REVIEW OF CHAPTER 2

Statement: sentence/utterance that can Non-statements: Non-arguments:

be viewed as either true or false
• Questions • Reports

• Greetings • Unsupported assertions

Statements: core of an argument
• Commands
• Conditional sentences
• Requests
Argument: premise(s) + conclusion(s) • Illustrations
• Proposals
• Explanations
• Instructions
Argument: core of critical thinking
• Exclamations

* Assumption: hidden belief/principle that

that decides the value of the conclusion
CHAPTER 2 - ASSIGNMENT
Task 1: Find the assumptions

1. Lucky got A for her online tests. Her straight A show that she really had good study habits.

Assumption(s): 1/ Lucky did not cheat in her online tests; 2/ Teachers did not reduce test difficulty or go
easy on marking for online tests; 3/ Lucky did not have any individual favor from her teachers.

2. Petrol prices have hit another record high due to the impact of Russia-Ukraine conflict. Prices of other
necessity goods will go up soon.

Assumption(s): 1/ Petrol prices have climbed higher and higher; 2/ Petrol prices control prices of other
necessity goods (necessity goods need transporting and distributing to places for consumption)

3. Kim should choose badminton for her PE course. She’s a great basketball player.

Assumption(s): Skills for badminton and basketball are the same

4. Joe couldn’t have been involved in the crime. He was sitting with me in the Starbucks café when the crime was
reportedly committed.

Assumption(s): 1/ a person cannot be at two places at the same time; 1/ Indirect involvement (hiring
others) is not a criminal act

5. BA students currently make the biggest group at IU. I’m confident that they will find jobs easily after
graduation.

Assumption(s): 1/ Work market needs BA graduates for at least four more years; 2/ BA students at IU
choose their major because of its job potentials, not because of other advantages (low entry score,
governmental support)
Further practice: Find the assumptions

1. Some groups submitted correct assumption answers which are identical to the sample
answers of the last semester. This shows that great minds always think the same.

Assumption: These groups did not copy the sample answers.

2. My students are not quite strong at assumption questions. I need to give them more
questions for practice.

Assumption: Practice makes perfect.

3. Results of individual homework quizzes last semesters show that students have
recycled the answers released by their friends who have passed the course. Therefore,
the teacher must change the questions to stop cheating.

Assumption: Group discussion is a type of cheating.

Argument 1 – suggested answer

To cope with the emerging Covid-19 variants, many countries have pushed their people to take booster
vaccine shots. In country X, apart from the two basic shots, the authorities is planning other booster
vaccines for its people. These authorities believe that their plan will keep country safe from the new Covid-
19 variants.
Premise:
In country X, apart from the two basic shots, the authorities is planning other booster vaccines for its people.
Conclusion: The authorities believe that their plan will keep country safe from the new Covid-19 variants.

Assumption(s) of authorities in country X:

1. The old vaccines will be effective for the new virus variants.
2. Those booster vaccines will not have any side-effects.
3. Only vaccines without other protective measures can guarantee safety.
4. People in country X are willing to accept the authorities’ booster vaccine plan.
Evaluation:
The conclusion of the argument is not quite reasonable for the following reasons:
- 1st assumption-based: New virus variants, for example, Omicron, likely weakens vaccine protection.
- 2nd assumption-based: Frequent booster could adversely affect the immune system.
- 3rd assumption-based: Vaccines only cannot stop virus spread -> the country is still not safe.
- 4th assumption-based: People weigh pros and cons before taking booster vaccines.
Argument 2 – Suggested answer

“I took an IELTS test more than two years ago and I achieved band 6. My IELTS
certificate expired when I applied to University X, so I had to take the IELTS-format test
offered by the university. However, I only scored band 5. I’m sure either the university’s
IELTS-format test or its marking has problems.”

Premises:
1. I took an IELTS test more than two years ago and achieved band 6
2. I had to take the IELTS-format test offered by the university and only scored band 5
Conclusion: The university’s IELTS-format test or its marking has problems.

