Arguments Are Support While being open-minded and playing “the believing game” is a great starting place whenever you're having a discussion, the remainder of the webtext will focus on what Peter Elbow calls “the doubting game.” To filter through all the ideas presented to you and decide what to believe, it's important to turn a skeptical eye to every argument you encounter. The first step is to understand exactly what makes up an argument. To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus, all arguments consist of at least two parts: 1. Premise: one or more reasons or pieces of evidence to support the claim 2. Conclusion: the claim being supported Arguments make the process of thinking visible. The logical leap from the premises to the conclusion is known as an inference. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on a piece of information, such as seeing a threateningly dark sky and deciding that there’s a good chance of rain, you’re making an inference. When these inferences are articulated with premises and conclusions, they make an argument. Recognizing Arguments Not every piece of text or spoken speech you encounter is necessarily an argument. Unless it has both premises and a conclusion, it’s not an argument. If no support is offered, it’s not an argument. It might be true. It might be a fact. It might be an opinion. But if there are no reasons to back it up, its not an argument. Consider the following passage: People say I'm angry. I am. I'm angry that our president started an unnecessary war. I'm upset that our military got away with torturing people. I'm mad that an insurance company sold policies that my government had to cover, and they're still open. I'm upset that companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual collapsed the housing market. I'm totally disgusted in Congress. 1 This could be the beginning of an argument—maybe the author goes on to support his opinions with reasons and evidence. But as it stands, this piece of text is merely a list of assertions of belief. Narratives are also not arguments: I remember being paid $5.75 an hour at my first job as a host at Hobee’s, a brunch restaurant in the East Bay town of Fremont where I grew up. The dismal pay rate felt like a significant amount of money at the time, but then again it was the year 2000, I was living with my parents, and I was only 14. … It’s hard to imagine how my coworkers at Hobee’s were surviving on $5.75 an hour all those years ago, many of them with families to support. 2 The text above is also not an argument. The writer is reflecting upon his memories, and his feelings about his memories, but because he doesn’t make any definitive claim, it’s not an argument. Finding Premises and Conclusions When you’re spelling out arguments, the standard form is to list the premises first, and then state the conclusion that the premises lead to. But arguments in real life are often not as tid.

1. Arguments Are Support
While being open-minded and playing “the believing game” is a
great starting place whenever you're having a discussion, the
remainder of the webtext will focus on what Peter Elbow calls
“the doubting game.” To filter through all the ideas presented to
you and decide what to believe, it's important to turn a skeptical
eye to every argument you encounter.
The first step is to understand exactly what makes up an
argument. To say that something is true is to make a claim. But
to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument.
Thus, all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. Premise: one or more reasons or pieces of evidence to
support the claim
2. Conclusion: the claim being supported
Arguments make the process of thinking visible. The logical
leap from the premises to the conclusion is known as an
inference. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on a piece of
information, such as seeing a threateningly dark sky and
deciding that there’s a good chance of rain, you’re making an
inference. When these inferences are articulated with premises
and conclusions, they make an argument.
Recognizing Arguments
Not every piece of text or spoken speech you encounter is
necessarily an argument. Unless it has both premises and a
conclusion, it’s not an argument.
If no support is offered, it’s not an argument. It might be true. It
might be a fact. It might be an opinion. But if there are no
reasons to back it up, its not an argument. Consider the
following passage:
People say I'm angry. I am. I'm angry that our president started
an unnecessary war. I'm upset that our military got away with
torturing people. I'm mad that an insurance company sold
policies that my government had to cover, and they're still open.
I'm upset that companies like Countrywide and Washington

