Dr.

Hussein Mohamed IRBAD, BBA, MBA, PhD

Chapter 11
Inductive Reasoning
 Introduction
 An inductive argument is one in which the premises are
intended to provide support, but not conclusive evidence, for
the conclusion. Because inductive arguments do not guarantee
that their conclusions are true, we evaluate them according to
the strength of the support they provide for their
conclusions. An inductive argument is strong when its
premises provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely
true than false. An inductive argument is weak when its
premises do not provide evidence that its conclusion is more
likely true than false.
 arguments have varying degrees of strength and weakness.
 not all inductive arguments move from specific premises to a general conclusion.
Here is an example of an inductive argument that moves from a general premise to
a more specific conclusion:
 Most critical thinking students improve greatly in their ability to analyze arguments.
So, you will probably improve greatly in your ability to analyze arguments.
 This is an inductive argument that has a single premise dealing with a general
group, “most students,” and a conclusion about a single specific student, “you.”
Notice that it is inductive because the premise provides support for the conclusion,
but the premise is not intended to guarantee the conclusion
 If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should always be treated as deductive. If the argument’s
conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as inductive.
 Another important clue that this is an inductive argument is the word probably.
 Inductive Arguments
 A generalization is a statement made about all or most members of a
group. Inductive generalization is one of the most important kinds of
inductive arguments.
 An inductive generalization is an argument that relies on characteristics
of a sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole.
 All the bass Hank has caught in the Susquehanna River have weighed
less than one pound. So, most of the bass in the Susquehanna River
weigh less than one pound.
 The argument moves from a specific premise to a more general
conclusion. But remember that the important thing about inductive
arguments is that the truth of their premises is not intended to guarantee
the truth of their conclusions.
 Inductive generalizations should not overstate their conclusions.
For example:
 No rabbit Alan has come across has tried to attack him. So, most
rabbits are not inclined to attack human beings.
 This is a strong inductive generalization. Given its premise, it
seems very likely that its conclusion is true. Let’s assume that
Alan has come across thousands of rabbits and has yet to be
attacked by one.
 Notice that the conclusion is modest. It doesn’t go too far by
claiming that all rabbits are not inclined to attack human beings.
It recognizes that there could be an exception to the rule.
 Here is another example:
 None of the medical doctors Jen has ever met smoked
cigarettes while examining her. So, no doctor smokes
cigarettes while examining patients.
 Let’s assume that Jen has been examined by six medical
doctors over the course of her life .The common knowledge
of cigarette smoking causes cancer aids the argument.
However, the conclusion is so sweeping that the argument is
not strong. After all, if there is just one doctor somewhere
who smokes cigarettes while examining his or her patients,
the conclusion is false.
 Here is a third example:
 Tom has visited Cocoa Beach, Florida, in October several
times, and the weather was always great—sunny skies and
temperatures in the 80s. So, there’s a good chance that Cocoa
Beach usually has great weather in October.
 Tom’s several visits do not guarantee the conclusion about
the weather in general, but they do lend it some support. The
conclusion reflects the fact that the evidence is limited. The
conclusion does not say that the weather is always great, but
only that it usually is. Given the premise, it is likely that the
conclusion is true, and thus the argument is strong.
 Evaluating Inductive Arguments
 Evaluating
inductive arguments, we consider SAMPLE.
Remember the last Example:
 Tom has visited Cocoa Beach, Florida, in October several
times, and the weather was always great—sunny skies and
temperatures in the 80s. So, there’s a good chance that Cocoa
Beach usually has great weather in October.
 The sample population is Tom’s experience of the weather in
Cocoa Beach in October, based on several visits. The
population as a whole is the weather in Cocoa Beach in
October, in general.
Evaluating inductive arguments, There are
three questions we must ask of each inductive
generalization
we examine:
• Are the premises true?
• Is the sample large enough?
• Is the sample representative?
 Are the Premises True?
 A cogent argument has all true premises and supplies strong support for its
conclusion. One or more false premises makes an inductive argument un-
cogent, even if its argumentation, its support for the conclusion, is strong.
 Consider this example:
 Most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women. So, the CEOs of most
big businesses are probably women.
 The premise in this argument provides strong support for the conclusion.
After all, if most of the CEOs of the most financially successful big
businesses are women, it would seem likely that the CEOs of most big
businesses are women. The premise is false, however (most CEOs are
men), so it cannot legitimately be used to support the conclusion. The
argument is not cogent.
 Is the Sample Large Enough?
 The size of the sample population must be sufficient to justify the
conclusion about the population as a whole. A sample is “large enough”
when it is clear that we have not rushed to judgment, that we have not
formed a hasty generalization.
 Let’s begin with a familiar example:
 None of the thousands of rabbits Alan has come across has tried to
attack him. So, most rabbits are not inclined to attack human beings.
 Thousands of encounters with rabbits seems like a large enough sample
size to support the modest conclusion that most rabbits are not inclined
to attack human beings. No inductive argument can guarantee the truth
of its conclusion, but you don’t have to be an expert in statistics to see
that this one is a pretty good bet.
 On the other hand, consider this example:
 Brooke taught three students with purple hair last semester, and all of them were A students.
So, all students with purple hair must be A students.
 Considering the thousands of students with purple hair, three students is clearly not a large
enough sample on which to base this conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true;
but given the small sample, the premise is not strong enough support for it.
 Consider this example:
 Two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and today Japan has one of the strongest
economies in the world. So, all the concern about nuclear warfare and the end of humankind
is a bunch of nonsense.
 The two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan devastated that country, but the Japanese have
recovered well. The use of two nuclear bombs, however, is not enough to tell us what would
result from the use of more nuclear bombs; they are not a large enough sample. Beyond that,
those two nuclear bombs may not be like other nuclear bombs that could be used, which
leads us to the third question.
 Is the Sample Representative?
 An inductive generalization is weak if the sample population it draws on is
not enough like the population as a whole about which it makes its claims.
 Let’s examine the previous example:
 Two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and today Japan has one of the
strongest economies in the world. So, all the concern about nuclear warfare
and the end of humankind is a bunch of nonsense.
 The sample population is the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Not only
is this sample too small, but it is also not representative. The two bombs
dropped on Japan were not nearly as powerful as the nuclear bombs of
today. Japan’s ability to recover after the bombing cannot be generalized
correctly to humankind’s ability to survive and recover from the devastation
that would be caused by the current generation of nuclear bombs.
 Recall the first inductive generalization we considered:
 All the bass Hank has caught in the Susquehanna River have weighed less than
one pound. So, most of the bass in the Susquehanna River weigh less than one
pound.
 Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hank has caught hundreds of bass in
the Susquehanna River and that they all weighed less than one pound. That
would seem to be a large enough sample, but the argument could still be weak.
How? It could be that the hundreds of bass Hank caught were not truly
representative of the population of bass in the Susquehanna River as a whole.
Why? There are many possible reasons. Perhaps Hank has fished only a short
stretch of the river, and there are actually much larger bass 20 miles north.
Perhaps Hank has fished only with artificial lures, but if he used live bait he
could catch three-pound bass right under the Market Street Bridge, where he
usually fishes. Can you think of other reasons?