Description
5th Essay—Analyzing the Speech Acts & Implicatures in the Corpus.
The fifth essay uses the material on arguments presented in Chapter 6 to examine the “inductive warrants” used by the persuader. As is says in the chapter, warrants are connections between a claim and the reasons offered to support it. It takes you a little deeper than just claim-and-reason thinking. Select enough examples of arguments in your sources to demonstrate that you know what each of the types of warrant aimed to accomplish in those examples. T
The two primary sources that I have to analyze are:
This film: https://rebelchiropractic.com/vaccination-the-hidd…
and what is available of Robert Kennedy’s speech (not what the people in the news are responding to him, just the rhetoric he uses in his speech): https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics/robert-f-k…
These are two anti-vaccination sources that have very interesting rhetoric to try to persuade their audience. The essay should not exactly be in the point of view as the sources, we dont agree with the information, we are just analyzing the rhetoric they use, in this essay specifically the speech acts and implicatures in these sources. Definitely quote and cite from the videos at least three times. This paper needs to be in APA format.
Also, to back up claims from the other side of the argument (vaccination), use these two sources:
Agarwal. (2023). “Vaccination Hesitancy and Anti-vaccination Attitude : What’s the Way Forward.” RUHS Journal of Health Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.37821/ruhsjhs.8.1.2023.534
Demir Karabulut, & Zengin, H. Y. (2021). Parents’ and healthcare professionals’ views and attitudes towards anti-vaccination. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, 63(4), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.4274/gulhane.galenos.2021.1541
I have attached chapter 6 here as well. Make sure to read all of it.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CHAPTER 6
Rhetorical Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
(7 November 2023)
Because public communicators frequently make contestable claims about what their audience
should or should not believe, they are usually expected to provide one or more reasons to accept their claim.
One rhetor may tell you that US elections are among the fairest in the world and, accordingly, the reported
results should be trusted when they are announced; another rhetor may opine that US elections are
frequently unfairly operated and, therefore, elections can be stolen from the rightful winners. How would
you know which claim to accept? If you are uncertain about what you should believe, you may ask, “Why
do you say that? What is your reason for thinking that’s the case?” What you are asking for is an argument
that gives reasons to accept the claim that’s being proposed. In this chapter we will be considering how you
can critically analyze the arguments rhetors offer to support their proposed claims. The goal is to help you
delve beneath the surfaces of the reasons rhetor give as they try to get you to accept the claims they offer
for your consideration. Let us begin by explaining what we mean by the term argument itself.
An ARGUMENT is a unit of text that provides reasons to believe a claim. At the minimum arguments
require at least two interconnected parts: (a) a claim that the rhetor wants the receiver to believe, and (b)
one or more reasons for accepting that claim. In the simplest instance, a rhetor might make an argument
about climate change like this, “Long term climate change is caused by human activity and here are three
reasons you should believe this is the case.” This explicit and direct pattern of argumentation may be
illustrated as in Figure 6-1.
In real world public discourse, arguments are rarely as explicit and obvious as suggested in Figure
6-1. This is because there are different patterns of reasoning (inductive versus deductive) by which a rhetor
can move from a reason to a claim, different types of evidence that can be used to support a claim (stories,
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-2
statistics, examples, and so forth.), and different degrees of certainty (unquestionably, probably, possibly)
that a rhetor may feel about the claim being offered. For such reasons, arguments may be lurking in a
rhetor’s message but perhaps not obviously so, especially in all of their many possible forms.
Figure 6-1. Model of a simple pattern of argumentative discourse.
Because of such complexities, philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1958) developed a helpful model
(now simply called the Toulmin model) for displaying the underlying structure of complex arguments.
According to Toulmin, fully developed arguments may have as many as six parts, which he called the (a)
claim, (b) grounds (or reasons), (c) warrant, (d) backing, (e) qualifier, and the (f) reservation. The first two
parts of Toulmin’s model would be standard in any model of argumentation because they essentially define
argument as a form of discourse, namely, a claim to be believed and a reason for believing it. They are the
two parts that were shown in Figure 6-1. The novelty begins with the third element of Toulmin’s model,
the warrant. Although not every argument will feature all six of these elements, it is important to understand
what they all are and how they fit together to form a complete argument structure to defend the rhetor’s
most important points. Figure 6-2 illustrates the structure of the Toulmin model, highlighting where each
of its six components fits in relation to each of the others. We will explain each of these elements in the
sections below.
