Ralph Vinze D.

C Agarcio

Mathematics 8

8-Narra

Mrs. Rufina Dimalanta

Deductive Reasoning And Inductive Reasoning

A. Deductive Reasoning (Deductive Logic, Logical Deduction, top down logic)

Method of reasoning from general to particular, it is employed in deriving
general laws or principles from the observed phenomenon. With analogy and inductive
reasoning, it constitutes the three basic modes of thinking. Also called deduction.

**In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules

that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under
consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is
reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction
can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note,
however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in
mathematical proofs mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
The law of detachment (also known as affirming the antecedent and Modus ponens) is
the first form of deductive reasoning. A single conditional statement is made, and a hypothesis
(P) is stated. The conclusion (Q) is then deduced from the statement and the hypothesis. The
most basic form is listed below:
P Q (conditional statement)
P (hypothesis stated)
Q (conclusion deduced)
In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q from P by using the law of
detachment.[3] However, if the conclusion (Q) is given instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is
no definitive conclusion.
The following is an example of an argument using the law of detachment in the form of an ifthen statement:
If an angle satisfies 90 < A < 180, then A is an obtuse angle.
A = 120.
A is an obtuse angle.

Since the measurement of angle A is greater than 90 and less than 180, we can deduce that A is
an obtuse angle.
B. Inductive Reasoning
Is a reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute
proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is
supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed
to be probable, based upon the evidence given
**The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple
progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the
premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive
probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not
ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to
individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).
An example of an inductive argument:
100% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid
water to exist.
This argument could have been made every time a new biological life form was found,
and would have been correct every time; however, it is still possible that in the future a
biological life form not requiring water could be discovered.
As a result, the argument may be stated less formally as:
All biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.
All biological life probably depends on liquid water to exist.