Page 109 - Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Ed
P. 109

96   SMART THINKING: SKILLS FOR CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING & WRITING

      seeks to show how one event leads to another, reasoning from generalisation shows
      how knowledge about a general class or category of events allows us to make a
      conclusion about a specific event that fits the general category. For example:
         All children who have been fully immunised are protected against some
         common and life-threatening diseases, such as whooping cough, polio,
         and diphtheria. Therefore, Steven, who has been immunised, is most
         unlikely to fall sick with these diseases.
         The general form of such arguments is as follows:
         Class X is defined by the fact that the individual cases within that class
         all have property A in common; hence any individual case that is a
         member of that class will also exhibit property A.
         So, arguing from a generalisation involves two distinct steps. First of all, it must
      be established that the specific case does indeed fit the general class that is
      proposed, that it is consistent. Once that 'fit' is established, then we must draw a
      conclusion that relies, not on our knowledge of the specific case, but our knowledge
      of the general class.

         Imagine, for a moment, that you are a doctor. A woman comes to see
         you with the following symptoms: swollen glands, sore throat, weakness
         in the muscles, and a rash of small red spots across the back and chest.
         You are not sure what is wrong with the patient but can use reasoning
         to make a diagnosis: 'Almost all people who have these symptoms are
         suffering from measles; this particular patient has these symptoms;
         therefore she is suffering from measles'. Further, you can determine
         treatment on the basis of the generalisation that 'All people suffering
         from the measles need to spend a week resting in bed and take anti-
         biotics to prevent secondary infections'. You know, with reasonable
         confidence, that this patient has measles and so can prescribe this
         treatment for her.
         Let us explore this form of relationship by imagining that a class is like a box
      into which we put all the items that are the same as one another. On the lid of this
      box are a list of requirements that determine which items can and cannot be
      included. Patients who have the swollen glands and sore throat, but not the red
      spots, could not be placed in the 'measles sufferer' class because they would not
      meet all the requirements. Patients with the red spots but no other symptoms
      would also fail to qualify (they probably have a skin irritation instead). However, as
      well as a set of requirements for membership of a class or category, a generalisation
      also includes a judgment that sums up the nature of those items in the category
      ('people with these symptoms have measles'). Hence there are two aspects to a
      generalisation: a condition that determines what specific cases fit into the
      generalisation, and another condition that states the common consequence or state
      relating to that generalisation.
   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114