Cosmopolitan University Communication in English GST 111 PDF

COSMOPOLITAN UNIVERSITY COURSE: COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH CODE: GST 111 VENUE: SCHOOL AUTORIUM LECTURER: DR JOHN ODE IYANYA TOPIC: WRITING AN OUTLINE AND INDUCTIVE/ DEDUCTIVE REASONIN...

COSMOPOLITAN UNIVERSITY COURSE: COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH CODE: GST 111 VENUE: SCHOOL AUTORIUM LECTURER: DR JOHN ODE IYANYA TOPIC: WRITING AN OUTLINE AND INDUCTIVE/ DEDUCTIVE REASONING An outline is a design of an intended paper. There are two major types of outlines namely; topic outlines and sentence outlines. The following numbering patterns can be used: (1) I, II, III, IV, V etc = major divisions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc =subdivisions of major division 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc = subdivisions of A, B, C a, b, c, d, e, etc =subdivisions of 1, 2, 3, 4 (2) 1. Major division 1  1.1. subdivision 1.1.1.subdivision of 1.1. 1.1.2. 2. Major division 2.1.Subdivision 2.1.1. Subdivision of 2.1. 2.1.2. 2.2. Subdivision 2.2.1.subdivivon of 2.2. 2.2.2. 2.3. Subdivision 2.3.1. 2.3.2. subdivision of 2. 3. 2.3.3. 3. Major division Sample/Example Road Accident 1. What is road accident? 2. Causes of road accidents 2.1. Drivers 2.1.1. Not qualified 2  2.1.2. qualified but are drunk 2.1.3. smoking of Indian hemp 2.1.4. Not able to read road signs (illiterate) 2.1.5. Ignoring the road signs 2.1.6. overtaking on the brows of hills and at bends on major roads 2.1.7. sleeping while driving 2.1.8. deliberate causing of accidents by some drivers 2.1.9. instalments to be paid may cause over-speeding 2.2. Vehicles 2.2.1. managing a bad vehicle 2.2.2. bad tyres 2.2.3. brake failure on motion 2.2.4. electrical faults 2.2.5. poor maintenance of battery 2.2.6. vehicles overloaded 2.3. Roads 2.3.1. state of the road –wet, slippery 2.3.2. Roads with sharp bends 2.3.3. pot holes on major roads 3. How to solve the problems 3.1. Drivers should be educated. 3.2. Drivers should neither drink nor smoke 3.3. When driving, road signs should be placed on conspicuous places for drivers to read. Inductive Reasoning/Argument It is reasoning from particular case(s) before arriving at a generalized conclusion. In such arguments, the conclusion is supposedly reached only from the basis.  In this case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence) but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.  Note however that, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or unacceptable  inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning. Most African leaders are blacks. Nnamdi Azikiwe was an African leader. 3 Therefore, probably Nnamdi Azikiwe was black. Almost all children born in the city speak good English. Andrea was born in a city. Hence, Andrea speaks good English. Forms of Inductive Argument Prediction: Here, the premises deals with some known event in the present or the past and the conclusions move beyond this event to some event to relative future. E.g. A certain student is in his final year of studies, he will surely graduate in no time. Argument Based on Analogy: Depends on comparison or identification of similarity between two things or state of affairs.  Computer A and computer B were both manufactured in 2012  that both are easy to access  Computer A is fast in processing; it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing. Generalization: Here, the conclusion is arrived at based on the data or information from a selected sample of an entire group or population.  The selected sample may be identified with certain behaviour or characteristics; it is then argued that all members of the group or population have the same characteristics.  Two out of five people in a city are men, one may conclude that two-fifth of the population of the city in reference are men. An Argument Premised on Authority: Argument whose conclusions are drawn from some presumed authority or witness.  A lawyer argues that a suspect is guilty because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath.  Theory or published ideas of a scholar.  There is the possibility that the lawyer and the scholar may either be mistaken or lying, as such the argument is probable. Deductive Reasoning This is the opposite of inductive reasoning for it moves from general to particular. It is therefore, safer to say that in a deductive argument, the claim is made that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true. 1. All girls are intelligent. 4  Ngozi is a girl. Therefore, Ngozi is intelligent. 2. When I wear shorts, I get attention. When I do not wear shorts, I do not get attention. Therefore, wearing of shorts gets me attention. Types of Deductive Arguments or Reasoning Definition based Argument Argument whose conclusion depends on the definition of some words or phrase. used in the  Musa is honest; it is follows that Musa tells the truth.  Favour is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor. These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the definitions “honest” and “physician”. Syllogism Syllogism can be described as argument consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Categorical syllogism Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one of the words “all” “no” and “some”. Example: All Indians are Buddhists. No Buddhist is a Christian. Hence, no Indian is a Christian. Hypothetical syllogism Hypothetical syllogism has a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. For instance: If you believe in God, you will overcome your challenges. If you overcome your challenges, you live a stress free life. Therefore, if you believe in God, then you live a stress free life. Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive. Disjunctive syllogism This syllogism has correlatives or what we call disjunctive statement, that is, either … or statement. An example is: Abdallah is either an Egyptian or Nigerian.. 5  Abdallah is not Nigerian. Therefore, Abdallah is an Egyptian. 6