Provide an example in which you can use deductive reasoning to draw a conclusion. State the axioms or premises used to reach the conclusion.

Karen knows if she misses cheerleading practice the day before a game that she will not be able to cheer at the game. Karen misses practice on Tuesday, the day before the game.
Karen was not allowed to cheer at Wednesday’s game.

Deductive Reasoning:
(Premises) Fact: Karen knows if she misses cheerleading practice the day before a game she will not be able to cheer at the next game. (Premises) Fact: Karen misses cheerleading practice on Tuesday before the game on Wednesday. Conclusion: Karen was not able to cheer at the game on Wednesday. Facts

Inductive Reasoning:
(Observation) Larry came into work late
(Observation) Larry didn’t have his lunch.
(Prior Experience) Larry always has his lunch with him when he comes to work. Inductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning
(Conclusion) Larry overslept.
Verify/Modify
Verify/Modify
Conjecture
Conjecture
Pattern
Pattern

Compare and contrast inductive and deductive reasoning. Provide an example of each to illustrate the similarities and differences of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Because inductive and deductive reasoning can both be used to evaluate a statement, deductive reasoning involves starting with a theory or general statement and then working to get a specific conclusion. Where inductive reasoning takes a series of different observations and then tries to make into a general theory. Both approaches are very different, but it is important to both deductive and inductive reasoning can both end with false results and with this being the case the results are “unsound”. An Example of Inductive Reasoning based on this:

All Leopards I have seen have spots.
So you might think that all Leopards...

...Compare and Contrast the Inductive and Deductive Research Paradigm/Approaches
When underlying assumptions and intellectual structure are built upon research, observation, or development in a field of inquiry a paradigm is created. The way we perceive the world around us or the way facts and theories are established are generated in different ways. Knowledge is constantly being produced, based on assumptions or reasoning. One might see a story in the news of a shark in Southern California that attacks a surfer. A new acquired knowledge or hypothesis may arise that all Southern California sharks attack people. Is generating such a hypothesis a valid reasoning? Or if we flip it -- one could deduct from the generalized fact that if all apples are fruit and all fruits grow on trees, then all apples grow on trees. But is this hypothesis valid? How do we go about testing or generating hypotheses about different topics?
On a scientific level, knowledge and hypotheses are forever being generated or tested. One might hypothesize that "the color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure." How could this hypothesis be tested? Through deductivereasoning, this can be done -- for the purpose of deductivereasoning is to test a hypothesis. Finding other examples to attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is the beginning step to reasoning out...

...DeductiveReasoning
In order to fully understand deductivereasoning, there are certain points to be noted. First, what is the nature of deductivereasoning? Logical strength is defined as the property of an argument whose premises, if true provide support for its conclusion. Deductive and inductive arguments are also distinguished based on the point that logical strength is a matter of degree. This distinction makes it necessary to understand the nature of deductivereasoning. Therefore, deductive arguments are those whose premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and inductive arguments are those whose premises make it reasonable to accept the conclusion though do not absolutely guarantee its truth.
Deductivereasoning is somewhat different from an inductive argument (truth of premises doesn't guarantee the truth of conclusion) for the conclusion can't possibly be false if the premises are true. Consider the following example.
If you like listening to Metallica then you prefer rock music.
If you prefer rock music then you are a rocker.
Therefore, if you like listening to Metallica then you are a rocker.
In this argument, it can be said that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed if its premises are true, unless at least one of the premises is...

...
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Assignment #
Course name
Your name
School name
Prof's name
04/09/2015
According to the definition of deductive argument, it described the structure of a specific kind of argument; a deductive argument is an argument is an argument that attempts to prove its conclusion necessarily. Loosely verbalizing, if the author's operation of logical thinking is a good one, if the premises authentically do provide this scarcely justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.
In effect, a line of reasoning is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is infeasible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be mendacious:
All human beings will soon die.
Clark is human being.
Therefore, Clark will soon die.
This argument is valid because not only do the premises give the right kind of backing for the conclusion, however the premises are really genuine. Accordingly, so is the conclusion. Despite the fact that it is not piece of the meaning of a sound conclusion, in light of the fact that sound contentions both begin with genuine premises and have a structure that ensures that the conclusion must be genuine if the premises are, sound contentions dependably end with genuine conclusions.
All cats have six legs.
A tiger is a cat.
Therefore, a tiger...

...INDUCTIVE & DEDUCTIVE RESEARCH APPROACH
Meritorious Prof. Dr. S. M. Aqil Burney
Director UBIT Chairman
Department of Computer Science University of Karachi
burney@computer.org www.drburney.net
Designed and Assisted by
Hussain Saleem
hussainsaleem@uok.edu.pk
06th March 2008
"Well begun is half done"
--Aristotle, quoting an old proverb
2
Research Methods
In research, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches.
Research Types
Deductive Approach
Inductive Approach
3
Deductive Research Approach
THEORY
HYPOTHESIS
OBSERVATION
Deductivereasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Conclusion follows logically from premises (available facts)
Waterfall
CONFIRMATION
4
Inductive Research Approach
Inductivereasoning works THEORY the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations TENTATIVE and theories. HYPOTHESIS Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach Hill PATTERN Climbing Conclusion is likely based on premises. Involves a degree of uncertainty OBSERVATION
5
Deductive Vs. Inductive
THEORY THEORY
HYPOTHESIS
TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS...

...Philosophy notes 9-17-13
Two forms of argument
1) Deductive= provides logically conclusive spport for the conclusion
Valid-if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false
Invalid- it fail to provide support
Sound-the argument is valid and the premises are all true
Unsound- an argument with true premises that lead to a false conclusion
2) Inductive-provides probable support for the conclusion
Strong-premises are true conclusion is probably true
cogent-premises are true argument is strong
Weak-in adequate uncogent -premises are not true
Four steps for judging arguments
1) Find conclusion and premises
2) Ask: does the conclusion have to be true if the premises are true?
Yes: valid=question: is it a sound argument
No: proceed
3) Is the conclusion probably true? Given the premises are true
Yes:=strong question=cogent?
No: proceed
4) Does the argument fail to provide conclusive or probable support?
Guidelines
1) Assume argument is deductive or inductive if it looks so.
2) Note the indicator words
Test for consistency: would you judge someone or something you dislike the same way you would judge someone/thing you like?
Argument patterns
Pattern – content
Variables
Syllogisms=deductive argument made of three statements
Two premises (may have more)and one conclusion(always)
Conditional=if then structure
Antecedent =the statement that follows if
Consequent...

...difference between inductive and deductive arguments.
The best way to describe the similarities and difference between inductive and deductive arguments, it would be best if the term "argument" had a definition. Everyday people have arguments. For these everyday conversations "argument" means "dispute". In this Logic class an argument consists of claims or statements followed by a final claim. The statements that articulates the reason for agreement of the final claim called “the premises” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007, Argument). This class uses this definition of “argument” to determine how to build a position on certain subjects, and reasoning to convince others to accept the final claim or conclusion (Hurley, P. A Concise Introduction to Logic 11/e, 2012, 2). If more logical arguments were presented, there might be fewer non-logical arguments or nonarguments. This gets to the main subject of comparing and contrasting inductive and deductive arguments. Statements can be considered arguments or nonarguments. Arguments can be either inductive or deductive. An argument leads to a conclusion led by a premise or premises. The premises can be true or false, in which case will change a deductive argument from sound to unsound and vice versa. The same is true for inductive arguments but the wording is cogent or...

...Design
Deductive and InductiveReasoning
The Raven Paradox - How Hempel's Treatise Led to Questioning of the InductiveReasoning Process
The scientific method
Teaching methods can either be inductive or deductive or some combination of the two.
The inductive teaching method or process goes from the specific to the general and may be based on specific experiments or experimental learning exercises. Deductive teaching method progresses from general concept to the specific use or application.
These methods are used particularly in reasoning i.e. logic and problem solving.
To reason is to draw inferences appropriate to the situation.
Inferences are classified as either deductive or inductive.
For example, "Ram must be in either the museum or in the cafeteria." He is not in the cafeteria; therefore he is must be in the museum. This is deductivereasoning.
As an example of inductivereasoning, we have, "Previous accidents of this sort were caused by instrument failure, and therefore, this accident was caused by instrument failure.
The most significant difference between these forms of reasoning is that in the deductive case the truth of the premises (conditions) guarantees the truth of the conclusion, whereas in...

...Inductive versus Deductive Arguments – can concepts of (strength and cogency) and (validity and soundness) be used interchangeably?
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive arguments are not truth preserving. That is, even if an inductive argument has a good logical form, it will never be the case that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The most that an inductive argument can hope for is that it’s highly probable that its conclusion is true. In other words, a good inductive argument is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is most likely true. Another way of putting the same point: the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but only makes the conclusion very probable.
As such, we do not speak of validity/invalidity or soundness/unsoundness when it comes to inductive arguments. Instead, inductive arguments are either strong/weak or cogent/non-cogent. A strong, inductive argument is such that that it is improbable that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Conversely, a weak inductive argument is such that the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to. To find out if an inductive argument is strong or not, we run a similar test as that of valid, deductive arguments. That is,...