Assumption(s):
3. The IELTS-format test at he university is the same as the IELTS test regarding difficulty.
4. Her/His English skills were still the same when she/he took IELTS-format test at the
university.

Evaluation: This conclusion is not strong for the following reasons.

- 1st assumption-based: The two tests are similar in format, but perhaps different in difficulty.
- 2nd assumption-based: The arguer may have neglected English for the last two years.
ARGUMENT 3

“The balancing doll is strong because he can always stand up from falls.

So, I want that later you will be like that balancing doll. No matter how

many falls, you will always have strength to stand up.

► Premises: The balancing doll is strong because he can always stand up from

falls.

► Conclusion: So, I want that later you will be like that balancing doll.

► Unwarranted assumption: No matter how many falls, you will always have

strength to stand up.

► Evaluation:

It’s ideal when reality is the same as expectation. However, it is not always the

case, or it is just wishful thinking.

Lesson 3

BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

10
Observe and answer

What will happen?

Observe and answer

Which picture in the 2nd row continues the first row?

Two patterns of
reasoning
Inductive argument Deductive argument
Lập luận dạng qui Lập luận dạng diễn
nạp dịch

Generalization General
(theory) premise

Conclusion
(hypothesis) Specific
premise

Pattern
Conclusio
Premise Premise Premise n
(observation) (observation) (observation)
Two basic categories of human reasoning
 Deduction: reasoning from general premises,
which are known or presumed to be known, to more
specific, certain conclusions (formal reasoning)
Diễn giải: suy luận từ những tiền đề chung, đã
biết hoặc được cho là đã biết, đến những kết luận
chắc chắn, cụ thể hơn (suy luận chính thức)

 Induction: reasoning from specific cases to more

general, but uncertain, conclusions (informal
reasoning)
Quy nạp: suy luận từ các trường hợp cụ thể đến
kết luận tổng quát hơn, nhưng không chắc chắn
(suy luận không chính thức)
Examples of deductive and inductive reasoning

 Today, some late students in our class said they had to take the
booster vaccine shot.
 Probably all students were late today because of booster vaccination.

 INDUCTIVE REASONING

 According to the World Health Organization, the objective of a

booster dose is to restore vaccine effectiveness from that deemed no
longer sufficient.
 I took the second vaccine shot 6 months ago.
 Therefore, I have to rush for a booster dose.

 DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning
Deductive or inductive?
Task: Reorder the statements and decide if it is deductive or inductive.

1. A safe in the bank was unlocked last night.

2. Only two people know the safe’s combination lock: Cheaty and Fraudy.
3. Fraudy was also seen sneaking around outside the bank last night.
4. Fraudy once said he needed money to pay his gambling debts.
5. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Fraudy broke in the bank and
unlocked the safe.
6. Whoever opens the safe knows the safe’s combination lock.
7. Cheaty is now on business abroad.

Reordered argument: 1, 6, 2, 7, 4, 3, 5
→ Deductive argument
Deductive or inductive?

In real life, arguments are not always in standard forms,

which means certain premise(s) may be missing or inclusive.
Example:
Lincoln was President from 1861 to 1865.
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the 19th century.

Standard deductive argument:

The 19th century is from 1801-1900. (missing general premise)

Lincoln was President from 1861 to 1865. (minor premise)
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the 19th century.
(conclusion)
Deductive or inductive?
In real life, arguments are not always in standard forms,
which means certain premise(s) may be missing or inclusive.
Example:

All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good. Therefore, Stephen
King’s next novel will probably be good.

* ‘All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good.’ (generalized

premise) includes several particular premises:
1. Stephen King’s first novel was good. (specific premise)
2. Stephen King’s second novel was good. (specific premise)
3. Stephen King’s most recent novel was good. (specific premise)

→ Inductive argument
Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Police’s argument:

You rode a 50+cc motorbike while you are under

16.

Therefore, you violated Vietnamese traffic law.