2. Mutual collapsed the housing market. I'm totally disgusted in
Congress. 1
This could be the beginning of an argument—maybe the author
goes on to support his opinions with reasons and evidence. But
as it stands, this piece of text is merely a list of assertions of
belief.
Narratives are also not arguments:
I remember being paid $5.75 an hour at my first job as a host at
Hobee’s, a brunch restaurant in the East Bay town of Fremont
where I grew up. The dismal pay rate felt like a significant
amount of money at the time, but then again it was the year
2000, I was living with my parents, and I was only 14. … It’s
hard to imagine how my coworkers at Hobee’s were surviving
on $5.75 an hour all those years ago, many of them with
families to support. 2
The text above is also not an argument. The writer is reflecting
upon his memories, and his feelings about his memories, but
because he doesn’t make any definitive claim, it’s not an
argument.
Finding Premises and Conclusions
When you’re spelling out arguments, the standard form is to list
the premises first, and then state the conclusion that the
premises lead to. But arguments in real life are often not as
tidy. The ability to tease out the premises and conclusion in a
body of text is a key part of analyzing arguments—and making
sure that what you’re reading is an argument in the first place.
An important first step is to find the conclusions. Sometimes
speakers or writers will provide clues about what their
conclusions are with indicator words and phrases such as:
· Therefore…
· So…
· Consequently…
· Hence…
· Which shows that…
· It follows that…
But not all arguers use these phrases to mark their conclusion

3. (and not every instance of these phrases means that it’s a
conclusion!). Furthermore, while it’s standard practice to map
out arguments by listing the premises first and ending with the
conclusion they lead to, not all arguments in real life end on the
concluding proposition. For instance, consider the following
argument:
Debtors’ prisons impose devastating human costs. They lead to
coercive debt collection, forcing poor people to forgo the basic
necessities of life in order to avoid arrest and jailing. Debtors’
prisons waste taxpayer money and resources by jailing people
who may never be able to pay their debts. This imposes direct
costs on the government and further destabilizes the lives of
poor people struggling to pay their debts and leave the criminal
justice system behind. And most troubling, debtors’ prisons
create a racially-skewed, two-tiered system of justice in which
the poor receive harsher, longer punishments for committing the
same crimes as the rich, simply because they are poor. 3
This argument can be broken down as follows:
Premise: Debtors’ prisons lead to coercive debt collection.
Premise: Debtors’ prisons waste taxpayer money and resources
by jailing people who may never be able to pay their debts.
Premise: Debtors’ prisons create a racially-skewed, two-tiered
system of justice in which the poor receive harsher, longer
punishments for committing the same crimes as the rich, simply
because they are poor.
Conclusion: Debtors' prisons impose devastating human costs.
Note that here the conclusion appears at the beginning of the
paragraph, and it is not surrounded by any recognizable
indicator words, but it is still the main claim that the author
uses the following propositions to support.
If you have trouble finding the conclusion, a good place to start
is to ask yourself questions like:
· What’s the point?
· About what is the writer trying to convince me?
· What is the writer’s purpose for writing this?
Once you have a good idea about what the conclusion is, you’ll

4. want to find the premises used to support the conclusion.
Premises can be identified using questions like:
· How is this claim supported?
· What reasons does the speaker or writer give for why I should
believe this?
Extended Arguments
Some arguments you encounter will be simple, with a small
number of premises leading up to a single, clearly stated
conclusion.
“You should hire Kelsey for the job. She has more relevant
experience than any of the other candidates.”
Premise: Kelsey has more relevant experience than any of the
other candidates.
Conclusion: Therefore, Kelsey should be hired for the job.
Other arguments may have far more premises supporting their
conclusions, or they may contain sub-arguments, which are
subordinate arguments inside the main argument that support
the main conclusion. This means that one claim might
simultaneously be the conclusion of a sub-argument and the
premise of the main argument. These arguments that contain
sub-arguments are called extended arguments. You will
frequently encounter them when you read editorials, reviews,
essays, blog posts, etc., or when you’re writing a paper of your
own.
Think back to the pro/con list ( “Are Social Networking Sites
Good for Our Society?”) that you looked at in Practice:
Thinking Independently. Each numbered point on the pro side
supported the conclusion that social networking sites are good
for society.
Main Argument
Premise: Social networking sites spread information faster than
any other media.
Premise: Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch
and prosecute criminals.
Premise: Social networking sites help students do better at
school.

