I’ve already won a hundred dollars in the state lottery, and hardly anyone wins that much twice. So, I’m not likely to win that much again.
Premises and Conclusion
The conclusion refers to the statement that indicates the general idea the arguer is trying to convey to the listener or reader. The conclusion is usually made at the end of the argument. The conclusion of the argument above is the statement “So, there is an unlikelihood of making an akin win repeatedly”. C. The general idea that the arguer is trying to convey to the listener is the fact that the probability of winning multiple times in the lottery is quite low, so if the arguer already won once, the chances of him or her winning a second time are very slim.
The premises could be thought of the statements, which validate the conclusion, for example, if someone were to ask, “You are not likely to win again, under what grounds?” P. The answer to this question is what constitutes the premises. Each conclusion should have premises if the arguer intends to win the readers/ listener to their side. In the argument presented above, arguer has pocketed some amount in the lottery contest and the fact that no individual makes a double win P. The statements are the ones that set standards for the conclusion.
As can already be deduced from the statement above, the issues discussed by the said argument includes the possibility of winning the lottery a second time after a successful first trial. It also goes on to note that the chances of winning the lottery a second time are very small given the equally slim chance of winning the first time let alone the second time. The statement constitutes a valid argument complete with viable premises and a conclusion to top it all off.
Inductive or Deductive
Inductive reasoning is said to occur when a conclusion is made based on a significant number of premises which are in fact all believed to be generally true. This is the exact opposite of its counterpart where an argument is made based on a selection of premises that are generally assumed true (Tindale, 2007). The above statement uses the premises that, anyone hardly wins the lottery twice. The premise is assumed true although it is quite possible to win twice. The rare nature of the opposite of the give premise is what makes this argument to be deductive beyond all reasonable doubt. The missing premise as per the statement is the fact that if the arguer continues playing the lottery his chances of winning a second time may increase, if he or she completely stops playing, chances of not winning twice are guaranteed.
The Window dressing in the above statement is the statement, which claims that the arguer has won 100 dollars. The argument is that he or she does not think that they will win twice given the premise that hardly anyone ever wins the one hundred dollars. The above claim is also better left unstated since it adds little value to the overall course of the argument.
Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.