Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, ensuring the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations, where the conclusion is probable but not certain. Key differences are that deductive reasoning guarantees a valid connection between premises and conclusion, while inductive reasoning only suggests conclusions as more probable.
Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, ensuring the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations, where the conclusion is probable but not certain. Key differences are that deductive reasoning guarantees a valid connection between premises and conclusion, while inductive reasoning only suggests conclusions as more probable.
Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, ensuring the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations, where the conclusion is probable but not certain. Key differences are that deductive reasoning guarantees a valid connection between premises and conclusion, while inductive reasoning only suggests conclusions as more probable.
Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, ensuring the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations, where the conclusion is probable but not certain. Key differences are that deductive reasoning guarantees a valid connection between premises and conclusion, while inductive reasoning only suggests conclusions as more probable.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Introduction to Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Reasoning
A. Deductive Reasoning - Two propositions which imply the third proposition, the conclusion, are called premises. The broad proposition that forms the starting point of deduction is called the major premise; the second proposition is called the minor premise. The major premise represents the all; the minor premise, something or someone included in the all.
B. Inductive Reasoning - In law, as in general logic, there are fundamental differences between the two types of reasoning:
Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning
The connection between a given piece of The connection between given pieces of information and information and another piece of another piece inferred from them is not a logically information concluded from it is a necessary connection. necessary connection. A deductive argument is one whose An inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed conclusion is claimed to follow from its to follow from its premises only with probability and not premises with absolute necessity. If the absolute necessity. All that is represented is that the premises are valid, the conclusion is conclusion is more probable than not. Its premises do not valid. If the conclusion is valid, the provide conclusive support for the conclusion; they provide premises are valid. only some support for it. In a valid deductive argument, if the In a valid inductive argument, the conclusion is not premises are true, the conclusion must be necessarily an absolute truth; by induction, we reach a true. conclusion that is only more probably true than not. Moves by inference from the general Moves from the particular to the general (universal) (universal) ultimately to the particular. (induced generalization by enumeration of instances), or from the particular to the particular (analogy).
The core of the difference lies in the strength of the claim that is made about the premises and its conclusion.
1. Inductive Generalization- Formulating a generalization in the law – enumerating a series of tight
holdings of cases (legal rules) to create a generalized legal precept (legal principle) – is at best a logic of probabilities.
2. Analogy - Pursuant to the method of analogy, the courts do not generalize certain relevant Resemblances and differences between the case at bar and another single case or a relatively small group of cases.
I. Deductive Reasoning A. Categorical Syllogism - deductive argument which consists of three categorical propositions, consisting exactly three terms, in which each of the three terms occurs in exactly two of the propositions.
1. Terms a. MAJOR TERM: predicate of the major premise and the conclusion.(Employed as Predicate term) b. MINOR TERM: predicate of minor premise and the conclusion. (Subject term) c. MIDDLE TERM: includes in both premises but not in the conclusion (Not in Conclusion)
No geese are felines (Major term is feline, therefore this is the major premise) Some birds are geese. (Minor term is “birds”, therefore this is the minor premise) *Geese is middle Conclusion: Therefore, some birds are not felines. 2. Premises a. MAJOR PREMISE: states a broad and generally applicable truth b. MINOR PREMISE: states a specific and usually more narrowly applicable truth
3. Quantity of Propositions or Terms
I. Propositions: a. UNIVERSAL: broad or general b. PARTICULAR: narrow or specific II. Terms a. DISTRIBUTED: broad or general b. UNDISTRIBUTED: narrow or specific
4. Categorical Propositions and Classes
a. CONTAINMENT: every member of one class is said to be a member of another class b. NO RELATIONSHIP: no member of one class is said to be a member of a second class c. PARTIAL CONTAINMENT: Some, but perhaps not all, members of one class are all said to be members of another class d. PARTIAL NON- CONTAINMENT: Some, but perhaps not all, members of one class are said not to be members of another class
E: Universal Negative A D U I: Particular Affirmative E D D O: Particular Negative I U U O U D
B. Enthymeme - an informally stated syllogism with an unstated presumption that must be true for the premises to lead the conclusion; an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated. a. unstated premise b. unstated conclusion
C. Polysyllogism - string of any number of propositions forming together a sequence of syllogisms such that the conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next proposition, is a premise for the next, and so on.
a. Prosyllogism: the conclusion of which is used as a premise of another syllogism except the last
b. Episyllogism: one of the premise of which is the conclusion of a preceding syllogism; validity deals only with form. e.g. It is raining. If we go out while it is raining we will get wet. Therefore, if we go out we will get wet. If we go out we will get wet. If we get wet, we will get cold. Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.
D. Premises: Validity & Soundness - An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case.
Sound - An argument that is valid and has only true premises.
Relations Between Truth and Validity:
1. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions – true premises and a true conclusion. 2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions – false premises and a false conclusion 3. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions – all their premises are true, and their conclusions as well. 4. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion. 5. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion. 6. Some invalid arguments also have a false premise and a true conclusion. 7. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions – false premises and a false conclusion. Notes: The truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument. The fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion. If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may be certain that its conclusion is true also. If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of its premises can be true. Some perfectly valid arguments do have a false conclusion – but such argument must have at least one false premise.
The validity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form. Valid Syllogisms - A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of its form alone. - If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be valid. - If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be invalid.
E. SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
1. A valid CS must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument. 2. In a valid CS, the middle term must be distributed in at least one premise. 3. In a valid CS, no term can be distributed in the conclusion which is not distributed in the premise. 4. No CS is valid which has two negative premises. 5. If either premise of a valid CS is negative, the conclusion must be negative. 6. No valid CS with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises. II. INDUCTIVE REASONING - critical in the common- law tradition; undergirds the doctrine of precedent; like things must be treated alike
A. Inductive Generalization (induction by enumeration) - Underlies the development of the common law; from many specific case holdings, a generalized proposition is reached.
B. Analogy – the simplest variety of inductive reasoning which takes note of the fact that two or more things are similar in some respects and concludes that they are probably also similar in some further respect.
Does not seek proof of an identity of one thing with another, but only a comparison of resemblances. Unlike the technique of enumeration, analogy does not depend upon the quantity of instances, but upon the quality of resemblances between things. In the law, points of unlikeness are as important as likeness in the cases examined.
Criteria in the appraisal of analogical arguments:
1. The acceptability of the analogy will vary proportionally with the number of circumstances that have been analyzed. 2. The acceptability will depend upon the number of positive resemblances (similarities) and negative resemblances (dissimilarities). 3. The acceptability will be influenced by the relevance of the purported analogies. An argument based on a single relevant analogy connected with a single instance will be more cogent than one which points out a dozen irrelevant resemblances.
C. Causality – Establishes the genetic connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). D. Probability - The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive argument) is true. “what may be said to be probable is the occurrence of an event, the sort of thing that could be described in a statement or proposition”
