therefore, X.
2) P is a superset of Q, P is the same as R, and therefore Q is the same as R. This logic statement is not valid since P is strictly bigger than Q, and thus Q cannot be the same as R. It doesn’t obey the laws of mathematics.
3) The logic statement argues that A and B combined with A and C. B is not a superset of C, and therefore, it is not the same a combined with B combined with C.
This logic statement is not valid. It is under distributive law conditions not met.
III) To identify the informal fallacy.
1) It is a fallacy of begging the question. It assumes that the conclusion is right without proving.
2) It is a fallacy of appeal to the force. The arguer presents a threat as it defends the conclusion.
3) The fallacy of hasty generalization. It generalizes based on limited evidence with the too-small size of the sample.
4) It is Ad Hominem fallacy because it attacks the character, motivation, or intelligence.
5) The delusion of ignorance. It assumes that the statement is true because there is no evidence against it.