PLS2601 EXAM PACK 2023

PLS2601 Critical Reasoning 50 Marks Duration 3 Hours This paper consists of 8 pages. Instructions: 1) This is a “take home” examination. You have 3 hours to complete it. 2) Complete all the questions that follow. 3) Ensure that you follow the individual instructions given for each question. 4) Number your answers correctly. 5) Provide both in-text and bibliographic references in your answer where you have used them. 6) You are reminded that an Honesty Declaration should be submitted with this “take home” examination. 7) If possible, please type your examination. 8) Your examination script should be submitted within the allocated time, on the myExams portal on myUnisa. 9) Please submit only one version of your examination script, which should be one document only. 10) Take a screenshot of your confirmation of submission as evidence of your submission. The text for the declaration should be as follows: ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION 1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s policies in this regard. 2. I declare that this “take home examination” is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s work I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every contribution to, and quotation in, this examination script from the work or works of other people has been referenced according to this style. 3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work. 4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own. PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 8 QUESTION 1: SHORT QUESTIONS: Instructions for Question 1: Write short answers for each question. 1.1. Define the “ad hominem fallacy”. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.2. What is a “bandwagon argument”? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.3. What is a “stipulative definition”? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.4. Define “argumentative writing”: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 8 1.5. Explain the difference between “explanatory writing” and “instructive writing”: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (4) 1.6. Using the following table, compare the “modus ponens” and “modus tollens” arguments: Modus Ponens: Modus Tollens: (4) 1.7 Consider the following text from the former US President Ronald Reagan’s 1961 speech concerning “socialized medicine”: “Once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment, from here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism -- to determining his pay, and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go, or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do” ( ). (a) Identify the fallacy evident in this text: ______________________________________________________________________ (2) S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 8 (b) Provide a definition for the fallacy identified in (a) above. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) [20] QUESTION 2: ARGUMENT EVALUATION: Instructions for Question 2: 1. Evaluate the following arguments. 2. In your evaluation, state whether the argument is inductive or deductive, value or empirical, contains a fallacy or not (stipulate which fallacy if it contains one) and whether it is valid/invalid or sound/unsound. 3. Present your responses to all of the arguments in the form of the table below: Argument 1: P1: If Donald Trump is still named as President of the United States on his Twitter account, then he must still be the American President. P2: Donald Trump is not still named as President of the United States on his Twitter account. C: Therefore, Donald Trump is not still the American President. Argument 2: P1: Bird watchers argue that this riverside area should not be developed because there is a rare sort of bird in the vicinity, whose habitat could be destroyed. P2: But building homes on this land would provide for new jobs. P3: So many people’s lives have been impacted economically by the pandemic. C: Hence, I don’t think that the bird people have an argument against development. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 8 Write your evaluation in the form of the following table: Inductive or deductive? Value or empirical? Fallacy? If “yes”, which? Valid, invalid, sound or unsound? Argument 1 Argument 2 [1 x 8 marks = 8] QUESTION 3: ARGUMENT STRUCTURES: Instructions for Question 3: Complete the following table wherein you capture the formal structure of the following arguments. The format of the arguments should be along the lines of the following examples (but should be representative of the particular argument – do not simply write your response in natural language or in the standard form): If P then Q or: All P are M Q No M are S P  No S are P 3.1 No rain occurs in the desert, but some cities have rain. So, some cities must not be in deserts. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 of 8 3.2 If Nosipho passes this exam then she will graduate. Nosipho did graduate. Therefore, she passed the exam. 3.3 You are unhealthy, because if you were healthy then your blood pressure would be in the normal range, and your blood pressure is abnormal. 3.4 Some arguments are not persuasive. And all arguments are required to be logically constructed. That implies that some logically constructed arguments are not persuasive. (4 x 3 = 12) QUESTION 4: ARGUMENT MAPS/DIAGRAMS S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 8 Instructions for Question 4: Create argument maps/argument diagrams of the following arguments. The format of the argument maps/diagrams should be along the lines of the following example: 1 2 3 Be sure that you number the statements as they are labelled in the questions. Argument 1: [The political liberation of South Africa was provoked through the collaboration of various interest groups.] – 1 [Local, oppressed people went underground or into exile for the cause.] – 2 [Many foreigners protested and lobbied against Apartheid.] – 3 [And the sanctions brought upon the Apartheid regime should not be underestimated for the economic impact they had upon the “old” South Africa] – 4. Argument 2: S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Jan/Feb 2021 CONFIDENTIAL Page 8 of 8 [Chest ailments are a chief symptom of Covid-19.] – 1 [Indeed, a nasty, dry cough is a worrying sign.] – 2 [So is shortness of breath.] – 3 [But, then again, a headache is also a symptom of Covid-19.] – 4 [And some patients have reported serious body aches.] – 5 [Thus, the symptoms of Covid-19 are so varied that the only way to make a diagnosis is through a nasal swab test.] – 6 (10) [50 MARKS] © Unisa 2021 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace 1 PLS-Jan/Feb: Question 1: 1.1 Argumentum ad hominem: An attack on the character, interests or circumstances of an opponent who is making a claim rather than challenging the claim itself. 1.2 Bandwagon argument: The assumption that the majority of people must always be correct in their thoughts and actions. Epistemologically, this is known as the “consensus theory of truth”. 1.3 Stipulative definition: When a new word is used in a different way, or you have created a new word. 1.4 Argumentative writing: A type of writing wherein positions are presented, and theories developed, always with the support – or back-up – of justified evidence or argument 1.5 Explanatory writing: The writer seeks to explain or to inform the reader of some particular information. Instructive writing: The writer seeks to convey instructions to accomplish a particular task. 1.6 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace 2 Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Conditional, deductive argument Conditional, deductive argument Affirmation of the antecedent Denial of the consequent 1.7 (a) Slippery slope argument (b) A slippery slope argument leads one from seemingly unimportant and obviously true first premises to exaggerated consequences in the conclusion. Question 2: Inductive or deductive? Value or empirical? Fallacy? If “yes”, which? Valid, invalid, sound or unsound? Argument 1 Deductive Empirical Yes, Denial of the antecedent Invalid Argument 2 Inductive Value Yes, Red Herring Unsound Question 3: 3.1: No rain occurs in the desert. Some cities have rain. Therefore, some cities are not in the desert. No M are P Some S are M Therefore, some S are P. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace 3 3.2: If Nosipho passes this exam, then she will graduate. Nosipho graduated. Therefore, Nosipho passed the exam. If P then Q Q Therefore, P 3.3: If you are healthy then your blood pressure will be in the normal range. Your blood pressure is abnormal. Therefore, you are unhealthy. If P then Q Not Q Therefore, Not P 3.4: Some arguments are not persuasive. All arguments are required to be logically constructed. Therefore, some logically constructed arguments are not persuasive. Some M are not P All M are S Therefore, some S are not P Question 4: 4.1 [The political liberation of South Africa was provoked through the collaboration of various interest groups.] – 1 [Local, oppressed people went underground or into exile for the cause.] – 2 [Many foreigners protested and lobbied against Apartheid.] – 3 [And the sanctions brought upon the Apartheid regime should not be underestimated for the economic impact they had upon the “old” South Africa] – 4. Standard form: S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace 4 • 2) Local, oppressed people went underground or into exile for the cause. • 3) Many foreigners protested and lobbied against Apartheid. • 4) And the sanctions brought upon the Apartheid regime should not be underestimated for the economic impact they had upon the “old” South Africa. • Therefore: 1) The political liberation of South Africa was provoked through the collaboration of various interest groups. Argument map: 2 3 4 1 4.2 [Chest ailments are a chief symptom of Covid-19.] – 1 [Indeed, a nasty, dry cough is a worrying sign.] – 2 [So is shortness of breath.] – 3 [But, then again, a headache is also a symptom of Covid-19.] – 4 [And some patients have reported serious body aches.] – 5 [Thus, the symptoms of Covid-19 are so varied that the only way to make a diagnosis is through a nasal swab test.] – 6 Standard form: Premises for sub-conclusion: 2 [Indeed, a nasty, dry cough is a worrying sign.] 3 [So is shortness of breath.] Sub-conclusion: 1 [Chest ailments are a chief symptom of Covid-19.] S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace 5 Premises for main conclusion: 1 [Chest ailments are a chief symptom of Covid-19.] 