0 views

Uploaded by Nikky GS

© All Rights Reserved

- class debate rubric
- Political Thinkers of England
- Phl251r6 W3 Syllogisms and Logic Worksheet
- Existentialism and African Logic
- 03_ECE MATH 311_Validity of Arguments and Logical Equivalence
- The Liberal Arts and Sciences of Classical Antiquity
- An Overview of Human Plausible Reasoning
- Analytical
- LANDICHO Mananquil v. Moico
- Common Functions in I.T.
- Coskun_Tiryaki_2013
- Essay Types
- Soal Uas Mku Agro
- Here is the Book Review Format in Which to Follow
- Philo Final Exam
- Lecture 8 Argumentative Essay
- Propositional Logic (discrite maths)
- Logic1 Demo
- 7.4
- Final

You are on page 1of 8

Deductive Reasoning

You have demonstrated, simply by being admitted to this academic program, that you can reason well.

But have you ever thought about how you reason? By taking some time to reflect on basic patterns of

reasoning, and strategies we rely on to draw conclusions, you can improve your decision making in

complex scenarios.

There are two ‘types’ of reasoning: inductive and deductive. This handout addresses deductive

reasoning, which arguably is the closest type of reasoning we engage in that follows a purely rational

model of decision making. Note that what is provided is a broad overview of deduction – there are

people who spend their lives working through what exactly we can, and cannot, deduce.

Deductive reasoning is when we draw inferences apart from any empirical experiences. As such, note

that when Sherlock Holmes talks about deduction, he isn’t relying only on deductive reasoning, but a

mixture of inductive and deductive reasoning. Solving problems like ‘who committed that crime’ or ‘how

did that person perform a given action’ requires us to not only understand concepts, but to first form

concepts about the world (which is a process that relies on our experience in the world). In contrast, the

game of Sudoku requires no consideration of the ‘real world’ and is an exercise in purely deductive

reasoning.

If we are not relying on anything we experience with our senses to draw conclusions, then what

remains is our ability to recognize relationships between concepts. Because we are abstracting from the

empirical world, conclusions we are able to draw via deductive reasoning can be known with certainty,

not mere probability. Deductive reasoning is guided by principles of logic, which are also necessarily

true.

When we evaluate deductive arguments, we use two standards: validity and soundness. Validity refers

to the ability to correctly draw inferences between abstract concepts, but has nothing to do with

asserting the actual truth of any statements. We say that deductive reasoning is sound when that

reasoning is both valid and the premises of the argument are, in fact, true. To establish something is

actually (empirically) true, we need to engage in inductive reasoning, so this handout will focus on

validity.

An example of deductive reasoning that we engage in daily is mathematical reasoning – note that if we

all understand the concepts “2”, “addition”, “equality”, and “4”, then it is necessarily true that “2+2=4”;

this relationship is guaranteed by the concepts themselves (we can say that it is valid to conclude that

“2+2=4”). With deductive reasoning, you can think of concepts as having a variety of information

‘packed’ into them (e.g. how ‘2’ relates to ‘4’), and deductive reasoning is the process of ‘unpacking’

that information so that we can be more explicitly aware of what is implicitly given to us.

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

2. My first plane is on time.

3. Therefore…

If sentences 1-2 are true, then what can we conclude from them? It is pretty obvious that what follows

is I will be able to make my connecting flight. How did you know this? Simply because of the relationship

between concepts in line 1 (a conditional relationship between the concept ‘plane on time’ and ‘ability

to make connecting flight’), and confirmation of the antecedent (‘plane is on time’) in line 2. Because we

are focusing on the pattern of relationships between (any) concepts, we can use a variable to represent

each unique statement. A statement is an assertion about some (one) thing. Sentence number 1 (above)

involves the assertion of 2 things, which means that sentence contains 2 statements: (1) my first plane is

on time, (2) I will be able to make my connecting flight. We can use the letter “P” (or any letter, really)

to represent “my first plane is on time”, and the letter “Q” to represent “I will be able to make my

connecting flight”. We can then remember this pattern of reasoning given in the above argument, which

is referred to as “modus ponens”, in the following manner (read the line that is drawn as shorthand for

“therefore”):

Modus Ponens:

If p, then q

p________

q

p________ Not q____ P or (anything)

q Not p

(note: “or” is used in an inclusive sense, so

that if we say ‘p or q’, we are not

necessarily committing to both p and q.)

Hypothetical Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism Conjunction

If p, then q p or q p

If q, then r_ Not p__ q____

If p then r q p and q

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

equivalent manners. For example, “eggs and ham” is equivalent to “ham and eggs”, and “it is not true

that you will be both rich and famous” is equivalent to “you either will not be rich or you will not be

famous”. There are number of equivalents, which allow us to replace one specific formulation of a

statement with another specific formulation, and sometimes simply restating a proposition in a new way

can add clarity.

We can actually prove the “rules” and equivalences described above using another technique, referred

to as truth tables. These truth tables allow us to see all possible combinations of truths when different

concepts are put into relationship with each other. To create truth tables, first recognize that any simple

statement, which we can represent with the letter “p”, is either true or false. We can show this in the

following table:

_ p__

T (true)

F (false)

Some other simple statement, “q”, is also true or false, but when we put these two statements together,

there are 4 possible combinations: they could both be true, they could both be false, or only 1 is true

(either p, or q). Specifically, there are 2X combinations of truth assignments, where X represents the

number of different simple statements being considered in relationship to each other. The following

table shows possible truth combinations for statements p and q:

p q

True True

True False

False True

False False

We can also acknowledge under which conditions complex statements are true. If a statement is true,

then its negation (a “not” statement) is false: if it is true that “cats are mammals”, then if someone

asserts “cats are not mammals”, then that person has given a statement that is false. Conjunctions

(“and” statements) are true only when both conjuncts (“parts” – p and q) are true: it is only true that I

am sitting and typing if it is true that I am sitting and it is true that I am typing. Disjunctions (“or”

statements) are true when at least one disjunct (“part” – p or q) is true: it is true that “I am either sitting

or typing” if it is true that I am doing at least one of these things. Conditionals (“if p, then q”) are true

except when the antecedent (the “if” part - p) is true and the consequent (the “then” part – q) fails to

come true: we may believe the statement “if my plane is on time, then I will be able to make my

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

connecting flight” to be true unless we have evidence of the antecedent being true without the

consequent also coming to be true.

So how do we know that “I will be able to make my connecting flight (Q)”, if we accept that “if my first

plane is on time (P), then I will be able to make my connecting flight (Q)”, and it is true that “my first

plane is on time (P and Q), as well as each complex statement. I can create a truth table to confirm my

belief in the conclusion. First I create a table with a distinct column for each simple statement (P and Q),

and each complex statement (I also know there will be 4 rows for truth values, because there are 2

simple statements/variables):

P Q If P then Q

Next, I create rows to show all of the truth combinations for each simple statement.

P Q If P then Q

True True

True False

False True

False False

Then I work across each row to determine the truth value of the complex statements given each truth

combination of the simple statements. In this example, if the conditional (If P then Q) is true, and the

antecedent (P) is true (according to the table below, in every row in which both of those two statements

are true), “Q” (I will be able to make my connecting flight) is also true.

P Q If P then Q

True True True

True False False

False True True

False False True

You can use this technique to figure out when statements are, or are not, true, given specific

information that you are accepting as true.

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

In addition to paying attention to rules of inference or rules of replacement, or relying on truth tables,

there are other techniques to help us draw conclusions. Many of you might be familiar with the idea of

Venn Diagrams. These diagrams provide us visual assistance in determining which relationships between

concepts that we can – and cannot - claim to know. The technique is very simple – each concept is

represented by a circle. So if we were having a discussion about cars, I image that all cars would ‘exist’ in

the circle I create labeled ‘cars’:

CARS

When we assert a relationship between two (or more) concepts, a circle for each concept is drawn, and

the circles overlap each other.

In addition to drawing a circle to represent each concept, there are 2 additional drawing techniques that

are relied upon. First, if you are working under the premise that ‘some’ things that exemplify a particular

concept exist, then you can put an “X” inside the circle for that concept. You can also shade in parts of

the circle for which you know that NO things exist. For example, if “Some motorcycles are red things”,

then I could diagram the statement in the following way:

X

X

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

Above, you see that the concepts ‘motorcycle’ and ‘red things’ are overlapping, and there is clearly an X

in the area in which the two circles overlap (so there is some ‘thing’ that is in both the ‘world of

motorcycles’ and the ‘world of red thing’).

If I know that “Some vehicles are not cars”, I would diagram that information as follows:

VEHICLES CARS

If “No Motorcycles are Cars”, then I could diagram the statement in the following way:

MOTORCYCLES CARS

Here again I have shown a circle to represent all motorcycles, and a circle to represent all cars, and have

them overlapping to show that we are looking at the relationship between them. Then, I shaded the

area in which they overlap, to “block off” the area in which the ‘world of circles’ and ‘world of

motorcycles’ are the same world. By ‘blocking off” (shading) this area, then no ‘things’ can exist in this

part of the world.

Now consider the following: If I knew that “No motorcycles are cars” and “some vehicles are not cars”,

can I conclude that “all vehicles are motorcycles”? To figure this out, we diagram what we do know, and

look to see if the picture can confirm or deny what we want to know. First, we draw the three circles to

represent each concept. Then, we shade in the area where motorcycles and cars overlap, to ensure that

nothing can ‘exist’ in both of these ‘worlds’. The next premise is a bit more ‘tricky’ – we are told that

some vehicles are not cars, so we need an “X” in the world of vehicles that does not overlap with the

world of cars, but we are NOT told whether some vehicles are or are not motorcycles (don’t assume

anything – we are working only on the information given to us) – so I’ve strategically placed the “X” on

the line that distinguishes whether the world of vehicles is and is not distinct from the world of

motorcycles.

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

Cars

Vehicles Motorcycles

Note, this picture does NOT show that all vehicles are motorcycles (if it were to show that, the circle

representing vehicles would be shaded, or blocked off, everywhere EXCEPT where it overlapped with

motorcycles – forcing anything that ‘existed in the world of vehicles’ would also have to ‘exist in the

world of motorcycles’). Also note that from this diagram alone, we cannot conclude with certainty that

some vehicles are motorcycles (from the information we were given, that may or may not be true).

Once again, the procedures for using Venn diagrams to help us draw valid conclusions is not particularly

difficult. Also, the example I used is one in which the relationships between concepts are obvious to us

empirically, so you aren’t surprised with the conclusion we’ve drawn. So why bother working through

this process of diagramming arguments? If you use this technique, you can more quickly – and

confidently – draw conclusions in situations in which the relationships between concepts is not

immediately obvious.

Below, I am providing you some problems you can work on if you want to practice the techniques

described above. Answers to these questions are provided on the very last page of this handout.

1. Construct a Venn diagram to determine the validity of the following argument: All CEOs are in

leadership positions, but some people in leadership positions are not ethical. So, some CEOs are

not ethical.

2. Rely on rules of inference or construct a truth table to determine if the following argument is

valid: If you bribe the agent, then your company’s bid will be chosen. If your company’s bid is

chosen, then you will get a raise. So, if you bribe the agent, then you will get a raise.

3. Rely on rules of inference or construct a truth table to determine if the following argument is

valid: If you engage in bribery, then you are a risk to this company. You do not engage in bribery.

Therefore, you are not a risk to this company.

Handout: Deductive Reasoning

MAN 5245 / MDarnell

Answers/Comments:

1. All CEOs are in leadership positions, but some people in leadership positions are not ethical. So,

some CEOs are not ethical. This argument is invalid – it is not guaranteed that some CEOs are

not ethical (it is possible, but not necessarily true).

CEOs

Leadership Positions

3. This argument is invalid. The narrative explanation is that you might still be a risk to the

company for some other reason than bribery. The truth table that demonstrates this given

below; the highlighted rows show that when the premises are true, the conclusion may or may

not be true. Because validity requires that the conclusion must be true when the premises are

true, this argument is invalid.

Let B stand for “you engage in bribery”, Let R stand for “you are a risk to this company”. Recall,

the argument is: “If you engage in bribery, then you are a risk to this company. You do not

engage in bribery. Therefore, you are not a risk to this company.”

