education

Four Reasons Why Student of Logic are more Correct in Reasoning? | English Studies

SECTION B ( LOGIC/FALLACY)

• A student of logic is more likely to acquire methods for testing the correctness of reasoning. How true is this statement? Give four convincing reasons for your response.

Student of logic are more correct in reasoning because they make use of abductive, inductive, deductive and reasoning by analogy to bring out fact. 4 Convincing Reasons Why Student of Logic are more Correct in Reasoning?

TYPES OF LOGIC

1. Deductive Reasoning: This is a thinking process in which one argues from a universal principle or statement to specific or particular statement using prescribed rules. It is a system of organizing know facts to arrive at a conclusion. This is done through a series of statement which could be categorized into three parts called syllogism viz: a major premise, a minor premise and a middle premise or conclusion. The major premise denotes an attribute or a group attribute which must be true to be applicable. The minor premise is a proposition that may affirm or negate the attribute of the major premise while inference while inference is made on relationship between the premise.

e.g.      major premise           –                             all insect have six legs

minor premise          –                             the ant has six legs

conclusion                 –                              therefore the ant is an insect.

e.g.     major premise            –                             all lecturers are thief

minor premise           –                             Danjuma is a lecturers

conclusion                   –                             Danjuma is a thief

e.g.     major premise            –                             Whenever there is smoke, there is fire.

minor premise             –                             There is smoke in this kitchen.

conclusion                     –                            Therefore there is fire in this kitchen

In the foregoing argument, it should be asserted that the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the earlies proposition or premise. It would be inconsistent or self contradictory to assert the premise but deny the conclusion. Therefore, deductive reasoning deals with the theory of demonstrative argument whose premises necessitate their conclusion. It is the systematic presentation of certain relations of deducibility or implication which hold among member of a group of propositions when and because the member of such a group collectively exhibit certain structural features.

e.g.         whenever there is smoke, there is fire

there is smoke in this kitchen

therefore there is fire in this kitchen

Electrical phenomena are accompanied by magnetic disturbances. Lightening is an electrical phenomenon. Therefore lightning is accompanied by magnetic disturbances. Notice that argument must contain at least two propositions, a conclusion plus one premise or more. It is not a rule that each proposition must be in sentence from. In fast the whole argument may be expressed in one sentence.

e.g. the following statement by Aristotle.

In a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them and the will of the majority is supreme.

Major premise           –             the will of the majority is supreme

Minor premise           –             there are more of the poor than the rich in a democracy

Conclusion                  –             therefore, in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich.

2. Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is the reverse of deductive reasoning where the argumentation reasons from specific instances to the general. In inductive reasoning conclusion is reached by observing evidence such as facts, statistics and examples and generalizing from the examples to the whole class generalization is a probability. The more evidence we adduce in support of the conclusion, the more true or probability the conclusion will be Inductive conclusion can be absolute only when the group on phenomena about which they assert is small and hence easily coverable.

e.g. the first vulture is black

the second vulture is black

the third vulture is black

probably all vultures are black

3. Abductive Reasoning: Abductive reasoning is making a probable conclusion from what you know if you see an abandoned bowl of hot soup on the table you can use abduction to conclude the owner of the soup is likely returning soon

In Abductive reasoning, the major premise is evident, but the minor premise is not and therefore the conclusion are only probable for example, if you have a half-eaten sandwich your home, you might use probability to reason that your teenage son made the sandwich, realized he was late for work, and abandoned it before he could finish it.

4. Reasoning by analog: Analogical reasoning relies on given statement and similar consequences from past experiences e.g.  A shark in the ocean behaves like a wolf in the forest. Similar behavior is to be expected in both cases because of the animals’ similarity as beast of prey

To argue by analogy is to argue that because two things are similar, what is true of one is also true of the other. Such argument are called analogical argument or argument by analogy.

e.g.1.  There might be like on Europa because it has an atmosphere that contains oxygen just like the earth

2. she’s as blind as a bat

3. Finding that lost dog will be like finding a needle in a haystack

4. you have to be as busy as a bee to got a good grades in high school.

YOU CAN DO IT

Oluwamuyide Peter

On the 4th of November I officially became a member of the exclusive 1st student with distinction after five years of no such record, in the history of The Polytechnic Ibadan, Faculty of Engineering to graduate with distinction as a DPP students since its establishment in 2011. My unrelenting power to solve problems, have made me to create a platform where student can get valid information anywhere, anyplace at anytime Evolving education world wide 🌎