Logical Reasoning

 

Logical Reasoning

            In logical reasoning, two factors come into place when an individual thinks about it, which include deductive and inductive reasoning. They indicate a way through which an individual establishes a conclusion together with how they consider their deduction to be valid. This paper will discuss the two as well as explain fallacious reasoning.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning requires a person to have an initial few general ideas which are referred to as the premises and employ them in a particular circumstance. In this, previously acknowledged rules, theories, laws, and other recognizable truths are utilized to provide proof that a specific inference is factual. Furthermore, the notion of deductive reasoning can be explained visually by the use of a funnel that reduces an overall impression into a specific outcome (Vaughn 47). Besides, a syllogism is the simplest form for deductive reasoning, in which two premises that give out a particular view support a conclusion. In syllogism, if X=Y and Z=X, then Y=Z. An example in practice is that; all organs have blood vessels, and all humans have organs, then all human beings have blood vessels. However, it is essential to consider the fact that deductive reasoning aims to show that the result is entirely correct, depending on the sense of the premises (Vaughn 53). Therefore, it does not justify the conclusion. For example; all musical instruments make a sound; cars make a sound; therefore, cars are musical instruments. In the statement, the two premises are right, but the conclusion is false because cars and instruments can be separate entities but at the same time, have similar characteristics. It is possible to imagine them as things that make a sound. Although deductive arguments do not take the exact syllogism, it can apply the same thought processes to make evaluations of their strength and develop counterarguments.

Inductive Reasoning

            Inductive reasoning makes use of a particular series of observations to reach a specific conclusion. It this, a small set of certain premises develop a pattern that is likely to form a broader indication that is likely to be considered as correct. It can be shown in a pyramid-like that begins with a small premise and then broadens into a more comprehensive conclusion. Besides, there is no formal format for this type of reasoning as it is in the deductive. However, all forms are based on realizing a deduction that has a high possibility to fit the premises, and it is utilized when creating generalizations, creating projections, and analysis of causability (Vaughn 54). Inductive reasoning, in theory, starts from specific observations to a broad conclusion. An example of inductive reasoning in practice is; in the first visit to Kaiser Store on a Friday, the workers were wearing blue t-shirts, on another appointment on Friday, they were wearing the same shirts; therefore, all Kaiser Workers wear blue t-shirts of Fridays. Similar to the deductive reasoning, the conclusions cannot be justified, but they are intended to give a predictive deduction. Although they do not provide a sure solution for their premises, they attempt to offer an outcome that is more likely based on the premises (Vaughn 57). This is because several factors have not been considered, for example, in the case of Kaiser Workers, the reasons why they were the t-shirts on Fridays were not sought; therefore, the conclusion cannot be justified. The strength and weaknesses of an inductive conclusion are based on whether the is probable, with consideration on the premises supplied. However, it must also be considered that similar to deductive reasoning, a strong argument is not always valid.

Fallacious Reasoning

            Fallacious reasoning is one that is considered to be an invalid or fault strategy to construct an argument. It can be deceptive though it appears to be better than what it is. Often, fallacies are committed either intentionally to persuade by deception, but others are intentional and occurs as a result of ignorance or carelessness (Vaughn 68). Fallacies can be formal or informal. The later is common in television and newspapers. Because of their nature, it is beneficial to understand well to be able to have the ability to give strong arguments. However, evaluation of whether an argument is fallacious or not is difficult because arguments exist as a continuation of soundness, and besides, it might have different sections that are sound and others which are fallacious. Furthermore, informal fallacious can exploit the psychological, intellectual, and emotional weaknesses of the audience, which thus increase its chances for deception. One type of fallacy is the straw man, which indicates that an individual holds a view that is not actually what the other person believes in (Vaughn 73). Therefore, it is like an unclear version of what the person believes such that the actual statement is not attacked bur the vague version of it, for example, a biology teacher stating in a class that all things evolved and his/her student says he cannot believe human being came from bugs.

Conclusion

            Conclusively, logical reasoning is made up of inductive and deductive types. They are the most common, yet they form absolutely the opposite of the other. However, it should be noted that all the conclusions made by both cannot be justified based on the supplied premises. Fallacy, on the other hand, is a belief that is based on erroneous reasoning.

Work cited

Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2018.

903 Words  3 Pages

Get in Touch

If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to inform us and we will gladly take care of it.

Email us at support@edudorm.com Discounts

TODAY'S SPECIAL

GET -30% OFF!

x

LOGIN

  Working. Please Wait...