Figure 6-2. The six elements of Stephen Toulmin’s model of complex argument structures.
With this model in mind, we are now ready to explain the steps you can follow in order to critically analyze
the arguments you may find in the public communication you encounter on a daily basis. The chapter will
be organized around nine activities that can help you delve beneath the surface of the reasons rhetors give
as they try to get audience members to accept or act on the claims they propose. The first step concentrates
on identifying the claim(s) the rhetor expects the audience to accept if the arguments are successful.
1) Identify the major claim(s) the rhetor proposed that the audience should believe concerning
the controversy.
A CLAIM is the belief the rhetor proposes to be true and tries to support. It may be any of the four
types of proposition mentioned in Chapter 4: fact, value, policy, and classification. Of course, when
analyzing a rhetor’s arguments, you must first be able to locate those arguments in their text. This is not
always a transparent goal because claims may be stated first and then supported by reasons; or, the rhetor
may first provide information that sets up a claim and then state a conclusion based on the previous
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-3
information. To help you find the rhetor’s major claims, Figure 6-3 shows some of the words that rhetors
typically use to signal that an important claim has been made.
Figure 6-3. Words that rhetors use to signal that they are making
(or have made) an important claim.
Similarly, the rhetor may signal that a claim is about to follow because some needed background
information has just been presented. Figure 6-4 shows some of the words that rhetors typically use to signal
that one or more reasons that support the acceptability of the claim have been offered.
Figure 6-4. Words and phrases that signal that a reason has been given
to support a claim that has been made.
2) Identify the grounds the rhetor provided as reasons to believe the claim.
The GROUNDS are the reasons offered to support the claim. Other words for grounds are DATA or
EVIDENCE. Although there are many types of data, evidence, or reasons, some of the most common are: (a)
examples and instances, (b) statistics, (c) culturally accepted “sayings” used to start a chain of reasoning,
(d) quotable opinions from others, (e) stories that provide a macrosemantic point, and even (f) artifacts and
material objects. For example, a rhetor might support a claim that gun violence has caused great harm to
school age children by mentioning examples from school shootings at such places as Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Florida, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, and Robb Elementary
School in Uvalde, Texas. Resisting pressure to support stronger national gun laws in light of the Uvalde
shootings, US Senator John Cornyn from Texas argued that stronger gun laws don’t actually work to reduce
gun violence. He used as his grounds a statistical comparison of the number of gun-related deaths in Texas
(which has relative lax gun laws) and California (which has relatively strong gun laws but more gun-related
gun deaths than Texas) to support his claim. Countering Senator Cornyn’s use of the statistical grounds to
support his claim about the effectiveness of stricter gun restrictions, the Governor of California, Gavin
Newsome, argued that California has a much lower rate of gun deaths on a per capita basis than Texas
because California has a far larger population. Accordingly, Newsome claimed that California’s more
restrictive gun laws were actually effective in reducing the rate of gun-related deaths in the state. In effect,
both rhetors used statistics to ground their claims, but warranted them quite differently. Accordingly, we
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-4
will next look at the concept of the role that warrants play in the critical analysis of arguments in public
discourse.
3) Determine which kinds of warrants the rhetor used to justify the relationship between the
claim and the grounds that were provided.
The critically important innovation of the Toulmin model is the concept of warrants. A WARRANT
is the principle of reasoning that links the grounds to the claim. That is, the warrant—frequently unstated
but always there in the background—provides the justification for the rational move between the claim and
the data. It answers the question of how the two are connected, and it is really the central feature of the
human reasoning and arguing process. The rhetorical criticism of the arguments a rhetor uses will certainly
focus on the types of warrants used to certify the value of the evidence used to support the claim.
As illustrated in Figure 6-5, there are two fundamentally different classes of warrants—inductive
and deductive—used in the human reasoning/arguing process, each with a number of types that employ
different principles for warranting the connection between a claim and the grounds used to support it. Each
class has a special relationship with language that makes it distinct. These two general categories of
warrants will be developed in detail below.
Figure 6-5. A fully developed Toulmin model of argument structures featuring
representative types of inductive and deductive warrants.
