Deductive and Inductive Arguments

from Internet Encyclopedia

A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.

Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying an umbrella.

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive argument is valid or else invalid.

The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie solely in the words used; it comes from the relationship the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment, logical structure, or mathematical necessity), then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.

Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from conductive arguments; the latter are arguments giving explicit reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator of the argument to weigh these considerations, i.e., to consider the pros and cons. This article considers conductive arguments to be a kind of inductive argument.

The noun "deduction" refers to the process of advancing or establishing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. "Induction" refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.

Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, then the truth of the conclusion is said to be "contained within" the truth of the premises; that is, the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. Here is a deductive argument:

John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting today. Therefore, John won't be able to attend our meeting today.

That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If 'ill' were replaced with 'happy', the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus ponens). Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus ponens:

P

If P then Q

So, Q

The capital letters stand for declarative sentences, or statements, or propositions. The investigation of these logical forms is called Propositional Logic.

The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive arguments are valid because of their structure is still controversial in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will not be explored further in this article.

Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging forms. Inductive arguments might conclude with some claim about a group based only on information from a sample of that group. Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence or authority or causal relationships. Here is a somewhat strong inductive argument based on authority:

The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:

The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:

Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.

This last argument is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict John, but none of these three arguments about John committing the murder is strong enough to be called valid. At least itt is not valid in the technical sense of 'deductively valid'. However, some lawyers will tell their juries that these are valid arguments, so we critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people around us are using the term.

It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts improperly define "deduction" as reasoning from the general to specific and define "induction" as reasoning from the specific to the general. These definitions are outdated and inaccurate. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following argument from the specific to general is deductive, not inductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:

The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.

Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:

It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.

It is worth noting that the proof technique used in mathematics called "mathematical induction", is deductive and not inductive. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:

Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.

When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.

Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.

Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.

It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of "champagne" and so the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker's mind. He or she may merely believe that nearly all champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.

It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between deductive and inductive  has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:

All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.

This argument is logically fallacious because it is invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.

Fallacies of Weak Inductive Arguments

TPCT - C10 - Judging Scientific Theories

TPCT - C10 - Judging Scientific Theories

Summary

Science and Not Science

•             Science seeks knowledge and understanding of reality, and it does so through die formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories. Science is a way of searching for truth.

•             Science is not a worldview, and we can't identify it with a particular ideology. Science is also not scientism—it is not the only way to acquire knowledge. It is, however, a highly reliable way of acquiring knowledge of empirical facts.

The Scientific Method

•             Tht: scientific method cannot be identified with any particular set of ex­perimental or observational procedures. But it does involve several general steps: (1) identifying the problem, (2) devising a hypothesis, (3) deriving a test implication, (4) performing the test, and (5) accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.

•             No hypothesis can be conclusively confirmed or confuted. But this fact does not mean that all hypotheses are equally acceptable.

Testing Scientific Theories

•             Following the steps of the scientific method, scientists test hypotheses in many fields, including medical science. One example is the testing of the hypothesis that taking high doses of vitamin C can cure cancer.

•             To minimize errors in testing, scientists use control groups, make studies double-blind, include placebos in testing, and seek replication of their work.

Judging Scientific Theories

•             Theory-testing is part of a broader effort to evaluate a theory against its competitors. This kind of evaluation always involves, implicitly or explic­itly, the criteria of adequacy.

•             The criteria are testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism.

•             The criteria of adequacy played a major role in settling the historic debate about planetary motion, and they are used today to effectively judge the relative merits of the theories of evolution and creationism.

Science and Weird Theories

•             Inference to the best explanation can be used to assess weird theories as well as more commonplace explanations in science and everyday life.

•             Scientifically evaluating offbeat theories can often be worthwhile in deter­mining their truth or falsity and (sometimes) in discovering new phenomena.

Making Weird Mistakes

* When people try to evaluate extraordinary theories, they often make cer­tain typical mistakes. They may believe that because they can't think of a natural explanation, a paranormal explanation must be correct. They may mistake what seems for what is, forgetting that we shouldn't accept the

evidence provided by personal experience if we have good reason to doubt it. And they may not fully understand the concepts of logical and physical possibility.

•             The distinction between logical and physical possibility is crucial. Some things that are logically possible may not be physically possible, and things that are physically possible may not be actual.

Judging Weird Theories

•             In both science and everyday life, the TEST formula enables us to fairly ap­praise the worth of all sorts of weird theories, including those about crop circles and communication with the dead, the two cases examined in this chapter.

@ Field Problems

1.            Find a controversial health or medical theory on the Internet and design a study hi test it. Indicate the makeup and characteristics of any group in the study, whether a placebo group is used, whether the study is double­blind, and what study results would confirm and disconfirm the theory.

