Am I the only one that found this chapter really simple? everything was on logos and it just all seemed like common knowledge. I guess the inductive and deductive was a little confusing, but not enough to call it a challenging chapter for me.
Yeah I have no idea what this guy was on when he wrote this chapter, it seemed like he picked words that just didnt quite match up but they were somehow related.
This chapter was boring and I didn't understand most of the political talk. I did understand what inductive language was but I didn't fully understand deductive language other than the fact that it was opposite of inductive.
I liked the political parts. I agree though that inductive and deductive language was confusing. I understood they were opposites (and kind of what they are), but I thought their definitions were confusing. I was also confused on which was which.
This chapter reminded me of geometry. (If a dog has four legs then an animal with four legs must me a dog.) I thought it was interesting though that logos is more about common places than facts.
I agree with you Makenzie, I thought it was funny that as I was reading those examples I immediately though of how I've heard and said them so many times.
The inductive and deductive were confusing to me! How does logos fit in here!?! I understand enthymeme and fact, comparison, and story very well! I like the examples in this chapter better even if I don't fully understand it.
This chapter was so boring, I had a hard time reading it. I mean you can understand that inductive and deductive are opposites, I don't know if it is because it was so boring I didn't try to find the answer or because he just did a bad job of explaining them.
I think if he were to explain inductive/deductive logic a little more in depth, with more comprehensive examples, it would have been a little easier to understand.
The stuff he taught us in this chapter was so simple, I understood it the first time he mentioned "deduction" and "enthymeme" and "syllogism", and every other thing that he talked about. This chapter was extremely repetitive so it was pretty boring. He didn't spend a lot of time on the difference of inductive and deductive, but I understood that stuff just fine as soon as he said anyways.
The chapter is too confusing and I hate it. It represents and mimes undecided voters really well because they are the most gullible people in the world and they will switch opinions back and forth all the time.
Syllogism and inductive/deductive logic is all so confusing. I had a hard time keeping all of these different terms straight. I also don't understand how to apply commonplace to enthymeme..
Like most of you, I found this chapter pretty confusing. I think I've got a small grasp on inductive/deductive logic, but it would be good to maybe discuss it in class?
I was a bit confused with this chapter. I somewhat got the inductive and deducive language and how they are oppsoites, but I think I need to become more clear to it still.
This chapter was a little confusing but i did understand what they meant through inductive language and deductive language.
ReplyDeleteI agree it was hard to understand this chapter, I did understand some parts but not much.
DeleteThe inductive language and deductive language confused me some, but I got the gist of it. I thought the exact definitions were confusing though.
DeleteThose were the two that confused me! And I agree this chapter was challenging.
DeleteAm I the only one that found this chapter really simple? everything was on logos and it just all seemed like common knowledge. I guess the inductive and deductive was a little confusing, but not enough to call it a challenging chapter for me.
DeleteMost of the "vocab words" didn't make sense to me.
DeleteMost of the "vocab words" didn't make sense to me.
DeleteYeah I have no idea what this guy was on when he wrote this chapter, it seemed like he picked words that just didnt quite match up but they were somehow related.
DeleteI couldn't keep all of the terms and vocab words straight in this chapter. It got so confusing, so I'm also wondering where he was coming from here.
DeleteThis chapter was boring and I didn't understand most of the political talk. I did understand what inductive language was but I didn't fully understand deductive language other than the fact that it was opposite of inductive.
ReplyDeleteI liked the political parts. I agree though that inductive and deductive language was confusing. I understood they were opposites (and kind of what they are), but I thought their definitions were confusing. I was also confused on which was which.
DeleteI understood inductive and deductive language and what they meant by it i could see where it could be confusing though.
DeleteI actually understood the political parts this time or at least I was on the same page. This chapter did seem a bit boring.
DeleteThe politics in the chapter were interesting at times, but repetitiveness definitely made it less intriguing.
DeleteThis chapter reminded me of geometry. (If a dog has four legs then an animal with four legs must me a dog.) I thought it was interesting though that logos is more about common places than facts.
ReplyDeleteI founf those kind of examples really interesting and funny because we say those type of things in everyday life.
DeleteI feeel that you both are right aand that we use logos a lot without even really realizing that we do.
DeleteInteresting way to think about it
DeleteI guess I never thought about it like that. But that is very true @Reva.
DeleteYeah as soon as he brought up if-then statements I thought immediately of geometry
DeleteI agree with you Makenzie, I thought it was funny that as I was reading those examples I immediately though of how I've heard and said them so many times.
DeleteThe inductive and deductive were confusing to me! How does logos fit in here!?! I understand enthymeme and fact, comparison, and story very well! I like the examples in this chapter better even if I don't fully understand it.
ReplyDeleteMost of the examples were good but i didnt quite understand this chapter either.
DeleteThis chapter was so boring, I had a hard time reading it. I mean you can understand that inductive and deductive are opposites, I don't know if it is because it was so boring I didn't try to find the answer or because he just did a bad job of explaining them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this chapter was really boring, when it came to all of that logos stuff he talked about, it was just so simple, like common logic for me.
DeleteI think if he were to explain inductive/deductive logic a little more in depth, with more comprehensive examples, it would have been a little easier to understand.
DeleteSAme. I thought it was super boring and drawn out
DeleteThe stuff he taught us in this chapter was so simple, I understood it the first time he mentioned "deduction" and "enthymeme" and "syllogism", and every other thing that he talked about. This chapter was extremely repetitive so it was pretty boring. He didn't spend a lot of time on the difference of inductive and deductive, but I understood that stuff just fine as soon as he said anyways.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter is too confusing and I hate it. It represents and mimes undecided voters really well because they are the most gullible people in the world and they will switch opinions back and forth all the time.
ReplyDeleteSyllogism and inductive/deductive logic is all so confusing. I had a hard time keeping all of these different terms straight. I also don't understand how to apply commonplace to enthymeme..
ReplyDeleteLike most of you, I found this chapter pretty confusing. I think I've got a small grasp on inductive/deductive logic, but it would be good to maybe discuss it in class?
ReplyDeleteTHis chapter was fairly drawn out and boring, as well as confusing at times. Not a highlight of the book, for sure
ReplyDeleteI was a bit confused with this chapter. I somewhat got the inductive and deducive language and how they are oppsoites, but I think I need to become more clear to it still.
ReplyDelete