W3D2Christopher Nowlin 382017 72617 AMPremise .docx

W3D2
Christopher Nowlin
3/8/2017 7:26:17 AM
Premise 1: The Golden State Warriors are up 3 games to 1
against the Cleveland Cavaliers in the back half of the NBA
Finals.
Premise 2: No team has ever won the NBA Championship after
having trailed 3 games to 1 in the NBA Finals series.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Golden State Warriors will win the
NBA Finals.
This is a strong inductive argument that makes use of a statistic
(no team has ever overcome a 3 game to 1 comeback in the NBA
Finals). However, I wondered if Premise 2 was actually weaker
than it first appeared, in large part because of its specificity
(only NBA Finals Games) After all, it seemed likely that there
have been larger comebacks in non-finals games.
Finals.
Premise 3: 10 Teams have overcome a 3 game to 1 deficit
during the playoffs to include the Golden State Warriors in the
previous round of the same playoff season.
NBA Finals.
Premise 3 mentions the fact that teams have overcome this
deficits before. For example, in 2016 the Golden State Warriors

overcame a 3 game to 1 deficit to win against the Oklahoma
City Thunder in the previous round of the playoffs (Teams Who
Have Rallied To Win Series After Falling Behind 3-1, 2017).
Finals.
Premise 4: The Golden State Warriors have applied enough
pressure to the Cleveland Cavaliers to force a virtually
impossible scenario.
NBA Finals.
The argument is strengthened again by showing that the game
plan the Warriors used was working up until the 5th game of the
series.
Here is the final form of our argument:
Finals.
Premise 4: The Golden State Warriors have applied enough
pressure to the Cleveland Cavaliers to force a virtually
impossible scenario.
Premise 5: The Golden State Warriors defeated the Cleveland
Cavaliers twice during their regular season matches.

NBA Finals.
References
Teams Who Have Rallied To Win Series After Falling Behind 3-
1. (2017, March 8). Retrieved from
http://www.nba.com/2016/news/05/25/teams-to-overcome-3-1-
series-deficits-in-playoffs-boston-celtics-los-angeles-lakers-
washington-wizards-houston-rockets-miami-heat-detroit-
pistons-phoenix-suns/
discussion 1
Sarah Woods
3/6/2017 7:55:19 PM
Premise 1: Social media is a global outlet for private and
personal information to be shared among friends and family
Premise 2: People choose to keep things private and secretive
from friends and family via social media
Premise 3: Keeping secrets from loved ones causes problems in
every interpersonal relationship
Conclusion: Social media causes problems in interpersonal
relationships when secrets are kept from friends and family
I do not see any weaknesses in my premises, do any of my
fellow classmates see what I can and should change within my
work?

Week 3-Discussion 2
Brenda Kyle
3/6/2017 5:00:49 AM
Brenda Kyle
PHI103: Informal Logic
Instructor: Elisa Paik
Week 3-Discussion 2
March 7, 2017
Inductive Reasoning Discussion #2
Does social media enhance or hinder interpersonal
relationships?
P1: Social media is great for building relationships.
P2: Social media enhance relationship by staying in touch
always.
P3: Social media brings everyone together.
P4: Social media is a great source of entertainment while in
your pajamas in your home.
P5: Social media makes people happy.
C: Therefore, social media enhance relationships.
Inductive is a technical term in logic: It has a precise definition,
and that definition may be different from the definition used in
other fields or in everyday conversation. An inductive argument
is one in which the premises provide support for the conclusions
but fall short of establishing complete certainty. If you stop to
think about arguments you have encountered recently, you will
probably find that most of them are inductive (Hardy, J., Foster,
C., & Zúñiga y Postigo 2015)
References
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good

reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version].
Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
week 3 discussion 1
Ivelis Santiago
3/6/2017 6:32:06 PM
Ivelis Santiago
PHI103
Instructor Paik
03/06/2017
Inductive Reasoning Discussion #1
Topic: Does social media enhance or hinder interpersonal
relationships?
P1: When posting about personal issues on social media, people
tend not to filter their words like they normally would in face-
to-face interactions.
P2: According to behavioral psychologists, one of the negative
side effects of being able to instantly say what is on your mind
without the self-regulating effects of having a face-to-face
conversation is that nasty things get said that are hurtful to
others.
P3: When the person who is being spoken negatively about on
social media discovers that their trust has been violated through
the posting of personal issues, they can easily choose to
retaliate.
Conclusion: Therefor, social media hinders interpersonal
relationships.
According to Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015),

“Arguments that greatly increase the likelihood of their
conclusions are called strong arguments; those that do not
substantially increase the likelihood are called weak
arguments,” (ch. 5.1, p. 6). Premise 1 is made strong by the fact
that more often than not, people are more open to saying what is
on their mind when they do not have someone before them to
redirect their thoughts. By adding a premise that includes expert
opinion, I have strengthened the possibility of my conclusion
being true. Premise 2 would have been made much stronger if I
would have properly cited the source. Premise 3 is based on the
impulsive reaction that is natural to human beings when they
feel threatened. All premises are true, and easily flow, which, in
turn, leads to a logical conclusion that can be true as well; this
makes for a strong inductive argument.
There is no way to guarantee the truth of the conclusion,
and this is the weakness of this argument. The person being
spoken negatively about can confront the one who posted the
private information personally, and the relationship may be
strengthened by this action. In order to fix this weakness, I will
have to do more research and find more convincing expert
testimony to validate the truth of my claims. I may also need to
switch the focus to more personal relationships, instead of
relationships in general, because interpersonal relationships is a
very broad category. It is more likely that social media would
hinder one’s relationship with a significant other more so than a
relationship with a brother, sister, or casual acquaintance.
Therefore, by focusing on a specific type of relationship, the
likelihood of my conclusion being true will be much stronger.
References:
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good
reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version].
Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Howell, G. (2015). The age of online friending. Vibrant Life,
31(1), 8-11.

W3D2Christopher Nowlin 382017 72617 AMPremise .docx

W3D2Christopher Nowlin 382017 72617 AMPremise .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from celenarouzie

More from celenarouzie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

W3D2Christopher Nowlin 382017 72617 AMPremise .docx