Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Speech 104

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment


  1. 1. Reasoningis the process of creating orgenerating conclusions from evidence or premises.
  2. 2. Types of ReasoningInductive reasoning- • By example • By causecreates generalization • By signabout people, events, • By comparisonand things. • By authorityDeductive reasoning – • A major premisehow we apply • A minor premise • A conclusiongeneralization •Fallacy of false dilemma •Fallacy of appeal to emotion •Fallacy of non sequitur •Fallacy of the slippery slope •Fallacy of ad hominem Fallacy- an error in •Fallacy of hasty generalization •Fallacy of circular reasoning reasoning •Fallacy or appeal to ignorance •Bandwagon fallacy •Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy •Fallacy of appeal to pity •Straw-Man fallacy
  3. 3. Example reasoning -involves using specific instances asa basis for making a valid conclusion. Tests for reasoning by example There must be sufficient # of The examples examples to must be typical justify the of the whole generalized conclusion Important The examples counter must be examples must relevant to the be accounted time period of for your argument
  4. 4. Sign reasoning-involves inferring a connection between tworelated things, so that the presence or absence of one indicatesthe presence or absence of the other. Other substance/attribute Cumulative sign reasoning relationships must be considered. produces a more probable connection.
  5. 5. Comparison reasoning- is also known as reasoning by analogy. Involves drawing comparisons between two similar things, and concluding that • Figurative comparisons: • Literal comparisons: - attempt to link - attempt to establish a similarities between link between similar two cases from classifications; people different classifications - to people, cars to cars, - carry no weight in states to states. terms of providing logical proof for an argument.The more towards the figurative side the comparison is , the less the argument is logically valid.The more towards the literal side the comparison is, the more logically valid it is.
  6. 6. 1. To be considered as proof, the analogy must be a literal one.2. The cases need to contain significant points of similarity.3. Cumulative comparison reasoning will produce a more probable conclusion.
  7. 7. Reasoning from authority is used when a personargues that a particular claim is justified because it isheld or advocated by a credible source. This argumentcan be used in two ways:First, an argument can be Second, an argument canaccepted simply because be supported with thesomeone you consider an credibility of anotherauthority advocates it. person.
  8. 8. The authority must be credible.Views of counter authorities must be taken into account.Cumulative views of authorities increase the validity ofthe reasoning.
  9. 9. Deductive Reasoning• The major premise- is a general statement. Ex. All telemarketers are obnoxious.• The minor premise – is a statement of a specific instance related to the major premise. Ex. The person on the phone is a telemarketer.• The conclusion – is a statement derived from the minor premises relationship to the major premise. Ex. The person on the phone is obnoxious.
  10. 10. 1. Fallacy of the false dilemma- occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them.2. Fallacy of appeal to emotion- when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.3. Fallacy of non-sequitur- is used when a statement openly contradicts itself and makes no sense.
  11. 11. 4. Fallacy of the slippery slope – reduces an argument to absurdity by extending it beyond its reasonable limits.5. Fallacy of ad hominem –consists of saying that someone’s argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself.6. Fallacy of hasty generalization – occurs when an arguer bases a conclusion on too few examples that are not necessarily typical of the conclusion being made.
  12. 12. 7. Fallacy of circular reasoning – a repeated assertion of a conclusion without giving reasons in its support.8. Fallacy of appeal to ignorance - occurs by trying to make an argument in a contest in which the burden of proof falls on the arguer to show that his or her position is actually true, not just that it has not yet been shown false.9. Bandwagon fallacy – refers to join a cause because of its popularity.
  13. 13. 10. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy – is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another , the first event was a cause of the second event.11. Fallacy of appeal to pity – the arguer tries to get people to agree with their conclusion by evoking pity and sympathy either with their situation or with the situation of some third party.12. Straw – Man fallacy – the arguer attacks on argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.
  14. 14. PERSUASION: THEORY AND PRACTICE By Kenneth Anderson “Logical appeals are powerful forces in persuasion. However, logic alone is rarely sufficient to yield persuasion. Desires and needs of receivers affect and determine what they will accept as logical demonstration. Thus, it is possible for one person to report that he or sheis convinced by the logic used while another person remains horrified at the lack of logic presented.”