Why is inductive arguments used

His left arm has been injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an English army doctor have seen much hardship and got his arm wounded? Clearly in Afghanistan. I then remarked that you came from Afghanistan, and you were astonished. Inductive reasoning involves drawing conclusions from facts, using logic. We draw these kinds of conclusions all the time. If someone we know to have good literary taste recommends a book, we may assume that means we will enjoy the book.

Induction can be strong or weak. If an inductive argument is strong, the truth of the premise would mean the conclusion is likely. If an inductive argument is weak, the logic connecting the premise and conclusion is incorrect. The entire legal system is designed to be based on sound reasoning, which in turn must be based on evidence. Lawyers often use inductive reasoning to draw a relationship between facts for which they have evidence and a conclusion.

The initial facts are often based on generalizations and statistics, with the implication that a conclusion is most likely to be true, even if that is not certain. For that reason, evidence can rarely be considered certain. Inductive reasoning also involves Bayesian updating. A conclusion can seem to be true at one point until further evidence emerges and a hypothesis must be adjusted. If we imagine a simplified, hypothetical criminal case, we can picture the utility of Bayesian inference combined with inductive reasoning.

One of them is the primary suspect, and there is no evidence of anyone else entering the house. Other evidence will then adjust that probability. Reality is more complex than this, of course. The conclusion is never certain, only highly probable. One key distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that the latter accepts that a conclusion is uncertain and may change in the future.

A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong. We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs. Everyday inductive reasoning is not always correct, but it is often useful. For example, superstitious beliefs often originate from inductive reasoning.

If an athlete performed well on a day when they wore their socks inside out, they may conclude that the inside-out socks brought them luck.

If future successes happen when they again wear their socks inside out, the belief may strengthen. Should that not be the case, they may update their belief and recognize that it is incorrect.

Only when Thanksgiving rolls around does that assumption prove incorrect. The issue with overusing inductive reasoning is that cognitive shortcuts and biases can warp the conclusions we draw.

Our world is not always as predictable as inductive reasoning suggests, and we may selectively draw upon past experiences to confirm a belief.

Someone who reasons inductively that they have bad luck may recall only unlucky experiences to support that hypothesis and ignore instances of good luck. In inductive arguments, focus on the inference. When a conclusion relies upon an inference and contains new information not found in the premises, the reasoning is inductive.

For example, if premises were established that the defendant slurred his words, stumbled as he walked, and smelled of alcohol, you might reasonably infer the conclusion that the defendant was drunk. Conclusion: Therefore, probably this bird eats oatmeal for breakfast. This argument is inductively strong because if all its premises were true, then it would be highly likely or probable that its conclusion would also true.

To summarize, a strong inductive argument is one where it is improbable for the conclusion to be false, given that the premises are true. A weak inductive argument is one where the conclusion probably would not follow from the premises, if they were true. Cogency is the attribute of an inductive arguments that denotes the truth of its premises and its logical strength. An inductive argument is cogent when:. Premise 1: Europa a moon of Jupiter has an atmosphere containing oxygen.

Premise 2: Oxygen is required for life. Conclusion: Thus, there may be life on Europa. This argument is cogent because 1 it is inductively strong if the premises were true, then the conclusion would probably be true and 2 the premises actually are true. On the other hand, the example above concerning peacocks, used to demonstrate inductive strength, is not cogent, because it does not have all true premises. In summary, an inductive argument is one in which it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true.

The important take-away from the information on the attributes of both deductive and inductive arguments is this:. A good argument proves, or establishes, its conclusion and has two key features:. Logical strength is the degree of support that the premises, if true, confer on the conclusion.

This attribute applies to both deductive arguments by virtue of validity and inductive arguments by virtue of inductive strength. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Unit 1: Logic. Each prisoner had to be sure about what hat he had on his head, otherwise he would answer "no" he did not know. If only three hats are used one on x, one on y, and one on z , then we know x has a higher probability of having on a red hat IF he sees two white hats, one on y and one on z.

If he sees two whites, then there is only one chance for him to have on a white hat but two chances for him to have on a red hat. Categorizing inductive arguments as strong v weak is similar to categorizing arguments as valid or invalid for deductive arguments.

But there will not be a crisp cut off between strong v weak arguments. See the barrel full of apples example in the textbook C3. The point of this example is that there is a sliding scale from weak to strong inductive inferences, but never certainty for any inductive inference, no matter how strong the evidence is for the inference. Most of our future discussion on inductive reasoning will be on how to make inductive arguments stronger, and avoid weak inductive arguments such as those discussed in Chapter 5.

But let's do the basics first and get some practice just seeing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. But how do we get true premises? Most often via inductive reasoning. Hence the importance of having strong inductive reasoning that some beliefs are probably true. The ideal case. Sound arguments are valid but must also have true premises.

See the north-of example in C1. Valid or Invalid. Valid arguments succeed in achieving this goal IF the premises are true sound argument. Arguments where the goal to achieve strong and reliable beliefs is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Strong inductive arguments achieve this goal - providing the best available evidence. Weak inductive arguments do not. All Internet hackers and spies for the Chinese government are Chinese. Understanding the various types of inductive reasoning allows you to better implement them in your day-to-day operations within the workplace. Inductive reasoning is not always the best way to reach a conclusion. Here are the pros and cons of using this decision-making method:. Inductive reasoning allows you to work with a wide range of probabilities.

The assumptions you make from presented evidence or a specific set of data are practically limitless. However, inductive reasoning presents you with a starting point so you can narrow down your assumptions and reach an informed conclusion. Inductive reasoning also allows you to develop multiple solutions to one issue and utilize your research to evaluate another hypothesis.

It allows you to leverage knowledge gathered from past experiences to form judgments and make decisions in new situations. One weakness of inductive reasoning is also one of its most significant strengths—you are only able to establish theories based on limited evidence or knowledge. While it provides you with the opportunity to explore, it also limits the foundation available for you to use. For example, if you observe cats and notice they all hiss at dogs, you may conclude that every cat will hiss at dogs.

While this is sound reasoning, the data you are using is limiting. Because you only observed cats, your conclusion may not be true for every cat. While your guess or theory may be incorrect in some cases, you can use that information to help you continue your research. While you can use data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, there is still a chance that new facts or evidence will be uncovered and prove your theory wrong.

Professionals who possess logical thinking abilities—like inductive reasoning skills—are often better at decision-making efforts. Consider providing a specific example of when you used inductive reasoning skills in the workplace on your cover letter.

During a job interview , an employer may ask about your decision-making process. Take time to think about specific instances when you used inductive reasoning, especially when it resulted in a positive outcome. Utilizing the STAR Situation, Task, Action and Result technique is an effective method for communicating your inductive reasoning skills to potential employers clearly and concisely.

Here are the steps for using the STAR method :. Share the result. How did your actions address the problem? What was the outcome, and how did it affect the company or team? Understanding inductive reasoning and how to effectively apply this logical thinking process in your work environment is essential to success in any position.

Learning to recognize your inductive reasoning skills will help you highlight them during your job search and make a positive impression on employers during the interview process. Reasoning skills are one of the most important soft skills employers seek in potential candidates. In addition to inductive reasoning, there are two other types of reasoning—abductive and deductive—that are important to understand and apply both in and outside of the workplace.