Critical Thinking

Chapter 11
Inductive Reasoning

1
 Introduction
 Inductive Argument: an argument in which the premises
are intended to provide support, but not conclusive
evidence, for the conclusion.
 Strong Inductive Argument: an inductive argument in
which the premises actually do make the conclusion
more likely to be true (rather than false).
 Remember, strength comes in degrees.
 Cogent Inductive Argument: a strong inductive
argument with true premises.
 How can you know if the argument is inductive?
 If the argument is invalid, the charitable thing to do is treat
it as inductive.
 Indicator words: likely, probably, it’s plausible to suppose
that, etc.

2
Inductive argument evaluating
Inductive
argument

strong weak

Cogent Uncogent
 Inductive reasoning

 The are six common patterns of

inductive reasoning:
 Inductive generalization
 Predictive argument
 Argument from authority
 Causal argument
 Statically argument
 Argument from analogy
Inductive Generalizations
 Generalization: statement made about all or
most members of a group.
 Inductive generalization: inductive argument
that relies on characteristics of a sample
population (i.e., a portion of the population)
to make a claim about the population as a
whole.
 i.e., an inductive argument with a generalization
as a conclusion.
 Example: All the bass Hank caught in the
Susquehanna have been less than 1lb. So,
most of the bass in the Susquehanna are
less than 1lb.

5
Making Inductive Generalizations
stronger by making conclusions
weaker.

 Notice…
 All the bass Hank caught in the Susquehanna have
been less than 1lb. So, all of the bass in the
Susquehanna are less than 1lb.
 ..is a pretty weak argument. Even if Hank
fishes often, the Susquehanna is a big river
and his catches are not enough to justify
such a “sweeping conclusion.”
 However, if we changed the conclusion to
“most of the bass are…” or, better yet,
“many of the bass are…” the argument would
be much stronger.
6
Example
 Only 3 percent of IU are against building the new
gymnasium
 A is a IU student
 So, A is not against building the new gymnasium

Stronger argument

Only 3 percent of IU are against building the new gymnasium

A is a IU student
So, A is probably not against building the new gymnasium

7
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations

Three questions to ask:

 Are the premises true? Use the skills you
learned in chapter 8 to determine whether
you are justified in accepting the premises.
 Is the sample large enough? In general, the
larger the population you are generalizing
about, the larger your “sample population”
will need to be.
 Is the sample representative? Only if the
sample shares all the relevant “percentages”
with the population as a whole.
 Maybe Hank only fished with lures that were
attractive to smaller fish.
8
 Opinion Polls and Inductive
Generalizations

 Smaller polls have bigger margin of errors:

 1500 (3), 1000 (4), 600 (5), 100 (11)
 But this only holds if the sample population is
representative.
 To find the whole population’s opinion, you
can’t poll just the rich, or just those with
houses, or just radio listeners, just the happy,
just those you are willing to approach, just
those who bother to answer emails, or just
those who don’t intimidate you, etc.

9
Statistical Arguments
 Statistical arguments go “the other way.” They take
generalizations and draw conclusions about smaller
samples of the population (usually individuals).
 Example:
1. You’re a college student
2. 90% of college students want no cumulative final.
3. So you probably don’t want a cumulative final.
 The more “broad” the conclusion the better.
 The higher the original percentage, the better.
 Usually, if the percentage is around 50%, we will
call the argument unreliable.
 A “rule of thumb”: if it is would reasonable to bet on
it, then it is reliable.

10
Reference Class
 In a statistical argument, if you find out
more information about the person in
question, you “narrow” the group (class)
the person is in.
 This additional information weakened our
justification for believing that you don’t
want a final.

11
 Reference class
 90% of IU students are in favor of not having a
cumulative final exam in their critical thinking class.
 A is a IU student.
 So, A is in favor of not having a cumulative final exam in
her critical thinking class.

 85% of IU students who like writing want the cumulative final

because it will have an essay
 A is a IU student who like writing essays
 So, A is probably wants the cumulative final.

