Deductive and Inductive Arguments

When assessing the quality of an argument, we ask how well its premises support its conclusion. More
specifically, we ask whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong.
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide
a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true. This point can be
expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support
for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An
argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid
argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said also to be sound. All arguments are
either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no middle ground, such as being somewhat valid.
Here is a valid deductive argument:

It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, then he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying
an umbrella.

The conclusion follows the word "So". The two premises of this argument would, if true, guarantee the truth of
the conclusion. However, we have been given no information that would enable us to decide whether the two
premises are both true, so we cannot assess whether the argument is deductively sound. It is one or the other,
but we do not know which. If it turns out that the argument has a false premise and so is unsound, this won't
change the fact that it is valid.

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument:

Every time I've walked by that dog, it hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog it won't try to
bite me.

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises
were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an inductive argument's success or
strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. There is no standard term for a successful
inductive argument, but this article uses the term "strong." Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to
be weak; there is no sharp line between strong and weak. The argument about the dog biting me would be
stronger if we couldn't think of any relevant conditions for why the next time will be different than previous
times. The argument also will be stronger the more times there were when I did walk by the dog. The argument
will be weaker the fewer times I have walked by the dog. It will be weaker if relevant conditions about the past
time will be different next time, such as that in the past the dog has been behind a closed gate, but next time
the gate will be open.
An inductive argument can be affected by acquiring new premises (evidence), but a deductive argument cannot
be. For example, this is a reasonably strong inductive argument:

Today, John said he likes Romona.

So, John likes Romona today.

but its strength is changed radically when we add this premise:

John told Felipé today that he didn’t really like Romona.

The distinction between deductive and inductive argumentation was first noticed by the Aristotle (384-322
B.C.E.) in ancient Greece. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not lie in the words
used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer. It comes from the relationship the arguer
takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the arguer believes that the truth of the
premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes
that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the
argument is inductive. If we who are assessing the quality of the argument have no information about the
intentions of the arguer, then we check for both. That is, we assess the argument to see whether it is deductively
valid and whether it is inductively strong.
The concept of deductive validity can be given alternative definitions to help you grasp the concept. Below are
five different definitions of the same concept. It is common to drop the word deductive from the
term deductively valid:
1. An argument is valid if the premises can’t all be true without the conclusion also being true.
2. An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises forces the conclusion to be true.
3. An argument is valid if it would be inconsistent for all its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false.
4. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its premises.
5. An argument is valid if it has no counterexample, that is, a possible situation that makes all the premises
true and the conclusion false.
Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from "conductive" arguments; the latter are arguments
giving explicit reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator of the argument to weigh these
competing considerations, that is, to consider the pros and cons. This article considers conductive arguments to
be a kind of inductive argument.

The noun "deduction" refers to the process of advancing or establishing a deductive argument, or going through
a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. "Induction" refers to the process of
advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive
argument.

Although inductive strength is a matter of degree, deductive validity and deductive soundness are not. In this
sense, deductive reasoning is much more cut and dried than inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, inductive
strength is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of whether the premise ought to promote a higher
degree of belief in the conclusion.
Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be
completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one,
then we say the conclusion is "contained within" the premises; that is, the conclusion does not go beyond what
the premises implicitly require. Think of sound deductive arguments as squeezing the conclusion out of the
premises within which it is hidden. For this reason, deductive arguments usually turn crucially upon definitions
and rules of mathematics and formal logic.
Consider how the rules of formal logic apply to this deductive argument:

John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting today. Therefore, John won't be able to
attend our meeting today.

That argument is valid due to its formal or logical structure. To see why, notice that if the word 'ill' were replaced
with 'happy', the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus
ponens by logicians). Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus ponens:
P

If P, then Q
So, Q

The capital letters should be thought of as variables that can be replaced with declarative sentences, or
statements, or propositions, namely items that are true or false. The investigation of logical forms that involve
whole sentences and not their subjects and verbs and other parts is called Propositional Logic.
The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive arguments are valid because of their logical
structure is still controversial in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will not be explored further
in this article.

