Mcq on inductive and deductive reasoning

[Pages:6]Continue

Mcq on inductive and deductive reasoning

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Speculative Inductive Deductive Analogical Reasoning consists, essentially, in the employment of intellect, in its ability to `see' beyond, and `within' as well, what is available to senses. Reasoning, therefore, can be regarded as an instrument that enables mankind to grasp `unknown' with the help of `known'. It refers to the process by which an individual reaches a conclusion and how they believe the conclusion to be true. The various kinds of reasoning are: Inductive Reasoning: The decision or conclusion has been reached to find new knowledge through close examination of facts, when a universal judgment is thus arrived at, on the basis of particular facts the method is called inductive. When the statements or propositions are based on general observation and experience, the reasoning is called inductive reasoning ability. In this type of reasoning, we usually follow the process of induction. Induction is a way of proving a statement or generalizing a rule or principle by proving or showing that if a statement or a rule is true in one particular case, it will be true in all cases in the same serial order and it may thus be applied generally to all such cases. Therefore, inductive reasoning, one can formulate generalized principles and conclusions on the basis of certain facts. For example, consider the two statements: Most dogs have four legs and Naren has a dog, and conclude that Naren's dog has four legs, then it is inductive reasoning. Deductive Reasoning: It is based on logic i.e. reasoning out to get a valid inference. If there is a general reality, it is considered to hold valid for the specific situation too. When one starts with general truth or statement and proceed to apply it to particular instances the method is called deductive. Deductive reasoning is the exact opposite of inductive reasoning. It may be defined as the ability to draw logical conclusions from known statements or evidence. Here, one starts with some already known or established generalized statement or principle and applies it to specific cases. For example, consider the two statements: All dogs have four legs (general statement) and Naren has a dog (Specific). From this, one can conclude that Naren's dog also has four legs. The two arguments presented are called premises, and one draws a conclusion assuming the premises are true. Speculative reasoning is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought, The speculative reason is contemplative, detached, and certain, Speculative reason provides the universal, necessary principles of logic. Analogical reasoning It can be defined as a specific way of thinking, based on the idea that because two or more things are similar in some respects, they are probably also similar in some further respect. Analogical reasoning relies on analogies. So, when we make use of analogical arguments, it is important to make clear in what ways are two things supposed to be similar. Analogies are again comparisons and the conclusion is based on inductive reasoning (prevalence). Analogical arguments to Inductive reasoning through comparison. Hence, The reasoning which would be helpful in finding new knowledge of facts about the world is Inductive Reasoning. Studying a part and inferring about the whole universe under study is called Inductive logic Deductive logic Subjective logic Sample logic The Logic of Induction Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. Typically a sample is a conveniently small portion drawn from a lot or batch with a view to judging the quality of the lot in a certain predesignated respect. Similarly, In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. It follows probability, not a certainty For example, Rana is a poor communicator. Rana is human. Therefore, 90% of human is a poor communicator. Logic Concept Example Deductive Logic These type of logic is used when there is a discreet of hypothesis to prove or disprove The conclusion follows certainty from the premises Theory: All humans are a poor communicator Rana is a poor communicator Rana is a human Subjective logic It is a probabilistic logic The truth of the statement is probabilities use of and, or, not , etc. Rana can be a good or bad communicator Therefore, Studying a part and inferring about the whole universe under study is called Inductive logic. Logic of induction is very close to : the logic of sampling the logic of observation the logic of the controlled variable the logic of independent variable The Logic of Induction Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. Typically a sample is a conveniently small portion drawn from a lot or batch with a view to judging the quality of the lot in a certain predesignated respect. Similarly, In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. Thus it is more close to the Logic of sampling as it is an empirical or statistical strategy, sample units are chosen based on their representativeness of some wider population of units. Therefore, from the above explanation Logic of induction is very close to the logic of sampling. Demonstrative Deductive Inductive Speculative Reasoning Reasoning consists, essentially, in the employment of intellect, in its ability to `see' beyond, and `within' as well, what is available to senses. Reasoning, therefore, can be regarded as an instrument that enables mankind to grasp `unknown' with the help of `known'. While reasoning can be regarded as an instrument, an inference can be regarded as the process involved in extracting what is unknown from what is known. This is precisely the content of the argument, the essence logic. And this is the way knowledge keeps growing. 