This page will expand the abduction "outline" for dinosaur extinction into a paper. It may be helpful when you are writing papers to create the "outline" before attempting to write the actual paper.
This is a "bare bones" sample paper to illustrate the format that is required in this course. The title is the thesis of the paper (and the conclusion to the main argument of the paper).
The first paragraph states the simple conditional argument as the main argument in the paper. The conclusion to the main argument is the thesis statement (and the title of the paper).
The second paragraph gives support for the first premise of the main argument. The first premise is a conditional premise and so the support must result in a conditional statement.
The third and fourth paragraphs provide support for the theories having merit as scientific theories (modeled after Homework #4).
The following paragraphs identify how each theory leads us to expect (or doesn't lead us to expect) each piece of data.
The final paragraph states the findings of the abduction evaluation process, restates the main argument, and finishes with the overall conclusion of the paper.
The third through last paragraph can be thought of as the Advanced Example under Abduction (which is like Homework #6 and Homework #7) expanded into a paper. You should be able to recognize this as you read through the paper. It may be helpful to treat the initial drafts of your papers as a Homework #6 question and then expand that into the paper.
Again notice that there are two formats to keep track of:
One is the format of the main argument. The main argument should be a conditional argument of the "If A, then B. Affirm A. Conclude B." variety. The first paragraph should have an argument in that format included in it.
The second format is the format of the whole paper. That consists of a simple conditional argument in the first paragraph. Support for the first (conditional) premise in the second paragraph, support for the second premise in the next paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph that restates the original simple conditional argument. If you look at all of the examples you should see this format illustrated.
Since the critical observation for this example is that there is an increased concentration of iridium in the clay layer, this will be used as the initial observation. The theories will explain why there is a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and not above or below it. Also, since the class is familiar with this example the amount of information placed in the paper will be kept to a minimum in order to emphasize the organization and format of the paper. This format should be used in your individual papers.
If both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory, then the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer. Both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory. Therefore, the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer.
If both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory, then both theories satisfy the preliminary conditions established by this class and the meteorite theory results in more "yes" entries in an abduction evaluation chart. If both theories satisfy the preliminary conditions established by this class and the meteorite theory results in more "yes" entries in an abduction evaluation chart, then the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer. Therefore, if both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory, then the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer.
If the meteorite theory satisfies more than half of the criteria for a scientific theory, then the meteorite theory has merit as a scientific theory. The meteorite theory is not complicated and has no inconsistencies. No fundamental principles are violated by this theory. This theory is consistent with the initial observation. The theory applies to the area of investigation and does not go far beyond. A competent, well-known researcher put forward the theory. The proposer was aware of other theories and disclosed all methods. The math used is appropriate. No outside agenda is known. These statements suggest that the meteorite theory satisfies eight out of eight of the criteria, which is more than half of the criteria for a scientific theory. Therefore, the meteorite theory has merit as a scientific theory.
If the volcano theory satisfies more than half of the criteria for a scientific theory, then the volcano theory has merit as a scientific theory. The volcano theory is not complicated and has no inconsistencies. No fundamental principles are violated by this theory. This theory is consistent with the initial observation. The theory applies to the area of investigation and does not go far beyond. A competent, well-known researcher put forward the theory. The proposer was aware of other theories and disclosed all methods. The math used is appropriate. No outside agenda is known. These statements suggest that the meteorite theory satisfies eight out of eight of the criteria, which is more than half of the criteria for a scientific theory. Therefore, the volcano theory has merit as a scientific theory.
The following information is available from reliable sources: Rare element abundances in meteorites are different than normally found on earth. Clear signs of high temperature, high pressure, and unique crystalline structure at a crater are consistent with an impact. A center ring in the crater is consistent with an impact.
There is a one centimeter layer of clay at the K-T boundary (which marks the dinosaur extinction) that has no fossils. An analysis of the clay showed that it contained iridium. Iridium is slowly deposited from space, but is very rare on the earth's surface. It was found that the concentration of iridium is much higher than expected if it is deposited from space. It was also observed that the iridium was concentrated in the clay layer and not above or below it. This clay layer was found all over the earth and the high concentration of iridium was found in all samples; it was not specific to the initial place of study.
