A few days ago
Daphne W

Phliosophy question. I don’t understand it well and need help with examples. Inductive/deductive arguments.

Here is a couple examples of arguments that I found in an artilce somewhere online. I am looking for someone to help me understand better because I suck at philosophy.

Example #1

Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the American reaction.

Example #2

Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

How can you tell if the premises support the conclusions? How do you tell if these arguments are deductivly valid or inductively strong or invalid or weak? What make the premise true or difficult to prove?

Top 1 Answers
A few days ago

Favorite Answer

Both arguments are just silly. It is very simple… Break it down to if, then, and you can see that the statement in the first case is wrong T he first case asserts a proposition that is not supported – “Since it is” This implies that what they are saying is true. Change that to “If it is” and you see the fallacy of the 1st argument.

It is the same problem with the second statement which implies that it is true in the question, “Since it is…”

This involves a branch of philosophy called logic,and there are “rules” that have been learned over time. Both of these statements use “logical fallacies” in their construction. The analysis is simply that if the proposition is not valid (or supported, or can be shown to be valid), then the conclusion does not follow.

Both statements are meaningless, and nonsensical…