The process of drawing general conclusions about specifics by means of inductive reasoning. You have a series of facts and/or observations. You draw a conclusion, or a “General Rule,” as the graphic above refers to it, from all of this data. Humans can make generalizations about people, events, and objects in their environment by using inductive reasoning. There are five approaches to inductive reasoning: authority, example, cause, sign, and comparison.
Making a sound judgment based on specific examples is known as example reasoning. In this method, specific examples 1, 2, and 3 result in a generalized assessment of the entire situation. For instance, my Sony television, stereo, car radio, and video system are all in good working order. It is clear that Sony produces superior electronic products. Alternatively, I have four excellent professors at this university, Mr Smith, Mrs. Ortiz, Dr. Willard, and Ms. Richard, so I can say that this college has excellent professors.
Understanding how or why something occurred is the aim of causal reasoning. For instance, you performed well on a test as a result of your two days of preparation. I could then predict that you will succeed if you study two days before the following test. The critical thinker is attempting to establish a predictive relationship between two closely related variables when using causal reasoning. We can attempt to predict what will occur in the future if we can understand how and why things happen.
In Massachusetts, Michelle Carter is on trial for manslaughter. When she was a teenager, she texted Roy, her boyfriend, and urged him to end his life. And he did. Roy had mental health issues, was already suicidal, and the texts did not prompt him to commit suicide, according to her defense attorney. The prosecution contends that Roy committed suicide as a result of the text. This is going to be a difficult case to resolve. “Causation is going to be a vital part of this case, can the prosecution prove that she caused him to kill himself in this way? Would he have done it anyway?” said Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University.
Sign reasoning involves inferring a connection between two related situations. According to the theory, whether one is present or not will determine whether the other is as well. In other words, the existence of an attribute indicates the existence of another thing, namely the substance. One does not make the other happen; rather, it is a sign that it already exists. Football on television is a sign that Fall has arrived. Fall doesn’t come about because of football on television; it just happens to come about at the same time. A flag is flying at half-staff. is an indication that a tragedy has occurred or a notable person has passed away. The flag flying at half-staff did not cause the death. It is a sign that the situation occurred.
When someone is trying to hide their emotions, they frequently hold a weak hand when covering their mouth. He sort of doesn’t want his face to reveal his hand. The same goes for a player who hesitates to look at you because he is concerned that his expression could be interpreted as fear.
Comparison reasoning is also known as reasoning by analogy. Making comparisons between two similar things and coming to the conclusion that what is true about one is also true of the other is this type of reasoning. When you try alligator meat, keep in mind that what is considered exotic food today may frequently become standard fare in the future, according to an old advertisement for the meat. This was the case with lobster. Around 75 years ago, many New Englanders would not even consider eating lobster because they believed it to be a poor man’s food. Of course, many people enjoy lobster as a delicacy today. According to this line of thinking, alligator meat is to humans today what lobster meat was to humans 75 years ago. And since alligator meat is now considered a delicacy, so is lobster. There are two types of comparisons: figurative and literal.
There aren’t many direct analogies between a person and a computer. There may be some overlapping actual similarities between a person and an animal. When comparing one person to another, a literal analogy is implied. The more figurative the comparison, the less logically sound the argument is. The more literal the comparison, the more logically sound the comparison is.
Children frequently use comparison to another child to try to convince a parent to allow them to do or try something the parent is against. They point out that since they are the same age as the other child, they are in the same grade at school, and they both reside in the same neighborhood, they ought to be permitted to engage in the same activities as the other child. Compared to other arguments, this one appears to be very persuasive—until the parent responds, “You are not that child, and we are not their parents.” The comparison the child is attempting to draw is destroyed in the parents’ eyes by these points of difference.
When a person argues that a particular claim is justified because it is held or promoted by a reliable source, they are using reasoning from authority. That credible source can be a person or organization. Basically, the source is considered an authority because it has a certain set of credentials. As a result, you believe the argument because someone who you regard as an authority says so. You can use this type of argument in two ways. First, you can request that a point be accepted simply because an authority figure supports it. People delegate authority to those they perceive to be more knowledgeable than themselves, including patients, doctors, and clients of law firms. Children frequently argue in this manner when they claim that something is true because their parents have said it is true. ”.
Second, you can use the authority of someone else to support your arguments. In this case, you’re attempting to apply the positive ethos from a reliable source to the viewpoint you’re supporting. This is what marketers do when they hire well-known athletes and entertainers to promote their goods. Your favorable perception of these individuals is what the advertisers are banking on to increase sales of their goods. You might be convinced to watch a specific movie, go to a specific play, or eat at a specific restaurant because a reputable critic has recommended it.
The conclusion to an inductive argument can never be completely certain because the process of reasoning by induction typically entails drawing conclusions based on a small sample. Why? Because critical thinkers can never sample the entirety of the population used to infer the generalization about that population, regardless of the type of inductive reasoning used or how carefully they adhere to the tests of each reasoning pattern.
Deductive reasoning is the process of coming to a specific, logical conclusion from general statements or rules. Beginning with a general statement that has already been reached through induction, deductive arguments are made. The conclusion reached by deductive reasoning is logically certain, in contrast to inductive reasoning, where the conclusion may be extremely valid but is always only probable.
Why is it important to understand the types of reasoning?
Throughout your career, developing your ability to reason effectively can help you construct persuasive arguments, make wise decisions, and ascertain the origin of events. There are many professions that employ various types of reasoning in the course of their work. Some of these include:
What is reasoning?
