Research Paper on:
An Analysis of an Argument

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires it employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In  the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all our clients." For both Rationalism and Empiricism, there exists a problem in that man does  not know things directly but gains understanding through the impressions (phenomena) of those things. Rationalism is concerned with the impressions made on the intellect, Empiricism with those on the  senses. Neither is truly able to know the world directly. The two modes of knowing differ in their theories concerning experience. Rationalists believe that the world can  be experienced intuitively through reason while the empiricists maintain that the only knowing is experience. The rationalist uses deductive reasoning to investigate the truth while an empiricist will maintain  that truth is better revealed through inductive reasoning. The basic difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is perspective: deductive arguments move from a generalization a particular claim, while  inductive arguments proceed from statements about particular things to a general conclusion. This is, of course, a generalized view of the difference. There is more. In deductive  arguments, if the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion is absolutely claimed to be true; there is the claim that the premises provide conclusive grounds for the conclusion;  and the conclusion falls within the scope of the evidence. In inductive arguments, the conclusion is not claimed to be absolute and, or, based on the premises; there  is no claim that the premises give conclusive grounds for the conclusion--they only provide some grounds for it; and the conclusion goes beyond the scope of the evidence. Its