(premise 1) (premise 2) (conclusion)

True True True False False

True False False False True

False True True True False

False False True True True

- class debate rubricUploaded byapi-263357097
- Political Thinkers of EnglandUploaded byMitu Banerjee
- Phl251r6 W3 Syllogisms and Logic WorksheetUploaded byKingman93
- Existentialism and African LogicUploaded byH--K
- 03_ECE MATH 311_Validity of Arguments and Logical EquivalenceUploaded byGennie Brul
- The Liberal Arts and Sciences of Classical AntiquityUploaded byTemplarKnight56
- An Overview of Human Plausible ReasoningUploaded byscribd202
- AnalyticalUploaded byZakir Ullah
- LANDICHO Mananquil v. MoicoUploaded byAwin Landicho
- Common Functions in I.T.Uploaded byirish x
- Coskun_Tiryaki_2013Uploaded byTiagoBernardini
- Essay TypesUploaded bymasoud1716
- Soal Uas Mku AgroUploaded byMitaria
- Here is the Book Review Format in Which to FollowUploaded byRalph Gayawet
- Philo Final ExamUploaded byandrew
- Lecture 8 Argumentative EssayUploaded byYuen Meimei
- Propositional Logic (discrite maths)Uploaded byapi-33642484
- Logic1 DemoUploaded byAnonymous SBT3XU6I
- 7.4Uploaded byAndrea Mardesich
- FinalUploaded byAnonymous HDfs7Gb8t
- quizstudyguideUploaded byapi-238443558
- 08JALenthBasisUploaded bypratolectus
- PPT 2015Uploaded byNorlida Zul
- AEA HandoutUploaded byGEA
- AQA-413002-W-MS-JUN14Uploaded byKrish Jain
- persuasive writing lesson rubric isaacsUploaded byapi-252119755
- CL Mock SolutionsUploaded byDeepak Kumar
- Visual Argumentation SlidesUploaded byMladen Špica
- pc15 problem-solving rubricUploaded byapi-455383099
- sced 460 strategies bookletUploaded byapi-402027036

- Organizational Behavior Deductive ReasoningUploaded byNikky GS
- Organizational Behavior Inductive ReasoningUploaded byNikky GS
- Law Review ArticleUploaded byNikky GS
- Project Management QuizUploaded byNikky GS
- Differing Values in Organizational BahaviorUploaded byNikky GS
- Fairness in OrganizationsUploaded byNikky GS
- Business LawUploaded byNikky GS

- Gramsci Inglés wikipediaUploaded byDaniel Cifuentes
- Thomas HobbesUploaded byChaiFerran
- PP 10-1 BR Pearson 124-125Uploaded byBerel Dov Lerner
- Graham Oppy (1991). Semantics for Propositional Attitude AscriptionsUploaded bygustavobertolino
- Theories_of_the_Image_in_France_Between.pdfUploaded byDebora Galia Kantor
- BonevacDanielCOLA092017.pdfUploaded byAsharf Ali
- Raya Dunayevskaya's Marxist-HumanismUploaded byTigersEye99
- Azzouni, J. on 'on What There is'Uploaded byMarco Antonio Rodríguez
- Words and Images in Argumentation - Axel BarcelóUploaded byJhonny Jaramillo
- Kremer-Dewey and Rorty on TruthUploaded byDaniel López González
- sensus-communis-3d.pdfUploaded byEduardo Benedetti
- Lea Ypi - Whats Wrong With Colonialism?Uploaded byPepe
- Mika_Tell It Like It Is_Contemporary Photography and the Lure of the RealUploaded byAndra Pavel
- Alasdair MacIntyreUploaded byEmpire100
- Anthropology and the Analysis of IdeologyUploaded bygracez2001
- Robophilosophy.pdfUploaded byev8619
- Feminist TheoryUploaded byJelly Bean
- newspaper article - nationalismUploaded byapi-318861824
- Towards a Cognitive HistoriographyUploaded byalisdorf
- ABING. KIERKEGAARD1.docxUploaded bybamybam
- Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System.docxUploaded byRosalinda Mintre
- Research MethodsUploaded byFe Portabes
- Gray - Black Mass (2007) - SynopsisUploaded byMark K. Jensen
- Personal IdentityUploaded byRichardBielawa
- Course OutlineUploaded byAnja Schwarz
- Dr Milan Zi Research 1Uploaded bykutikavu1981
- Theory of Apoha on the basis of the Pram1Uploaded byDr.Ramanath Pandey
- Rational Action - Carl HempelUploaded byMarcela
- Zizek 'Tolerance as an Ideological Category'Uploaded byshweteng
- al ghazaliUploaded byAlexander Dawson