Conditional reasoning
This type of argument takes the form “if A, then B”. The truth of B is explicitly tied to the truth of A – making it easily identifiable as a close cousin of deductive reasoning – and A is known as the antecedent, and B the precedent. An example of a conditional argument:
Martha wants Josh to get up on the roof to clean the gutters. She argues that if the gutters are not cleaned then they will overflow, causing damage to the roof and ceiling.
Conditional reasoning is generally quite robust, as long as the link between A and B is valid. There are a number of fallacies to look out for when making a conditional argument, though.
They are all different facets of the same error: assuming that a single cause has a single effect, and vice-versa. Keep away from making these errors when constructing your conditional arguments and as long as your premises and their connection are valid you will be quite safe.
Exemplar reasoning
This means using examples and drawing parallels to similar situations to illustrate your point in an argument. These can take the form of a situation exactly like the one you are debating over, or it could be through the use of a metaphor, making it a very close relative to an analogical argument. The most obvious example I can use: this entire chapter. Each entry is illustrated by examples that may be directly applicable in your own personal and professional relationships, but even if they aren’t they still serve to illustrate situations in which the type of reasoning being discussed works, with the intention of convincing you of their efficacy.
Exemplar reasoning can be very persuasive because it grounds your argument in reality, providing evidence of other situations where your point of view was vindicated. You make the assumption that the precedent you are appealing to is applicable to the current situation. As a result of this, though, it can be open to the counter-argument from your opponent that this particular situation is not quite the same.
As a result, you may have to spend a little more time justifying your drawing of parallels between the two situations to your opponent. If you can provide multiple other examples, though, your argument will be much further bolstered and much harder for your opponent to dispute.