INDUCTIVE REASONING is the mental process of turning one’s direct or indirect experience with
the world into verbal statements that you believe to be true about that experience. That is, inductive
reasoning is involved when we use either our own raw experience or the reports of the raw experiences of
others to produce a verbal claim about the experience. INDUCTIVE WARRANTS are based on reasoning that
proceeds from some direct or indirect observation of events to the formulation of a sentence that encodes
the observation into language. Inductive warrants invite the audience’s reasoning to move from the rhetor’s
report of a direct or indirect observation of events to a verbally formulated claim about those events.1 For
example, if you look at your checkbook balance and see that your personal financial condition has not
1Although they are closely related terms and are frequently used interchangeably for stylistic variation, reasoning and
argumentation are not identical concepts. They bear the same relationship to each other as do one’s private thinking and the public
communication of that thought. REASONING may be defined as the private mental process of moving from one thought, idea, or
observation to another in a systematic fashion. Because reasoning is a private process, its systematic progression of steps and final
products are not available to others unless they are verbally communicated. ARGUMENTATION is the process of projecting a
carefully formulated and edited version of your reasoning for others to consider. The purpose of constructing arguments (proof
units) is to communicate the fruit of your reasoning about your topic in a way that leads your audience’s thinking along a systematic
path that they feel as reasonable—that is, as related to their own preferred paths of private reasoning. Although argumentation is a
communication skill and reasoning is a thinking skill, the two go hand in hand because your best private reasoning is the basis for
your public argumentation, and your public argumentation provides the immediate basis for your audience’s subsequent private
reasoning about your topic.
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-5
changed much since Joe Biden was elected as president, you might encode this observation as, “Biden’s
economic policies have not been very successful.” This sentence has been arrived at inductively because it
proceeds from a direct observation of your checkbook balance to a verbally encoded sentence about that
observation.
In contrast, DEDUCTIVE REASONING is the mental process of determining what implications follow
from the sentences we already believe to be true. That is, deduction moves from one or more existing
sentences to new sentences without requiring further direct or indirect observations. Deductive reasoning
requires no further resort to external evidence because you are moving from the presumed truth of one or
more old beliefs to the creation of a new belief based on formal relationships that exist among your old
beliefs. DEDUCTIVE WARRANTS invite the audience’s reasoning to move from the presumed truth of one
or more verbally formulated statements to the truth of another verbally formulated statement without the
necessity of providing further reports of directly observed experience.
With these definitions in mind, we will present a relatively detailed introduction to the two types
of the argumentative warrants that rhetors may use to link claims to the data provided to support them,
beginning with the six types of inductive warrants the rhetor may have used.
3a) Identify which type of inductive warrants the rhetor may have used
As we have just noted, when our minds move from direct observations to verbally formulated
statements about those observations, the process is called inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning plays a
critical role in persuasive messages because audiences want to know what evidence supports the claims and
how the rhetor links the evidence to the claim it is used to support. The evidence may come from either the
rhetor’s own direct observations or those reported by others. Furthermore, the evidence used to begin the
various inductive movement patterns may come from any of at least seven kinds of supporting materials—
definitions, examples, narratives, statistics, quotations, comparisons and contrasts, and descriptions.
The movement from observations to a verbally formulated proposition can follow and one of
several common warranting paths—distinguished from one another based upon the type of rational link
they use to proceed from the observation to the sentence formulated. The six most common paths of
inductive warranting are classification, sign, analogy, generalization, causation, and narrative probability.
We will now look at each of these six paths of inductively warranted rational movement.
Warranting by Classification Induction
The simplest and yet most fundamental type of inductive reasoning is classification. As you will
recognize from the name of this type of inductive reasoning, category-labeling terms play a central role
once again. In CLASSIFICATION INDUCTION, someone (a) observes an event, (b) assigns it to a category of
events, and (c) attaches an appropriate category label to name it. For example, if you observe an election
and see that your preferred candidate received the most votes, and you then formulate the proposition
“Candidate X won today’s election,” you would be reasoning inductively because you have moved from a
direct observation of an event (itself classified as an election) to a summarizing proposition (in this case,
classifying the event as winning the election). The following are additional examples of propositions that
result from the inductive process of classification and verbal labeling. The italicized word reflects the
category chosen and the type of tax proposed is what is observed.
The proposed middle-class tax reduction plan is pandering to the voters.
