deductive and inductive logic critical thinking and writing skills

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Order Tracking
Create an Account

200+ Award-Winning Educational Textbooks, Activity Books, & Printable eBooks!

Compare Products

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

Search by Book Series
Algebra I & II Gr. 7-12+
Algebra Magic Tricks Gr. 2-12+
Algebra Word Problems Gr. 7-12+
Balance Benders Gr. 2-12+
Balance Math & More! Gr. 2-12+
Basics of Critical Thinking Gr. 4-7
Brain Stretchers Gr. 5-12+
Building Thinking Skills Gr. Toddler-12+
Building Writing Skills Gr. 3-7
Bundles - Critical Thinking Gr. PreK-9
Bundles - Language Arts Gr. K-8
Bundles - Mathematics Gr. PreK-9
Bundles - Multi-Subject Curriculum Gr. PreK-12+
Bundles - Test Prep Gr. Toddler-12+
Can You Find Me? Gr. PreK-1
Complete the Picture Math Gr. 1-3
Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Gr. 5-12+
Cranium Crackers Gr. 3-12+
Creative Problem Solving Gr. PreK-2
Critical Thinking Activities to Improve Writing Gr. 4-12+
Critical Thinking Coloring Gr. PreK-2
Critical Thinking Detective Gr. 3-12+
Critical Thinking Tests Gr. PreK-6
Critical Thinking for Reading Comprehension Gr. 1-5
Critical Thinking in United States History Gr. 6-12+
CrossNumber Math Puzzles Gr. 4-10
Crypt-O-Words Gr. 2-7
Crypto Mind Benders Gr. 3-12+
Daily Mind Builders Gr. 5-12+
Dare to Compare Math Gr. 2-7
Developing Critical Thinking through Science Gr. 1-8
Dr. DooRiddles Gr. PreK-12+
Dr. Funster's Gr. 2-12+
Editor in Chief Gr. 2-12+
Fun-Time Phonics! Gr. PreK-2
Half 'n Half Animals Gr. K-4
Hands-On Thinking Skills Gr. K-1
Inference Jones Gr. 1-6
James Madison Gr. 10-12+
Jumbles Gr. 3-5
Language Mechanic Gr. 4-7
Language Smarts Gr. 1-4
Mastering Logic & Math Problem Solving Gr. 6-9
Math Analogies Gr. K-9
Math Detective Gr. 3-8
Math Games Gr. 3-8
Math Mind Benders Gr. 5-12+
Math Ties Gr. 4-8
Math Word Problems Gr. 4-10
Mathematical Reasoning Gr. Toddler-11
Middle School Science Gr. 6-8
Mind Benders Gr. PreK-12+
Mind Building Math Gr. K-1
Mind Building Reading Gr. K-1
Novel Thinking Gr. 3-6
OLSAT® Test Prep Gr. PreK-K
Organizing Thinking Gr. 2-8
Pattern Explorer Gr. 3-9
Practical Critical Thinking Gr. 8-12+
Punctuation Puzzler Gr. 3-8
Reading Detective Gr. 3-12+
Red Herring Mysteries Gr. 4-12+
Red Herrings Science Mysteries Gr. 4-9
Science Detective Gr. 3-6
Science Mind Benders Gr. PreK-3
Science Vocabulary Crossword Puzzles Gr. 4-6
Sciencewise Gr. 4-12+
Scratch Your Brain Gr. 2-12+
Sentence Diagramming Gr. 3-12+
Smarty Pants Puzzles Gr. 3-12+
Snailopolis Gr. K-4
Something's Fishy at Lake Iwannafisha Gr. 5-9
Teaching Technology Gr. 3-12+
Tell Me a Story Gr. PreK-1
Think Analogies Gr. 3-12+
Think and Write Gr. 3-8
Think-A-Grams Gr. 4-12+
Thinking About Time Gr. 3-6
Thinking Connections Gr. 4-12+
Thinking Directionally Gr. 2-6
Thinking Skills & Key Concepts Gr. PreK-2
Thinking Skills for Tests Gr. PreK-5
U.S. History Detective Gr. 8-12+
Understanding Fractions Gr. 2-6
Visual Perceptual Skill Building Gr. PreK-3
Vocabulary Riddles Gr. 4-8
Vocabulary Smarts Gr. 2-5
Vocabulary Virtuoso Gr. 2-12+
What Would You Do? Gr. 2-12+
Who Is This Kid? Colleges Want to Know! Gr. 9-12+
Word Explorer Gr. 6-8
Word Roots Gr. 3-12+
World History Detective Gr. 6-12+
Writing Detective Gr. 3-6
You Decide! Gr. 6-12+

Special of the Month
Sign Up for our Best Offers
Bundles = Greatest Savings!
Sign Up for Free Puzzles
Sign Up for Free Activities
Toddler (Ages 0-3)
PreK (Ages 3-5)
Kindergarten (Ages 5-6)
1st Grade (Ages 6-7)
2nd Grade (Ages 7-8)
3rd Grade (Ages 8-9)
4th Grade (Ages 9-10)
5th Grade (Ages 10-11)
6th Grade (Ages 11-12)
7th Grade (Ages 12-13)
8th Grade (Ages 13-14)
9th Grade (Ages 14-15)
10th Grade (Ages 15-16)
11th Grade (Ages 16-17)
12th Grade (Ages 17-18)
12th+ Grade (Ages 18+)
Test Prep Directory
Test Prep Bundles
Test Prep Guides
Preschool Academics
Store Locator
Submit Feedback/Request
Sales Alerts Sign-Up
Technical Support
Mission & History
Articles & Advice
Testimonials
Our Guarantee
New Products
Free Activities
Libros en Español

Guide To Inductive & Deductive Reasoning

Induction vs. Deduction

October 15, 2008, by The Critical Thinking Co. Staff

Induction and deduction are pervasive elements in critical thinking. They are also somewhat misunderstood terms. Arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively , while arguments based on laws or rules are best expressed deductively . Most arguments are mainly inductive. In fact, inductive reasoning usually comes much more naturally to us than deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific details and observations (typically of nature) to the more general underlying principles or process that explains them (e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity). It is open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. The premises of an inductive argument are believed to support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. Thus, the conclusion of an induction is regarded as a hypothesis. In the Inductive method, also called the scientific method , observation of nature is the authority.

In contrast, deductive reasoning typically moves from general truths to specific conclusions. It opens with an expansive explanation (statements known or believed to be true) and continues with predictions for specific observations supporting it. Deductive reasoning is narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming a hypothesis. It is dependent on its premises. For example, a false premise can lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion. Deductive reasoning leads to a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. It guarantees the correctness of a conclusion. Logic is the authority in the deductive method.

If you can strengthen your argument or hypothesis by adding another piece of information, you are using inductive reasoning. If you cannot improve your argument by adding more evidence, you are employing deductive reasoning.

Academic Writing / Online Writing Instruction

Inductive vs. Deductive Writing

by Purdue Global Academic Success Center and Writing Center · Published February 25, 2015 · Updated February 24, 2015

Dr. Tamara Fudge, Kaplan University professor in the School of Business and IT

There are several ways to present information when writing, including those that employ inductive and deductive reasoning . The difference can be stated simply:

Inductive reasoning presents facts and then wraps them up with a conclusion .
Deductive reasoning presents a thesis statement and then provides supportive facts or examples.

Which should the writer use? It depends on content, the intended audience , and your overall purpose .

If you want your audience to discover new things with you , then inductive writing might make sense. Here is n example:

My dog Max wants to chase every non-human living creature he sees, whether it is the cats in the house or rabbits and squirrels in the backyard. Sources indicate that this is a behavior typical of Jack Russell terriers. While Max is a mixed breed dog, he is approximately the same size and has many of the typical markings of a Jack Russell. From these facts along with his behaviors, we surmise that Max is indeed at least part Jack Russell terrier.

Within that short paragraph, you learned about Max’s manners and a little about what he might look like, and then the concluding sentence connected these ideas together. This kind of writing often keeps the reader’s attention, as he or she must read all the pieces of the puzzle before they are connected.

Purposes for this kind of writing include creative writing and perhaps some persuasive essays, although much academic work is done in deductive form.

If your audience is not likely going to read the entire written piece, then deductive reasoning might make more sense, as the reader can look for what he or she wants by quickly scanning first sentences of each paragraph. Here is an example:

My backyard is in dire need of cleaning and new landscaping. The Kentucky bluegrass that was planted there five years ago has been all but replaced by Creeping Charlie, a particularly invasive weed. The stone steps leading to the house are in some disrepair, and there are some slats missing from the fence. Perennials were planted three years ago, but the moles and rabbits destroyed many of the bulbs, so we no longer have flowers in the spring.

The reader knows from the very first sentence that the backyard is a mess! This paragraph could have ended with a clarifying conclusion sentence; while it might be considered redundant to do so, the scientific community tends to work through deductive reasoning by providing (1) a premise or argument – which could also be called a thesis statement, (2) then evidence to support the premise, and (3) finally the conclusion.

Purposes for this kind of writing include business letters and project documents, where the client is more likely to skim the work for generalities or to hunt for only the parts that are important to him or her. Again, scientific writing tends to follow this format as well, and research papers greatly benefit from deductive writing.

Whether one method or another is chosen, there are some other important considerations. First, it is important that the facts/evidence be true. Perform research carefully and from appropriate sources; make sure ideas are cited properly. You might need to avoid absolute words such as “always,” “never,” and “only,” because they exclude any anomalies. Try not to write questions: the writer’s job is to provide answers instead. Lastly, avoid quotes in thesis statements or conclusions, because they are not your own words – and thus undermine your authority as the paper writer.

The Big Misconception about Writing to Learn

June 10, 2015

by Purdue Global Academic Success Center and Writing Center · Published June 10, 2015

Brexit Voters Broke It and Now Regret It-Part I: Establishing the Importance of Teaching and Learning in Developing an Educated, Global Electorate

October 26, 2016

by Purdue Global Academic Success Center and Writing Center · Published October 26, 2016 · Last modified April 8, 2020

7 Responses

Pingbacks 2

Helpful Thanks

Great article! This was helpful and provided great information.

Very helpful

very helpful . thank you

Very helpful.

[…] + Read More Here […]

[…] begin with alarming statistics and the urgency of action. However, articles often transition into inductive storytelling by featuring firsthand accounts of climate-related events or interviews with affected communities. […]

Deductive reasoning vs inductive reasoning: A comparison

Introduction.

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two important types of reasoning that play a crucial role in various aspects of life, from problem-solving to decision-making. Both types of reasoning involve drawing conclusions, but they differ in their approaches and processes.

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that starts with broad generalizations and narrows down to specific conclusions. It is based on the principle that if the initial premises are true and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion must be true as well. In deductive reasoning, the conclusion is already contained within the premises.

On the other hand, inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that starts with specific observations or patterns and generalizes them into broader theories or hypotheses. It is based on the principle that if a specific observation or pattern holds true for a set of cases, it is likely to hold true for similar cases in the future. Inductive reasoning involves making inferences or predictions based on patterns or evidence.

Understanding both deductive and inductive reasoning is important because they complement each other and contribute to a well-rounded approach to critical thinking. Deductive reasoning enables us to make precise and accurate conclusions based on established principles and facts. It is particularly useful in fields such as mathematics and formal logic, where precision and certainty are paramount.

On the other hand, inductive reasoning allows us to make educated guesses or predictions based on incomplete information or patterns. It is commonly used in scientific research, where observations are made to form hypotheses and theories. Inductive reasoning helps us make sense of the world by allowing us to draw conclusions from incomplete or uncertain information.

In conclusion, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two essential types of reasoning that have different approaches and processes. While deductive reasoning allows us to make precise conclusions based on established principles, inductive reasoning enables us to make educated guesses or predictions based on observations and patterns. Both types of reasoning have their strengths and weaknesses, and understanding both is crucial for effective critical thinking and decision-making.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that involves reaching conclusions based on established principles or premises. It is a top-down approach, where the conclusions are derived from general statements or theories.

In deductive reasoning, the conclusions made must be true if the premises are true. This is because deductive reasoning relies on the principle of validity, which means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Examples of deductive reasoning

An example of deductive reasoning is:

All birds have feathers. (Premise 1)
Swans are birds. (Premise 2)
Therefore, swans have feathers. (Conclusion)

In this example, the conclusion is deduced from the premises. If the premises are true (birds have feathers and swans are birds), then the conclusion (swans have feathers) must also be true.

Another example of deductive reasoning is:

All mammals are warm-blooded. (Premise 1)
Dogs are mammals. (Premise 2)
Therefore, dogs are warm-blooded. (Conclusion)

Again, if the premises are true (mammals are warm-blooded and dogs are mammals), then the conclusion (dogs are warm-blooded) must also be true.

Process of deductive reasoning

The process of deductive reasoning involves:

Starting with general statements or principles (known as premises) that are assumed to be true.
Using logical thinking to draw specific conclusions based on those premises.
Ensuring that the conclusions are valid and follow logically from the premises.

Strengths and weaknesses of deductive reasoning

Strengths : One of the main strengths of deductive reasoning is that it guarantees the truth of the conclusions if the premises are true. This makes deductive reasoning a powerful tool for reaching accurate and certain conclusions. It is also a systematic and organized way of analyzing information.
Weaknesses : However, deductive reasoning can be limited by the accuracy and truthfulness of the premises. If the premises are false or inaccurate, the conclusions reached through deductive reasoning may also be false. Additionally, deductive reasoning may not be suitable for situations where complete certainty is not possible or when dealing with ambiguous or uncertain information.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that involves drawing general conclusions based on specific observations or evidence. It is a bottom-up approach where specific instances or examples are used to make generalizations or predictions about an entire population or future outcomes. Inductive reasoning is often used in scientific research, data analysis, and everyday reasoning.

Examples of Inductive Reasoning

Observation: Every time I go outside, I see that the grass is wet.
Conclusion: Therefore, I conclude that it has rained.
Observation: I have noticed that every time I eat strawberries, I get an allergic reaction.
Conclusion: Hence, I infer that I am allergic to strawberries.

In both examples, the observations made in specific instances are used to make general conclusions about a broader phenomenon or situation.

Process of Inductive Reasoning

The process of inductive reasoning involves several steps:

Making observations: This step involves collecting data or evidence from specific instances or cases.

Finding patterns: In this step, the collected data is examined to identify any recurring patterns or correlations.

Making a generalization: Based on the observed patterns, a general conclusion or hypothesis is formed.

Testing the conclusion: The general conclusion is then tested using additional evidence or observations to assess its accuracy or validity.

Drawing the final conclusion: Based on the results of the testing, a final conclusion is drawn, which may be revised or refined as more evidence becomes available.

Strengths of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning allows us to explore new ideas and generate hypotheses based on observed patterns or evidence.
It is often used in scientific research to make predictions and formulate theories.
Inductive reasoning is flexible and adaptable, allowing for the consideration of multiple perspectives and the incorporation of new information.

Weaknesses of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning does not guarantee the certainty or accuracy of the conclusions drawn. The conclusions are based on probabilities rather than definite truths.
The observations made in specific instances may not always be representative of the entire population or future outcomes.
Inductive reasoning can be influenced by personal biases or limited data, leading to faulty generalizations or predictions.

In summary, inductive reasoning is a valuable tool for making generalizations and predictions based on specific observations or evidence. It allows us to explore new ideas and generate hypotheses, although its conclusions are probabilistic rather than definitive. Understanding the process and strengths and weaknesses of inductive reasoning can help us critically evaluate information and make informed decisions.

Differences between deductive and inductive reasoning

Definition of deduction and induction.

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical reasoning that starts with general premises and uses them to derive specific conclusions. It follows a top-down approach, where the conclusions drawn are guaranteed to be true if the premises are true.

Inductive reasoning , on the other hand, is a type of logical reasoning that starts with specific observations or data and uses them to formulate a general conclusion or theory. It follows a bottom-up approach, where the conclusions drawn are probabilistic and are based on the evidence collected.

Key characteristics of deductive reasoning

Validity : Deductive reasoning is concerned with the logical validity of an argument. If the premises of a deductive argument are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion must also be true.
Certainty : Deductive reasoning provides certain conclusions. It allows for a definitive level of certainty, as the conclusions are derived from established premises using logical rules.
General to specific : Deductive reasoning moves from general statements to specific conclusions. It starts with universal principles or rules and applies them to specific cases.

Key characteristics of inductive reasoning

Probability : Inductive reasoning deals with probability rather than certainty. The conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning are probabilistic and based on the evidence or observations collected.
Specific to general : Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations or data to general conclusions. It gathers evidence from individual cases and generalizes them to formulate a theory or general statement.
Ampliative reasoning : Inductive reasoning is considered an ampliative form of reasoning. It extends our knowledge beyond what is stated in the premises and can potentially lead to new discoveries or theories.

Different approaches to drawing conclusions

Deductive reasoning follows a deductive or syllogistic approach, where the conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true. A deductive argument can be valid or invalid and sound or unsound. If an argument is valid and has true premises, it is considered sound, and its conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, follows an inductive or probabilistic approach, where the conclusions are based on the evidence or observations collected. An inductive argument can be strong or weak and cogent or uncogent. A strong argument has premises that make the conclusion more likely to be true, while a weak argument does not provide strong evidence for the conclusion. A cogent argument is both strong and has true premises, while an uncogent argument is either weak or has false premises.

In deductive reasoning, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, whereas in inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises only makes the conclusion probable. Deductive reasoning aims for certainty, while inductive reasoning aims for probability and generalizability.

Similarities between deductive and inductive reasoning

Both forms of reasoning aim to draw conclusions.

Both deductive and inductive reasoning are used to draw conclusions based on available information. They both involve logical thinking and attempt to make sense of the world through the process of reasoning.

Shared goal of understanding the world through logical thinking

Both deductive and inductive reasoning have the objective of understanding the world and making sense of it through logical thinking. They seek to analyze and interpret evidence, observations, or premises in order to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Use of evidence and observations in both types of reasoning

Both deductive and inductive reasoning rely on evidence and observations to support their conclusions. In deductive reasoning, evidence is used to validate or invalidate the initial premise, while in inductive reasoning, observations and evidence are used to form a general pattern or theory.

Application in scientific research

Both deductive and inductive reasoning are utilized in scientific research to generate knowledge and test hypotheses. Deductive reasoning is often used to formulate specific predictions or hypotheses, while inductive reasoning is employed to analyze collected data and generalize the findings to draw broader conclusions.

Need for critical thinking

Both deductive and inductive reasoning require critical thinking skills. They demand careful evaluation of logical validity, consideration of alternative explanations, and the ability to identify logical fallacies or biases. Critical thinking is essential in both types of reasoning to ensure the conclusions drawn are robust and reliable.

Subject to limitations and potential errors

Both deductive and inductive reasoning are not foolproof and can be subject to limitations and potential errors. Deductive reasoning may be affected by the accuracy and validity of the initial premise, while inductive reasoning may be influenced by the representativeness and reliability of the observations or evidence used.

Continuous refinement and modification

Both deductive and inductive reasoning are dynamic and subject to continuous refinement and modification. As new evidence or observations emerge, both forms of reasoning can be revisited and adjusted accordingly. This iterative process helps to improve the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions.

Complementary nature

Deductive and inductive reasoning are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other in many situations. Deductive reasoning provides a logical framework for determining the validity of an argument, while inductive reasoning helps to generate hypotheses and form generalizations based on observed patterns. The combination of both forms of reasoning allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of complex phenomena.

In conclusion, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two different but complementary approaches to understanding the world through logical thinking.

