Deductive or inductive logic? what are the premises? are the premises stated or unstated? what is the argument

Question

imagine your child is trying to prove she did not steal cookies from th ecookie jar, so she makes this argument. There are no chocolate stains on my hands, so I couldn't have stolen the cookies.

Answer 1

The premisses are what ever you want them to be. But the major premise and the minor premise must contain major and minor terms that are used in the conclusion, and there must be a middle term used once, but never in the conclusion, and in the conclusion the minor term comes first.

The premisses are presumed true for the purpose of establishing the "validity" of the deductive or inductive argument. But the premisses do not have to be true.

However, if they are not true, then the next test, called "soundness," will never be met, and the conclusion must be "sound" for the argument to be usable.

The argument your child makes contains a fallacy even if it has the appearance of a "valid" argument. Therefore, it is not sound.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm

Answer 2

The hypothetical child is disproportionate to the subjects of theft and logic. What the hypothetical child may be communicating is an unrelated memory of any number of experiences with cookies, like l*****g the chocolate chip remnants off her hands after eating a chocolate chip cookie. A child's focus is on the adult's displeasure. It's the adult with the sophisticated notion of crime...trial...punishment.

Indeed, it is imaginative, rather than logical, to extrapolate an argument from this hypothetical child. There's nothing criminal about imagination, per se: the logical exegesis is necessarily limited here to it.

Answer 3

That isn't the only evidence, how many other people were there, during what time was she alone? Who else could have? If all the evidence still points to her, then its her. Deductive logic uses this process to "deduce" as to reduce the number of possible answers to the true answer. (very, very summarized) The premise in deductive logic, is stated, based on fact, reason and evidence.

Inductive is unstated, assuming that someone who stole cookies would have chocolate, (but what if they weren't chocolate chip?) and assumes the child wouldn't lie. It could also assume that no one else ate them, but thats just an example.

Answer 4

Each individual situation arising demands appraisal. The form of appraisal is reliant upon factors and circumstance. A child prone to bouts of thieving and lying is a potential threat to society and requires the applied hand of authority to cure this latent malady of character.

Although stealing cookies is not a heinous crime it is however a direct challenge to your authorative role as parent and a thereby a force to be obeyed. Inductive knowledge arises from a fabrication of opinion to serve a given cause or purpose. The induced or evoked thought process is laden with many effecting anomalies each requiring digressional analysis. A time consuming and distractive process reliant on many external and personal activators manipulating the surmise.

Deductive knowledge*is the process of elimination whereby one reaches a conclusion by process of exclusion of antithetical volitions at play. Both processes of philosophical thought creation are appropriated in given hypothesises wherein they are considered appliances or tools to reach an intended or sought goal.