PASSI CITY COLLEGE

City of Passi. Iloilo

SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ADGE
Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
FIRST SEMESTER, A.Y. 2022-2023

Logic:
Deduction
And
6
Inductive
Reasoning
ATTY. HERSIE A.
BUNDA

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 1

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
Module Outcomes
At the end of the module, the students must be able to:
1. enumerates the common patterns of deductive reasoning;
2. determines where deduction goes wrong and;
3. discussed the scientific method of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Module Content:

Activity Description Time

Overview
1 Interactive Discussion through Google Meet/Classroom 60 minutes

Deductive reasoning

Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

There are five common patterns of deductive reasoning:

 Hypothetical syllogism
 Categorical syllogism
 Argument by elimination
 Argument based on mathematics
 Argument from definition

A syllogism is simply a three – line argument, exactly two premises and a conclusion.

Hypothetical Syllogism
-exactly two premises & a conclusion
-contains one hypothetical or conditional premise varieties of hypothetical Syllogism
An example form:
If A then B.
A Therefore, B.

If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work.

If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid.
Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid.

Applicability
The rule of hypothetical syllogism holds in classical logic, intuitionistic logic, most systems of relevance logic,
and many other systems of logic. However, it does not hold in all logics, including, for example, non-
monotonic logic, probabilistic logic and default logic. The reason for this is that these logics describe defeasible
reasoning, and conditionals that appear in real-world contexts typically allow for exceptions, default
assumptions, ceteris paribus conditions, or just simple uncertainty.

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 2

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
An example, derived from Ernest W. Adams:
 
(1) If Jones wins the election, Smith will retire after the election.
(2) If Smith dies before the election, Jones will win the election.
(3) If Smith dies before the election, Smith will retire after the election.

Clearly, (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). (1) is true by default, but fails to hold in the
exceptional circumstances of Smith dying. In practice, real-world conditionals always tend to
involve default assumptions or contexts, and it may be infeasible or even impossible to specify all
the exceptional circumstances in which they might fail to be true. For similar reasons, the rule of
hypothetical syllogism does not hold for counterfactual conditionals.

Categorical syllogism
a three-line argument in which each statement begins with the word all, some, or no.

One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it
the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the
predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn’t occur in the conclusion at all, but must
be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.

Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some relation
between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism. The other premise,
which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise.

Example:
All bats are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
So, all bats are warm-blooded.

Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:

No geese are felines.

Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.

Clearly, “Some birds are not felines” is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is
“felines” (the predicate term of its conclusion), so “No geese are felines” (the premise in which “felines”
appears) is its major premise. Similarly, the minor term of the syllogism is “birds,” and “Some birds are geese”
is its minor premise. “geese” is the middle term of the syllogism.

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 3

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
Argument by elimination
a deductive argument that rules out different possibilities until only one remains.
Example:
Either Joe walked to the library or he drove
But Joe didn’t drive to the library
Therefore, Joe walked to the library

Argument based on mathematics

an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.
Example:
Eight is greater than four.
Four is greater than two.
Therefore, eight is greater than two.

Argument from definition

A deductive argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely on the definition of some
word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion
Example:
Janelle is a cardiologist.
Therefore, Janelle is a doctor

Bertha is an aunt.
It follows that she is a women

Where Deduction Goes Wrong

While the standard for an inductive statement is whether or not it is sound, the standard for a deductive
statement can be more rigorous. Deductive arguments give us conclusions that follow of necessity if the
premises are true. Sometimes, however, we make mistakes about what is or is not necessarily true! We draw
conclusions that may (coincidentally) be right, but which are not warranted by the premises. This kind of
mistaken reasoning is called invalid. This is the standard for deductive arguments: they are valid or invalid.

Sometimes we think we are using good deductive reasoning, but we have mixed up our formulae. Looking
again at both syllogisms and hypothetical chains, here are the two errors we can fall into.

a. "All" is not the same as "Only": How Syllogisms Can Go Wrong

Here is a perfectly good bit of deduction:

• All cats eat meat.

Mister is a cat.
Therefore, Mister eats meat.

If it's true that all cats eat meat, and if it's true that Mister is a cat, we know one thing about Mister for sure:
we know he must eat meat. This argument makes sense.

But what about this?

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 4
Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
• All cats eat meat.
Mister eats meat.
Therefore, Mister is a cat.

Not so good!

This sounds very similar. But the line of logic is quite different. It may be true that all cats eat meat, and it may
be true that Mister also eats meat. But nowhere have we said that only cats eat meat. In fact, lots of
creatures eat meat--cats, dogs, pigs, accountants, rock stars and certain kinds of plant. The logical
mistake here is thinking that because two things share the same quality, they must belong to the same
group. Unless this is the only group that has the quality you're talking about, this conclusion isn't
warranted.

Here are some more of this kind of mistake. In each case, the speaker slips by thinking that because two
things share the same quality, they must belong to the same group:

Lions eat a huge meal at one sitting.

My brother John eats a huge meal at one sitting.
Therefore, my brother John is a lion.
[Are lions the only creatures that eat huge meals at once?]

