Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWeek 3 Inductive ReasoningThis we.docx

Week 3 - Instructor Guidance
Week 3: Inductive Reasoning
This week’s guidance will cover the following topics:
1. The Nature of Inductive Reasoning
2. Appeals to Authority
3. Inductive Generalizations
4. Statistical Syllogisms
5. Arguments from Analogy
6. Inferences to the Best Explanation
7. Causal Reasoning
8. Things to Do This Week
The Nature of Inductive Reasoning
Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? Of course it will, but how
do you know? The reasoning seems to go as follows:
Premise 1: The sun has risen every morning throughout known
history
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow
Deductively, this argument is invalid, for it is logically possible
that the earth could stop spinning tonight. Does that mean that
the argument is no good? Of course not. In fact, its premise
makes the conclusion is virtually certain. This is an example of
a very good argument that is not intended to be deductively
valid. That is because it is actually an inductive argument.
An argument is inductive if it does not attempt to be valid, but
intends to give strong evidence for the truth of its conclusion.
Many might see inductive reasoning as inferior to deductive
reasoning, but that is not generally the case. In fact, inductive
arguments often provide much better arguments for the truths of
their conclusions than deductive ones. The deductively valid
version of our argument about the sun, for example, goes:
Premise 1: The sun will always rise in the morning
Conclusion: Therefore the sun will rise tomorrow morning

This second argument, while valid, actually gives less evidence
for the conclusion because its second premise is false (the sun
will eventually expand to engulf the earth and then collapse).
Therefore the deductive argument is unsound and so offers little
evidence for the conclusion, whereas the original inductive
argument made the conclusion virtually certain. In other words,
inductive reasoning in general can be even better than deductive
reasoning in many cases; the trick is to determine which
inductive arguments are good and which ones are not so
good.Strength versus Weakness
Just as it is the goal of deductive reasoning to be valid, it is the
goal of a inductive reasoning to be
strong
. An inductive argument is strong in case its premises, if true,
would make the conclusion very likely to be true as well. The
above argument about the sun rising is very strong. Most
inductive arguments are less strong, all the way along a
spectrum between strength and weakness. Here are three with
varying degrees of inductive strength:
Weak:
Premise 1: John is tall and in college.
Conclusion: Therefore, he probably plays on the basketball
team.
Moderate:
Premise 1: The Lions are a 14 point favorite.
Conclusion: So they will probably win.
Strong:
Premise 1: All of the TV meteorologists report a 99% chance of
rain tomorrow.
Conclusion: So it will probably rain tomorrow.
Note that the degree of strength of an inductive argument is
independent of whether the premises are actually true. Inductive
strength is solely a matter of the strength of the connection
between the premises and the conclusion (the parallel of
deductive validity). We have another word for an inductive
argument that is both strong and has all true premises (the

parallel of deductive soundness): An inductive argument is
cogent if it is strong and has all true premises.
This guidance will cover five main categories of inductive
arguments. Each type is capable of presenting very strong
evidence for the truth of the conclusion. However, each type
also has common errors that can make arguments weak or even
fallacious. Each of these forms, therefore, is good, but should
be applied with caution and with an eye to a critical evaluation
of its strength.
Our book covers the same types of inductive inference: Appeals
to authority, Arguments from Analogy, Inductive
Generalizations, Inferences to the Best Explanations, and
Statistical Syllogisms.
Appeals to Authority
It would be nearly impossible to discover all truth for ourselves;
therefore it is necessary frequently to learn from others. To do
so we have to learn which sources to trust. Appealing to
Authority is saying something is true because an authority says
so.
Despite the fact that many make fun of appeals to authority (by
asking if you would jump off a bridge if the authority told you
so), they actually can actually supply very good arguments.
They are also necessary in real life, as it would be nearly
impossible to learn almost anything without them. Even in the
hard sciences, one could not learn without trusting the claims
from the textbook, the instructors, or of researchers in the field.
The trick is being able to tell which appeals to authority are
worth trusting. Here are some good questions to ask:
1. Is this the kind of question that can be settled by an appeal to
authority (e.g. an objective matter that is testable)?
2. Is the person sited a genuine authority on the topic?
3. Do experts on the topic tend to agree about this question?
4. Can the authority be trusted to be honest in this context?
(There will be a discussion of ulterior motives and interested
parties later on in this guidance.