What makes classification a significant form of inductive reasoning is that the things observed do
not announce which human categories they fit into just because they have been observed. Events occur,
things exist, but classifying them is a human activity requiring observers to decide which category the event
best fits into—and which word should therefore be used to label it. This requires the observer to determine
the observe the attributes that most significantly characterize the event, decide which category those events
would possibly match, and then select a label for the classification the person chooses to emphasize.
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-6
Figure 6-6 illustrates the notion of contrasting categories in a different way. The figure depicts an
object and identifies a number of categories into which it might be placed, depending on the
communicator’s purpose. What is the red object at the top of the figure? What is there about it that allows
it be classified using each of the different words below it?
classifying
Figure 6-6.
The role of classification in the reasoning process is clearly evident in almost any controversy
because competing parties may see the “same” object and simply place it in a different, conflicting category.
Is the act of attacking a particular country’s cultural traditions an act of ethnic cleansing and a form of
genocide, or is it merely a civil war and the government’s internal affair? Are people using guns to kill
multiple people terrorists, insurgents, murderers, criminals, or freedom fighters? Were Hong Kong’s antiextradition protests in 2019 riots, demonstrations, civil disobedience, or vandalism crimes? Did Bill
Clinton’s contact with Monica Lewinsky constitute “sex,” or was it merely “foreplay” as an
unconsummated prelude to sex? Did his behavior in concealing his conduct qualify as “obstruction of
justice” or merely “hiding his inappropriate conduct”? Answers to questions about which classification to
use in a particular case are important because the category the rhetor uses to label something influences the
social, political or legal action the rhetor thinks should be taken.
As these examples illustrate, different people may observe essentially the same event and classify
it quite differently, as signaled by the label they attach to the event. “Is the glass half-empty or half full?”
is a way we commonly express our recognition of such differences. Figure 6-7 provides another way to get
a sense of the importance of the categorical induction process. It illustrates the idea that each category label
one might choose reflects a particular feature set that is highlighted when a particular category-labeling
term is used to talk about something. Other feature sets are correspondingly hidden from view. As
mentioned in Chapter 3, it is for this reason that we may choose to argue vigorously about which category
label should be applied to a particular topic.
To use reasoning by classification, rhetors will argue that the details (evidence) presented
concerning the observations (or those reported by others) justify a specific classification (and label), and
fail to justify some alternative classification/label. Figure 6-7 illustrates how a rhetor might try to develop
a point about which classifying term should be used to label something. The point would need to identify
the key alternative classifiers, explain their feature sets and then offer reasons for accepting one features set
(i.e., classification) rather than another.
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-7
Figure 6-7. How classification arguments may be structured.
Sexual Assault Survivors Aren’t Just Daughters. They’re Actually Humans.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sexual-assault-daughtershollywood_us_59de298fe4b0b26332e86301
Finally, categorical labeling choices open up a chain of reasoning based on the underlying feature
set used as the starting point provided by the categorical labeling term selected. For this reason, categories
have consequences for how we can think in terms of the category selected to frame the topic. Figure 6-8
illustrates this point. [If–then reasoning.]
Figure 6-8. Three alternative chains of reasoning that begin with different
categorical labels
[AOC on using the “concentration camp” label versus the government’s preferred label as
“detention centers”] [vs internment camps vs simply prisons].
As the previous example illustrates, public policy may be said to “follow from” the consequences
of the categories used to classify the things, events, and even the motives of other people. For this reason,
a large portion of public rhetoric in the governmental, civic, and commercial arenas is dedicated either to
contesting how something should be categorized (i.e., what label should be used to identify it) or how a
particular category should be constructed (i.e., defined in terms of the relevant features).
Warranting by Generalization Induction
Classification is the essential act of inductive reasoning and should be observed whenever you are
analyzing rhetorical discourse to the discover the rhetor’s persuasive strategies. However, inductive
reasoning can go much further than mere classification of a single event. For example, rhetors can use their
specific observations to move to a general summarizing proposition. This path of inductive movement is
known as generalization because the mind moves from one or more specific observations to a general claim
based on those observations. For many people, the move from the specific to the general is, in fact, what
they mean by inductive reasoning.
