Inductive Arguments - Assignment Example

There exist a number of faulty logic in the piece uploaded. Clearly among these is the reasoning that “inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments”. This is generally considered faulty logic because the term ‘rigorous’ as used in this context is not well explained and lacks fundamental assignment. Moreover, the term ‘rigorous’ is relative and ambiguous and could therefore let the statement have several meanings including the fact that inductive arguments could be haphazard in its construction as well as in the factuality behind the argument. In essence, the statement could be saying that the facts and realities of inductive arguments are not as important as those of deductive arguments but this could not be entirely true. Once the latter is accepted as true, it would mean that inductive arguments do not have the merit of being taken seriously.

The fact that the premises of all arguments are linked with their conclusion in establishing the truth in an argument is a very important analogy. This is because the conclusion of any given statement is as important as the premises. Under no circumstance should it be acceptable that the truth of a statement is judged merely based on the conclusion of the statement. The reason for this argument is that if that happens, the need to follow the logical arguments and reasoning in the structure of any given statement or argument will not be necessary and for that matter, it will be unnecessary to pay attention to statements till they get to their ends.

The comment made in the paragraph above applies in the situation of both deductive and inductive arguments. In effect, inductive and deductive arguments could both be said to have very strong merit based on the relationships made between the premises and the conclusion (Michigan State University, 2012).

Furthermore, it would be emphasized that from the last comment, the basis of as to whether an argument is inductive or deductive may not be as relevant as whether or not the substance of the argument could be trusted as the truth. In essence, inductive and deductive could both be trusted or mistrusted depending on the facts or ideologies that the arguments carry. This means that listeners should not be complacent in their judgments of the meanings that statements and arguments carry unless, of course, they have weighed all sides of the arguments and untaken background checks to verify the authenticity of the arguments.

The final comment will be an example to justify all four comments above. The two statements “all men are mortal” and “Socrates is a man” make the conclusion “Socrates is mortal” a true conclusion. In principle, this is a deductive argument but it is important to note that the only reason that makes the third statement true is based on the premises of the first two statements and not necessarily based on the substance of the arguments. In conclusion, it would be said that deductive arguments have conclusions that are true based on the premises and not merely on the substance or content of the argument.