Deductive reasoning is a top-down approach that starts with general principles and applies them to specific cases. It involves making logical deductions based on established premises and rules. Deductive reasoning is often used in mathematics, formal logic, and puzzles. It is characterized by its certainty and the ability to reach a definite conclusion if the premises are true. However, it is also limited by the fact that if the premises are false or incorrect, the conclusion will be invalid.

On the other hand, inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach that involves making generalizations based on specific observations. It starts with specific examples or evidence and works towards broader conclusions. Inductive reasoning is used in scientific research, data analysis, and everyday decision-making. It is characterized by its openness to uncertainty and the fact that conclusions are never certain but only probable. While inductive reasoning allows for creativity and discovery, it is also prone to biases and errors due to the reliance on limited observations.

Despite their differences, deductive and inductive reasoning share common goals. Both approaches aim to draw conclusions and make sense of the world around us. They also rely on evidence and observations, although deductive reasoning relies more on established principles while inductive reasoning focuses more on empirical data. Both forms of reasoning are essential and have their own strengths and weaknesses.

It is crucial to remember that different situations call for different types of reasoning. Deductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where certainty and validity are paramount, such as mathematical proofs or legal arguments. On the other hand, inductive reasoning is valuable when dealing with uncertain and complex situations, like scientific research or predicting future trends.

In summary, understanding both deductive and inductive reasoning is important for developing critical thinking skills and making informed decisions. By recognizing their similarities and differences, we can apply the appropriate type of reasoning to various situations, thereby enhancing our logical thinking abilities and gaining a deeper understanding of the world. Deductive and inductive reasoning, when used together effectively, can help us navigate the complexities of the world and make better judgments.

The Power of Storytelling in Critical Analysis

5 surprising benefits of mental flexibility, debunking common myths about deductive reasoning, 5 ways to sharpen deductive logic muscle.

The role of emotions in deductive reasoning

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

25 Academic Writing – Sound and Valid Argument

Academic speak – clarification.

When reading about academic writing you will sometimes come across a set of words that seem to be used somewhat interchangeably and even randomly at times. So, just to set the record straight:

Claim / assertion / premise / proposition are all statements that require support either to justify them or prove their soundness. They need further evidence. These are the starting point of reasoning.

Position / Thesis identify the stance you are taking on the main topic of the essay and it is generated by the essay question provided by your instructor. In an analytical or critical essay, it may indicate more than one available stance.

Also, some authors refer to the thesis as the premise or proposition. This is not the best description, though it is not completely inaccurate because the thesis statement does need to be supported with sound evidence and valid arguments throughout the essay.

Glossary of Terms

Argument – noun

Logic – a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action, or theory

Claim – noun (synonyms – premise, assertion, proposition)

an assertion that something is true

Claim – verb

state or assert something, typically without providing evidence or proof

Counter claim – noun

a claim made to rebut a previous claim; refutation of opposing arguments

Deduction – noun

Logic – the act of understanding something, or drawing to a conclusion, based on evidence

Induction – noun

the process or action of bringing about or giving rise to something

Position – noun (synonym – thesis )

the main point or overall argument that is to be proven or justified. It focuses the writer’s ideas and minor arguments

Premise – noun (synonyms – claim, assertion, proposition)

Logic – a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion
a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion

Proposition – noun (synonyms – premise, claim, assertion)

Logic – a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion
a statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false

Soundness – noun

the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment
the soundness of an argument has two qualities 1. valid structure 2. true premises

Validity – noun

Logic – the quality of being justifiable by reason

the conclusion follows from the premises

Introduction to Academic Argument

The capacity to academically argue is a core skill that many students are not taught adequately prior to university writing. Argumentative ability is centered around knowledge. Not only knowledge of a topic, but knowledge of how to write a clear and coherent argument. Basically, an argument is an informed position, on a topic, that you are supporting or defending with sound evidence and valid conclusions. An essay may have one overall argument or position, yet include a series or set of smaller arguments that support or develop the overall position of the writer. This may include evaluating sources or contradictory evidence. The position is stated in the thesis (see Chapter 21 & 26). This position must be supported by sound academic evidence obtained through reading and research.

Suspend Bias

In order to develop sound and valid arguments, students must first suspend their personal judgments or bias on a topic (see Chapter 30). This can be achieved through self-reflection and critical thinking. Academic writing must be clear and objective, and this means you must be open and willing to examine more than one perspective of a topic or argument without preconceived ideas and opinions, without bias. Make a conscious effort to step beyond your own subjectivity and depersonalize both the topic and the supporting evidence. Through critical thinking skills, such as objectivity and analysis, you can begin to closely examine and evaluate sources and the production of knowledge. As a writer, sound and valid reasoning assists you in determining the best evidence to support your own claims and in evaluating the claims of other writers. As an objective writer, you should remain open to other viewpoints, though rely on your critical analysis skills to both identify and write sound and valid academic arguments.

Validity primarily means that in an argument the conclusion follows from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Salva veritate (Latin) means “without loss of truth” – a rule of inference must be truth preserving; it must take one from truths to truths = Validity [1]

Valid Argument

All cats are aliens
Felix is a cat

Therefore, Felix is an alien

This is a valid argument . Hypothetically, if all the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false . It is logically impossible for the premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false.

Invalid Argument

Felix is an alien

Therefore, Felix is a cat

This is an invalid argument . Hypothetically, just because Felix is an alien does not guarantee that he is a cat. There may be other types of creatures that are also aliens. However, if the first premise said “ Only cats are aliens”, then the argument would be valid.

Only cats are aliens

This is a valid argument . No individual premise (claim, assertion) is labelled as valid or invalid, only the argument structure as a whole . However, premises can be checked for soundness.

The soundness of an argument relies on two qualities:

1. the structure of the argument is valid (see above)

2. the premises are true and therefore the conclusion is also true.

Hence, Felix is not an alien unless we can provide sound proof (truth or true facts) that support this premise (claim, assertion). We would also need to provide evidence that Felix is indeed a cat! So, while the argument structure may be correct (valid), the premises could be untrue, therefore the premises and overall argument lacks soundness .

Deductive Syllogism

The structure of the above arguments is called a deductive syllogism and it is the the conventional way of displaying or writing a deductive argument:

Premise + Premise = Conclusion

Of course, you can have more than two premises or reasons to support your conclusion. In academic writing the major position is put forward in the thesis statement and the balance of the essay has the task of unpacking the claims and counter-claims surrounding the key arguments and providing supporting evidence. Note also, you should never begin your assignment preparation with a predetermined conclusion in mind (called “jumping to the conclusion”) and work your argument back from that point. Yes, in an essay the thesis is proposed in the introduction, though it is assumed that you arrived at this thesis statement through research and careful consideration of the facts and evidence surrounding the chosen topic. Whereas “jumping to the conclusion” beforehand and attempting to make the evidence fit your thesis is not the actions of an open and critical thinker who responds to evidence found through research. It instead indicates a very determined bias in thinking and academic writing.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is often defined as the inference from particular to general [2] . It is based on formulating theories through detailed observations. It is useful in scientific fields, however, it presupposes that the future will resemble the past. This type of reasoning moves from evidence to assumptions (about the future) to a claim. The claim cannot be a deductive conclusion, only a generalization from observable evidence and applied assumptions.

You’re in the supermarket and would like to buy a couple of ripe avocados. To determine if they are ripe, you give them a gentle squeeze. After testing three to four from the fruit case, you determine that they are all still too green and decide not to purchase avocados.

Through induction, you have made your own observation , and from the evidence at hand made an assumption – they’re all too green. This is a generalization made using observable evidence and applying an assumption. As you cannot know for certain that every avocado is green, without testing each one, this cannot be a deductive argument. While there may be sufficient evidence to make a decision and therefore, strong inductive reasoning, the reasoning has not been proven true, merely an assumption.

While inductive reasoning may be useful in formulating a scientific hypothesis for further testing, it is not a strong form of reasoning for academic writing.

Good academic writing is founded on your capacity to academically argue from a well-researched and informed perspective, free from subjectivity and personal bias. The deductive syllogism is a good illustration of sound and valid argument structure that is the backbone of all well-written academic discussions.

Watch the video below for further information and examples of deductive and inductive reasoning. Particularly helpful is the middle section on evaluating deductive and inductive arguments / reasoning.

Test your knowledge with five quick questions:

Honderich, T. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ↵
Plumlee, D., & Taverna, J. [Center for Innovation in Legal Education]. (2013, August 24). Episode 1.3: Deductive and inductive arguments. ↵

the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises

a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion

assertion, maintain as fact

a claim made to rebut a previous claim

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Methodology
Inductive vs Deductive Research Approach (with Examples)

Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning | Difference & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on 10 October 2022.

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory .

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalisations , and deductive reasoning the other way around.

Both approaches are used in various types of research , and it’s not uncommon to combine them in one large study.

Inductive research approach, deductive research approach, combining inductive and deductive research, frequently asked questions about inductive vs deductive reasoning.

When there is little to no existing literature on a topic, it is common to perform inductive research because there is no theory to test. The inductive approach consists of three stages:

A low-cost airline flight is delayed
Dogs A and B have fleas
Elephants depend on water to exist
Another 20 flights from low-cost airlines are delayed
All observed dogs have fleas
All observed animals depend on water to exist
Low-cost airlines always have delays
All dogs have fleas
All biological life depends on water to exist

Limitations of an inductive approach

A conclusion drawn on the basis of an inductive method can never be proven, but it can be invalidated.

Example You observe 1,000 flights from low-cost airlines. All of them experience a delay, which is in line with your theory. However, you can never prove that flight 1,001 will also be delayed. Still, the larger your dataset, the more reliable the conclusion.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

When conducting deductive research , you always start with a theory (the result of inductive research). Reasoning deductively means testing these theories. If there is no theory yet, you cannot conduct deductive research.

The deductive research approach consists of four stages:

If passengers fly with a low-cost airline, then they will always experience delays
All pet dogs in my apartment building have fleas
All land mammals depend on water to exist
Collect flight data of low-cost airlines
Test all dogs in the building for fleas
Study all land mammal species to see if they depend on water
5 out of 100 flights of low-cost airlines are not delayed
10 out of 20 dogs didn’t have fleas
All land mammal species depend on water
5 out of 100 flights of low-cost airlines are not delayed = reject hypothesis
10 out of 20 dogs didn’t have fleas = reject hypothesis
All land mammal species depend on water = support hypothesis

Limitations of a deductive approach

The conclusions of deductive reasoning can only be true if all the premises set in the inductive study are true and the terms are clear.

All dogs have fleas (premise)
Benno is a dog (premise)
Benno has fleas (conclusion)

Many scientists conducting a larger research project begin with an inductive study (developing a theory). The inductive study is followed up with deductive research to confirm or invalidate the conclusion.

In the examples above, the conclusion (theory) of the inductive study is also used as a starting point for the deductive study.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2022, October 10). Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning | Difference & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/inductive-vs-deductive-reasoning/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, inductive reasoning | types, examples, explanation, what is deductive reasoning | explanation & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

Logic Ab Initio: A Functional Approach to Improve Law Students’ Critical Thinking Skills

Citation (BibTeX)

View more stats

While certainly not suggesting that formal logic training would remedy all that ails legal education or even that it could enhance critical thinking for all students, this article asserts that law schools should make the process of legal reasoning more transparent and explicit from the outset, and proposes techniques that can be adopted quickly with minimal institutional costs or upheaval. Part I examines possible reasons that law-school matriculants increasingly lack critical-thinking skills needed for success. Part II maps out three basic components of informal logic training: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. It then identifies related law-school competencies that could be enhanced through training in these areas. Part III proposes a relatively painless method of incorporating functional logic training across the law-school curriculum. Given the breadth and depth of the critical thinking deficit, this approach presents a pragmatic—though admittedly imperfect—solution to the problem.

“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” ― C.S. Lewis , The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Law professors and legal employers alike lament a modern trend of diminishing critical-thinking skills among law students and new graduates. [1] These concerns are not imaginary: a recent study that followed thousands of undergraduates through college concluded that large proportions of college graduates lacked critical thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication skills once thought to be the foundation of university education. [2] This means that law schools are increasingly enrolling students who lack the skill set traditionally associated with law-school success. [3] To complicate matters, this critical-thinking crisis comes at a time when law schools face stricter and more detailed accreditation standards than ever before. [4]

The concept of “critical thinking” has many overlapping definitions. [5] It’s been described as an “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, [] or evaluating information.” [6] In cognitive terms, critical thinking is “problem solving in situations where ‘solutions’ cannot be verified empirically.” [7] In the specific context of legal education, critical thinking can be broadly described as “questioning knowledge.” [8] It requires students to remember, understand, and apply both law and facts, and then analyze, evaluate, and integrate that knowledge to determine “what is important, what is missing, and what is vague.” [9] In this respect, critical thinking is the “foundation for the ‘key intellectual tasks’ associated with the sophisticated higher order thinking required in law school.” [10]

We are all born with the ability to think, but critical thinking generally requires considerable training and hard work. [11] The ancient philosophers excelled at critical thinking because most formal learning involved—to a greater or lesser extent—the mastery of logic. [12] Classical philosophers like Aristotle practiced “formal” logic, so named because of its emphasis on the “form,” or structure, of the argument. [13] To formal logicians, whether the substance of an argument was true or false was unimportant. Their focus was on the argument’s logical structure and whether the form itself was reliable. [14] Those ancient philosophers spent considerable time thinking about how they were thinking and, were, perhaps, the first true metacognitive [15] thinkers.

But formal logic was and remains a discipline requiring rigorous training—an impractical detour on the path to critical thinking in law school. Therefore, requiring a course in formal logic in law school is much like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: the benefit is outweighed by the collateral damage. What’s needed is a practical method harnessing the metacognitive benefits of logic that fits unobtrusively into existing law-school curricula. By introducing informal or “functional” logic into the curriculum, law schools can not only enhance students’ comprehension of individual lessons, but make them better overall thinkers.

The late Judge Ruggero Aldisert was an outspoken proponent of teaching logic to law students. In 1989, he published Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking , [16] a text that cogently explained that the basics of legal reasoning, including the use of precedent, are merely variations of deductive and inductive reasoning—the building blocks of logic. Logic for Lawyers coincided with a late-20 th and early-21 st century burst of legal scholarship exploring the relationship between law and classical logic and rhetoric. [17] In 2007, Judge Aldisert published the article Logic for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer , [18] a more streamlined version of his earlier work, “explain[ing], in broad strokes, the core principles of logic and how they apply in the law-school classroom.” [19]

This article builds on Judge Aldisert’s premise that “thinking like a lawyer”—critical thinking—means “employing logic to construct arguments.” [20] It goes a step further, however, proposing that training law students to use logic would not only provide professors and students a common language to identify specific deficiencies in analysis, it could actually increase students’ cognitive capacity for critical thinking.

While certainly not suggesting that such training would remedy all that ails legal education or even that it could enhance critical thinking for all students, this article asserts that law schools should make the process of legal reasoning more transparent and explicit from the outset, and proposes techniques that can be adopted quickly with minimal institutional costs or upheaval. Part I examines possible reasons that law-school matriculants increasingly lack critical-thinking skills needed for success. Part II maps out three basic components of informal logic training: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. It then identifies related law-school competencies that could be enhanced through training in these areas. Part III proposes a relatively painless method of incorporating functional logic training across the law-school curriculum. Given the breadth and depth of the critical thinking deficit (detailed below), this approach presents a pragmatic—though admittedly imperfect—solution to the problem.

Part I: A Lack Of Critical-Thinking Skills And (Some) Reasons For It

Success in law school (as opposed to success in most undergraduate disciplines) requires skills beyond mastery of facts, dates, formulas, and established theories and positions of academics. It requires independent reasoning. [21] And that reasoning cannot be theoretical or abstract: it must comport with societal norms of justice, fairness, and overall propriety. [22] Furthermore, that reasoning must be drawn from—and remain consistent with—numerous sources of law. Legal reasoning must be sound and valid; in other words, it must be logical. But increasingly, students come to law school ill-equipped for this type of rigor. [23] In recent years, law student credentials have decreased across the board: between 2010 and 2013, the median score of the Law School Admission Test (“LSAT”), which purports to measure critical-thinking skills, declined from 157 to 155. [24] In fact, nearly ninety percent of law schools had a lower median LSAT score in 2013 than in 2010. [25]

As to the cause, there is no shortage of finger pointing. Professor Jay Sterling Silver has opined that primary education—often undertaken in overcrowded public schools, where learning is geared toward mastery of standardized tests—teaches students not to think. [26] Professors Susan Stuart and Ruth Vance blame federal law, specifically noting that the current generation of law-school matriculants has been almost wholly educated under No Child Left Behind, which, since enactment in 2001, has shifted primary education focus towards mandatory achievement of minimum skill. [27] Others point to systematic grade inflation at the undergraduate level as contributing to students’ inflated opinion of their competency. [28] Still others suggest that institutional use of student evaluations as part of tenure decisions contributes to lower teaching standards. [29] Moreover, there appears to be no end in sight to the decline, given educational, social, and technological trends.

It’s likely impossible to identify the contributing factors exhaustively. But, as explained below, trends in undergraduate education and technology partly explain why students generally seem to have adopted a more shallow, heuristic method of thinking. This is particularly true of the Millennial generation, whose unique cultural characteristics make them all the more prone to such thinking shortcuts.

a. The Changing Nature of Undergraduate Education

Undergraduate education has changed over the last fifty years. [30] Some scholars theorize that modern law students lack adequate thinking skills partly because undergraduates no longer receive the benefit of a classical liberal-arts education. [31] A foundation in the liberal arts was long presumed to prepare students “to become civic and professional leaders, to prepare them for lifelong learning and inquiry.” [32] These students were well versed in the humanities, logic, and rhetoric, and developed “communication skills through a variety of oral and written exercises.” [33] This liberal education, focused on flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, analysis, and written communication, [34] would, unsurprisingly, prepare a college graduate to successfully participate in and benefit from the rigors of a law-school classroom. [35]

But while classic liberal-arts education did indeed mold creative and well-rounded learners for many decades, colleges and universities—along with students and their parents—have, over time, become increasingly dubious of its practical value. Knowledge of classical literature, arts, and natural sciences does not provide specific, marketable competencies for a defined entry-level job. [36] Some presume that a broad, liberal-arts education is unlikely to lead to the same level of monetary reward as, for example, a Master’s degree in Business Administration [37] or Engineering. [38] As a result, undergraduate institutions in the United States have, since the 1970s, shifted curricular emphasis from liberal arts to more professionally-oriented or vocational training. [39]

Colleges and universities now promise to prepare students for specific careers. But a classic liberal-arts program used classic literature, history, the arts, and natural sciences (as opposed to applied sciences) to shape thinkers who could, presumably, succeed in any number of careers. “The essential paradox, or one might even say the miracle of liberal education, is that by being evidently impractical, it equips a student for life far more richly and completely, and across a far wider expanse of time and space, than does education whose sole aim is to be useful.” [40]

Whether caused by an institutional shift away from liberal arts or some other phenomenon, the decrease in critical-thinking skills in undergraduates is well documented. In 2011, two researchers, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, collected empirical evidence of a downward trend in critical-thinking skills in undergraduates. Their book, Academically Adrift , proposed that undergraduates are overwhelmingly distracted by work, social lives, and an educational culture that puts learning low on the priority list. [41] Arum and Roksa collected data using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (“CLA”), a test comparing similarly situated students from a wide variety of colleges and universities. [42] The test measured critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills, all of which are essential during the first year of law school. [43] The study tracked the academic progress of 2,322 students, scoring them once in their first semester of college and again at the end of their fourth semester (half-way through college). The study found that forty-five percent of students gained virtually no critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing skills over the assessment period:

While these students may have developed subject-specific skills . . . , in terms of general analytical competencies assessed, large numbers of U.S. college students can be accurately described as academically adrift. They might graduate, but they are failing to develop the higher-order cognitive skills that it is widely assumed college students should master. [44]

Other studies have painted an equally grim picture of college graduates’ critical-thinking skills. The Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, [45] conducted in 2006-2007, concluded that thirty percent of undergraduates tested showed no growth—or even declined—in critical-thinking skills after completing four years of college. [46] These results confirmed those of earlier studies, which also suggested a long-term decline in skills acquisition among undergraduates. [47]

Arum & Roksa’s study revealed another disturbing problem: universities participating in the assessment were not closing the achievement gap experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged students. [48] In the initial, freshman-year CLA assessments, minorities and students from less-educated families scored significantly lower in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing than white students from more-educated families. [49] According to the study, this “achievement gap” between privileged students and their less-advantaged peers only increased after the first year of college. In other words, “[t]he results of the CLA ‘suggest higher education . . . reproduces social inequality,’” [50] insofar as it correlates to lack of critical thinking skills. Accordingly, the critical thinking necessary for law school is likely foreign to students who lack that privilege. [51] Law schools that purport to promote diversity and equal opportunity in learning simply cannot ignore such data.

