Definition and Examples of Conclusions in Arguments
- An Introduction to Punctuation
- Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
- M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
- B.A., English, State University of New York
In argumentation , a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism . An argument is considered to be successful (or valid ) when the premises are true (or believable) and the premises support the conclusion.
"We can always test an argument," says D. Jacquette, "by seeing whether and how far we can modify it in order to attain the opposite conclusion" ("Deductivism and the Informal Fallacies" in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation , 2009).
Examples and Observations
- "Here is a simple list of statements: Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. The list is not an argument, because none of these statements is presented as a reason for any other statement. It is, however, simple to turn this list into an argument. All we have to do is to add the single word 'therefore': Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Now we have an argument. The word 'therefore' converts these sentences into an argument by signaling that the statement following it is a conclusion and the statement or statements that come before it are offered as reasons on behalf of this conclusion. The argument we have produced in this way is a good one, because the conclusion follows from the reasons stated on its behalf." (Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert J. Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic , 8th ed. Wadsworth, 2010)
- Premises That Lead to a Conclusion "Here is an example of an argument. This job description is inadequate because it is too vague. It doesn't even list the specific tasks that should be performed, and it doesn't say how my perfomance will be evaluated. 'This job description is inadequate' is the conclusion and is stated first in the argument. The reasons advanced to support this conclusion are: 'It is too vague,' 'It doesn't list specific tasks,' and 'It doesn't state how performance will be evaluated.' They are the premises. If you accept the premises as true, you have good grounds for accepting the conclusion 'The job description is inadequate' is true." (Michael Andolina, Practical Guide to Critical Thinking . Delmar, 2002)
- The Conclusion as Claim "When someone makes an argument, typically that person is, at the minimum, advancing a claim — a statement the advocate believes or is in the process of evaluating —and also providing a reason or reasons for believing or considering that claim. A reason is a statement advanced for the purpose of establishing a claim. A conclusion is a claim that has been reached by a process of reasoning . The rational movement from a particular reason or reasons to a particular conclusion is called an inference , a conclusion drawn on the basis of reasons ." (James A. Herrick, Argumentation: Understanding and Shaping Arguments , 3rd ed. Strata, 2007)
- Misdirected Argumentation "This general fault [ misdirected argumentation ] refers to cases in which there is a line of argumentation moving along other than the path of argumentation leading towards the conclusion to be proved. In some such cases the path leads to the wrong conclusion, and in these cases the fallacy of wrong conclusion can be said to have been committed. In other cases the path leads away from the conclusion to be proved, but not to any specific alternative conclusion, as far as we can judge from the data given in the case. [See the fallacy of the red herring .]" (Douglas Walton, Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law . Springer, 2005)
- Propositions in Debate Definition and Examples
- Definition and Examples of Syllogisms
- What Is an Argument?
- Reductio Ad Absurdum in Argument
- Undistributed Middle (Fallacy)
- Contradictory Premises in an Argument
- What Is the Fallacy of Division?
- Definition and Examples of Sorites in Rhetoric
- paralogism (rhetoric and logic)
- How Logical Fallacy Invalidates Any Argument
- Quoting Out of Context Fallacy
- AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
- Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies
- Premise Definition and Examples in Arguments
- Appeal to Force/Fear or Argumentum ad Baculum
- What Is a Converse Error?
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
It's Lit Teaching
High School English and TPT Seller Resources
- Creative Writing
- Teachers Pay Teachers Tips
- Shop My Teaching Resources!
- Sell on TPT
Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: What You Need to Know
Has an instructional coach or administrator told you to start using a claim, evidence, and reasoning (or C-E-R) framework for writing in your classroom?
Maybe you need to closely adhere to the Common Core State Standards but aren’t quite sure where to begin.
If you’re like me, your whole school may be committing to using a C-E-R language in all classes to build consistency and teacher equity for students.
Regardless, here you are wondering, what the heck is claim, evidence, and reasoning anyway ? In this post, I aim to break it down for you.
There are plenty of science examples out there, but that is not my specialty. For this post, I’ll focus on my subject area, high school English, but know that the C-E-R framework can be applied to multiple content areas.
If you’d like to teach the C-E-R writing framework to your students, I have a whole bundle of resources right here.
C-E-R Writing Overview
C-E-R writing is a framework that consists of three parts: Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning. Science classes use it frequently, but it works well in any content area. In fact, my entire school uses it–down to the gym classes!
