In case of deductive arguments the technical terms

Info icon This preview shows pages 3–4. Sign up to view the full content.

In case of deductive arguments the technical terms “valid” and “invalid” are used in place  of “correct” and “incorrect.” A deductive argument is valid when its premises, if true, do provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion, that is, when premises and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the  premises to be true unless the conclusion is true also. Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid; the task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of the relation between premises and  conclusion in valid arguments, and thus to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid  arguments.   b)     Inductive Arguments An inductive argument involves the claim; not that its premises give conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but only that it  provides some grounds for it. Inductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid in the sense in which those terms are  applied to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of  likelihood or probability which their premises confer upon their conclusions. Accordingly, Deductive and inductive arguments are characterized and distinguished from one  another in terms of the relative generality of their premises and conclusion. And so the  misconception common in most logic books that deductive arguments proceed from general to  particular while inductive arguments from particular to general in erroneous. Either of the arguments  can precede from general to general, particular to particular, general to particular and particular to  general. The only distinguishing characteristic between deductive and inductive arguments is the  evidential link that subsists between the premises and the conclusion and how that defines the  validity and invalidity (in deductive arguments) and strong or weak arguments in inductive  arguments. For examples in this context see ( Namwambah 2011-  Essential of Critical and Creative  Thinking) 1.43 SUBTOPIC 3: Truth and Validity  In logic it is not uncommon to find where they are valid arguments with false conclusions, as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions. The truth or falsehood of an argument’s  conclusion does not determine the validity or invalidity of the argument. Nor dos the validity  of an argument guarantees the truth of its conclusion. There are perfectly valid arguments  with false conclusions-but any such argument must have at least one false premise. The term
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '16

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern