The main issue: Education via counsel rather than punishment is steadily killing young people.

The interviewee's argument:

-All misbehavior must be punished; this is a method for individuals to examine themselves and avoid
crossing the line in life. When children are punished for their faults or watch others being punished, they
learn from it.

- First, Dr Huong Vu makes the point that adults are conscious people but still have to obey the law. And
children are like adults, when they do wrong and are punished, they will learn from it. Then she talks
about the consequences when the child is not punished and gives an example. After that, she gives
reasons to convince us why "punishment" should be applied, not another form. Good premises have
strong links with each other to support the main idea.

- I think that educating children by giving advice is not effective, tougher measures are needed. Children
don't know what is good and what is not good, that's why they need to be taught. Good and intelligent
children will easily absorb and apply what they learn in life. But, what about the bad kids? When we see
them doing wrong, we just advise: "Don't do it, it's not good". But when we have advised but they still
do it wrong, what should we do next? The child does wrong but only receives advice from parents,
teachers - it is too light. That child will not know how bad the consequences of his actions are only
through advice. And the child continues to do wrong because the child is okay anyway. Therefore,
without "punishment" measures, the child will never change himself.

Exercise: Identify the following arguments as inductive or deductive

1. In my experience, most people are happier when they have the Epicurean goods of friends, self-
sufficiency, and time for reflection. Therefore, I think you will probably be happier if you focus on getting
these three goods.

2. You cannot achieve peace of mind until you recognize what is under your control and what isn't under
your control, and then not worry about what isn't under your control. What others think of you isn't
ultimately under your control precisely because it's their thinking. Therefore, don't worry about what
others think of you (Stoicism).

3. All tigers are animals. Tigger is a tiger. Therefore, Tigger is an animal.

4. Humans usually use new technologies in times of war to destroy instead of build. The atomic bomb is
a great example. Therefore, we will probably use strong artificial intelligence to destroy in times of war
(if we ever invent it).
5. We are going to have at least one day in which the temperature rises above 100 in Austin because this
has happened in Austin for at least the last 300 years.

6. Consciousness is either a physical thing or a nonphysical thing. Since it is not a physical thing, it must
be nonphysical.

7. Since the universe is like a watch, it is probably designed.

8. There are only two people in this house: Blaise and Catherine. Neither wear glasses. Therefore, Blaise
doesn't wear glasses.

9. If God exists there is good in the world. God exists, so there is good in the world.

10. Many inexplicable phenomena have eventually been explained by science, so consciousness will
eventually have a scientific explanation.

11. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, this action will have an equal and opposite
reaction.

12. Which of the two argument types (i.e. deductive or inductive) seem to add something new to the
premises? Which seems to have its conclusion contained within its premises?

13. “Three is a prime number. Five is a prime number. Seven is a prime number. Therefore, all odd
numbers between two and eight are prime numbers” (Patrick Hurley's Concise Introduction to Logic).

14. Some people incorrectly define deductive arguments as those that move from general claims to
specific claims (e.g. all apples are red, so this apple is red) and inductive as those that move from specific
claims to general claims (e.g. each apple is red so all apples are red). Examine arguments five & thirteen,
and explain why this definition is sometimes incorrect.
15. Imagine someone tells you that deductive arguments are based on facts and inductive arguments
are based on opinions or observations. Explain why this is a misconception and how you would explain it
to him.

16. Why is the deductive/inductive distinction important?

* 17. In Patrick Hurley's Concise Introduction to Logic, he lists several types of deductive argument:
argument based on math, argument from definition, categorical syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, and
disjunctive syllogism. He also lists several types of inductive arguments: predictions, analogies,
generalizations, argument from authority, argument based on signs, and causal inference. Give an
example of each and explain why it's deductive or inductive.

18. Bob lives in Texas, so he lives in the U.S.

19. Bob lives in Texas, so he wears a cowboy hat.

20. Bob is taller than his wife, and his wife is taller than his son. So, Bob is taller than his son.

Answers

1. Inductive. “Probably” is a clue.

2. Deductive. If we assume the premises are true, the conclusion must follow.

3. Deductive. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false if we assume the premises are true.

4. Inductive. The arguer is claiming the conclusion probably follows, not that it must follow.

5. Inductive. An argument generalizing from a sample is inductive because the conclusion is supported in
a probabilistic way; the conclusion could be false even if we assume the premises true.

6. Deductive. If we assume the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. Of course, you might
reject the premise as false, but deduction and induction have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of
the premises (or conclusion). Deduction or Induction is about how the premises support the conclusion.

7. Inductive.

8. Deductive
9. Deductive. If we assume the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow.

10. Inductive

11. Deductive. We aren’t generalizing; rather we are assuming a general law is true and then inferring a
case from it.

12. Inductive arguments add something new whereas deductive arguments seem to have the conclusion
contained within the premises. This definition may help you better understand the distinction between
deductive and inductive.

13. Deductive. Notice it moves from particular claims to general claims, so not all deductive arguments
move from general to specific.

14. See 13 and 5.

15. Answers will vary, but both types of arguments could have all the correct facts. Logic is about the
quality of inferences, not the truth or falsity of premises.

16. The distinction helps us better understand any argument. Is the arguer arguing for a necessary or
probabilistic connection between premises and conclusion?

17. Research

18. Deductive

19. Inductive. because there are a few exceptions. There are cases where this is not true.

20. Deductive. If the premises are true, the conclusion, logically, must also be true.