4 [But, then again, a headache is also a symptom of Covid-19.] 5 [And some patients have reported serious body aches.] Main conclusion: 6 [Thus, the symptoms of Covid-19 are so varied that the only way to make a diagnosis is through a nasal swab test.] Argument map: 2 3 4 5 1 6 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS Oct/Nov 2020 PLS2601 Critical Reasoning 50 Marks Duration 3 Hours This paper consists of 7 pages. Instructions: 1) This is a “take home” examination. You have 3 hours to complete it. 2) Complete all the questions that follow. 3) Ensure that you follow the individual instructions given for each question. 4) Number your answers correctly. 5) Provide both in-text and bibliographic references in your answer where you have used them. 6) You are reminded that an Honesty Declaration should be submitted with this “take home” examination. 7) If possible, please type your examination. 8) Your examination script should be submitted within the allocated time, on the myExams portal on myUnisa. 9) Please submit only one version of your examination script, which should be one document only. 10) Take a screenshot of your confirmation of submission as evidence of your submission. The text for the declaration should be as follows: ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION 1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s policies in this regard. 2. I declare that this “take home examination” is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s work I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every contribution to, and quotation in, this examination script from the work or works of other people has been referenced according to this style. 3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work. 4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own. NAME: ………………………………………………………………………….... SIGNATURE: ………………………………………………………………….... STUDENT NUMBER: ………………………………………………………….. DATE: ……………………………………………………………………………. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 7 QUESTION 1: SHORT QUESTIONS: Instructions for Question 1: Write short answers for each question. 1.1. Define the fallacy of the “appeal to force”. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.2. What is a “complex question”? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.3. Define “instructive writing”. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.4. Define what an “implicit conclusion” in an argument is: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) 1.5. Explain the difference between the “strawman fallacy” and the “red herring fallacy”: S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 7 ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (4) 1.6. Using the following table, explain the difference between the fallacy of the “false dilemma” and that of the “false analogy”: False Dilemma: False Analogy: (4) 1.7 Consider the following text: “Mogobe Ramose, Mabogo More, Sophie Oluwole, Kwasi Wiredu, and the late Kwame Gyekye, are all the kind of scholars that I would distinguish as being ‘African Philosophers’.” (a) Identify the kind of definition that this is: ______________________________________________________________________ (2) (b) Describe the type of definition identified in (a) above. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (2) [20] S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 7 QUESTION 2: ARGUMENT EVALUATION: Instructions for Question 2: 1. Evaluate the following arguments. 2. In your evaluation, state whether the argument is inductive or deductive, value or empirical, contains a fallacy or not (stipulate which fallacy if it contains one) and whether it is valid/invalid or sound/unsound. 