Geeeez.

Seymour ~ !

Zee, what decade is this piece from?

Where their motto is "Spanglish is my language" and where you can "HEAR OUR
PROMOTIONAL COMEDY SKETCHES & MUSIC FOR GREASERS & GRINGOS"

The following is a quote from a book entitled "Practical Argumentation" by
George K. Pattee which effectively argues against the validity of both the
premises (both stated and unstated) and the conclusions (both stated and
unstated) in the study in qu
2. DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Deductive reasoning is the method of demonstrating
the truth of a particular statement by showing that some general principle,
which has previously been established or which is admitted to be true,
applies to it. A stranger on coming to the United States might ask whether
our postal system is a success. The answer would perhaps be, "Yes, certainly
it is, for it is maintained by the government, and all our government
enterprises are successful." When the metal thurium was discovered, a query
doubtless arose as to whether it was fusible. It was then reasoned that
since all metals hitherto known were fusible, and since thurium was a metal,
undoubtedly it was fusible. Stated in clearer form, the reasoning in each
case would be:-

A. All our government enterprises are successful.

B. The United States postal system is a government enterprise.

C. Therefore the United States postal system is successful.

A. All metals are fusible.

B. Thurium is a metal.

C. Therefore thurium is fusible.

Such a series of statements is called a syllogism. A syllogism always
consists of a major premise (A), a minor premise (B), and a conclusion (C).
The major premise always states a general law; the minor premise shows that
the general law applies to the particular case under consideration; and the
conclusion is, in the light of the two premises, an established truth.

The strength of deductive argument depends on two things: the truth of the
premises and the framing of the syllogism. The syllogism must always be so
stated that a conclusion is derived from the application of a general law to
some specific instance to which the law obviously applies. In the next
place, the premises must be true. If they are only probably correct, the
conclusion is a mere presumption; if either one is false, the conclusion is
probably false. But if the syllogism is correctly framed, and if both
premises are true, the conclusion is irrefutable. As premises are facts that
have first been established by induction, the relation between inductive and
deductive reasoning is very close. In fact, deduction depends on induction
for its very existence. To overthrow a deductive argument all that is
necessary is to show the error in the inductive process that built up either
one or both of the premises.

The tests for deduction are:-

(1) Are both premises true?

(2) Is the fact stated in the minor premise an instance of the general law
expressed in the major premise?

In practical argumentation it is not always necessary or desirable to
express a deductive argument in full syllogistic form. One premise is
frequently omitted; the syllogism thus shortened is called an enthymeme. The
reasoning then takes some such form as, "This man will fail in business
because he is incompetent." The major premise, "All incompetent men fail in
business," is understood, but is not expressed. The enthymeme constitutes as
strong and forceful an argument as the syllogism, provided the suppressed
premise is a well-established fact; but whenever this premise is not
accepted as true, it must be stated and proved. The argument will then
consist of the full syllogistic process.

I am a male RN.