The effect of this achievement gap is brought into sharper focus by the recent, colossal downturn in law-school applications. Higher-tier schools made up for the deficit in applications by accepting students they previously would never have considered. [52] Those students were effectively pilfered from middle-tier schools, which made up for their own losses by accepting students who they, in turn, would previously have rejected. [53] But this left many lower-tier schools, particularly those created to provide opportunities for minorities or other at-risk students, with an existential crisis: disappear, or continue the valuable mission with less-qualified and, presumably, less-prepared students. At the end of the day, nearly every law school has been left with a student cohort less likely than previous ones to pass the bar exam. [54]

The ostensible decrease in critical thinking in college graduates across socioeconomic spectrums impacts more than just individual students. A first-year law student who has never had the opportunity to disagree with a professor or to independently form opinions about cultures based on their art, literature, or music will almost certainly struggle to synthesize seemingly inconsistent judicial opinions into a cogent legal principle. But a critical mass of students struggling on the same level will fundamentally change the dynamic of a law-school classroom and prevent the purposeful exchange of ideas.

b. The Effect of Technology on Students’ Ability to Think

The effect of the digital age and the ubiquity of technology in nearly every detail of daily life cannot be understated when considering the reasons for waning critical thinking. “The Internet has made so much information available to us, more than we could possibly retain in our brains, that we are more often ‘handing off the job of remembering’ things to technology.” [55] But technology causes problems more worrisome than just intellectual laziness: technology is changing the way students learn.

Learning can be described as any “relatively permanent change in a neuron.” [56] Neurons are simply the brain’s cells which, when activated, release chemicals called neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters connect neurons to other neurons, creating electrochemical pathways in the brain that form our thoughts, memories, emotions, and sensations. [57] When confronted with challenges, the human brain adapts by modifying existing neural connections. [58] This is known as brain plasticity or neuroplasticity. The brain can “efficiently reorganize allocation of its resources to meet demands and compensate for deficits.” [59] “Evolution has given us a brain that can literally change its mind—over and over again.” [60] This means humans “can form bad neurological habits as well as good ones.” [61]

In The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains , author Nicholas Carr describes the subtle—yet ultimately profound—effects the Internet and other technological advances are having on human brains. Just as we can strengthen our mental capabilities through use of technology, Carr explains that human brains are subject to “intellectual decay.” [62] His collected research suggests that information and communication technologies are changing humans at a neurological level. [63]

For example, Carr posits that the Internet has supplanted reading as the primary source of information gathering (as did television, to some extent, before it). In terms of neurological development, the emergence of reading—particularly the “deep reading” necessary to consume literature and other book-length works—rewired and optimized the human brain for “deep thinking.” [64] The ability to read not only expanded one’s knowledge; it allowed previously unattainable levels of comparison to thoughts and experiences of others. [65] To fully appreciate the written word, one would have to discipline one’s mind to “follow a line of argument or narrative through a succession of printed pages.” [66]

The Internet, in contrast, features small chunks of information punctuated with distracting hyperlinks, multimedia, and ads. These features activate the prefrontal cortex, overtaxing the brain, making online reading a “cognitively strenuous act.” [67] In response to this stress, Carr suggests, our brains’ plasticity kicks in, rewiring and optimizing neural connections (and pruning unnecessary ones) for this new, rapid method of information gathering. [68] His research shows that as little as five hours of Internet use can significantly rewire the neural circuitry of the prefrontal cortex. [69]

The triumph of the Internet as a single medium for communication and information gathering may, therefore, also be its greatest danger. Just as computers have evolved to function simultaneously as typewriters, encyclopedias, phones, televisions, and social gathering spaces, their users have, unsurprisingly, become skillful multi-taskers. [70] And the same plasticity that, over millennia, had optimized our brains for deep thinking is now strengthening the neural circuitry customized for “rapid and incisive spurts of directed attention” that enable multitasking. [71] Unfortunately, quick shifts of attention and multitasking are quite useless in a typical 1L classroom. The reasoned analysis necessary in law school is not achievable without focused attention for a sustained time period. [72] Thus, critical thinking takes another hit thanks to technology.

One last insult to critical thinking occurs as a result of “The Google Effect.” [73] This phenomenon describes the automatic forgetting of information that can be found online. [74] Neuropsychologists know that, to maintain efficiency, our brains constantly—and subconsciously–prune memories. [75] Since there is less need to preserve information that can be readily retrieved, facts and ideas are more often pruned when the brain perceives that the information will be archived. [76] For law students faced with hundred-page reading assignments and looming deadlines, this phenomenon would appear rational and advantageous. Sometimes, “the effort needed to acquire knowledge outweighs the advantage of having it.” [77] The Google Effect could, therefore, be further eroding law students’ capacity for successful legal analysis. For example, a student accustomed to efficient and fruitful Internet searches will have little success using those techniques to brief a case before class. In the context of legal research, the wide-cast net of a Google search will yield poor results in comparison to a systematic, linear exploration of legal sources made possible by understanding jurisdictional structure. [78] Rule-based subjects, such as Civil Procedure and Evidence, which require memorization of rules as building-blocks of greater concepts, [79] could be challenging for a student whose brain is unaccustomed to storing large amounts of data. As technology rapidly pushes aside millennia of neurological refinements allowing for deep thinking and logical reasoning, legal education will likely have to adapt.

c. Millennial Zeitgeist and Beyond

Shifts in undergraduate education and technology may indeed be the two main ingredients for the collective deficits in critical-thinking skills of matriculating law students. But the culture and attitudes of the 21 st Century could be the seasoning that makes those deficits so unpalatable in the context of law-school learning. It’s all too easy to blast the Millennial generation [80] for its (real or imagined) lack of intellectualism, [81] perfunctory knowledge of history, [82] or narcissism. [83] But Millennials are also more socially conscious and idealistic than previous generations. [84] Their early exposure to computers and the Internet make them “the most technologically savvy and resourceful generation yet to hit the law school scene.” [85] They are “education-oriented, career-minded, motivated, connected, and self-confident.” [86] These same characteristics have led some scholars to brand Millennials as overconfident and entitled. [87]

In the context of legal education, overconfidence should be distinguished from confidence. Students who matriculate to law school have generally achieved much: They have completed a Bachelor’s degree—at least—with enough success to be accepted into a graduate-level program. [88] They have succeeded on the LSAT to the extent that their scores have earned them a place in an entering law-school class. Non-traditional students entering law school as a second or third career may have already achieved business success. As a result of this widely varied success, many students come to law school overestimating their intellectual abilities. [89] Often, students “express high academic expectations and professional ambitions but fail to realistically appreciate the necessary steps to achieve their goals.” [90]

This pattern is consistent with a fascinating psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect [91] was proposed in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, cognitive psychologists at Cornell University. Their study concluded that unskilled people generally hold overly favorable views of their intellectual abilities. This overestimation of ability increases as actual ability decreases. In other words, incompetence “robs [the incompetent] of the metacognitive ability to realize” they are incompetent: [92]

[S]kills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one’s own or anyone else’s. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metamemory, metacomprehension , or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error. [93]

Dunning and Kruger’s study is particularly interesting considering that the researchers used logical reasoning skills—in the form of LSAT questions—as one of the metrics for measuring the effect. [94] Overall, subjects (forty-five Cornell undergraduates) overestimated their logical reasoning skills relative to their peers. [95] But bottom quartile subjects overestimated their performance by a staggering degree: although they scored at the 12th percentile on average, they nevertheless estimated that their general logical reasoning ability fell at the 68th percentile. [96] In other words, the poorest performers considered themselves significantly above average.

The point, of course, is not that law-school matriculants are incompetent. But the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect may shed light on why those students most lacking in critical-thinking skills are either unaware of their deficits or are unable to rectify them. [97] More importantly, it suggests that students would benefit from learning specific metacognitive skills at an early stage in law school so that they can evaluate their own analytical competence before and after graduation.

Whatever the reasons for the (real or perceived) lack of critical thinking skills, a more appropriate discussion is what law schools can do to address any real deficits. There is no definite etiology for dwindling reasoning skills, nor is there any real need to articulate one. But if legal educators sense that “things are not as they were,” and that observation is coupled with increasing attrition rates or decreasing bar exam success, [98] then we must take corrective measures.

Part II: The Basics of Logic and Related Law-School Competencies

Law schools purport to teach students to “think like lawyers.” [99] But despite the need for clear and logical reasoning in the legal profession, law schools do not teach principles of logic. [100] Or do they?

The fact is that modern law curricula do use principles of logic—without denominating them as such. Law-school competencies—identifying issues, articulating rules and exceptions, comparing precedent to new facts, understanding public policy, addressing counterarguments—all require some form of logical reasoning. When law students apply a general legal rule to a specific legal issue on an exam, they engage in deductive reasoning. When students synthesize precedent into a general legal principle in legal writing class, they engage in inductive reasoning. When students argue in a brief or oral argument that a particular precedent should be followed, they engage in reasoning by analogy. [101]

But often, students see these law-school learning methods as nothing more than their professors’ personal methodological preferences. [102] They fail to appreciate that these techniques have been tested over thousands of years by history’s greatest thinkers. Hence the need for basic logic training: exposing neophyte law students to the basic principles of logic could provide them and their professors a common language to identify and correct deficits in reasoning and critical thinking. In addition, such training could—through the magic of brain plasticity—remediate deficiencies in cognitive analytical ability and foster better learning.

The principles of logic that could benefit a law-school curriculum in this way represent only a fraction of the discipline of formal logic. It would be impractical and counterproductive to teach a comprehensive additional discipline in the already-crowded list of required subjects. Sufficient metacognitive benefits can be achieved through exposure to three fundamental principles of logic: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. [103] While philosophers may cringe at such attenuation of the Art of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein, [104] the goal is not to teach logic for its own sake. It is to provide students with a practical—perhaps heuristic—method for evaluating the quality of their reasoning. In short, one “familiar with the basics of logical thinking is more likely to argue effectively than one who is not.” [105]

a. Deductive Reasoning and Rule Application

Perhaps the easiest logic principle to teach law students is deduction, a lawyer’s most fundamental skill. [106] This process of reflective thinking [107] moves from general truth to specific conclusion. [108] In its simplest form, deduction involves two propositions which, if true, taken together lead undeniably to a third proposition. The classic tool of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, [109] demonstrated by this ubiquitous example:

All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The reliability of a syllogism comes from the objective certainty that the conclusion follows from the truth of the first two propositions, or “premises.” [110] The first, the “major premise,” represents a universal truth. The second, the “minor premise,” represents a specific and more narrowly applicable fact. The third, the conclusion, is a new idea that follows inferentially from the truth of the first two premises. It is this progression of thought, based on the relationship between known truths, that instills confidence in the resulting conclusion. [111]

Logicians test the validity of a syllogism by analyzing the patterns of the terms within each premise. [112] Each of the three premises is made up of two terms: a subject term (e.g., “All humans”) and a predicate term (“are mortal”). The specific idea contained in each of these terms appears twice in the syllogism. The “major term” appears in the major premise and the conclusion. The “minor term” appears in the minor premise and the conclusion. The “middle term” appears in the major and minor premises but not the conclusion. [113] So, in the Socrates example, “mortal” is the major term, “human” is the middle term, and “Socrates” is the minor term. [114]

All humans are mortal. Middle Term , Major Term

Socrates is a human . Minor Term , Middle Term

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Minor Term, Major Term

Each term can further be described as “distributed” or “undistributed.” A subject term is distributed if it represents all members of the class and is undistributed if it represents only part of a class. [115] A predicate term is distributed if it is a negative statement and undistributed if it is a positive statement. [116] Only certain patterns of distributed and undistributed terms can be valid syllogistic forms. [117]

In the legal context, the syllogism involves taking a legal premise (an enacted or judicially created “rule”) and applying it to a factual premise (the facts of a case) to reach an objectively sound result (the conclusion). Judge Aldisert used a generic template, which he called the “prosecutor’s model,” to illustrate this fundamental “categorical syllogism” of legal reasoning:

Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law] Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something] Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law]. [118]

The benefits of presenting legal ideas in this structured way are manifest. The structure promotes clarity and consistency and prevents many analytical errors. [119] It allows one to test the accuracy of individual arguments by observing each step of the analytical process. For lawyers, who must routinely debunk opponents’ arguments, this reasoning skill is critical. [120] Another helpful structure is the conditional (or hypothetical) syllogism, which takes an “if-then” format. The “if” term is known as the “antecedent” and the “then” term is known as the “consequent.” To be valid, a conditional syllogism must take one of two forms. [121] One such form, known as modus ponens , [122] is structured,

If p , then q ; p , therefore q.

The syllogism is valid when the antecedent is “affirmed” as existing or being true. For example,

If a non-competition clause is not in writing, then it is unenforceable. The defendant’s agreement not to compete was oral. Therefore, it is unenforceable.

When the minor premise of a conditional syllogism negates the consequent of the major premise, the form is called modus tollens . [123]

If p , then q ; Not q , then therefore not p .

These conditional syllogism forms appeared in a recent Florida First District Court of Appeals case, Madison v. Florida. [124] In Madison , the majority reversed the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to properly consider and grant the defendant’s motion for a continuance. [125] The deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion required “affirmance of the trial court order unless no reasonable judge could have reached the decision challenged on appeal.” [126] But, in his dissent, Judge T. Kent Wetherell pointed out that, when broken down into a modus tollens syllogism, the majority’s decision demonstrated flawed logic: If reasonable judges could disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, reasonable judges could not disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling. [127]

If the majority’s conclusion that the trial court had abused its discretion were true, then the antecedent (reasonable judges could not disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling) would also have to be true. But Judge Wetherell—presumably a reasonable judge— did disagree. The syllogism, according to Judge Wetherell, revealed the majority’s illogic. [128] He then demonstrated that, because the antecedent was true, the consequent (the trial court did not abuse its discretion) must be true as well under modus ponens . [129] Alas, deductive logic did not carry the day in Madison . But the case cogently demonstrates the utility of breaking an argument into its fundamental parts: doing so reveals illogic and, simultaneously, suggests the better outcome.

This greatly attenuated description of deductive reasoning would be enough to start students on the path to recognizing syllogisms in judicial opinions and, more importantly, to “shoehorning” [130] their own arguments into the illuminating pattern of syllogistic thought. By thinking meaningfully about their thought processes in this way, students gain metacognitive skills that could improve overall learning.

b. Inductive Reasoning and Precedent

In areas where the law is unsettled, deductive logic is an insufficient reasoning tool. [131] If there is no universal “rule,” there can be no material for the major premise in syllogistic thinking. [132] In such cases, rules must be extracted from many specific outcomes. [133] This is the process of inductive reasoning. [134]

“Induction is the inference from the observed to the unobserved, occasionally, and rather loosely, termed inferring the general from the specific.” [135] Unlike deductive reasoning, where the conclusion follows absolutely from the premises, inductive reasoning does not produce conclusions guaranteed to be correct. [136] However, if one examines enough similar, specific outcomes, one can ascertain with some confidence the resulting new principle. [137]

Consider scientific research. A scientist conducts enough trials of an experiment to be able to observe a pattern in the results. Numerous similar results can then suggest a general hypothesis: if A, B, and C all have result X, then D (which is similar to A, B, and C) will probably also have result X. As long as the scientist conducts enough trials, he or she can have confidence in the accuracy of the hypothesis. [138] It is unlikely, however, that a scientist would suggest that simply repeating results consistently creates scientific proof or absolute certainty in the result. [139] The process of induction as applied to legal reasoning is no different.

Inductive reasoning generally takes one of two forms: inductive generalization (or enumeration) or reasoning by analogy. [140] The process of inductive generalization lies at the heart of common law: in the absence of codified law, the accumulation of many specific holdings in individual cases has led, over time, to common acceptance—and formal articulation—of generalized legal precepts or principles. [141] The common law, therefore, “is but the accumulated expressions of the various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just . . . .” [142] Again, this inductive process does not provide certainty. It yields probabilities and generalities—but often extremely reliable ones.

One instructive example of inductive generalization is found in Justice Cardozo’s opinion in the early products liability case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. [143] The case involved an injury from a collapsed wooden wheel of an automobile. [144] At the time, lack of privity of contract between the automobile’s owner and the manufacturer would have prevented the injured owner from collecting damages from the manufacturer. [145] Rather than decide the case on established contract principles (as the dissent suggested), [146] Justice Cardozo used inductive reasoning to fashion a rule that avoided the unjust result existing law seemed to require. Cardozo compared the results of sixteen factually diverse products liability cases. [147] He identified relevant similar or divergent features between the cases, such as whether the defendant was a manufacturer and whether there was a near certainty of injury, should the product be defective. [148] By analyzing a large enough number of specific circumstances of liability and comparing relevant resemblances between them, Cardozo was able to derive a new (and yet, not new) principle: A manufacturer who constructs an automobile using defective component parts may be liable to a remote purchaser of the automobile for injuries resulting from those parts. [149] Cardozo’s rule has withstood the test of time. [150] Its longevity can be attributed to the large number of cases Cardozo compared and the significance of the common features he analyzed. In other words, Cardozo used enough relevant particulars to generalize a reliable statement of the law.

Analogical reasoning is also a form of induction. It’s arguably one of the most crucial skills in the study and practice of law. [151] Analogy is simply the comparison of similarities between things with the attendant expectation that, if they resemble each other in several ways, then they will likely share some other property. [152] In the law, analogical reasoning involves comparing precedent—with established facts and outcome—to a new set of facts to determine the likely outcome of the new case. The more relevant similarities between the cases, the more likely their outcomes will be similar as well. Unlike inductive generalization, analogy’s reliability is not dependent on presenting a large number of particulars. [153] Rather, it is the quality of the comparison of the cases that makes the analogy reliable:

The success of the analogy depends on how significant the reader perceives the factual similarities between the two cases and whether any differences strike the reader as even more significant. An analogy can fail as much because an advocate ignores significant differences between two cases as because of a dearth of similarities. [154]

One could rightly state that our system of jurisprudence is built on a foundation of analogy. Stare decisis , the doctrine that underlies our case law system, requires that courts compare pending cases to existing precedent such that similar facts lead to similar legal consequences. Accordingly, students with a healthy working knowledge of induction (both inductive generalization and analogy) will not only better understand our legal system’s foundational principles but will be equipped to mold and manipulate legal ideas in useful ways.

c. Fallacy and the Quality of Arguments

If an argument can be defined as an attempt to establish the truth, a fallacy can be described as an argument that appears to do so–but doesn’t. [155] The ability to recognize fallacy allows law students to meaningfully evaluate judicial opinions and question outcomes in cases. As a result, it improves the quality of students’ argumentation and assessment of opponents’ counter-arguments.