3. Present your responses to all of the arguments in the form of the table below: Argument 1: P1: All philosophy students drink coffee while preparing for their examinations. P2: No accountancy students are philosophy students. C: Therefore, no accountancy students drink coffee while preparing for their examinations. Argument 2: P1: On Thursday, when I went to the shop, I saw that my neighbour, Gugu, had wine in her trolley. P2: Once more, on Sunday, I met Gugu in the supermarket, and she had beers and ciders in her trolley, and she said that she was just on her way to the liquor store. C: Women these days really have problems with alcohol abuse! Write your evaluation in the form of the following table: Inductive or deductive? Value or empirical? Fallacy? If “yes”, which? Valid, invalid, sound or unsound? Argument 1 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 7 Argument 2 [1 x 8 marks = 8] QUESTION 3: ARGUMENT STRUCTURES: Instructions for Question 3: Complete the following table wherein you capture the formal structure of the following arguments. The format of the arguments should be along the lines of the following example: If P then Q Q P 3.1 Some mechanical saws are able to cut through wood, because all mechanical saws cut different materials, and some cuttable material is wood. 3.2 Phindile is wearing black. If Phindile is wearing black, he must have just come back home from a funeral. So, it is obvious that Phindile must have just returned from a funeral. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 of 7 3.3 All morally upright people are practitioners of traditional religion. Some atheists are not morally upright people. Therefore, some atheists are not practitioners of traditional religion. 3.4 No cats are dogs, because dog food is eaten by dogs, and no cats eat dog food. (4 x 3 = 12) QUESTION 4: ARGUMENT MAPS/DIAGRAMS Instructions for Question 4: Create argument maps/argument diagrams of the following arguments. The format of the argument maps/diagrams should be along the lines of the following example: a b c Argument 1: [Every country needs a leader who is able to make the economy improve for the sake of the people] – a. [I believe that President Ramaphosa is a good example of an economically minded head of state] – S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 Oct/Nov 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 7 b. [Ramaphosa is a politician with background in trade unions and industry] – c. [He also has current business interests] – d. [That means he isn’t out of touch with the economic reality] – e. Argument 2: [Human rights are basic standards of treatment that every human being innately possesses and must fundamentally be granted] – a. [Access to data enables the right to work, to communicate, to have knowledge of what is happening in the world, to freely express oneself, and even a tool through which to gain education] – b. [In fact, free access to unlimited data is a basic human right that can improve the lives of many] – c. (10) [50 MARKS] © Unisa 2020 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS-S2 Examination: Memorandum Question 1: 1.1 “False appeal to force” When an arguer appeals to the threat of force or coercion to persuade an opponent to accept a point. 1.2 “Complex question” This fallacy occurs when two or more questions are disguised as one question and it demands a “yes” or “no” answer. 1.3 “Instructive writing” A type of simple writing wherein instructions are given to an individual in order that a particular objective may be met. 1.4 “Implicit conclusion” A conclusion which is implied in an argument, but which is not explicitly stipulated within the argument. The meaning is open to the reader to determine, based upon the argument presented. 1.5 Difference between “straw man” and “red herring”: “Straw man” is a fallacious form of reasoning that consists of making one’s own position appear strong by misrepresenting, or ridiculing an opponent’s position. “Red herring” is a fallacious form of reasoning, wherein the argument is distracted away from its course through the inclusion of irrelevant information. 1.6 Difference between “false dilemma” and “false analogy” in a table: False dilemma False analogy Either-or choice presented. Comparison is drawn. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace In reality there are more than two choices. There is no relationship between the issues compared. 1.7 (a) Enumerative definition (b) A definition wherein Examples that exemplify the definition are used as a means of explaining the term or concept. Question 2: Inductive or deductive? Value or empirical? Fallacy? If “yes”, which? Valid, invalid, sound or unsound? Argument 1 Deductive Empirical No Valid, sound Argument 2 Inductive Value Yes, Hasty generalisation Unsound (1 mark x 8 = 8 marks) Question 3: 3.1 All S is M Some M is P Therefore, Some S is P 3.2 If P is Q P Therefore, Q 3.3 All M is S Some P is not M Therefore, some S is not P 3.4 All M is S S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace No P is M Therefore, No S is P (3 marks x 4 = 12 marks) Question 4: 4.1 c d e a b 4.2 a b c S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS May/June 2020 PLS2601 Critical Reasoning 50 Marks Duration 24 Hours This paper consists of 5 pages. Instructions: 1) This is a “take home” examination. You have 23 hours to complete it. 2) Complete all the questions that follow. 3) Ensure that you follow the individual instructions given for each question. 4) Number your answers correctly. 