Exploring Cogent vs Sound Arguments in Inductive Reasoning

The video explains the concept of cogent arguments, which require strong inductive reasoning and true premises. It discusses how inductive arguments can fail if the reasoning is weak or the premises are false, following the 'garbage in, garbage out' principle. An example is provided to illustrate these points. The video also covers how to identify disagreements in arguments and compares cogent arguments with sound arguments, which apply to deductive reasoning.

What are the two levels at which a cogent argument succeeds?

• Strong deductive reasoning and true premises

• Strong inductive reasoning and true premises

• Weak inductive reasoning and false premises

• Strong deductive reasoning and false premises

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

What is the primary purpose of inductive arguments?

• To confuse the audience

• To refute deductive arguments

• To give probabilistic support to conclusions

• To provide absolute certainty

Tags

CCSS.RL.6.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RI.6.1

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

What does the GIGO rule stand for in the context of inductive reasoning?

• Great In, Great Out

• Garbage In, Garbage Out

• Good In, Good Out

• Genuine In, Genuine Out

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RI.8.8

In the example given, what is the premise about hikers and chipmunks?

• Hikers never see chipmunks on the trail

• Hikers rarely see chipmunks on the trail

• Most hikers see chipmunks on the trail in the morning

• Hikers always see chipmunks in the evening

Tags

CCSS.RL.6.1

CCSS.RI.9-10.1

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

Why might the argument about hikers and chipmunks be considered weak?

• Because the reasoning is inductively weak

• Because the premise might be false

• Because it is a deductive argument

• Because it is based on personal opinion

Tags

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RL.8.1

What should you do if you agree with the premises but not the conclusion of an argument?

• Ignore the argument

• Challenge the premises

• Challenge the inductive reasoning

• Accept the conclusion

Tags

CCSS.RL.8.1

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.6.1

How can understanding the two levels of arguments help in discussions?

• By always agreeing with the other person

• By avoiding discussions altogether

• By identifying where the disagreement lies

• By making arguments more confusing

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.1

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RL.8.1

What is the term used to judge the quality of a deductive argument?

• Cogent

• Strong

• Sound

• Valid

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

What are the two requirements for a sound argument?

• Strong inductive reasoning and true premises

• Weak deductive reasoning and false premises

• Strong deductive reasoning and false premises

• Valid deductive reasoning and true premises

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.6.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

What should you consider when you hear an unconvincing argument?

• Whether the argument is popular

• Whether the argument is long or short

• Whether the reasoning is valid or the premises are true

• Whether the argument is emotional

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.7.1