In GENERALIZATION INDUCTION, the reasoning process claims that what is true of a few wellselected instances of something is likely to be true of all [or most] other instances as well. This path of
inductive movement is known as GENERALIZATION because the mind moves from one or more specific
observations to a general claim based on those observations. This form of inductive reasoning was among
the earliest to be identified, and, for many people, the move from the specific to the general remains the
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-8
only thing they mean by inductive reasoning. Figure 6-9 illustrates the pattern of thinking involved when
using the generalization path of inductive movement.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/op-ed-joe-biden-slams-trump-emboldening-white-supremacists/
[Show Biden’s categorization]
Figure 6-9. How generalization warrants are structured.
Thus, to return to an earlier example, if you were to observe two or three more elections, and your
candidates win those too, you might formulate some considerably more generalized inductions—like the
following progressively more general ones:
My candidates sure are popular. (generalization)
My candidate is likely to win next week’s special election. (prediction)
My candidate is likely to win many regular elections this fall. (generalized prediction)
To construct inductive generalizations like these involves a two-step process. First, the rhetor must
discover a pattern or characteristic that exists within a number of specific instances of some thing or event;
then, based on this pattern or characteristic, a proposition that predicts that other, unobserved instances of
the thing will exhibit the same characteristic or pattern. Thus, for example, if Jill received an A in all of her
major courses during her first three semesters in school, you might generalize to predict that she will
probably get an A in her major courses this semester as well. In generalization, then, you are predicting that
the pattern you have discovered by observation of instances that you have actually inspected will also be
applicable to instances you are not able to directly inspect.
As we have just seen, when using generalization warrants, the rhetor would show how several
representative cases all have the same characteristic, and conclude that other unobserved instances should
probably also exhibit the same characteristic. For example, if the rhetor were arguing for term limitations
for members of Congress, the rhetor might support a general claim—the need to get reelected frequently
takes up more time than doing the public’s business—by presenting three or four instances where particular
members consistently missed important votes or failed to attend committee hearings because they were
meeting with potential contributors. The specific instances are held up to the audience as representative of
the way most or all members of Congress behave when they face the constant need to campaign for
reelection. In this way the rhetor has moved from representative instances to a general claim. Similarly, if
the rhetor were defending the claim that “affirmative action laws are still needed in the United States,” they
might describe a number of instances where such laws have been relaxed and the hiring practices of
employers seemed to return to old, racially motivated patterns. If your examples are truly representative,
these instances would allow you to formulate the following generalization: Wherever affirmative action
laws have been relaxed, employers have failed to hire a proportional number of equally qualified minorities.
The generalizing process may be ranged along a continuum of degrees from low to high—with the
notion of “higher” levels of generalization suggesting a greater distance between the observations and the
breadth of the proposition produced. The more inclusive the proposition formulated, and/or the fewer the
observations used to generate the proposition, the more highly generalized the proposition is. The highest
level generalizations are all-inclusive statements based on a fairly small sample of instances, such as: [all]
Americans behave boorishly when the go overseas”; this is a widely held inductive generalization about all
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-9
American tourists, which is based on the directly observed behavior of only some American tourists.
However, whether the generalization is high or low, the pattern of intellectual movement is the same: the
observation of some instances yields a predictive proposition about other, unobserved, instances.
Warranting by Sign Induction
A sign is anything that indicates the existence or presence of something else: a fever is a sign of
illness; a smile is a sign of happiness; using a cane is a sign of a weakened leg, and so forth. In reasoning
from signs, one directly observes some components of a past, present, or developing event and concludes
that something you cannot presently directly observe also exists, happened, or will happen in the future.
Thus, the reasoning process runs something like this: The things that I can directly observe to exist are
taken as signs meaning that related things that I cannot directly observe must also exist, have existed in the
past or are coming into being in the future.
[Example claim: “I did it, but there was a good reason for what I did, namely, ‘She really wanted
it’.” She was asking for “it.” In Ireland, this argument was made and a warranting a sign was offered: “Look
at what she was wearing; she was asking for it. Thong underwear in Ireland rape case. The rapist got off on
this argument in 2018. Wearing thong underwear was accepted in court as a sign of consent having been
given.]
Because signs are always component parts of whatever situations they are said to be signs of, sign
reasoning may move from the sign to the proposition in either of two different ways. Sometimes the
movement is from the observed existence of one specific sign to the proposed existence of another equally
specific aspect of the total situation. When using sign reasoning, the rhetor would typically follow the
second path of rational movement (from the sign to the existence of a total condition) by making a
summarizing claim and then providing evidence that supports the existence of signs that are being used to
support the truth of the summarizing proposition.
