Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction

Chapter 11
Inductive Reasoning

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction

Inductive argument: An argument in which the

premises are intended to provide support, but not
conclusive evidence, for the conclusion
• An inductive argument is strong when its premises provide
evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false
• An inductive argument is weak when its premises do not
provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely true
than false
• Arguments have varying degrees of strength and weakness
How Can You Know If an Argument Is
Inductive? 1

If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with

strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as inductive
Presence of induction indicator words
• Induction indicator words: Words are phrases such as
“likely,” “probably,” “it’s plausible to suppose that,” “it’s
reasonable to believe that,” and “odds are that”
How Can You Know If an Argument Is
Inductive? 2

Common patterns such as inductive generalizations,

statistical arguments, arguments from analogy, and
causal arguments
Inductive Generalizations

Generalization: Statement made about all or most

members of a group
Inductive generalization: Argument that relies on
characteristics of a sample population (that is, a
portion of the population) to make a claim about the
population as a whole
• Example: All the bass Hank caught in the Susquehanna
River have weighed less than one pound. So, most of the
bass in the Susquehanna River weigh less than one pound.
Making Inductive Generalizations
Stronger by Making Conclusions Weaker

All the bass Hank caught in the Susquehanna River

weighed less than one pound. So, all of the bass in
the Susquehanna River weigh less than one pound.
• Notice that this 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
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations, 1

Questions to be asked:
• Are the premises true?
• Similar to deductive arguments, inductive arguments also
need true premises
• The premises of an inductive generalization can provide
strong support for its conclusion, but if the premises are
not all true, it is not a cogent inductive argument
• Cogent argument: An argument that has all true premises
and supplies strong support for its conclusion
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations, 2

• Is the sample large enough?

• The larger the population you are generalizing about, the
larger your “sample population” will need to be
• A sample is “large enough” when it is clear that we have not
rushed to judgment, that we have not formed a hasty
generalization
• Is the sample representative?
• The sample population needs to be representative
• A representative sample is like the population as a whole in
all relevant ways
Opinion Polls and Inductive
Generalizations, 1

The aim of a poll is to determine what a large

population thinks or believes about a certain issue
• The preferred method is to ask a question of a sample of
the population that is both large enough and
representative of the population as a whole
Take a population of 100 million, and take a
representative poll of 4000 voters
• There is a 95% chance that the percentages of the 4000
voters will fall within 2 percentage points of the whole
population
Opinion Polls and Inductive
Generalizations, 2

• If 60% of the 4000 voted yes, there would be a 95%

chance that 58% to 62% of the 100 million voted yes
[that is, 60% (2)]
Number Polled Margin of Error
• Small polls have a big
4,000 ±2
margin of errors: 1,500 ±3
1,000 ±4
750 ±4
600 ±5
400 ±6
200 ±8
100 ±11
Opinion Polls and Inductive
Generalizations, 3

• But this only holds if the sample population is

representative
• To have a truly representative sample, we must select
subjects at random from within the appropriate pool

Factors that can prevent random selection

• Self-selecting samples
• Nonresponses
• Dishonesty
• Characteristics of the pollster
Statistical Arguments, 1

Argues from premises regarding a percentage of a

population to a conclusion about an individual
member of that population or some part of that
population
Example
• Ninety percent of college students are in favor of not having
a cumulative final exam in their critical thinking class
• Vera Peterson is a college student
• So, Vera Peterson is in favor of not having a cumulative final
exam in her critical thinking class
Statistical Arguments, 2

Statistical arguments are evaluated along a continuum

of strong to weak
• Rule of thumb: If it is reasonable to bet on it, then it is
reliable
• Example 1: Only 3 percent of Wexford College students are
against building the new gymnasium. Johnny Z is a Wexford
College student. So, Johnny Z is not against building the new
gymnasium.
• This is a strong argument, offering evidence that there is a 97
percent chance that the conclusion is true
Statistical Arguments, 3

• Example 2: Only 3 percent of Wexford College students are

against building the new gymnasium. Johnny Z is a Wexford
College student. So, Johnny Z is probably not against
building the new gymnasium.
• The word “probably” safeguards this conclusion by claiming
less than the conclusion in the original formulation did
Statistical Arguments, 4

• Example 3: Only 3 percent of Wexford College students are

against building the new gymnasium. Johnny Z is a Wexford
College student. So, Johnny Z is against building the new
gymnasium.
• This argument is weak because there is a 97 percent chance
that the conclusion is false
Reference Class, 1

In statistical arguments, the subject of the premise

should be as much like the subject of the conclusion
as possible
Example
• Eighty-five percent of college students who like writing
essays want the cumulative final because it will have an
essay
• Vera Peterson is a college student who likes writing essays
• So, Vera Peterson probably wants the cumulative final
Reference Class, 2

This is a stronger argument compared to the original

version of the argument
• The reference class is the group to which statistics apply
Argument by Analogy, 1

Analogy: Comparison of things based on similarities

those things share
Argument from analogy: Argument that suggests
that the presence of certain similarities is evidence
for further similarities
• Common form
• A and B have characteristic X
• A has characteristic Y
• Therefore, B has characteristic Y too
Argument by Analogy, 2

• Example
• The Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles are
both government agencies, and both were closed on
Veterans Day
• The Post Office is closed for Martin Luther King Junior Day
• So, the Department of Motor Vehicles must be closed for
Martin Luther King Junior Day
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Using an Example, 1

Example
• Tiffany and Heather are both tall and play basketball
• Tiffany also plays volleyball
• So, Heather must also play volleyball

Evaluation involves asking the following questions:

• 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
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Using an Example, 2

• How many relevant similarities?

