As you present logically connected examples as evidence that build to a conclusion, the audience may be persuaded by your evidence before they realize that the coming conclusion will counter what they previously thought.
Inductive reasoning can be useful when an audience disagrees with your proposition. If a speaker is able to provide examples that are concrete, proxemic, and relevant to the audience, as Bush did in this example, audience members are prompted to think of additional examples that connect to their own lives. 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.
Example of red herring fallacy in media series#
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. Inductive reasoning reaches conclusions through the citation of examples and is the most frequently used form of logical reasoning (Walter, 1966).
0 kommentar(er)
