0
What else can I help you with?
When is stong inductive argument uncogent?
A strong inductive argument can be considered uncogent if the premises are not relevant or if there is a problem with the reasoning or structure of the argument. Additionally, if the premises are not true or if there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, the strong inductive argument may be considered uncogent.
Can a inductive argument be changed into a deductive argument?
Sure, you count the apples in a basket, for example. Inductively, you found that there are five. Now, if you were to give an answer as to one of them being a part of a set of all the apples in a basket, you would have to say that it is a part of a set consisting of five apples.
Which is a form of an inductive argument?
I can give you an example of an inductive argument that is a universal generalization, though I am not sure that is what you were asking. One month ago I had an apple that was sweet. Three weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet. Two weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet. And yesterday I had an apple that was sweet. Therefore apples are sweet. Using the inductive argument method of analogy would go like this. One month ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. Three weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. Two weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. And yesterday I had an apple that was sweet. Therefore that apple was red.
What does inductive argument mean?
This term is informally defined as "bottom-up" logic or induction, as it constructs/evaluates ideas derived from specific examples. This differs from deductive reasoning, which derives specifc examples from general ideas.
What is one of the three things needed to make a strong argument?
One of the three things needed to make a strong argument is evidence to support your claims.
When is stong inductive argument uncogent?
A strong inductive argument can be considered uncogent if the premises are not relevant or if there is a problem with the reasoning or structure of the argument. Additionally, if the premises are not true or if there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, the strong inductive argument may be considered uncogent.
How do people create an inductive argument?
inductive; -of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion; "inductive reasoning" So an inductive argument would be based on a set of facts that two opposing sides could use to create separate conclusions, or that one person could use to form a theory or a derivation
What are the parts of a inductive argument?
An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows probably from the premises. For example: 1. Felix is a cat. 2. Most cats like to play with mice 3. Felix (probably) likes to play with mice Remember, in inductive arguments, its possible that the conclusion is false even if the premises are true.
Can a inductive argument be changed into a deductive argument?
Sure, you count the apples in a basket, for example. Inductively, you found that there are five. Now, if you were to give an answer as to one of them being a part of a set of all the apples in a basket, you would have to say that it is a part of a set consisting of five apples.
Which is a form of an inductive argument?
I can give you an example of an inductive argument that is a universal generalization, though I am not sure that is what you were asking. One month ago I had an apple that was sweet. Three weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet. Two weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet. And yesterday I had an apple that was sweet. Therefore apples are sweet. Using the inductive argument method of analogy would go like this. One month ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. Three weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. Two weeks ago I had an apple that was sweet and red. And yesterday I had an apple that was sweet. Therefore that apple was red.
What does the term a fortiori mean?
The term 'a fortiori' is Latin for 'from the stronger.' It indicates that some fact naturally proves some other fact by a stronger argument or reason than any other fact. Although the term is used to show that there is a stronger argument for something, the Latin word for "argument" is omitted because it is understood that the term refers to an argument or reason.
What does inductive argument mean?
This term is informally defined as "bottom-up" logic or induction, as it constructs/evaluates ideas derived from specific examples. This differs from deductive reasoning, which derives specifc examples from general ideas.
What is one of the three things needed to make a strong argument?
One of the three things needed to make a strong argument is evidence to support your claims.
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.
'Does your argument make sense' is a question one would ask oneself during what process?
'Does your argument make sense' is a question one would ask oneself during the process of evaluating and refining their own thoughts and ideas. It prompts reflection on the logical coherence and persuasiveness of one's argument.
How can one effectively make a strong argument?
To make a strong argument, one should use credible evidence, logical reasoning, and clear communication. Presenting facts, supporting claims with data or examples, anticipating counterarguments, and structuring the argument cohesively can help persuade others effectively.
What is an example of deductive and inductive?
A deductive argument is one where the premises attempt to prove the truth of the conclusion. eg. All kittens like to play with yarn. Furry Frank is a kitten. Therefore, Furry Frank likes to play with yarn. An inductive argument is one where the premises attempt to prove the likelihood of the conclusion. eg. My kitten likes to play with yarn. Your kitten likes to play with yarn. His kitten likes to play with yarn. Therefore, all kittens like to play with yarn.
