FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209  
210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   >>   >|  
ation as a conclusion? (_c_) Have you overlooked any contradictory facts? (_d_) Are the contradictory facts sufficiently explained when this inference is accepted as true? (_e_) Are all contrary positions shown to be relatively untenable? (_f_) Have you accepted mere opinions as facts? 2. _Deductions_ (_a_) Is the law or general principle a well-established one? (_b_) Does the law or principle clearly include the fact you wish to deduce from it, or have you strained the inference? (_c_) Does the importance of the law or principle warrant so important an inference? (_d_) Can the deduction be shown to prove too much? 3. _Parallel cases_ (_a_) Are the cases parallel at enough points to warrant an inference of similar cause or effect? (_b_) Are the cases parallel at the vital point at issue? (_c_) Has the parallelism been strained? (_d_) Are there no other parallels that would point to a stronger contrary conclusion? 4. _Inferences_ (_a_) Are the antecedent conditions such as would make the allegation probable? (Character and opportunities of the accused, for example.) (_b_) Are the signs that point to the inference either clear or numerous enough to warrant its acceptance as fact? (_c_) Are the signs cumulative, and agreeable one with the other? (_d_) Could the signs be made to point to a contrary conclusion? 5. _Syllogisms_ (_a_) Have any steps been omitted in the syllogisms? (Such as in a syllogism _in enthymeme_.) If so, test any such by filling out the syllogisms. (_b_) Have you been guilty of stating a conclusion that really does not follow? (A _non sequitur_.) (_c_) Can your syllogism be reduced to an absurdity? (_Reductio ad absurdum._) QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES 1. Show why an unsupported assertion is not an argument. 2. Illustrate how an irrelevant fact may be made to seem to support an argument. 3. What inferences may justly be made from the following? During the Boer War it was found that the average Englishman did not measure up to the standards of recruiting and the average soldier in the field manifested a low plane of vitality and endurance. Parliament, alarmed by the disastrous consequences, instituted an investigation. The commission appointed brought in a finding that alcoholic poisoning was the great cause of the national degener
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209  
210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
inference
 

conclusion

 

warrant

 

principle

 

contrary

 

strained

 

contradictory

 

accepted

 

parallel

 
syllogism

syllogisms

 

average

 

argument

 

filling

 

irrelevant

 

assertion

 

Illustrate

 
unsupported
 
sequitur
 
follow

stating

 

reduced

 

guilty

 

EXERCISES

 

QUESTIONS

 

absurdum

 

absurdity

 

Reductio

 
Englishman
 

consequences


instituted
 
investigation
 

disastrous

 
alarmed
 
vitality
 
endurance
 

Parliament

 

degener

 
poisoning
 
national

alcoholic
 

finding

 

commission

 
appointed
 
brought
 

During

 

justly

 

support

 

inferences

 

soldier