Deductive & Inductive

Arguments
 Compare

 Example 1:  Example 2:
P1) If you take Critical Thinking this P1) If you take Critical Thinking,
term, you don’t have to take it next you will most likely be good at
term. creating arguments.
P2) You did take Critical Thinking this P2) You have taken Critical
term. Thinking.
------------------------ -------------------
C) Therefore, you don’t have to take C) Therefore, you are good at
Critical Thinking next term. creating arguments.

What is the difference between these two cases?

 Example 1: If the premises of example 1 REALLY ARE TRUE,
then the conclusion must also be true.

 Example 2: But if the premises of example 2 REALLY ARE

TRUE, then the conclusion is only probably true.

In this sense, the difference is that E1 guarantees the

truth of the conclusion, while E2 does not…
 Deductive vs. Inductive:
 Deductive Arguments: An argument
that is intended to guarantee the
truth of its conclusion, given that
the premises are also true.
 TRUTH PRESERVING: In this
sense, we can say that deductive
arguments are truth preserving—
the truth is preserved from the
premises to the conclusion.
 Of course, a deductive argument
might fail to be truth preserving—
but we’ll get to that in a minute.
Inductive Arguments: An argument that is
intended to support the likelihood of the
arguments conclusion (but not to guarantee
it).
NOT truth preserving: The premises can
be true, yet the conclusion might still be
false (even if the premises make the
conclusion likely/probable).
These are the first important points of the
distinction to keep in mind…
 Recognising Deductive & Inductive Arguments
A. P1) I am hungry or I am tired.
P2) I am not hungry.
Deductive
C) Therefore, I am tired.
B. P1) I am upset and I am tired.
C) Therefore, I am going to bed.
Inductive
C. P1) If I am driving on an icy road,
then my car will easily skid.
InductiveP2) I am driving on an icy road.
(notice
C) Therefore, my car will skid.
‘easily’)
D. P1) If I go outside in the snow, I am
cold.
Deductive P2) If I am cold, I need a coat.
P3) I go outside in the snow.
C) Therefore, I need a coat.
E. P1) This washing machine is really
good at cleaning clothes.
Inductive
P2) I used the washing machine this
morning.
C) Therefore, my clothes are clean.
F. P1) I win only if I come first.
Deductive P2) I won.
C) Therefore, I came first.
 A side note on Inductive Arguments
B.
P1) I am upset and I am tired.
P2) If I am upset and tired,
then I will go to bed.
--------
C) Therefore, I will go to bed
 Imagine that you have this inductive argument.
 What premise might you add to turn it into a
deductive argument?
 That’s great! It means that the argument now
guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
HOWEVER…
 Why might we NOT want to do that to the
argument?
 Well, is P2 true? (It’s no good supporting an
argument with a false premise!—sometimes
induction is the best we can do.)
 Induction and Deduction in a bit more detail…

 We will now delineate four important characteristics of each

type of argument.

 We will begin with inductive arguments.

 Inductive Arguments

 CHARACTERISTIC ONE: STRONG OR WEAK

 Inductive arguments can be STRONG or WEAK depending on

how well the evidence (in the premises) supports the conclusion.

 The better the evidence is for the conclusion, the stronger the
inductive argument is.
 Inductive Arguments
 Example:
P1) John is a Lingnan student and has brown hair.
P2) Jane is a Lingnan student and has brown hair.
P3) Dennis is a Lingnan student and has brown hair.
(…. we could give more premises with more evidence)
--------
C) Therefore, all Lingnan students have brown hair.

BEFORE WE ADD MORE PREMISES, IS THIS A STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT?

 This is not a strong inductive argument
because the number of samples is too low.
 We know that Lingnan has thousands of
students, so it is unlikely (based on the
sample) that they all have brown hair.
 The evidence in the premises is not
strong enough to support the conclusion.
 How could the evidence be made
stronger?
Side note: Sometimes inductive
arguments require us to consider some
of our background evidence (as well as
the premises). In this case, that means
the total number of students at Lingnan.
However, it is a contentious issue how
much background evidence should be
considered relevant. Ideally, we want
the argument in itself to make the
conclusion highly probable.
 Which of these are strong/weak?
1.
P1) I walked past the dog every morning for 4.
6 years. P1) John confessed to the robbery.
P2) The dog never tried to bite me. P2) Many witnesses said John committed
C) Thus, the dog will not try to bite me the robbery.
tomorrow.
P3) They found the weapon used to
2.
commit the robbery on John
P1) I walked past the lion this morning and it C) Thus, John committed the robbery.
didn’t bite me.
C) Thus, the lion won’t bite you when you 5.
walk past later today. P1) For the last year, I have been to the
gym every Thursday.
3.
C) Thus, I will go to the gym next
P1) I’ve thrown the ball for the dog many
times, and it always usually chases it. Thursday.
C) So, next time I throw the ball, the dog will
chase it.
 Inductive Arguments: More Precision
 Sometimes (but not always) we can be more precise with inductive strength. We can
say:

Inductively Strong: An argument is inductively strong if and only if the

probability of its conclusion given its premises is equal or above 0.75 (more than 75%
likely) and the argument is not valid.
Inductively Weak: An argument is inductively weak if and only if the probability
of its conclusion given its premises is above 0.5 (50%) and less than 0.75 (75%).
Inductively Irrelevant: An argument is inductively irrelevant if and only if the
probability of its conclusion given its premises is 0.5 (exactly 50%).
Inductively Bad: An argument is inductively bad if and only if the probability
of its conclusion given its premises is below 0.5 (less than 50% likely).
Examples:
 You flipped a fair coin, therefore it will land heads up.
 Irrelevant – it is exactly 50/50

 You bought a Mark 6 lottery ticket, the chance of winning is 1 in 14 million. Therefore, you will
win!
 Inductively bad. The exact opposite of the conclusion is more likely. You will probably lose.

 You beat your friend in 6/10 of the last basketball games. Therefore, you will win the next one.
 Inductively weak. You are still the favourite, but past experience tells us the probability is just
0.6 in your favour (i.e. 60% likely)

 You beat your friend in 9/10 of the last basketball games. Therefore, you will win the next one.
 Inductively strong. This suggests that you are 90% likely to win.
Inductive Arguments
 CHARACTERISTIC TWO: NOT Truth Preserving.
 The conclusion of an inductive argument can be false even if
the premises are true. (Recall: NOT-Truth preserving.)
 This is because even when the premises are true they only
make the conclusion probable; they do not guarantee it.
 For example, from the fact alone that the sun has risen every
day of our lives (true), we cannot say that it will definitely rise
tomorrow (even though it is highly likely).
Inductive Arguments

Robbery Example

P1) John confessed to the robbery.

P2) Many witnesses said John committed the robbery.
P3) They found the weapon used to commit the robbery on John
C) Thus, John committed the robbery.

As we said, this can also have true premises and a false

conclusion, even though it is a strong inductive argument.
Inductive Arguments
 CHARACTERISTIC THREE: PREMISE ADDING
 Adding a new premise to an inductive argument can change the
argument from a strong inductive argument to a weak inductive
argument (or the other way around).

P1) Every day for the last year the swimming pool has had water in it.
C) Therefore, tomorrow the swimming pool will have water in it.

 What if we add the premise: “P2: The is likely to be emptied for cleaning
tomorrow.”?
 This turns a strong inductive argument into a weak inductive
argument.
 Exercise: Add a premise to make these
arguments (i) weaker and (ii) stronger.
1. 3.
P1) Every operation the surgeon has P1) The sun has risen everyday in the
performed so far has been successful. past.
P2) Tomorrow I will have an P2) The laws of physics aren’t going to
operation by the same surgeon. change.
C) Thus, my operation will be C) Thus, the sun will rise tomorrow.
successful.

2. 4.
P1) The dog has never bitten me in P1) I drink alcohol every night before I
the past. drive home.
C) Thus, the dog will not bite me P2) I haven’t crashed when driving home
today. before.
C) Thus, I won’t crash when I drink
alcohol and drive home tonight.
 Inductive Arguments

 FOURTH CHARACTERISTIC: GENERALISING

INFORMATION

 The conclusion of an inductive argument takes us beyond

what the premises say alone.

 The conclusion gives us information that is NOT

CONTAINED in the premises alone.
 Example:

P1) Every raven ever observed has been black.

C) Therefore, every raven is black.

 The conclusion tells us something about all ravens (it

GENERALISES) but the premise only has information about the
ravens that have been observed. This is a strong inductive
argument, but still the information in the conclusion OFFERS
MORE INFORMATION (in this sense, it “goes beyond”) that
which is contained in the premises.
 Another example:

P1) John confessed to the robbery.

P2) Many witnesses said John committed the robbery.
P3) They found the weapon used to commit the robbery on John
-----
C) Thus, John committed the robbery.

 Notice: It might be true that John committed the robbery, but that
information is not included in the premises alone. It is something
we infer from the premises.
 (This will contrast with a point about deductive arguments later…)
Deductive Arguments

 CHARACTERISTIC ONE: VALIDITY & SOUNDNESS

 Deductive arguments can be valid/invalid, sound/unsound.

 Deductive arguments ARE NOT strong or weak.

