A Crash Course In Formal Logic Analysis

755 Words 4 Pages
A Crash Course in Formal Logic
This video lecture gives a clear explanation on how to distinguish between deductive and inductive logic. Additionally, it offers information on inferences and inferences claims. Before going into full explanation mode, the video first gives a glance over a few concepts that needs to commit to memory. First and foremost, the video explains that logic is the science of argument evaluation. Also, arguments can either be true or false. At this point of the lecture the video and I know that the basic concepts has been covered. Just to lessen any confusion, an inference is just that. It is the space between the premises and conclusion that one must infer on their own. Being able to infer will help you with later logic
…show more content…
An example of deductive logic is all whales are mammals, Johnny is a whale, and therefore Johnny is a mammal. An example of inductive logic is, mostly all freshmans have a job, and Sarah is a freshman, so Sarah has a job. If you look at both examples you can infer that the deductive argument leaves no room for error because it shows a sense of certainty. On the other hand, if you look at the inductive argument you can notice that the word most was used and makes the argument likely, but not certain. Now, you can visualize that deductive arguments are necessary and inductive logic is probable. Also, inductive logic lacks support to the conclusion. For example, 1 through 6 grapes are green, there are 100 grapes, and therefore all grapes are green. Its premises doesn’t strictly support the conclusion being that you only know …show more content…
Deductive logic indicator words are necessarily, certain, absolutely, and definitely. Some indicator words that fit inductive logic are probable, improbable, plausible, implausible, likely, and unlikely. The reason that the word sometimes was used is because indicator words aren’t definite. An argument could be as supportive as possible and use an inductive indicator word. You have to watch all these things when distinguishing the two. Another key pointer on how to differentiate between deductive and inductive is its form of style. If an argument deals with relating categories or if it appeals to math or word meaning, it will always be claimed as a deductive argument. In other cases, inductive logic can be identified by generalizations, analogies, signs, casual inference, arguments from authority, and Prediction. This list may seem extremely long, but an easy way to remember it or give off a hint is ‘GAS CAP’, which is the beginning letter of each type. To help you better understand these inductive forms, I will provide an explanation for each type. You may have heard people say their talking in general, which usually mean no one in particular. In logic, general is using a sample of an example to explain a whole. You can visualize that this would not be a certain argument. Next, an analogy type of argument will simply compare two things based on a worldwide known similarity. Then you have

Related Documents