A C-E-R writing framework works especially well for teachers adhering to the Common Core State Standards. The words “claim”, “evidence”, and “reasoning” are directly from the standards themselves.
C-E-R writing works especially well for argumentative or persuasive writing, but also holds true for research-based writing.
Note that these are academic forms of writing. You wouldn’t, for instance, probably use claims, evidence, or reasoning in a creative writing class or with a narrative or poetry unit.
While C-E-R may seem formulaic at first, it does come from a natural flow of solid arguments. Any attempt at persuasion must take a stance, support it with logic, and make a case.
The formulaic nature of C-E-R writing makes it a helpful writing scaffold for students who struggle to organize their ideas or generate them in the first place.
The claim sets the tone for the rest of the writing.
It is the argument, the stance, or the main idea of the writing that is to follow. Some may say that in C-E-R writing, the claim is the most important piece.
I have found that the placement and length of the claim will vary according to the length of the writing.
For a paragraph, I feel the claim makes a great topic sentence and thus, should be the first sentence. The body of the paragraph then will aim to support the topic sentence (or claim).
In a standard five-paragraph essay, the first introductory paragraph may build to the claim: the thesis. The body paragraphs then will each contain a sub-claim so-to-speak that supports the overarching claim or thesis.
Claims, while logical, should present an arguable stance on a topic.
I often have to remind my students that if they are writing in response to a question, restating the question in the form of a sentence and adding their answer is an easy way to write a claim.
A Claim Example for an English Class
Let’s use a Shakespearian example. A popular essay topic when reading Romeo and Juliet poses the following question: who is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet?
A claim that answers this question might read:
“Friar Laurence is most to blame for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths.”
This claim is strong for multiple reasons. First, it is direct. There’s no question about what the rest of the writing will be about or will be attempting to support. Second, this claim is arguable –not provable–but also logical. The idea can be supported by examples from the text.
A claim is not a fact. Evidence should support it, which we’ll discuss in a moment, but ultimately, it should not be something that can be proven .
The next step in the C-E-R writing framework is evidence.
Evidence is the logic, proof, or support that you have for your claim. I mentioned earlier that your claim, while arguable, should be rooted in logic. Evidence is where you present the logic you used to arrive at your claim.
This can take a variety of forms: research, facts, observations, lab experiments, or even quotes from interviews or authorities.
For literary analysis, evidence should generally be textual in nature.
That is, the evidence should be rooted–if not directly quoted from–in the text. For example, the writer may want to use quotes, paraphrasing, or a summary of events from the text.
I encourage my students to use word-for-word textual evidence quoted and cited from the text directly. This creates evidence with which it is difficult to argue.
An Evidence Example for an English Class
If we continue with the Romeo and Juliet example, we could support our previous claim that Friar Laurence is most to blame for the couple’s death by presenting several pieces of evidence from the play.
Our evidence may then read as follows:
“ In the play, Friar Laurence says to Juliet, ‘Take thou this vial, being then in bed/ And this distilled liquor drink thou off;/ …The roses in thy lips and cheeks shall fade/ … And in this borrow’d likeness of shrunk death/ Thou shalt continue two and forty hours,/And then awake as from a pleasant sleep ’ (4.1.93-106).”
This is strong evidence because the text proves it. This quote comes directly from Shakespeare; you can’t argue with it.
It is also on-topic. it shows a piece of the play that supports the idea that Friar Laurence is most to blame for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths.
For claim, evidence, and reasoning writing, the strength of the argument depends on its evidence.
Grab a FREE Copy of Must-Have Classroom Library Title!
Sign-up for a FREE copy of my must-have titles for your classroom library and regular updates to It’s Lit Teaching! Insiders get the scoop on new blog posts, teaching resources, and the occasional pep talk!
I just want to make sure you’re cool with the things I may send you!
You have successfully joined our subscriber list.
Reasoning is the thinking behind the evidence that led to the claim. It should explain the evidence if necessary, and then connect it to the claim.
In a one paragraph response, I usually recommend that students break down their reasoning into three sentences:
Personally, this is where my students struggle the most. They have a hard time understanding how to explain the evidence or connect it to their claim because it’s obvious to them.
- Explain or summarize the evidence that was just used
- Explain or show how this evidence supports the claim
- Finish with a conclusion sentence
If your students, like mine, struggle with crafting reasoning, I recommend giving them sentence starters like “This shows that…” or “This quote proves that….”
I also go over different ways to approach writing conclusion sentences, as my students often struggle in ending their writing.
