Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical de- and a hypothesis (P) is stated. The conclusion (Q) is then
duction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the pro- deduced from the statement and the hypothesis. The most
cess of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) basic form is listed below:
to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2] It differs from
inductive reasoning or abductive reasoning. 1. P → Q (conditional statement)
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If
2. P (hypothesis stated)
all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of
deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached 3. Q (conclusion deduced)
is necessarily true.
Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q from P by us-
inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following ing the law of detachment.[3] However, if the conclusion
way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached (Q) is given instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no
reductively by applying general rules that hold over the definitive conclusion.
entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the The following is an example of an argument using the law
range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is of detachment in the form of an if-then statement:
left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by
generalizing or extrapolating from, i.e., there is epistemic
1. If an angle satisfies 90° < A < 180°, then A is an
uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned
obtuse angle.
here is not the same as induction used in mathematical
proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of de- 2. A = 120°.
ductive reasoning.
3. A is an obtuse angle.

1 Simple example Since the measurement of angle A is greater than 90° and
less than 180°, we can deduce that A is an obtuse angle. If
however, we are given the conclusion that A is an obtuse
An example of a deductive argument: angle we cannot deduce the premise that A = 120°.

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.
3 Law of syllogism
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The law of syllogism takes two conditional statements and
forms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of one
The first premise states that all objects classified as “men” statement with the conclusion of another. Here is the gen-
have the attribute “mortal”. The second premise states eral form:
that “Socrates” is classified as a “man” – a member of
the set “men”. The conclusion then states that “Socrates” 1. P → Q
must be “mortal” because he inherits this attribute from
his classification as a “man”. 2. Q → R
3. Therefore, P → R.

2 Law of detachment The following is an example:

Main article: Modus ponens 1. If Larry is sick, then he will be absent.

2. If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.
The law of detachment (also known as affirming the an-
tecedent and Modus ponens) is the first form of deduc- 3. Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his
tive reasoning. A single conditional statement is made, classwork.

1
2 8 SEE ALSO

We deduced the final statement by combining the hypoth- 3. Therefore, John is a quarterback.
esis of the first statement with the conclusion of the sec-
ond statement. We also allow that this could be a false The example’s first premise is false – there are people who
statement. This is an example of the transitive property eat carrots and are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion
in mathematics. The transitive property is sometimes must be true, so long as the premises are true (i.e. it is
phrased in this form: impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false). Therefore, the argument is valid, but not sound.
1. A = B. Generalizations are often used to make invalid arguments,
such as “everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback.” Not
2. B = C. everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback, thus proving
the flaw of such arguments.
3. Therefore, A = C.
In this example, the first statement uses categorical rea-
soning, saying that all carrot-eaters are definitely quarter-
4 Law of contrapositive backs. This theory of deductive reasoning – also known
as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was su-
perseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate
Main article: Modus tollens logic.
Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with inductive rea-
The law of contrapositive states that, in a conditional, if soning, in regards to validity and soundness. In cases of
the conclusion is false, then the hypothesis must be false inductive reasoning, even though the premises are true
also. The general form is the following: and the argument is “valid”, it is possible for the conclu-
sion to be false (determined to be false with a counterex-
1. P → Q. ample or other means).
2. ~Q.

3. Therefore, we can conclude ~P. 6 History

The following are examples: Aristotle started documenting deductive reasoning in the
4th century BC.[4]
1. If it is raining, then there are clouds in the sky.

2. There are no clouds in the sky. 7 Education

3. Thus, it is not raining.
Deductive reasoning is generally considered to be a skill
that develops without any formal teaching or training. As
a result of this belief, deductive reasoning skills are not
5 Validity and soundness taught in secondary schools, where students are expected
to use reasoning more often and at a higher level.[5] It is
Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms of their in high school, for example, that students have an abrupt
validity and soundness. introduction to mathematical proofs – which rely heavily
[5]
An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises on deductive reasoning.
to be true while its conclusion is false. In other words,
the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. An
argument can be valid even though the premises are false. 8 See also
An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are
true. • Abductive reasoning
It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically • Analogical reasoning
valid but is not sound. Fallacious arguments often take
that form. • Argument (logic)