Sign warrants use one or more indicators that point toward the conclusion that some situation
exists—usually because the sign itself is now or was in the past part of the situation being indicated by the
sign. For example, sign reasoning is used in the following quotation:
During the Reagan-Bush years, the American economy was allowed to deteriorate badly.
This may be seen in such signs as our 4-trillion-dollar debt, the amount of borrowing we
have done from European and Asian nations to finance that debt, the number of
unemployed and homeless people in America, the disparity between managerial and nonmanagerial salaries, the savings and loan bailout crisis, and the large number of personal
and corporate bankruptcies.” Each item in the list is a sign to support the claim.
At other times, the inductive movement is from the specific signs observed to a general proposition
concerning the existence of a total condition—of which the sign is merely a part. This pattern of rational
movement is illustrated in Figure 6-10. In the father’s case, the red pimples and fever will together lead to
the conclusion that a total medical condition called chicken pox exists. Thus, to move from the observation
of one or more signs to the formulation of propositions concerning some total condition is to reason
inductively from signs.
Figure 6-10. Sign reasoning where the pattern of rational motion is from the
observed existence of one or more signs to a claim about the existence some
general condition of which the signs are component parts.
Criticism of Arguments in Public Discourse
6-10
Warranting by Analogy Induction
Reasoning by analogy induction occurs whenever one identifies a pattern of features within one
thing and then proposes that, because something else displays a number of those same features, the second
thing will also share additional (but not actually observed) characteristics of the pattern found in the first.
That is, two things, processes, situations, or events are analogous whenever they share a common pattern
of elements and relations among those elements. Thus, all knock-knock jokes are analogous to one another
because they all have the same essential form.
Thus, during debates on health care in America some opponents argued over whether the Canadian
or the European system of health care better suits the situation in the United States. Each side sought to
argue by analogy—in this case by citing particular ways the U.S. was analogous either to Canada or to the
European Community. Each side cited a number of similarities and argued that, because of those
similarities, the system they favored should be the preferred model for adoption in the United States. In
such cases, the issue would become, “Which of the proposed analogies would be the most relevant to
selecting a suitable model for health care in the United States?”
Similarly, when labor leaders negotiate contracts with various industries (automobile, heavy
manufacturing), they frequently use a form of reasoning by analogy called patterned bargaining. In
patterned bargaining, the union reasons from the contract gained with one company to achieve similar
contracts with all similar companies, which they treat as analogous because they all produce similar goods.
Thus, if one of the “Big Three” auto manufacturers agrees to a certain package of health care benefits, the
others are asked to concede the same benefits because they are analogous companies.
Reasoning by analogy has many risks. Recently, for example, when the Caterpillar company balked
at patterned bargaining based on a contract negotiated with John Deere, it argued that Deere and Caterpillar
were not really analogous and therefore their contracts should be different. A large portion of Caterpillar’s
output is exported, the company argued, but Deere’s is not. Therefore, they were not analogous companies
because they competed in different markets and under different world competitive conditions. If they are
right, then Deere and Caterpillar are not analogous for bargaining purposes, and the inductive reasoning
used to support the patterned-bargaining argument would not be sound. From this example, you can see
that when you argue using analogy as your principle of rational motion, you will need to make sure the two
situations really have similar forms. Superficial similarities can be misleading if they don’t really capture
the essence of the situations that are being compared. Because this pattern of inductive movement from the
structure of past experiences to the structure of present situations is so normal, reasoning by analogy will
probably be used frequently in your persuasive speeches.
Abortion analogized w slavery [Google has many examples of this analogy available]
Warranting by Causation Induction
To cause something is to be directly responsible for what’s happening. Accordingly, when we try
to explain events in our world we frequently try to identify the forces that were available to bring a particular
result about. Reasoning by causation occurs when you observe that certain forces exist (or did exist in the
past), and that they were capable of bringing about some subsequent situation. Thus, the reasoning process
runs something like this: Although I did not see the moment of causation, factors that I can observe (or did
observe) were available to cause the events to be explained.
In human events, the causation reasoning process runs something like this: People act for certain
motives in predictable circumstances; those circumstances were in existence, therefore, the people must
have acted in the expected way. What makes this form of thinking into inductive reasoning is that you
observe