5. Has the authority been interpreted correctly? (Sometimes,
especially when it comes to sources like the bible or the
constitution, this is the most important question.)
An appeal to authority that violates some of the above can
commit the fallacy of appeal to inadequate authority.
Here are two strong ones:
1. My physics textbook teaches that e = mc2, so it probably is
correct.
2. The civil war started in 1861; my history professor said so.
Here are two weak ones:
1. That toothpaste is the best; the commercial said that 9 out of
10 dentists surveyed recommended it
2. The president is evil; I read all about it on some guy’s blog.
Here are some more examples of appeals to authority. How
strong would you classify each of them as (and why)?
Inductive Generalizations
Often we draw conclusions about groups based upon polls or
studies of sub-groups from within those populations. Inductive
Generalizations are arguments that draw conclusions about a
general population from results about a sample population. Here
are some examples:
1. “Nine out of ten students surveyed preferred the earlier start
schedule; so most of our students must prefer to start earlier.”
2. “The pre-election poll showed that candidate A leads by 60%,
so he will probably win.”
Here are some questions to ask about whether this is a strong
pattern of reasoning:
1. Was the sample large enough? If not many are surveyed then
this is called a hasty generalization, and it does not supply very
good evidence for the conclusion.
2. Was the sampling method biased in any way? If the sampling
method has a tendency (even a subtle one) to favor some results
over others then this is called a biased sample.

Chapter five of our textbook discusses the science of inductive
generalizations in much more detail; it can be a very tricky
thing to make inductive generalizations correctly. One thing,
however, that it is essential to avoid it the harmful use of
inductive generalizations known as stereotyping.
The Harmful Habit of Stereotyping
One phenomenon that logicians have noted with pain throughout
human history is the habit of stereotyping, or holding general,
especially negative, views about all members of a group
independent of individual merit. This is what is meant by the
term “prejudice,” or judging in advance.
For some reason, humans seem quite prone to holding general
attitudes about people based upon the group they are in,
especially based upon visible and unchangeable traits like race
and gender. Studies have repeatedly found that these sorts of
stereotypes to be based upon faulty generalizations. Hasty
generalizations are especially rife, as people sometimes only
need one example or two before they will conclude something
negative about a whole group. The samples are often biased as
well, since people seem only to remember the negative
examples from a group. They may notice one or two people
driving poorly, and for some reason blame a whole group to
which that person belongs. Therefore, stereotyping
generalizations are prone to both common errors of
generalizations.
Research shows that Stereotypes can cause great amounts of
harm
Stereotyping Has Lasting Negative Impact.
A rational person seeks to live without prejudice either for or
against groups but to judge cases on their merits based upon
careful, critical, and impartial reasoning.
Statistical Syllogisms
Statistical syllogisms reason from a statistical claim about a

group to a claim about a specific member of that group. Here is
the general form:
Premise 1: X % of F’s are G’s
Premise 2: Individual A is an F
Conclusion: Therefore, A is a G (or, if X is a low percentage we
can conclude that A is not a G).
Here is an example:
Premise 1: 97% of Americans eat pizza
Premise 2: He is an American
Conclusion: So he probably eats pizza.
Some of these can be quite strong and quite essential. How can
we know how people will behave, for example, unless we know
how the typically behave? How do we know that someone with
whom we have lunch won't poison our food unless we have a
clue about the likelihood of such an event? We only get to know
people because we (implicitly) judge that such adverse events
are rare. Whether we realize it or not, we are using statistical
syllogisms all of the time. When we decide to drive to the store
we are making an implicit statistical inference that the chances
of getting into an accident are low enough to justify the risk.
Without using this type of reasoning it would be extremely
difficult to function in society! We just have to make sure that
our reasoning is strong and based on good evidence. Can you
think of areas of life in which our statistical syllogisms are not
so good?
Arguments from Analogy
We often make inferences about new situations based upon our
experiences in similar situations. Arguments from Analogy
allow us to make these types of inferences. Here is the general
form:
Premise 1: I have experienced things of this type in the past,
and they have all had attribute G
Conclusion: Therefore the next thing of this type will have
attribute G

