A deductive argument is the presentation of statements based on the rules of logic and the assumption that if the premise is true, the conclusion will also be true. A deductive argument can be considered valid if the statements proposed as premises are correct and the conclusion is drawn from the premises. The most common examples are arguments that, while watching a movie or show or listening to a certain type of music, prompted the listener to perform an antisocial act – snooping on coke, shooting down classmates or bringing a criminal to life. They may be potential suspects, but the mere fact that a person committed these acts and then behaved in a certain way does not yet exclude other causes. Perhaps the handset had an abusive life at home or at school, suffered from a chemical imbalance that led to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. Other potential causes need to be investigated before it can be said that only an event or circumstance has caused a previous event or behaviour. For more information, please see correlation and causality. What`s this all about? Click on the access point to see the answer! Call for a lack of evidence (ad ignorantium argument, literally “argument by ignorance”): a call for a lack of information to prove a point or the argument that, since the opposition cannot refute an assertion, the opposite attitude must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist.
Logicians know that this is a logical error, because no competing argument has yet been revealed. Similar arguments are valid if the two questions are similar, which is true in one, also applies to the other. Either or error (also called “Black-and-white error,” “Excluded medium,” “False dilemma” or “False dichotomy”): this error occurs when a writer constructs an argument, assuming that there are only two possibilities or possible outcomes if there are indeed several. The results are rarely so simple. This error is most common in the context of widespread generalizations: “Either we have to ban X or the American way of life will collapse.” “We`re going to get away with Canada, or Canada will eventually grow in population and invade the United States.” “Either you drink Burpsy Cola or you won`t have friends or social life.” Either you have to avoid deception, or everyone will think you`re stupid. But an argument at university means something completely different. An argument begins with a position that is true or false. An argument may contain a premise that is an instruction in an argument likely to support or recount the conclusion of the argument, there may be a simple premise within an argument or the argument may contain many premises. The conclusion is the position in an argument that the fighter or the author wants them to believe. The “Slippery Slope” Fallacy (also known as “The Camel`s Nose Fallacy”) is a non-sequitur in which the spokesperson states that as soon as the first step is taken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like a step on a slippery slope causes a person to fall and slide to the end.
It is also called “the mistake of the nose of the camel” because of the image of a sheikh who lets his camel put his nose in his tent in a cold evening. The idea is that the sheikh is afraid to let the camel put his nose in the tent, because once the animal is stuck in his nose, he will inevitably stick in his head, then his neck, and finally his whole body. However, this type of thinking does not stop the process. It simply assumes that once the nose is in place, the rest must follow – that the sheikh cannot stop the progression once it has started – and therefore the argument is a logical error.