phil-347n-week-4-assignment-journal.pdf

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Phil 347N Week 4 Assignment Journal Critical Reasoning (Chamberlain University) Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Phil 347N Week 4 Assignment Journal Critical Reasoning (Chamberlain University) Downloaded by Cw Ruiz (ibelieveinharris@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|16551276

1 Week 4 Assignment Journal Charity Palmer Chamberlain University College of Nursing PHIL347N: Critical Reasoning Professor Bodnar November 20th, 2022 Downloaded by Cw Ruiz (ibelieveinharris@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|16551276

2 Week 4 Assignment Journal Interference Common terms such as deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning along with valid and warranted are all about arriving at the same conclusion or outcome. Each term is relatable in its own right while wanting its argument to be merited. Inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. These words can be understood by the audience in the situation with which they are associated. An example of this would be to say that “The patient's lab results are not valid because they were contaminated”. However one could also say that “He made a valid point as to why the new changes are being implemented will not work”. We can do the same thing with the word warranted. For instance, we could say “There was no warrant for such behavior”. And in another sentence, I could say “The police had a warrant for his arrest”. In both examples, you can use the same word in a sentence and have a different meaning due to how it was utilized. Fallacies Just as there are valid argument templates, there are fallacious argument templates (Facione & Gittens, 2016). I chose Denying the Antecedent with a valid argument template of Denying the Consequence. In this argument, it is said that the premise may not bring about the conclusion. So if a premise does not bring about a conclusion that matches it does not logically make sense. For example, On Halloween, if the porch light is on that means that you have candy and to ring the doorbell. But we do not see the porch light on therefore the house doesn’t have any candy and is not participating in the Halloween festivities. So the above example explains the invalid pattern that is followed by the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent of Premise 1: If A, then B, Premise 2: Not A and Conclusion: Therefore not B ( Facione & Gittens, Downloaded by Cw Ruiz (ibelieveinharris@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|16551276

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

3 2016). Civic Responsibilities When it comes to healthcare there has always been a difference of opinion for many years and most likely many more years to come. This topic has always been one of the high points in politics and you can see that it is always referenced especially during the presidential election. In areas other than the US there are large numbers of places that have exceptional healthcare systems than we do here in the US. Analyzing the 2009 debate over public health and conducting research would definitely take a lot of time and effort and not be worth the time of anyone. Some policies have changed since then. I feel that conducting this research would only help in regards to learning the ins and outs of the healthcare system works. I think the time could be better spent on current issues like Covid-19 and Monkey Pots but not limited to that. Other issues that should be researched are the insured, not insured, and underinsured in America. Due to so many holes in our healthcare system many go without care until it is too late. In closing our healthcare system definitely needs some changes but researching a debate that was over 10 years ago will not be the resolution to any of the issues. Downloaded by Cw Ruiz (ibelieveinharris@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|16551276

4 References Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically . Pearson. Downloaded by Cw Ruiz (ibelieveinharris@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|16551276