Mainp softvnncom

4 Giulio has been ill for over six months now.

Claim 3 acts as the framing premise, showing why Giulio's illness and its length lead to the given conclusion.

Reasoning from specific cases

1 Smoking should be banned in restaurants.

2 A recent representative survey of Australians found that most of them believed smoking should be banned in restaurants.

3 In a democratic country such as Australia, the wishes of the majority should be implemented.

Many arguments from specific cases establish factual claims, but (with the appropriate framing premise), they can also support an explicit value claim. Claim 2 is written as a summary of the survey subjects' views, representing the hundreds of individual opinions expressed in that survey.

Reasoning from analogy

1 Cigarette smoking that does not harm other people should not be banned.

2 Cigarettes and alcohol are similar in that they are addictive, potentially disease-causing substances.

3 Society condones the drinking of alcohol as long as it does not cause harm to other people.

4 It is good for societies to treat similar situations in a consistent manner.

The strength of this analogy depends on the similarity of drinking and smoking in relevant respects. Claim 2 seeks to establish this similarity, while claim 4 asserts that the similarity should be interpreted within a framework of consistency (normally we would 'leave out' this claim—see chapter 5 on implied premises).

Reasoning from terms

1 Cigarette smoke includes smoke inhaled both actively, from one's own smoking, and passively, from others' cigarettes.

2 Cigarette smoke can enter the lungs actively when a person is smoking.

3 Cigarette smoke can enter the lungs passively when a person is inhaling others' smoke.

4 Whichever way smoke enters the body, there is no qualitative difference in its effects on the lung.

This argument establishes a particular definition of 'cigarette smoke' (which might then be used to simplify another argument). The framework for this argument is provided by claim 4. Note that it is definitely not a causal argument: it is simply defining some term or concept.

0 0

Post a comment