Chapter 2, Lesson 3: Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

Lesson Overview

In our previous lesson, we saw that every argument involves an inferential claim- the claim that
the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. Every argument makes a claim that its
premises provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion. The question we now address has to do with
the strength of this claim. Just how strongly is the conclusion claimed to follow from the premises.
The reasoning process (inference) that an argument involves is expressed either with certainty or
with probability. That is what the logician introduced the name deduction and induction for,
respectively. If the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or necessity, the argument is
said to be deductive; but if it is claimed to follow only probably, the argument is said to be inductive.
Therefore, a conclusion may be supported by its premise in two very different ways. These two
different ways are the two great classes of arguments: Deductive arguments and Inductive arguments.
And the distinction between these two classes of arguments, because every argument involves an
inferential claim, lies in the strength of their inferential claim. Understanding the distinction of these
classes is essential in the study of logic.

In this lesson, we will learn the broad groups of arguments, Deductive arguments and Inductive
arguments, and the techniques of distinguishing one from the other.

Lesson Objectives

After the successful accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:
a. Understand the meaning, nature, and forms of a deductive argument.
b. Understand the meaning, nature, and forms of an inductive argument.
c. Distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, and vice versa.

Activating Prior Knowledge

How do you define a deductive argument?

Presentation of Content

A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. It is an argument in which the premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily (conclusively)
from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning.

Example 1:

All philosophers are critical thinkers.

Socrates is a philosopher.

Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.

Example 2:

All African footballers are blacks.

Messi is an African footballer.

It follows that, Messi is black.

The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument. In both of them, the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or the premises are claimed to
support their corresponding conclusion with a strict necessity. If we, for example, assume that all
philosophers are critical thinkers and that Socrates is a philosopher, then it is impossible that Socrates
is not a critical thinker. Similarly, if we assume that all African footballers are blacks and that Messi
is an African footballer, then it is impossible that Messi is not a black. Thus, we should interpret these
arguments as deductive.

How do you define an inductive argument?

An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. . It is an argument in which the premises are
claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the
premises. The premises may provide some considerable evidence for the conclusion but they do not
imply (necessarily support) the conclusion. In this case, we might have sufficient condition (evidence)
but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion. However, this does not mean that the
conclusion is wrong or unacceptable, where as it could be correct or acceptable but only based on
probability. Thus, inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning.

Example 1:

Most African leaders are blacks.

Mandela was an African leader.

Therefore, probably Mandela was black.

Example 2:

Almost all women are mammals.

Hanan is a woman.

Hence, Hanan is a mammal.

Both of the above arguments are inductive. In both of them, the conclusion does not follow
from the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree of probability. That is,
the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only probably; or the premises are claimed to
support their corresponding conclusion with a probability. In other words, if we assume that the
premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. If we, for
example, assume that most African leaders were blacks and that Mandela was an African leader, then
it is improbable that Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was black. But it is not
impossible that Mandela not been a black. Similarly, if we assume that almost all women are
mammals and that Hanan is a woman, then it is improbable that Hanan not be a mammal, or it is
probable that Hanan is a mammal. But it is not impossible that Hanan not be a mammal. Thus, the
above arguments are best interpreted as inductive.

How do you distinguish a deductive argument from an inductive argument, and vice versa?

We have said earlier that the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in
the strength of an argument‘s inferential claim. In other words, the distinction lies on how strongly
the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, or how strongly the premises are claimed to
support the conclusion. However, in most arguments, the strength of this claim is not explicitly stated,
so we must use our interpretative abilities to evaluate it. In the deciding whether an argument is
deductive or inductive, we must look at certain objective features of the argument.

There are three factors that influence the decision about the deductiveness or inductiveness
of an argument’s inferential claim. These are:

1) The occurrence of special indicator words,

2) The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion; and
 3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers use.

However, we must acknowledge at the outset that many arguments in ordinary language are
incomplete, and because of this, deciding whether the argument should best be interpreted as
deductive or inductive may be impossible. Let us see the above factors in detail in order to understand
and identify the different styles of argumentation.

The first factor that influences our decision about a certain inferential claim is the occurrence
of special indicator words. There are different sort of indicator words that indicate or mark the type
of a certain argument. Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer‘s certainty and
confidence, or the arguer‘s uncertainty or doubt, about the truth of his/her conclusion. Words like
“certainly,” “necessarily,” “absolutely,” and “definitely” indicate that the argument should be taken
as deductive, whereas words like, “probable,” “improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,”
“unlikely,” and “reasonable to conclude” suggest that an argument is inductive. The point is that if
an argument draws its conclusion, using either of the deductive indicator words, it is usually best to
interpret it as deductive, but if it draws its conclusion, using either of the inductive indicator words,
it is usually best to interpret it as inductive. (Note that the phrase “it must be the case that” is
ambiguous; “must” can indicate either probability or necessity).

Deductive and Inductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However,
one should be cautious about these special indicator words, because if they conflict with one of the
other criteria, we should probably ignore them. For arguers often use phrases such as ‘‘it certainly
follows that’’ for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the
argument be taken as deductive. Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the distinction between
inductive and deductive, will claim to ‘‘deduce’’ a conclusion when their argument is more correctly
interpreted as inductive. If one takes these words at face value, then one might wrongly leads into
wrong conclusions. Therefore, the occurrence of an indicator word is not a certain guarantee for the
deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument unless it is supported by the other features. This leads
us to consider the second factor.

