Lesson 15 Misusing Inductive Reasoning Logical Fallacies

You learned that an inductive fallacy looks like an argument, but it either has two premises that do not provide enough support for the conclusion, or a conclusion that does not fit the premises. Four common logical fallacies were explored, including hasty generalization, in which the premises do not contain enough evidence to support the conclusion. The chicken and egg fallacy occurs when you claim cause and effect without enough evidence. Post hoc, ergo

Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning

Type of Argument Premises Conclusion When Is it Correct?

Deductive

general facts specific

valid when both premises are true, conclusion

or rules

follows logically

Inductive specific general sound when premises support principles, probable truth of conclusion theories, rules

Inductive specific general sound when premises support principles, probable truth of conclusion theories, rules propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") is the fallacy of drawing a cause and effect conclusion that does not fit the facts. The composition fallacy focuses on parts of a whole, drawing a conclusion based only on those parts.

Friendly Persuasion

Friendly Persuasion

To do this successfully you need to build a clear path of action by using tools if necessary. These tools would be facts, evidence and stories which you know they can relate to. Plus you always want to have their best interests at heart, in other words, you know what is good for them

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment