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 premise/conclusion indicators and the assumption

• Premise: England => English, Poland

=> Polish, Greenland => Greenlish.

• Conclusion: so, that means, then.

• Assumption: the countries’ name

ends with “land” that people of these
countries are called by “name of the
country without ‘land’ + ‘lish’”.
Task 2: Find the premise/conclusion
indicators and the assumption

Sample answer

Premise indicators: N/A (not available)

Conclusion indicators: So, That means, Then

Assumption 1: When a person is from a country,

it is his/her nationality.

Assumption 2: Country names ending in “land”

indicate the “lish” in the nationalities.

 Wrong: Greenland -> Greenish

Task 3: Indicate the premises and the conclusion. Then identify the
assumption to agree or disagree with the conclusion.

Assumption: The Transitive Property of Equality (a=b and

b=c so a=c) always works in any case.
Disagree because the second premise is about the
increasing number of holes when we have more pieces of
cheese but in the third premise we add more holes to a
piece of cheese. They are different in reference. When we
express these two premises in equations they have the
phrase “more holes” the same but they are different in
The premises: meaning, so the Transitive Property of Equality can’t be
cheese has holes applied. It’s just like saying that I know you, you know
more cheese = more holes him, then I know him, it doesn’t make sense.
more holes = less cheese
The conclusion: more cheese = less cheese
Task 4: Rephrase the Director’s argument’s argument and identify his assumption.

Premise: The director assumes that a

disabled lottery vendor can sell 3000
lottery tickets per day.

Conclusion: With each ticket worth 1100

VND for the vendor, they can earn
approximately 100 million VND per month.

Assumption: 3000 lottery tickets are sold

every single day.
Task 4: Rephrase the Director’s argument and identify his assumption.

Sample answer
Premise 1: Some disabled lottery ticket
sellers can sell up to 3.000 tickets per day.
Premise 2: The commission rate for each
ticket is 1.100 VND.
Conclusion: They can earn about 100
million a month.

=>Assumption: They sell constantly

3.000 tickets/day on 30 days a month.
Task 5: Make an argument out of the meme.
Premise 1: Tran Qui Thanh posted a
photo of eating instant noodles and was
prosecuted.
Premise 2: Tran Thanh posted a photo of
eating instant noodles and was turned
away by the audience.
Premise 3: Thuy Tien posted a photo of
eating noodles and was prosecuted for
the statement case.
Premise 4: Hoai Linh posted a photo of
eating noodles and got a scandal.
Conclusion: Never post a photo of
eating noodles.
Task 6: Provide your meme and make an argument. Identify the premise(s),
conclusion, and asumption(s).
Premise 1: Đậu Má Mix believes
that drinking a lot of milk tea will
definitely make you fat.
Premise 2: MAYCHA, which is
next to Đậu Má Mix, casts doubt on
the fattening elements of milk tea
but confirms its good flavors.
Conclusion:
So, it is possible that….
Assumption:
Two brands sell two different types
of drinks and have different uses, so
there is competition over
customers' choice to live "healthy"
or not.
 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
reasoningDeductive argument
Inductive argument

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)

 Induction: reasoning from specific cases to more

general, but uncertain, conclusions (informal
reasoning)
 Examples of deductive and inductive reasoning

 Today, some late students in our class said they had to move from the
Central Library to IU main campus.
 Probably all students were late today because of the campus change.

INDUCTIVE REASONING

 IELTS 5.5 or equivalents are the requirement to begin the major’s

courses at HCM-IU.
 I recently sat for the IELTS exam and got 6.0.
 Therefore, I am qualified for my major’s courses now.

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. All 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
Application: Deductive or inductive?
Deductive

Inductive
COMMON PATTERNS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Argument by elimination
4. Argument based on mathematics
5. Argument from definition
 1. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (chain argument)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
 Task: Fill in the minor premise.

Premise 1: All holidays falling on weekends are made up for in the coming weekdays.

Premise 2: __________________________________________________________

Conclusion: It is logical to infer that there are two make-up holidays after April 30.
 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 ______.
Task: Find the conclusion for this argument from
elimination

Source: Tư duy biện luận – Nghĩ hay hơn hay nghĩ

 Answer
Reasoning pattern: Deductive argument
Type of argument: Argument by elimination

Cam says each person wears a shirt with a different color from that person’s
name (general premise)

Þ Cam wears blue or pink. (sub conclusion 1)

The girl with the blue shirt agrees with Cam. (minor premise)
Þ Cam can’t wear blue. (sub conclusion 2)
Þ Cam wears pink. (conclusion 1)
Þ Hồng wears blue. (conclusion 2)
Þ Lam wears orange. (conclusion 3)

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Cam wears pink, Hồng wears blue and
Lam wears orange.
 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
 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
2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from authority
4. Causal argument
5. Statistical argument
6. Argument from analogy
 1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION

My boyfriend never gives me a flower on

Valentine. 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

 There’s an Edusoft announcement that students will resume

learning on campus on Thursday after the holiday.
 So I have to book a flight back to HCMC on Wednesday night at the
latest.

