1. Innermost skills of critical thinking are to recognize and evaluate arguments. There are two types of arguments—deduction and induction. Based on this week’s course materials, describe/explain in detail at least two helpful suggestions or tips that you think crucial in identifying (inductive or deductive) and evaluating (in/valid, strong, or weak) arguments, using specific examples if possible. ( 200 words minimum)
-The two helpful suggestions from the course material for question 1
a deductive argument attempts to provide premises that guarantee, necessitate its conclusion. Success for a deductive argument, then, does not come in degrees: either the premises do in fact guarantee the conclusion, in which case the argument is a good, successful one, or they don’t, in which case it fails. Evaluation of deductive arguments is a black-and-white, yes-or-no affair; there is no middle ground.
inductive arguments. These are distinguished from their deductive cousins by their relative lack of ambition. Whereas deductive arguments aim to give premises that guarantee/necessitate the conclusion, inductive arguments are more modest: they aim merely to provide premises that make the conclusion more probable than it otherwise would be; they aim to support the conclusion, but without making it unavoidable.
2. Among many fallacies addressed (Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum), Straw Man, Red Herring, Ad Hominem, Fallacies of Weak Induction, Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority, Post hoc, Slippery Slope, Hasty Generalization, Fallacies of Illicit Presumption, Begging the Question, Loaded/Complex Question, False Choice/Dichotomy/Dilemma, Composition, Division) which one do you think is most confusing? Explain in some detail why that fallacy is tricky, deceptive, or difficult to understand (with an example, if possible) ( 200 words minimum)