Unfortunately, much like the public at large, students entering law school have been so inundated with arguments undermined by logical fallacies [156] that they are psychologically predisposed to accept logical fallacy as a substitute for sound reasoning. [157] People routinely “make logical mistakes, ignore logic altogether, or actually prefer certain illogical argument patterns.” [158] Essentially, audiences are conditioned to pick up on cues embedded in an argument that hint at the desired conclusions. These thinking shortcuts, known as “superficial heuristics,” often take the place of actual analysis. [159]

Of course, superficial heuristics and faulty reasoning should be avoided at all costs in law school. Exposing these thinking shortcuts and their attendant risk of error is the gateway to avoiding them. Therefore, learning a bit about common logical fallacies would help law students and law professors alike: When a student makes a faulty argument in class, the professor can describe the problem using the common language of functional logic.

A formal fallacy describes an error in the structure of an argument. [160] In a formal fallacy, a conclusion could be false even if all of the premises are true. [161] For example, using the classic “Socrates” syllogism:

All humans are mortal Socrates is mortal Therefore, Socrates is human.

This syllogism is fallacious because it is entirely possible that Socrates is the name of the neighbor’s cat. The formal error is the swapping of the minor term (in the minor premise) with the major term (in the conclusion). As with all formal logic, recognizing a formal fallacy requires familiarity with the patterns of distributed or undistributed terms. Again, this level of knowledge is beyond what’s needed for our limited goal of improving critical thinking. Nonetheless, it’s important to recognize that formal fallacy and formal deductive logic are two sides of the same coin.

Informal fallacies, also known as material fallacies, [162] are harder to spot. Informal fallacies could be described as mistakes in “the content (and possibly the intent) of the reasoning.” [163] Logicians have identified hundreds of distinct types of informal fallacies; [164] therefore, a comprehensive list of them is unworkable here. But some are so common—and so effective—that learning to recognize them should be considered a critical law-school skill. The following common fallacies demonstrate the potential deceptiveness of otherwise appealing arguments:

Ad Hominem : This fallacy is committed by abusing the proponent of an argument or by dismissing the proponent’s position on the grounds of the proponent’s appearance, circumstances, or background. [165] An advocate can cross the line from identifying weakness in an opponent’s argument into an improper attack on the opponent’s character. In Bauer v. Yellen , [166] the Second Circuit admonished counsel (and reduced its award of attorney fees) for the following ad hominem attack on its opponent, a pro se litigant: “Ms. Bauer has pursued this case blindly, recklessly, vindictively, maliciously and without a shred of evidence to support her wild and deluded claim of copyright infringement. . . . Ms. Bauer’s opposition papers mirror the nasty, mean-spirited approach she has taken in prosecuting this matter.” [167]

Bandwagon Fallacy : Also known as the ad populum fallacy, this type of fallacious argument suggests that, because a great number of people believe something, it must be objectively true. This fallacy occurs when a party argues that a court should adopt a rule because of “near universal agreement among . . . courts that have confronted [the] issue,” [168] rather than because of the merits of the rule.

Begging the Question : This fallacy assumes as true what is to be proved. [169] It can be as simple as a single step of faulty reasoning (e.g., “The hospital was negligent because it failed to use ordinary care”) or it can be buried in several steps of circular reasoning (e.g., An indigent prisoner claims a right to a free trial transcript because he wishes to argue ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. There is no requirement to furnish an indigent prisoner with a free transcript unless he is unable to show that he has a non-frivolous claim. Because the prisoner cannot show that he has a non-frivolous claim, he has no right to a free trial transcript).

Fallacy of Accident : This fallacy, also known as dicto simpliciter , occurs when one applies a general rule to exceptional circumstances or facts. [170] For example, an Internet pornographer arguing that his website’s content is “Free Speech” may be committing the fallacy of accident by not acknowledging that limitations on obscenity and commercial speech exceptions likely apply—and must be analyzed—in his case.

Hasty Generalization : Essentially “jumping to conclusions.” A Hasty Generalization fallacy occurs when a conclusion is induced from too few particulars. [171] The reliability of any inductive generalization depends on having considered enough specific instances with identical outcomes to eliminate doubt as to the likelihood of non-conforming outcomes. But drawing a conclusion from only a few particular instances lacks that reliability. For example, in O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , [172] an expert witness committed the fallacy when he testified that a plaintiff’s cataracts were caused by exposure to radiation at a nuclear plant where he worked. [173] His opinion was based on previously observing five patients with similar cataracts, all of which had been radiation-induced. [174]

Post Hoc : Any argument that suggests causation simply because one event preceded another is guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. [175] It’s also known as the false cause fallacy, and it is tricky. The danger of presuming a causal connection between events when none exists is obvious. But in a legal context, it’s often rational to conclude that when a legally significant event is followed by a result, that result probably flowed from the event. [176] For example, a criminal defendant could claim her medication prevented her guilty plea from being knowingly and voluntarily made. [177] It sounds reasonable, but absent evidence that the medication affected the defendant’s cognitive function, it’s spurious. Despite the fallacy, post hoc arguments are an effective tool for litigators since they are so enticing to jurors. [178] Straw Man : This is a fallacious argument in which one “creates the illusion of having refuted a solid proposition by substituting a similar, weaker proposition for it and refuting the substitute instead.” [179] By exaggerating or misrepresenting an opposing argument, one can more easily present one’s own position as reasonable. Consider the statement by former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who, during a Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum, suggested that opponents of gun control “think they should have a missile launcher in their backyard as a Constitutional right . . . .” [180]

These—and the scores of other known fallacies—all have the common attribute of obscuring the truth. But fallacies are often highly persuasive and can be used to manipulate—intentionally or otherwise. [181] And to properly represent clients and fulfill one’s professional responsibilities, lawyers must, if not pursue the truth, at least be aware of when it is being obscured. Knowing how to recognize fallacies is, in itself, a tool for honing critical thinking, and should be considered a fundamental lawyering skill.

Part III: Integrating Functional Logic Training Across the Law-School Curriculum

Regardless of how theoretically beneficial logic training may be, students cannot be expected to distill the principles of logic on their own. [182] Integrating basic, informal logic training into the law-school curriculum could be relatively painless and cost-effective and, most importantly, could begin to bridge the ever-widening gap between how students think and how academics expect them to think.

a. Logic During Orientation

The obvious moment to begin exposing students to a paradigmatic system of thinking is during orientation. Orientation varies in length, depth, and purpose from school to school. Schools use orientation for everything from registering parking passes and assigning study carrels to presenting more substantive programs that introduce the cohort to systems of law and the Socratic Method. Schools with more in-depth programs could introduce basic principles of logic in a two-to-three hour session, incorporating outside reading and a formative (perhaps online) assessment.

Orientation programs introducing logic should be straightforward and unintimidating. The goal is to build a solid foundation upon which to build the thinking processes students will encounter in the first weeks of law school and beyond. The classic categorical syllogism is a perfect starting point. [183] After introducing the basic form of a syllogism, the professor should provide numerous real-world examples of valid syllogisms:

Lack of sleep makes one drowsy during the day . Joe Law Student stayed up all night . Joe Law Student will be drowsy during the day . [184]

When we finish this orientation session, it will be time for lunch. We have not yet finished this orientation session. Therefore, it is not time for lunch. [185]

Once the basic form is clear, students should see examples of legal syllogisms: the basic application of rules to facts, along with their consequent conclusions. A formative assessment at this point could test students’ ability to distinguish rules from facts.

Students with innately sound reasoning skills (or, perhaps, previous training in logical reasoning) would recognize the deductive pattern at once and organize their thinking about legal issues accordingly. But for students who lack critical-thinking skills, this breakdown of the basic syllogistic form would provide a step-by-step process upon which to structure analysis. Armed with an effective process of reflective thinking, these students could avoid analytical missteps, which often go unnoticed until mid-term or final exams—in other words, too late.

In addition to basic deduction, Orientation should present the basic principles of inductive reasoning. Simple but engaging exercises in a “what do all these cases tell you about the law” model—presented as “induction”—would not only prepare students for the progressive integration of law that will happen once classes begin, but would give a name to the process they will be expected to use and, eventually, master. Professors involved in Orientation can enhance this benefit by preparing exercises specifically engineered to call out invalid induction. For example, a set of cases that seem to induce an obvious answer, save one anomalous result, tempts students to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. [186] The fruits of the endeavor would be enduring: students who take the time to consider why their answers are good or bad are thinking like lawyers.

Introducing deductive and inductive reasoning during Orientation would, therefore, likely bear fruit once classes begin. By repeating these processes in different contexts as classes progress, students will naturally strengthen their brains’ neural networks responsible for critical thinking. [187]

b. Logic in Doctrinal Classes

Merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. To enhance critical thinking, law students should replicate the process of putting analytical components together in multiple contexts. In other words, students should be encouraged to use syllogistic logic across the curriculum.

But herein lies the greatest difficulty: changing the way law students think means a change in the way law professors think and teach. Law professors, however, are not generally known for their great desire to implement teaching innovations. [188] Fortunately, simple adjustments to existing instructional models might yield unexpected mutual benefits and ease frustration for both professors and students.

In nearly every American law-school class, students read appellate decisions in casebooks and answer professors’ questions about the holdings and principles of law contained in the cases. This “Case Law” or “Socratic” [189] method of instruction remains the standard teaching method in law schools, despite concerns about its effectiveness and recommendations against its widespread use. [190] But despite its prevalence, law schools generally fail at explaining the process and goals of the Socratic Method. [191] Many professors assume that students implicitly recognize these goals. [192] There is generally no explanation of the underlying thought process that gets the students to the “right” answer. [193] Many students eventually work out that professors are not simply “hiding the ball,” but are, rather, drawing out reasoned analysis. Others however, may stumble through law school never quite understanding the reason for the trauma and humiliation that the Socratic Method engenders. [194]

The frustration is mutual. First-year professors complain that students’ exam answers are missing analysis. [195] Students jump from identifying a rule to stating a conclusion with no significant application of the rule to facts in between. What is missing in those answers, logically speaking, is the syllogistic minor premise. [196] On an exam, many students struggle to even articulate the accurate legal issue.

Consider a scenario where a defendant is charged with aggravated battery for using a deadly weapon. The facts state that the defendant sloshed household bleach in the victim’s face. [197] The rule is that any object can be a deadly weapon if it is used in such a way as to make it likely to cause great bodily harm. [198] It may seem obvious to an experienced lawyer that the precise legal issue is “whether bleach, sloshed in a victim’s face, is likely to cause great bodily harm.” But a student with poor analytical skills might begin by stating the issue as “whether the defendant used a deadly weapon” or even more obtuse, “whether defendant committed aggravated battery.” With this as a starting point, it’s no wonder that students resort to incomplete, heuristic thinking in place of reasoned analysis.

Now, imagine if every professor began requiring students to express arguments in the form of a syllogism. Certainly, the process would be a struggle, if not downright ugly, in the first weeks or even months of law school. But with repetition, students would quickly become proficient at identifying the proper components of the syllogistic process—thereby clarifying their reasoning. A simple approach to achieve these benefits in nearly any law-school classroom is to require students to articulate rules as “if-then” statements. [199] By reframing rules in this way, students are forced to critically examine the constituent elements of the rule: its requirements and its consequences. [200] Consider the following basic rules in Torts, Constitutional Law, and Civil Procedure:

If the plaintiff proves elements X, Y, and Z, then tort liability is established. If the state deprives a citizen of notice and opportunity to be heard, then the right to Due Process is violated. If a party currently resides in the state and intends to remain there indefinitely, then he or she qualifies as a “citizen” for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

Note that these simple rules are structured so as to force the rule’s requirement (the “if”) and consequence (the “then”) into plain view. This skill alone is beneficial for students because it not only trains the brain to recognize the pattern of rules, it transfers to skills necessary for legal writing and drafting: coherence and clarity. More importantly, however, these if-then rules form the major premise of a conditional syllogism. In such a major premise, the “if” clause is the middle term and the “then” clause is the major term.

Once students are comfortable articulating rules as the major premise of a syllogism, the next step is to present the facts of a case—whether a hypothetical presented by the professor or an assigned case reading—as the minor premise. Here are the minor premises that correlate to the major premises above:

Defendant did facts A B C. The state imposed a fine without affording the party an opportunity for a hearing. Plaintiff owns a houseboat that is moored in the state.

The subject of each minor premise is the minor term. The predicate of each minor premise is the middle term—or at least it would be, if the syllogism were complete. In a complete syllogism, of course, the middle terms would match exactly. Here, the middle terms do not match—yet. This is the advantage of this syllogistic exercise: students can immediately spot the precise legal issue in a case by joining the two middle term positions (in bold):

The issues revealed in this way are:

Do facts A B C —> satisfy elements X Y Z? Did the state’s imposing a fine without affording the party an opportunity for a hearing —> deprive the citizen of notice and opportunity to be heard? (YES) Does merely owning a houseboat currently moored in the state —> mean that a party currently resides in the state and intends to remain there indefinitely? (NO)

In this way, the analysis can be tested for accuracy. And in the first weeks and months of law school, the reliability of students’ analyses is of paramount importance.

These functional logic exercises, repeated in various contexts across the curriculum, would undoubtedly have at least some metacognitive benefits. And professors might find that the process improves not only students’ preparation, but also the quality of dialogue between them and their students.

c. Logic in Legal Writing and Analysis Courses

There is no question that legal writing professors are on the front lines of recognizing—and attempting to mitigate—shortcomings in law students’ reasoning. Legal writing assignments force students to reveal their thought processes on paper. [201] In grading their memos and briefs, we see that students’ “confusing prose reflects their confused thinking.” [202] Moreover, legal writing courses bridge a curricular gap between doctrine and skills. Students learn theory in their doctrinal courses and learn to apply it in a meaningful way toward the resolution of a client’s legal issue in legal writing classes. These courses help students integrate material across curriculum “because they do not separate the learning of theory from its application.” [203] Naturally, this setting is ideal for reinforcing functional logic skills.

Most law students are exposed to fundamental logical reasoning in their first-year research and writing course. They just don’t know it. Basic IRAC structure (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)—the hallmark of legal writing organization—represents a deductive syllogistic process. [204] But written legal analysis involves induction as well. [205] Virtually no analysis is complete without incorporating analogical reasoning by comparing the facts of one’s case to precedent. And when a factual scenario presents novel or troublesome facts that seem not to fit established law, students are taught to engage in rule synthesis. [206] In other words, the legal writing classroom is rich with opportunities to practice deduction and induction in ways that incorporate both theory and practical application. What’s critical, however, is for legal writing professors to use logic terminology (i.e., deduction, induction, analogy, fallacy) when teaching these skills. It’s not that IRAC , synthesis , case illustration , or application are bad terms: legal writing professors have had great success using these and other labels for parts of analysis and should continue to do so. [207] Rather, it’s the additional benefit of reinforcing the concepts of logical thought in various contexts that will strengthen those skills across the board. [208] Accordingly, during the writing-instruction phase of a typical first-year legal-writing course, professors should take every opportunity to point out deductive and inductive analysis wherever it can be found. The professor should demonstrate that the Rule Synthesis section (the “R” of IRAC) has, overall, the same function as the major premise of a syllogism: as a unit, it represents a universal truth against which the facts of the case must be tested. Ideally, students should be exposed to several such deductive (or “rule-based” [209] ) analyses during their first legal-writing class session. Doing so connects legal writing not only to the deduction they learned about in Orientation, but also to the deductive processes used in their doctrinal courses. It also serves as a jumping-off point for the next step: the inductive process of applying precedent to new facts.

New law students learning predictive writing [210] are often confounded by the concept of analogizing facts of a case to established precedent. [211] It’s not that students don’t understand analogy: they’ve likely mastered the “head is to hat as foot is to shoe” analogy prevalent on the LSAT. [212] Rather, it’s the fact that using multiple (and often seemingly contradictory) analogies to reach a conclusion is a foreign concept to most non-lawyers. Moreover, even the conclusions reached by such a process can be less than satisfying, since they lack certainty. [213]

In drafting their first memos, rookie law students often make the mistake of analogizing a single precedent case to the facts of the memo problem. Despite having described several precedent cases, they default to choosing “the closest” single case to apply to the untested facts without endeavoring to reconcile other precedent or, much less, the law as a whole. The result is a superficial conclusion and inadequate prediction. To combat this tendency, legal-writing professors should reinforce that the two inductive forms, (1) inductive generalization and (2) analogy, should feature in the application (the “A” of IRAC) section of a memo.

In inductive generalization, a legal writer extracts multiple, often intersecting, points of similarity among a representative group of precedent cases to reach a working standard. [214] Say a legal writing professor includes four precedent cases in a closed-universe memo assignment. The professor undoubtedly chose those cases because they represent basic concepts relevant to the expected analysis. Case 1 has characteristics A and B ; Case 2 has characteristics A and C ; Case 3 has characteristics similar to A , B , and C , but mostly hinges on D ; and Case 4 falls short on A , B , C , and D (and, accordingly, fails to meet the legal standard at issue). Again, a student may be tempted to base his or her application simply on which of these cases most closely resembles the untested set of facts. But a professor can avoid this dangerous shortcut by taking time in class to break down each case conceptually, identifying and describing characteristics A , B , C , and D , and, where possible, articulating a formula describing characteristics necessary for the standard to be met.

Disorderly conduct provides a good example. In Florida, disorderly conduct is rather abstractly defined by Florida Statute section 877.03 as conduct that “corrupt[s] the public morals,” “outrage[s] the sense of public decency,” or “affect[s] the peace and quiet of persons who may witness [it].” [215] This mushy definition makes pure deduction difficult. Precedent, however, provides more helpful concepts. In one case, a defendant’s loud verbal conduct attracted a crowd of curious onlookers, but it was his physical act of interfering with the police officer’s lawful duties that made his conduct disorderly. [216] In another case, the defendant’s verbal conduct attracted a crowd, and he was physically aggressive toward an officer; this was also sufficient to constitute disorderly conduct. [217] In a third case, the defendant’s verbal conduct attracted a crowd that became hostile toward the officer, and this too was considered disorderly conduct. [218] But in a case where a defendant’s loud verbal conduct merely attracted a crowd of annoyed onlookers, the conduct was not considered disorderly. [219]

From these cases, at least three conceptual points of comparison arise: (A) conduct that draws a crowd; (B) conduct that interferes with an officer’s lawful duties; and (C) conduct that puts the officer in danger. In the cases where the disorderly conduct standard was met, there was some combination of (A) attracting a crowd and either (B) interfering with the officer’s duties or (C) putting the officer in danger. In the one case where the standard was not met, only (A) was present. Therefore, even from this limited selection of precedent, an implicit working standard can be extracted: Where (A)+(B) or (A)+(C) are present, conduct will be considered disorderly. If the formula is reliable, it should explain the results in all cases.

What’s happened here is induction: a general principle has been extracted from a number of particulars based on relevant similarities. [220] That general principle would then be applied to the untested facts of a new case. Admittedly, four cases may be a small sample from which to extract a general standard. But if the chosen cases are highly representative of all the cases on point, then the standard is likely to be highly reliable. [221] Nonetheless, because the conclusion reached by this process is uncertain, further substantiation is needed. That’s where analogy comes in.