People with shaved heads and swastika tattoos are racists.

Ron does not have a shaved head or a swastika tattoo.
Therefore, Ron is not a racist.
[Is there only one kind of racist?]

Hard workers do well in their studies.

Frank does well in his studies.
Therefore, Frank is a hard worker.
[How do we know Frank isn't just lucky?]

All the cool people will be at the Castro Halloween festival.

Marco will be at the Castro Halloween festival.
Therefore, Marco is one of the cool people.
[Are the cool people the only ones who are going?]

Teens who go on to commit violent acts often dye their hair, wear black clothes, play video games, argue with
their parents and listen to depressing music.
Joey dyes his hair, wears black clothes, plays video games, argues with his parents and listens to depressing
rock music.
Therefore, Joey is going to commit violent acts.
[Paraphrased from the FBI guidelines, published in the wake of the Columbine massacre, on how to spot
troubled teens. The problem is, it describes half the population of a normal high school!]

So keep your premises clear in your mind:

• If a group has a quality and something belongs to that group, it is valid to assume that it, too, shares the
quality.

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 5

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
• BUT if a group has a quality and something else has that quality, it is not valid to assume that it too must
belong to the group--unless we know that this group is the only one that possesses the quality. "All" does not
equal "only."

b. "Always" is not the Same as "Only": How Hypothetical Chains Go Wrong

Consider the following reasonable inference:

• If you drink milk, you get sick.

You aren't sick.
Therefore, you didn't drink milk.

If both of these premises are true, then this argument makes perfect sense. If drinking milk must result in
sickness, then the fact that the person is not sick must mean that she hasn't drunk any milk. If a cause must
have a certain effect, then the absence of that effect must imply the absence of that cause. So far, so good.

You can generalize this pattern using A and B to stand for "cause" and "effect":

• If you drink milk [A,] then you will get sick [B] If A, then B.
You aren't sick. [Not B.]
Therefore, you didn't drink milk. Therefore, not A.

But what of this?

• If you drink milk [A], you will get sick [B]. If A, then B.
You aren't drinking milk. [Not A.]
Therefore, you won't get sick. Therefore, not B.

Here, you've switched around; you've inferred that because Cause A has the certain effect of Effect B, then
the absence of Cause A must mean that Effect B can't happen either. This isn't logical.

What makes it illogical is clearer with a more concrete example:

• If I shoot my cat, he'll die.

I didn't shoot my cat.
Therefore, he must be alive.

You see the problem? The cat could have died for any number of reasons: he could have leaped from the
window, fallen ill, or accidentally eaten a pound of tainted meat.

It's logical to infer that where the effect of a cause is certain, then the absence of the effect means the
absence of the cause. If I shoot my cat, he'll certainly die; so if he's alive, I can't possibly have shot him.

However, it isn't logical to infer that where a cause-effect link is certain, it must also be exclusive. That is to
say, just because Cause A must result in Effect B, it may be that many other causes would produce Effect B
equally well--just as there are many ways to kill a cat!

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 6

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
If I shoot my cat, he'll die. But just because I didn't shoot him doesn't mean he's alive; this cause may have a
sure effect, but it's not the only cause. It's certain, but not exclusive.

Here are some examples of illogical inferences that make this mistake.
• If you do no work, you'll fail this course.
You failed the course!
Therefore, you didn't work hard.
[We've frequently been the victim of this piece of illogic! Everyone knows there are many reasons for not
getting a passing grade in a course.]

If you eat 900 calories a day, you'll be slim.

Mark is slim.
Therefore, Mark eats 900 calories a day.
[And we all know someone who shows up this piece of illogic! While it's (arguably) true that rigorous dieting
can help you get slim, it's also true that other causes contribute--a speedy metabolism, lots of exercise, etc.]

If the burglar got in through the window, it would be broken.

It is broken.
Therefore, the burglar got in through the window.
[Couldn't something else have broken the window?]

If the Giants play well, they will win the Series.

The Giants did play well.
Therefore, they must have won the Series.
[But it's possible that their opponent played a little better!]

If you smoke, you greatly increase your risks of cancer.

Frank doesn't smoke.
Therefore, Frank does not risk cancer.
[Unless he supervised nuclear testing in the 1950s.]

If you get a 4.0 GPA, you will be eligible for a scholarship.

You didn't get a 4.0 GPA.
Therefore, you won't get a scholarship.
[But scholarships are granted for many reasons.]

Did you note the pattern of these illogical arguments?

If A, then B.
B, therefore A.
OR
If A, then B
Not A, therefore not B.

Both patterns make the same mistake: both assume that because Cause A certainly leads to Effect B, it is also
the only thing that leads to Effect B. Thus when Effect B does or doesn't happens, the speaker infers that
Cause A must or must not have happened.

So keep your premises clear in your mind:

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 7

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
• If a cause always leads to an effect, we can reasonably conclude that if the cause is there, the effect must
be there. If shooting my cat will kill him and I have shot him, it is valid to conclude that he will die.

• But one effect may have many causes. If shooting my cat will kill him and he is dead, it is not valid to
conclude that I must have shot him. Many things might kill my poor cat. "Always" does not mean "only."