Inductive arguments can take very wide-ranging forms. Some have the form of making a claim about a population
or set based only on information from a sample of that population, a subset. Other inductive arguments draw
conclusions by appeal to evidence, or authority, or causal relationships. There are other forms.

Here is a somewhat strong inductive argument having the form of an argument based on authority:

The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:

The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:

Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. John's fingerprints are on the murder
weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.

This last argument, if its premises are known to be true, is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict John, but
none of these three arguments about John committing the murder is strong enough to be called "valid," at least
not in the technical sense of deductively valid. However, some lawyers will tell their juries that these are valid
arguments, so we critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people around us are using the term "valid."
You have to be alert to what they mean rather than what they say. From the barest clues, the English detective
Sherlock Holmes cleverly "deduced" who murdered whom, but actually he made only an educated guess. Strictly
speaking, he produced an inductive argument and not a deductive one. Charles Darwin, who discovered the
process of evolution, is famous for his "deduction" that circular atolls in the oceans are actually coral growths on
the top of barely submerged volcanoes, but he really performed an induction, not a deduction.

It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts define "deduction" as reasoning from the general to
specific and define "induction" as reasoning from the specific to the general. However, there are many inductive
arguments that do not have that form, for example, "I saw her kiss him,really kiss him, so I'm sure she's having
an affair."
The mathematical proof technique called "mathematical induction" is deductive and not inductive. Proofs that
make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:

Property P is true of the natural number 0.

For all natural numbers n, if P holds of nthen P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, and when all the premises are true, then the conclusion follows
necessarily. Therefore, such an inductive argument is deductive. It is deductively sound, too.

Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the
author believes the premises provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard
to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content
or subject matter of the argument, nor with the presence or absence of any particular word. Indeed, the same
utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depending on what the person
advancing it believes. Consider as an example:
Dom Perignon 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 speaker's 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.

As noted, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that
the arguer intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. Another complication in our discussion of
deduction and induction is that the arguer might intend the premises to justify the conclusion when in fact the
premises provide no justification at all. Here is an example:
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.

This argument is invalid because the premises provide no support whatsoever 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. It is not inductive.
Given the way the terms “deductive argument” and “inductive argument” are defined here, an argument is
always one or the other and never both, but in deciding which one of the two it is, it is common to ask whether
it meets both the deductive standards and inductive standards. Given a set of premises and their intended
conclusion, we analysts will ask whether it is deductively valid, and, if so, whether it is also deductively sound. If
it is not deductively valid, then we may go on to assess whether it is inductively strong.

We are very likely to use the information that the argument is not deductively valid to ask ourselves what
premises, if they were to be assumed, would make the argument be valid. Then we might ask whether these
premises were implicit and intended originally. Similarly, we might ask what premises are needed to improve the
strength of an inductive argument, and we might ask whether these premises were intended all along. If so, then
we change our mind about what argument existed was back in the original passage. So, the application of
deductive and inductive standards is used in the process of extracting the argument from the passage within
which it is embedded. The process goes like this: Extract the argument from the passage; assess it with deductive
and inductive standards; perhaps revise the decision about which argument existed in the original passage; then
reassess this new argument using our deductive and inductive standards.

Implicit premises and implicit features of explicit premises can play important roles in argument evaluation.
Suppose we want to know whether Julius Caesar did conquer Rome. In response, some historian might point out
that it could be concluded with certainty from these two pieces of information:

The general of the Roman Legions of Gaul crossed the Rubicon River and conquered Rome.
Caesar was the general of the Roman Legions in Gaul at that time.

That would produce a valid argument. But now notice that, if "at that time" were missing from the second piece
of information, then the argument would not be valid. Here is why. Maybe Caesar was the general at one time,
but Tiberius was the general at the time of the river crossing and Rome conquering. If the phrase “at that time”
were missing, you the analyst have to worry about how likely it is that the phrase was intended. So, you are faced
with two arguments, one valid and one invalid, and you don't know which is the intended argument.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise,
a deductive argument is unsound.

According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a
deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion
whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the
author's process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the
conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The
following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false:

Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn.

Elizabeth does not own a Honda.

Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the
argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right
way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in
the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would
have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.

All items made of gold are time-travel devices.

Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true,
but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth.
It is easy to see that the previous example is not an example of a completely good argument. A valid argument
may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not
only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually
true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound. However, the following argument is both valid
and sound:

In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.

In those states, some professional athletes are felons.

Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for the conclusion, but the premises are
actually true. Therefore, so is the conclusion. Although it is not part of the definition of a sound argument,
because sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the
conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions.

It should be noted that both invalid, as well as valid but unsound, arguments can nevertheless have true
conclusions. One cannot reject the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering a given argument for that
conclusion to be flawed.

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However, according
to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely
by its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that which remains of it when one abstracts away from
the specific content of the premises and the conclusion, that is, words naming things, their properties and
relations, leaving only those elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject matter,
that is, words such as "all," "and," "not," "some," and so forth. One can represent the logical form of an
argument by replacing the specific content words with letters used as place-holders or variables.

For example, consider these two arguments:

All tigers are mammals.

No mammals are creatures with scales.

Therefore, no tigers are creatures with scales.

All spider monkeys are elephants.

No elephants are animals.

Therefore, no spider monkeys are animals.

These arguments share the same form:

All A are B;

No B are C;

Therefore, No A are C.
All arguments with this form are valid. Because they have this form, the examples above are valid. However,
the first example is sound while the second is unsound, because its premises are false. Now consider:

All basketballs are round.

The Earth is round.

Therefore, the Earth is a basketball.

All popes reside at the Vatican.

John Paul II resides at the Vatican.

Therefore, John Paul II is a pope.

These arguments also have the same form:

All A's are F;

X is F;

Therefore, X is an A.

Arguments with this form are invalid. This is easy to see with the first example. The second example may seem
like a good argument because the premises and the conclusion are all true, but note that the conclusion's truth
isn't guaranteed by the premises' truth. It could have been possible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. This argument is invalid, and all invalid arguments are unsound.

While it is accepted by most contemporary logicians that logical validity and invalidity is determined entirely
by form, there is some dissent. Consider, for example, the following arguments:

My table is circular. Therefore, it is not square shaped.

Juan is a bachelor. Therefore, he is not married.

These arguments, at least on the surface, have the form:

x is F;

Therefore, x is not G.

Arguments of this form are not valid as a rule. However, it seems clear in these particular cases that it is, in
some strong sense, impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. However, many
logicians would respond to these complications in various ways. Some might insist--although this is
controverisal--that these arguments actually contain implicit premises such as "Nothing is both circular and
square shaped" or "All bachelors are unmarried," which, while themselves necessary truths, nevertheless play
a role in the form of these arguments. It might also be suggested, especially with the first argument, that while
(even without the additional premise) there is a necessary connection between the premise and the
conclusion, the sort of necessity involved is something other than "logical" necessity, and hence that this
argument (in the simple form) should not be regarded as logically valid. Lastly, especially with regard to the
second example, it might be suggested that because "bachelor" is defined as "adult unmarried male", that the
true logical form of the argument is the following universally valid form:

x is F and not G and H;

Therefore, x is not G.

The logical form of a statement is not always as easy to discern as one might expect. For example, statements
that seem to have the same surface grammar can nevertheless differ in logical form. Take for example the two
statements:

(1) Tony is a ferocious tiger.

(2) Clinton is a lame duck.

Despite their apparent similarity, only (1) has the form "x is a A that is F." From it one can validly infer that Tony
is a tiger. One cannot validly infer from (2) that Clinton is a duck. Indeed, one and the same sentence can be
used in different ways in different contexts. Consider the statement:

(3) The King and Queen are visiting dignitaries.

It is not clear what the logical form of this statement is. Either there are dignitaries that the King and Queen
are visiting, in which case the sentence (3) has the same logical form as "The King and Queen are playing
violins," or the King and Queen are themselves the dignitaries who are visiting from somewhere else, in which
case the sentence has the same logical form as "The King and Queen are sniveling cowards." Depending on
which logical form the statement has, inferences may be valid or invalid. Consider:

The King and Queen are visiting dignitaries. Visiting dignitaries is always boring. Therefore, the King and Queen
are doing something boring.