Police’s full argument:

1. According to Vietnamese traffic law, 16 year-olds can only ride 50cc motorbikes.

(missing general premise)

2. You rode a 50+cc motorbike while you are under 16. (specific premise)

3. Therefore, you violated Vietnamese traffic law. (conclusion)

→ Deductive argument
Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

On-looker’s argument:
1. The police stopped two teenagers on their way to school. (observation 1)

2. One teenager was wearing the red scarf for secondary school. (observation 2)

3. The police were writing something on a motorbike. (observation 3)

So I guess the two teenagers were being fined for underage driving. (conclusion)

→ Inductive argument
Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

Doctor: Tim is having a fever, aching muscles, and a dry,

persistent cough. Perhaps he is having the flu.

Your turn: Deductive or Inductive?

Doctor: Tim is having a fever, aching muscles, and a dry,

persistent cough. Perhaps he is having the flu.

Perhaps he is having the flu. (conclusion)

o
Common flu symptoms: fever over 100.4 F (38 C), aching muscles, chills and sweats,

headache, dry, persistent cough, fatigue and weakness, nasal congestion, sore throat

(pattern)
Tim is having a fever. (observation/specific premise 1)

Tim is having aching muscles. (observation/specific premise 2)

→ Inductive argument
Tim is having a dry, persistent cough. (observation/specific premise 3)
Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

Rằng tôi chút phận đàn bà

(Hoạn Thư – Truyện Kiều)

Ghen tuông thì cũng người ta thường tình

I’m a woman.

So it’s normal when I’m jealous.

Your turn: Deductive or inductive?

Task: Insert missing premise(s) if any, and decide if the

argument below is deductive or inductive.

1. Women are jealous by nature. (missing general premise)

2. I’m a woman. (specific premise)

3. So, it’s normal that I’m jealous. (conclusion)

(Hoạn Thư – Truyện Kiều)

→ Deductive argument
Deductive arguments’ claims

General premise  If the premises are true, the

conclusion must be true.
 The conclusion follows
Specific premise
necessarily from the premises.
 It is impossible for all the
Specific
premise premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
 If you accept the premises, you
Conclusion
must accept the conclusion.
Deduction indicators

certainly definitely
absolutely conclusively
It logically follows that
It is logical to conclude that
This logically implies that
This entails that
Inductive arguments’ claims
Generalization  If the premises are true,
(theory)
the conclusion is
probably true.
Conclusion  The conclusion follows
(hypothesis)
probably from the
premises.
 It is unlikely for the
Pattern
premises to be true and
the conclusion false.
 The conclusion is
Premise Premise Premise
(observation) (observation) (observation) probably true if the
premises are true.
Sample inductive reasoning

P.1. Singer T’s boyfriend is 11 years younger than her.

P.2. Actress V’s date is 11 years younger than her.
P.3. Singer’s Q’s partner is 11 years younger than her.
C. So, it’s not true that we’re unmatched; it’s probable
that our sweethearts are just kids now!
Induction indicators

probably likely
One would expect that
It is plausible to suppose that
It is reasonable to assume that
Chances are that
Odds are that (Tỷ lệ cược là)
Application: Deductive or inductive?
Deductive

Inductive
COMMON PATTERNS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING
1. Hypothetical syllogism
(Thuyết tam đoạn luân dựa trên những giả thuyết)
2. Categorical syllogism
(Thuyết tam đoạn luân dựa trên phân loại)
3. Argument by elimination
(Lập luận bằng sử dụng loại bỏ)
4. Argument based on mathematics
(Lập luận dựa trên toán học)
5. Argument from definition
(Lập luận từ các định nghĩa)
1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(chain argument – Lập luận dạng chuỗi)

If you miss the bus, you’ll be late for class.

If you’re late for class, you’ll miss the lesson.
So, if you miss the bus, you’ll miss the lesson.

Pattern: If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

Valid
1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(modus ponens – affirming the antecedent)
(dạng khẳng định tiền tố)

If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll

have to study hard.
You certainly want to get the scholarship.
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard.

