Exam 16: Inductive Logic

True and False -Mill's Methods are methods for finding cause-effect relationships and hence are not inductive, since once we find a causal connection we can reason with certainty about it, but inductive reasoning is never certain.

Free

(True/False)

4.9/5

(33)

Question 1

Correct Answer:

Verified

False

General Theory -Statistics indicate a rough inverse correlation between income and rate of crime: the lower the income, the higher the rate of crime. Using one of Mill's Methods, we might conclude that low income is the cause of crime. But could we somehow use Mill's Methods (plus more investigation) to prove that other factors "really" are the cause of crime? How might this happen?

Free

(Essay)

4.9/5

(38)

Question 2

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Mill's Methods, specifically the method of difference, can be used to help establish causation between low income and crime. This method involves comparing situations where the effect is present with situations where the effect is absent, and identifying the difference between the two.

In the case of low income and crime, we could use this method to compare areas with similar income levels but differing crime rates. If we find that there are areas with low income but low crime rates, or areas with high income but high crime rates, it would indicate that there are other factors at play besides income.

Further investigation could then be conducted to identify these other factors. This might involve looking at social and economic factors such as education levels, employment opportunities, access to resources, and community support systems. It could also involve considering psychological and behavioral factors such as individual resilience, coping mechanisms, and social support networks.

By using Mill's Methods as a starting point and then conducting more in-depth investigation, we can potentially uncover the complex web of factors that contribute to crime, and ultimately establish a more nuanced understanding of the causes of crime beyond just low income.

True and False -Valid inductive arguments should include all known relevant information.

Free

(True/False)

4.8/5

(40)

Question 3

Correct Answer:

Verified

True

Probability -Suppose we use an honest (symmetrical) pair of dice, and toss them randomly. a. What is the probability of getting a deuce ("snake eyes") on a given toss? b. A seven? c. An eleven? d. A twelve? e. Suppose you toss a six. Is it more or less probable that you will get a seven before tossing another six? Why?

(Short Answer)

4.9/5

(38)

Question 4

True and False -Analogical arguments are inferior to standard inductive generalizations in that the conclusion of an analogical argument is less probable, given certain evidence, than the conclusion of an inductive generalization based on the same evidence.

(True/False)

4.8/5

(31)

Question 5

General Theory -Critically evaluate (giving original examples): "Induction goes from the less general to the more general".

(Short Answer)

5.0/5

(37)

Question 6

True and False -It often is claimed that we don't really need analogical arguments since all conclusions drawn analogically can be drawn by means of other kinds of inductive arguments (plus deductive arguments).

(True/False)

4.9/5

(24)

Question 7

True and False -Adding relevant premises to an inductive argument will generally alter either its conclusion or the probability of its conclusion.

(True/False)

4.8/5

(41)

Question 8

General Theory -If $q$ deductively follows from $p$ , then it follows from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be. But if $q$ inductively follows from $p$ , then does it follow from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be? (Explain and give examples.)

(Short Answer)

4.8/5

(40)

Question 9

Probability -Suppose we randomly draw cards from a standard deck. What is the probability of getting: a. an ace on a given draw? b. a spade? c. a flush (five cards of the $\textbf{ same }$ suit) when drawing five cards? d. at least one spade in a five-card draw, given that the first card is a club?

(Short Answer)

4.8/5

(38)

Question 10

True and False -There is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid deductive argument than there is to doubt its premises. Similarly there is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid inductive argument than there is to doubt its premises.

(True/False)

4.8/5

(35)

Question 11

True and False -In analogical reasoning, we often reason from the more general to the less general, which contradicts the old saw that inductive reasoning moves from the less general to the more general.

(True/False)

5.0/5

(34)

Question 12

True and False -An argument may be inductively valid, even though deductively invalid, provided its premises present evidence that constitutes good grounds for accepting its conclusion.

(True/False)

4.8/5

(37)

Question 13

True and False -If the premises of a valid inductive argument are true, then so is its conclusion.

(True/False)

4.9/5

(35)

Question 14

Showing 1 - 14 of 14

True and False -Mill's Methods are methods for finding cause-effect relationships and hence are not inductive, since once we find a causal connection we can reason with certainty about it, but inductive reasoning is never certain.