• 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
• Are there relevant dissimilarities?
• Irrelevant dissimilarity: Hair color
• Relevant dissimilarity: Job statuses of Tiffany and Heather
• Does the argument consider a large sample?
• If Amber and Krissy are also tall and play both basketball
and volleyball, our conclusion is even further supported
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Using an Example, 3

• 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, it seems more likely that their being tall and them
playing basketball are relevant to them playing volleyball
• Thus, Heather being tall and she playing basketball are
better evidence that she also plays volleyball
• Is the specificity of the conclusion relative to the
premises?
• The broader and less specific the conclusion is, the stronger
the argument is
• In the example, “Heather probably plays volleyball” is better
supported than “Heather must play volleyball”
Arguing by Analogy

The criteria for constructing a good argument from

analogy are the same as those for evaluating an
argument from analogy
Induction and Causal Arguments, 1

A cause is that which brings about a change, that

which produces an effect
• On a billiard table, we constantly see the cue ball striking
the other balls just before they move
• We assume a causal connection
• If we were to argue that they are causally connected, we
would cite the fact that the cue ball striking the other balls
always precedes and is constantly conjoined with the
movement of the other balls
Induction and Causal Arguments, 2

But as we learned in chapter 6, not every event that

precedes another causes the other
• How can we argue and conclude that two things are
causally connected?
Types of Causal Arguments

Arguments about the cause of a single instance

• Example: Megan’s car wouldn’t start this morning, and
she hasn’t replaced the battery since she bought the car
six years ago. So, it is probably a dead battery that caused
the car not to start.
Arguments about a general relationship
• Example: The Surgeon General has found that there is a
strong link between smoking cigarettes and getting lung
cancer. So, smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
• This is suggesting a causal relationship between smoking
and lung cancer (not about a specific person’s lung cancer)
Forming Premises for Causal Arguments

As is the case with all arguments, we need true

premises for our causal arguments to be of any value
• In arguing for a cause-and-effect relationship, premises
should be based on careful observation
• Selective attention and memory can cause problems here
• Basing causal arguments on the anecdotal evidence of
others should be done with caution
• Experts investigate causal connections by conducting
double-blind studies, which help ensure that the results are
not compromised
Correlation and Cause, 1

Most correlations do not indicate a causal

relationship between the two things or events
correlated
• Example: Correlation between children’s shoe size and
math ability (see page 330)

Positive correlation: When two things are found

together more than 50 percent of the time, it may
indicate a causal connection between one thing and
the other
Correlation and Cause, 2

Negative correlation: When two things are found

together less than 50 percent of the time, it may
indicate that one thing prevents the other
When arguing from correlation, one needs to make
sure that there aren’t any other factors that might
account for the correlation
• Example: Vitamin C study (page 331)
Correlation and Cause, 3

Correlation can always be a result of mere

coincidence, and most of the time it is
• When a correlation is not absolute, one should be
suspicious
Probability, 1

Epistemic probability expresses how likely we think

something is, given what we believe
• Example: “There is a pretty high probability that I’ll go to
the beach sometime this summer”
Probability, 2

Relative frequency probability takes information

about a group as a whole and applies it to
individual cases
• Example: “There is a 90% chance that the operation will
be successful”
• This is derived from the fact that for 90% of the people, on
whom the operation was performed, the operation was
successful
Probability, 3

A priori probability are statements that have odds

that can be calculated prior to, and independent of,
sensory observation
• Example: “There is a 50% probability of getting tails on a
fair coin toss”
• The nature of the coin determines the “objective”
probability of getting tails
More on a Priori Probability

Probability of either A or B is “Pr(A) + Pr(B)”

• Probability of drawing either a King or a 7 in a standard
deck of cards: 1/13 + 1/13 = 2/13 or 15.4%
Probability of getting both A and B is “Pr(A) × Pr(B)”
• Probability of drawing a King and then a 7 (or a 7 and
then a King): 1/13 × 1/13 = 1/169 or 0.59%
Gambler’s Fallacy

Mistaken belief that a past event has an impact on

a current random event
• Example: The probability of a roulette wheel coming up
black is always 47.37%, even if it came up black 28 times
in a row
• Each spin of the wheel is a random event, unaffected by
previous events
• Law of large numbers: Proximity of theoretically
predicted and actual percentages tends to increase as the
sample grows
Ways to Assess the Value of Making a
Bet, 1

Expected value: The payoff or loss you can expect

from making a bet
• How to figure expected value: Take the payoff and
multiply it by your odds
• The expected value of a 1/100 chance at $100 is $1
• 1/100 × $100 = $1
Ways to Assess the Value of Making a
Bet, 2

Relative value: The value a bet has in relation to an

individual’s own needs, preferences, and resources
• 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)
Ways to Assess the Value of Making a
Bet, 3

Diminishing marginal value: As the quantity of bets

increase, the relative value of the bets tends to
decrease
• Example: If you are hungry, one slice of pizza will have a
very high relative value, probably making its cost
worthwhile. But as the number of slices you buy
increases, the relative value tends to go down.