5. (and so on)
Conclusion: Social networking sites are good for our society.
However, notice how each of the points on the list contains an
explanation supporting it. To translate this into argument terms,
this means that the statement “Social networking sites help
students do better in school” functions as both a premise in the
main argument, “Social networking sites are good for society,”
as well as the conclusion in a sub-argument.
Sub-Argument
Premise: 59 percent of students with access to the Internet
report that they use social networking sites to discuss
educational topics.
Premise: After George Middle School in Portland, OR
introduced a social media program to engage students, grades
went up by 50 percent, chronic absenteeism went down by 33
percent, and 20 percent of students school-wide voluntarily
completed extra-credit assignments.
Conclusion: Social networking sites help students do better at
school.
To put it all together, this particular sub-argument fits inside
the main argument like this:
Extended Argument
Premise: Social networking sites spread information faster than
any other media.
Premise: Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch
and prosecute criminals.
Premise: Social networking sites help students do better at
school.
Premise: 59 percent of students with access to the Internet
report that they use social networking sites to discuss
educational topics.
Premise: After George Middle School in Portland, OR
introduced a social media program to engage students, grades
went up by 50 percent, chronic absenteeism went down by 33
percent, and 20 percent of students school-wide voluntarily
completed extra-credit assignments.

6. Conclusion: Social networking sites help students do better at
school.
Conclusion: Social networking sites are good for our society.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following qualifies as a complete argument with
both a premise and a conclusion?
· “In the next election, I’m going to vote Democrat. I’m going
to convince all my friends to vote for Democrats too.”
· “Clients and colleagues alike are complaining about the strong
perfume you wear in the office, so you should switch brands.”
· “The rise of reality TV has completely destroyed the integrity
of the sitcom.”
· “Studies show that eating kale is great for cardiovascular
support.”
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is a complex argument that contains
sub-arguments supporting the premises of the main argument?
· a claim
· a simple argument
· a conclusion
· an extended argument
Analyze the argument contained in the excerpt below, and then
answer the next two questions.
· Voters in New Jersey should adopt a constitutional amendment
that raises the minimum wage to $8.25 an hour starting on Jan.
1. If it is approved, more than 400,000 people now working at
or near minimum wage could benefit. ... Business leaders say,
as they often do, that such increases would cost jobs. But a
recent study by New Jersey Policy Perspective estimated that
because the working poor spend virtually every extra dollar they
earn, the increase in pay would add $175 million to the
economy in 2014, most of it in New Jersey.4
Identify at least one premise from the argument above.

7. Identify the conclusion from the argument above.
Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer.
Video gaming (playing video games) has become a popular
activity for people of all ages. Many children and adolescents
spend large amounts of time playing them. Video gaming is a
multibillion-dollar industry bringing in more money than
movies and DVDs. Video games have become very sophisticated
and realistic. Some games connect to the Internet, which can
allow children and adolescents to play online with unknown
adults and peers.5
Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer.
More than 50 percent of Europeans speak more than one
language. By contrast, only about 18 percent of Americans
speak a language other than English. Therefore, learning a
second (or third) language is a tangible way you can distinguish
yourself in our global business world. 6
YouTube video. https://youtu.be/EA-91_LoKIw. Uploaded
February 23, 2009, by CBS News. To activate captions, first
click the play button and then click the CC button in the
embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.
John McCardell of Middlebury College presents the following
premises in his argument: (1) the minimum-21 drinking law has
created a culture of dangerous and unsupervised binge-drinking;
(2) the minimum-21 drinking law is impossible to enforce; and
(3) 18-year-olds in this country are trusted to vote, perform jury
duty, and serve in the military. Which of the following
represents the conclusion he reaches?
· Underage drinking should be discouraged before it leads to
more deaths.
· The drinking age should remain at 21.
· There should be no minimum drinking age.
· The drinking age should be lowered to 18.
To what extent do you agree with the logic that when laws are

8. too difficult or expensive to enforce, we should dispense with
them? Provide at least one example or counter-example to
demonstrate why you feel that way.
The Gordie Foundation speaks of the death of a student who
died of alcohol poisoning. What is their conclusion?
· The minimum-21 drinking law should be raised even higher.
· The minimum-21 drinking law is only a first step in the battle
against alcohol abuse.
· The minimum-21 drinking law should be left alone.
· The minimum-21 drinking law leads to reckless behavior.
Chuck Hurley, the executive director of MADD, argues that the
drinking age should stay at 21. Which of the following does
Hurley use to support his conclusion?
· an anecdote about an avoidable tragedy in which an 18-year-
old died from binge drinking
· statistics showing how driving fatalities go down when the
drinking age is increased and up when the drinking age is
decreased
· statistics from the Surgeon General indicating how many
Americans under the age of 21 die each year of alcohol-related
causes
· a video clip of Ronald Reagan demonstrating proof that it was
a good idea to raise the drinking age
Many complex societal issues involve numerous competing
arguments rather than a single, straightforward, indisputable
answer. How does Leslie Stahl summarize the “conundrum” of
the minimum-21 drinking law?Deduction
After you know you’re looking at an argument, and you
understand its parts, the next step is to figure out what type it
is. Some arguments conclude that something is definitely true,
while other arguments conclude that something is probably true.
An argument with a logical structure that offers certainty,
provided the premises are true, is called a deductive argument.
Conversely, the premises of an inductive argument might
provide strong evidence in support of a conclusion, but they do
not guarantee the truth of the conclusion with certainty.

