The argument presented in the video is the course of action being taken regarding the topic of global warming about how people can best fare through the choices they make. The presenter highlights that instead of talking about whether global warming is a truth or not, people should consider what course of action they are taking in order to identify how they best fare.
Reconstruction of the Argument
The principle of charity provides that the interpretations of the presenter are to be considered to be logical and rational and therefore very strong argument basis. The argument therefore when reconstructed as per the principle of charity states that the course of the action taken by people regarding global warming makes a vast difference in terms of how better or how worse they fare in the face of the uncertain condition of global warming.
The premises of the argument about the fact that the presenter in the view uses normal vocabulary in a normal manner while the statements being made by him are not only true but valid arguments as well that hold the interest of the audience. The controversial nature of the topic of global warming increases the interest of the audience while the way the argument is presented to the audience sparks truth in the facts presented as well. The principle of faithfulness provides that the components of the argument presented are interrelated and factual and as a result the argument is based on truth which can be believed by the audience.
The premise of the argument at hand is that global warming is taking place and people have the choice of either accepting the universally unproven truth of global warming taking place and prepare for it by taking initiatives while on the other hand people can do nothing and simply hope that the premise of the argument is not a reality in the future. In the face of the uncertainty of the global warming which cannot be proven or ascertained (a premise of the argument) the people cannot control the premise and therefore can only select their own course of behavior.
In case the global warming does not take place any action taken by people to prepare for it will result in costs incurred, job loss through regulation of industries as well as a recessionary economy. While on the other hand if global warming does not take place, even though people are prepared for them the costs would still be incurred but the people would be well off prepared for the circumstances. On the other hand if global warming does not take place and people did not take action to prepare for it they would be happy and well off, however if global warming does take place while they have not prepared for it, their lack of initiatives taken can result in political, environmental, health, social as well as economical catastrophes which is the worst result possible from the outcome of the argument. Therefore people would see to minimize the risks of the worst outcome possible and prepare for the uncertainty of global warming as they are better of whether it takes place or not taking all the possible results into consideration.
Type of Reasoning
The type of reasoning that forms the basis of this argument is hybrid of the inclusion and deductive reasoning. The facts and logical arguments are taken into considerations into the main argument of whether to prepare for global warming when it is uncertain whether the event would even occur. The concept of inductive reasoning “is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations” (Inductive Reasoning). On the other hand “deduction starts with an assumed hypothesis or theory, which is why it has been called ‘hypothetical deduction. This assumption may be well-accepted or it may be rather shakier” (‘Deductive Reasoning’).
The deductive nature of the reasoning is attributed in the argument to the hypothesis which depicts global warming to be an uncertainty that has to be controlled and managed by the people by selecting to choose whether to prepare for it or not based on avoiding the worst possible outcome and be beneficial in some form or the other through the outcome. The inductive nature of the reasoning is depicted in the argument through the assumption that as people tend to work for themselves and their benefits as a result of the argument pertaining to global warming, people would be interested in selecting the option which best mitigates risk for them.
Acceptance/ Rejection of the Reasoning and Conclusion
The reasoning style which is hybrid in nature is best suited to the argument as the argument can not be approached through either inductive or deductive reasoning alone. This is because facts and premise control the argument which calls for deductive reasoning while as it cannot be predicted what can be the outcome or the behavior of the people regarding the choices, generalizations have to be made which are characteristics of the inductive style of remaining. The conclusion that is presented by the argument is that in the face of an uncertainty of the event of global warming taking place which cannot be controlled, as the people would choose the option which best mitigates their risk. People should prepare for global warming by taking initiatives regardless of whether global warming takes place or not. This conclusion is best suited as it is most comprehensive and mitigates the most risk making the overall situation beneficial for people in the long run.