The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive
is the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion
actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In
such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If, on the other
hand, the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict necessity but does follow probably,
it is usually best to interpret it as inductive argument. Consider the following examples.

Example 1:

All Ethiopian people love their country.

Debebe is an Ethiopian.

Therefore, Debebe loves his country.

Example 2:

The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.

Alamudin is an Ethiopian.

Therefore, Alamudin is poor.

In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we
assume that all Ethiopian people love their country and that Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is
impossible that Debebe not love his country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive.
In the second example, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it
does follow with some degree of probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on
that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second
argument as inductive.
 Occasionally, an argument contains no special indicator words, and the conclusion does not
follow either necessarily or probably from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all. This
situation points up the need for the third factor to be taken into account, which is the character or
form of argumentation the arguer uses. Let us see some examples of deductive argumentative forms
and inductive argumentative forms.

Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the premises are
supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five examples of such forms or kinds of
argumentation are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms:
categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.

Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on

some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, you can put two
orange and three bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits. Or again you can
measure a square pieces of land and after determining it is ten meter on each side conclude that its
area is a hundred square meter. Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually
consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. A noteworthy exception,
however, is arguments that depend on statistics are usually best interpreted as inductive.

Arguments based on definition: it is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to

depend merely up on the definition of some words or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. For
example, one may argue that Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth. Or again, Kebede
is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor. These arguments are deductive because their conclusions
follow with necessity from the definitions “honest” and “physician”.

Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogisms
can be categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

i. Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and

one conclusion. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one
of the words “all”, “no” and “some”.

Example:

All Egyptians are Muslims.

No Muslim is a Christian.

Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.

Arguments such as these are nearly interpreted as deductive.

ii. Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of
its premises.

Example:

If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.

If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.

Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.

Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.

iii. Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either … or”
statement.)

Example:
 Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Rewina is not Eritrean.

Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.

As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.

Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms

In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way
intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument typically
deal with some subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a
subject that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take any of several
forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive generalizations, arguments
from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to name just a few.

Prediction: in a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the present or the
past and the conclusions moves beyond this event to some event to relative future. For example, one
may argue that because certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall within
twenty-four hours. Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with certainty. Thus,
whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future one is usually justified considering the
argument inductive.

An argument from analogy: It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy

or similarity between two things or state of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy a certain
conditions that affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar ,
lesser known-thing or situation. For instance, one may conclude, after observing the similarity of
some features of Computer A and car B: that both are manufactured in 2012; that both are easy to
access; that Computer A is fast in processing; it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing.
This argument depends on the existence of a similarity or analogy between the two cars. The certitude
attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic at best.

An inductive generalization: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a

selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a
certain characteristics, it is argued that all members of the group have the same characteristics. For
example, one may argue that because three out of four people in a single prison are black, one may
conclude that three-fourth of prison populations are blacks. This example illustrate the use of
statistics in inductive argumentation.

An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a

statement made by some presumed authority or witness. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the
person is guilty because an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath. Or again one may argue that
all matters are made up of a small particles called “quarks” because the University Professor said so.
Because the professor and the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are
essentially probabilistic.

Arguments based on sign: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain
sign to the knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign symbolizes. For instance, one may infer
that after observing ‘No Parking’ sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not allowed for parking.
But because the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten, conclusion follows
only probably.

A causal inference: it is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of a cause to the
knowledge of an effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause. For
example, from the knowledge that a bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight,
someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting a piece of
chicken and finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause).
Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be known with absolute certainty, one may
usually interpret such an argument as inductive.

Furthermore Considerations

It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are not
intended to be mutually exclusive. Overlaps can and do occur. For example, many causal inferences
that proceed from cause to effect also qualify as predictions. We should take care not to confuse
arguments in geometry, which are always deductive, with arguments from analogy or inductive
generalizations. For example, an argument concluding that a triangle has a certain attribute (such as
a right angle) because another triangle, with which it is congruent, also has that attribute might be
mistaken for an argument from analogy.

One broad classification of arguments not listed in this survey is scientific arguments.
Arguments that occur in science can be either inductive or deductive, depending on the circumstances.
In general, arguments aimed at the discovery of a law of nature are usually considered inductive.
Another type of argument that occurs in science has to do with the application of known laws to
specific circumstances. Arguments of this sort are often considered to be deductive, but only with
certain reservations.

A final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments. There is a tradition extending back to the time of Aristotle that holds that inductive
arguments are those that proceed from the particular to the general, while deductive arguments are
those that proceed from the general to the particular. (A particular statement is one that makes a claim
about one or more particular members of a class, while a general statement makes a claim about all
the members of a class.) In fact, there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the
general, from the particular to the particular, and from the particular to the general, as well as from
the general to the particular; and there are inductive arguments that do the same. For example, here
is a deductive argument that proceeds from the particular to the general:

Three is a prime number.

Five is a prime number.

Seven is a prime number.

Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.

Here is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular:

All emeralds previously found have been green.

Therefore, the next emerald to be found will be green.

In sum up, to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive, we look for special indicator
words, the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and the character
or form of argumentation.