A) Suppose that you are working as a nurse in an emergency room. A patient, Edward (age 64), enters the emergency room. The patient says that All nurses like to draw blood from patients. You are nurse. So, I know that you are going to like to draw blood from me, even if it isnt necessary. Is the patient using deductive or inductive reasoning to make his argument Justify your selection.
The patient had used a deductive form of reasoning. Deduction denotes that an argument was made based on generalizations, rules or laws (Mesher, 1999). Burns and Grove (2005), indicate that deduction moves from general ideas to specific ideas. The major premise is composed of a generalization involving the relationship between two or more variables (Burns and Grove, 2005). The above argument denotes that in all previous experiences of Edward, nurses like to draw blood from patients. This is the general premise. The second premise is You are a nurse. It depicts that you is a part of the general premise. Thus, Edward concluded that you are going to like to draw blood from me, even when it is not necessary. The deductive argument was presented in a form of a syllogism, wherein
All X are Y
Z is X
Therefore, Z is Y
(Mesher, 1999).
The above scenario could also be expressed in the conditional form of the deductive argument. In this case, if the first variable of the major premise in a generalizationrulelaw is true then it has a corresponding truth in the second variable. If the first variable is present, then the second variable applies. Otherwise, if the first variable were absent, then the second variable would not apply. For instance
If nurse then likes to draw blood
(You are) a nurse
Therefore, (you) like to draw blood.
B) Devise a response to Edwards argument using inductive reasoning. Justify why you would be making an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument.
An appropriate response to Edwards deductive argument would be to show that the generalization is false (Mulcrone, 2001). One could reply through falsifying the previous generalization with induction. Burns and Grove (2005) argued that inductive reasoning was based on observation of particular instances and then combined into a larger whole. Inductive reasoning includes a comparison between two or more sets of events, ideas, or things (Mesher, 1999). Showing Edward particular instances wherein nurses do not like to draw blood from the patient would be a sufficient start. I could state that
I am a nurse but I dont like to draw blood from patients.
Zay (a second nurse) is a nurse but he dont like to draw blood from patients.
Elle (a third nurse) is a nurse but he dont like to draw blood from patients.
Therefore, not all nurses like to draw blood from patients.
Another argument would be to show that nurses in emergency rooms do not always draw blood from patients. Every time a patient arrives in the emergency room, nurses would check their vital signs. You are a patient in the emergency room, so as a nurse, I would check your vital signs. I could also show that the situation do not necessarily require drawing blood from patients. For instance
Every time I (as a nurse) draw blood from a patient, there is a doctors consent.
I (as a nurse), do not have a doctors consent to draw blood from you (Edwardpatient).
Therefore, it wont be necessary for me to draw blood from you.
The inductive reasoning is more appropriate to use rather than the deductive reasoning because I was trying to arrive at a generalization that not all nurses likes to draw blood from patients. Explaining this to the client requires specific examples from my personal experience and observation. I could not start with a generalization because the patient does not accept my conclusion.
The patient had used a deductive form of reasoning. Deduction denotes that an argument was made based on generalizations, rules or laws (Mesher, 1999). Burns and Grove (2005), indicate that deduction moves from general ideas to specific ideas. The major premise is composed of a generalization involving the relationship between two or more variables (Burns and Grove, 2005). The above argument denotes that in all previous experiences of Edward, nurses like to draw blood from patients. This is the general premise. The second premise is You are a nurse. It depicts that you is a part of the general premise. Thus, Edward concluded that you are going to like to draw blood from me, even when it is not necessary. The deductive argument was presented in a form of a syllogism, wherein
All X are Y
Z is X
Therefore, Z is Y
(Mesher, 1999).
The above scenario could also be expressed in the conditional form of the deductive argument. In this case, if the first variable of the major premise in a generalizationrulelaw is true then it has a corresponding truth in the second variable. If the first variable is present, then the second variable applies. Otherwise, if the first variable were absent, then the second variable would not apply. For instance
If nurse then likes to draw blood
(You are) a nurse
Therefore, (you) like to draw blood.
B) Devise a response to Edwards argument using inductive reasoning. Justify why you would be making an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument.
An appropriate response to Edwards deductive argument would be to show that the generalization is false (Mulcrone, 2001). One could reply through falsifying the previous generalization with induction. Burns and Grove (2005) argued that inductive reasoning was based on observation of particular instances and then combined into a larger whole. Inductive reasoning includes a comparison between two or more sets of events, ideas, or things (Mesher, 1999). Showing Edward particular instances wherein nurses do not like to draw blood from the patient would be a sufficient start. I could state that
I am a nurse but I dont like to draw blood from patients.
Zay (a second nurse) is a nurse but he dont like to draw blood from patients.
Elle (a third nurse) is a nurse but he dont like to draw blood from patients.
Therefore, not all nurses like to draw blood from patients.
Another argument would be to show that nurses in emergency rooms do not always draw blood from patients. Every time a patient arrives in the emergency room, nurses would check their vital signs. You are a patient in the emergency room, so as a nurse, I would check your vital signs. I could also show that the situation do not necessarily require drawing blood from patients. For instance
Every time I (as a nurse) draw blood from a patient, there is a doctors consent.
I (as a nurse), do not have a doctors consent to draw blood from you (Edwardpatient).
Therefore, it wont be necessary for me to draw blood from you.
The inductive reasoning is more appropriate to use rather than the deductive reasoning because I was trying to arrive at a generalization that not all nurses likes to draw blood from patients. Explaining this to the client requires specific examples from my personal experience and observation. I could not start with a generalization because the patient does not accept my conclusion.
Very informative and well written post! Quite interesting and nice topic chosen for the post Nice Post keep it up.Excellent post. I want to thank you for this informative post. I really appreciate sharing this great post. Keep up your work.
ReplyDeletedoctor jays new york