Deductive Arguments

 VALIDITY: An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the

premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

 SOUNDNESS: An argument is sound if and only if it is both

valid and the premises are in fact true (in the real world).

 WTF?!
 Deductive Arguments
P1) If I am at my computer, I am on Facebook.
P2) I am at my computer.
C) Therefore, I am on Facebook.
IS THIS ARGUMENT VALID AND IS IT SOUND?

VALIDITY:
Imagine that the premises are true.
Would the conclusion then also be
true?
YES! (The truth is preserved!)
SOUNDNESS:
Ask yourself: Are the premises
really true?
NO! (E.g. P2 is false, I am not at my
computer right now-so, soundness
depends on the way the world really
is.)
 Exercise: Validity and Soundness (check the facts online!)

1. 3.
P1) Napoleon was born in Corsica or P1) I’ve been bowling every year for my
he was born in Hong Kong. birthday.
P2) Napoleon was not born in Hong C) Thus, I’m going to go bowling again
Kong. this year for my birthday.
C) Thus, Napoleon was born in INVALID & UNSOUND (perhaps
Corsica. inductively strong!)
VALID & SOUND
4.
2. P1) Chris has a car and a helicopter.
P1) When I go for a run, I am tired. P2) Chris has a yacht.
P2) I am tired. C) Thus, Chris has a yacht and a car.
C) So, I went for a run. VALID BUT UNSOUND (I don’t have
INVALID & UNSOUND any of those things.)
Deductive Arguments
 CHARACTERISTIC TWO: TRUTH PRESERVING
 The conclusion of a deductive argument cannot be false if the
premises are true (unlike an inductive argument).

 This is because the truth of the evidence contained in the

premises of a deductive argument ensures that the conclusion is
true.
 Of course, the premises of an argument might still guarantee
the truth of the conclusion even though they are not in fact
true (i.e. the argument is valid but not sound).
Deductive Arguments
 CHARACTERISTIC THREE: NEW INFORMATION

 Adding a new premise to an argument can never change a

deductively valid argument into an invalid one.

 If the conclusion of a deductive argument follows from the

premises, then nothing we add the argument can change that.

 (Contrast how an inductive argument can be made stronger or

weaker.)
 Deductive Arguments
P1) If you take CT this term, you don’t have to take it next
term.
P2) You took CT this term.
C) Therefore, you don’t have to take CT next term.

 Now imagine that we add the premise: P3) “I have taken

another core curriculum course this year.”
 Can you think of a premise that will make the argument
invalid?
 Regardless of this new premise, the information contained in P1 and P2,
assuming that it is true, is enough to guarantee that the conclusion is true.
 No additional premises can change an already valid argument into an
invalid one.
Deductive Arguments
 CHARACTERISTIC FOUR: NO NEW INFORMATION

 Deductive arguments don’t give us extra information in the way that

inductive arguments do.

 This is because the information contained in the conclusion is already

contained in the premises. All we do is put the premises together (in a
certain way) to show that the information is there.

 So, unlike inductive arguments, the information in the conclusion of a

deductive argument does not go beyond what is already contained in
the premises.
Deductive Arguments

P1) Cyanide causes all animals to die.

P2) Humans are animals.
C) Therefore, cyanide causes humans to die.

 The information contained in the conclusion is already provided in

the premises.

 However, that doesn’t mean deductive arguments don’t tell us

something interesting. It just means the information was already
there to begin with.
 Comparing Inductive and Deductive
Arguments
 Inductive Arguments  Deductive Arguments
 C1  C1
 Are strong or weak depending  Are valid/invalid and
on how well the evidence in sound/unsound (not strong or
the premises support the weak).
conclusion.

 C2  C2
 Can have true premises and a  When valid, the conclusion
false conclusion. cannot be false if the
premises are true.
 Comparing Inductive and Deductive
Arguments
 Inductive Arguments  Deductive Arguments
 C3  C3
 Can be changed from strong to  Additional premises cannot
weak (or weak to strong) by change a valid argument to an
adding premises. invalid argument.

 C4  C4
 The information in the  The information provided by
conclusion goes beyond that the conclusion is already
contained in the premises. contained in the premises.
Exercise

 See printed sheet.

 POINTS FROM THIS SESSION
 Deductive / Inductive Distinction
 Characteristics:
 Deductive
 1. Validity & Soundness
 2. True premises lead to true
conclusion (when valid).
 3. Adding a premise cannot make
a valid argument invalid.
 4. No new information.
 Inductive
 1. Strong or Weak
 2. True premises don’t guarantee
true conclusion (even when
strong)
 3. Adding a premise can make
strong argument weak.
 4. New information.