 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
learners of critical thinking 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
6. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY

P.1. When you are bored, you keep opening

and closing the fridge every few minutes to
see if there’s anything good in it.

P.2. When you are bored, you keep opening

and closing Facebook every few minutes to
see if there’s anything good in it.

Conclusion: So, Facebook is like the fridge.

6. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
Task 6:
Premise: if you're bored
you keep opening and
closing it every few
minutes to see if there's
anything good in it.

Conclusion: Facebook is
like the fridge.

Assumption: He thinks
these actions are
happened when you open
the fridge or surf
Facebook.
 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 are 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 are
uninsured, drunk, or both. (Conclusion)

→ inductive argument from generalization

one in four = 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

Task: Make FIVE arguments from the given clues.

Indicate:
- Premises (major/minor premises or observations)
- Conclusion:
- Assumption:
- Type of argument: (out of 5 deductive and 6 inductive patterns)

Link to submit:
https://forms.gle/xJMVSsZzs17E95GL7
 Group:
Full name:
Full name:
….

72
 Input for your arguments
Trước đó, ngay sau khi kết thúc thời gian thi môn Văn,
mạng xã hội hoang mang trước thông tin một nhóm diễn
đàn liên quan đến học đường với 2,3 triệu thành viên đã
tiết lộ "2k5 biết nương tựa vào ai rồi đấy". Kèm theo đó là
hình ảnh một tài khoản khá nổi tiếng trên mạng xã hội tên
Kaito Kid đã công bố dự doán đúng đề thi môn Văn tốt
nghiệp THPT năm 2022. Không chỉ thế, tại khoản này còn
đoán đúng cả môn Văn 3 năm của kỳ thi.

Kaito Kid: "Tất cả tác phẩm mình đăng chỉ là do dự đoán

của mình. Và việc đoán chính xác 3 tác phẩm liên tiếp có lẽ
do mình may mắn. Như hôm qua, mình cũng phân vân sẽ
chọn "Ai đã đặt tên cho dòng sông" hay "Chiếc thuyền
ngoài xa" để đăng lên phỏng đoán. Nhưng vì "Ai đã đặt tên
cho dòng sông" đã ra đề minh họa của năm trước rồi nên
mình chọn "Chiếc thuyền ngoài xa". Hi vọng mọi người
đừng đẩy sự việc đi quá xa, sẽ ảnh hưởng đến mình".
Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Argument pattern:
 Sample argument 1

P1. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 2020. (observation)

P2. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 20201. (observation)

P3. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 20222. (observation)

Conclusion: So, 2k5 students know who you

will rely on.

Assumption: Kaito Kid always makes good

Premise + type: predictions.
Conclusion: Type of argument: predictive argument
Assumption:
Type of argument:
 Sample argument 2

Nettizens:

P1. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 2020. (observation)

P2. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 2021. (observation)

P3. Kaito Kid made a correct prediction for the

Literature test topic in 2022. (observation)

Conclusion: So, Kaito Kid must have known

the topics for the Literature tests in advance.

Assumption: The test papers were leaked for

Premise + type:
three consecutive years.
Conclusion:
Assumption: Type of argument: causal argument
Type of argument:
Sample argument 3

Kaito Kid:

P1. I made a correct prediction for the Literature test

topic in 2020. (observation)

P2. I made a correct prediction for the Literature test

topic in 20201. (observation)

P3. I made a correct prediction for the Literature test

topic in 20222. (observation)

Conclusion: So, it is probable that I have been

lucky.

Assumption: There was no leaking of test papers.

Type of argument: causal argument

Sample argument 4

Kaito Kid:

P1. I considered between “Ai đã đặt tên cho

dòng sông” and “Chiếc thuyền ngoài xa”.
(observation)

P2 . “Ai đã đặt tên cho dòng sông” was in the

test last year. (observation)

Conclusion: So, I decided on “Chiếc thuyền

ngoài xa” for this year’s test.

Assumption: Test questions are not reused in

a short time.

Type of argument: predictive argument from

elimination
 Task 1: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument:
 Task 2: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument:
Task 3: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument:
 Task 4: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument
 Task 5: Make an argument based on the clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument:
 Task 6: Make an argument based on YOUR clue

Premise + type:
Conclusion:
Assumption:
Type of argument:
Week 3 – three minutes
85