To conclusion of this is assumed to be certain.

             To
start off this discussion is the difference between inductive logic, and
deductive logic. With these terms we can replace the word logic with reasoning
which maybe makes it a little easier to understand; so inductive reasoning and
deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning has premises to it and they can be
true but still leaves the possibility for the conclusion to be wrong. These
inductive arguments aren’t really defined as being valid or invalid but instead
weak or strong, and how probable or improbable they are. Deductive reasoning
has logical process that has multiple premises that can also be true and
coordinate with one another. The conclusion of this is assumed to be certain.

             An example of inductive reasoning can be if
a basketball player injures his ankle while playing someone might see that he
is in pain, he’s on the floor holding his ankle, and when he tries to stand and
walk he can’t put weight on it because it hurts. All those premises are all
true might lead to the conclusion that it is broken. However, it turns out that
the conclusion is wrong because it is only a sprained ankle. An athletic
trainer from the start could’ve thought it was broken but they also knew the chance
of it being sprained as well.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            An
example of deductive reasoning can be a person with Parkinson’s disease and
being diagnosed by a doctor. This disease is a disorder of the central nervous
system which affects the motor skills of a person. The person might see these
symptoms which is the first premise and go see a doctor. Then the doctor makes
more premises by examining their medical history, and maybe a neurological
examination as well. Then they would probably move on to a CT scan of the
person. These premises all tying together is deductive reasoning to believe
that this person has Parkinson’s Disease.

             So,
the main difference between these two arguments is that with the ankle injury
the premises that might be made are only assumed to be true from just watching
him but maybe are not a strong argument for assuming the ankle is broken. For
the PD person the examinations are more thorough and more carefully examined so
that the premises made can lead to the conclusion being certain.