9. Deductive arguments are those that offer certainty. They usually
use general premises to draw a specific and logically necessary
conclusion.
Inductive arguments use two or more premises to support a
tentative conclusion. They usually start with specific
observations that combine to give reasonable certainty to a
general conclusion.
Like any argument, deductive arguments come in a variety of
forms when found in everyday speech and writing, but when it
comes time to evaluate deductive arguments, they’re usually
translated into a standard form. While there are several types of
deductive arguments, the examples on this page will be
categorical syllogisms, which are deductive arguments that use
two premises and a conclusion to make a claim about a whole
class or category of items. The following is an example of a
categorical syllogism:
Premise: Some ballerinas are not redheads.
Premise: All ballerinas are dancers.
Conclusion: Therefore, some dancers are not redheads.
A good deductive argument is referred to as sound. To be
considered sound, a deductive argument must meet two
qualifications:
1. The argument must have a valid structure.
2. All premises must be true.Validity
To evaluate the structural validity of an argument, you look at it
as a whole, not just the premises as individual statements. A
valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows
from the premises. Consider the following example of an invalid
argument:
Premise: All chickens are domesticated animals.
Premise: All cows are domesticated animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, all cows are chickens.
When you see an argument like this one, where the premises are
obviously true, while the conclusion is obviously false, it
generally means that they don’t support the conclusion that is
being made. In this case, because the argument doesn’t make a

10. claim about domesticated animals as a whole category, it
doesn’t necessarily follow that all cows are chickens. In other
words, it’s possible to be a domesticated animal without being a
chicken, and it’s possible to be a domesticated animal without
being a cow. In fact, it’s possible to be a domesticated animal
without being a chicken or a cow.
To reach the conclusion that all cows are chickens, you would
first have to provide a premise about all domesticated animals,
such as, “All domesticated animals are cows.” However, at that
point, though you would have a valid structure, one of the
premises would be untrue, so it would still be an unsound
argument.
Because determining validity in your head is often so difficult,
logicians have developed rules to systematically evaluate
syllogisms. Learning these syllogistic rules can help you
evaluate syllogisms more readily.Truth
In addition to evaluating the structural validity of a deductive
argument, you must also investigate the truth of the premises
before you can pronounce it sound.
When evaluating deductive arguments, it is important to look at
each individual premise and ask yourself if the statement is
accurate, doing research if necessary. No matter how logical the
argument sounds, if one or more of the premises is false, the
entire argument is unsound.
Premise: All presidents of the United States are people with
tattoos.
Premise: Benjamin Franklin was a president of the United
States.
Conclusion: Therefore, Benjamin Franklin was a person with a
tattoo.
In the syllogism above, the reasoning is solid, but since both the
first and second premises are false, the argument is not sound.
Even if just one of the premises were false, the argument would
still be unsound.
Since the whole point of deductive reasoning is to find certain
truth, it’s important to ask yourself if the premises in a

11. deductive argument are completely true all the time. This need
for your audience to accept the truth of your premises before
they can be asked to accept your conclusion as certain truth is
why making sound deductive arguments about controversial
issues is often so difficult.
Premise: Any practice in the United States that violates the
rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution should be illegal.
Premise: The death penalty violates the rights guaranteed in the
U.S. Constitution.
Conclusion: Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal.
Since the premises logically support the conclusion, it is likely
that people on both sides of the death penalty debate would
agree that this is a valid argument.
However, not everyone would accept that it is a sound
argument, because some would find the truth of the second
premise to be contentious. In fact, some would argue with the
truth of the first premise as well.Enthymemes
In general, no one actually uses formal syllogisms when making
arguments. However, deductive reasoning is something you
encounter everyday—you just might not recognize deductive
arguments when you hear them.
Suppose you ask your instructor why your grade is so low, and
your instructor tells you, “You didn’t do your webtext
homework—that’s why you’re failing my course.” What your
instructor is using is something called an enthymeme, or an
abbreviated deductive syllogism that contains an implied
premise.
Premise: You are a student who didn’t do his or her webtext
homework.
(Implied) Premise: All students who didn’t do their webtext
homework currently hold failing grades in my course.
Conclusion: Therefore, you currently hold a failing grade in my
course.
When people talk in enthymemes, they often leave out the
implied premise because they think it’s so obvious that it
doesn’t need to be stated. But it’s often important to figure out