(If you’d like help breaking this down for your students, my C-E-R Slideshow covers reasoning–including what to include and three different ways to write a conclusion sentence.)
A Reasoning Example for An English Class
For our Romeo and Juliet example, it may read something like this:
“This quote shows that Friar Laurence is the originator of the plan for the two lovers to fake their deaths. Had he not posed this plan, Romeo could not have mistaken Juliet for dead. Thus, he would never have committed suicide, nor Juliet. As the adult in the situation, Friar Laurence should have acted less rashly and helped the couple find a more suitable solution to their problems.”
This reasoning is strong for several reasons.
First, note the transition in the beginning. It discusses the textual evidence–the quote presented earlier–directly and explains what is happening in the quote.
Next, it walks the reader step-by-step through the writer’s rationale about the evidence that led her to believe the claim. Even if the reader does not agree with the reader’s claim, he or she must concede that the writer has a point.
You may have noticed that in this example, the reasoning tends to be longer than either the claim or the evidence. The length of the reasoning will vary according to the assignment, but I have found that good reasoning does tend to be the bulk of C-E-R writing.
Get Started with Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Today!
And there you have it! An overview of the C-E-R writing framework. No doubt, you can see how this framework can easily be applied to a myriad of assignments in any content area.
If you need help getting started in using the C-E-R writing framework in your English class, I have a few resources in my Teachers Pay Teachers store that can help you. Check them out! Start with a FREE student guide to claim, evidence, and reasoning!
Deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning
Here's a look at the differences between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, with examples of each type of scientific reasoning.
- Deductive reasoning
- Inductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning examples
Inductive reasoning examples.
- Abductive reasoning
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to use your powers of deductive reasoning … or would that be inductive reasoning?
So what's the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?
During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical and true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also commonly used. People often confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning; however, important distinctions separate these two pathways to a logical conclusion.
What is deductive reasoning?
Deductive reasoning, also known as deduction, is a basic form of reasoning. It starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to Norman Herr , a professor of secondary education at California State University in Northridge. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories, which predict certain outcomes if they are correct, said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller , a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
"We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science.
In deductive reasoning there is a first premise, then a second premise and finally an inference (a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence). A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — together reach a logical conclusion. For example, the major premise "Every A is B" could be followed by the minor premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This C is B." Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to make sure the argument is valid.
For example, "All spiders have eight legs. A tarantula is a spider. Therefore, tarantulas have eight legs." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the statements, "All spiders have eight legs" and "a tarantula is a spider" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.
Deductive conclusions are reliable provided the premises are true, according to Herr. The argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically, but it is untrue because the original premise is false.
What is inductive reasoning
While deductive reasoning begins with a premise that is proven through observations, inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited observations. There is data, and then conclusions are drawn from the data; this is called inductive logic, according to the University of Illinois in Springfield.
"In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science, there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."
In other words, the reliability of a conclusion made with inductive logic depends on the completeness of the observations. For instance, let's say that you have a bag of coins; you pull three coins from the bag, and each coin is a penny. Using inductive logic, you might then propose that all of the coins in the bag are pennies."Even though all of the initial observations — that each coin taken from the bag was a penny — are correct, inductive reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true.
Here's another example: "Penguins are birds. Penguins can't fly. Therefore, all birds can't fly." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.
Nevertheless, inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method , and scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories . Deductive reasoning then allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
Here are some examples of deductive reasoning:
Major premise: All mammals have backbones. Minor premise: Humans are mammals. Conclusion: Humans have backbones.
Major premise: All birds lay eggs. Minor premise: Pigeons are birds. Conclusion: Pigeons lay eggs.
Major premise: All plants perform photosynthesis. Minor premise: A cactus is a plant. Conclusion: A cactus performs photosynthesis.
Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer. Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick. Hypothesis: Colds are infectious.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
What is abductive reasoning
Another form of scientific reasoning that diverges from inductive and deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an obviously incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the data, a ccording to Butte College in Oroville, California. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.
For example, a person walks into their living room and finds torn-up papers all over the floor. The person's dog has been alone in the apartment all day. The person concludes that the dog tore up the papers because it is the most likely scenario. It's possible that a family member with a key to the apartment destroyed the papers, or it may have been done by the landlord, but the dog theory is the most likely conclusion.
Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results, and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.