2.            Find a controversial theory in die social sciences on the Internet and design a study to test it. Indicate the makeup and characteristics of any group in the study, whether a placebo group is used, whether the study is double­blind, and what study results would confirm and disconfirm the theory. If the theory is one that you strongly believe, indicate the kind and level of evidence that could convince you to change your mind about it.

3.            Do research on the Internet to find information on spontaneous human combustion, the theory that a human body can catch on fire due to an unknown internal chemical or biological process. Apply the TEST for­mula to evaluate the theory. Consider at least one plausible alternative theory. Look for background information at The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com), the Committee for the Scientific Investigation

of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) (www.csicop.org), or Skeptic Magazine (www.skeptic.com).

Fallacies -- What, When, and Why

From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html

What is a logical fallacy?

A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical errors, not factual ones.

A logical error is a mistake in an argument, that is, a mistake in an instance of reasoning formulated in language. As the term is used in logic, an "argument" is a group of statements one of which is called "the conclusion" and the rest are called "premisses"―by the way, I spell "premiss" with two esses instead of one, for reasons explained in the Glossary; in other words, this is not a spelling mistake.

There are two types of mistake that can occur in arguments:

1. A factual error in the premisses. As mentioned above, factual "fallacies" are not usually a question of logic; rather, whether a premiss is true or false is a matter for history or a science other than logic to determine.
2. The premisses fail to logically support the conclusion. A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type.

In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

1. "Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
2. "Your argument is a fallacy."

In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad reasoning.

Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a "fallacy" because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term "fallacy" to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.

For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument "commits" a fallacy, or is "fallacious". So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead: "Your argument commits a fallacy" or "it's fallacious."

However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, that is, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.

To sum up, in these Fallacy Files a logical fallacy is a common, deceptive type of error in arguments.

---

History

Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.

However, Aristotle's teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato's "Euthydemus" preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists, that is, itinerant teachers of rhetoric. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called "sophisms" and bad reasoning "sophistry". Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.

In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer. Last century, an Australian philosopher, logician, and computer scientist, Charles L. Hamblin, wrote the highly-influential book Fallacies, which is unfortunately hard to obtain nowadays.

The first half of Fallacies is a history of the general concept of logical fallacy and the development of particular named fallacies. However, the most influential part of the book was probably the first chapter, which criticized the "standard treatment" of fallacies―that is, their discussion in textbooks of the time―and his criticisms seem to have inspired much subsequent research. Of less lasting influence were Hamblin's efforts, in the latter part of the book, to develop a formal treatment of dialectical argument as a basis for a theory of fallacies.

All of the above were efforts by those in the philosophical and logical tradition to understand mistakes in reasoning, but in the decades since Hamblin's history a separate research program has developed in psychology, associated especially with the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky. Psychologists have mainly concentrated on mistakes in reasoning about probabilities, or what logicians call "induction".

Another recent development outside of logic, philosophy, and psychology, is in the field of rhetoric. As I mentioned above, the philosophical tradition of logical fallacies began by criticizing the arguments of the sophists of ancient Greece, many of whom taught rhetoric. As a result, there has been something of a split between philosophy and rhetoric ever since, and rhetoricians have developed their own distinct treatment of fallacies, though there is considerable overlap with that of logicians. Perhaps the most influential recent work is the pragma-dialectical approach most often associated with the rhetoricians Frans Van Eemeren and the late Rob Grootendorst.

Sources:

• Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations
• C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies (1970)
• Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982)
• Plato, Euthydemus
• Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst, "The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies", inFallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (1995), edited by Hans V. Hansen & Robert C. Pinto, pp. 130-144.

---

Why study fallacies?

Why study how to reason incorrectly; why not just study how to reason correctly? There are two reasons:

1. Even if you could count on reasoning correctly 100% of the time, you cannot count on others doing so. In logical self-defense, you need to be able to spot poor reasoning, and—more importantly—to understand it. To be able to correct others' mistakes, or to refute them convincingly, you need to understand whythey are wrong.
2. Studying formal logic and the rules of correct reasoning is like having a road map that shows how to get from point A to point B. However, even the best navigators sometimes get lost, and it helps if the roads that go nowhere are clearly labeled "DEAD END", "WRONG WAY", or "DO NOT ENTER".

That is what fallacy studies is all about: marking the wrong turns that reasoners are likely to take. Thus, studying fallacies is no substitute for studying the positive principles of good reasoning—learning to navigate through logical space, so to speak. You would not set out on a trip without a road map, hoping to rely upon the "DEAD END" signs to get to your destination. Similarly, The Fallacy Files are no replacement for the study of formal and informal logic, only a supplement.