The following is an example of an argument that is valid, • Correspondence theory of truth

but not sound:
• Decision making
1. Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback. • Decision theory

2. John eats carrots. • Defeasible reasoning

 3

• Fallacy 10 Further reading

• Fault Tree Analysis • Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash
Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Au-
• Geometry tomatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8

• Hypothetico-deductive method • Philip Johnson-Laird, Ruth M. J. Byrne, Deduction,

Psychology Press 1991, ISBN 978-0-86377-149-1
• Inductive reasoning • Zarefsky, David, Argumentation: The Study of Ef-
fective Reasoning Parts I and II, The Teaching Com-
• Inference pany 2002

• Inquiry • Bullemore, Thomas, * The Pragmatic Problem of

Induction.
• Logic

• Logical consequence 11 External links

• Mathematical induction • Deductive reasoning at PhilPapers

• Mathematical logic • Deductive reasoning at the Indiana Philosophy On-

tology Project
• Natural deduction
• Deductive reasoning entry in the Internet Encyclope-
• Propositional calculus dia of Philosophy

• Retroductive reasoning

• Scientific method

• Soundness

• Syllogism

• Theory of justification

9 References
[1] Deduction & Induction, Research Methods Knowledge
Base

[2] Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth. p. 578. ISBN 978-0-495-50629-4.

[3] Guide to Logic

[4] Evans, Jonathan St. B. T.; Newstead, Stephen E.; Byrne,

Ruth M. J., eds. (1993). Human Reasoning: The Psy-
chology of Deduction (Reprint ed.). Psychology Press. p.
4. ISBN 9780863773136. Retrieved 2015-01-26. In one
sense [...] one can see the psychology of deductive reason-
ing as being as old as the study of logic, which originated
in the writings of Aristotle.

[5] Stylianides, G. J.; Stylianides (2008). “A. J.”. Math-

ematical Thinking and Learning 10 (2): 103–133.
doi:10.1080/10986060701854425.
4 12 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

