Scribd
Upload
99 views16 pages

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

This document contrasts deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves drawing a specific conclusion from general statements or premises. An example is a syllogism with valid logic. Inductive reasoning involves drawing a general conclusion based on observations of specific cases, but the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true in all cases.

Uploaded by

aimee durano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views16 pages

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

This document contrasts deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves drawing a specific conclusion from general statements or premises. An example is a syllogism with valid logic. Inductive reasoning involves drawing a general conclusion based on observations of specific cases, but the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true in all cases.

Uploaded by

aimee durano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

DEDUCTIVE

vs.
INDUCTIVE
REASONING
Math 8 _ Week 9
• Logic – The science of correct
reasoning.
• Reasoning – The drawing of
inferences or conclusions from
known or assumed facts.
Problem When solving a problem, one
Solving must understand the question,
gather all pertinent facts,
analyze the problem i.e.
compare with previous
problems (note similarities and
differences), perhaps use
pictures or formulas to solve
the problem.
Deductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning – A type of
logic in which one goes from a general
statement to a specific instance.
• The classic example
All men are mortal. (major premise)
Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)
The above is an example of a
syllogism.
Deductive Reasoning
• Syllogism: An argument
composed of two statements
or premises (the major and
minor premises), followed by a
conclusion.
• For any given set of premises,
if the conclusion is guaranteed,
the arguments is said to be
valid.
• If the conclusion is not
guaranteed (at least one
instance in which the
conclusion does not follow),
the argument is said to be
invalid.
• BE CARFEUL, DO NOT
CONFUSE TRUTH WITH
VALIDITY!
Deductive Reasoning
Examples:
1. All students eat pizza.
Claire is a student at Taytay IS.
Therefore, Claire eats pizza.

2. All athletes work out in the


gym.
Arnel Bonds is an athlete.
Therefore, Arnel Bonds works
out in the gym.
Deductive Reasoning
3. All math teachers are over 7
feet tall.
Mr. D. is a math teacher.
Therefore, Mr. D is over 7 feet
tall.
• The argument is valid but is
certainly not true.
• The above examples are of
the form
If p, then q. (major premise)
x is p. (minor premise)
Therefore, x is q. (conclusion)
Venn Diagrams
• Venn Diagram: A diagram consisting of various
overlapping figures contained in a rectangle called
the universe.

U A

This is an example of all A are B. (If A, then B.)


Venn Diagrams

This is an example of No A are B.

U
A B
Venn Diagrams
This is an example of some A are B.
(At least one A is B.)

The yellow circle is A, the blue circle is B.


• Construct a Venn Diagram
to determine the validity of
the given argument.

#14 All smiling cats talk.


Example The Cheshire Cat smiles.
Therefore, the Cheshire
Cat talks.

VALID OR INVALID???
Example
Valid argument; x is Cheshire
Cat

Smiling cats
Things
that talk

x
Examples

• #6 No one who can afford


health insurance is
unemployed.
All politicians can afford
health insurance.
Therefore, no politician is
unemployed.

VALID OR INVALID?????
Examples

X=politician. The argument is valid.


Politicia
ns
X
People who can Unemployed
afford
Health Care.
Example

• #16 Some professors wear glasses.


• Mr. Einstein wears glasses.
• Therefore, Mr. Einstein is a professor.
• Let the yellow oval be professors, and
the blue oval be glass wearers. Then x
(Mr. Einstein) is in the blue oval, but not
in the overlapping region. The argument
is invalid.
Inductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning, involves


going from a series of specific
cases to a general statement.
The conclusion in an inductive
argument is never
guaranteed.

Example: What is the next


number in the sequence 6,
13, 20, 27,…
There is more than one correct
answer.
Inductive Reasoning
• Here’s the sequence again 6, 13, 20, 27,
…
• Look at the difference of each term.
• 13 – 6 = 7, 20 – 13 = 7, 27 – 20 = 7
• Thus the next term is 34, because 34 –
27 = 7.
• However what if the sequence
represents the dates. Then the next
number could be 3 (31 days in a month).
• The next number could be 4 (30 day
month)
• Or it could be 5 (29 day month – Feb.
Leap year)
• Or even 6 (28 day month – Feb.)

You might also like