Scribd
Upload
163 views2 pages

Worksheet 3 - Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Uploaded by

amoralde
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
163 views2 pages

Worksheet 3 - Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Uploaded by

amoralde
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/ 2

PHIN101

Worksheet 3
First Semester, 2023-2024

Instructions: In 500 words or less, answer the following questions.

1. Differentiate deductive from inductive arguments.

Logic and critical thinking involve two different types of reasoning: deductive and
inductive arguments. Their approaches, structures, and the degree of certainty they offer in
their results diverge significantly.

Deductive reasoning is distinguished by its demanding and logical order, in which


the premises inevitably lead to the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the conclusion must
be true if the premises are true. This is frequently referred to as the argument's "validity".
The goal of deductive reasoning is to provide conclusions with a high degree of certainty.
The following is an example of a deductive argument: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a
man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." In this instance, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is
true if the premises (all men are mortal and Socrates is a man) are true.

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, has a more fluid structure and a conclusion
that is supported by the premises but not necessarily the truth. If the premises of an inductive
argument are true, the conclusion is probably true but may still be untrue. The "strength" of
the argument is frequently used to describe this. The goal of inductive arguments is to
provide likelihood or probability in their results. "Every observed swan so far is white.
Therefore, all swans are white." This is an example of an inductive argument; the
conclusion is based on perceived instances and is probably true, but there's always a
chance that an exception may be found (e.g., a non-white swan).

In conclusion, inductive arguments offer probability or chance but not certainty, while
deductive arguments offer a high degree of accuracy if their premises are precise. While
inductive reasoning is frequently used in scientific investigation, generalizations, and
predictions based on observed facts, deductive reasoning is frequently utilized in formal
logic, mathematics, and syllogisms.

2. What is a sound argument?

A sound argument in logic is a specific type of deductive argument that satisfies two
requirements:

Validity: The conclusion of the argument must logically flow from the premises in order for it
to have an acceptable structure. Put another way, the conclusion must be true if the
premises are true. The logical structure of the argument determines its validity; the truth or
falsity of the premises has nothing to do with this.

True Premises: The argument's premises have to be true as well. This implies that the
data or assertions that serve as the foundation for the argument must be true or accurate.
3. What is a valid argument?

In logic, a valid argument is a form of deductive argument where the conclusion


comes logically from the premises. If the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion
must likewise be true. As stated otherwise, the argument's structure ensures that the
conclusion is true based just on the premises being true. But the logical connection between
the premises and the conclusion is all that matters in determining if an argument is valid, not
whether the premises are true or false.

4. What is syllogism?

A syllogism is a type of deductive reasoning where two statements (premises) that


are affirmed or taken to be true are used to reach a conclusion. Three components make up
a syllogism: a main premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. They are organized
arguments. They adhere to a particular logical pattern, and since the syllogism is correct and
both premises are true, the conclusion must likewise be true.

5. What are the two valid types of mixed hypothetical syllogism?

In a mixed hypothetical syllogism, which combines elements of both categorical and


hypothetical syllogisms, there are two valid types:

1. Modus Ponens:
- Major Premise (hypothetical): If P, then Q.
- Minor Premise (categorical): P is true.
- Conclusion (categorical): Therefore, Q is true.

Example:
Major Premise: If it rains (hypothetical), then the ground is wet.
Minor Premise: It is raining (categorical).
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet (categorical).

2. Modus Tollens:
- Major Premise (hypothetical): If P, then Q.
- Minor Premise (categorical): Q is false.
- Conclusion (categorical): Therefore, P is false.

Example:
Major Premise: If it rains (hypothetical), then the ground is wet.
Minor Premise: The ground is not wet (categorical).
Conclusion: Therefore, it is not raining (categorical).

These are the two valid forms of mixed hypothetical syllogisms, and they rely on both
hypothetical (conditional) statements and categorical statements to draw conclusions. Modus
Ponens affirms the antecedent, while Modus Tollens denies the consequent.

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