A key idea in the course is that the stronger the claim (what you are trying to prove in your conclusion) the better the evidence needed. For instance, you need much better evidence to prove that Alice will have a perfect score on her exam than if you were just trying to prove she would pass it. Another idea that is important is that the more is at stake in the argument, the higher the standard for what will count as an inductively strong case.

One useful technique is to think about what would be needed for what I call a perfect case (one that is deductively valid with correct information in the premises). Remember that in ordinary argumentation we cannot usually present deductively valid and sound arguments because typically they call for generalizations that would go beyond our evidence. However, by examining how close an actual argument might resemble one that is deductively valid we do have a way of measuring its inductive strength. We can do this by looking at the possible counterexamples--hypothetical situations in which the premises remain true but the conclusion is false along with an explanation of how this could happen. In a valid argument there can be none at all. The more improbable the counterexample, the stronger the case.

Anyone who studies will pass, and Jack is studying, so Jack will pass.
Only someone who studies will pass, but Jill is not studying, so Jill will not pass.

These are two basic patterns for a valid argument, but the problem in real situations is justifying the generalization in any implied premise (here it being that anyone who studies would pass).

Let's look at the arguments we might ordinarily use.

1. Jack is studying, therefore he will pass.     inductively weak, since we can easily imagine a good reason why he might not pass
counterexample: Even though he is studying, it is a very hard test and so Jack will not pass.

1a. Jack is studying and it is an easy test, therefore he will pass.    this would be a moderately strong argument but we can still imagine a plausible exception
counterexample: Even though he is studying for an easy test, Jack will not pass because the material is not something he understands.

1b. Jack is studying for an easy test on material he understands very well, therefore he will pass.   inductively strong, since without further evidence a counterexample appears to be an unlikely script for the events
counterexample: Even though he is studying for an easy test on material that he understands well, Jack will not pass because he is going to become ill during the test.

note that in 1a and 1b we are closing the gap that would make study alone a sufficient condition for passing

2. Jill is not studying, therefore she will not pass.    inductively weak, since we can easily imagine a good reason that she might still pass
counterexample: Jill is not studying but since she already knows the material we can be sure she will pass.

2a. Jill is not studying and this is unfamiliar material, therefore she will not pass.    this would be a moderately strong argument but we can still imagine a plausible exception
counterexample: Even though she is not studying and this is unfamiliar material, the test questions are so easy that Jill will be able to guess the right answers and so will pass.

2b. Jill is not studying for a very difficult test on unfamiliar material, therefore she will not pass.   inductively strong, since now we have to imagine exceptions that, with no further evidence, would not be likely to be true
counterexample: Even though Jill is not studying for a very difficult test on unfamiliar material, she will be able to cheat and so will manage to pass.

note that in 2a and 2b we are closing the gap that would make study a necessary condition for passing

The guide, then, is to keep thinking in terms of sufficient conditions (for a positive result) or necessary conditions (for a negative result).

When we turn to arguments about what we should do we can apply our guidelines in this way:

In presenting a case for a particular action, we need to come as close as we can to showing that the action is both a sufficient and a necessary condition for a desired result. In other words, doing what is recommended will guarantee the result and there are no alternatives.

Jill needs to study if she wants to pass, and if she does study she will pass, so she ought to study.

In presenting a case against a particular action, we need to come as close as we can to showing that the action is a sufficient condition to an undesired result.

Jack should not take the time to study, since he would have to give up his job to do so and therefore could not stay in school.

The second example in particular brings up the possibility of what we will POV (point of view) objections. In almost any ordinary situation we can imagine how, viewed from a different angle (or point of view), there is a risk of some kind. The closer we can come to saying there is no risk or downside, the stronger the case we are making.   This also means that if we are making a case for a course of action, we need to be sure that we could, if we needed to, show why an alternative is less acceptable. This is something we do when we present a counterargument (a plausible objection) and then attempt to answer it.

One of your early assignments was to take an issue that had been presented as the basis for a "listen up" editorial. You should return to that assignment and review your submission Now I want you to go back and think of a proposal for dealing with the issue. Analyze how the evidence available would allow the strongest possible case on one side or the other.   Develop a logline, then ask about the implied or unspoken premise we might be expecting for the perfect case, then see how closely the evidence available allows you to come to such a case.

Example:
logline: Undocumented workers should not be allowed to get California driver's licenses because this rewards illegal behavior.
implied premise: Any action that provides a service to a person not legally in the country is rewarding illegal behavior, and it is wrong to do this.
POV objection (the counterargument): On the other hand, only through a process of providing licenses can unsafe drivers be kept off the road, so this is a benefit to other citizens even more than it is a benefit to an undocumented worker.

Questions to be asked: What percentage of California drivers are in the country illegally? Does the manner in which driver's licenses are granted reduce unsafe driving? How many undocumented workers would actually apply for a driver's license?   note that many questions cannot readily be answered with any assurance, but the more actual evidence is available the better the support in the case