Rhetoric question about missing youth
Introduction
Taking into consideration the text of Anderson, Schum and Twining, explain in detail what the abductive reasoning is in detail, and how can help us the generation of new ideas in the investigation of the facts. In his explanation I used an example, preferably taken from a real case.
The deductive reasoning is that by which a test is taken as a test that shapes a hypothesis to later be reviewed or eliminated according to its content and thus give way to new hypotheses that will require new facts, in order to ensure their veracity. The deductive process is not static, since it varies according to the new facts that are presented as the investigation progresses.
Developing
This type of reasoning helps us to investigate more depth in the various cases that may arise from day to day, regardless of matter, since the hypothesis approach always forces the researcher to verify through the facts the veracity ofThe same and if a case to the contrary, will be forced to raise new hypotheses and reach the most accurate or close to the truth. Example:
A young couple A and B disappeared, during a walk in Arequipa. However, after an intense search for several days, one of the young A was found in one of the ravines. On the other hand, young B was found lifeless months later. According to abductive reasoning, we can infer different hypotheses:
- Hypothesis 1a: The young A has a certain degree of responsibility in the death of the young B, since he was the last person with him.
- Hypothesis 1b: Young B voluntarily walked for a rugged land and then slipped.
- Hypothesis 1C: Young B walked as far as it was found and died due to the lack of food.
From the evaluation of the data obtained, we can review in such a way that of all the hypotheses raised, those that lose strength do not have a concordance with the data or facts obtained.
Ask
What is for González Lagier a probative inference and what are its solidity criteria? Explain clearly and using examples. For González Lagier, probative inference is a reasoning by which the facts of a certain case are proven. In which Toulmin tells us that it is structured by pretensions, reasons, guarantees and support and that these would become the elements that must always be present in all argumentation.
Now, about the solidity criteria we know that they are two, the direct evidence and the indirect evidence. On the direct evidence: we can differ according to how read it is, when we can prove the facts in a faster and more efficient way, that allows to prove the veracity of the event that occurred, among these means of evidence are: the declaration of witnesses, experts and documentary evidence.
Álvaro ran over Gladys leaving her seriously injured and then fled, but everything was filmed by security cameras in the place where the events happened. We can see how direct proof the visual content of the street security cameras which would verify that Álvaro was the person who handled the vehicle established the credibility that it is the one who was driving, on the other hand, Gladys recognizes that the man of the man ofVideo is Álvaro and this was the person who hit her.
conclusion
On the indirect evidence: here we can collect that it is aimed at the indications which we must not forget that they must be fully accredited, from which the existence of the main fact can be inferred. A case of illicit drug trafficking, Javier was driving a truck which contained cocaine hydrochloride. Here we can clearly see that it would fit the indiciaria test, it is decisive to establish whether Javier acted not maliciously, since here it will be seen whether or not he had knowledge of what he had in the truck was illicit, since he alleges that he had no knowledge that insideFrom the truck there was a camouflaged drug.
Leave feedback