Inductive Reasoning
1
Arguments
Argument ‐ A form of thinking in which certain
statements (reasons) are offered in support of another
statement (a conclusion).
Premises (Reasons) ‐ Statements that support
another statement (known as a conclusion), justify it,
or make it more probable.
Conclusion ‐ A statement that explains, asserts, or
predicts on the basis of statements (known as reasons)
that are offered as evidence for it.
2
Types of Arguments:
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily
from the premises.
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
probably from the premises.
3
Introduction to induction
EX:
Many Vietnamese brides choose “Áo dài” for their traditional
dress in their engagement ceremony.
So, An might wear “Áo dài” in her engagement.
Indicator words: likely, probably, it’s plausible to suppose
that, it’s reasonable to believe that, one would expect that,
it’s a good bet that, chances are that, and odds are that
4
Introduction to induction
Another way to identify inductive arguments
is look for their common patterns:
Inductive generalization
Statistical arguments
Arguments from analogy
Causal arguments
5
Inductive Generalizations
An inductive generalization is an argument that
relies on characteristics of a sample population to
make a claim about the populations as a whole.
In other words, it is an argument that uses evidence
about a limited number of people or things of a certain
type (the sample population) to make a claim about a
larger group of people or things of that type (population
as a whole)
6
Inductive Generalizations
I know five or six truck drivers, and all of them are
Democrats. So, probably most truck drivers are
Democrats.
This argument is an inductive generalization.
An inductive generalization is an argument that uses evidence
about a limited number of things of a certain type to make a
claim about all or most things of that type.
In the example above, a general conclusion about most truck
drivers is supported by personal experience of a relatively
small sample of only five or six truck drivers.
7
Inductive Generalizations
All the bass Hank has caught in the Susquehanna River have
weighted less than one pound.
So, most of the bass in the Susquehanna River weigh less than one
pound
The sample population is the bass Hank has caught
in the Susquehanna River .
The population as a whole is all the bass in the
Susquehanna River
All the bass Hank has caught in the Susquehanna River have
weighted less than one pound.
So, many of the bass in the Susquehanna River weigh less than stronger
one pound
8
Inductive Generalizations
In understanding inductive generalizations:
identify the sample population and the population as a
whole (i.e. the population that the generalization is about) in
an inductive generalization.
A good inductive argument should reach a conclusion that is
appropriate to the evidence offered in the premises.
A more moderate conclusion makes the inference stronger.
An overstated conclusion makes the inference weaker.
9
Inductive Generalizations
None of the medical doctors Jen has ever met smoked
cigarettes while examining her.
So, no doctor smokes cigarettes while examining
patients.
10
Evaluating inductive generalizations
In evaluating inductive generalizations, there are
three questions we should ask:
Are the premises true?
Is the sample large enough?
Is the sample representative or typical of the
population as a whole?
An inductive generalization is a good one only if
we can answer "yes" to all three questions.
11
Evaluating inductive generalizations
Are the premises true?
EX: Most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women
So, the CEOs of big businesses are probably women
Is the sample population large enough?
EX: None of the thousands of rabbits Alan has come across has
tried to attack him
So, most rabbits are not inclined to attack human beings.
12
Evaluating inductive
generalizations
Is the sample population representative of the population as a
whole?
EX: Two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and today Japan has
one of the strongest economies in the world
So, all the concern about nuclear warfare at the end of humankind is a
brunch of nonsense.
A representative sample is similar to the population as a
whole in all relevant respects.
13
I've dated three men from Texas, and all of them wore
cowboy boots. So, it's probably the case that all men from
Texas wear cowboy boots.
Assuming that the premise of this argument is
true, is this a good inductive generalization or
not?
14
I've dated three men from Texas, and all of them wore
cowboy boots. So, it's probably the case that all men from
Texas wear cowboy boots.
This is a bad inductive generalization.
The sample size is much too small to justify the
conclusion.
15
Opinion polls and inductive
arguments
Number of Polled Margin of error
4,000 +(‐) 2
1,500 +(‐) 3
1,000 +(‐) 4
…
200 +(‐) 8
100 +(‐) 11
16
Opinion polls and inductive
arguments
Opinion polls operate under the same basic standards as other inductive
generalizations insofar as the sample must be large enough and
representative of the population as a whole;
The size of the sample should be large enough to reach an acceptable
margin of error.
The sample is best generated randomly (where each member of the
population has an equal chance of being selected) so as to avoid bias.
17
Opinion polls and inductive
arguments
Level of certainty and margin of error;
Self‐selecting samples. Some polls do not even attempt to utilize a
truly random sample. Instead, they use self‐selecting samples.
the tendency of people to respond to polls dishonestly, and the
tendency of agencies with vested interests to ask slanted questions,
can bias a poll sample;
The merits of a double‐blind poll for generating objective results.