- This guide from Scholastic provides ideas for teaching younger kids all about scientific reasoning. PBS has put together some video clips and games about deductive and inductive reasoning.This book written by Christopher Moore provides information on how to use scientific reasoning in the classroom.
Live Science newsletter
Stay up to date on the latest science news by signing up for our Essentials newsletter.
Mindy Weisberger is a Live Science editor for the channels Animals and Planet Earth. She also reports on general science, covering climate change, paleontology, biology, and space. Mindy studied film at Columbia University; prior to Live Science she produced, wrote and directed media for the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Her videos about dinosaurs, astrophysics, biodiversity and evolution appear in museums and science centers worldwide, earning awards such as the CINE Golden Eagle and the Communicator Award of Excellence. Her writing has also appeared in Scientific American, The Washington Post and How It Works Magazine.
The biggest hunt for the Loch Ness Monster in 50 years is about to begin
Elite ancient Egyptian woman was embalmed with exotic ingredients smelling of vanilla and larch, new analysis reveals
By Kamal Nahas August 16, 2023
By Sarah Moore August 16, 2023
By Emily Cooke August 16, 2023
By Anna Gora August 11, 2023
By Tom Metcalfe August 08, 2023
By Donavyn Coffey August 07, 2023
By Holly Barker July 27, 2023
By Racheal Ede July 26, 2023
By Lloyd Coombes July 25, 2023
By Erin Macdonald July 20, 2023
By Racheal Ede July 18, 2023
- 2 Quantum 'yin-yang' shows two photons being entangled in real-time
- 3 Just 22 people are needed to colonize Mars — as long as they are the right personality type, study claims
- 4 Ancient Roman walls discovered in Swiss Alps are an 'archaeological sensation'
- 5 A new, ridiculously slippery toilet bowl could keep poop from sticking, scientists report
- 2 Australia woman's brain invaded by parasitic worm that normally infects pythons
- 3 The last blue supermoon until 2037 will rise tonight. Here's how to watch.
- 4 How old are the Egyptian pyramids?
- Page Content
- Sidebar Content
- Main Navigation
- Quick links
- All TIP Sheets
Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning
- Objective and Subjective Claims
- Conspiracy Theory & Conspiracism
- Fallacies and Propaganda
TIP Sheet DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING
Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations. Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.
Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive:
If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and syntax. But a deductive syllogism (think of it as a plain-English version of a math equality) can be expressed in ordinary language:
If entropy (disorder) in a system will increase unless energy is expended, And if my living room is a system, Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it.
In the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or premises , lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion . Here is another example:
A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients. Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than sixty-five new therapies. Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded.
A conclusion is sound (true) or unsound (false), depending on the truth of the original premises (for any premise may be true or false). At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, the deductive inference itself (the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion) is either valid or invalid . The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:
There is no such thing as drought in the West. California is in the West. California need never make plans to deal with a drought.
In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West , is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very logical–it is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it ( California need never make plans to deal with a drought ) probably would fail to serve the public interest.
Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge (it is nonampliative ) because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies -statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:
What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [...].1
Because inductive conclusions are not logical necessities, inductive arguments are not simply true. Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the conclusion is therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they are not cogent .
It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative ). It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass when he was five years old and became fascinated with the idea that something invisible in the space around the compass needle was causing it to move. This observation, combined with additional observations (of moving trains, for example) and the results of logical and mathematical tools (deduction), resulted in a rule that fit his observations and could predict events that were as yet unobserved.
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.
A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they know.
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can.
The abductive process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary.2 Einstein's work, for example, was not just inductive and deductive, but involved a creative leap of imagination and visualization that scarcely seemed warranted by the mere observation of moving trains and falling elevators. In fact, so much of Einstein's work was done as a "thought experiment" (for he never experimentally dropped elevators), that some of his peers discredited it as too fanciful. Nevertheless, he appears to have been right-until now his remarkable conclusions about space-time continue to be verified experientially.
References 1. Verfaillie, Catherine. "Adult Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Blood Vessels." News release from the University of Minnesota. Jan. 30, 2002. June 1, 2005. < http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020131074645.htm >
2. Thagard, Paul and Cameron Shelley. "Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence." Waterloo, Ontario: Philosophy Department, Univerisity of Waterloo, 1997. June 2, 2005. < http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html >
Home | Calendars | Library | Bookstore | Directory | Apply Now | Search for Classes | Register | Online Classes | MyBC Portal MyBC -->
Butte College | 3536 Butte Campus Drive, Oroville CA 95965 | General Information (530) 895-2511