12. the assumed premise, because the assumption may not be as
plainly true as the speaker thinks. Once you tease out the
syllogism buried within an enthymeme, you may decide that the
assumption the speaker is making needs a closer look.
Consider the following enthymeme:
“Fritz’s grandfather won’t know how to use Twitter—he’s 88!”
Premise: Fritz’s grandfather is an 88-year-old.
(Implied) Premise: No 88-year-olds are people who know how
to use Twitter.
Conclusion: Fritz’s grandfather is not a person who knows how
to use Twitter.
Even though the speaker never states that no 88-year-olds are
people who know how to use Twitter, he implies it when he
makes the leap from Fritz’s grandfather being 88 to Fritz’s
grandfather definitely not knowing how to use Twitter.
Arguments with enthymemes appear everywhere from casual
conversations to discussions about controversial issues. The
assumptions hidden in enthymemes often carry some truth to
them, but they may or may not earn the guaranteed certainty of
truth that comes with deductive arguments.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is the BEST definition of a deductive
argument?
· an argument with true premises
· an argument with a necessarily true conclusion, provided the
premises are true
· an argument with premises that suggest that the conclusion is
probably true
· an argument that contains the words “all,” “no,” or “some”
Consider the following syllogism:
Premise: All men are skillful drivers.Premise: Gus is a
man.Conclusion: Therefore, Gus is a skillful driver.
How does it hold up in terms of truth, validity, and soundness?
· The premises are all true, and the argument is valid, so the
argument is sound.

13. · The argument is valid, but not all of the premises are true, so
the argument is unsound.
· The premises are all true, but the argument is invalid, so the
argument is unsound.
· The premises aren’t true, and the argument is invalid, so the
argument is unsound.
Why is it hard to settle a debate on a controversial issue with a
simple deductive argument?
Isabelle says, “Since felons in this country are Americans just
like the rest of us, they should be allowed to vote.” Which of
the following represents the hidden assumption of her
enthymeme?
· All Americans are people with the right to vote.
· Felons from other countries are allowed to vote.
· Felons should sue for discrimination when they are not
allowed to vote.
· In previous elections, felons have not been allowed to vote.
When Pedro is making his book pitch to a publisher, he says,
“All the books in my series are about how to get rich fast. Trust
me, they’ll sell like hotcakes.” What is the hidden assumption
in Pedro’s enthymeme?Practice: Deduction
Deductive Arguments and Enthymemes in the Wild
In the exercises below, you will examine pieces of deductive
reasoning from a variety of articles.
The following passage is an excerpt from an article titled “The
Problem with Special Ed” by Jay P. Greene, originally
published in the National Review Online on September 14,
2009. The article questions the increase in special-education
enrollments in recent years.
Use the passage below to answer the following question.
One of the reasons we know that reported disability rates lack
credibility is that they vary dramatically from state to state. In
New Jersey, for example, 18 percent of all students are
classified as disabled, but in California the rate is only 10.5
percent. 7

14. Multiple Choice Question
The first sentence in the passage forms an enthymeme. What is
the hidden assumption of that enthymeme?
· There are more students classified as disabled in eastern states
than in western states.
· All disability rates that vary from state to state lack
credibility.
· If disability rates were the same from state to state, they
would definitely be credible.
· Focusing on “reported” disability rates ignores possible
unreported disabilities.
The following passage is an excerpt from the article “Animal
Rights Uncompromised: Zoos” from the “Uncompromising
Stands on Animal Rights” series on the PETA (People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals) website.
Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question.
PETA opposes zoos because cages and cramped enclosures at
zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most
basic needs. 8
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is the hidden assumption in the
enthymeme above?
· PETA would approve of zoos if they didn’t keep animals in
cages and cramped enclosures.
· PETA believes that zoos often lead to abnormal, neurotic, and
even self-destructive behavior in animals.
· PETA opposes institutions that deprive animals of the
opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs.
· PETA’s policy is to be against all zoos.
The following passage is an excerpt from an op-ed in the
Connecticut Mirror criticizing the Common Core standards
implemented in Connecticut schools.
Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question.
This standardized test of “college and career readiness” is
particularly inappropriate and unreliable because not one
teacher was involved in setting the learning goals.9

