DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE

ARGUMENT
-

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS:

Does not lie solely in the words used
Comes from the relationship the author of the argument takes there to be between
premises & conclusion.
DEDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE
Intended by the arguer to be - Intended by the arguer merely to
(deductively) valid, that is, to provide
establish or increase the probability of its
a guarantee of the truth of the
conclusion.
conclusion
provided
that
the - The premises are intended only to be so
arguments premises (assumptions)
strong that, if they were true, then it
are true.
would be unlikely that the conclusion is
The premises are intended to provide
false.
such
strong
support
for
the - There is no standard term for a
conclusion that, if the premises are
successful inductive argument. But its
true, then it would be impossible for
success or strength is a matter of degree,
the conclusion to be false.
unlike with deductive arguments.
An argument in which the premises - Does not think that the truth of the
premises definitely establishes the truth of
do succeed in guaranteeing the
the conclusion, but nonetheless believes
conclusion is called a (deductively)
that their truth provides good reason to
valid argument. If a valid argument
believe the conclusion true
has true conclusions, then the
Might conclude with some claim about a
argument is said to be sound.
group based only on information from a
A deductive argument is valid or else
sample of that group.
invalid.
Believes that the truth of the - Induction refers to the process of
advancing an inductive argument, or
premises definitely
establishes the
making use of reasoning ( reasoning from
truth of the conclusion (due to
the specific to the general)
definition, logical entailment, logical
Example: Every time Ive walked by that
structure, or mathematical necessity)
dog, he hasnt tried to bite me. So, the next
Deduction refers to the process of
time I walk by that dog he wont try to bite
advancing or establishing a deductive
me.
argument, or going through a process
of reasoning
(reasoning from the
general to specific)
Example: Its sunny in Singapore. If its
sunny in Singapore, he wont be
carrying an umbrella. So, he wont be
carrying an umbrella.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
MODUS PONENS- FOLLOW FROM DEFINITIONS, MATHEMATICS AND RULES OF
FORMAL LOGIC

John is ill. If John is ill, then he wont be able to attend our meeting today.
Therefore, John wont be able to attend our meeting today.
That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If ill were replaced with
happy, the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special
logical structure.

MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION = DEDUCTIVE!

Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are
true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive
by contemporary standards.

STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE
Dom Paragon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the
Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of champagne and so the
conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that
the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no
such thought is in the speakers mind. He or she may merely believe that nearly all
champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her
intention, then the argument is inductive.

LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This argument is logically fallacious because it is invalid. In actuality, the premises
provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever
seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the
premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still
deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Argument based on authority:
The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.
Argument based on evidence:
The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.
Argument based on better evidence:

Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. Johns

fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon. John confessed to the
crime. So, John committed the murder.

COMMON FALLACIES

Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning. They may be intentional or

unintentional, but in either case they undermine the strength of an argument. Some
common fallacies are defined below.
1. Hasty Generalization: A generalization based on too little evidence, or on
evidence that is biased. Example: All men are testosterone-driven idiots. Or: After
being in New York for a week, I can tell you: all New Yorkers are rude.
2. Either/Or Fallacy: Only two possibilities are presented when in fact several
exist. Example: America: love it or leave it. Or: Shut down all nuclear power plants,
or watch your children and grandchildren die from radiation poisoning.
3. Non Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow logically from the premise.
Example: My teacher is pretty; I'll learn a lot from her. Or: George Bush was a war
hero; he'll be willing to stand tough for America.
4. Ad Hominem: Arguing against the man instead of against the issue. Example:
We can't elect him mayor. He cheats on his wife! Or: He doesn't really believe in the
First Amendment. He just wants to defend his right to see porno flicks.
5. Red Herring: Distracting the audience by drawing attention to an irrelevant
issue. Example: How can he be expected to manage the company? Look at how he
manages his wife!
6. Circular Reasoning: Asserting a point that has just been made. Sometimes
called "begging the question." Example: She is ignorant because she was never
educated. Or: We sin because we're sinners.
7. False Analogy: Wrongly assuming that because two things are alike in some
ways, they must be alike in all ways. Example: An old grandmother's advice to her
granddaughter, who is contemplating living with her boyfriend: "Why should he buy
the cow when he can get the milk for free?"
8. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: The mistake of assuming that, because event a is
followed by event b, event a caused event b. Example: It rained today because I
washed my car. Or: The stock market fell because the Japanese are considering
implementing an import tax.

9. Equivocation: Equates two meanings of the same word falsely. Example:

Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation. Faith is irrational, it is belief
in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Therefore: Christianity teaches that
irrationality is rewarded.
10. Middle Ground: The fallacy of the middle ground is based on the assertion
that a proposition is true simply because it falls between two more extreme
propositions. The principle of moderation is however not necessarily fallacious.
Example: Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.
Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to
accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that
he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me

NON-ARGUMENTS
- Remember, if an inferential claim is being made between the evidence and
conclusion, then there is an argument. In order to establish this, the reader must
make a subjective deduction about the author's intentions.
1. Warning
- An expression that is extended to put someone on guard against a dangerous
situation.
- Ex. No Smoking!
2. Piece of Advice
- An expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision
- Ex. Study hard to pass the subject.
3. Statements of belief or opinion
- An expression about what someone happens to believe or think about
something.
- Ex. I think he likes you.
The difference between piece of advice and the statements of belief or opinion is
the word I
4. Report
- Consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic
or event
- Give information to general public but not proven something.
5. Expository Passage
- A kind of discourse that beings with a topic sentence (should be acclaimed
fact) followed by one or more sentences.
- Ex. Man is composed of body and soul. The body is the material substance
and the soul is the immaterial substance

Ex. The Philippines is a democratic country. It allows the people to vote their
candidate.
topic sentence distinguishes the topic sentence

6. Illustration
- An expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what
something means or how it is done.
- topic sentence giving examples
7. Explanation
- Explanandum
o describes the events (accepted fact)
o explain why is something like that
- Explanants
o the statements or group of statements that purports (to make sense
of) to do at the explaining (non-argument)
- Ex. The Philippines is a democratic country because it allows its citizens to
vote for their preferred candidate. (Explanandum underlined)
8. Conditional
- If/else statement