1 / 9

Understanding Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Logic

Logic is fundamental to effective reasoning, which can be categorized into inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves forming hypotheses based on specific observations, like concluding sickness from symptoms. Conversely, deductive reasoning starts with general premises leading to specific conclusions. For example, if past space programs led to technological advances, the new Cosmos Mission is likely to do the same. Caution is necessary to avoid faulty conclusions. This guide illustrates both reasoning processes and their importance in logical analysis.

megan
Télécharger la présentation

Understanding Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Logic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Who doesn’t love logic? Inductive and deductive reasoning All information can be found on 467-476 in your textbook.

  2. This thought process starts with observing small details (evidence) and using that evidence to form an inductive leap (a hypothesis or generalization). • Example: evid 1: I have a fever. evid 2: I keep sneezing. Conclusion: I am sick. Inductive Reasoning

  3. Several people were mugged last night while shopping in town (evidence). • Several homes and apartments were burglarized in the past few weeks. (evidence) • Several cars were stolen from people’s driveways. • The police hasn’t protected the town. (conclusion or inductive leap) Example from your book:

  4. You cannot 100% rule out other possible conclusions. • For example, maybe it isn’t the police’s fault. Maybe individuals were making careless or risky decisions with their property. Be careful with inductive leaps

  5. Starts with a broad conclusion. • Narrows generalization to a concise point. • Opposite of inductive reasoning. • Three logical parts are required to use deductive reasoning: 1. major premise 2. minor premise 3. conclusion. Deductive Reasoning

  6. Major Premise: Space programs in the past have led to important developments in technology, especially in medical science. • Minor premise: The Cosmos Mission is the newest program. • Conclusion: The Cosmos Mission will likely lead to developments in medical science. • Conclusion: Congress should continue funding the Cosmos Mission.

  7. Major Premise: Students who plagiarize papers must appear before the Faculty Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures. • Minor Premise: Yesterday, Jennifer, the president of the student government appeared before the Committee. • Conclusion: Jennifer plagiarized a paper. • Action: Jennifer must resign. (WTH?) Be careful of making a faulty conclusion

  8. Claim: thesis, action, or conclusion. • Data/Reason: the evidence (facts, stats., observations, etc.) • Warrant: underlying assumption between the claim and reason. Toulmin Logic

  9. Data/Reason: The train engineer was under the influence of drugs when the train crashed. • Claim: Transportation employees entrusted with the public’s safety should be tested for drug use. • Warrant: Transportation employees entrusted with the public safety should not be allowed to work stoned. Toulmin Example

More Related