12 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

12.1 Text
• Deductive reasoning Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning?oldid=697777022 Contributors: The Cunctator, Toby
Bartels, Youandme, Mrwojo, DennisDaniels, Michael Hardy, TakuyaMurata, BenKovitz, EdH, DesertSteve, Charles Matthews, Dtgm,
Hyacinth, Lumos3, Robbot, R3m0t, Romanm, AceMyth, Blainster, Tobias Bergemann, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Lethe, Guanaco, Bovlb,
Archenzo, Jason Quinn, Piotrus, Karol Langner, Aequo, Stepp-Wulf, EricBright, TedPavlic, Kevinb, Stbalbach, PhilHibbs, Causa sui,
Flammifer, Espoo, Jumbuck, Ryanmcdaniel, CyberSkull, Nasukaren, Garrisonroo, SidP, Kenyon, Tariqabjotu, Stephen, Velho, OwenX,
Mindmatrix, TheNightFly, Ruud Koot, Jon Harald Søby, ZephyrAnycon, Teemu Leisti, BD2412, Nightscream, Koavf, Gmelli, Jweiss11,
Tangotango, YAZASHI, Ggfevans, DirkvdM, FlaBot, Nihiltres, Fresheneesz, Skc0001, Alphachimp, Chobot, YurikBot, Borgx, Erachima,
DTRY, Rick Norwood, Holycharly, TriGen, EEMIV, Bota47, Shadro, Mjhy0926, SMcCandlish, Allens, Infinity0, GrinBot~enwiki,
DVD R W, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Aim Here, KocjoBot~enwiki, Thunderboltz, Stephensuleeman, WookieInHeat, Ieopo, The great
kawa, Gilliam, Q1w2e3, Mhss, Psiphiorg, Bluebot, ViolinGirl, MalafayaBot, George Rodney Maruri Game, Octahedron80, DHN-
bot~enwiki, Javalenok, Chlewbot, Mr.Z-man, ConMan, Cybercobra, Jon Awbrey, RossF18, Byelf2007, The Ungovernable Force, Sasha-
toBot, Nishkid64, Dbtfz, JoseREMY, IronGargoyle, Extremophile, Penagate, Comicist, Quaeler, Iridescent, K, Zarex, Van helsing,
ChristineD, Neelix, Gregbard, Julian Mendez, Thijs!bot, LactoseTI, Marek69, Kborer, Noaa, AntiVandalBot, MaTT~enwiki, AaronY,
IrishPete, Oliver Simon, BenMcLean, JAnDbot, Skomorokh, The Transhumanist, Agentnj, Hewinsj, GurchBot, Probios, Djradon, Kir-
rages, Rupes, VoABot II, Arno Matthias, Snowded, Oxford Dictionary, Illspirit, Vanished user ty12kl89jq10, Cathalwoods, HemRaj Singh,
Pbroks13, Pomte, Stjeanp, N4nojohn, J.delanoy, Trusilver, Shawn in Montreal, OAC, Tparameter, Jaxha, CompuChip, Heyitspeter, Dor-
ganBot, Vinsfan368, Lallallal, Jonwilliamsl, Pasixxxx, MARVINWAGNER, Rucha58, Leoremy, TXiKiBoT, Technopat, A4bot, Msvio-
lone, Philogo, Broadbot, Abdullais4u, Dprust, Andrewaskew, Graymornings, Lova Falk, Kusyadi, MCTales, Cnilep, Sfmammamia, SieBot,
Paradoctor, Meldor, Mankar Camoran, Sunrise, Svick, DesolateReality, Mygerardromance, Escape Orbit, Troy 07, Kenji000, De728631,
ClueBot, R000t, Philosophy.dude, Bfeylia, Neverquick, Excirial, Rohit nit, GoldenGoose100, PaulKincaidSmith, SpikeToronto, Ember of
Light, GlasGhost, Thingg, Vanished User 1004, Zenwhat, XLinkBot, BodhisattvaBot, Kwork2, Gerhardvalentin, Saeed.Veradi, WikHead,
Qwertytastic, Ewger, Addbot, CanadianLinuxUser, H92Bot, Glane23, GlobalSequence, Tide rolls, Lightbot, ScienceApe, ‫سعی‬, Legobot,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, 2D, Azcolvin429, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, PresMan, Flewis, Prbclj25, ArthurBot, Xqbot, Doezxcty, S h i v a (Visnu),
Lord Archer, Capricorn42, Xephras, Hartkiller, Hjurgen, Ordning, Lord Bane, Ruby.red.roses, RowanEvans, RibotBOT, SEASONnmr,
FrescoBot, Beclp, Pinethicket, I dream of horses, Rushbugled13, Mohehab, JimRech, Jandalhandler, NeuroBells123, Keri, Humble Rat,
Difu Wu, Whisky drinker, Mean as custard, Badelmann, Tesseract2, DASHBot, EmausBot, Hedonistbot4000, Mo ainm, Tommy2010,
Winner 42, TheGeomaster, JSquish, Fæ, Oncenawhile, MindShifts, Foreverlove642, Wayne Slam, Donner60, Tziemer991, Jimmynudes2,
ClueBot NG, Drdoug5, Kimberleyporter, Fauzan, Jj1236, Tideflat, Amr.rs, Dictabeard, O.Koslowski, Masssly, Widr, Chillllls, Helpful
Pixie Bot, Nichole773, Hallows AG, Wiki13, Luke13579, Richard84041, Ninjagoat, Sopidex, Dhruv-NJITWILL, Sgilmore10, Court-
neysfoster, ChrisGualtieri, GoShow, Oligocene, ShangTsung87, Lugia2453, 93, MostlyListening, BreakfastJr, EMBViki, Strikingstar, Vo-
gelsangLorenzo, Ginsuloft, Mauriziogeri2013, Monkbot, Crocs.Sox, KasparBot, Sweepy, Sorte Slyngel, , Trex363 and Anonymous:
372

12.2 Images
• File:Logic_portal.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Logic_portal.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: Watchduck (a.k.a. Tilman Piesk)
• File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
• File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs),
based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

12.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0