DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

What we have said so far applies to all types of arguments. The time has come to
distinguish two major types: deductive and inductive. There are logically correct
and incorrect forms of each. Here are correct examples.

a] Deductive: Every mammal has a heart.

All horses are mammals.
∴ Every horse has a heart.
b] Inductive: Every horse that has ever been observed has had a heart.
∴ Every horse has a heart.

There are certain fundamental characteristics which distinguish deductive and

inductive arguments. We will mention two primary ones.

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
I. If all of the premises are true, the I. If all of the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. conclusion is probably true but not
necessarily true.

II. All of the information or factual II. The conclusion contains information
content in the conclusion was already not present, even implicitly, in the
contained, at least implicitly, in the premises.
premises.

Logic is the art & science of reasoning.

Logic is based on reasoning but not existing in physical form because it is a real abstract. It is
a system of principles that uses reason to determine if a conclusion is true or untrue.
Logic uses given information to create an inference.
For example, if you returned to home, saw some drawings on walls and a kid holding a
marker According to logic, this kid drew on the walls based on the fact that no one is here
and holding the marker.
PREMISES A premises is a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a
conclusion is drawn. In other words, a premises includes the reasons and evidence behind a
conclusion.
CONCLUSION In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows from premises
A conclusion is a claim that has been reached by a process of reasoning.
INFERENCE
The term Inference derives from the Latin term, which means "bring in." In logic, an
inference is a process of deriving logical conclusions from premises.
An inference is said to be valid if it is based upon sound evidence and the conclusion
logically follows from premises. Inference is just like a glue between premises and
conclusion. If the glue is strong the argument is logically valid.

Logical Fallacies
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your
own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually
through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating
A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the
government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not
the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other

words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day,
which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair
and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly
even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously
finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B'
then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first
event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the
night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across
campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to
be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea,
institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's
army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people
who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the
claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very
conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its
use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to
prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using
everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with
humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two
sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a
range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for
necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or
arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has
suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the
characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a

group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the
bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.

Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose
whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be
associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they
want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding
opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:
The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support
their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks
instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may
affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible
economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow
argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In
reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to
support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the
opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting
that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing
their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.
Appeals to emotion
occur when someone tries to manipulate another person's emotions (e.g., sympathy, pity, anger,
fear, etc.) in order to get them to accept or reject an argument or view. Here are some examples:
(Example 1) Statement made by Carol Everett, a former abortion provider and now an opponent
of abortion, explaining why she now opposes abortion: "Then we had a death. A 32-year-old
woman hemorrhaged to death as a result of a cervical laceration. I finally realized, we weren't
helping women - we were destroying them." - from an ad published by the National Right to
Life
Here, Everett appeals to the reader's sympathy rather than to their reason.
(Example 2) "If you have never been born again, eternal separation from God in the Lake of
Fire awaits you. If you are born again, then being with the Lord in heaven forever is your
destiny. Which do you choose?" - from "Have You Been Born Again", a pamphlet handed out
on the Fresno State University campus, Fall 1997
In Example 2, the authors appeal to your fear of the Lake of Fire to get you to accept their
religious beliefs.

Appeal to Ignorance
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when someone uses an opponent's
inability to disprove a claim as evidence of that claim's being true or false (or,
acceptable or unacceptable). For instance, consider the following:
(Example 1) You haven't been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
there is no God. Therefore, it is still reasonable for me to believe in God.
However, whether it's reasonable to believe something depends on the reasons
one has in its favor, not whether others have reasons against it.
Fallacy of False Cause
As with the ad hominem fallacy, there are really several different kinds of false
cause fallacy. But we won't catalogue them all here. The basic problem with every
false cause fallacy is that it confuses a correlation with a cause. Two events are
correlated if whenever one occurs, the other occurs. Two events are causally
related if one event's occurring is sufficient to make the other event occur. For
instance, there is an increase in the number of brides in June, as well as an increase
in the number of flies in June. But it hardly follows that the one is the cause of
the other! The two events are correlated, but not causally related.
(Example 1) Utah passed a strict gun-control law, and crime there decreased.
Therefore, gun-control laws decrease crime.
This is a false cause fallacy because we don't have enough information to
conclude that the gun-control law caused the decrease in crime. Lots of things,
including the state of the economy, the nature of the illicit drug trade, the weather
(hot weather tends to result in an increase in crimes, and unusually cold weather
tends to decrease them), and dozens of other factors influence the rate of crime.
Until all of these factors are taken into account, we can't be sure whether the gun-
control law caused the decrease in crime. Similar sorts of arguments are made for
and against the death penalty, and they involve the same fallacy.
Appeal to Popularity
The appeal to popularity occurs when people infer that something is good or true
because it is popular.
(Example 1)
It's OK to cheat if everybody else does.
But merely because something is popular doesn't make it right or correct. At one
time, the belief that the earth is flat was popular, but it was certainly never correct!
And killing Jews may have been popular among the Nazis, but that won't make it
right!
Appeal to Tradition
In appeals to tradition someone argues that something is good or correct because
it is traditional. The problem is that merely because something is traditional is no
reason to believe that it is good or right. For instance, slavery was at one time
traditional in many cultures, but that's obviously not sufficient to make it right.
(Example 1)
"I believe that same-sex couples should be entitled to the legal rights that married
couples enjoy.... But, my friend, that is as far as I want to go. I define marriage as
a union between a man and a woman. Before you gay-rights folks land on me
with both feet, I would like to remind you that I have been supportive of your
movement for many years, have withstood a great deal of criticism in the process
and have risked the wrath of some editors and publishers. I cannot support same-
sex marriage, however, because it flies in the face of cultural and traditional
family life as we have known it for centuries. And that's where I must draw the
line. Sorry." - Ann Landers, The Columbus Dispatch, July 21, 1996.
Here, Ann Landers makes an explicit appeal to tradition to support her view that
same-sex marriages should not be permitted. She also commits the fallacy of
appeal to emotion by trying to garner sympathy for herself and the risks she has
taken supporting homosexual causes in the past in order to deflect criticism of her
view that same-sex marriages should not be permitted.

There are many different kinds of fallacies that people make, but the above nine
types of fallacy seem to be the most common ones we make when discussing
controversial issues. It's helpful to review a list of fallacies like this on a regular
basis, because we all, at one time or another, tend to invoke or fall for these
fallacies. But it's important to keep in mind that, as fallacies these arguments are
hopelessly flawed and prove nothing about the issues which they purport to
address.

Valid vs Invalid Arguments

Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises
are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the
conclusion is false.
Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that
all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion
to be false. If this is possible, the argument is 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

Valid vs Invalid
We've seen valid arguments before. Recall the Tom Cruise argument:

1. All actors are robots.

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

This is an example of a valid argument.

Here's the standard definition of a valid argument:

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

property:
An argument is INVALID just in case it's NOT VALID.

What this means is that even if all the premises are true, it's still possible for
the conclusion to be false. The truth of the premises doesn't guarantee the
truth of the conclusion.

That's ALL it means to call an argument "invalid".

all the premises are true, then the conclusion CANNOT be false.

What is extensive definition in logic?

b) Extensive definition is the definition where we give examples in
order to explain something. When we want to define anything, we
list we list out some of the members or things or types that belong to
the group indicated by that word.
“intension” indicates the internal content of a term or
concept that constitutes its formal definition;
intension and extension, in logic, correlative words that indicate the
reference of a term or concept: “intension” indicates the internal
content of a term or concept that constitutes its formal definition; and
“extension” indicates its range of applicability by naming the
particular objects that it denotes.