# Stefan Bush-Gordon

Logic 2: Deductive Reasoning
1. Explain the differences between induction and deduction, and provide an example of each. Induction and deduction are two forms of logical reasoning. They differ both in their method and also in the resulting answer obtained from the reasoning process. One difference is that deduction gives certainty, whereas induction gives probability. In a valid deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, or rather the information in the conclusion is contained within the premises. For example, the proposition “Socrates is mortal” follows necessarily from the premises “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man”. If we know the premises to be true, and the argument to be valid, then the conclusion must also be true, allowing us to be certain of the truth or falsity of an argument. The claim of an inductive argument, however, is that the premises support or suggest the conclusion drawn, but they do not outright prove or disprove the truth value of the conclusion. An example of induction would be to argue that because all the squirrels I have observed are grey, I conclude that all squirrels are grey. This conclusion may be true or false, the argument only serves to suggest probability of the conclusion. Deduction can therefore be seen as making the strongest claims, that the product of deductive reasoning is certain, whereas induction is uncertain. This leads to a difference between how deductive and inductive arguments are judged. Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid, which judge whether the conclusion logically (necessarily) follows from the premises, but they can also be sound or unsound, and this introduces the value of truth and falsity to deduction. If an argument is valid and its premises are also true, then the conclusion necessarily must be also, and this combination of validity and truth is soundness. Inductive arguments are either strong or weak, referring to how their premises are judged to support the probability of the conclusion. Induction, unlike deduction, goes beyond what is contained within the premises by claiming common characteristics between entities, or patterns and resemblances give support to a wider conclusion that might entail unstated, unknown factors. Conversely, deduction does not create new information with its conclusions, as it is all already contained within the premises. 2. Explain what constitutes a deductive system. The foundational mechanism or basis of a deductive system is its axioms. Axioms are asserted statements, often considered to be self-evident, that serve as a starting point for deriving theorems. They have certain qualities or requirements: they must be consistent with the other axioms without contradiction, and yet logically independent, meaning that they do not cover the same ground and cannot be derived from the other axioms. An example of an axiom taken from the system of Euclidean Geometry is “all right angles are equal to one another”. Axioms are stated within the language of the system, and this language is described through the listing of its “defined terms”. The defined terms explain the meaning behind the terms to be used in the system and their legal application within the system. An example of a defined term within geometry is “an angle can be defined as two rays or two line segments having a common end point”. The use of defined terms is important within a deductive system so that propositions created are not misinterpreted,but are consistent and coherent and can be

Stefan Bush-Gordon