Scribd
Upload
3 views

The Forms of deductive and Inductive Arguments

The document outlines the forms of deductive and inductive arguments, detailing valid and invalid logical structures for each type. Deductive arguments require true premises for a true conclusion, while inductive arguments move from specific instances to general conclusions based on reliability. It also discusses syllogisms and common mistakes in inductive reasoning.

Uploaded by

harneet s
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views

The Forms of deductive and Inductive Arguments

The document outlines the forms of deductive and inductive arguments, detailing valid and invalid logical structures for each type. Deductive arguments require true premises for a true conclusion, while inductive arguments move from specific instances to general conclusions based on reliability. It also discusses syllogisms and common mistakes in inductive reasoning.

Uploaded by

harneet s
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

The Forms of deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive Arguments:
​ Deductive arguments can be either valid or invalid.

​ If all the premises are true, then its conclusion must be true.

​ Thus, in a valid deductive argument – if the premises are true, the


conclusion must be true, by virtue of a logically necessary inference.

Valid logical forms of deductive arguments:

Form Type Formula Example


1. Affirming the antecedent If P, then Q If Ishan is tall then he could play
(agreeing that the antecedent P is therefore Q centre.
is true). Ishan is tall.
Therefore, he should play centre.
2. Denying the consequent If P, then Q. If Jewel is tall then she could play
(denying that the consequent Not Q centre.
is true) Therefore, not P Jewel isn’t playing centre.
Therefore, she is not tall.
3. Chain Argument If P, then Q If Kai is mad, he left work early.
If Q, then R If he left work early, he may have
Therefore, if P, then R. gone to the bar.
Therefore, if Kai is mad, he may
have gone to the bar.

Invalid logical forms of deductive arguments:

Form Type Formula Example


1. Fallacy of denying the If P, then Q If the sun shines, the house will be
antecedent Not P bright.
Therefore, not Q The sun is not shining.
Therefore, the house is dark
2. Fallacy of affirming the If P, then Q If you jog every day, you will be fit.
consequent Q You are fit.
Therefore P Therefore, you must jog everyday.

Other Examples:
Building upon deductive arguments are syllogisms – propositions considered
together.

There are always two premises and a conclusion. These will build off the
ones above:

1)​ Categorical syllogism: Propositions about classes of things and


which affirm or deny that once class is included in another class.

All X are Y
All Y are Z
Therefore – all X are Z

All politicians are liars


All liars are despicable
Therefore, all politicians are despicable

4 Forms of Categorical syllogisms:

A)​Universal affirmative – All X are Y (All politicians are liars)


B)​Universal negative – No X are Y (No politicians are liars)
C)​Particular affirmative – Some X are Y (Some politicians are liars)
D)​Particular negative – Some X are not Y (Some politicians are not
liars)

2)​ Disjunctive syllogism: A proposition which poses alternatives –


alternatives being indicated by the words “Either/or”; At least one
proposition is true, possibly both.

Either it rained last night, or a street cleaner went by.​


It did not rain last night.
Therefore – a street cleaner went by.

All women are either detectives or criminals.


Lexi is not a detective. ​
Therefore, Lexi is a criminal.
Thus, a valid disjunctive syllogism must contain in the premises a denial of
one alternative while the conclusion affirms the other.

Scenario: ​

Either Joey is in Toronto or he is in Brampton


Joey is in Toronto
Therefore – Joey is not in Brampton

3)​ Hypothetical syllogism – A conditional proposition; that involves an


antecedent and consequent, signaled by the words “if…then”

If it rained last night (antecedent), then the streets are wet (consequent)

Thus – both premises are conditional propositions.

If you water the flowers, then they will grow.


If the flowers grow, then you will have to trim them.​
Therefore – if you water the flowers, you will have to trim them.

Other examples:
Inductive Arguments:
​ It is the process of moving from specific cases to general conclusions

​ Deductive goes from the general to the specific

​ Inductive arguments are evaluated on the basis of reliability (reliable


or not reliable)
​ Thus, in a string inductive argument: if the premises are true the
conclusion is probably true, by virtue of a supportive inference.

Form Type Formula Example


1. Inductive generalization When P occurs, the most When I tidy my room, my parents
observed result is Q. are often happy.
P occurred. I tidied my room this morning.
Q will probably occur. My parents will probably be happy.
2. Statistical Induction Some percentage of all A’s 70% of careful eaters avoid heart
will become B’s disease.
A has x% chance of being Thomas is a careful eater.
a B. Thomas has a 70% chance of
avoiding heart disease.
3. Induction by Usually, a hypothesis is Hypothesis: Rinee robbed the
confirmation accepted. store.
The hypothesis is tested by Observations expected: Whoever
observing if evidence robbed the store will have motive,
exists to support it. opportunity and means
Observations noted: Rinee needed
money, was in the area, and had a
replica gun.
Conclusion: there is evidence
supporting the hypothesis that
Rinee robbed the store.

Other Examples:
Important notes on Induction:

Method of generalization:

1)​ Universal generalization

Ex. Instance 1 of A is observed to be X


Instance 2 of A is observed to be X
Instance 3 of A is observed to be X
Instance 4 of A is observed to be X
​
Therefore – all of A is X

2)​ Method of Analogy:

Ex. A is observed to be X & Y


B is observed to be X & Y
C is observed to be X & Y
D is observed to be X & Y

Therefore – D is Y

Mistakes with Inductive Reasoning:

1)​ Hasty Induction: Basing a conclusion on an insufficient number of


premises or observations.
Ex.
2)​ Lazy Induction: Not drawing a conclusion as strong as the evidence
suggests.
Ex.
3)​ Forgetful Induction: Neglecting some known data which, if recalled,
would cast that total reasoning in a different light.
Ex.

Scenario –
This swan is white
That swan is white
Every swan we’ve ever seen is white
We’ve never heard of any swans that are not white
Therefore – all swans are white.

You might also like