12
 Reference class
 90% of IU students are in favor of not having a
cumulative final exam in their critical thinking class.
 A is a IU student.
 So, A is in favor of not having a cumulative final exam
in her critical thinking class.

 85% of IU students who like writing want the cumulative final

because it will have an essay
 A is a IU student who like writing essays
 So, A is probably wants the cumulative final.

13
Argument by Analogy
 Analogy: comparison of things based on
similarities.
 Argument from analogy: an argument that
suggests that the presence of certain
similarities is evidence for further
similarities.
 Common Form:
1. A and B have characteristic X
2. A has characteristic Y
3. So B probably has characteristic Y too.

14
Argument by Analogy
 Example:
1. Tiffany and Heather are both tall and play
basketball.
2. Tiffany also plays volleyball.

3. So, Heather probably plays volleyball too.

15
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
 Are the premises true?
 Are the similarities relevant?
 Since being tall is helpful in volleyball, the
fact that both Tiffany and Heather are tall is
relevant to the previous conclusion.
 The more relevant similarities there are,
the better.
 If we also learn that they both get
scholarships if they play more than one
sport, our conclusion is more supported.

16
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy

 Are there relevant dis-similarities?

 Irrelevant dis-similarities: hair color
 Relevant dis-similarity: job status

 The more examples which are also

similar, the better.
 If Amber and Krissy are also tall and play both
basketball and volleyball our conclusion is even
further supported.

17
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
 The more diversity in the examples, the
better.
 If Tiffany, Amber and Krissy are different in
many ways, except for the fact that they are
all tall and play basketball and volleyball.
 Their being tall and playing basketball is
relevant to their playing volleyball.
 Thus, Heather’s being tall and playing
basketball is better evidence that she also
plays volleyball.
 Is the conclusion too specific?
 “Heather probably plays volleyball” is better
supported than “Heather must play volleyball.”

18
 Arguing by Analogy

Employ the same questions and

evaluation as you construct your own
arguments from analogy.
 Don’t be too specific.
 Use relevant similarities.
 Use many similarities.
 Use a diverse and large group.
 Use true premises.

19
 Induction and Causal
Arguments
 One of the most basic, most common, and most
important kind of knowledge of cause and effect.
 A cause is that brings about a change, that which
produces an effect.
 Not all causal arguments contain the word “cause”.
Causal terms such as: produce, is responsible for,
affects, makes, changes and contributes to
 Such arguments come in two broad types:
arguments about the cause of a single instance
and arguments about a general relationship.

20
Two kinds of causal arguments
 Arguments about a single instance:
 Example: My car wouldn’t start but I haven’t replaced
the battery in six years. It must have been the battery.
 This is just an argument about the cause of one event.
 Arguments about a general relationship.
 Example: There is a high correlation between smoking
and lung cancer. Smoking must cause lung cancer.
 This is suggesting a causal relationship between
smoking and lung cancer (not about a specific person’s
lung cancer).
 Notice that it isn’t saying that everyone who smokes
gets lung cancer. The generous interpretation reads it
as: smoking makes one more likely to get lung
cancer.

21
 Correlation and cause
 Sometimes, two things or events are clearly associated or linked:
where you find X, you will often find Y. A relationship such of
this, in which two things are frequently found together, is called
a correlation.
 Sometimes a correlation is an indicator of a cause and effect
relationship.
 A positive correlation, one that indicates two things are found
together more than 50 percent of the time, may indicate a causal
connection between one thing and the other.
 A negative correlation, one that indicates two things are found
together less than 50 percent of the time, may indicate that one
thing prevents the other.
 The important question is this: Is the correlation significant?
The answer depends, in part, on the size of the sample

22
The dangers of correlation
 We can never PROVE (beyond doubt) that
there is a causal relation between two things;
Hume taught us that.
 The best we can do is observe correlation.
 But when arguing from correlation, one must
be careful.
 We have a tendency to see things as
correlated when we already think they are
causally related.
 Superstition, belief about bad luck, etc.
 But assuming they are connected when trying to
prove they are, begs the question.