Iridium is much more common in meteorites than on the surface of the Earth. Determination of the amount of iridium in the clay layer showed that a meteorite with a 10 kilometer diameter could deposit that amount of iridium. A meteorite of this size would cause such a tremendous explosion that most of it would be vaporized and could then be carried around the earth and explain the uniform distribution in the clay layer. The probability is low that a volcano could have done this.
Other rare elements were found to have abundances in the clay layer that agree with meteorites (and not with volcanoes).
In 1989 a crater that has the characteristics expected by impact of a large meteorite as described was found. There were clear signs of high temperature and pressure when it was formed and the crater had a raised ring in the middle.
The thickness of the K-T layer is greater near the crater. This is very likely for both theories.
The above analysis shows that the meteorite theory leads us to expect four of the four observations, while only one of the four observations is likely given the volcano theory . If both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory, then the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer. Both the meteorite theory and the volcano theory have been found to have merit as scientific theories for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer and the meteorite theory leads us to expect more data than the volcano theory. Therefore, the meteorite theory is the best explanation for a higher concentration of iridium in the clay layer.
Another example. Notice that the second paragraph, which supports the first premise, is done in a very different way in this second example.
A brief note to remind us that this conclusion is based on this set of data and that we are only choosing between the two theories that we know about. There was an article in the May 2005 issue of Scientific American (Page 28, "Doubts on Dinosaurs") about these theories in connection with the extinction of the dinosaurs. The short article suggests that the Yucatan impact crater may have occurred before the dinosaurs went extinct. The last sentence reads: "Whether conventional wisdom survives Keller's own shock to paleontology remains to be seen." In addition there is another theory that says that the dinosaurs went extinct because of disease. This is an ongoing discussion in the scientific community!
Another update! On 11 December 2014 The Washington Post published an article titled "Did a massive volcanic eruption in India kill off the dinosaurs?" by Joel Achenbach. In that article the volcano theory is again visited. They apparently have new evidence that there was a massive volcanic event during the time of the dinosaur's disappearance. In the end, however, it says that it may have been a one-two punch with the meteor and the volcano both contributing to the extinction.
Yet another update! On 1 October 2015 Science News Magazine published an article titled "Giant asteroid may have triggered deadly volcano eruptions" by Sarah Schwartz. In that article the volcano theory is again visited, but in conjuction with an asteroid impact. This article suggests that the meteor may have triggered or at least intensified the volcanic eruption and that it was then a one-two punch with the meteor and the volcano both contributing to the extinction.
PBS aired a video about the extinction of the dinosaurs on 6 December 2017 titled "Day the Dinosaurs Died". This is an excellent presentation of research and data suggesting that a metorite was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Yet another Science News article, "Dueling dates for a huge eruption reignite the debate over dinosaurs’ death by Carolyn Gramling," was published in February of 2019 which suggests that scientists are still not sure what caused the demise of the dinosaurs.
Science News update: "New fossils may capture the minutes after the dinosaur-killing asteroid impact" by Carolyn Gramling, April 2, 2019. A follow-up story was then published by the same author: "How we reported a controversial story about the day the dinosaurs died", about how they reported this story on April 26, 2019.
There is some additional information reported in the New York Times ("The Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Acidified the Ocean in a Flash" By Lucas Joel Oct. 21, 2019) supporting the meteorite theory and extending the effects to marine life as well.
Here is another Science News article: "Volcanic gas bursts probably didn’t kill off the dinosaurs" By Carolyn Gramling January 16, 2020.
Here is another New York Times article: "Meteorite or Volcano? New Clues to the Dinosaurs’ Demise" By Lucas Joel Jan. 16, 2020.
The original article from the journal Science that the last two references are based on: "On impact and volcanism across the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary" By Hull et al. in Science, 17 Jan 2020: Vol. 367, Issue 6475, pp. 266-272 DOI: 10.1126/science.aay5055.