You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 3 (753 words)
Critical Thinking Name Course Tutor Date Critical Thinking Argument 1 The premise of this argument is that all dogs are cats and all acts are mice. Consequently, the conclusion is that some dogs are mice. Notably, this is an inductive, uncogent argument. Indeed, the conclusion is not logical and the reasoning leads to a false conclusion since no dogs are mice.
Indeed, the probability of having a true conclusion is also very low and hence the uncogency. Argument 2 The premise of this argument is that Hamilton is in New York State if he is in the United States. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that Hamilton is not in New York State since he is not in U.S. This is a deductive, cogent argument. We can derive that the argument is deductive because the premises succeed in supporting and guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion (Bassham et al, 2011). Indeed, since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. This generates a valid argument. The argument is also cogent since the premises are true and the conclusion has a high probability of being true. Ideally, since the argument is valid and the conclusion is true, then it is a sound argument. Argument 3 The premise of this argument is that Ontario must be in Canada if he is in North America. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that Ontario is in Canada since he is in North America. This is a deductive, cogent argument. In this case, the premises succeed in providing strong support for the conclusion thus guaranteeing its truthfulness. Indeed, since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true, and the argument is thus valid. ...
Not exactly what you need?