The Scientific Method

So: which generates better conclusions? Which is better--inductive or deductive reasoning? By now, you
probably realize that this is a meaningless question. Neither method excludes the other. Indeed, it's clear from
looking at arguments that neither method can exist in isolation.

Induction gives us general statements. It is the natural turn of human thought, the essence of learning, to
make patterns and draw abstract principles. "All the grilled liver I've ever eaten has tasted like boots, so I
guess that grilled liver generally tastes like boots."

Deduction lets us use those statements to make sense of the world. "Grilled liver? No thanks--it tastes like
boots."

Without induction:

• there is no learning--every plate of liver is like the first.

• there is no deduction. You cannot make deductions about specifics unless you have some general principle
to apply.

Without deduction:

• inductive generalizations are useless. What is the point of knowing that grilled liver tastes like boots, unless
you apply this information to the next menu you read?

• inductive generalizations are never put to the test. Whenever reality contradicts our generalizations--when
we meet a teetotal Irishman, or a red-head with a sunny temper, or a purple raven--we know we have to go
back and review our premises. Why? Because if our premises about Irishmen and drinking were both true,
then every Irishman must be a drunk--the conclusion follows of necessity. So if we meet a sober Irishmen,
one of our premises must be wrong--and it's probably the generalization!

Good critical thinking requires both inductive and deductive reasoning. Induction permits us to learn;
deduction puts our learning to use, and also keeps it honest, by forcing us always to test what we think we've
learned against reality. Neither method contradicts or is better than the other: as philosopher Alfred
Whitehead wrote, "it would be just as sensible for the two ends of a work to quarrel."

This is the essence of the scientific method. Scientists observe facts and make a speculative inference
(induction). Armed with this hypothesis, they get to work creating specific experiments that will help
determine whether the hypothesis is true or not. They try to identify grounds, which can disprove, rather than
prove, their ideas.

We do this all the time in our own lives. For instance, let's say you develop a rash and start sneezing, and your
doctor tells you it's an allergic reaction. How do you know what you are reacting to?
Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 8
Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
• Induction. Is there something you've been eating a lot of recently? Something that commonly provokes
allergies? You realize that you have: only last week you ate an entire crate of strawberries. This leads you to
your tentative generalization:

I ate lots of strawberries.

Strawberries often provoke allergies.
THEREFORE, I have developed an allergy to strawberries.

• Deduction. Now, you need to see if this is true. So you stop eating strawberries. But your rash and your
sneezing don't go away. Deduction has now helped you test your inductive generalization, and indeed, reject
it. It was reasonable; but deduction now shows that it was wrong.

The only thing that gives me a rash is eating strawberries.

I didn't eat strawberries.
THEREFORE, I won't get a rash.
[But you did. So since this is a valid deduction, this means that one of your premises must be untrue.]

If you only remember 3 things from your logic work a year from now, you should remember these:

• A lot of the things we think we "know," we don't really know at all--we have only guessed at.
• We must keep testing and re-testing our guesses, opinions and ideas against reality.
• If we are not able or ready to do this, our opinions are trivial

References:
https://collegeofsanmateo.edu/writing/tutorials/Logical%20Method_Induction%20Deduction.pdf

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p17fenq/The-are-five-common-patterns-of-deductive-reasoning-
Hypothetical-syllogism/

https://quizlet.com/314921517/deductive-reasoning-common-patterns-flash-cards/

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 9

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
 Activity 6.1

Instructions:
What do you think of the following generalizations? Read the arguments, and decide if each seems sound or
not sound.

1. The carpet is ruined, the walls are unpainted and the building needs a new roof. The owners are not taking
care of the building.
2. Well, Jenny hasn't answered my call and she didn't respond to my email. So it looks like she doesn't want to
talk to me.
3. The diary found by Mike Barrett, and published by Shirley Harrison, is supposed to be the diary of James
Maybrick, a Victorian cotton merchant. But it cannot possibly be his diary. The handwriting doesn't match any
other samples of Maybrick's writing, and there hasn't been enough forensic testing to draw any strong
conclusions. Its origins are also fishy.
4. Well, the mysterious diary that is supposed to be by James Maybrick, the Victorian cotton merchant, might
well be real and certainly merits further investigation. After all, it has passed a number of forensic and
historical tests.
5. We surveyed 5000 heroin addicts to ask what illegal drug they had tried first. Almost 95% replied that they
had started with marijuana. We concluded that using marijuana leads to heroin addiction.

SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

MODULE APPROVAL SHEET

Course No. ADGE Descriptive Title: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning

Module No. : 6 Course Year & Section BS CRIM3

Prepared and Submitted by:

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 10
Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
 Instructor

Checked by:

MR. HERIBERTO G. ULGASAN, MSC

Program Head, School of Criminal Justice

Recommending Approval:

HEIDE A. PAMA, M. ED.

Dean of Instruction

Approved:

JANICE JENNIFER P. PALMARES, MPA

Acting College President/ SAO/ Registrar Designate

Atty. Hersie A. Bunda Page 11

Module No 6 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning