0
A conjecture
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is fallacy circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning, also known as begging the question, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as the premise. This creates a situation where no evidence is provided to support the conclusion, as the conclusion is assumed to be true from the beginning. It is a weak form of reasoning as it fails to provide any new information or evidence to support the point being made.
Inductive reasoning is an process which means it is based on experiences and observations made in the real world?
Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific instances or observations. It is a bottom-up approach that uses specific examples to draw likely conclusions. This method is often used in scientific research and can lead to probable rather than absolute conclusions.
What is the meaning drawn by a conclusion?
A conclusion is the final decision or judgment made after considering all the evidence and arguments presented. It is the endpoint of a thought process or reasoning and typically summarizes the main points.
What four critical thinking steps could one use when evaluating some claim?
Identify the claim being made. Evaluate the evidence or reasoning supporting the claim. Consider alternative perspectives or explanations. Draw a conclusion based on the strength of the evidence and reasoning provided.
What type of logical fallacy is the following statement an example of Toyotas are some of the best-made cars in the world because they are so well constructed?
This statement exemplifies the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, where the conclusion is restated in the premises or when the conclusion is assumed in the premises. The argument fails to provide evidence or logical reasons why Toyotas are the best-made cars besides simply stating they are well constructed.
What is a conclusion made using inductive reasoning called?
a conjecture
Inductive reasoning is a process which means it is based on experiences and observations made in the real world?
Type your answer here... empirical
What is a inductive logic?
Inductive logic, or inductive reasoning is any form of argument where the premises mean that the conclusion is probably correct . for example: "that ring cost me only 3 dollars. Rings that are made of gold almost always cost more than 3 dollars. Therefore that ring is not made of gold" That argument was inductive because while it is almost certainly right, it is theoretically possible that the ring is actually made of gold but was just sold for 3 dollars for some reason. Inductive logic is diffrent from deductive logic because in deductive logic if the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows the premises then there is no possible way that the conclusion could be false.
Which of this best describes inductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning where conclusions are made based on patterns and observations. It involves moving from specific observations to broader generalizations. It is probabilistic and does not guarantee certainty in the conclusions drawn.
What role do past experiences play in inductive reasoning?
Past experiences in inductive reasoning serve as the foundation upon which generalizations and predictions are made. By drawing on past observations, individuals can infer patterns, relationships, and trends to make educated guesses about future outcomes. However, it is important to acknowledge that inductive reasoning based solely on past experiences may not always lead to accurate conclusions, as it relies on probability rather than certainty.
What is fallacy circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning, also known as begging the question, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as the premise. This creates a situation where no evidence is provided to support the conclusion, as the conclusion is assumed to be true from the beginning. It is a weak form of reasoning as it fails to provide any new information or evidence to support the point being made.
What is the difference between the inductive and deductive method of enquiry?
The deductive method starts with a hypothesis and tests it against observations or evidence, leading to a conclusion. Meanwhile, the inductive method involves making observations, identifying patterns, and forming a general theory or hypothesis. Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific instances, while inductive reasoning moves from specific instances to general principles.
The results of deductive reasoning?
A deductive reasoning may end up giving out a false conclusion, especially if an instance was not well studied. It is the process in which a decision is made in.
what kind of reasoning can lead to stereotyping if based on too few examples?
Inductive reasoning. :)
Inductive reasoning is an process which means it is based on experiences and observations made in the real world?
Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific instances or observations. It is a bottom-up approach that uses specific examples to draw likely conclusions. This method is often used in scientific research and can lead to probable rather than absolute conclusions.
What is the meaning drawn by a conclusion?
A conclusion is the final decision or judgment made after considering all the evidence and arguments presented. It is the endpoint of a thought process or reasoning and typically summarizes the main points.
What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?
One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.