True and False -Valid inductive arguments should include all known relevant information.

True and False -Analogical arguments are inferior to standard inductive generalizations in that the conclusion of an analogical argument is less probable, given certain evidence, than the conclusion of an inductive generalization based on the same evidence.

General Theory -Critically evaluate (giving original examples): "Induction goes from the less general to the more general".

True and False -It often is claimed that we don't really need analogical arguments since all conclusions drawn analogically can be drawn by means of other kinds of inductive arguments (plus deductive arguments).

True and False -Adding relevant premises to an inductive argument will generally alter either its conclusion or the probability of its conclusion.

General Theory -If $q$ deductively follows from $p$ , then it follows from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be. But if $q$ inductively follows from $p$ , then does it follow from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be? (Explain and give examples.)

Probability -Suppose we randomly draw cards from a standard deck. What is the probability of getting: a. an ace on a given draw? b. a spade? c. a flush (five cards of the $\textbf{ same }$ suit) when drawing five cards? d. at least one spade in a five-card draw, given that the first card is a club?

True and False -There is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid deductive argument than there is to doubt its premises. Similarly there is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid inductive argument than there is to doubt its premises.

True and False -In analogical reasoning, we often reason from the more general to the less general, which contradicts the old saw that inductive reasoning moves from the less general to the more general.

True and False -An argument may be inductively valid, even though deductively invalid, provided its premises present evidence that constitutes good grounds for accepting its conclusion.

True and False -If the premises of a valid inductive argument are true, then so is its conclusion.

Introduction

Symbolizing in Sentential Logic

Truth Tables

Proofs Without CP or IP

Proofs With CP or IP

Sentential Logic Truth Trees

Predicate Logic Symbolization

Predicate Logic Semantics

Predicate Logic Proofs

Relational Predicate Logic

Quantifier Rules Theory

Predicate Logic Truth Trees

Identity

Syllogistic Logic

Informal Fallacies

Axiom Systems

Filters

Exam 16: Inductive Logic

True and False -Mill's Methods are methods for finding cause-effect relationships and hence are not inductive, since once we find a causal connection we can reason with certainty about it, but inductive reasoning is never certain.

True and False -Valid inductive arguments should include all known relevant information.

True and False -Analogical arguments are inferior to standard inductive generalizations in that the conclusion of an analogical argument is less probable, given certain evidence, than the conclusion of an inductive generalization based on the same evidence.

General Theory -Critically evaluate (giving original examples): "Induction goes from the less general to the more general".

True and False -It often is claimed that we don't really need analogical arguments since all conclusions drawn analogically can be drawn by means of other kinds of inductive arguments (plus deductive arguments).

True and False -Adding relevant premises to an inductive argument will generally alter either its conclusion or the probability of its conclusion.

General Theory -If qq q deductively follows from ppp , then it follows from p⋅rp \cdot rp⋅r no matter what rrr happens to be. But if qqq inductively follows from p pp , then does it follow from p⋅rp \cdot rp⋅r no matter what rr r happens to be? (Explain and give examples.)

True and False -There is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid deductive argument than there is to doubt its premises. Similarly there is no more reason to doubt the conclusion of a valid inductive argument than there is to doubt its premises.

True and False -In analogical reasoning, we often reason from the more general to the less general, which contradicts the old saw that inductive reasoning moves from the less general to the more general.

True and False -An argument may be inductively valid, even though deductively invalid, provided its premises present evidence that constitutes good grounds for accepting its conclusion.

True and False -If the premises of a valid inductive argument are true, then so is its conclusion.

Introduction

Symbolizing in Sentential Logic

Truth Tables

Proofs Without CP or IP

Proofs With CP or IP

Sentential Logic Truth Trees

Predicate Logic Symbolization

Predicate Logic Semantics

Predicate Logic Proofs

Relational Predicate Logic

Quantifier Rules Theory

Predicate Logic Truth Trees

Identity

Syllogistic Logic

Informal Fallacies

Axiom Systems

Filters

General Theory -If $q$ deductively follows from $p$ , then it follows from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be. But if $q$ inductively follows from $p$ , then does it follow from $p \cdot r$ no matter what $r$ happens to be? (Explain and give examples.)