Argument One
Dick and Jane feel the insurance company has gained enough from insurance premiums, not only from them but also from other clients. Furthermore, the company had increased by 100% in two weeks. It would therefore not harm the company if they lied about the fender and got some extra dollars to repair it. Given that insurance companies have paid many of Jane's and Dicks friends for damages that they lied about, the two believe that they can also include the damage on the fender from the garage incidence in the claim form, and still get compensated.
Analysis: This argument is deductive, since it moves from being specific to Jane and Dick’s case and broadens into what others do. According to Coetzee et al., (2018) a deductive essay begins with a statement, and then provides supporting facts and examples. This argument starts with detailing what the insurance plan entails, what they pay annually, and for how long they have been paying. The argument builds a base to explain why Dick and Jane might make some decisions. It then analyzes the incidence at hand and then compares with what happens in the broader world with their friends in the same scenarios.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Claim 1; during their ten years of insurance time, they filed only one claim for $500.
Claim 2; premiums have risen 100% in two weeks.
Claim 3; the insurance company has made thousands of dollars from their premiums alone, not to mention all the other people they insure.
Claim 4; the insurance company will hardly miss the few thousands that their repairs will cost.
Claim 5; Many of their friends have done the same – included items that were not part of actual collision damage.
Claim 6; It is unlikely that the insurance will discover the fender was not damaged in the supermarket collision.
Conclusion: Dick and Jane should include the cost of replacing the fender in the claim form.
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 2
Conclusion
Claim 5
Claim 4
Claim 6
Argument Two
The issue in this argument is that medical resources are not enough for everyone who needs them. Given that Intensive Care Units are divided into Adult and Neonatal units, there is a battle on which units should get more equipment. After the survey, it has been discovered that the Neonatal Intensive Care unit patient’s rates of survival are at a higher level compared to the adult unit.
Analysis: This argument is inductive since inductive essays start with stating facts, followed by a survey which proves which of the Units is in more need, then makes a conclusion (Hayes et al., 2018). The facts give the reader information on what the argument is addressing even before the conclusion is made. In the short paragraph, the reader builds up ideas, and then makes an informed conclusion
Claim 1; M edical resources are in ever shorter supply.
Claim 2; Allocation of those resources is becoming an issue.
Claim 3; Adult medical ICU's are often occupied by elderly patients in the final stages of chronic illnesses.
Claim 4;Neonatal ICU's are reserved for premature infants that need critical care in the first few days of life.
Claim 5; on a cost/benefit basis, outcomes for NICU patients are statistically better than those for MICU patients.
Conclusion: Neonatal Intensive Care Units should be allocated more medical resources.
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 1
Conclusion
Claim 5
Claim 4
References
Coetzee, J. P., & Monti, M. M. (2018). At the core of reasoning: Dissociating deductive and non‐deductive load. Human brain mapping , 39 (4), 1850-1861.
Hayes, B. K., Stephens, R. G., Ngo, J., & Dunn, J. C. (2018). The dimensionality of reasoning: Inductive and deductive inference can be explained by a single process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 44 (9), 1333.