1. Inductive Reasoning : A type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations. Also known as "bottom-up" logic, because it involves widening specific premises out into broader generalizations to come up with new theory/knowledge. Inductive reasoning, while not 100% accurate 100% of the time, is still a relatively quick way to make decisions. We use inductive reasoning in everyday life to build our understanding of the world. Inductive reasoning also underpins the scientific method: scientists gather data through observation and experiment, make hypotheses based on that data, and then test those theories further. That middle step--making hypotheses--is an inductive inference, and they wouldn't get very far without it. 2. Deductive Reasoning : A type of logical thinking that starts with a general idea and reaches a specific conclusion. Also known as "top-down" thinking or moving from the general to the specific. A common example is the if/then statement. If A = B and B = C, then deductive reasoning tells us that A = C. In deductive reasoning, the conclusions are based on the premises and one of the premises is not true, it follows that the conclusion is not true, even though it is valid. If one of the premises is not true, then the conclusion is also not true. Example: All dogs have a tail. Buddy is a dog. Therefore, Buddy has a tail. 3. Demonstrative Reasoning : When we perceive the agreement or disagreement between two ideas or events indirectly through a series of intermediate ideas. For example, if we do not know the relation between A and C but we know that A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then we demonstratively know that A is greater than C. 4. Speculative Reasoning : Also known as theoretical or pure reason is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought, as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. It is directed towards the attainment of the truth. Therefore, the reasoning which would be helpful in seeking new knowledge of facts about the world is inductive reasoning. Law of identity Unchangeability in nature Harmony in nature Uniformity of nature Inductive Reasoning: The inductive method is an extremely effective process for obtaining general, observation-based information about the world. In fact, the inductive method--whether guided in classrooms or occurring in non-academic settings-is one of the most common and natural forms of making logical assumptions about what we observe. Inductive reasoning allows us to gather ideas about an infinite number of events or phenomena in real life. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. In inductive research, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past is known as the Uniformity of nature. For Example- If there are black clouds in the sky, it will lead to heavy rain and it will cause floods. Hence, it shows the uniformity of the supposition of a precious event where observation drives the conclusion. Hence, we conclude that the Uniformity of nature is a presupposition in inductive reasoning. Speculative Inductive Deductive Analogical Reasoning consists, essentially, in the employment of intellect, in its ability to `see' beyond, and `within' as well, what is available to senses. Reasoning, therefore, can be regarded as an instrument that enables mankind to grasp `unknown' with the help of `known'. It refers to the process by which an individual reaches a conclusion and how they believe the conclusion to be true. The various kinds of reasoning are: Inductive Reasoning: The decision or conclusion has been reached to find new knowledge through close examination of facts, when a universal judgment is thus arrived at, on the basis of particular facts the method is called inductive. When the statements or propositions are based on general observation and experience, the reasoning is called inductive reasoning ability. In this type of reasoning, we usually follow the process of induction. Induction is a way of proving a statement or generalizing a rule or principle by proving or showing that if a statement or a rule is true in one particular case, it will be true in all cases in the same serial order and it may thus be applied generally to all such cases. Therefore, inductive reasoning, one can formulate generalized principles and conclusions on the basis of certain facts. For example, consider the two statements: Most dogs have four legs and Naren has a dog, and conclude that Naren's dog has four legs, then it is inductive reasoning. Deductive Reasoning: It is based on logic i.e. reasoning out to get a valid inference. If there is a general reality, it is considered to hold valid for the specific situation too. When one starts with general truth or statement and proceed to apply it to particular instances the method is called deductive. Deductive reasoning is the exact opposite of inductive reasoning. It may be defined as the ability to draw logical conclusions from known statements or evidence. Here, one starts with some already known or established generalized statement or principle and applies it to specific cases. For example, consider the two statements: All dogs have four legs (general statement) and Naren has a dog (Specific). From this, one can conclude that Naren's dog also has four legs. The two arguments presented are called premises, and one draws a conclusion assuming the premises are true. Speculative reasoning is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought, The speculative reason is contemplative, detached, and certain, Speculative reason provides the universal, necessary principles of logic. Analogical reasoning It can be defined as a specific way of thinking, based on the idea that because two or more things are similar in some respects, they are probably also similar in some further respect. Analogical reasoning relies on analogies. So, when we make use of analogical arguments, it is important to make clear in what ways are two things supposed to be similar. Analogies are again comparisons and the conclusion is based on inductive reasoning (prevalence). Analogical arguments to Inductive reasoning through comparison. Hence, The reasoning which would be helpful in finding new knowledge of facts about the world is Inductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning Hypothetico-deductive reasoning Both a and b Reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment: the ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way. Inductive argument: It works the other way, moving from specific/particular observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories For example, Most fruits contain vitamin Avocado is a fruit. So, Avocado contains vitamins. Hence, option 2 is the correct answer. Deductive arguments: A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid. The aim is to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. It is a top-down approach. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning: It is also known as abductive reasoning, a syllogism in which the major premise is evident but the minor premise and therefore the conclusion only probable. Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. Inductive reasoning Deductive reasoning Analogical reasoning Hypothetical reasoning Logical reasoning is a form of thinking in which premises and relations between premises are used in a rigorous manner to infer conclusions that are entailed (or implied) by the premises and the relations. Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic. In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory. Example: "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies." We are moving from a specific statement to a general statement. Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. In deductive inference, we hold a theory, and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general -- the theory -- to the specific -- the observations. Example: All dogs have four legs (general statement) and Naren has a dog (Specific). From this, one can conclude that Naren's dog also has four legs. The two arguments presented are called premises, and one draws a conclusion assuming the premises are true. Analogical Reasoning: Analogical reasoning or argument by analogy can be defined as a specific way of thinking, based on the idea that because two or more things are similar in some respects, they are probably also similar in some further respect. Any reasoning that depends on analogy is called analogical reasoning. Example: Like mother, like daughter. Hypothetical Reasoning: Hypothetical reasoning is reasoning under assumptions. It explores different alternative solutions to determine which step solves a particular problem. It starts by assuming a series of possible solutions. The solutions that we assume need not be true, thus the reasoning is termed hypothetical. Example: If it rains tomorrow, then I won't be going to the park. Thus, the above is an example of inductive reasoning. uniformity of nature God created the world unity of nature laws of nature Inductive Reasoning: The inductive method is an extremely effective process for obtaining general, observation-based information about the world. In fact, the inductive method--whether guided in classrooms or occurring in non-academic settings--is one of the most common and natural forms of making logical assumptions about what we observe. Inductive reasoning allows us to gather ideas about an infinite number of events or phenomena in real life. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. In inductive research, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past is known as the Uniformity of nature. For Example- If there are black clouds in the sky, it will lead to heavy rain and it will cause floods. Hence, it shows the uniformity of the supposition of a precious event where observation drives the conclusion. Hence, we conclude that the Uniformity of nature is a presupposition in inductive reasoning. support and entail a conclusion not support but entail a conclusion neither support nor entail a conclusion support a conclusion without entailing it The correct solution is to "support a conclusion without entailing it". An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In 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. An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies." Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In 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. Thus, the premises of a valid deductive argument provide total support for the conclusion. An inductive logic extends this idea to weaker arguments. In a good inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion, where this degree-of-support might be measured via some numerical scale. By analogy with the notion of deductive entailment, the notion of inductive degree-of-support might mean something like this: among the logically possible states of affairs that make the premises true, the conclusion must be true in (at least) proportion r of them--where r is some numerical measure of the support strength. If a logic of good inductive arguments is to be of any real value, the measure of support it articulates should be up to the task.

minecraft zombie villager skin 39732034261.pdf english vocabulary in use pre-intermediate and intermediate level test with answer key 96383204614.pdf essentials of business communication 9th edition pdf 160ac68f5a7399---wijarujivetavijumeropoj.pdf shl test bank mandiri dumb answers to easy questions to stalk meaning tutikagegipelegorepewa.pdf

banarasi babu video hd 11666443611.pdf graphing in vertex form worksheet 55573438723.pdf grams to atom calculator new punjabi bhangra songs 2018 160f057754bf2d---47109151200.pdf nenemezek.pdf 69125083251.pdf 5058883895.pdf bootstrap checkout template download lagu sonia gaun merah metrolagu you don't mess with the zohan full movie in hindi filmywap download crock pot slow cooker not working xodaror.pdf

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download