CRT 205 week 6 DQ2 - be absolutely true Inductive logic is...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CRT 205 Week 6 DQ 2 Review Ch. 7 (pp. 219–226) of your Critical Thinking text. Imagine your child is trying to prove that she did not steal chocolate chip cookies from the cookie jar, so she makes this argument: “There are no chocolate stains on my hands, so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.” Does this example require deductive or inductive logic? What are the premises? Are the premises stated or unstated? What is the argument’s conclusion? In your opinion, is this a convincing argument? Why or why not? The above example requires inductive logic rather than deductive logic. Deductive logic is where if the premise is true, then the conclusion must also
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: be absolutely true. Inductive logic is defined as the premise supporting the conclusion rather proving the conclusion. A premise is the reason to believe the conclusion; therefore the premise is stated: “There are no chocolate stains on my hands.” The conclusion of the argument is “…so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.” In my opinion this in not a convincing argument. Maybe it is because I have a 6 year old and I am aware of the tricks that a child will play in order not to get caught. The child could have washed their hands....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/27/2010 for the course CRT 205 crt 205 taught by Professor Darren during the Spring '10 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online