15. What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above?
The following passage is an excerpt from an op-ed in the Los
Angeles Times titled “What Are the Supreme Court Justices
Hiding?” It is about the lack of transparency in the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question.
Supreme Court justices are government officials whose salaries
are paid by the taxpayers, and their records, like those of the
president, should be deemed public property and available for
review after taking into account reasonable privacy concerns.10
Short Answer Question
What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme
above?Induction
As previously discussed, arguments are made for different
reasons. While deductive arguments attempt to prove that
something is absolutely certain, deductive reasoning is not the
only way people understand the world. Other arguments focus
on what is probably true, and knowledge gathered this way is
called inductive reasoning.
While deductive arguments start with broad concepts and then
zoom in to reveal specific truths, inductive arguments work in
reverse—they take a number of specific cases to draw a general
conclusion that can be held with a reasonable degree of
certainty.
Deductive arguments are those that offer certainty. They usually
use general premises to draw a specific and logically necessary
conclusion.
Inductive arguments use two or more premises to support a
tentative conclusion. They usually start with specific
observations that combine to give reasonable certainty to a
general conclusion.
The type of thinking found in inductive arguments usually looks
something like this:
Every time I have kept a gallon of milk in my fridge for more
than a month after the expiration date, it has gone sour.
That gallon of milk has been in my fridge for over a month after

16. the expiration date.
Therefore, that gallon of milk has probably gone sour.
The effect of milk going sour has happened so repeatedly that it
is a reasonable speculation to assume that it will be sour again
this time as well.
As with all arguments, some inductive arguments are better than
others. But inductive arguments cannot be subjected to the same
kind of tests for validity that we use for deductive arguments.
The categorical claims of deductive arguments tend to make
them decisively true or false. Things are fuzzier when using
inductive arguments, and the argument’s strength relies on the
quality of the evidence used.
The argument above seems fairly strong, largely because your
personal experience probably matches up with the experience of
the person doing the reasoning. The following argument is much
weaker:
Marcus is an engineering student who wears glasses.
Lauren is an engineering student who wears glasses.
Therefore, all engineering students wear glasses.
Two instances do not create a high probability that the quality
of wearing glasses applies to all engineering students.Qualities
That Make for a Strong Inductive Argument
· A large, diverse, and bias-free sample size of examples
leading to the conclusion
· A high percentage of instances that fit the conclusion
· An analogy in which the items being compared are similar in
relevant ways
The scientific method relies heavily on inductive reasoning. If
you observe that water freezes every time you lower its
temperature to 32 degrees, you can make an inductive argument
that the freezing temperature of water is strictly 32 degrees. As
more people try this in more places with more diverse
conditions, the strength of the argument increases.
At its strongest, the argument simply states that water freezes at
32 degrees. However, there’s no way to prove that this is really
true in all circumstances and in all places. We’re generalizing—

17. or using inductive reasoning—based on many tests. This
knowledge can be quite reliable, but it’s not necessarily or
categorically true in the way that a deductive argument is.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is a true statement about inductive
reasoning?
· Inductive arguments do not have conclusions.
· Inductive arguments reach definite conclusions.
· Inductive arguments reach probable conclusions.
· Inductive arguments do not need to offer support for their
conclusions.
Multiple Choice Question
Your friend recommends her favorite mystery author, so you
pick up one of the author’s books at the bookstore. You’re
hooked, and before long you’ve read all nine of the author’s
published novels. The plots vary, but you notice that eight of
the nine novels have a male protagonist and take place in the
American South. When the author’s tenth book comes out, you
could use inductive reasoning to come to which of the following
conclusions?
· The book will definitely have a male protagonist and take
place in the American South.
· The book will probably have a male protagonist and take place
in the American South.
· The book will probably not have a male protagonist or take
place in the American South.
· The book will definitely not have a male protagonist or take
place in the American South.
Multiple Choice Question
Craig is a college student claiming that he took a survey and is
confident that the vast majority of students at his school vote in
primary elections. Craig’s claim would be MOST persuasive if
you knew he obtained his information in which of the following
ways?
· Craig put up a flier in the political science department asking