Reasoning is the process of observing and assessing the world around you. You can present new ideas, draw conclusions from data, and comprehend your experiences by using reasoning. Additionally, it can assist you in defending the decisions you make. There are numerous kinds of reasoning, and they derive from various philosophies and techniques for constructing or evaluating logic. You can create strategic plans, identify a sequence of events, and persuade others to see things your way by using one or more of the reasoning types alone or in combination.
10 types of reasoning
We define a few of the most popular categories of reasoning below:
1. Inductive
Inductive reasoning is reasoning that derives its information from a particular case and a generally acknowledged truth. You can generalize when using inductive reasoning by drawing conclusions from observations. Inductive reasoning often involves four steps:
2. Deductive
Deductive reasoning is essentially the opposite of inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a general truth to draw conclusions about particular events rather than using specific cases to infer general truths. Deduction typically starts with a hypothesis. Deductive reasoning enables you to accept the hypothesis as true for the purposes of the argument. Then, you may attribute specific cases to the hypothesiss existence.
Deductive reasoning, for instance, could change the inductive statement, “The ball fell to the floor.” Gravity is real,” into, “Gravity pulls objects toward each other. The ball fell because gravity exists. “.
3. Abductive
Abductive reasoning involves providing an explanation for an observation or experience for which there are no known explanations. It frequently entails formulating a hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be accurate. You might find the following formula helpful in better comprehending abductive reasoning:
I observe or experience A. If B were true, then A would be true. Therefore, B might be true.
Abductive reasoning can be used by experts who use investigative thinking to learn the truths about a situation. For instance, a physician might notice symptoms in a patient they have never met before. After that, they look at the different conditions that could be causing the symptom to see if one of them is.
4. Casual
The process of identifying the independent cause of an effect is known as causal reasoning. To foretell the results of actions in an argument, you could use casual reasoning. Using the phrase “Partnering with small businesses will positively affect the local economy and increase positive perception of our brand,” as an example, “.
5. Comparative
By comparing something to something else, comparative reasoning establishes the significance of a particular event, thing, or idea. The difference between the two items’ amounts can be used to denote importance. For instance, contrasting a high-quality product with a low-quality product demonstrates the high-quality product’s superiority and emphasizes its significance. There are many ways to use comparative reasoning in your professional discussions, research, or workflows. Some of these include:
6. Decomposition
Decompositional reasoning divides the object under consideration into more manageable parts in order to comprehend the object as a whole. You can examine each facet of things like events, ideas, or theories, consider how they relate to one another, and draw conclusions about the things you’ve studied.
Decomposition can be used in persuasive discussions, for instance, by listening to an opinion, breaking it down into smaller pieces, addressing and refuting each one, and then concluding that the entire opinion has been refuted as a result.
7. Pro vs. con
Pro vs. Con reasoning determines the best course of action by weighing the arguments in favor of and against a position. The outcome is frequently a determination of whether a case’s positives outweigh its negatives. Argument elements that influence pros and cons include:
8. Exemplary
Exemplary reasoning uses examples to provide proof of validity. Often, the example directly relates to the topic of discussion. Some examples of exemplary reasoning include:
9. Criteria
Defining the criteria by which you will evaluate an outcome and basing your decisions on those constraints is known as criteria reasoning. Setting parameters and restrictions on an outcome can help establish criteria and give an argument validity. For instance, you could use criteria reasoning to answer the question, “How will we measure success,” rather than saying, “Were successful when we maximized profits.”
10. Modal logic
Modal logic examines the interactions between possible and necessary ideas by defining them in terms of possibility, necessity, and contingency. According to modal logic, an idea is necessary if its contents must be true, while an idea is possible if its contents may be true. A contingent idea is one that is not always true or is only true in specific circumstances. You can use modal logic to categorize your theories according to their veracity and choose the ones that will best support your case.
What are fallacies of reasoning?
Fallacies of reasoning are logical flaws that can result from a number of mistakes made during the development of an argument. Knowing fallacies can help you avoid them, improve the persuasiveness of your arguments, the precision of your judgments, or the effectiveness of your investigations. Common fallacies of reasoning include:
Hasty generalizations
There are too few examples cited in an argument to support a likely conclusion, which is an example of this type of fallacy in inductive reasoning. Make every effort to have plenty of examples to back up your generalizations in order to prevent this.
False analogies
When comparisons in an inductive reasoning argument are not sufficiently similar to warrant accurate observation, false analogies can result. Make sure your comparisons are comparable enough to allow you to draw accurate conclusions about their relationship when using inductive reasoning to create arguments.
False causes
False causes appear in arguments based on casual reasoning when there is insufficient proof of a direct cause and effect. It’s critical to distinguish between direct cause and correlation when applying casual reasoning. Consider the independence of both items and whether they can exist without the other to make sure the content of your stance is truly a case of cause and effect. If the existence or operation of the two things depends on one another, they probably have a direct cause-and-effect connection.
Introduction to Inductive and Deductive Reasoning | Don’t Memorise
FAQ
What are 4 types of reasoning?
Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and reasoning by analogy are the four types of reasoning we’ll be concentrating on here.
What are the 7 types of reasoning?
- Deductive reasoning. To support a theory or hypothesis, deductive reasoning employs formal logic and observations.
- Inductive reasoning. …
- Analogical reasoning. …
- Abductive reasoning. …
- Cause-and-effect reasoning. …
- Critical thinking. …
- Decompositional reasoning.
What are 3 types of reasoning?
The deductive, inductive, and abductive methods of reasoning are three.
What are the 2 kinds of reasoning?
- A fundamental type of reasoning is deductive reasoning, also referred to as deduction.
- Inductive reasoning derives a likely (but uncertain) premise from limited and specific observations, unlike deductive reasoning, which starts with a premise that is supported by observations.
