Phr-103

REQUIRED Forum Post # 4:  Examples of Arguments (Evaluative Vocabulary)
Each student is required to contribute one post containing one example for each of the following categories:  (1) one valid deductive argument, (2) one invalid deductive argument, (3) one valid, sound deductive argument, (4) one valid, unsound deductive argument, (5) one strong, cogent inductive argument, (6) one strong, uncogent inductive argument, (7) one weak, inductive argument.  Students will not be able to see other students’ posts until she/he has posted.  One’s examples must be original, novel, not from the textbook.  Each student will have a total of seven (7) argument examples.  The example arguments may have any number of premises, though one to three premises will probably be best.  Clearly label each example (e.g., “valid, unsound deductive argument”), and use Logical/Inference Indicators to clearly demonstrate which statement is the conclusion.  After posting, each student is REQUIRED to comment on at least one other student’s examples:  are they correct?  Are there any errors?  Et cetera.
Following are examples for illustration ONLY:
Deductive, Valid Argument
1. All schmucks are ducks.
2. All ducks are pucks.
3. Therefore, all schmucks are pucks.
Deductive, Invalid Argument
1. Maria is a hypochondriac.
2. Hence, Maria is afraid of dragons.
Comment:  This is a deductive-definition/meaning argument.  This argument is invalid because if one supposes P1 is true, then the C does not necessarily follow.  In other words, the term “hypochondria” does not mean “afraid of dragons.”
Deductive, Valid, Sound Argument
1. All dogs are mammals.
2. All mammals are animals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are mammals.
Comment:  This argument is deductive-categorical syllogism.  Both Ps are true.  The C is true.  The argument is sound because both P1 and P2 are true.  This argument is valid because the C follows necessarily from the Ps.
Deductive, Valid, Unsound Argument
1. All dogs are mammals.
2. All mammals are fish.
3. Consequently, all dogs are fish.
Comment:  P1 is true. P2 is false. The C is false.  The argument is valid because IF the Ps are true, then the C necessarily follows.  So, this argument is deductive-categorical syllogism, valid, unsound because P2 is false.