5) You do not have to provide either in-text or bibliographic references in your answer. 6) You are reminded that an Honesty Declaration should be submitted with this “take home” examination. 7) If possible, please type your examination. 8) Your examination script should be submitted within the allocated time, on the Assessment Info Tool on myUnisa. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 May/June 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 5 QUESTION 1: SHORT QUESTIONS: Instructions for Question 1: Write short answers in the lines provided for each question. 1.1. Define “Petitio Principii”: (2) 1.2. Define “red herring”: (2) 1.3. Define “false appeal to force”: (2) 1.4. Define “valid argument”: (2) 1.5. Explain the difference between an “inductive argument” and a “deductive argument”: (4) S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 May/June 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 5 1.6. Explain the difference between a “sound argument” and a “valid argument”: (4) 1.7 Define what a “formal fallacy” is in contrast to an “informal fallacy”: (4) [20] QUESTION 2: ARGUMENT EVALUATION: Instructions for Question 2: 1. Evaluate the following arguments. 2. In your evaluation, state whether the argument is inductive or deductive, value or empirical, contains a fallacy or not (stipulate which fallacy it contains, if it does) and whether it is valid/invalid or sound/unsound. 3. Present your responses to all of the arguments in the table below: Argument 1: P1: If social justice is to be improved in South Africa, then the criminal justice system needs to be completely overhauled. P2: Social justice definitely needs to be improved. C: Therefore, the criminal justice system needs to be completely changed. Argument 2: P1: If Zimbabwe’s government ensures that job creation is its first priority, its economy will grow over the coming years. P2: That country’s economy will not grow. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 May/June 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 5 C: Therefore, job creation is not the Zimbabwean government’s main priority. Write your evaluation in the following table: Inductive or deductive? Value or empirical? Fallacy? If “yes”, which? Valid/invalid or sound/unsound? Argument 1 Argument 2 [2 x 4 marks = 8] QUESTION 3: ARGUMENT STRUCTURES: Instructions for Question 3: Complete the following table wherein you capture the formal structure of the valid and invalid modus ponens and modus tollens arguments: Valid form of the argument Invalid (fallacious) form of the argument Modus ponens Invalid form of the modus ponens Modus tollens Invalid form of the modus tollens [4 x 3 marks = 12] QUESTION 4: ARGUMENT MAPS: Instructions for Question 4: Create argument maps of the following arguments in the boxes provide below each argument. S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 May/June 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 5 Argument 1: [Students that steal the intellectual property of others should be sanctioned by the University] – a. [Even if knowledge is not tangible, it is still someone else’s possession, produced by their own blood, sweat, and frequently tears] – b. [By definition, taking something that belongs to someone else is stealing] – c. And, anyway, [what do you learn if you have stolen someone else’s work?] – d. Argument 2: [John was recently tested as HIV+] – a. [If a condom is not used during sexual intercourse, there is a chance that HIV can pass from partner to partner] – b. [John’s sexual partner, Amy, prefers unprotected sex] – c. [Amy stands a higher chance of contracting HIV] – d. [2 x 5 marks = 10] [50 MARKS] © Unisa 2020 S - The study-notes marketplace Downloaded by: xoliswamdlamini | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The study-notes marketplace PLS2601 May/June 2020 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 5 QUESTION 1: SHORT QUESTIONS: 1.1. Define “Petitio Principii”: Is fallacy that occurs when what is supposedly proved by the conclusion of an argument is already assumed true in the premises. 1.2. Define “red herring”: This is fallacy that occurs when an arguer tries to distract his audience with an irrelevant issue and then claims that the irrelevant issue has settled the original issue. 1.3. Define “false appeal to force”: This is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer employs a threat either physical or non-physical, to force someone into accepting the argument. 1.4. Define “valid argument”: It is criterion of cogent reasoning that requires that the premises of an argument in fact support its conclusion, either deductively or inductively 1.5. Explain the difference between an “inductive argument” and a “deductive argument”: Inductive argument: • it is an argument in which the conclusion is subject to probability, even if the premises are assumed true. deductive argument: • is an argument that, if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false