Pattern: If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B
Valid
1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(modus tollens – denying the consequent)
(từ chối hậu quả/vế sau)
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You don’t live in France.
Therefore, you don’t live in Paris.

Pattern: If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

Valid
1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(denying the antecedent)
(từ chối vế trước)
If Mr. Smith is President of the U.S., then
he’s a famous person.
Mr. Smith is not President of the U.S.
Therefore, he’s not a famous person.

Pattern: If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

Invalid
1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
(affirming the consequent)
(khẳng định vế sau)
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.

Pattern: If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

Invalid
Task: Sort them out.
1. If we’re in London, then we’re in England. We are not in England. So, we
are not in London.

2. If we’re in Los Angeles, then we are in the United States. We are in the
United States. So, we are in Los Angeles.

3. If we’re in the United States, then we are on Earth. We are in the United
States. So, we are on Earth.

4. If we’re in Paris, then we are in France. If we’re in France, then we are in

Europe. So, if we are in Paris, then we are in Europe.

5. If we’re in Houston, then we are in the United States. We are not in

Houston. So, we are not in the United States.
Task: Sort them out.
6. If we’re in Shanghai, then we are in China. So, we are in
China, because we are in Shanghai.
7. We are not in Mexico, because if we are in Mexico City, we
are in Mexico, and we are not in Mexico City.
8. We are in India if we are in Calcutta. Since we’re in India,
we are in Calcutta.
9. If we’re in Toronto, then we are in Canada. If we are in
Canada, we are in North America. So, if we are in Toronto,
then we are in North America.
10. We’re in Berlin, given that if we are in Berlin, then we are in
Germany, and we are in Germany.
2. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Example 1: With ‘All’

All Critical Thinking books contain deductive and inductive arguments.
All deductive and inductive arguments are patterns of logical reasoning.
So, all Critical Thinking books contain patterns of logical reasoning.

Example 2: With ‘Some’

Some students in our class are exchange students.
All exchange students are foreigners.
So, some students in our class are foreigners.
3. Argument by elimination

Example 1:
Either you are married or you are single by law.
You are not married.
Then you are single by law.

Example 2:
All arguments are either deductive or inductive.
Jack’s argument is not deductive.
Therefore, his argument is ______.
4. Argument based on Mathematics
Question:
The sun is 93 million miles from Earth, and light travels at a rate of
186,000 miles per second. How long does it take for light from the sun to
reach the Earth?

The formula for calculating time is t(time) = distance/speed. (general premise)

Sunlight travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per second (s). (specific premise)

The sun is more than 93 million miles away from Earth (d). (specific premise)
Therefore, it takes 500 seconds for light from the sun to reach
(conclusion)
the earth.
4. Argument based on Mathematics

1+1=?

1+1=2 (integer)

1 shoe + 1 shoe
= 1 pair of shoes

The use of precise vocabulary and grammar is essential in arguments

based on mathematics.
5. Argument from Definition
Example 1:
Mary is 13 years old. Therefore, she is a teenager.
Definition of a teenager: a person aged between 13 and 19
years
*Example 2:
Daisy is my daughter. Therefore, she is a female.
Definition of a daughter: a girl or woman in relation to her
parents.

Question for example 2: Is this conclusion true?

Answer: It used to be true.
Argument from definition

Major premise: The ideal samurai was supposed to be a stoic warrior who followed an unwritten code of conduct, later formalized
as Bushidō, which held bravery, honour, and personal loyalty above life itself; ritual suicide by disembowelment (seppuku) was
institutionalized as a respected alternative to dishonour or defeat. (Britanica)

Minor premise: The late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was a brave warrior in Japanese political arena, resigned from office when
having health problems, and showed the noble Japanese dedication to his country and people.

