![]() Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. Our country is strong.Ī great people has been moved to defend a great nation. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge-huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. Notice how he lists a series of events from the day, which builds to his conclusion that the terrorist attacks failed in their attempt to shake the foundation of America. Bush’s address to the nation on the evening of September 11, 2001. You can see inductive reasoning used in the following speech excerpt from President George W. It would be more effective to present a series of facts and reasons and then share the conclusion or generalization that you have reached from them. In this case, one overly general claim is countered by another general claim, and both of them have some merit. ![]() An argument that fraternities should be abolished from campus because they contribute to underage drinking and do not uphold high academic standards could be countered by providing examples of fraternities that sponsor alcohol education programming for the campus and have members that have excelled academically (Walter, 1966). For example, inductive reasoning can be weak when claims are made too generally. Some arguments based on inductive reasoning will be more cogent, or convincing and relevant, than others. Instead, since conclusions are generalized based on observations or examples, conclusions are “more likely” or “less likely.” Despite the fact that this type of reasoning isn’t definitive, it can still be valid and persuasive. ![]() Inductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, doesn’t result in true or false conclusions. While introductory speakers are initially attracted to inductive reasoning because it seems easy, it can be difficult to employ well. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.Inductive reasoning reaches conclusions through the citation of examples and is the most frequently used form of logical reasoning (Walter, 1966). Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The origin of the expression is not known. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy, or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion. Red herring The idiom " red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |