Scribd
Upload
74 views2 pages

Math in The Modern World

George Polya identified a 4-step process for problem solving: 1) Understand the problem, 2) Devise a plan, 3) Carry out the plan, and 4) Look back. There are two types of reasoning: deductive reasoning starts with general premises and uses logic to reach a specific conclusion, while inductive reasoning uses specific observations to derive general conclusions or probabilities. Logic puzzles can be solved using deductive reasoning to organize clues and deduce what occurred.

Uploaded by

Valerie Mae Librero Areño
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views2 pages

Math in The Modern World

George Polya identified a 4-step process for problem solving: 1) Understand the problem, 2) Devise a plan, 3) Carry out the plan, and 4) Look back. There are two types of reasoning: deductive reasoning starts with general premises and uses logic to reach a specific conclusion, while inductive reasoning uses specific observations to derive general conclusions or probabilities. Logic puzzles can be solved using deductive reasoning to organize clues and deduce what occurred.

Uploaded by

Valerie Mae Librero Areño
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

POLYA’S 4-STEP PROBEM SOLVING Two types of Argument or Reasoning

George Polya was a mathematician educator who 1. Deductive Reasoning


strongly believed that the skill of a problem solving can 2. Inductive Reasoning
be taught. He identified four basic principles on
problem solving. Deductive Reasoning
Polya’s four-step in problem solving process -is usually an argument where the conclusion is inferred
from one or more premises.
- starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis and
examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical
conclusion.
- begins with a premise that is valid to reinforce or
Step 1. Understand the problem. develop a right and official conclusion.
– Do you understand all the words used in stating
the problem?
– What are you asked to find or show? What are
the data? What is the condition?
– Can you restate the problem in your own
words?
– Can you think of a picture or diagram that might
help you understand the problem?
– Is there enough information to enable you to
find a solution?

Step 2. Devise a Plan


There are many reasonable ways to solve problems. The
skill at choosing an appropriate strategy is best learned Deductive Validity
by solving many problems. -a deductive reasoning is valid just in case the truth of
“How are you going to attack the problem?” its premises would absolutely guarantee the truth of its
conclusion.
Step 3. Carrying out a Plan -impossible for the premises to be true and the
All you need is care and patience, given that you have conclusion to false.
the necessary skills.
If it continues not to work, discard it and choose Logic Puzzles
another. Work carefully by checking each step. Can you -is derived from the mathematics field of deduction. It
see clearly that the step is correct? Can you prove that it can be solved by using deductive reasoning and by
is correct? organizing the data in a given situation. A logic puzzle is
basically a description of an event or any situation.
Step 4. Looking back Using the clues provided, one has to piece together
– Can you check the result? Can you check the what actually happened.
argument?
– Can you derive the solution differently? Can you Inductive Reasoning
see it at a glance? - while deductive reasoning implies logical certainty,
– Can you use the result, or the method, for some inductive reasoning only gives you a reasonable
other problem? probability.
- arguments whose conclusions follow, or appear to
WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? follow probably.
– a group of statements, in which some of them - begins with specifics and concludes with
(the premise) are intended to support another generalizations.
statement (the conclusion).
– An argument is not a quarrel, bickering, or
verbal fighting of any kind. When we use the
word argument in logic, this is not what we
mean.
Inductive Validity
-inductive reasoning is one where the conclusion does
not necessarily follow from the premises, but rather, it
probably follows from premises.
-it is possible that the premises could be true and the
conclusion be false.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy