HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN ARGUMENT IS DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

An argument is deductive if its premises are intended to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
And inductive if its premises are intended to provide merely probable grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
There are 4 test that greatly simplify the task of determining whether an argument should be regarded as deductive or
inductive :
1.The indicator word test
2.The strict necessity test
3.The common pattern test
4.The principle of charity test

1. THE INDICATOR WORD TEST

-We use indicator words to signal when our arguments are deductive or inductive.
Eg : a phrase like “ it necessarily follows that” almost always indicates an argument is deductive.
-Some other common deductive indicator words : certainly, definitely, absolutely, conclusively, it logicallly
follows that, it is logical to conclude that,…
-Some other common induction indicator words : probably, likely, it is plausinle to suppose that, it is a good bet
that,…
- There are 2 limitations of the test :
+ Many arguments contain no deduction or induction indicator words
Eg: Pleasure is not the same thing as happiness. The occasional self-destructive behavior of the rich and famous
confirms this far too vividly. ( Tom Morris )
 We must rely on one or more of the other tests.
+ Arguers often use indicator words loosely or improperly.
Eg : it’s common to hear speakers use strong phrases like “ it must be the case that” and “ it is logical to assume
that” when the contexts make clear that the argument is not intended to be strictly deductive.
2. THE STRICT NECESSITY TEST
The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:
- An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not.
- If the arggument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the argument should
always be treated as deductive
- If the argument;s conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the argument
should normally be treated as inductive
Eg : a/ Alan is father. Therefore, Alan is a male.
 For by definition all fathers are male. According to the strict necessity test, therefore, this argument is
clearly deductive
b/ Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat.
 Six-year-old girls ( and human beings in general ) just lack the physical equipment to be able to run that
fast but there is no logical contradiction in thinking that there could be a six-year-old girl who could run
like that. -> it is logically possible so the premise is true and the conclusion is false. -> the conclusion does
not follow with strict logical necessity from the premises so it’s treated as inductive.
3. THE COMMON PATTERN TEST:
 - Because deductive and inductive arguments often occur in characteristic, telltale patterns of reasoning
 Apply the common pattern test to decide which kind of reasoning we are dealing with
Consider this argument: If we ‘re in Paris, then we are in France
We are in Paris. Therefore, we are in France.
- This argument has a particular patern or form that occur frequently in deductive reasoning:
If [ the first statement] is true, then [ the second statement] is true.
[ The first statement] is true. Therefore, [the second statement] is true.
 State the general pattern of argument as follow: If A then B
A. Therefore, B.
- This is an argument pattern that logicians call modus ponens, which is one very common pattern of deductive
reasoning.
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY TEST:
- Recall what that principle says:
+ When interpreting an unclearly argument or passage, always give the speaker or writer the benefit of the
doubt.
+ Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to attribute to him
or her a stronger one
+ And never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as
not an argument at all.
- The principle of charity serves two important goals:
+ First, it footers goodwill and mutual understanding in argument
+ Even more important, it promotes the discovery of truth by insisting that we confront argument that we
ourselves admit to be the strongest and most plausible versions of those argument.
Let apply the principle of charity test to an actual example: Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant
yesterday. But Maxine’s was completely destroyed by fire less than a month ago. It is certain, therefore, that
Andy is either lying or mistaken.
Should this argument be regarded as deductive or inductive? Let’s apply our various tests.
+ First, are there any deduction or induction indicator words? ( yes, we have seen that the phrase “ it is
certain that” is often used as a deductive indicatior. But we have also seen that people often use
indicator words especially deduction indicator words loosely or improperly. So this
first test, though it clearly suggests that the argument is meant to be deductive,
shouldn't be treated as conclusive.
+ Second, does the conclusion follow with strict necessity from the premises? No.
Although it seems quite unlikely, it is certainly conceivable that the restaurant has
been quickly rebuilt and has reopened for business. This suggests that the argument
should be regarded as inductive.
+ Third, does the argument have a pattern of reasoning that is either typically
deductive or typically inductive? Not really, as we shall see. Thus, the third test
doesn't apply in this case.
+ In short, the first test suggests that the argument is deductive, the second test
suggests that the argument is inductive, and the third test doesn't apply
- In this case, we are in doubt as to whether the argument should be treated as deductive or inductive. If we treat
the argument as inductive, the argument is a good inductive argument because the premises, if true, do make
the conclusion likely. Thus, the most charitable way to interpret the argument is to interpret it as inductive.
- A word of caution, however: The principle of charity should never be used to reinterpret bad argument as good
ones.
- Its basic purpose is to help us decide what arguments are actually being offered, not to replace bad arguments
with ones we think are better. Thus, the principle should be used only when there is genuine uncertainty about
how an argument should be interpreted.