Chapter 5: Logical proofs teaches you about the different types of reasoning and examples
Deductive gives audience general proposition, then draw a specific truth. The Rogerian Argument is more of a mediation approach, identifying the conflict, and finding common ground to create a solution. The Toulmin Model base argument on qualifiers and rebuttal. This argument approach is not to push absolutes, but to lead the reader to a realistic
Jury convicted on weapons possession but acquitted on possession of the trunk contents. D’s argued that the guns were in the possession of the girl and they did not have possession. D’s challenged the constitutionality of the New York State statute which allowed a charge of illegal possession if a gun was found in a car occupied by all individuals
What is a Toulmin Argument? This is when you are considering who your audience is specifically, and you are considering their counterarguments before hand. The analysis suggest you to strongly have prepared evidence and have in mind possible disagreements. A good argument must be fair not a one-sided position. To choose a good Toulmin argument strategies such as answering questions like, what happened, do you believe it is true or false?
The criminal just system failed Marlina Medrano in so many ways. When Medrano contacted the police about be assaulted by Thomas Hartless and he left with a handgun, in my opinion an arrest warrant should have been put out for him due to the facts that (1) he threatened to kill her (2) it wasn’t the first time he threatened her, and (3) he left with a handgun which was a felony due to his prior felony conviction. My thoughts are the criminal justice system failed to protect Medrano as the police knew of all of this and didn’t issue a warrant until 11 days later. When Hartless went to court for this, he pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.
A Toulmin Argument is a stated argument that is obvious which the reader is accustomed to or either contradicts with the argued statement. It is a strategical way to get the reader involve and to send the main point across; by adding personal and relatable beliefs. The Toulmin model of argument can be used if the main point is debatable. For example, legalizing marijuana is a controversial topic that society can either agree or disagree with. But even so; adding true facts, research, or data collected in your argument; deepens how strong your belief is.
First, Curtis has a valid deductive argument because the premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion. His premises in (1) and (2) that cats are not required to go for a walk, and they poop in one place are well reasoned. He
The presidential power to forgive and commute penalties has long been controversial, critics argue that pardons are used more for political convenience than to correct a judicial error. Perhaps the most famous pardon in US history was granted by President Gerald Ford to his predecessor in office, President Richard Nixon, A presidential pardon can be granted at any time after the commission of the crime. In the vast majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney only considers the petitions of convicted persons who have also demonstrated their ability to develop a responsible and productive life for a significant period after their indictment or after having Been
To be committed of a crime the judge or jurors must have enough evidence that there is no other possible explanation, this is referred to as beyond a reasonable doubt. If this is held true, how can someone still be wrongfully convicted? According to Sphohn, Cassia (2014) in 2008 more than 1.6 million United States citizens was imprisoned (p. 5.35). If only .5% of those individuals were innocent that would mean that 8,000 people are wrongfully convicted. That also means there are 8,000 people who are guilty of those crimes free among society.
The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (Hall, 2014, p. 310). The federal government is not alone in adhering to this clause, but state and local governments also must abide (Hall, 2014). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that free speech includes many forms such as written or visual and expression or nonverbal speech (Hall, 2014). There are exceptions to free speech if a government can justify an interest that would outweigh individuals’ rights under the First Amendment (Hall, 2014). The fighting words doctrine is an example of a justified exception (Hall, 2014).
• For a deductive argument to be valid , it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. The classic example of a deductively valid argument is: – 1.
A good reasoning is a reasoning that leads to certain, true and valid conclusions. There are two kinds of reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning. Both processes include the process of finding a conclusion from multiple premises although the way of approach may differ. Deductive reasoning uses general premises to make a specific conclusion; inductive reasoning uses specific premises to make a generalized conclusion. The two types of reasoning can be influenced by emotion in a different manner because of their different process to yield a conclusion.
An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.
There are three components that make up the criminal justice system – the police, courts, and correctional facilities – they all work together in order to protect individuals and their rights as a citizen of society to live without the fear of becoming the victim of a crime. Crime, simply put is when a person violates criminal law; the criminal justice system is society’s way of implementing social control. When all three components of the criminal justice work together, it functions almost perfectly. For a person to enter the criminal justice system, the process must begin with the law enforcement.
A formal fallacy is one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of the argument. This type of fallacy is usually found in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms. Some of these are categorical syllogisms, hypothetical
