In an inductive argument, the goal or the writer or arguer is to ensure the probability of the conclusion, but not prove its certainty. If the premises were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion would be false. In this argument, it is concluding that if the government consulted with people and listened to their critics more, they would avoid embarrassment and would live up to promises they made a ways back. In standard form, it would look like this: The government isn’t listening when people are calling for an independent probe in the Global Transportation Hub deal. Diligence didn’t occur in the Global Transportation Hub deal. Therefore, The government could avoid embarrassment if they listened and consulted more. The government should avoid embarrassment to live up to the high standards they promised they would keep. …show more content…
It is implying that if the premises are true, it is highly unlikely for the conclusion to be false. It is not ensuring that the conclusion is 100% accurate, which allows more leeway for an argument. It’s hard to determine success or failure with an inductive argument. In deductive arguments, in which the premises, if they are true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it’s very easy to determine success or failure because it is a concrete answer. Inductive arguments are mainly assumptions in which the conclusion attempts to provide a plausible explanation for the premises. Considering this and keep this in mind, it’s hard to fully understand whether or not this argument is true or false, but it is possible to study how well the argument is