Only if the statement is given the first reading can this argument be considered to be valid.

Because of the difficulty in identifying the logical form of an argument, and the potential deviation of logical
form from grammatical form in ordinary language, contemporary logicians typically make use of artificial logical
languages in which logical form and grammatical form coincide. In these artificial languages, certain symbols,
similar to those used in mathematics, are used to represent those elements of form analogous to ordinary
English words such as "all", "not", "or", "and", and so forth. The use of an artificially constructed language
makes it easier to specify a set of rules that determine whether or not a given argument is valid or invalid.
Hence, the study of which deductive argument forms are valid and which are invalid is often called "formal
logic" or "symbolic logic."

In short, a deductive argument must be evaluated in two ways. First, one must ask if the premises provide
support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then,
one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an argument passes both these tests
is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no
support for its truth is given by the argument.

Note: there are other, related, uses of these words that are found within more advanced mathematical logic.
In that context, a formula (on its own) written in a logical language is said to be valid if it comes out as true (or
"satisfied") under all admissible or standard assignments of meaning to that formula within the intended
semantics for the logical language. Moreover, an axiomatic logical calculus (in its entirety) is said to be sound
if and only if all theorems derivable from the axioms of the logical calculus are semantically valid in the sense
just described.

Validity and Soundness

When we evaluate arguments, we begin by evaluating the inferential claim, then move to the factual claim.

Validity and Soundness apply to deductive arguments.

A valid deductive argument is an argument such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. The conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.

On the other hand, an invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument such that it is possible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false. The conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the
premises.

Note that there is no middle ground--an argument cannot be "almost" valid.

To test an argument for validity, we begin by assuming that the premises are true. Assuming they are true, is it
possible for the conclusion to be false?

Examples:

All television networks are media companies.

NBC is a television network.

Therefore, NBC is a media company.

Imagine that the premises are true (and they are), and then ask: is it possible for the conclusion to be false?
Not in this case.

All automakers are computer manufacturers.

United Airlines is an automaker.

Therefore, United Airlines is a computer manufacturer.

Again, imagine that the premises are true (they are not), and then ask: is it possible for the conclusion to be
false? Again, not in this case, even though the premises themselves are false.

Note: The truth or falsity of the individual premises has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. It is
valid or invalid regardless of the truth value of its premises. In a valid argument, we say that if the premises are
true, then the conclusion must be true.

Another example:

All banks are financial institutions.

Smith-Barney is a financial institution.

 Therefore, Smith-Barney is a bank.

True premises, false conclusion. This argument form is invalid. The relationship between the premises and
conclusion determines validity. Note that any (EVERY!) deductive argument with actually true premises and an
actually false conclusion is, by definition, invalid.

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. Notice that, by definition, a sound argument will
have a true conclusion as well. An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more
false premises, or both. Review table 1.1, page 47.

Strength and Cogency

Strength and Cogency apply to inductive arguments.

A strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises be true and
the conclusion false. A weak inductive argument, on the other hand, is one in which the conclusion probably
does not follow from the premises.

Again, assume that the premises are true, and then we determine whether, based on that assumption, the
conclusion is probably true.

Examples:

All crows we have seen to date are black. Therefore, probably the next crow we see will be black.

All meteorites found to this day have contained sugar. Therefore, probably the next meteorite found will
contain sugar.

Both are strong. The first argument, though, is cogent while the second is uncogent. Cogent: A strong inductive
argument with all true premises.

During the past fifty years, inflation has consistently reduced the value of the American Dollar. Therefore,
industrial productivity will probably increase in the years ahead.

Notice: Both of these may well be true, but the premise provides no evidence for the conclusion. It is weak.
Again, the strength of an argument is simply the degree to which the premises, when assumed true, support
the conclusion.

Review table 1.2, page 50.

Note: For both inductive and deductive arguments, the only arrangement of truth and falsity relevant to
validity or soundness is when we have true premises and a false conclusion. Difference: the strength of an
inductive argument is a matter of degree. Validity is either/or.