Conclusion: Therefore, the late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe represents the samurai spirit of Japan.
Deductive validity
 Valid deductive arguments: conclusion must follow from premises;
in other words, it’s impossible that all premises are true but the
conclusion is false.
Example 1:
If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard.
You certainly want to get the scholarship.
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard.
 Valid
Example 2:
If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard.
You don’t study hard at all.
Therefore, you will get the scholarship.
 Invalid
Deductive validity
 Valid deductive arguments: may be sound or unsound

Example 1:
All International University students do their majors in
English.
I’m an International University student.
Therefore, I do my major in English.
 Valid and sound (true)
Example 2:
All International University students are aliens.
I’m an International University student.
Therefore, I’m an alien.
 Valid but unsound (true)
Generalization of deductive validity
Make an argument and evaluate it
Make an argument and evaluate it
Bill: I’m sure some of the seniors were late to practice this
morning.
Diane: How do you know?
Bill: Because the coach said that if anyone is late to practice
this morning, they would have to run 10 rounds, and I just saw
some of the seniors run 10 rounds. That’ll teach them.
Argument:
If students are late to practice, they have to run 10 rounds.
Some seniors ran 10 rounds this morning.
Therefore, they were late to practice.

If A, then B.
Invalid (affirming the consequent) B.
Therefore, A.
Make an argument and evaluate it

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. You will die of lung

cancer because you have been a heavy cigarette smoker for
many years.
Argument:
Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
You have been a heavy cigarette smoker for many years.
Therefore, you will die of lung cancer.
Valid but unsound: (First premise is false. Smoking just
increases the risk of lung cancer.)
Fun corner: Valid/Invalid - Sound/Unsound?

 I skipped breakfast for a week to save $16 for my

first date. I bought my girl 9 roses at $1.50/each.
Then we went to the park and had two cans of
diet coke at $2/each while enjoying our wonderful
moment together. So, life is still wonderful with
just $16 for a date!   

16 – 13.5 – (2 x 2) = -1.5 INVALID

COMMON PATTERNS OF INDUCTIVE REASONING
1. Inductive generalization
(Tổng quát quy nạp)
2. Predictive argument
(Lập luận từ dự đoán)
3. Argument from authority
(Lập luận đưa ra từ người/đơn vị giám sát)
4. Causal argument
(Lý lẽ nhân quả)
5. Statistical argument
(Lập luận dựa trên thống kê)
6. Argument from analogy
(Lập luận từ phép loại suy)
1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION

My boyfriend never gives me a flower on

Valentine or March 8. All men are so
unromantic!

Too hasty conclusion!

2. PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT

Every time I come home with the smell of

beer, my wife gets angry! I’ve just drunk a
lot of beer. So my wife will get angry.
3. ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

 HCMC International University has just confirmed that students will

resume learning on campus in March 1.
 So I have to book a flight to HCMC now to attend the face-to-face
lessons at the given time.

 My girlfriend keeps warning me never to look at any girl in the

street.
 So I must keep my eyes only on her whenever we hang out.
4. CAUSAL ARGUMENT

I can’t call him on my mobile phone. I’m

sure the network is down.
weak

I can’t call him on my mobile phone. The

network is probably down.

strong
5. Statistical argument

100% of IU students have to learn Critical

Thinking while this subject is optional at
University X. Therefore, IU has more
critical thinkers than University X.
6. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
 A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic.
 B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic.
 C is an IU student, so I’m sure she’s confident and dynamic.

Weak

 A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic.

 B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic.
 C is an IU student, so it’s likely that she’s confident and
dynamic.

Stronger
Inductive strengths
 Strong inductive arguments: The conclusion is probably
true if the premises are true.
 Weak inductive arguments: Premises, even if they are
assumed to be true, do not make the conclusion probable.
Example 1:
Kim told me her family is not affordable for her college tuition.
She has been studying so hard in the last year of high school.
Kim is probably trying to gain a college scholarship.
Strong
Example 2:
About 5% of IU students are international students now. Kim is
an IU student. So she is probably an international student.
Inductive strengths (cont)

Strong and weak inductive arguments come in degrees:

Example 1:
There is a 90% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
Example 2:
There is a 60% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
Example 3:
There is a 40% chance that Tom will pass the exam.
Therefore, he will probably pass the exam.
Inductive strengths (con’t)

