0
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because inductive reasoning is known as bottom-up logic where as deductive reasoning is known as top-down logic.
Relies on generalizations and probabilities rather than absolute truths or guarantees. Inductive reasoning draws conclusions based on observed patterns or trends, which allows for the possibility of error or exceptions.
It comes to a general conclusion based on a specific observation.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How is inductive reasoning weaker than deductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because it involves making generalizations based on specific observations, which can lead to errors or false conclusions. In contrast, deductive reasoning starts with a general principle or hypothesis and uses it to make specific predictions or draw specific conclusions, which can be more reliable and conclusive when executed correctly.
How can one make an inductive argument stronger?
To make an inductive argument stronger, you can provide more examples or evidence that support your conclusion, ensure the examples are representative of the broader population, consider the relevance and quality of the evidence presented, and acknowledge and address any potential weaknesses or counterarguments.
What does a fallacy do to an argument in a debate?
A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that weakens the argument by introducing errors in logic or misleading information. It diverts attention from the main issue and can undermine the credibility of the debater.
Is fallacy make a argument weaker?
Yes, fallacies can make an argument weaker by introducing faulty reasoning or misleading information that undermines the logic or credibility of the argument. Identifying and addressing fallacies is important for constructing strong and convincing arguments.
Is picking on the weaker man a metaphor?
"Picking on the weaker man" can be a metaphor for taking advantage of those who are vulnerable or lacking power. It implies using strength or influence to make someone feel powerless or inferior.
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because?
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because inductive reasoning is known as bottom-up logic where as deductive reasoning is known as top-down logic.
How is inductive reasoning weaker than deductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because it involves making generalizations based on specific observations, which can lead to errors or false conclusions. In contrast, deductive reasoning starts with a general principle or hypothesis and uses it to make specific predictions or draw specific conclusions, which can be more reliable and conclusive when executed correctly.
How do you make an inductive argument stronger?
make the conclusion weaker
What is a reasonable argument?
A reasonable argument is one that is logical, supported by evidence, and free from fallacies or emotional manipulation. It should be based on sound reasoning and relevant information, leading to a conclusion that is justified and persuasive. In essence, a reasonable argument is one that can withstand critical scrutiny and is open to being evaluated and potentially revised based on new evidence or counterarguments.
Difference between deductive and inductive research with example?
Inductive research starts off with specific observations and move toward general ideas or theory to capture what they show. (Qualitative) Deductive Research starts with a general idea or theory and then moves to test it by looking at specific observations. (Quantitative)
What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?
One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.
How can one make an inductive argument stronger?
To make an inductive argument stronger, you can provide more examples or evidence that support your conclusion, ensure the examples are representative of the broader population, consider the relevance and quality of the evidence presented, and acknowledge and address any potential weaknesses or counterarguments.
Why are kids organ weaker from adult?
Because kids are smaller they have smaller organs and there weaker because there still in development
What makes the ozone weaker?
The ozone becomes weaker because of CFC's. They react and weaken CFC's.
Why ch3co3h is weaker acid than ch3co2h?
The conjugate base of acetic acid, CH3COOH, is acetate ion, CH3COO-. When comparing chloroacetic acid, CH3COOH, to acetic acid, the inductive effect of the chlorine atom in chloroacetic acid makes it more acidic than acetic acid. This is because the electron-withdrawing nature of the chlorine atom stabilizes the conjugate base, resulting in a stronger acid.
Why does a heart get weaker if cardiac muscle cells die from heart attack?
because things are weaker when they are dead.
Does alcohol shorten your life?
Yes because every time you drink it, it makes your body weaker and weaker.
