Introduction
In a deductive argument, it is impractical for the basis to be true but the end bogus. In this case, a deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion follows from the generalizations. On the other hand, deductive logic is the capability of distilling the pertinent facts and details of a situation from a broad generalization. An example here is the case where there is a pink and a yellow ball in a basket, from which one ball is picked at random it can be said that either ball has equal chances of being picked. In this case, the endpoint is determined by the premises and deductions taken into consideration.
Based on this, deductive logic are founded upon the notion of inference which engages starting from one wide-ranging rule or theory; and concluding from it a meticulous truth that falls under that universal rule. A simple example here is that all men are mortal (general law); to the consideration that Emile Durkheim was a man from which here a conclusion could be that Emile Durkheim is a mortal (Bonevac 2002, 125)
Discussion
Another idea that should be noted is that, deductive logic is either legitimate or unacceptable; as they either end as being or fictitious. In this case, if the general knowledge is true; the conclusion will also be true. An example here is that all mammals give birth; and based on the consideration that a Whale is a mammal; then it can be concluded that a whale gives birth. On the other hand, a deductive argument is considered to be applicable if it is improbable both for its principles to be factual, and its conclusion unrealistic.
In this case, one can say that because pornography has a harmful consequence on one’s personality; it would be advisable and favorable to avoid it (premise 1). From the first premise then premise II states that pornography has a harmful outcome on one’s personality. Based on this, the conclusion would be that it would be advisable and favorable to avoid pornography. From this, it can be argued that the conclusion is determined by both or one of the premises.
Still building on the ideas of deductive reasoning, it can be argued from a general point of view or consideration to a specific one where the general laws form the basis of the conclusion arrived at. Based on this, in the case a contention is factual about a group of things in a broad spectrum; this reality relates to all lawful members of the given group. Based on this understanding, a good example of deductive logic could be that all Arabs are Muslims. From the first general contention, it can be deduced that because Sherrif is an Arab; then he has to be a Muslim. In this case, from a general contention forming knowledge; a conclusion is derived (Bonevac 2002, 135)
Inductive argument, on the other hand, is the case where principles are assumed to sustain the conclusion in such a way that in the case these principles are factual; then the general law will also be true. On the other hand, inductive logic is the generalizations made from principles or particulars. Based on this, inductive logic involves reasoning from a meticulous principle to a broad-based law. In this case, a conclusion forms a general law where a law is formulated from the conclusion.
An example here is Jack was punished by the class tutor for submitting his assignment late. From this specific contention, it can be concluded that all students from Jacks’ class are punished by the tutor in the case of late assignment submission. Based on the idea explained it can be concluded that inductive logic pursues an inductive method of reasoning. Moreover still on the same ideas, it can be argued that inductive reasoning involves coming up with a conclusion about the general following the suppositions, rules, or principles regarding a general case from a specific case or occurrence.
Another point to be noted in the same regard is that inductive reasoning argues from a conclusion to a general principle; where the premises do not use in the determination of the conclusion. In this case, an argument is developed from the conclusion and used to make a general principle covering the specific instance among others (Moore & Parker 2007, 346).
Inductive logic can further be explained as analyzing from a precise case to develop a general principle; where suppositions are drawn from observation in order to make oversimplifications. According to early supporters of the inductive method of reasoning; inductive logic is a way of comprehending nature in a balanced way as it develops principles and rules from an impartial conclusive observation. In this case, inductive logic assists in the explanation of general rules.
Under this consideration, for instance, the law of gravity was used in forming the explanation of the earth’s revolution around the Sun. Based on this, inductive reasoning takes precise occurrences and develops a wide-ranging principle. An example of this is the fact that Isaac Newton developed the conclusions about the law of gravity from a specific conclusion, which came to be applied to all bodies containing matter as they are subjected to the same force or pull (Moore & Parker 2007, 356).
Conclusion
Having discussed the differences between deductive and inductive thinking, the distinction between the two perspectives of logic is that inductive logic emanates from the inference then develops to a general rule. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is where from a general principle; a conclusion is drawn.
Reference list
Bonevac, D. (2002). Deduction: Introductory Symbolic Logic, 2nd edition. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers: 102-154.
Moore, B.N. & Parker, R. (2007). Critical Thinking, 8th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers: 346-462.