The article I read was about an upcoming football game between the Bears and the Seahawks. The argument is simple and easy. The premises are: 1. If Shaun Alexander is not in the game on Sunday night against the Bears, then the Seahawks will lose. 2. Shaun Alexander will not be in the game on Sunday night against the Bears. Then the conclusion is: The Seahawks will lose to the Bears on Sunday night. This is a simple argument. Premises: If not A, then not B. Not A. Conclusion Not B.
This argument is clearly inductive. While Shaun Alexander not playing has a big impact on the game this does not guarantee the conclusion of the Seahawks losing the game. According to most people they believe that this conclusion will be true but it does not guarantee that it will be true. Also if you reverse it and say Shaun Alexander will play which would mean the Seahawks will not not lose the conclusion of the Seahawks winning is still not guaranteed. Because: If not not A, then not not B. Not not A. Conclusion Not not B. This all turns into the simple inductive form of: If A, then B. A. Conclusion B. If he plays, then the Seahawks will win. He plays. Conclusion: The Seahawks win. While it is possible it is not guaranteed. So the truth of the premises in both cases make it probably it does not guarantee the conclusion.
I felt this was a perfect argument to evaluate. It was simple enough to put it into a nice structure where it was perfectly understandable. The argument is also made by opinions but it is clearly stated what only one side of the opinion was. Because it stated that the Seahawks will lose if Shaun Alexander doesn't play but it did not say anything about if he played what the outcome will be. In a sense this argument is a wonderful example of an inductive argument.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document