Introduction to Logic and Reasoning

Lecture : Arguments- Deductive & inductive

Week No: 03,04 and 05

Instructor Name: Faiza Mehreen

Courtesy Sir Deep Kumar
Text Book: irving M. Copi & carl Cohen -15th
edition.
 PRESENTATION CONTENT

Deductive Argument
Validity
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive Approach
Deductive Reasoning- Validity
Deductive Reasoning Structure
Class Activity & Quiz 1-B
 RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF HAVING MORE
RELEVANT INFORMATION

Use your background knowledge and common sense in drawing conclusions.

Consistent in your own reasoning.
 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion; that
claim is the mark of an argument.

However, there are two very different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premises.

thus there are two great classes of arguments.

Deductive
Inductive
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by its premises conclusively.

Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being made, we treat the
argument as deductive.

For logicians the term validity is applicable only to deductive arguments.

 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that it is not possible for its conclusion to be false
if its premises are true.

A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.

In everyday speech, of course, the term valid is used much more loosely.
 Although every deductive argument makes the claim that its premises guarantee the truth of its
conclusion, not all deductive arguments live up to that claim. Deductive arguments that fail to do
so are invalid.

Every deductive argument either succeeds or does not succeed in achieving its objective.

Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid. This point is important: If a deductive
argument is not valid, it must be invalid; if it is not invalid, it must be valid.
 VALIDITY

A characteristic of any deductive argument whose premises, if they were all true, would provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument is said to be valid. Validity is a
formal characteristic; it applies only to arguments, as distinguished from truth, which applies to
propositions.
 The central task of deductive logic is to discriminate valid arguments from invalid ones.

Over centuries, logicians have devised powerful techniques to do

this but the traditional techniques for determining validity differ from those used by most modern
logicians.

The former, collectively known as classical logic, is rooted in the analytical works of Aristotle.
Logicians of the two schools differ in their methods and in their interpretations of some arguments,
but ancients and moderns agree that the fundamental task of deductive logic is to develop the tools
that enable us to distinguish arguments that are valid from those that are not.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING - DEFINITION

Deductive reasoning is the form of valid reasoning, to deduce new information or conclusion from
known related facts and information.

For Example -1

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING - DEFINITION

Example -2

All apples are bananas.

Todd is an apple.
Therefore, Todd is a banana.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – APPROACH

Deductive reasoning follows a top-down approach.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING- STARTS FROM

Deductive reasoning starts from Premises.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – VALIDITY

In deductive reasoning conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING - ARGUMENT

In deductive reasoning, arguments may be valid or invalid.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

All apples are bananas.

Todd is an apple.
Therefore, Todd is a banana.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING- STRUCTURE

Deductive reasoning reaches from general facts to specific facts.

All apples are bananas.

Todd is an apple.
Therefore, Todd is a banana.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 CLASS ACTIVITY

1.0 All spiders have eight legs.

A tarantula is a spider.
Therefore, tarantulas have eight legs.“

2.0 All bald men are grandfathers.

Harold is bald.
Therefore, Harold is a grandfather,"
 CLASS ACTIVITY

3.0 All mammals have backbones.

Humans are mammals.
Humans have backbones.

4.0 All birds fly.

Pigeons are birds.
Pigeons fly too.
 EXAMPLE

5.0 All plants perform photosynthesis.

A cactus is a plant.
A cactus performs photosynthesis
 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

An inductive argument, in contrast ( deductive argument), does not make such a claim ( discussed
earlier). Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being made, we
treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that such a claim is not being made, we treat it as
inductive.
The central task of inductive arguments is to ascertain the facts by which conduct may be guided
directly, or on which other arguments may be built.
 Empirical investigations are undertaken as in medicine, or social science, or astronomy leading,
when inductive techniques are applied appropriately, to factual conclusions, most often concerning
cause-and-effect relationships of some importance.

Inductive arguments make weaker claims than those made by deductive arguments. Because their
conclusions are never certain, the terms validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments.
 The higher the level of probability conferred on its conclusion by the premises of an inductive
argument, the greater is the merit of that argument. We can say that inductive arguments may be
“better” or “worse,” “weaker” or “stronger,” .
Because an inductive argument can yield no more than some degree of probability for its conclusion,
it is always possible that additional information will strengthen or weaken it.
Newly discovered facts may cause us to change our estimate of the probabilities, and thus may lead
us to judge the argument to be better (or worse) than we had previously thought.
New discoveries may eventually disconfirm what was earlier believed, and therefore we never assert
that the conclusion of an inductive argument is absolutely certain.
Deductive arguments, on the other hand, cannot become better or worse. They either succeed or they
do not succeed in exhibiting a compelling relation between premises and conclusion. If a deductive
argument is valid, no additional premises can possibly add to the strength of that argument.
Let’s discuss classical example in detail.
 EXAMPLE

if all humans are mortal and Socrates is human, we may conclude without reservation that Socrates is
mortal.

conclusion will follow from those premises no matter what else may be true in the world, and no
matter what other information may be discovered or added.
 AN OTHER EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENT

Most corporation lawyers are conservatives.

Graf is a corporation lawyer.
Therefore Graf is probably a conservative.

This is fairly good inductive argument .

How ??
 AN OTHER EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENT CONT:

This is a fairly good inductive argument; its first premise is true, and if its second premise also is
true, its conclusion is more likely to be true than false. But in this case (in contrast to the argument
about Socrates’ mortality), new premises added to the original pair might weaken or (depending on
the content of those new premises) strengthen the original argument.
Suppose we also learn that

Graf is an officer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Suppose we add (true) premise that
Most officers of the ACLU are not conservatives
In recognizing inductive arguments look for these situations. All of the following would be
inductive situations.
Premises that talk about: Conclusion that talks about:

One, Some, Most Xs ---> Most, All Xs

Past events ---> Present events

Past and/or Present events ---> Future events

Time sequence of events ---> Causal Connection between events

(A happened, then B happened) (A caused B)
In sum, the distinction between induction and deduction rests on the nature of the claims made by the
two types of arguments about the relations between their premises and their conclusions.
A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute
necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on whatever else
may be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to
follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and
dependent on what else may be the case.
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Valid Deductive

Invalid Deductive Argument

 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT ( VALID AND
INVALID )

One of the hardest parts of understanding logic in general is the separation of truth issues from
reasoning issues.

In judging arguments to be valid or invalid, we are interested in reasoning and not truth. Students
will often misjudge arguments to be invalid because they disagree with the content, a premise, or a
statement.
To judge the reasoning we always think hypothetically .IF the premises are truth, what are they
saying, and based on what they are saying, if true, would we be locked into the conclusion?
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT ( VALID AND
INVALID )

An argument has to satisfy the Logic Condition in order for it to qualify as a good argument. But
there are two importantly different ways in which an argument can satisfy the Logic Condition.

One way is if the argument is valid. Another way is if the argument is strong.

"Validity" and "strength" are technical terms that logicians and philosophers use to describe the
logical "glue" that binds premises and conclusions together. Valid arguments have the strongest
logical glue possible.
 EXAMPLE ( VALID OR INVALID )

All actors are robots.

Tom Cruise is an actor.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.

An argument is VALID if it has the following hypothetical or conditional property.

IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion CANNOT be false.
 EXAMPLE ( VALID OR INVALID )

All actors are robots.

Tom Cruise is a robot.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is an actor.

The first premise is the same, "All actors are robots". But the second premise is different. Instead of
assuming that Tom Cruise is an actor, we're assuming that Tom Cruise is a robot.
Now, if these premises are both true, does it follow that Tom Cruise HAS to be an actor? No, it does
not follow.
 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT – STRONG AND WEAK

Arguments where the goal (to achieve strong and reliable beliefs) is to provide the best available
evidence for the conclusion.

Strong inductive arguments achieve this goal- Providing the best available evidence.

Weak inductive arguments do not.

 EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE - STRONG AND
WEAK

After careful observation we have not seen any hummingbirds all day in this forest. Therefore,
probably there are no any hummingbirds in this forest.

Above argument is Weak Inductive argument.

 EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE - STRONG AND
WEAK

After careful observation by trained hummingbird specialists over many weeks, no hummingbirds or
signs of hummingbird habitation were found in this forest. Therefore, probably there are no
hummingbirds in this forest.

This is the strong inductive argument.

 TAKE AWAY POINT

Note the important message form these two examples.

Both are inductive and both have uncertain conclusions. But clearly the second inductive argument is
stronger than the first one. It has more evidence. Many weeks of observation by trained observers vs
only one day by untrained observers.
 DIAGRAMMING – EXTENDED ARGUMENTS

A second technique for the analysis of an argument is Diagramming.

With a diagram, we can represent the structure of an argument graphically; the flow of premises and
conclusions is displayed in a two-dimensional chart, or picture, on the page.

A diagram is not needed for a simple argument, even though drawing one can enhance our
understanding. But it is needed for complex arguments
The logical analysis of extended arguments, such as those found in editorials, essays, and lengthy
letters to newspaper editors, involves numerous difficulties.
 HOW TO CONSTRUCT DIAGRAM OF AN
ARGUMENT

1.0 we must first number all the propositions it contains, in the order in which they appear, circling
each number.

2.0 Using arrows between the circled numbers, we can then construct a diagram that shows the
relations of premises and conclusions without having to restate them.

3.0 A conclusion always appears in the space below the premises that give it support; coordinate
premises are put on the same horizontal level.
 FOR EXAMPLE

There is no consensus among biologists that a fertilized cell is alive in the sense that an unfertilized
egg is not. Nor is there a consensus about whether a group of cells without even a rudimentary
nervous system is in any sense human. Hence there are no compelling experimental data to decide the
nebulous issue of when “human” life begins
 The contamination of underground aquifers represents a pollution problem of catastrophic
proportions. Half the nation’s drinking water, which comes from these aquifers, is being poisoned by
chemical wastes dumped into the soil for generations
When the several premises of an argument are not all coordinate—that is, when some premises give
direct support not to the conclusion but to other premises that support the conclusion.
 EXAMPLE

Football analysis is trickier than the baseball kind because Football really is a team sport. Unlike in
baseball, all eleven guys on the field are involved in every play. Who deserves the credit or blame is
harder to know than it looks.
OR
 EXAMPLE

The selling of human organs, such as hearts, kidneys, and corneas, should be outlawed. allowing
human organs to be sold will inevitably lead to a situation in which only the rich will be able to
afford transplants. This is so because whenever something scarce is bought and sold as a commodity,
the price always goes up. The law of supply and demand requires it
 EXAMPLE- PREMISES JOINTLY SUPPORTING
CONCLUSION

General Motors makes money (when it does) on new cars and on the financing of loans. Car dealers,
by contrast, make most of their money on servicing old cars and selling used ones. So car dealers can
thrive/flourish even when the automaker languishes/suffers.