USING AT LEAST THREE CONCRETE EXEMPLIFICATIONS OF EACH,

DEMONSTRATE HOW DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING IS

EMPLOYED IN LIFE.
Induction and deduction designate two procedures of reasoning. Induction corresponds to a
process which allows to pass from the particular (observed facts, singular cases, experimental
data, situations) to the general (a law, a theory, a general knowledge). The deduction
corresponds to Induction reasoning. However, it is a reverse process that allows to conclude
(deduce) a statement from hypotheses, premises or a theoretical framework: the conclusions
formally result from these premises or from this theory. These two reasoning procedures are
ideals: neither of them corresponds to the reality of scientific practices and research methods
in all the other sciences, and it would be reductive to believe that the scientific approach is
necessarily based on either of these procedures. When they are not reduced to these ideals,
the terms induction and deduction designate two postures of the researcher. The inductive
posture gives primacy to investigation, observation, even experience and tries to draw more
general lessons, universal observations: the sociologist seeks to establish a few statements
whose validity goes beyond the framework of his only observations. The deductive posture
gives primacy to the theoretical framework, to the body of premises. It will be qualified as
hypothetico-deductive if the statements or results deduced from this theoretical framework or
from the premises are subjected to an experimental valuation: in this case, the sociologist
formulates general hypotheses, then deduces observable consequences before verifying that
those are indeed in conformity with the data of the empirical survey.

Exemplifications:
A. INDUCTIVE
Being a reasoning moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.
Its conclusions are established in four stages which are:
Observation: Collect facts without bias.
Analysis: Classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity.
Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts
Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation.
Examples
1. The chair in the living room is red. The chair in the dining room is red. The chair in
the bedroom is red. All the chairs in the house are red.

2. Every time you eat peanuts, you start to cough. You are allergic to peanuts.

3. Every chicken we have seen has been brown. All chickens in this area must be brown.
Note that: An inductive argument can be Strong or weak. It is strong when its promises
provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false. It is week when its
premises do not provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false.

B. DEDUCTIVE
Deductive reasoning is commonly found in the natural sciences or “hard” sciences, less so in
everyday arguments. Occasionally, everyday arguments do involve deductive reasoning. It is
established only by reference to the propositions stated. The validity of the reasoning is
linked to the respect of the form, but the conclusion may false if one of the premises is false,
but it is necessarily true if the premises are true.

Examples
1. I must have 40 credits to graduate this spring. Because I only have 38 credits, I will
not be graduating this spring.

2. When your dog always barks when someone is at the door, when it has not barked,
then you conclude that there is no one at the door.

3. My state requires all lawyers pass the bar to practice. If I do not pass the bar, then I
will not be able to represent someone legally.

Note that: While deductive reasoning is considered a reliable form of testing, it’s important
to recognize it may sometimes lead to a false conclusion. This generally occurs when one of
the first assumptive statements is false. It is also possible to come to an accurate conclusion
even if one or both of the generalized premises are false.