VISUALS - READING, UNDERSTANDING AND CREATING VISUALS

VISUALS - READING, UNDERSTANDING

 AND CREATING VISUALS

 Imagination is more important than knowledge.  Knowledge is limited.  Imagination encircles the world.

                                                            Albert Einstein

          

READING, UNDERSTANDING, AND CREATING VISUALS

    Types of Visuals

·         Charts and Tables

·         Diagrams

·         Illustrations

·         Graphs

·         Time Lines

·         Outlines

IV.             Creating Your Own Visuals

·         Charts and Tables

·         Outlines

·         Time Lines

·         Mind Maps

·         Free-Form Drawings

V.                Selecting the Appropriate Visual

VI.             Visual Connection with Test Taking Strategies

VII.          Practice with Reading Passages

READING, UNDERSTANDING, AND CREATING VISUALS

Textbook authors often use visual aids to help their readers better understand the information they are presenting. Visual information reinforces and supplements reading material and helps the reader to learn and remember textual information. The type of information being conveyed determines what type of visual aid an author will use. Types of visual aids include:

·         mind maps

·         outlines

·         charts

·         diagrams

·         graphs

·         illustrations

·         photographs

·         timelines 

 In order to create an effective visual aid you have to:

·         recognize the important elements in what you are reading

·         be able to prioritize and organize information

Make enough copies of the two visuals on pages 149-151 so all of your students have a copy of each. Before passing out the visuals, discuss the utility of visuals in textbooks.

chapter opener material:  VISUAL #1

Tornado crushes roof of Clarkesville, Tennessee, churchA parishioner walks glumly through the wreckage of the roof of Trinity Episcopal Church in Clarkesville, Tennessee, the morning after a tornado devastated the city on January 22. The Trinity building, consecrated in 1881, was the third church in the Diocese of Tennessee to be destroyed by tornadoes within less than a year. (Episcopal News Service photo by Bishop Bertram Herlong)

chapter opener material:  VISUAL #2

Folding Instructions

1. Firstly fold the sheet in half along the line shown in DIG. 1 and then open it out again.
   
     DIG. 1
2. Fold the two top corners in to the center line to give the form in DIG. 2 .
   
     DIG. 2
3. Then fold the top large triangle over so that the two flaps formed in step 2 are underneath the large triangle. Your paper should now look like DIG. 3 .
   
     DIG. 3
4. From the form in DIG. 3 fold the two top corners into the center line again in such a way that you get the form in DIG. 4 .
   
     DIG. 4
5. Now fold the small triangle up over the two flaps to give DIG. 5 .
   
     DIG. 5

chapter opener material:  VISUAL #2  (continued)

6. Fold along the center line so that the small triangle is on the underside of the plane on the outside along with the two flaps as shown in DIG. 6 .
   
     DIG. 6
7. Fold along the line AB on DIG. 6 then turn the plane over and do the same to the other side producing DIG. 7 .
   
     DIG. 7
8. Fold along the line labelled AB on the diagram first one way and then the other creasing really well. Tuck the triangular shaped depression inbetween the two wings to produce DIG. 8 . This stabilises the plane if you do not make it perfectly since to make it absolutely symmetrically is beyond my abilities.
   
     DIG. 8

supplemental exercises

There is one supplemental exercise for this chapter. Information about it is provided on this page.

Exercise 11-1: Creating a Visual from Listening

Directions

1.      Read the paragraph below, aloud, to your class.  First, give your students the following directions:  “As I read, draw a picture of what is being read.  Don’t try to produce a work of art.  Use simple lines and perhaps a title for your picture.”

Paragraph to Read:

The small brown cat, infected with a rare virus, escaped from his cage.  He ran into the north side of the park through the rows of pine trees, and began moving west.  He moved quickly between the trees and around the large rocks.   He ran across a red wooden table which was blocking the entrance to the west side bridge.  The bridge was built over the Cheyanaga River, one of the largest in the area; the bridge provided access to the park’s west side, a small island.  Before the cat leapt from the table, and onto the bridge, he stopped when he spotted a dark purple bird eating seeds.  The bird was in a field, just to the left of the table.  It wasn’t common; it had a red ring around its long neck, and a yellow belly.  Because the bird was moving quickly between the rows of sunflowers, it was hard to see what happened.  Suddenly, purple feathers started flying, but then everything became quiet.  The cat disappeared but soon after, was spotted running on the island.

2. Ask your students to use their pictures to help them answer the following questions.  (The answers are in blue.):

·         What was wrong with the cat?  (infected with a rare virus)

·         Where do you think the cat came from and explain your answer (perhaps from an animal shelter or vet, as it said that it escaped from a cage.)

