M - Type Arguements

Atanu had written this post on M - Type Arguements ,

In brief , M- Type Arguements are those which are based on the motives or supposed motives of policy makers.
C- Type Arguement are those which are based on the consequences of policies.

In general, C - Type arguements are preferred over M- Type arguements which are considered bad form for arguements.

However as Atanu put it, M- Type arguements are inevitable while dealing in real world.

The reason is imperfect information.

C- Type arguements are for the case when all the infornation relating to an issue is known and whaever is available is consistent.

This is reasoning by deduction.

However in most of the case when all the information is not know before hand and some information is inconsistent with other, it calls for assuming, in filling the gap as well as rejecting what is inconsistent, and most of the times the assumptions is critical. This may be called inductive reasoning or plain old speculation.

For example ,if suppose Musharraf were to announce some new measure, by C - Type reasoning the verdict will be either undecided or pro - Musharraf,
However if one were to speculate (reasonable given past experiences), Musharraf's motives could be questioned and in the light of what happened in past, a catious approach be taken.

That said M- Type is fraught with sloppiness and to be used with utmost caution, that said even the great detectitve was using M Type reasoning when he sad, "Why the dog didn't bark ? "