Inductive Arguments Premises Discussion Assignment
Description
The assignment for the Week 4 Discussion is as follows:
Step 1. Provide an original example of a strong inductive argument.
Step 2. Repeat the argument from Step 1, but now add one or more premises that weaken the argument. That is, you should add one or more premises that make the conclusion less likely to be true than was the case with the original argument in Step 1.
Step 3. Repeat the argument from Step 2, but now add one or more premises that strengthen the argument. That is, you should add one or more premises that make the conclusion more likely to be true than was the case with the argument in Step 2.
To illustrate, here’s an example:
Argument 1
(P1) 70% of musicians can read music.
(P2) Sheila is a musician.
(C) Sheila can probably read music.
Argument 2
(P1) 70% of musicians can read music.
(P2) Sheila is a musician.
(P3) Sheila is a drummer.
(P4) Only 30% of drummers can read music.
(C) Sheila can probably read music.
Argument 3
(P1) 70% of musicians can read music.
(P2) Sheila is a musician.
(P3) Sheila is a drummer.
(P4) Only 30% of drummers can read music.
(P5) Sheila graduated from Peabody Conservatory.
(P6) 95% of the graduates of Peabody Conservatory know how to read music.
(C) Sheila can probably read music.
Lastly, in addition to the above, you should raise an original question about the assigned reading for this week. Your question should be unique to you.
RUBRIC | |||
Excellent Quality
95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Literature Support
91-84 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Methodology
58-53 points With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached. |
Average Score
50-85% |
40-38 points
More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied. |
83-76 points
There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration. |
52-49 points
The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Poor Quality
0-45% |
37-1 points
The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied. |
75-1 points
There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references. |
48-1 points
There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Place the Order Here: https://standardwriter.com/orders/or