Money may not buy happiness, but it improves our lives. Without it, despair and frustrations make life worthless and death being the only solace. Thus, to escape this despair and frustrations in life, I was taught to accept that someone will always have more toys than me and to make hay while the sun shines. I believe that to secure a worthy future, I must embrace moderate frugally and live below my means. The idea is based on the reasoning that; moderate frugality diminishes extravagance; promotes a lifestyle that meets the individual needs and wants while limiting unworthy luxuries and lifestyles; allows a person to live within their means. However, scholars have argued that satisfying an inferior want creates the urge to satisfy a superior want but I still want to save for my future. On the other hand, tycoons have testified on the value of sacrificing current wants and living within one’s means as the key factor that allowed them to save for their future investments. After evaluating my lifestyle, I have concluded that if I want to save for my future, I must stop upgrading my iPhone annually.
My conclusion is founded on two premises; first, I must be frugal and live below my means; second, tycoons excel in money management. However, are the premises based on deductive or inductive reasoning? Answering this question is quite tricky and challenging because the premises and inference can be traced from both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
First, from deductive reasoning, the major and minor premises must be true for the conclusion to be accepted. Therefore, deductive reasoning can be traced by acknowledging that frugality and living below my means will reduce my spending and increase my disposable income for saving. However, the premise can only be true if a sub-premise is introduced dictating that “I want to save money for my future.” Hence, if both premises are true then the conclusion of forgoing the iPhone upgrade is true. However, under the current premise, it does not necessarily follow that I should forgo my annual iPhone upgrade to be frugal or live below my means or excel in money management. This perception acknowledges that there are multiple ways to be frugal or live below my means to save money other than forgoing the iPhone upgrade. For instance, I can change my fashion tastes or reduce money spent on tickets. Therefore, these arguments discard the idea that the premises are founded on deductive reasoning.
On the other hand, inductive reasoning is evident in the argument because, unlike deductive reasoning that follows a syllogism whereby a major and minor premise reaches a logical conclusion, inductive reasoning uses broad generalization from specific observations. Therefore, it is possible to note that while forgoing the iPhone upgrade may not be the only way to be frugal and live below one's means, it is one of the causes of my money problems. Hence, by forgoing the upgrade I will be able to save money. Also, inductive reasoning allows the conclusion to be false. For instance, not all tycoons excel in money management or had to be frugal and live below their means to save for the future. Therefore, basing the argument on such a broad premise allows this argument to evaluate multiple arguments and recommendations to support saving.
Lastly, my argument assumes that all the money that could have been used to upgrade my iPhone will be saved and will ensure that I do not spend above my income. Therefore, demonstrating that previous upgrades were covered via credit cards. Although this assumption is hidden from the statements made in the essay, it is a fundamental part of the entire argument and influenced my conclusion. Secondly, the argument assumes that the iPhone does not need the upgrade because it is fully functional and the only reason for upgrading is to impress or become a member of the diehard users of the product. Therefore, it is a mere luxury that will not change my life. Although the assumptions may not hold, I believe that these assumptions allowed me to narrow my analysis and arguments rather than consider all factors that can influence the decision-making. Therefore, the conclusion under the current premises and assumptions made is justifiable. However, were there any fallacies avoided? Fallacies emanating from false dilemmas dominated most of the arguments due to the assumptions made and the determination of ensuring that a valid conclusion would be made. However, I avoid the false dilemma by exploring multiple perceptions and acknowledging that money management is not a black-and-white scenario. For instance, I was able to demonstrate that not all tycoons are excellent money managers, and frugality and living below one's income are not limited to forgoing iPhone upgrades. Also, the essay demonstrated that the conclusion emanates from inductive reasoning which accommodates false conclusions.
