PELIDS: Difference between revisions
JStallings (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'PELIDS is an acronym for the following: Pathos-appeal to the emotions and interests of an audience Ethos-appeal through the speaker/writer’s credibility Logos-app…') |
JStallings (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[Ethos]]-appeal through the speaker/writer’s credibility | [[Ethos]]-appeal through the speaker/writer’s credibility | ||
[[Logos]]-appeal through logic | [[Logos]]-appeal through [[logic]] | ||
[[Inductive reasoning]]-making a judgment or conclusion about a broad topic based on a few examples. | [[Inductive reasoning]]-making a judgment or [[conclusion]] about a broad topic based on a few [[examples]]. | ||
Biologists use this type of reasoning often in their work. They take a sample of a population and apply what is learned to the entire population. Opinion polls work on the same principle. | Biologists use this type of reasoning often in their work. They take a sample of a population and apply what is learned to the entire population. Opinion polls work on the same principle. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Is the sample relevant? | Is the sample relevant? | ||
[[Deductive reasoning]]-making a conclusion about one example based on many | [[Deductive reasoning]]-making a [[conclusion]] about one [[example]] based on many | ||
This is often used in geometry. All triangles are closed figures with three straight sides and three angles that add to 180 degrees; this figure fulfills the requirements of the above premise; therefore, this figure is a triangle. | This is often used in geometry. All triangles are closed figures with three straight sides and three angles that add to 180 degrees; this figure fulfills the requirements of the above premise; therefore, this figure is a triangle. | ||
The validity of this type of reasoning (the above is a syllogism, a three-part statement utilizing two premises and a conclusion) is contingent upon the validity of the premises. | The validity of this type of reasoning (the above is a [[syllogism]], a three-part statement utilizing two [[premises]] and a [[conclusion]]) is contingent upon the validity of the [[premises]]. | ||
[[Syllogism]]- see above. The final three terms of this acronym (IDS) are the major aspects of logical reasoning. Use these in your arguments often, while keeping them in mind when analyzing another’s argument. If you are able to solidly challenge a premise, the entire argument falls | [[Syllogism]]- see above. The final three terms of this acronym (IDS) are the major aspects of logical reasoning. Use these in your [[arguments]] often, while keeping them in mind when analyzing another’s [[argument]]. If you are able to solidly challenge a [[premise]], the entire argument falls into question. | ||
Revision as of 10:49, 4 July 2009
PELIDS is an acronym for the following: Pathos-appeal to the emotions and interests of an audience
Ethos-appeal through the speaker/writer’s credibility
Inductive reasoning-making a judgment or conclusion about a broad topic based on a few examples.
Biologists use this type of reasoning often in their work. They take a sample of a population and apply what is learned to the entire population. Opinion polls work on the same principle. It is important to consider two things when dealing with inductive reasoning: Is the sample sufficient? Is the sample relevant?
Deductive reasoning-making a conclusion about one example based on many
This is often used in geometry. All triangles are closed figures with three straight sides and three angles that add to 180 degrees; this figure fulfills the requirements of the above premise; therefore, this figure is a triangle. The validity of this type of reasoning (the above is a syllogism, a three-part statement utilizing two premises and a conclusion) is contingent upon the validity of the premises.
Syllogism- see above. The final three terms of this acronym (IDS) are the major aspects of logical reasoning. Use these in your arguments often, while keeping them in mind when analyzing another’s argument. If you are able to solidly challenge a premise, the entire argument falls into question.