A simple example would be:
Premise 1: Every time I have eaten at that restaurant in the past
I’ve really enjoyed it
Conclusion: Therefore I will enjoy it tonight as well
Arguments from analogy are very similar to statistical
syllogisms; the difference is that a statistical syllogism makes
an inference about an individual within the reference class,
while arguments from analogy make inference to a new
individual not in but having something in common with the
reference class. The reference class above is “times I’ve eaten
at that restaurant in the past.” We are making an inference to a
new individual based on an analogy with the previous
experiences.
Here are some questions to ask in relation to the strength of an
argument from analogy:
1. How many individuals have you experienced before? As with
inductive generalizations, a small sample size can make for a
weak inference.
2. How relevant is the characteristic in question to the
possession of the attribute in question? One can probably make
a strong inference about whether a nickel will conduct
electricity based on only one or two past cases, since nickels are
very likely to act the same in relation to conducting electricity.
Other cases, for example in which one infers that someone is
nice because past tall people he or she has known have been
nice, are likely to be much weaker.
Like statistical syllogisms, we use arguments from analogy
implicitly to make decisions all day long. I figure that my Aunt
Bea has been happy to see me when I went to visit her before,
so she probably will be again today. My Ketchup has never been
poisoned before, so I can probably pour it on my fries now. We
expect, that when we reach out to shake someone’s hand that he
or she will not punch us in the face based on the fact that people
have not done so in the past.
(whoops ... not this time)

We draw conclusions about which shows to watch based on
what we have liked in the past, and that is typically how we live
our lives. Can you think of any arguments from analogy that we
typically make that are faulty? How could we improve them?
Inferences to the Best Explanation
An inference to the best explanation is an argument in which the
conclusion is supposed to supply the best or most likely
explanation for why the premises are true. Here are some
examples:
1. Brad is smiling; he must have gotten the job.
2. The truck won’t start; the battery must be dead.
3. The dog is yelping; he is probably hungry.
The general form of such arguments looks like this:
Premise 1: If P were true then Q would be observed
Premise 2:Q has been observed
Premise 3:P appears to be the most likely explanation of why Q
has occurred
Conclusion: Therefore P is probably true
You may notice that this argument form appears similar to the
invalid argument form known as affirming the consequent.
However, the fact that it is invalid is not a problem here,
because this is not intended to be a deductive inference. As an
inductive inference, inferences to the best explanation can be
quite strong. Here is a very strong one:
There is snow everywhere outside; it must have snowed last
night.
Much of what we believe in life is based on inferences to the
best explanation. Do you believe that trees exist? How do you
know? Is it because you see them? Well, the deductive
argument:
Premise 1: I see trees
Conclusion: Therefore, trees exist
Is actually invalid, and the suppressed premise "Everything I
see exists" is not true. You could be sleeping, or hallucinating.

It is possible that how we are actually reasoning as more like
this:
Premise 1: I see trees
Premise 2: While it is logically possible that I am dreaming
them up, that I am hallucinating, or that an evil scientist has my
brain in a vat somewhere (programming me to see trees), those
explanations seem very unlikely given everything else I have
experienced
Premise 3: The most likely explanation of why I am seeing trees
is that they exist (and that light is bouncing off of them into my
eyes)
Conclusion: Therefore, trees exist
Science also works frequently by inference to the best
explanation.Inference to the Best Explanation and Science
Our basic interpretations of reality come from forming complex
explanations of our experiences. For example, the fact that we
believe in things like trees, planets, and stars, is based upon an
attempt to explain why we observe the things that we do. In
fact, science works largely by inference to the best explanation.
Here are some examples:
1. Gregor Mendel observed certain patterns among the
generations of cross-bred pea plants, and from this he inferred a
series of things about recessive and dominant traits. His theory
formed the foundations of our understanding of genetics.
2. Gailieo observed certain patterns in the motions of the
planets and concluded that the only way to explain it was to put
the sun at the center of the solar system.
3. Charles Darwin observed certain patterns in variations of
living species and concluded that species diversified through a
process of natural selection.
4. Scientists today discover fossils and draw all kinds of
inferences about what life on earth must have been long ago to
yield the kinds of fossils that we see today.
5. Doctors diagnose diseases by observing symptoms and
inferring the most likely cause. Sometimes distinguishing

