Inference
Under lexical definitions, valid refers to an argument or idea with a solid logical foundation. Meanwhile, warranted refers to something that looks needed or suitable for a situation. A deductive argument says a conclusion is accurate after offering at least two assertions leading to the conclusion’s truth. The argument could be that since F and G are correct, H has to be correct, too. An inductive argument explains a proclamation using particular statements or presuppositions for making wider generalizations. For instance, it could be said that considering Ann saw many cats at school and all of them were black, then all cats are black. So, a valid inference aligns with deductive arguments as the latter will guarantee the actuality of a conclusion based on the actuality of the presuppositions. Valid inferences say that if presuppositions are correct, then the conclusion has to be correct. That makes one able to examine the validity of a deductive argument by examining if presuppositions give the conclusion in the end (“Deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning,” 2023). When it is hard for the conclusion to be incorrect when presuppositions are viewed as correct, the argument’s validity is proved. Then, a warranted inference aligns with an inductive argument as the latter offers only a possible actual conclusion by looking ahead of the information relayed by the presuppositions. The inductive argument simply generalizes a conclusion based on the presuppositions as long as the conclusion suits the argument, even when the presuppositions’ truth fails to guarantee the conclusion’s truth.
Fallacies
I will pair the fallacy of denying the antecedent with the valid argument of denying the consequent (Peter & Gittens, 2015). The argument of denying the consequent is valid as an individual concludes that if a particular provisional assertion, the antecedent must be incorrect when the consequence is incorrect. The antecedent could be: If you go home, the consequent will be: you will see your parents. So the valid argument is you did not see your parents, so you did not go home. That is a valid argument as the antecedent of ‘you not going home’ is true since the consequence of ‘you not seeing your parents’ is true. You could only have seen your parents if you went home, and since you did not see them you could not have seen them. Under the fallacy of denying the antecedent, an individual who denies the antecedent will conclude from the provisional assertion that if you did not go home, you did not see your parents. If an individual rejects the antecedent, the consequence can also be rejected. However, that is wrong since that conclusion does not lie in the initial provision. Not going home does not necessitate you not seeing your parents since the original provision did not discuss that.
Civic responsibility
Finishing the task of researching and assessing the 2009 debate concerning the public healthcare option will be time well spent on my part. That is because it will enable me to be well-informed about what America has decided regarding the public healthcare option (“Public debate over ‘public option’ for healthcare,” 2009). I will know that the government refused to implement a public option, a government-insured healthcare plan, to rival private insurance. I can know what health insurance scheme I should use and how to acquire it. As an American, I should not ignore the current matters surrounding me and my community, as these matters affect my life significantly. Knowing about the 2009 debate will inform me how past events have led America to how it is now. It informs me about my country’s history to appreciate how past activities have led to its current developments. In this case, I know the political groups that promoted the decisions made during the debate. Knowing my view regarding the public option, I can choose the group that shares in my views so I can be on its side during upcoming debates. My analysis can also inform me how to approach public debates so I can engage in a vital one in the future. Engaging in public affairs will enable me to promote American decisions and implementation in America that will improve the quality of my worthy life and my society.
Putting great effort into analyzing the issue of the debate regarding the vaccination of school children entering elementary and middle school measles is essential to me. Americans are debating on whether the government should mandate parents to vaccinate their children. Knowing about the issue well enables me to engage in the debate effectively. I can take part in polls to influence the decision on whether to mandate vaccinations or not. Personally, I agree with people who say that vaccines should be mandated as they promote public health efforts. They enable the vaccinated children to receive immunity against getting measles infection. Measles is a deadly disease and vaccinating children against it is very effective. If almost all children in society are vaccinated against it, there will be no risk of the unvaccinated infecting the vaccinated due to herd immunity. I will be able to unite with fellow Americans who support mandating vaccines to strongly influence the government to mandate them and promote public health through herd immunity. Uniting as many as possible will likely make us win the debate due to majority votes.
I believe that citizens have a responsibility to be informed about subjects of present interests. Citizens will have solid and adequate information about issues affecting their lives in the general society. Citizens have to live harmoniously and safely in their general society, and so matters affecting their society are essential to them. They can influence how the government implements and controls those matters so they live quality lives. Citizens need to have full data on subjects of current interests to convince the government and citizens who oppose them to make effective decisions regarding mutual interests. They can convince their government and critics with solid evidence and facts to promote proper decision-making regarding societal matters. That promotes a democratic society, where citizens’ appropriate views are heard during decision-making.
References
Deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning. (2023, January 30). livescience.com. https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
Peter, F., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think Critically.
Public debate over ‘public option’ for healthcare. (2009, May 10). Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-may-10-na-healthcare10-story.html
write