·         Where did the cat run? (into the north side of the park, by pine trees)

·         What did the cat run across?  (a red wooden table)

·         What river was mentioned? (Cheyanga)

·         Where does the bridge lead? (to the park’s west side, as small island)

·         Why do you suppose the cat stopped running? (spotted a bird)

·         What do you think happened next?  (The bird was killed and the cat crossed the bridge shortly after he killed the bird – the bird’s fate is an open interpretation.)

3.   Now ask students if their visual was useful?  Why or why not?  What changes could they have made to their visual to help them remember more?  Many of the students’ visuals will detail the process of the cat’s travels and the surroundings.  The visuals may not have helped students remember the name of the river or the colors of the bird, cat, or table.  Brainstorm with students for ways to have created visuals differently so as to have remembered more details.  Reinforce the idea of annotations here.  Labeling items in the picture and their colors could help.

4. Have students rewrite the paragraph, using their visual as a guide.   Discuss paragraphs in class.  Were major details of the paragraph omitted from some the rewrites?  What details did their pictures help them remember?  What details were hard to remember?  Remind students that auditory and multi-modal students may also have to describe aloud the path the cat took in order to rewrite the paragraph in its correct organization.  Ask them what kinesthetic learners should do to remember more details?  

.

supplemental vocabulary quiz

There is one supplemental vocabulary quiz for this chapter.

Answers for Crossword Puzzle

Chapter ELEVEN vocabulary QUIZ

Across

2              visual aid that uses labeled marks on a straight line to show the time sequence or chronology of a series of events

5              a visual also known as a concept map

9              any of several chemical substances that transmit nerve impulses across a synapse

12           illustrates information by using parallel rectangular bars of varying length to contrast information

13           disorder an illness characterized by periods of mania

14           a type of aid authors use to enhance their meaning

Down

1              a sensory nerve ending

3              a region where nerve impulses are transmitted across a small gap

4              a visual aid that condenses large amounts of text material into a table

6              a drawing that allows an author to show readers sections or parts more clearly than a photograph could

7              a neurotransmitter that acts within certain brain cells to help regulate movement and emotion

8              represents data by using a circle to show the whole, and slices or wedges to show how that whole is divided up

9              a nerve cell

10           pertaining to three cycles

11           very linear organization of information, uses Roman Numerals

Exercise 11- l

Creating a chart

Chart example:

                                 Erikson's Theory of Psychological Development

Stage	Time of Occurrence	Characteristics And Successes of Stage	Potential Difficulties
Identity-versus- Role	Adolescence	Discovering self - strengths, roles that suit one's identity; major physical changes, decline in reliance on adults; shift to peer group; pivotal point in psychosocial development	Confusion over role; lead to lack of stability which could cause problems later in life regarding relationships
Intimacy-versus-Isolation	Post-adolescence to Early adulthood	Developing close relationships with others that are intimate on physical, intellectual, and emotional levels	Feelings of loneliness; fear of relationships
Generatively-versus-Stagnation	Middle Adulthood	Make major contributions to one's family, work, community, and society; helping the young	Feeling that one's life has been trivial; sense of stagnation; no major contributions
Ego-integrity-versus Despair	Later Adulthood to Death	Great sense of accomplishment, fulfilled	Regret over what might have been achieved but was not

Exercise 11- m

Creating an outline

Sample outline:

Body's Messages

I.                   Why Listen?

A.    Identify problems early

1. listen everyday

2. listen throughout the day

B.     Make necessary adjustments

1. Planting seeds today for our health tomorrow

2. Most problems today began long ago

      a. result of illness

      b. emotional upset

      c. injury

      d. invasion of outside pathogen

(1)   dryness

(2)   dampness

(3)   wind

(4)   heat

(5)   cold

II.                What Keeps Us from Listening?

A.    Too busy - problem ignored

B.     Fear

C.     Not very sensitive - haven't the ability

D.    Lack of understanding of what we are "hearing"

Exercise 11- n

Creating a MIND MAP

Sample mind map:

Body’s Messages

                                                                                                                        Too busy

 

Why Listen?                                                    What Prevents Us from Listening?

                                    Identify                       Not very          Lack of                        Fear

                                    problem                       sensitive          understanding

                                    early                            -no ability

                                    Listen throughout                               listen everyday

                                    the day

Make necessary

adjustments

                                    Most problems today began long ago                                     result of

                                                                                                                                    illness

Planting                       injury               invasion of                  emotional upset

seeds                                                   outside

today for                                             pathogen

our health                                                                               

dryness

                                    wind                heat                 cold     dampness

Exercise 11-o

USING FREE-FORM DRAWINGS AS A COMPREHENSION CHECK

Picture that corresponds with exercise:

Cartoon from J.D. Bransford & M.K. Johnson, “Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11, 1972, p. 718. Copyright © 1972 with permission from Elsevier.