Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Well-Formulated Inductive Reasoning Examples. 1. Polling and Surveys. “We surveyed 1,000 people across the county and 520 of them said they will vote to re-elect the mayor. We estimate that 52% of the county will vote for the mayor and he will be re-elected.”
Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions. What are some types of inductive reasoning?
Inductive argument, or inductive reasoning, is a type of logical thought pattern that moves from the specific to the general. This is the opposite of deductive reasoning, which begins with a general statement and moves to a specific conclusion.
Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations. It's often called "bottom-up" reasoning because it starts with specific details and builds up to broader conclusions (The Decision Lab, n.d.).
In contrast to deductive reasoning, which starts with a general statement and examines the possibilities to reach a specific conclusion, inductive reasoning begins with specific examples and tries to form a general rule.
An inductive argument, by contrast, is one whose conclusion is merely made probable by the premises. Stated differently, “A deductive argument is one that would be justified by claiming that if the premises are true, they necessarily establish the truth of the conclusion” (Churchill 1987).
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.
An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In a deductive logic, the premises of a valid deductive argument logically entail the conclusion, where logical entailment means that every logically possible state of affairs that makes the premises true must make the conclusion true as well.