PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 4 Assignment: Journal Inference

Below are rewritten, expanded, and organized responses to the three prompts from the original entry. I’ve kept the original headings, converted each prompt into a clear question (and answered it), presented explanatory paragraphs, and added tables where a row/column format makes comparison or clarification easier. APA in-text citation style is preserved and the reference is left in the same format you provided.

Inference and Reasoning

Question: What are the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, and how do the terms “valid” and “warranted” function in different contexts?

Inductive and deductive reasoning are two complementary ways we move from information to conclusions. Deductive reasoning starts with a general claim or hypothesis and tests whether specific observations follow logically from that claim; when the logical structure is correct, deductions produce conclusions that are guaranteed by the premises (assuming the premises are true). Inductive reasoning travels the opposite direction: it observes particular facts or patterns and builds generalized hypotheses or theories that explain them. Induction is inherently probabilistic — it offers degrees of support rather than absolute certainty.

The words “valid” and “warranted” change meaning depending on context. In everyday speech, “valid” often means believable or acceptable (e.g., “That’s a valid point”), while in formal logic it means the inference preserves truth from premises to conclusion. “Warranted” in ordinary use can mean justified (e.g., “His behavior warranted a reprimand”), but in other settings it may be a legal term (a warrant issued by a court). Because these terms are context sensitive, it’s important to be explicit about whether you mean the commonsense sense or a technical sense when you analyze an argument.

Fallacies in Argumentation

Question: How do fallacies weaken arguments, and how can they be recognized and explained in simple terms?

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument unreliable even when its conclusion might still be true. Being able to detect fallacies in plain language helps readers evaluate claims without getting lost in jargon. Rather than simply labeling an argument “wrong,” it is more helpful to show which step in the reasoning is unsound and why.

Consider the example paraphrased from Facione and Gittens (2016): “A person in prison can still be truly free, because self-awareness equates to freedom; therefore physical confinement does not negate freedom.” This mixes psychological states (self-awareness) with legal/physical realities (imprisonment) and implies an equivalence that isn’t supported. The argument collapses because it equivocates on the meaning of “freedom” and draws a non sequitur from self-knowledge to absolute freedom. A constructive restatement would say: “Self-awareness can increase a person’s sense of psychological freedom in restrictive circumstances, but that psychological freedom is not the same thing as legal or physical freedom.”

Here is a practical table of common fallacies, a short explanation, and a quick way to improve the reasoning:

When you encounter a fallacy in text, name the error, explain briefly how it undermines the argument, and — when possible — offer a corrected version or what additional evidence would be needed to support the claim.

Civic Responsibilities in Health Care

Question: What civic responsibilities are tied to healthcare, and how do practical gaps in the U.S. system affect individuals and communities?

Public health and civic responsibility overlap when policies and community behaviors influence access to care and population outcomes. The U.S. debate over universal healthcare has persisted for decades because it touches core questions about collective responsibility, resource allocation, and how to ensure equity. The COVID-19 pandemic made those stakes clearer: when a contagious disease spreads, individual access to timely care and testing affects everyone’s safety and the health system’s ability to cope.

From my experience working in a medical office, the human side is stark: patients delaying care because of cost, struggling with copays or high prescription prices, or relying on sporadic solutions such as copay assistance cards or samples. Those stopgap measures help some people in the short term but do not replace systematic policy solutions that reduce financial barriers and improve continuity of care.

Civic responsibility can take many forms: voting and policy advocacy for systems that reduce financial barriers; volunteering or donating to community clinics; supporting local public-health education; and advocating at the workplace for benefits and sick-leave policies that protect public health. On the policy side, investments that increase primary care capacity, controllable drug pricing strategies, and better safety-net programs reduce the reliance on emergency departments and patchwork assistance.

Closing summary

Understanding the difference between inductive and deductive approaches helps you select the right strategy for forming or testing claims. Recognizing fallacies—by naming the error and showing how it breaks the chain of reasoning—improves critical evaluation. And viewing healthcare as both a personal concern and a civic responsibility highlights concrete actions (individual and policy-level) that alleviate barriers to care and improve population health.

PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

References

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.).