Inductive and Deductive

Reasoning

Sahar Rabbani | BME-1907 | EDC | Evening

Presented to Sir Asif Kamran
Logic and Analytical Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning
Specific General

Observation

Theory

Inductive Reasoning

Induction reasons from evidence about some members of a

class in order to form a conclusion about all members of a
class.

A conclusion derived through inductive reasoning is called

a hypothesis and is always less certain than the evidence
itself. In other words, the conclusion is probable.

Inductive Reasoning
Induction can be done through the following:

Observation

Number Sampling

Analogical Reasoning

Pattern Recognition

Causal Reasoning

Statistical Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is used when examining all data would

be an impossible task. In this case, induction uses
statistical samplings.

Inductive Example
Evidence: Amna got a Managerial Position after graduating from IBT.
Evidence: Imran got a Managerial Position after graduating from IBT.
Evidence: I also know that Iqra graduated from IBT and Got a Managerial Position.
Conclusion: If I am going to graduate from IBT, I will also get a Managerial Position.

*Taking in account that this conclusion is probable, not

certain.

Deductive Reasoning
General

Specific

Theory

Observation

Deductive Syllogism
Syllogism: An argument arranged in three parts
1.

Major Premise: General Principle

2.

Minor Premise: Specific Instance

3.

Conclusion: Follows Logically

Syllogisms

Major Premise:
Minor Premise:
Conclusion:

All men are mortal (general principle)

Socrates is man (specific instance)
Socrates is mortal (follows logically from the major)

Valid Argument
The conclusion follows logically from the major
and minor premise.

Syllogisms Another Example

Major Premise: Stealing is a criminal act.

Minor Premise: Shoplifting is stealing.

Conclusion: Therefore?

Shoplifting is a criminal act.

Valid and Invalid Syllogisms

Major Premise: When Gabriele drinks coffee she always gets a headache. (Fact?)

Minor Premise: Gabriele is drinking coffee. (Fact?)

Conclusion: Gabriele will get a headache. Valid or invalid?

Valid and Invalid Syllogisms

Major Premise: When Gabriele drinks coffee she always gets a headache.

Minor Premise: Gabriele has a headache. (Fact?)

Conclusion: Therefore?
Gabriele drank coffee.
Valid or Invalid?
True?

Valid versus True

Valid: the conclusion follows logically from the major and minor premise.
*Keep in mindWhile we use the term valid in everyday speech, it has a very
specific meaning in logic.

True: Corresponds to reality, believable, provable.

Sound: both valid and true.

What Do You Think?

Major Premise: Drug dealers wear electronic pagers.

Minor Premise: Doctors wear electronic pagers.

Conclusion: Therefore?

Therefore Doctors are drug dealers.

Valid or Invalid? True? Sound?

*Logical Fallacy: Guilt by association.

Complete the Syllogism

All Italians are volatile.

Jesse is Italian.

Therefore:
Jesse is volatile
Valid?
True?
Sound?
This syllogism is based on a hasty generalization. Therefore, it is not sound.

Complete the Syllogism

All kids who wear Blue Jeans to school will be accepted by the popular group.

Adrienne wears Blue Jeans to school.

Therefore?
She will be accepted by the schools popular group.
Valid?
True?
Sound?

Enthymeme
An argument in which the major premise is left unstated
(often a conclusion supported by a single premise).
She must be a good student since she is on the Deans List.
Conclusion

Minor Premise

She must be a good student since she is on the Deans List.

Major Premise?
All good students are on the Deans List.

Examples of Enthymemes

Alcoholic beverages destroy brain cells, so alcohol

should be made illegal.

You are all good students because you have your

homework done on time.
Recreate the Syllogism

Thank You