18. people to email him their responses.
· Craig surveyed the first eight people he bumped into at a
football game.
· Craig surveyed everyone in his fraternity, and told his friends
to ask their friends.
· Craig surveyed every third person to walk into the student
union during peak hours over the course of several days.
Suppose you read a study that stated that 52 percent of all
voters in the town of Marble Glen are registered Democrats.
Now consider the following argument:
The majority of voters in Marble Glen are Democrats.
Fiona lives in Marble Glen.
Therefore, Fiona is probably a Democrat.
How strong or weak is this inductive argument? Explain your
answer.
Practice: Induction
Debates over Gun Control
Similar to the way that both sides of the drinking-age debate
seek the most effective way to reduce alcohol-related fatalities,
opposing sides in the gun-control debate share an interest in
reducing the number of violent deaths but disagree about which
laws best meet that goal. The first article below, an opinion
piece from the Washington Post, discusses trends in tipping
points of public opinion and policy change and how these
lessons can be applied to gun control laws. In the second
article, from the Brenner Brief, the writer addresses the
controversy surrounding a new gun law in Illinois by presenting
an argument about the effectiveness of gun control laws overall.
Read the article below, and then answer the following
questions.
Searching for the Tipping Point on Gun Control
Multiple Choice Question
The writer of this article presents an inductive argument using
the following premises:
Premise: Gun rights advocates have remained focused and
passionate, and gun laws have not changed significantly.

19. Premise: Advocates of gay rights made gains when they united
their focus on same-sex marriage.
Premise: Advocates of marijuana legalization made gains when
they united their focus on medical marijuana.
What conclusion does the writer draw from these premises?
· Advocates of changing public policy or maintaining the status
quo have the greatest chance of success when they are united
and focused.
· Sometimes having a focus can be a good thing, while other
times being too focused detracts from the advocacy group’s
goals.
· Advocates for issues that don’t involve gun control have a
better chance of achieving what they want than gun control
advocates do.
· Gun control laws will never change, because gun rights
advocates are so focused, passionate, unyielding, and
indefatigable.
Multiple Choice Question
The writer produces a second inductive argument using the
following premises:
Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from tobacco
companies, public opinion shifted over time to favor measures
that discourage smoking.
Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from bar owners and
defense attorneys, Mothers Against Drunk Driving eventually
overcame public apathy about their cause.
Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from the car industry,
public opinion shifted over time to favor tighter regulations
regarding seat belts and air bags.
What conclusion does the writer draw from these premises?
· History is full of examples of surprising twists in public
opinion that no one could have seen coming.
· Public opinion is extremely fickle, and even the most
determined campaigns often fail to persuade people.
· Even if gun control advocates tighten their focus, public
opinion will eventually turn against them.

20. · A public-health focus and persistence over time can often
result in changes to public opinion even against great odds.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following BEST describes the writer’s main
conclusion that he reaches from the two inductive arguments?
· There are so many routes to change that it’s counterproductive
to give up just because one path proves futile.
· Gun control advocates have the best chance of making a
difference in public opinion over time if they unite their focus
on public health.
· None of the proposed gun control solutions will actually solve
the problem of reducing avoidable gun-related deaths.
· It is inevitable that public opinion will eventually shift in
favor of gun control.
Read the article below, and then answer the following
questions.
Why New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public
Safety (PDF)
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following BEST describes the main argument of
this piece?
· The new law in Illinois allowing citizens to carry concealed
handguns will increase public safety.
· Academic research has proven how dangerous it is for citizens
to carry concealed handguns.
· Governor Pat Quinn’s new gun control law will endanger
public safety.
· Illinois is a more dangerous place to live than any other state.
Short Answer Question
The writer offers research from an academic study to support
his main argument about the relationship between gun control
laws and crime. Explain how this support serves to form an
inductive argument rather than a deductive argument.
To what extent do you find the inductive arguments presented in
both of these articles to be strong or weak? Explain your
answer.