Using analogical reasoning, the legal writer justifies his or her conclusion in terms of the chosen precedent. [222] Our typical “rookie” law student tried analogy, but failed to connect it to the law as a whole; therefore, it was superficial and analytically flimsy. But analogy coupled with the application of the inductive working standard demonstrates that a predicted outcome is consistent not only with an individual case, but also with the entire body of law on that issue. Thus, instead of describing random or disconnected similarities and distinctions between precedent cases and a set of untested facts, students can think of analogical reasoning as “proof” that the inductive formula was reliable.

Back to the disorderly conduct example. Suppose a memo fact pattern described a suspect—a witness to a shooting—who was loudly insisting that an officer take his statement, despite the fact that the officer was busy arresting the shooter. The suspect’s antics of yelling at the officer attracted a crowd of onlookers. The suspect, perhaps fueled by having an audience, put his face within two inches of the officer’s face, causing the officer to push him away with a free hand. The issue, of course, is whether the suspect can be charged with disorderly conduct.

In applying the law to these facts (the “A” of IRAC), a writer may initially want to point out that the statute does not provide concrete enough concepts upon which to base a purely deductive analysis. [223] Therefore, the analysis would be inductive. First, the writer should articulate the inductive generalization that the charge is generally supported by evidence that the defendant’s conduct (A) caused a crowd to form and either (B) interfered with an officer’s lawful duties or (C) put the officer in danger. Based on that working standard, the writer can state that the facts satisfy the inductive standard: the suspect both attracted a crowd and interfered with the officer making the arrest.

Next, it’s time to analogize the precedent cases. Because analogy compares cases with the expectation that, if they resemble each other in several relevant ways, then they will likely share the same outcome, [224] the writer must demonstrate that the specific relevant similarities between the chosen precedent and the untested facts support the stated conclusion. Because the relevant characteristics ( A , B , C , or D ) have already been described in the inductive generalization, it’s sufficient to briefly connect them to the specific facts of the memo problem. Analogy, in this sense, further substantiates the reliability of the inductive process.

What I’ve described above does not differ significantly from analytical processes taught by the average legal writing professor. But I believe there’s a significant additional benefit gained from reinforcing basic logic processes and terminology along the way.

d. Logic in Oral Advocacy

One final golden opportunity to reinforce basic logic is during the oral argument component of a first-year persuasive-writing class. Besides being a blood-curdlingly terrifying event forever etched in students’ memories and an important rite of passage, the appellate oral argument is fertile ground for using and recognizing informal fallacy. Generally, the lead-up to the oral argument is preceded by several weeks of instruction on oral persuasion and, ideally, in-class practice. Students already exposed to the concept of informal fallacy would be more adept at responding to their opponents’ positions, perhaps even identifying faulty logic by name. A student’s argument that “opposing counsel asserts X, but that is without merit because (restate original premise for the ninth time)” can become “opposing counsel asserts X, which falls into the logical fallacy of hasty generalization and is, therefore, not a reliable result.”

One way to achieve this benefit is to use class time to brainstorm every possible fallacious (but compelling) argument that could be made in the context of an appellate-brief fact pattern. Do the facts of the case allow for an improper appeal to authority? Can an ad hominem argument be made against an unsympathetic witness? This exercise not only reinforces the meaning of individual fallacies in a practical way; it challenges students to test how far advocacy can stretch before it becomes no longer persuasive.

Introducing basic logic into the legal writing classroom, therefore, requires little substantive change to existing pedagogy. But if students learn that the familiar paradigms of legal writing are exactly the same logic principles introduced in orientation and reinforced in doctrinal classes, their ability to critically think about legal issues—and their overall comprehension—could significantly increase.

Legal education in the United States has evolved over time in response to economic and social change. But the social, educational, and technological changes of recent decades, which have noticeably altered students’ ability to think critically, merit at least an adjustment in the way law schools teach. The time-tested methods of logic—even when pared down to their most practical and functional components—could begin to remediate some of the problems students face in the modern law-school classroom.

See generally Paul Douglas Callister, Beyond Training: Law Librarianship’s Quest for the Pedagogy of Legal Research Education , 95 L. Lib. J. 7, 9 (2003) (discussing legal employers’ frustration with new graduates’ poor legal research skills); Rebecca C. Flanagan, The Kids Aren’t Alright: Rethinking the Law Student Skills Deficit , 2015 BYU Educ. & L.J. 135, 138 (2015) (discussing possible reasons for law students’ decreasing critical-thinking skills); Courtney G. Lee, Changing Gears to Meet the “New Normal” in Legal Education , 53 Duq. L. Rev. 39 , 67 (2015) (decreased critical-thinking skills of many law schools’ entering classes is likely to continue for years to come); Karen Sloan, Practice Ready? Law Students and Practitioners Disagree , Nat’l L.J . (March 6, 2015), https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/1202719928678/?slreturn=20171030205801 (last visited Nov. 30, 2017) (discussing a survey by BarBri finding that only 23% of practitioners felt that graduating law students were ready to practice law); James Etienne Viator, Legal Education’s Perfect Storm: Law Students’ Poor Writing and Legal Analysis Skills Collide with Dismal Employment Prospects, Creating the Urgent Need to Reconfigure the First-Year Curriculum , 61 Cath. U. L. Rev. 735, 740—41 (2012) (discussing law-school “education-to-profession” disjunction).

Richard Arum & Josipa Roksa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses 35—36 (2011).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 144—45.

Changes needed to implement innovative curriculum changes have been “hampered,” in part, by American Bar Association regulations. Kristen K. Tiscione, How the Disappearance of Classical Rhetoric and the Decision to Teach Law as a “Science” Severed Theory from Practice in Legal Education , 51 Wake Forest L. Rev. 385 (2016); see also ABA Sec. Leg. Educ. & Admissions to the Bar , Managing Director’s Guidance Memo: Standard 316, Bar Passage (Aug. 2016), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/governancedocuments/2016_august_guidance_memo_S316.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Michael Scriver & Richard Paul , Defining Critical Thinking, The Critical Thinking Community , http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Joanne G. Kurfiss, Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities , ASHE-ERIC Higher Educ. Rep. 1, 5 (1988).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 144.

Id. (quoting Judith Welch Wegner, Reframing Legal Education’s "Wicked Problems ," 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 867, 871 (2009)).

Henry Ford is reported to have said, “Thinking is hard work, and that’s why so few people do it.”

See Kurfiss, supra note 7, at 14.

Stephen M. Rice, Indiscernible Logic: Using the Logical Fallacies of the Illicit Major Term and the Illicit Minor Term as Litigation Tools , 47 Willamette L. Rev. 101, 108 (2010).

Cheryl B. Preston et al., Teaching “Thinking Like a Lawyer”: Metacognition and Law Students , 2014 BYU L. Rev. 1053, 1057 (2014) (defining metacognition as “thinking about thinking”).

Ruggero J. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking , 28—29 (Nat’l Inst. for Trial Advo. 3d Ed. 1997); Edwin W. Patterson, Logic in the Law , 90 U. Pa. L. Rev. 875 (1942).

See, e.g. , Michael R. Smith, Rhetoric Theory and Legal Writing: An Annotated Bibliography , 3 J. ALWD 129 (2006) (listing dozens of scholarly works discussing logic and rhetoric in the discipline of legal writing); Richard D. Friedman, Logic and Elements (Symposium: Premises and Conclusions: Symbolic Logic for Legal Analysis), 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 575 (1998).

Ruggero J. Aldisert et al., Logic for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer , 69 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1, 2 (2007).

Paula Lustbader, Construction Sites, Building Types, and Bridging Gaps: A Cognitive Theory of the Learning Progression of Law Students , 33 Willamette L. Rev. 315, 338 (1997) (“What is expected of students at the undergraduate level is vastly different from what is expected in law school. Prior to law school, learning mainly involved memorizing and regurgitating predigested, prepackaged, and organized information obtained from textbooks, lectures, and the media. Consequently, they are ill-prepared to read critically, synthesize rules, or analyze material to the extent required in law school.”).

Jesse Franklin Brumbaugh, Legal Reasoning and Briefing: Logic Applied to the Preparation, Trial and Appeal of Cases, with Illustrative Briefs and Forms 59 (1917) (“Ordinary logical theory requires but truthfulness only in the materials of the syllogism and form, but legal logic adds the social elements of justice and equity . . . .”); James R. Maxeiner, Thinking Like A Lawyer Abroad: Putting Justice into Legal Reasoning , 11 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev . 55, 60 (2012) (“It is elementary learning that law seeks justice.”).

Ruth Vance & Susan Stuart, Of Moby Dick and Tartar Sauce: The Academically Underprepared Law Student and the Curse of Overconfidence , 53 Duq. L. Rev. 133, 134 (2015) (“[M]any matriculating law students arrive at law school woefully underprepared at the same time legal educators are challenged with the task of producing practice-ready graduates.”).

Aaron N. Taylor, Diversity as a Law School Survival Strategy , 59 St. Louis U.L.J 321, 329 (2015).

Id . While not the only predictor of law-school success, the LSAT measures “natural skill or reasoning,” skills that law schools and state bars consider essential to lawyering. Robert Steinbuch & Kim Love, Color-Blind-Spot: The Intersection of Freedom of Information Law and Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions , 20 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 181, 201 (2016) (citing Nicholas Georgakopoulos, Bar Passage: GPA and LSAT, Not Bar Reviews (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-30 Sept. 19, 2013), http://bit.ly/20Ar8aB [ perma.cc/62MU-JRR7 ]).

Jay Sterling Silver, Responsible Solutions: Reply to Tamanaha and Campos , 2 Tex. A&M L. Rev . 215, 229—30 (2014).

Vance & Stuart, supra note 23, at 137. A full discussion of the deficiencies of K-12 and undergraduate educations is beyond the scope of the article.

“Despite a dramatic decrease in hours spent studying, college students are receiving higher grades.” Flanagan, supra note 1, at 139 (citing Kevin Carey, ‘Trust Us’ Won’t Cut It Anymore , Chron. Higher Educ. , Jan. 18, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Trust-Us-Wont-Cut-It/125978/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017). (“Yes, there’s been grade inflation. A-minus is the new C.”); Lee, supra note 1, at 66; see also Rebecca C. Flanagan, Do Med Schools Do It Better? Improving Law School Admissions by Adopting a Medical School Admissions Model , 53 Duq. L. Rev . 75, 81 (2015) (“Many students can earn above-average grades throughout their undergraduate years by artfully selecting courses and majors.”).

Lee, supra note 1, at 66.

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 135—36.

Viator, supra note 1, at 753 (“From the late seventeenth century through the end of the nineteenth century, all levels of American schooling were dedicated to the study of classical literature and history.”).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 148; see also Marilyn R. Walter, Erasing the Lines Between the Law School and the Liberal Arts Curricula: A Comment on “A Liberal Education in Law,” 1 J. Alwd. 153, 154 (2002) (discussing that familiarity with the classical authors and with principles of oratory was viewed, pre-Civil War, as essential to a lawyer’s excellence).

Tiscione, supra note 4, at 400.

Carol T. Christ, Myth: A Liberal Arts Education Is Becoming Irrelevant , Am. Council on Educ. (Spring 2012), http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/Myth-A-Liberal-Arts-Education-Is-Becoming-Irrelevant.aspx (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“[T]he best preparation for the intense phase of the apprenticeship we call ‘going to law school’ is a broad-based liberal arts education.” Patricia Sayre, “Socrates is Mortal”: Formal Logic and the Pre-Law Undergraduate , 73 Notre Dame L. Rev . 689, 703 (1998).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 148.

Doug Mataconis, College Students Lack Critical Thinking Skills, But Who’s To Blame? , Outside The Beltway (Jan. 18, 2011), http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-students-lack-critical-thinking-skills-but-whos-to-blame/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“Most of the top earners in the liberal arts end up matching only the bottom earners in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — known as the STEM fields — and some will earn less than high school graduates who have vocational skills, like welders and mechanics.” Patricia Cohen, A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding , N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Id. ; Michael Delucchi, “Liberal Arts” Colleges and the Myth of Uniqueness , 68(4) J. of Higher Educ. 414, 414 (1997) (“[T]he curricular trend in higher education since about 1970 has been toward studies related to work . . . . Enrollment concerns in recent years have compelled many liberal arts colleges to abandon or sharply scale back their arts and sciences curriculum in order to accommodate student preoccupation with the immediate job market.”); see also Mark Yates, The Carnegie Effect: Elevating Practical Training over Liberal Education in Curricular Reform , 17 Legal Writing 233, 243 (2011) (“Since the 1970s, undergraduate institutions in the United States have been shifting their curricular emphasis from liberal arts to more professionally oriented education. This shift is due largely to enrollment concerns caused by changes in the labor market and corresponding changes in the expectations of entering students.”); Judith T. Younger, Legal Education: An Illusion , 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1037, 1043 (1991) (arguing that, in attempting to democratize higher education, colleges and universities abandoned the liberal arts in favor of specialization and vocationalism).

Nicholas Lemann, Liberal Education and Professionals , 90 Liberal Educ. 14 (Spring 2004), http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp04/le-sp04feature1.cfm (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Arum & Roksa , supra note 2, at 96—98.

See Flanagan, supra note 1, at 140 (describing Collegiate Learning Assessment test subjects as similarly situated students from wide variety of colleges and universities).

Id . (characterizing critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills as essential skills during the first year of law school).

Arum & Roksa, supra note 2, at 121.

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education , http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/study-research/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, Fourth Year Change Summary , http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/333946/10418206/1296073333850/4-year-change-summary-website.pdf?token=ZVEVCl3%2ButHXke%2Fk0YqlLCJCYMo%3D (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“[S]tudies have not found positive evidence of broad-based skills acquisition by college students since the 1990s.” Flanagan, supra note 1, at 142.

Id. at 143.

Id. (quoting Arum & Roksa, supra note 2, at 40).

Elizabeth Olsen, Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions , N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 27, 2015, at B1; Jennifer M. Cooper, Smarter Law Learning: Using Cognitive Science to Maximize Law Learning , 44 Cap. U.L. Rev. 551, 552 (2016).

See generally Taylor, supra note 24.

Jeremy Berke, Law-School Grads are Bombing the Bar and It’s a Sign of Trouble for Legal Education , Business Insider , http://www.businessinsider.com/bar-passage-exam-rates-have-dropped-in-several-key-states-2015-11 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Shailini Jandial George, Teaching the Smartphone Generation: How Cognitive Science Can Improve Learning in Law School , 66 Me. L. Rev. 163, 169 (2013).

Id. at 172.

Id. at 172–73.

Sara Bernard, Neuroplasticity: Learning Physically Changes the Brain , EDUTOPIA (Dec. 1, 2010), http://www.edutopia.org/neuroscience-brain-based-learning-neuroplasticity (Dec. 12, 2017).

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains 31, 34 (2011).

Id. at 120.

Jennie Bricker, Where No One Has Gone Before: Practicing Law in the Digital Age , 72 J. Mo. B. 18 (2016).

Carr, supra note 60, at 65.

See id. at 72.

Id . at 75.

Id. at 122.

Id. at 141—42.

Id . at 121.

A slightly exaggerated, but not-all-too-unrealistic multi-tasking scenario is described at the outset of George, supra note 55, at 164.

Carr , supra note 60, at 140.

Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 141.

Daniel M. Wegner & Adrian F. Ward, The Internet Has Become the External Hard Drive for our Memories , Sci. Am. (Dec. 1, 2013), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-internet-has-become-the-external-hard-drive-for-our-memories/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Patrick Meyer, The Google Effect, Multitasking, and Lost Linearity: What We Should Do , 42 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 705, 716 (2016).

William Poundstone, The Internet Isn’t Making Us Dumber — It’s Making Us More “Meta-Ignorant,” N.Y. Mag. (July 27, 2016) , http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/the-internet-isnt-making-us-dumber-its-making-us-more-meta-ignorant.html (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Meyer, supra note 74, at 712—13.

Gabriel H. Teninbaum, Spaced Repetition: A Method for Learning More Law in Less Time , 17 J. High Tech. L. 273, 302 (2017).

Neil Howe & William Strauss , Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation 4 (2000) (defining a Millennial as anyone born during or after 1982).

Data suggests that Millennials do not read print newspapers, watch television news, or purposely visit news websites, instead receiving information on selected stories through social media. The Media Insight Project, How Millenials Get News: Inside the Habits of American’s First Digital Generation , http://www.mediainsight.org/Pages/how-millennials-get-news-inside-the-habits-of-americas-first-digital-generation.aspx (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Poundstone, supra note 77 (“Most — more than 50 percent — of millennials can’t name anyone who shot a U.S. president or discovered a planet; they don’t know the ancient city celebrated for its hanging gardens, the one destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, or the emperor said to have fiddled while Rome burned; and most millennials can’t name the single word uttered by the raven in Edgar Allan Poe’s poem.”).

“The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982.” Joel Stein, Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation , Time Magazine (May 20, 2013) http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/ ; see also Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 134—35.

Kari Mercer Dalton, Bridging the Digital Divide and Guiding the Millennial Generation’s Research and Analysis , 18 Barry L. Rev . 167, 173—74 (2012).

Eric A. DeGroff, Training Tomorrow’s Lawyers: What Empirical Research Can Tell Us About the Effect of Law School Pedagogy on Law Student Learning Styles , 36 S. Ill. U.L.J. 251 (2012).

Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 134—35.

Anthony Niedwiecki, Teaching for Lifelong Learning: Improving the Metacognitive Skills of Law Students Through More Effective Formative Assessment Techniques , 40 Cap. U. L. Rev. 149, 160 (2012); Cooper, supra note 53, at 556.

Cooper, supra note 52, at 556.

See generally Justin Kruger & David Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments , 77 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 1121 (1999).

Id . at 1121.

Id . (citations omitted).

Id. at 1124.

Participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile relative to others, significantly higher than the actual mean of 50. Id . at 1123.

Id . at 1125.

Legal Writing guru Bryan Garner linked the Dunning-Kruger effect to the legal profession. He suggested that attorneys overestimate their writing skills and, therefore, fail to take steps to improve it, even when doing so would be beneficial. Bryan A. Garner, Why Lawyers Can’t Write: Science Has Something to Do with It, and Law Schools Are Partly to Blame , 99- Mar. A.B.A. J. 24 (2013).

See 2016 MBE Statistics, Nat’l Conf. Bar Examiners, http://www.ncbex.org/publications/statistics/mbe-statistics/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2017) (showing a decline in MBE National Mean Scaled Scores from 2007 to 2016).

“Thinking like a lawyer” has been described as “employing logic to construct arguments.” Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 1.

Jack L. Landau, Logic for Lawyers , 13 Pac. L.J. 59, 60 (1981); Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2; Stephen M. Rice, False Persuasion, Superficial Heuristics, and the Power of Logical Form to Test the Integrity of Legal Argument , 34 Pace L. Rev. 76, 76 (2014).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 28—29; see Patterson, supra note 16, at 903 — 04 (describing types of analogies).

Professors often hear, “I know the material; I just didn’t present it the way you wanted it.”

The Honorable Jack L. Landau, Justice of the Supreme Court of Oregon, proposed essentially the same in 1981, when he was an Instructor of Law at Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College:

Much of what is currently taught in logic classes is entirely too cumbersome for analysis. However, there are certain techniques, namely deduction, induction and analogy, and the avoidance of informal fallacies, that can easily be taught to first-year students, that do have a direct bearing on the legal reasoning process, and that can definitely improve the quality of reasoning and critical thinking skills exhibited by students and lawyers alike.

Landau, supra note 100, at 60.