Strong inductive arguments may be cogent or uncogent:

Example 1:
It’s the rainy season and it has been raining for the last 3 days.
Therefore, it is probably going to rain today.
Strong and cogent (convincing)
Example 2:
Rainy days generally result in dry weather and it is raining now.
Therefore, we’ll probably have dry weather today.
Strong but uncogent (at least one premise is false)
Generalization of inductive strength
PRACTICE

DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

valid/invalid? weak or strong?

sound/unsound? cogent/uncogent?
1. Identify the premise(s) and conclusion.
2. Identify the type of argument.
3. Evaluate each argument.
Argument 1 Argument 2
 A sample of fifty motorists  The Law of the Sea treaty
who were stopped in states that any vessel beyond
accidents on the freeway a 12 mile limit is in
revealed that one in four international waters. The
drivers were either treaty also states that any
uninsured, intoxicated, or vessel in international waters
both. Thus, if you get cannot be legally stopped or
involved in an accident on boarded. Therefore, when the
the freeway, there is a U.S. Coast Guard stops
25% chance the other boats coming from Cuba or
motorists will be drunk or Haiti more than 12 miles from
uninsured. the U.S. coast, it is violating
the Law of the Sea.
Deductive or inductive reasoning?
1. A sample of fifty motorists who caused accidents on the
freeway revealed that one in four drivers were either
uninsured or drunk, or both. (observation)
2. Thus, if you get involved in an accident with motorcycles on
the freeway, there is a 25% chance the motorists will be
uninsured, drunk, or both. (Conclusion)

→ inductive argument from generalization

‘a 25% chance’ → strong

‘a sample of 50 motorists’: too small compared with all
motorists on freeways
Weak argument
Deductive or inductive reasoning?
1. The Law of the Sea Treaty states that any vessel beyond a 12
mile limit is in international waters. (General premise)
2. The Treaty also states that any vessel in international waters
cannot be legally stopped or boarded. (General premise)
3. The U.S. Coast Guard stops boats coming from Cuba or Haiti
more than 12 miles from the U.S. coast. (Specific premise)
4. Therefore, the U.S. Coast Guard is violating the Law of the
Sea. (Conclusion)

→ deductive argument: valid

If 1 + 2 are true → sound

If either 1 or 2 is untrue, or both 1 + 2 are untrue → unsound
Review of Chapter 3

DEDUCTIVE PATTERNS INDUCTIVE PATTERNS

1. Hypothetical syllogism 1. Inductive generalization

2. Categorical syllogism 2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from definition 3. Argument from authority
4. Argument from elimination 4. Causal argument
5. Argument based on mathematics 5. Statistical argument
6. Argument from analogy
Assignment for Chapter 3 (Optional)

Task: Make arguments from the given clues and evaluate them.
Indicate:
- Premises (major/minor premises or observations)
- Conclusion:
- Assumption: (if required)
- Argument pattern: (out of 5 deductive and 6 inductive patterns)
Sample argument 1

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:

Premise: A Singaporean professor taught for two hours only to realize he was on mute the whole
time. (observation)
Conclusion: His students might have been inattentive to his lecture or they may have kept silent
about the problem to tease their professor.
Argument pattern: Causal argument
Sample arguments 2 + 3
Major premise: All parents have children hitting
each other now and then.
Minor premise: Some siblings who hit each other
during quarantine always bring their parents high
hormones and drama.
Conclusion: Therefore, all parents with siblings
hitting each other during quarantine never run low
on hormones and drama.
Argument pattern: Categorical argument

Premise 1 (Observation): In the game “The Floor is Lava”, if a contestant touches “the lava,” the
show treats them like they’re literally dead.
Premise 2 (Observation): Social distancing keeps you from touching everyone outside to avoid
being literally dead by the virus.
Conclusion: Therefore, you should think of social distancing as a game of “Everyone Outside is
Lava.”
Argument pattern: Argument from analogy
Task 1: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
Task 2: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
Task 3: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
75