23
The dangers of correlation
 To really establish a “link,” we must be careful to
eliminate bias and expectation.
 This is why, to eliminate the “placebo effect” medical
scientists do “double blind” studies.
 ”When the legs were removed, grasshopper are
deaf.”
 Even large amounts of correlation are not enough to
establish a causal connection.
 Example: big-feet and math (p.327)
 News reporters have this problem all the time.
 When arguing from correlation, you need to make sure
that there aren’t any other factors that might account
for the correlation.
 Example: Vitamin C study (p.329)

24
 Correlation and Cause
 But all in all, correlation is most often due to
coincidence…
 Even if x is correlated with y, it could be due to the fact
that they are both the causal result of some other thing
z
 …so it is wise to always be suspicious.

25
Probability
 Epistemic Probability expresses how likely we
think something is, given what we believe.
 “There is a pretty high probability that I’ll go to
the beach sometime this summer.”
 Relative Frequency Probability takes
information about a group as a whole and
applies it to individual cases.
 “There is a 90% chance that the operation will
be successful.”
 This is derived from the fact that, for 90% of
the people on which the operation was
performed, the operation was successful.

26
Probability
 A priori probability are statements that can be
calculated prior to sensory observations.
 “There is a 50% chance of getting tails on this
coin toss.”
 The nature of the coin determines the
“objective” probability of getting tails.

27
Some Clues:

 If you need to know about the structure

of the bet itself to know the odds, then it
is probably a priori.
 If you need to know about the specific
person/thing involved to know how likely
it is, then it is epistemic.
 If you need to know about the
percentages of the population in question,
then it is frequency.
 If it says, “a random person/thing” then it
probably is frequency.

28
More on a priori probability
 How to figure a priori probability
 The probably of either A or B is “Pr(A) +
Pr(B)”
 Probability of drawing either a King or a 7 is
a standard deck: 1/13+1/13 [i.e, 2/13
(15.4%)]
 The probably of getting both A and B is “Pr(A)
x Pr(B)”
 Probably of drawing a K and then a 7 (or a
7 and then a K) is 1/13x1/13 [i.e., 1/169
(.59%)]
29
Gambler’s fallacy:

 Thinking that previous chance occurrences affect

future ones.
 The probability of a roulette wheel coming up
black is always 47.37%, even if it just came up
black 28 times in a row.
 Granted, if you haven’t starting spinning the
wheel yet, the probably of it hitting black 29
times in a row is low. But, if you have already hit
black 28 times, the probably of getting 29 in a
row now is the same as the probably of hitting it
once (because one more is all you need for 29):
47.37%.

30
Bet values
 Expected Value: The payoff or loss you can expect
from a bet.
 How to figure expected value: take the payoff and
multiple it by your odds.
 The expected value of a 1/100 chance at $100 is $1.
 1/100x$100=$1
 If there are multiple payoff, you average them:
 1/3rd chance at 0, 1/3 chance at $50, 1/3 chance at
$100. Expected value $50.
 (0+50+100)/3=$50
 Deal or no deal?:
 The “banker” always offers less than expected value
(the average of the amounts left), until the end when
he wants them to take the deal.

31
Relative Value
 Of course, there are other reasons to take bets other than
payoffs.
 Your own needs, preferences and resources can affect the
“value” of a bet as well.
 The value a bet has, given such considerations, is the
“relative value.”
 Example: The relative value of betting $100 for a long shot at
a billion is high for a millionaire (he can afford it), but low for
a homeless person (who wouldn’t want to risk money he can
use to eat on a long shot at a billion).
 Diminishing marginal value: as quantity of bets increase,
the relative value of the bets tends to decrease.
 If you are really hungry, you are willing to buy a piece of pizza
for $10 (if that is all that is available). It’s relative value is
really high. But after you eat it, and your hunger subsides
somewhat, its relative value drops and you are less willing to
pay so much. Buy enough pizza, and you won’t be willing to
pay much at all. Buy too much (and eat it) and you won’t take
it for free.
32