Double blind: the person taking the poll and the person responding
should have no information about each other, or at least at little as
possible. And neither the pollster nor the respondent should have any
indication of the “ right answer”
18
Statistical Arguments
A statistical argument argues from premises regarding
a percentage of population to a conclusion about an
individual member of that population or some part
of that population.
19
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
Strong 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
20
Example
Only 3 percent of IU are against building the new gymnasium
A is a IU student
So, A is against building the new gymnasium
Only 3 percent of IU are against building the new gymnasium
A is a IU student
So, A is probably against building the new gymnasium
21
Statistical Arguments
Like other inductive arguments, statistical arguments are evaluated
along a continuum of strong to weak.
Statistical arguments that approach 50 percent may be strong but are
to be considered relative unreliable.
22
Reference class
The reference class in the group to which statistics apply: As a rule,
the more specific the reference class is, the better the argument is.
23
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.
24
Induction and analogy
What is an analogy?
Up is to down and right is to?
An analogy is a comparison of things based similarities those
thing share.
A mother ‘s love is like the sun.
25
How can we argue by analog?
Whereas analogies simply point out a similarity, arguments from
analogy claim that certain similarities are evidence that there is
another similarity (or other similarities).
EX: The Post Office is a government agency
The Department of Motor Vehicles is a government agency
The Post Office is closed for Martin Luther King Jr. Day
The Department of Motor Vehicles must be closed for Martin
Luther King Jr. Day
26
How can we argue by analog?
A has characteristic X
B has characteristic X
A has characteristic Y
Therefore, B has characteristic Y
A has characteristics X and Y
B has characteristics X and Y
A has characteristic Z
Therefore, B has characteristic Z.
27
Evaluating arguments from analogy
Remind: Fallacy of weak analogy? It’s the fallacy that results from
comparing two things that are not really comparable.
The truth of the premise
The relevance of the similarities
The number of relevant similarities
The relevance of the dissimilarities
The number of relevant dissimilarities tips
The diversity of the sample, especially with increased sample size
The specificity of the conclusion relative to the premises
28
Evaluating arguments from analogy
In evaluating analogical arguments,.
discern whether the compared items in an analogical argument
share a sufficient number of relevant similarities to warrant
accepting the conclusion;
discern whether the compared items in an analogical argument
share a sufficient number of relevant dissimilarities to warrant
rejecting the conclusion;
understand that with increased sample size, diversity becomes a
mark of strength;
gauge the specificity of the conclusion relative to the
premises.
The same standards used to evaluate analogical arguments apply in
constructing arguments from analogy.
29
Evaluating arguments from analogy
A and B are both tall and play basketball
A is also play volleyball
So, B must also play volleyball
True premise? Relevance? Number of relevance similarities?
A, B, C and D are all tall and play basketball
A, C and D are also play volleyball
So, B must also play volleyball
Increase sample size. Stronger argument 30
Evaluating arguments from analogy
B must also play volleyball: narrow and specific.
Increase the strength of argument:
Specificity of the conclusion relative to the premises
B must have played a game of volleyball at some time
B may also play volleyball
31
Induction and Causal Arguments
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
32
Evaluating causal arguments
2 broad types:
the cause of a single instance :
some condition results in a higher rate of some supposed
effect in the population
a general relationship
causal relationships are often complex, so that even a genuine
causal factor may neither be necessary nor sufficient to bring
about the effect under consideration;
33
Evaluating causal arguments
single instance
A’s car wouldn’t start this morning, and she hasn’t replaced the
battery since she bought six months ago.
So, it is probably a dead battery that caused the car not to start.
general relationship
The Surgeon General has found that there is a strong link between
smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer
So, smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer
34
Evaluating causal arguments
The distorting effect of selective attention and memory ( focusing
attention on, or recalling from memory, only certain example distort
example) to evidence supporting a causal conclusion;
EX: Every time we have a full moon, people behave strangely.
So, the full moon must cause the stranger behavior.
The unreliability of anecdotal evidence: what others tell us
35
The merit of a controlled experiment in discerning causal relationships
EX:
To see if chemical X prevents disease Y:
A scientist gives chemical X to group one: the experimental group; and does
not give X to group two : the control group.
A human believes that the drug is given will prevent or curve her disease
will have a better chance of prevention or cure: placebo effect.
double‐blind study: neither the subjects nor the experimenters know
who receive the treatment and who is receiving the placebo until the
experiment is finish
36
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
37
A few words about probability
Probability – Inductive reasoning:
There is an important connection between probability and
induction.
All induction arguments are a matter of probability because they
are not certain. They do not guarantee the truth of their
conclusion, but only offer evidence that the conclusion is probably
true.
38
