REASONING

TYPES OF REASONING
 Induction
 Deduction
 From Specific to General
 From General to Specific
 Philosophy of Francis Bacon and
 Determines whether the
argument is Valid or Invalid John Stuart Mill
 Core of Aristotelian Logic  Determines whether the argument
 E.g.
is correct or incorrect.
 One should give good reasons to believe their
 All businessmen are
conclusions, but the reason are not infallible .
millionaires
 E.g.
 However, some businessmen
are Filipinos  Juan is a Filipino
 Ergo, some Filipinos are  Juan is a hardworking man.
millionaires.  Ergo, probably all hardworking men are
Filipinos.
2
VALIDITY OF
REASONING
 Rules:  Valid E.g.
 The conclusion should  All sharks are ferocious animals.
flow from the material  However, some sea creatures are sharks.
content of the premise.  Ergo, some sea creatures are ferocious
animals.
 An argument
 Invalid E.g.
containing true
 All stars are heavenly bodies.
premises cannot have a  However, Angelina Jolie is a star.
false conclusion.  Ergo, Angelina Jolie is a heavenly body.

3
KINDS OF REASONING
 Deductive  Inductive
 Conclusion follows  Conclusion follows
necessarily from probably from premise.
premise.  Premise supports
 Premise supports conclusion because of
conclusion because it is it is assumedly true.
true.  Because it is probable
 Because it is for the conclusion to be
impossible for the true.
conclusion to be false.
4
DEDUCTIVE
E.g.
Indicators  If a substance is a
 Necessarily noble gas, it is inert.
 Certainly Therefore, since
 Absolutely argon is a noble
 Definitely gas, it necessarily
follows that it is
inert.

8/27/22 06:24:48 AM 5
INDUCTIVE
 Indicators  E.g.
 Probable  Neon has unstable
 Improbable isotopes. Therefore,
 Plausible since argon is similar
 Implausible in many ways to neon,
 Likely
it probably follows that
argon has unstable
 Unlikely isotopes, too.

6
 DEDUCTIVE VS.
INDUCTIVE 
 Deductive Inductive
 Premise 1  Premise 1
 All saleswomen are  The vast majority of
extroverts. saleswomen are extroverts.
 Premise 2  Premise 2
 Judy Wage is a saleswoman.  Rose Liam is a saleswoman.
 Conclusion  Conclusion
 Therefore, she is extrovert.  Therefore, she is extrovert.

7
 DEDUCTIVE AND
INDUCTIVE
Arguments with no indicator
 Depends on the Matter

8
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Argument based on  E.g.
mathematics  A shopper may place two apples
and three oranges into a paper
 An argument in which bag and then conclude that the
the conclusion depends bag contains five fruits.
on some purely  A surveyor might measure a
square piece of land and, after
arithmetic or geometric determining that it is 100 feet on
computation or each side, conclude that it
contains 10,000 square feet.
measurement.

9
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
 E.g.
 Argument from
 Claudia is mendacious, so she tells lies.
definition  This paragraph is prolix, so it follows that it is
 An argument in which the excessively wordy.
conclusion is claimed to
depend upon the definition
of some word or phrase  Dictionary:
used in the premise or the  Mendacious
conclusion  Liar
 Prolix
 Prolonged

10
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING  E.g.
 Categorical syllogism  Premise 1
 All lasers are optical devices.
 A syllogism in which
 Premise 2
each statement begins  Some lasers are surgical
with one of these instruments.
quantifiers:  Conclusion
 All  Therefore, some optical
 No devices are surgical
instruments.

11
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Conditional syllogism  Modus Ponens
 A syllogism having a conditional  Affirming the Antecedent
statement for one or both of its  Form of this argument:
premises. 1. If X then Y,
 Has form “If X then Y” 2. X.
 First term X (called Antecedent of 3. Therefore Y.
the conditional (comes first)
 Second Term Y (called consequent  E.g.
of the conditional (comes after)  Premise 1
 If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder
than glass.
 Premise 2
 Quartz scratches glass.
 Conclusion
 Therefore, quartz is harder than glass.

12
MODUS PONENS
Premise 1: If he studies hard today, then, he
will pass the exam.

Premise 2:He studies hard today.

Conclusion: He will pass the exam.

 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
• Conditional syllogism  E.g.
• Modus Tollens  Premise 1
 If the food had been poisoned, the dog
– Denying the Consequent would be dead.
Form of this argument:  Premise 2
1. If X then Y.  The dog is not dead.
2. Not Y.  Conclusion
3. therefore Not X  Therefore, the food was not poisoned.

14
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING  E.g.
• Invalid Conditional
Premise 1: If Jon swam in the skunk
syllogism river, then he stinks.
– Denying the Antecedent Premise 2: Jon does not swim in the
• 1. If X then Y skunk river.
• 2. Not X Premise 3: Therefore, he does not
• 3. Therefore Not Y. stink.
Affirming the
Consequent Premise 1: If Jon swam in the skunk
• 1. If X then Y. river, then he stinks.
• 2. Y Premise 2: He stinks.
• 3. Therefore X
Premise 3: Therefore Jon swam in the
skunk river.
8/27/22 06:24:49 AM 15
 FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Disjunctive syllogism  E.g.
 Premise 1
 A syllogism having a  Either breach of contract is a crime

disjunctive statement or it is not punishable by the state.

 Premise 2
(“either...or”) for one or  Breach of contract is not a crime.
both of its premises.  Conclusion

 Either x or y  Therefore, it is not punishable by the

state.
 Not Y
 Therefore X.

16
 Either X or Y
X
 Therefore not Y

 Digong is either a stateman or a businessman or an ordinary citizen.

 Digong is neither a stateman nor an ordinary citizen.
 Therefore, Digong is a businessman.
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Prediction  E.g.
 The premises deal with  Because certain
some known event in meteorological
the present or past, and phenomena have
the conclusion moves been observed to
beyond this event to develop over a certain
some event in the region in the Pacific, a
relative future. storm will occur there
in the next several
hours.

18
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
Argument from  E.g.
analogy  From knowledge that
 An argument that
his Mercedes car is an
expensive car, I argue
depends on the that your car, being a
analogy between Mercedes, is also
two things. expensive.

19
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Inductive generalization  E.g.

 An argument that proceeds  One may argue that because three

from the knowledge of a oranges selected from a certain
selected sample to some crate were especially tasty and
claim about the whole juicy, all the oranges from that
group. Because the crate are especially tasty and juicy.
members of the sample
have a certain
characteristic, it is argued
that all the members of the
group have the same
characteristic.
20
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Argument from  E.g.
authority  A lawyer may argue that the
 An argument in which suspect committed no murder
the conclusion rests because an eyewitness
upon a statement made testified to that effect under
by some presumed oath.
authority or witness.

21
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
Argument based  E.g.
 When driving on an unfamiliar
on signs highway, one might see a sign
An argument that indicating that the road makes
several sharp turns one mile ahead.
proceeds from the Based on this information, one might
argue that the road does indeed make
knowledge of a several sharp turns one mile ahead.
certain sign.

22
 FORMS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
 Causal inference E.g. Cause to effect

 An argument that proceeds  From the knowledge that a bottle
of wine had been accidentally
from the knowledge of a left in the freezer overnight,
cause to knowledge of the someone might conclude that it
effect had frozen.
 An argument that proceeds  E.g. Effect to Cause
from the knowledge of an  after tasting a piece of chicken
effect to knowledge of a and finding it dry and crunchy,
cause. one might conclude that it had
been overcooked.

23