Conceptual Thinking

Inductive Reasoning
and
Deductive Reasoning
Conceptual Thinking
Deductive and inductive reasoning (deduction
and induction) are the basic methods to scientific
research. They have strong relationship with each
other. Inductive and deductive reasoning can form
a circular process in which they are strongly
linked.
Conceptual Thinking
Deduction – is reasoning to apply general
theories and principles to reach specific
consequence. This consequence or conclusion is
based on premises and assumptions. If the
premises are true, so the conclusion will be true.
For example: All birds live on the trees, sparrow is
a bird. Therefore, sparrow lives on the tree.
Conceptual Thinking
Syllogism - An argument composed of two statements or premises
(the major and minor premises), followed by a conclusion.
• For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed,
the argument is said to be valid.
• If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one instance in
which the conclusion does not follow), the argument is said
to be invalid.
• Be careful, do not confuse truth with validity!
Test of Validity using the Venn Diagram.
To test the validity of a categorical syllogism, one can use the
method of Venn diagrams. Since a categorical syllogism has three
terms, we need a Venn diagram using three intersecting circles,
one representing each of the three terms in a categorical syllogism.
S = Subject term S P

M = Middle term

P = Predicate term M
Graphing statements using Venn Diagram
S P
All baseball are rounds.
Graphing statements using Venn Diagram
S P
No penguins are traffic cops.
Graphing statements using Venn Diagram
S P
Some rabbits are vicious killers.
Graphing statements using Venn Diagram
S P
Some college students are not millionaires.
Graphing statements using Venn Diagram
Validation Test
Consider the following argument whether they are valid.
First Premise: All Greeks are mortal. (All M are P)
Second Premise: All Athenians are Greek. (All S are M)
Conclusion: All Athenians are mortal. (All S are P)
S P
Does this graph shows
All S are P?

M
∴ the argument is valid.
Validation Test
Consider the following argument whether they are valid.
First Premise: All mathematicians are rational.
Second Premise: All philosophers are rational.
Conclusion: All philosophers are mathematicians.
First Premise: All P are M S P

Second Premise: All S are M

Conclusion: All S are P

∴ the argument is not valid.

M
Validation Test
Consider the following argument whether they are valid.
First Premise: Some physicists are logical.
Second Premise: No philosophers are logical.
Conclusion: Some physicists are not philosophers.
First Premise: Some S are M S P

Second Premise: No P are M

Conclusion: Some S are not P

∴ the argument is valid.

M
Conceptual Thinking
Induction – is to generalize the conclusion from
single or more phenomenon based on specific
observation. For example: All observed birds are
white, therefore all birds are white.
Conceptual Thinking
The process of these two reasoning are
in an opposite direction. Deduction is
used as the standard way by many
scientists in scientific research, mainly
because the start of deduction is wide
theories rather than the limited
observation in induction. Many ancient
scientists use induction to gain a basic
hypothesis from observation. The
conclusion gained from induction can
be tested in deductive reasoning.
Propositions
A proposition is a collection of declarative/mathematical
statements that has either a truth value "true” or a truth value
"false". A propositional consists of propositional variables and
connectives. We denote the propositional variables by capital
letters.
Prove the following using Mathematical Induction.
1. 2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2n = n( n + 1)
2. 3 + 7 + 11 + … + (4n - 1) = n( 2n + 1)
3. 1 + 2 + 3 + … n =
Prove: 2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2n = n( n + 1)
Step 1: Validity test
Let n = 1 Let n = 2 Let n = 3
2 = 1(1 + 1) 2 + 4 = 2(2 + 1) 2 + 4 + 6 = 3(3 + 1)
2 = 1(2) 6 = 2(3) 12 = 3(4)
2=2 6=6 12 = 12
Step 2: Induction Hypothesis
Let n = k  2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2k = k( k + 1)
Let n = k + 1  2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2(k+1) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
Step 2: Induction Hypothesis
Let n = k  2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2k = k( k + 1)
Let n = k + 1  2 + 4 + 6 + … + 2(k+1) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
Step 3: Proving the hypothesis
k(k+1) + 2(k+1) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
k(k+1) + 2(k+1) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
(k + 1)( k + 2 ) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
(k + 1)(k + 1 + 1) = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
(k + 1)[(k + 1) + 1] = (k+1)[( k + 1) + 1]
Step 4: Conlusion
∴ The proposition is true when n ≥ 1
 Prove: 3 + 7 + 11 + … + (4n - 1) = n( 2n + 1)
Step 1: Validity test
Let n = 1 Let n = 2 Let n = 3
3 = 1[2(1)+1] 3+7 = 2[2(2)+1] 3+7+11 = 3[2(3) + 1]
3 = 1(2 + 1) 10 = 2(4 + 1) 21 = 3(6 + 1)
3 = 1(3) 10 = 2(5) 21 = 3(7)
3=3 10 = 10 21 = 21
Step 2: Induction Hypothesis
Let n = k  3+7+11+…+(4k – 1) = k( 2k + 1)
Let n = k+1  3+7+11+…+ [4(k+1) – 1] = (k+1)[2(k+1) + 1]
 Step 2: Induction Hypothesis
Let n = k  3+7+11+…+(4k – 1) = k( 2k + 1)
Let n = k+1  3+7+11+…+ [4(k+1) – 1] = (k+1)[2(k+1) + 1]
Step 3: Proving the hypothesis
k(2k+1) + [4(k+1) – 1] = (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
= (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
= (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
(k+1)( 2k + 3) = (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
(k + 1)[2k + 2 + 1] = (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
(k + 1)[2(k + 1) + 1] = (k+1)[2(k + 1) + 1]
Step 4: Conlusion  ∴ The proposition is true when n ≥ 1
 Prove: 1 + 2 + 3 + … n =
Step 1: Validity test

Let n = 1 Let n = 2 Let n = 3

1= 1+2= 1+2+3=

1= 3= 6=

1= 3= 6=

1=1 3=3 6=6

 Step 2: Induction Hypothesis
Let n = k  1+2+3+…k=

Let n = k+1  1 + 2 + 3 + … (k+ 1) =

Step 3: Proving the hypothesis
𝑘(𝑘+1) (𝑘+ 1) ( 𝑘+1 ) [ ( 𝑘+ 1 )+1]
+ (k + 1) =
2 1 2
k(k + 1) + 2(k + 1) ( 𝑘+1 ) [ ( 𝑘+ 1 )+1]
=
2 2
( 𝑘+1 ) (2)
k+ ( 𝑘+1 ) [ ( 𝑘+ 1 )+1] Step 4: Conlusion
= 2
2
( 𝑘+1 ) [ ( 𝑘+ 1 )+1] ( 𝑘+1 ) [ ( 𝑘+ 1 )+1] ∴ The proposition
= is true when n ≥ 1
2 2