Judge Aldisert expressed similar unease at possibly offending logicians and mathematicians. Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2. But it is, perhaps, the greatest approbation to demonstrate Logic’s utility even in such a highly diluted form.

“Deductive reasoning is a mental operation that a student, lawyer or judge must employ every working day.” Aldisert, supra note 16, at 45.

See, e.g. , id. at 48—49.

There are three basic types of syllogisms:

Conditional Syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B). Categorical Syllogism: If A is in C (and B is in A) then B is in C. Disjunctive Syllogism: If A is true, then B must be false (A or B).

See id . at 145.

This is true, of course, only if the syllogism is valid.

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 4.

See generally Aldisert, supra note 16.

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 6.

For beginners, it may be easier to remember that the major term represents the broad or universal class, the middle term represents a portion of that class, and the minor term represents the narrowest or most specific component.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 57—58.

The informal or practical logic envisioned in this article does not necessarily require students to understand these patterns or, for that matter, to create exclusively valid syllogisms. Rather, it is the process of forcing ideas into a syllogism—whether revealing an objective “truth” or not—that is likely to improve students’ critical-thinking skills. A secondary effect of this approach may be that some students become interested in more formal logic and pursue it further.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 237.

“[Formal logic] structure allows legal thinkers to comparatively analyze legal argument, by comparing and contrasting it to necessarily valid or invalid logical structures, and reach conclusive logical decisions about the validity or invalidity of the form of the argument.” Stephen M. Rice, Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool , 14 Barry L. Rev . 1, 13 (2010).

Andrew Jay McClurg, Logical Fallacies and the Supreme Court: A Critical Examination of Justice Rehnquist’s Decisions in Criminal Procedure Cases , 59 U . Colo. L. Rev . 741, 774 (1988).

Rice, supra note 120, at 9.

132 So. 3d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).

Id. at 245.

Id. at 247 (quoting Clark v. State, 95 So. 3d 986, 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)).

Id. at 247 n. 16.

Naturally, it is possible that, in this particular judgment on this particular issue, Judge Wetherell was not reasonable. Nonetheless, his use of conditional syllogism to compare the facts (judges disagreed about the ruling) to the legal standard (no abuse of discretion if reasonable judges could disagree) was effective, in theory.

Id . at 12.

See Aldisert , supra note 16, at 48.

Kent Sinclair Jr., Comment, Legal Reasoning: In Search of an Adequate Theory of Argument , 59 Calif. L. Rev. 821, 827 (1971), http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol59/iss3/13 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 13.

Anita Schnee, Legal Reasoning "Obviously ," 3 Legal Writing 105, 112 (1997), http://www.legalwritingjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/volume3.pdf (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 92—93.

Carlo Rovelli, Science is not Certainty , NEW REPUBLIC (July 11, 2014), https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty (“Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain.”) (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Mary Massaron Ross, A Basis for Legal Reasoning: Logic on Appeal , 3 J. Ass’n Legal Writing Directors 179, 182 (2006).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 50, 92.

Kansas v. Colorado , 206 U.S. 46, 97 (1907).

111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916); see Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

MacPherson , 111 N.E. at 1051.

Id . at 1055 (commenting that “defendant was not absolved from a duty of inspection” because it bought the wheels from a third party manufacturer); Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

Id. at 1055 (Bartlett, J., dissenting) (opining that the majority’s opinion extended vendor liability further than any case the court previously approved).

Id. at 1051—53 (majority opinion); Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 100—01.

MacPherson , 111 N.E. at 1055.

Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

See Aldisert , supra note 16, at 91 (“Inductive generalization is used in all aspects of the legal profession – in studying law, in practicing law and in judging cases. Thus, it looms large in the common-law tradition in the development of legal precepts in the case by case experience.”).

Ross, supra note 140, at 185 (“Typically, deductive reasoning proceeds from a general proposition to a conclusion that is either a particular proposition or another general proposition.”).

Kristen K. Robbins, Paradigm Lost: Recapturing Classical Rhetoric to Validate Legal Reasoning , 27 Vt. L. Rev . 483, 532 (2003).

Bruce Weinstein, How Trump and Friends Could Learn a Few Things From Mr. Spock , Fortune Magazine Online (March 8, 2016), http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/fallacious-arguments-logic-trump/ (discussing fallacies in recent presidential campaign speeches).

Consider some pop-culture examples of blatant fallacy: Advertisements in the “Four out of five dentists approve” variety (demonstrating appeal to authority fallacy); talking head debates over whether ISIS militants are or are not “genuine Muslims” (no true Scotsman fallacy); political candidates stating their opponents are in the pocket of special interests, hate the middle class, are socialist, are racist, etc. (ad hominem argument); arguments against the theory of evolution using a picture of a chimpanzee and asking, “Is this really your ancestor?” (straw-man fallacy).

Indeed, use of fallacy is so prevalent that television and commercial writers have found it a ripe target for satire: A Simpsons episode where Homer concludes that a rock is capable of repelling tigers because, while the rock was present, no tigers were about ( post hoc fallacy), Simpson- I want to buy your rock , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3U6IUMTDHY (last visited Sept. 28, 2017); a Direct TV commercial suggesting, “Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch: Get rid of cable” (slippery slope fallacy).

Rice, supra note 100, at 79—80.

Id . at 82.

Id. at 82—83.

Ross, supra note 140, at 189 (“Formal fallacies are based on a mistake in the form or logic of the argument.”).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 141.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 143.

Cory S. Clements, Perception and Persuasion in Legal Argumentation: Using Informal Fallacies and Cognitive Biases to Win the War of Words , 2013 BYU L. Rev . 319, 332 (2013).

LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS: THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION OF OVER 300 LOGICAL FALLACIES , https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies (last visited Sept. 28, 2017).

Michael Sean Quinn, “Scholarly Ethics”: A Response , 46 J. Legal Educ. 110, 112 (1996).

375 Fed. App’x 154, 157 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

375 F. App’x at 156 n.2.

Scheck v. Burger King Corp ., 798 F. Supp. 692, 698 n10 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 208.

Id. at 193.

Id . at 195.

807 F. Supp. 1376 (C.D. Ill. 1992).

Id . at 1391.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 199.

Eugene Volokh, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope , 116 Harv. L. Rev . 1026, 1102 (2003)

See State v. Brown , 305 P.3d 48 (Kan. App. 2013).

See generally Neal R. Feigenson, The Rhetoric of Torts: How Advocates Help Jurors Think About Causation, Reasonableness, and Responsibility , 47 Hastings L.J. 61, 165 n 154 (1995).

Gabriel H. Teninbaum, Reductio Ad Hitlerum: Trumping the Judicial Nazi Card , 2009 Mich. St. L. Rev. 541, 554 (2009)

Weinstein, supra note 155.

Doing so would be “like asking them to design a rocket without teaching them the rules of physics.” Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2.

Id . at 6. Judge Aldisert describes the prosecutor’s syllogism as a useful template for most legal problems:

Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law] Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something] Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law].

A basic categorical syllogism.

A modus tollens conditional syllogism.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 195.

“The more times a network is stimulated, the stronger and more efficient it becomes.” Bernard J. Luskin, “If I Had a Better Brain!” Brain Health, Plasticity, Media, and Learning Can be a Perfect Storm , Psychology Today (Aug. 20, 2013), https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-psychology-effect/201308/if-i-had-better-brain (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

See Michael Hunter Schwartz, Teaching Law by Design: How Learning Theory and Instructional Design Can Inform and Reform Law Teaching , 38 San Diego L. Rev . 347, 360 (2001) (law schools’ emphasis on scholarship and publication, the criteria by which law schools measure professors’ performance for tenure purposes, discourages teaching innovation); Samantha A. Moppett, Control-Alt-Incomplete? Using Technology to Assess “Digital Natives” , 12 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop . 77, 86 (2013) (law professors fear change because of concern about academic freedom, resistance to changing status quo, and hesitation over increasing workload).

The Case Law method, introduced by Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard Law School in 1870, has been commonly labeled the “Socratic Method.” This is, somewhat, a misnomer. Ruta K. Stropus, Mend It, Bend It, and Extend It: The Fate of Traditional Law School Methodology in the 21st Century , 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 449, 453 (1996) (“Unlike Socrates, who focused purely on the questioning process, Langdell sought to combine both the substance of the law and the process of the law into the legal classroom.”) Despite this technical difference, I refer to the typical law-school instructional method as “Socratic.”

See, e.g., William M. Sullivan et al., educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 56—60, 75—78 (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Preparation for the Professions Program, 2007); A.B.A. Section of Legal Educ. & Admissions to the Bar , Legal Education and Professional Development–an Educational Continuum, Report of The Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap 233—36 (1992) [MacCrate Report].

Tiscione, supra note 4, at 399—400

Niedwiecki, supra note 89, at 168.

Id. at 169.

See generally Jennifer L. Rosato, The Socratic Method and Women Law Students: Humanize, Don’t Feminize , 7 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 37 (1997) (discussing students’ humiliation as an integral part of the Socratic Method).

Timothy R. Zinnecker, Syllogisms, Enthymemes and Fallacies: Mastering Secured Transactions Through Deductive Reasoning , 56 Wayne L. Rev. 1581, 1589 (2010) (quoting James M. Boland, Legal Writing Programs and Professionalism: Legal Writing Professors Can Join the Academic Club , 18 St. Thomas L. Rev. 711, 726 (2006)).

State v. Smith , 969 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).

Id. at 454.

I am indebted to my colleague, Professor Brendan Beery, for this pragmatic and tested approach for using conditional syllogisms to promote what he terms “right thinking.” Professor Beery conducts voluntary logic workshops that not only teach the syllogistic process using functional terminology, but which enhance students’ ability to express their reasoning on exams.

See generally Kevin H. Smith, Practical Jurisprudence: Deconstructing and Synthesizing the Art and Science of Thinking Like a Lawyer , 29 U. Mem. L. Rev . 1, 49 (1998).

Carol McCrehan Parker, Writing Throughout the Curriculum: Why Law Schools Need It and How to Achieve It , 76 Neb. L. Rev . 561, 571 (1997).

Viator, supra note 1, at 742.

David S. Romantz, The Truth About Cats and Dogs: Legal Writing Courses and the Law School Curriculum , 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 105, 139 (2003).

Schnee, supra note 137, at 106.

Laura P. Graham, Why-Rac? Revisiting the Traditional Paradigm for Writing About Legal Analysis , 63 U. Kan. L. Rev. 681, 688 (2015) (citing Kristin Konrad Robbins-Tiscione, Rhetoric for Legal Writers: The Theory and Practice of Analysis and Persuasion 111—13 (2009)).

See generally Jane Kent Gionfriddo, Thinking Like A Lawyer: The Heuristics of Case Synthesis , 40 Tex. Tech L. Rev . 1 (2007).

But see Terrill Pollman, Building A Tower of Babel or Building A Discipline? Talking About Legal Writing , 85 Marq. L. Rev. 887, 924–25 (2002) (discussing the need for consistent legal-writing terminology, or “jargon,” to effectively communicate about writing and about the substance of the academic discipline of legal writing).

Some writing texts already approach legal analysis using logic terminology. See generally Deborah A. Schmedemann & Christina L. Kunz , Synthesis: Legal Reading, Reasoning, and Writing (3d ed. 2007); Teresa J. Reid Rambo & Leanne J. Pflaum, Legal Writing by Design (2d ed. 2013).

See Laurel Currie Oates & Anne Enquist , Just Memos (3d ed. 2011).

Predictive writing is nearly always taught before persuasive writing. Kathy Stanchi, Teaching Students to Present Law Persuasively Using Techniques From Psychology , 19 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Res. & Writing 142, 142 (2011).

See, e.g ., Dan Hunter, Teaching and Using Analogy in Law , 2 J. Ass’n. Legal Writing Directors 151, 151 (2004).

Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning , 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741, 745 (1993).

Ross, supra note 140, at 180.

Fla. Stat. § 877.03 (2016).

C.L.B. v. State , 689 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Wiltzer v. State, 756 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

W.M. v. State, 491 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Fields v. State, 24 So. 3d 646, 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).

See Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 12.

“If the analysis is based on a complete set, then the conclusion will be strong. But if a complete set is not used for the analysis, the conclusion may be weak. The advocate must test the strength of the conclusion by examining the sample’s size and its representativeness.” Ross, supra note 140, at 181.

Dan Hunter, Reason Is Too Large: Analogy and Precedent in Law , 50 Emory L.J. 1197, 1246 (2001).

In reality, Fla. Stat. § 877.03 provides one concrete example of disorderly conduct: “brawling or fighting.” However, in a “closed universe” memo, that part of the statute can be left out for pedagogical purposes.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 93.

Jessie Ball duPont Library

Critical thinking skills, what is deductive reasoning.

Logical Fallacies
Need Research Help?

Research Librarian

Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive:

If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9

In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equation above, complete with its own operators and syntax. But a deductive syllogism (think of it as a plain-English version of a math equality) can be expressed in ordinary language:

If entropy (disorder) in a system will increase unless energy is expended, And if my living room is a system, Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it.

In the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or premises , lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion . Here is another example:

A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients. Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than sixty-five new therapies. Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded.

A conclusion is sound (true) or unsound (false), depending on the truth of the original premises (for any premise may be true or false). At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, the deductive inference itself (the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion) is either valid or invalid . The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:

There is no such thing as drought in the West. California is in the West. California need never make plans to deal with a drought.

In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West , is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very logical–it is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it ( California need never make plans to deal with a drought ) probably would fail to serve the public interest.

Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge (it is nonampliative ) because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies - statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.

<< Previous: Home
Next: Induction >>
Last Updated: Jul 28, 2020 5:53 PM
URL: https://library.sewanee.edu/critical_thinking

Research Tools

Find Articles
Find Research Guides
Find Databases
Ask a Librarian
Learn Research Skills
How-To Videos
Borrow from Another Library (Sewanee ILL)
Find Audio and Video
Find Reserves
Access Electronic Resources

Services for...

College Students
The School of Theology
The School of Letters
Community Members

Spaces & Places

Center for Leadership
Center for Speaking and Listening
Center for Teaching
Floor Maps & Locations
Ralston Listening Library
Research Help
Study Spaces
Tech Help Desk
Writing Center

About the Library

Where is the Library?
Library Collections
New Items & Themed Collections
Library Policies
Library Staff
Friends of the Library

Jessie Ball duPont Library, University of the South

178 Georgia Avenue, Sewanee, TN 37383

931.598.1664

Middle Way Society

An ethical approach to a better life, by integrating desires and avoiding dogmatic extremes, critical thinking 2: induction and deduction.

There was a great response to my first post in this series, so thanks to everyone who contributed to that. For my second one I’ve decided to tackle an issue that’s quite crucial to how Critical Thinking relates to the Middle Way.

There are two types of argument, normally known as induction and deduction. Deductive argument is what is classically formulated as argument and abstracted into logic. Deductive argument begins with assumed claims known as premises, and draws a conclusion from those premises. Within the terms of interpretation and the beliefs it assumes, the logical link between the premises and conclusion in deductive argument is absolute. If the premises are correct, then the conclusion must be correct if the reasoning is valid (i.e. follows the laws of logic).

For example:

All engineers are human beings.

So John must be a human being.

This valid argument must be correct if John is indeed an engineer, and if indeed all engineers are human beings. But I might have false information about John, and robotic engineers may be under development right now in Japanese laboratories. My assumptions may be false, but if they happen to be true then the conclusion must also be true.

That’s what we’re traditionally told about deductive argument. However, if you take into account embodied meaning, then we are all also going to have slightly different meanings for ‘John’, ‘engineer’, ‘human being’ etc. experienced in different bodies. It’s only if we further assume that these meanings are sufficiently shared and stable that a deductive argument can be ‘valid’ in this way.

The other type of argument, however, is far more common and far more useful. Inductive argument is imperfect argument that begins with limited information and draws further conclusions from it. Sometimes such reasoning can sometimes be grossly over-stated and prejudiced. For example:

My neighbour was burgled by a man from Norfolk.

Norfolk people are all criminals.

This is a crude example of prejudiced reasoning. It takes just one example and draws a conclusion about a whole class of people that are extremely varied. It’s obviously not taking into account all the reasons why it might be wrong.

However, inductive reasoning is what we rely upon constantly. If we take into account its limitations it can be a justified way of reasoning. For example:

Tom has failed to fulfil his promises to his mother on ten successive occasions within a month.

His mother should not place any further reliance on Tom’s promises.

It’s still possible that Tom is trustworthy, and has just had ten unfortunate sets of events that stopped him fulfilling his promises, or that he was at fault in the past but has now completely reformed. However, it’s unlikely. We are usually obliged to trust the weight of our experience in cases like this. We could have confidence in the conclusion here as long as we also took into account the possibility that we could be wrong.

So, my argument here is that deductive argument, though perfect in theory, is not really different from inductive in the way we should treat it in practice. Deductive logic, though it may be perfect in the abstract, is in practice dependent both on the assumptions made and on the interpretation of the words of the argument to be applied in our lives. In practice, then deductive reasoning is just as fallible as inductive. If we use inductive reasoning with awareness of its limitations, though, it can provide us with justified beliefs. This kind of reasoning is justified because of its fallibility, not in spite of it.

How well justified are the following (inductive or deductive) arguments?

1. The no. 37 bus that I take to work has been more than ten minutes late on three successive days. This is an unacceptable standard of punctuality, and it has made me late for work. I shall write to the bus company to complain.

2. If the UK economy continues to grow at the rate it managed during the last quarter of 2013 (a rate unmatched since the crash of 2008) then we can conclude that economic recovery is well under way.

3. Romanians in the UK are arrested at seven times the rate of Britons ( Daily Mail ), so if more Romanians come to the UK we can expect an increase in crime.

4. If God exists and God is good, he would not allow people to suffer without making the truth available to them. So he must have sent divinely-inspired prophets to guide people.

5. I’ve been practising this difficult piano piece for two months now, but I seem to be making no progress. I keep making the same mistakes. I should give up this piece and learn something else.

Picture: Engineer at work by Angelsman (Wikimedia Commons)

5 thoughts on “ Critical Thinking 2: Induction and deduction ”

I have made an attempt to answer the questions. 1. An inductive argument, not well justified. 2. Also inductive reasoning, probably justified. 3. Deductive logic (an absolute claim) not well justified. No matter what theorythe Daily Mail supports 4. Also deductive and not well jusified. 5. Inductive argument which is not well jsutified, hard peices take longer to learn. I’ll post this now, but will have another think about my answers.

I’m going to rate the justification of each argument from 0 (not justified at all) to 10 (as justifiable as is possible).

1. Rate = 4. This seems fairly justified, but three times in a row does not seem excessive and might not indicate a systemic problem with the bus company. It is quite probable that three separate and unavoidable random events took place, causing the bus to be late each time.

2. Rate = 6. I found this difficult. The argument only states that the economy continues to grow, but not for how long. It also says that the recovery is well under way, rather than just under way. Either way, since it has not grown as much since 2008, if it continues to then it is reasonable to claim that a recovery is well under way.

3. Rate = 4. This one is challenging. It does not take into account the possibility of discrimination by the police, or the fact that Romanians might not be as good as evading arrest. However, I can understand how – presented as it is – this conclusion can be reached.

4. Rate = 1. This one scores low because the conclusion seems quite wild – it assumes that revelation of the truth can only be achieved by God, via prophets.

5. Rate = 3. It would be reasonable to wish to give up but making the same mistake for two months does not mean that you will continue to make this mistake, and the best way to enable oneself to overcome this difficulty is to practice.

🙁 I feel a bit upset that I have given my highest score to the daily mail example, but I suppose this is an emotional, rather than logical response.

Hi Robert, 1. Using Rich’s 1-10 ratings I would say this is fairly justified: Rating 6 out of 10. There are arguably more mitigating circumstance for a bus to be late than say a train, such as heavy early morning traffic, passengers searching for change while paying etc. One should also take into account to what degree the bus service guarantees punctuality. However, given the fact that the person uses the present simple tense to express habitual action (the bus I take to work), I feel one can make the reasonable assumption that the person normally relies on this service rather than other forms of transport to get them to work on time and that reliability has to be backed up by a certain degree of confidence (presumably base on experience) in the punctuality of the service, otherwise they would choose another mode of transport. My degree of justification in this example has also been influenced by the fairly punctual timetable that buses operate to in my neck of the woods.

2. I found this a difficult one as I don’t have a good grasp of economics and to what degree of confidence one can have in an upward economic trend continuing and for what period. You’ve mentioned that Nicholas Taleb in his book “Antifragile” suggests that , economists and market analysts often put far too much faith in their economic predictions that don’t take sufficient account of the complexity of market forces and other unpredictable influencing factors . Also, why should it be a given that the UK will remain one of the top world economies, especially if you take into account the rise of economies such as India, Brazil, Russia etc. So I think I’ll giving this a rating of 4.

3. At first glance this argument appears strong in a deductive sense. However, one would need to question what these Romanians were arrested for eg. maybe for being illegal immigrants? – which now would be no longer the case, given the new EU Law. Also, what size of control group did they use, 7 people out of 10, or 70,000 out of 100,000 and where did they take that control group from and what deciding factors did they use? Arguably, in any argument as well, one needs to take into account to some extent not just what is being judged, but also the judger. Does the Daily Mail place great importance in providing their readers with a balanced view when putting forward an argument? Would the Daily Mail possibly have a vested interest in wanting their readers to feel that 70% of Romanians living this country are criminals? Is this me employing an Ad Hominim argument though? Rating 2 out of 10

4. Another example of a seductive deductive argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. However, I think what’s important is how well the premises stand up. It’s a bit like saying, If all polar bears could play the piano, and were classically trained then at some stage in the training they would most likely learn “Fur Elise” by Beethoven. I think I can say with a strong degree of justification that there is no way of knowing whether God exists or not (given that concept is not subject to experience), so any hypothesizing about it is arguably irrelevant (unless one is playing safe of course). Rating 0 out of 10

5. I feel this is fairly well justified and give it a rating of 7 out of 10. Admittedly, the piano player could conceivably be giving up too early as Norma and Rich point out . However, given the fact that they are attempting a difficult piece (‘difficult’ is also relative of course), one could make the reasonable assumption that they are fairly proficient and would not have reached that degree of proficiency without plenty of practice and some experience of when to accept that some pieces at their stage of learning are too challenging (and therefore potentially demotivating) for them. I feel it is quite reasonable to assume that they have reached that point here and are making a pragmatic decision to move on.

‘I feel a bit upset that I have given my highest score to the daily mail example, but I suppose this is an emotional, rather than logical response’

Interestingly, this is a false statement. I believed it at the time of writing my last post (above), but having read my answer again I can see that I gave a rating of 6 to the economy argument and only 4 to the daily mail argument. It is amazing how quickly a false memory can occur. Giving a 4 to the daily mail argument was enough to disturb me into this error!!

Whether the arguments are inductive or deductive is rather less open to argument here than how well justified they are! Part of the point of the exercise, though, is to think about the different ways that inductive and deductive arguments are justified. These are my answers:

1. This is an inductive argument, generalising from three occasions. If you compare it with generalisation from three examples elsewhere, it becomes clearer how weak this is. For example, if I went to a business conference and met three Russian businessmen, and concluded from this experience that all Russians were businessmen. I think this argument is weaker than Rich or Barry are recognising.

2. This is a deductive argument. It is entirely hypothetical, stating that *if* one thing is the case then the other must be. The two things are “the economy continues to grow at the same rate it managed in the last quarter of 2013” and “economic recovery is well under way”. This seems to me obviously the case. No assumptions are being made about whether the recovery will continue – the hypothetical event is just being re-described. This can be seen as a valid deductive argument, regardless of whether you know anything about economics, and regardless of whether you agree with the hypothesis.

3. You could interpret this either inductively or deductively. Inductively, it would be arguing from a higher rate of arrests amongst Romanians already in the UK to an overall increase in crime if further Romanians arrive in future. If you take it this way it is weak, because the new Romanians might be quite different from the current Romanians. The rate of arrests amongst current Romanians compared to the rest of the population also tells you nothing about how many arrests have been made (there might be a very small number), so even if it was true (as no doubt many Daily Mail readers assume) that Romanians in general are 7 times more inclined to criminality than average, the impact on crime rates in general might still be negligible because the number of Romanians is very small when compared to the numbers in the general population.

If you take this as a deductive argument, it’s even worse. It certainly doesn’t follow from the arrest rates of current Romanians that there will necessarily be an increase in crime of future Romanians.

4. This is a deductive argument that seems entirely valid. As Barry points out, however, it’s only of any relevance if you accept the assumptions it begins with.

5. This is inductive. I was interested in the variety of responses this got, as this is a real dilemma that I have encountered as an amateur pianist! How strong it is depends on other assumptions, I think, such as how much you really want to learn the piece, particularly when compared to others that you could more realistically learn. In general (on the basis of individual experience) I’m inclined to agree with Barry that it’s quite a strong argument (though not overwhelmingly so). If I’ve made little progress with a piece in two months then I may be ‘flogging a dead horse’ to continue.

10 Deductive Skills and How To Improve Them

Discover 10 Deductive skills along with some of the best tips to help you improve these abilities.

Deductive reasoning is a process of logical reasoning that allows us to make conclusions based on given information. This type of reasoning is often used in mathematics, science and philosophy. In this guide, we’ll discuss what deductive reasoning is, how it works and how you can improve your deductive reasoning skills.

Inductive Reasoning

Formal logic, mathematical reasoning, pattern recognition, problem solving, critical thinking, data analysis.

Inductive reasoning is the ability to make generalizations based on specific observations. For example, if you see a red apple and a green apple, you might conclude that all apples are red or green. This is an example of inductive reasoning because you’re drawing a conclusion from specific observations.

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the ability to make specific observations based on generalizations. For example, if you know that all apples are red or green, you might be able to conclude that the apple you’re looking at is red. This is an example of deductive reasoning because you’re drawing a conclusion from generalizations.

Formal logic is a system of reasoning that is used to prove or disprove statements. It is used in mathematics, philosophy, and computer science, as well as in legal and scientific arguments. Formal logic is often used to prove the validity of arguments, or to show that an argument is invalid.

Formal logic is a form of deductive reasoning, which means that it starts with a set of premises (or assumptions) and uses them to draw a conclusion. For an argument to be valid, the premises must necessarily lead to the conclusion. For an argument to be invalid, the premises may or may not lead to the conclusion, but there is at least one premise that is false.

Mathematical reasoning is the ability to understand and use mathematical concepts and principles to solve problems. This includes being able to identify and use relevant information, make valid deductions and draw conclusions.

Mathematical reasoning is a key skill in many professions, including engineering, finance, economics and statistics. In these fields, being able to reason mathematically can help you solve complex problems and make better decisions. Additionally, mathematical reasoning can be used to explain your work to others and to justify your conclusions.

Pattern recognition is the ability to see a pattern in a set of data and use that pattern to make predictions or draw conclusions. This skill is important for data analysis and can help you make better decisions. For example, if you’re a retail store manager, you might be able to see a pattern in sales data that indicates a change in the season. Or, if you’re a doctor, you might be able to see a pattern in patient data that indicates a potential problem.

To be good at pattern recognition, you need to be able to see relationships in data and understand how those relationships might change over time. You also need to be able to see the big picture and understand how the patterns you see fit into the overall picture.

Problem solving is a process of identifying and solving a problem. The problem solving process can be broken down into five steps:

1. Identify the problem

2. Gather information

3. Identify possible solutions

4. Evaluate solutions

5. Implement the solution

Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that starts with a general principle or hypothesis and moves to a specific conclusion. Problem solving is a form of deductive reasoning because it starts with a general problem and moves to a specific solution.

Critical thinking is the ability to examine ideas or arguments and evaluate them in a rational way. It’s a way of thinking that is objective, open-minded and fair. When we think critically, we consider all sides of an issue and look at the evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Critical thinking is important for a variety of reasons. It can help us to make better decisions, avoid mistakes, improve our problem-solving skills and understand complex concepts. When we are able to think critically, we are more likely to be successful in our personal and professional lives.

Data analysis is the process of examining and interpreting data in order to draw conclusions. Data analysis is a critical step in the research process and is used to answer research questions, test hypotheses and make decisions. Data analysis can be used to describe, explain, predict and control phenomena.

Data analysis requires the ability to critically evaluate data, identify patterns and trends, and make informed decisions. Data analysis is a deductive process, which means that it starts with a specific question or hypothesis and uses the data to either support or reject the hypothesis.

Research is an important skill for anyone who wants to be able to draw conclusions or make arguments based on evidence. When you do research, you are looking for information that supports your argument or conclusion. This information can be found in books, articles, statistics, or other sources. When you do research, you need to be able to find the best evidence to support your argument.

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from given premises or hypotheses. The premises or hypotheses are considered to be true, and the conclusion is considered to be true if it can be logically deduced from the premises or hypotheses. For example, if all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human, then Socrates is mortal.

Explain why Writing is an important Inductive skill. Writing is an important skill for anyone who wants to be able to communicate their ideas and thoughts to others. When you write, you are able to organize your thoughts and ideas in a way that is clear and concise. This can be helpful when you are trying to explain something to someone else or when you are trying to solve a problem.

Inductive reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from observations or facts. The observations or facts are considered to be true, and

Synthesis is the ability to put together different pieces of information to form a new understanding or idea. It’s a key part of the deductive reasoning process, where we start with a general idea and then use specific examples to support it. For example, if we want to argue that all dogs are animals, we might start with the general idea that “all animals are living things” and then use specific examples like “dogs, cats, birds, fish” to support our argument.

Synthesis is a important skill for both academic and non-academic purposes. In the classroom, synthesis is often used to help students understand new concepts. For example, a teacher might give a lecture on a new topic and then ask the students to summarize what they learned. Outside of the classroom, synthesis can be used to solve problems, make decisions and come up with new ideas.

Evaluation is the process of making judgments about the merits of something. It’s a critical thinking skill that allows us to compare and contrast different things in order to make a judgment about which is better or worse. Evaluation is important in many different contexts, from making decisions about what to buy to making judgments about the quality of a piece of work.

When we evaluate something, we’re usually making a judgment about its quality. We might be judging the quality of a piece of work, the merits of a argument or the value of a product. Evaluation requires us to make judgments based on our own personal standards and preferences. We all have different standards and preferences, which is why it’s important to be able to explain and justify our judgments.

How to Improve Your Deductive Skills

1. Take an online course If you want to improve your deductive reasoning skills, one of the best things you can do is take an online course. This will give you the opportunity to learn from experts and to practice what you’re learning in a structured environment.

2. Do some research If you want to get better at deductive reasoning, it’s important to do some research and learn as much as you can about the topic. Read articles, watch videos and look for resources that can help you improve your skills.

3. Practice, practice, practice As with anything, the best way to get better at deductive reasoning is to practice. Whenever you can, try to work on your deductive reasoning skills. Solve puzzles, play games and do anything else you can to give yourself opportunities to practice.

4. Get feedback It can also be helpful to get feedback on your deductive reasoning skills. Ask a friend or family member to give you some feedback on your progress. This can help you identify areas where you need to improve.

5. Take a class If you want to get serious about improving your deductive reasoning skills, you might want to consider taking a class. This will give you the opportunity to learn from experts and to get feedback on your progress.

10 Creative Writing Skills and How To Improve Them

10 ethical skills and how to improve them, you may also be interested in..., what does an attendance clerk do, what does a junior trader do, what does a publix customer service do, what does a public area attendant do.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6: Persuasive Appeals

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 100030

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Rhetorical Analysis and the Rhetorical Triangle

A rhetorical analysis refers to the process of analyzing a text, source, or artifact. It may be in written form (like your sources) or some other form of communication like a speech. The goal of a rhetorical analysis is to take into consideration the purpose, audience, and the occasion (or the context in which the text will be written or read).

The term rhetoric is often connected to argument or criticism, and often carries a negative connotation (e.g., "The political rhetoric is so divisive." ). But rhetoric is really a neutral term. It’s the effort to use rhetorical appeals to influence an audience and achieve a certain set of purposes and outcomes.

The principles Aristotle laid out in his Rhetoric nearly 2,500 years ago still form the foundation of much of our contemporary practice of argument. Aristotle argued that rhetoric was present in every situation. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Everything's an argument"? - This refers to Aristotle's definition of rhetoric, which he defined as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion" (Aristotle). The rhetorical situation Aristotle argued was present in any piece of communication is often illustrated with a triangle to suggest the interdependent relationships among its three elements:

Ethos or the voice of the speaker or writer and how they establish their credibility
Pathos or the audience and the emotional connection that's established with the intended listeners or readers
Logos or the message and how logically it is conveyed

If each corner of the triangle is represented by one of the three elements of the rhetorical situation, then each side of the triangle depicts a particular relationship between two elements:

Tone - The connection established between the speaker and the audience.
Attitude - The orientation of the speaker toward the message; the purpose of the message
Reception - The manner in which the audience receives the message conveyed

Rhetorical Appeals

In this section, we’ll focus on how the rhetorical triangle can be used in service of argumentation, especially through the balanced use of ethical, logical, and emotional appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos, respectively. In the rhetorical triangle, you’ll note that each appeal has been placed next to the corner of the triangle with which it is most closely associated:

Ethos - Appeals to the audience's ethics. Ethos relies on the credibility, reputation, and trustworthiness of the speaker or writer (most closely associated with the voice).
Logos - Appeals to the audience's logic. Logos relies on reason, logic, and facts in the argument (most closely associated with the message).
Pathos - Appeals to emotion. Pathos relies on stirring the emotions (sympathy, anger, pride, etc.) of the listeners or readers (most closely associated with the audience).

Each of these appeals relies on a certain type of evidence: logical, emotional, or ethical. Based on your audience and purpose, you have to decide what combination of techniques will work best as you present your case. Some of the best arguments use a combination of all three.

The Appeal to Ethics (Ethos)

Ethos is an appeal to the audiences' ethics and relies on the credibility of the author. When reading a source, you should ask yourself, "Why should I trust you?" In other words, "How has the author established their credibility?" The same holds true when you are writing. You want to establish reasons for your audience to trust you.

For example, a college professor who places a college logo on a website gains some immediate credibility from being associated with the college. An advertisement for tennis shoes using a well-known athlete gains some credibility. You might create an ethical appeal in an essay on solving a campus problem by noting that you are serving in student government.

Three of the best ways to demonstrate ethos are:

By personal experience: Although your lived experience might not set hard and-fast rules about the world, it is worth noting that you may be an expert on certain facets of your life. For instance, a student who has played rugby for fifteen years of their life is in many ways an authority on the sport.
By education or other certifications: Professional achievements demonstrate ethos by revealing status in a certain field or discipline.
By citing other experts: The common expression is “Stand on the shoulders of giants.” This is actually the tag line of Google Scholar . You can develop ethos by pointing to other people with authority and saying, “Look, this smart/experienced/qualified/important person agrees with me.”

As a student, you might not have enough experience to persuade your audience that you're an expert. In these cases, you can establish your credibility by using reliable sources and acknowledging those who've helped you learn more about the topic (citing your sources). The appeal to ethics can add an important component to your argument, but keep in mind that ethos is only as strong as the credibility of the association being made. In other words, if you're not citing very good sources, then you're harming your ethical appeal to the audience.

The Appeal to Logic (Logos)

Logos refers to an appeal to the audience's logical reasoning. Logos will often employ statistics, data, or other quantitative facts to demonstrate the validity of an argument. For example, in an essay proposing that participating in high school athletics helps students develop into more successful students, you could show graphs comparing the grades of athletes and non-athletes, as well as high school graduation rates and post–high school education enrollment. These statistics would support your points in a logical way and would probably work well with a school board that is considering cutting a sports program.

Keep in mind that stating a fact or a statistics does not alone constitute logos.You need to make sure your interpretation of the logic is sound. If it's not, it's described as a logical fallacy. We'll explore this further in the next page of reading.

The Appeal to Emotions (Pathos)

The goal of an emotional appeal is to garner sympathy, develop anger, instill pride, inspire happiness, or trigger other emotions. When authors choose this method, their goal is for the audience to react emotionally regardless of what they might think logically.

There are two especially effective techniques for cultivating pathos:

Make the audience aware of the issue’s relevance to them specifically. “How would you feel if this happened to you? What are we to do about this issue?”
About 1.5 million pets are euthanized each year
Scooter, an energetic and loving former service dog with curly brown hair like a Brillo pad, was put down yesterday.
Both are impactful, but the latter is more memorable and more specific.

Unfortunately, emotional appeals are also often used unethically to sway opinions without solid reasoning.

Whether your argument relies primarily on ethos, logos, pathos, or a combination of these appeals, plan to make your case with your entire arsenal of facts, statistics, examples, anecdotes, illustrations, figurative language, quotations, expert opinions, discountable opposing views, and common ground with the audience. Carefully choosing these supporting details will control the tone of your writing as well as the success of your argument.

How to Use Rhetoric to Get What You Want

This video by Camille Langston from from TED-Ed gives you another quick overview of rhetorical appeals.

Tile that links to how to use rhetoric video.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

There are two basic approaches to how you believe something is true. These are called inductive and deductive reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning presents facts and then wraps them up with a general conclusion. For instance, you visit your local grocery store daily to pick up necessary items. You notice that on Friday, two weeks ago, all the clerks in the store were wearing football jerseys. Again, last Friday, the clerks wore their football jerseys. Today, also a Friday, they’re wearing them again. From just these observations, you can conclude that on all Fridays, these supermarket employees will wear football jerseys to support their local team. This type of pattern recognition, leading to a conclusion, is known as inductive reasoning.

The Power of Inductive Reasoning

You have been employing inductive reasoning for a very long time. Inductive reasoning is based on your ability to recognize meaningful patterns and connections. By taking into account both examples and your understanding of how the world works, induction allows you to conclude that something is likely to be true. By using induction, you move from specific data to a generalization that tries to capture what the data “mean.”

Imagine that you ate a dish of strawberries and soon afterward your lips swelled. Now imagine that a few weeks later you ate strawberries and soon afterwards your lips again became swollen. The following month, you ate yet another dish of strawberries, and you had the same reaction as formerly. You are aware that swollen lips can be a sign of an allergy to strawberries. Using induction, you conclude that, more likely than not, you are allergic to strawberries.

Data: After I ate strawberries, my lips swelled (1st time).
Data: After I ate strawberries, my lips swelled (2nd time).
Data: After I ate strawberries, my lips swelled (3rd time).
Additional Information: Swollen lips after eating strawberries may be a sign of an allergy.
Conclusion: Likely I am allergic to strawberries.

The results of inductive thinking can be skewed if relevant data are overlooked. In the previous example, inductive reasoning was used to conclude that you are likely allergic to strawberries after suffering multiple instances of lips swelling after eating them. Would you be as confident in your conclusion if you were eating strawberry shortcake on each of those occasions? Is it reasonable to assume that the allergic reaction might be due to another ingredient besides strawberries?

This example illustrates that inductive reasoning must be used with care. When evaluating an inductive argument, consider

the amount of the data,
the quality of the data,
the existence of additional data,
the relevance of necessary additional information, and
the existence of additional possible explanations.

Inductive reasoning can never lead to absolute certainty. Instead, induction allows you to say that, given the examples provided for support, the claim more likely than not is true. Because of the limitations of inductive reasoning, a conclusion will be more credible if multiple lines of reasoning are presented in its support.

Deductive Reasoning

Knowledge can also move the opposite direction. Deductive reasoning presents a generalization (think thesis statement), then provides supportive facts to back up that generalization.

Say that you read in the news about a tradition in a local grocery store, where employees wore football jerseys on Fridays to support the home team. This time, you’re starting from the overall rule, and you would expect individual evidence to support this rule. Each time you visited the store on a Friday, you would expect the employees to wear jerseys. Such a case, of starting with the overall statement and then identifying examples that support it, is known as deductive reasoning.

The Power of Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is built on two statements whose logical relationship should lead to a third statement that is an unquestionably correct conclusion. In other words, one fact plus one fact equal a third fact. Here's an example:

All raccoons are omnivores.
This animal is a raccoon.
This animal is an omnivore.

If the first statement is true (All raccoons are omnivores) and the second statement is true (This animal is a raccoon), then the conclusion (This animal is an omnivore) is unavoidable. If a group must have a certain quality, and an individual is a member of that group, then the individual must have that quality.

Going back to the very first example from the introduction, we could frame it this way:

Grocery store employees wear football jerseys on Fridays.
Today is Friday.
Grocery store employees will be wearing football jerseys today.

Unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning allows for certainty only as long as the evidence is a true fact.

What this means is that inductive reasoning can often be hidden inside a deductive argument. That is, a generalization reached through inductive reasoning can be turned around and used as a starting “truth” for a deductive argument. Here's an example:

Most Labrador retrievers are friendly.
Kimber is a Labrador retriever.
Therefore, Kimber is friendly.

In this case we cannot know for certain that Kimber is a friendly Labrador retriever. The structure of the argument may look logical, but it is based on observations and generalizations rather than indisputable facts.

One way to test the accuracy of a premise is to apply the same questions asked of inductive arguments. As a recap, you should consider:

the relevance of the additional data, and

Determine whether the starting claim is based upon a sample that is both representative and sufficiently large, and ask yourself whether all relevant factors have been taken into account in the analysis of data that leads to a generalization.

Here is a video that briefly explains the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

tile that links to difference between deductive and inductive reasoning video

Logical, Emotional, or Ethical Fallacies

Rhetorical appeals used in argumentation have power. They can be used to motivate or to manipulate. When they are used irresponsibly, they lead to fallacies, which are misleading statements and constructions used in argumentation.

Fallacies are, at best, unintentional reasoning errors, and at worst, they are deliberate attempts to deceive. Fallacies are commonly used in advertising and politics, but they are not acceptable in academic arguments and won't serve you well in the workplace either. The following are some examples of three kinds of fallacies that abuse the power of logical, emotional, or ethical appeals (logos, pathos, or ethos).

Do your best to avoid using these examples of fallacious reasoning, and be alert to their use by others so that you aren’t “tricked” into a line of unsound reasoning. Getting into the habit of reading academic, commercial, and political rhetoric carefully will enable you to see through manipulative, fallacious uses of verbal, written, and visual language. Being on guard for these fallacies will make you a more proficient college student, a smarter consumer, and a more careful voter, citizen, and member of your community.

Spotting Fallacies

It takes time and practice to be able to spot fallacies in arguments. This is a fun website you can use to help you think more critically and test your knowledge on spotting fallacies.

homepage of your logical fallacy is which links to the website

Rhetorical Theory of Reading

We got into critical reading last week. It's vital to use critical reading to understand a text and to spot rhetoric. You are constantly making meaning from texts. To understand this further, we're going to look at the rhetorical theory of reading.

The work that best describes and justifies the rhetorical reading theory is Douglas Brent’s 1992 book Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge, Persuasion, and the Teaching of Research-Based Writing . Brent’s ideas do a good job demystifying critical reading’s main claims.

Brent treats reading not only as a vehicle for transmitting information and knowledge, but also as a means of persuasion. To Brent, knowledge equals persuasion because, in his words, “Knowledge is not simply what one has been told. Knowledge is what one believes, what one accepts as being at least provisionally true.” (xi).

This short passage contains two assertions which are key to the understanding of what's happening when you are reading critically. Notice that simply reading “for the main point” will not necessarily make you “believe” what you read. Surely, such reading can fill our heads with information, but will that information become our knowledge in a true sense, will we be persuaded by it, or will we simply memorize it to pass the test and forget it as soon as we pass it?

All of us can probably recall many instances in which we read a lot to pass a test only to forget, with relief, what we read as soon as we left the classroom where that test was held. The purpose of reading and research, then, is not to get as much information out of a text as possible, but to change and update one’s system of beliefs on a given subject (Brent 55-57).

Brent further states:

The way we believe or disbelieve certain texts clearly varies from one individual to the next. If you present a text that is remotely controversial to a group of people, some will be convinced by it and some not, and those who are convinced will be convinced in different degrees. The task of a rhetoric of reading is to explain systematically how these differences arise— how people are persuaded differently by texts (18).

Critical and active readers not only accept the possibility that the same texts will have different meanings for different people, but welcome this possibility as an inherent and indispensable feature of strong, engaged, and enjoyable reading process. To answer his own questions about what factors contribute to different readers’ different interpretations of the same texts, Brent offers us the following principles that have been summarized from his book:

Readers are guided by personal beliefs, assumptions, and pre-existing knowledge when interpreting texts. This is called information bias and we'll be exploring it further later in the course.
Readers react differently to the logical proofs presented by the writers of texts.
Readers react differently to emotional and ethical proofs presented by writers. For example, an emotional story told by a writer may resonate with one person more than with another because the first person lived through a similar experience and the second one did not, and so on.

The idea behind the rhetorical theory of reading is that when we read, we not only take in ideas, information, and facts, but instead we “update our view of the world.” You cannot force someone to update their worldview, and therefore, the purpose of writing is persuasion and the purpose of reading is being persuaded. Persuasion is possible only when the reader is actively engaged with the text and understands that much more than simple retrieval of information is at stake when reading.

Applied to research, Brent’s theory of reading means the following:

The purpose of research is not simply to retrieve data, but to participate in a conversation about it. Simple summaries of sources is not research, and writers should be aiming for active interpretation of sources instead.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source. Writers make claims for personal reasons that critical readers need to learn to understand and evaluate.
Feelings can be a source of shareable good reason for belief. Readers and writers need to use, judiciously, ethical and pathetic proofs in interpreting texts and in creating their own.
Research is recursive. Critical readers and researchers never stop asking questions about their topic and never consider their research finished.

Original sources used to create content (also licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 unless otherwise noted):

Abrams, S. (2018). Argumentation. In EmpoWord: A student-centered anthology and handbook for college writers , (pp. 201-241). https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=pdxopen

Inductive and deductive reasoning. (n.d.). English composition I. Lumen Learning. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/engcomp1-wmopen/chapter/text-inductive-reasoning/

Khan Academy. (2010). Difference between inductive and deductive reasoning . https://youtu.be/GEId0GonOZM [NOT LICENSED UNDER CC - FREELY ACCESSIBLE ON YOUTUBE]

Langston, C.A. (2016) How to use rhetoric to get what you want [Video]. https://youtu.be/3klMM9BkW5o [NOTE LICENSED UNDER CC- FREELY ACCESSIBLE ON YOUTUBE AND TED-ED]

Recognizing the rhetorical situation. (2012). The writer's handbook, v.1. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/writers-handbook/s08-02-recognizing-the-rhetorical-sit.html NOTE: This title is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Richardson, J. , Smith, A., Meaden, S. (2019). Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ Note: authors do not specify CC license, but list Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical CC BY-NC

Zemilansky, P. (2016). Research writing and argument: All writing is an argument. J. Kepka (Ed.) In Oregon writes open writing text . https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/oregonwrites/

Aristotle. Rhetoric . http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

Brent, D. (1992). Reading as rhetorical invention: Knowledge, persuasion, and the teaching of research-based writing. National Council of Teachers of English.

PHI 105 - Critical Thinking

These skills can help you save your job

“I think, therefore I am” is one of the most profound statements by mathematician and philosopher Descartes. It speaks about finding truth in the midst of doubt and uncertainty — a skill that is getting increasingly more valuable today.

From an interview to the latest job talk, you might often be asked to demonstrate your skills around two terms that help you navigate towards the truth through uncertainty — critical thinking and problem solving.

Why are these skills needed today?

Given the rapid advances in technology and the way the future of work and jobs are unfolding, there is definitely more uncertainty today.

In fact, children studying in schools today may grow up to work in jobs we may not even recognise today. Jobs also are shape-shifting in some cases with newer jobs getting discovered as we adapt to working with machines.

Hence, instead of just preparing for short-term need-based jobs, inculcating the skills of critical thinking and problem solving can stand a person in good stead for newer challenges we might face.

What does critical thinking and problem solving look like in action?

Imagine going through vast amounts of information and being able to synthesise that, make logical and evidence-based conclusions. That’s the essence of critical thinking.

Continuing further to problem solving, it helps us find possible answers to a problem and work on the intended solutions.

Logic plays a key role in critical thinking. Daniel Kahneman in his seminal book “Thinking Fast and Slow” spoke about two kinds of thinking that we as humans do: Immediate, gut-based thinking that is often intuitive; and deep, deliverable, thinking.

Both kinds of thinking are required to make different kinds of decisions and to attack different kinds of problems that we will face in our work life.

From a logical point of view, there are two ways to approach this: Deductive logic and inductive logic

In a deductive logic and reasoning approach, we start from individual data points. We try to stitch the patterns we see from that and then arrive at the conclusion.

In inductive logic, we start from a possible hypothesis about the problem we are addressing. This hypothesis could be the result of our intuitive systems. Based on that, we are able to use data in a more streamlined way to either prove or disprove our hypothesis.

At every step, it is important to be aware of the possibility of bias creeping in.

Let’s look at a couple of real-life situations.

Say the customer satisfaction numbers for a company are reducing over time. How can you find a way to improve that situation? Such a problem might require both critical thinking and problem solving.

Using deductive logic, you might start looking at multiple data points across customer touch points to understand the key causes for concern.

On the other hand, using inductive logic, you might first create a hypothesis, like “this is due to customer service levels dropping in channel x.” Then, you start looking at data to see how the picture unfolds.

While both are valid approaches, the second one can save time in an urgent business situation.

Another example. These situations are often tested during interviews. Imagine you are asked “how do you estimate the market demand for petrol pumps in the city?”

Now that you know the two approaches, you can apply a similar logic and get to the possible approaches. The interviewer is looking at your thinking process, not at the exact answer.

There are tools such as structured thinking that take us through a step-by-step approach to focus on insights and problem solving. And reading is another way in which we can keep building our critical thinking skills.

This is also the reason why aptitude in reading, writing, mathematics and logical reasoning is tested in many competitive examinations.

The only difference is that the need for these skills may not end with clearing the exams. These need to be honed lifelong.

One of Coursera’s most popular courses is “learning how to learn.” That constant learnability can be our best guard against certain uncertainty.

For more news like this visit The Economic Times .

IMAGES

Deductive Reasoning: Examples, Definition, Types and the difference
15 Inductive Reasoning Examples (2024)
the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning in an english
Logic (Critical Thinking) "Inductive and Deductive Reasoning"....4
ULTIMATE CRITICAL THINKING CHEAT SHEET Published 01/19/2017 Infographic
Inductive vs. Deductive: What Kind of Reasoning Are You Doing

VIDEO

Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning
Logical reasoning in academic writing|all types|deductive|inductive|abductive..|just in few minutes
chapter 2: Basic Concepts of Logic// part 6: Examples of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Logic and Critical Thinking
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

COMMENTS

Guide To Inductive & Deductive Reasoning
In fact, inductive reasoning usually comes much more naturally to us than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning moves from specific details and observations (typically of nature) to the more general underlying principles or process that explains them (e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity). It is open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning.
Inductive vs. Deductive Writing
Dr. Tamara Fudge, Kaplan University professor in the School of Business and IT There are several ways to present information when writing, including those that employ inductive and deductive reasoning. The difference can be stated simply: Inductive reasoning presents facts and then wraps them up with a conclusion. Deductive reasoning presents a thesis statement and…
Deductive reasoning vs inductive reasoning: A comparison
Both deductive and inductive reasoning require critical thinking skills. They demand careful evaluation of logical validity, consideration of alternative explanations, and the ability to identify logical fallacies or biases. Critical thinking is essential in both types of reasoning to ensure the conclusions drawn are robust and reliable.
PDF Logical Method Induction Deduction
Critical Thinking Skills Tutorial: Logical Method: Induction and Deduction Writing Center English 800 Center . 2 As you work through the tutorial sure to see an instructor in the W i ... This is an example of how inductive and deductive reasoning combine to help us learn about the
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
Academic Writing
Logic - a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. a statement that expresses a concept that can be true or false. Soundness - noun. the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment. the soundness of an argument has two qualities 1. valid structure 2. true premises. Validity - noun.
1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic
It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. 'Thinking' is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you 'think' about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. It is the sort of thing that one intuitively or naturally understands, and yet cannot describe to others without great ...
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization
This specialization introduces general standards of good reasoning and offers tools to improve your critical thinking skills. These skills will help you determine when an argument is being given, what its crucial parts are, and what it assumes implicitly. You will also learn how to apply deductive and inductive standards for assessing arguments ...
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down. In deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions. You start with a theory, and you might develop a hypothesis that you test empirically. You collect data from many observations ...
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Reasoning, logic, and critical thinking are the building blocks of intellectual inquiry. This course will help develop your skills in these areas through problem-solving and exposure to a wide range of topics in mathematics. You'll learn the different techniques used in inductive and deductive reasoning and examine the roles each play in the field of mathematics. First you'll explore ...
Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalisations, and deductive reasoning the other way around. Both approaches are used in various types ...
Logic Ab Initio: A Functional Approach to Improve Law Students
"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools?" ― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe Law professors and legal employers alike lament a modern trend of diminishing critical-thinking skills among law students and new graduates. These concerns are not imaginary: a recent study that followed thousands of undergraduates through ...
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice. According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills.
Induction
Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they are not cogent. It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative). It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
What Is Deductive Reasoning?
Validity and soundness. Validity and soundness are two criteria for assessing deductive reasoning arguments. Validity. In this context, validity is about the way the premises relate to each other and the conclusion. This is a different concept from research validity.. An argument is valid if the premises logically support and relate to the conclusion.
Inductive Reasoning vs. Deductive Reasoning (With Examples)
Inductive and deductive reasoning is the logical thinking you use to come up with generalized or specific conclusions. Understanding inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning will help you develop critical thinking skills to think of solutions, ideas, and improvements while working. ... Both inductive and deductive reasoning skills are highly ...
Deduction
Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive: If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9. In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter ...
What Is Deductive Reasoning? Learn the Definition of Deductive
There's nothing better than deductive reasoning to win an argument or test a belief. But, while this type of logical argument produces rock-solid conclusions, not everyone can use it with certainty. Deductive arguments have to meet strict conditions. Knowing the ins and outs of deductive reasoning, and how to spot an invalid form of deduction, is a good way to sharpen your critical thinking ...
Critical Thinking 2: Induction and deduction
There are two types of argument, normally known as induction and deduction. Deductive argument is what is classically formulated as argument and abstracted into logic. Deductive argument begins with assumed claims known as premises, and draws a conclusion from those premises. Within the terms of interpretation and the beliefs it assumes, the ...
10 Deductive Skills and How To Improve Them
2. Do some research. If you want to get better at deductive reasoning, it's important to do some research and learn as much as you can about the topic. Read articles, watch videos and look for resources that can help you improve your skills. 3. Practice, practice, practice.
Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach
Revised on June 22, 2023. The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. In other words, inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations. Deductive reasoning works the other way around.
6: Persuasive Appeals
Unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning allows for certainty only as long as the evidence is a true fact. What this means is that inductive reasoning can often be hidden inside a deductive argument. That is, a generalization reached through inductive reasoning can be turned around and used as a starting "truth" for a deductive argument.
Inductive reasoning
Purchase single chapter. Single Chapter PDF Download $42.00. Details. Unlimited viewing of the article/chapter PDF and any associated supplements and figures. Article/chapter can be printed. Article/chapter can be downloaded. Article/chapter can not be redistributed. Check out.
Strategic Career Guide: Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning
Critical thinking is an important skill for incorporating deductive and inductive reasoning into strategy. It equips the strategy practitioner with a broader perspective to avoid siloing thought ...
PHI 105
This course develops intellectual self-awareness by teaching the canons and skills of critical reasoning. Deductive and inductive reasoning, the application of logic to a variety of significant issues, and the relation between language and argumentation will be studied. Prerequisite: 12 hours. Lecture contact hours: 3 Typically offered: Fall ...
These skills can help you save your job
The skills of critical thinking and problem solving are increasingly valuable as technology advances and the future of work remains uncertain. ... Deductive logic and inductive logic. In a ...

200+ Award-Winning Educational Textbooks, Activity Books, & Printable eBooks!

Guide To Inductive & Deductive Reasoning

Inductive vs. Deductive Writing

Share this:

You may also like...

The Big Misconception about Writing to Learn

Brexit Voters Broke It and Now Regret It-Part I: Establishing the Importance of Teaching and Learning in Developing an Educated, Global Electorate

7 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Deductive reasoning vs inductive reasoning: A comparison

Deductive reasoning

Examples of deductive reasoning

Process of deductive reasoning

Strengths and weaknesses of deductive reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

Examples of Inductive Reasoning

Process of Inductive Reasoning

Strengths of Inductive Reasoning

Weaknesses of Inductive Reasoning

Differences between deductive and inductive reasoning

Key characteristics of deductive reasoning

Key characteristics of inductive reasoning

Different approaches to drawing conclusions

Similarities between deductive and inductive reasoning

Shared goal of understanding the world through logical thinking

Use of evidence and observations in both types of reasoning

Application in scientific research

Need for critical thinking

Subject to limitations and potential errors

Continuous refinement and modification

Complementary nature

The Power of Storytelling in Critical Analysis

The role of emotions in deductive reasoning

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

25 Academic Writing – Sound and Valid Argument

Glossary of Terms

Introduction to Academic Argument

Suspend Bias

Deductive Syllogism

Inductive Reasoning

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning | Difference & Examples

Table of contents

Limitations of an inductive approach

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Limitations of a deductive approach

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Logic Ab Initio: A Functional Approach to Improve Law Students’ Critical Thinking Skills

Part I: A Lack Of Critical-Thinking Skills And (Some) Reasons For It

a. The Changing Nature of Undergraduate Education

b. The Effect of Technology on Students’ Ability to Think

c. Millennial Zeitgeist and Beyond

Part II: The Basics of Logic and Related Law-School Competencies

a. Deductive Reasoning and Rule Application

b. Inductive Reasoning and Precedent

c. Fallacy and the Quality of Arguments

Part III: Integrating Functional Logic Training Across the Law-School Curriculum

a. Logic During Orientation

b. Logic in Doctrinal Classes

c. Logic in Legal Writing and Analysis Courses

d. Logic in Oral Advocacy

Jessie Ball duPont Library

Research Librarian

Middle Way Society

5 thoughts on “ Critical Thinking 2: Induction and deduction ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

10 Deductive Skills and How To Improve Them

Inductive Reasoning

How to Improve Your Deductive Skills

10 Creative Writing Skills and How To Improve Them

Margin Size

6: Persuasive Appeals