between two causal explanations requires further tests, yielding
results that would only be true under one but not the other
interpretation.
Since these inferences form the foundations of our theories of
our reality, it is very important, then, that we get them right.
However, with inferences to the best explanation, we may never
arrive at just one correct final answer. Instead, science works by
creating ever more sophisticated and more accurate explanations
of reality. When scientists find cases in which the data does not
match the theory, they seek to find still better explanations to
explain all anomalies. This does not mean that the process is in
error; it means that the process is an ongoing one, characterized
by periods of refinement to better and better create a unified
and accurate explanations of what we observe.
Causal Reasoning
Chapter 6 or our book has a substantial discussion of causal
reasoning. Part of that reasoning utilized Mill’s Methods. A full
discussion of these matters is way beyond the present scope,
here is a brief example of how to apply these methods to reason
about causes.
As noted in the book, Mill’s methods use the method of
agreement and the method of difference to look for necessary
and sufficient conditions for a phenomenon. There is also the
joint method of agreement and difference in which one looks for
both at the same time. As Aristotle put it, one learns by doing,
so here is an interesting puzzle:
Suppose that twelve people attend a conference in a remote
village (the village has no unusual history of disease). Of the
twelve people, four suddenly experience the same terrible
symptoms soon after dinner. The symptoms are so unusual and
similar that it seems to be more than a coincidence. Your
assistant interviews all those present and compiles the following
data:
Patient

Ate the Pasta
Ate the Stroganoff
Over 60
From far Away
Drank Alcohol
Nut Allergy
Dairy Allergy
Got Sick?
1
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
2
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
3
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
4

No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
6
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
7
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
8

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
9
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
10
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
11
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
12

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
See if you can figure out the most likely cause of the sudden
illness (keeping in mind that it could be a combination of
factors).
I hope you enjoyed this foray into inductive reasoning. For
more on each of these categories of inductive inference and how
to evaluate their strength take a look at the handout:Inductive
Argument Forms.
Things to Do This Week
1. Read the required materials for the week, including this
guidance and chapters 5 & 6 from the textbook.
2. Watch the weekly intro video and all of the videos under the
“Lectures” tab for this week of the course and view all other
required materials.
3. Post a timely (initial post by day 3) and thorough response to
both discussion forums as well as substantive replies to peers.
Note that both discussion prompts are up to your instructor. The
instructor will post the prompt as the first response within the
forum.
4. Take the Quiz for the week (by day 7). It covers the central
concepts of the course as covered in the textbook, this guidance,
and the lecture videos for this week.
5. Post your Counterargument Paper (by day 7). Make sure to
follow all instructions for the assignment very carefully.
If you have any questions, make sure to let your instructor
know, either via email or in the Ask Your Instructor forum.
References

Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015).With good
reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version].
Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
Inductive Reasoning Discussion #2
Ashford University Discussion
Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it
as the first post in the discussion forum. The requirements for
the discussion this week are a minimum of four posts on four
separate days, including responses to at least two classmates..
The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted
together, should be at least 600 words. Answer all the questions
in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to
complete the discussion properly.
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week,
complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other
posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the
discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of
the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to
take the conversation further by examining their claims or
arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they
make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things
in as much detail as you can.
Inductive Reasoning Discussion #1
Ashford University Discussion
Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it
as the first post in the discussion forum. The requirements for
the discussion this week are a minimum of four posts on four
separate days including responses to at least two classmates..
The total combined word count for all of your posts for this
discussion, counted together, should be at least 600 words.
Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources
that are required to complete the discussion properly.
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week,
complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other

posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the
discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of
the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to
take the conversation further by examining their claims or
arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they
make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things
in as much detail as you can.
PAGE
1 of 3
Human Resources Management in the Hospitality Industry
Mini Research Paper Assignment Guideline.
A brief description of this writing assignment is as follows.
Choose a topic related to HR issues
Find and read three articles according to your topic
Make a cover page
Summarize three articles about half page per article
Follow the required layout to write article summary
List article title, author, link and summary
Write a synthesized reflection at least two pages
Describe the importance of the topic
Use examples and cite three articles to support your argument
Pick a topic relating to HR you are interested in finding out
more.
Develop a main argument (thesis statement).
Identify three articles to the topic.
Suggested Website: www.workforce.com

Make sure the articles are related to Human Resources topics.
Give a summary of each of three articles (about a half – one
page for each article). The purpose of these summaries is to
give these persons a clear overview of the articles’ main points.
Synthesized Reflection
Describe the importance of the topic you have selected (not
each article, but the topic that connects the articles). State what
impact or importance this topic has on managers. All three
articles must be used to support your argument and citations
must be provided for the cited contents/information from the
articles.
“Synthesis means putting ideas from many sources together in
one essay or presentation. After reading several books,
watching movies and participating in a variety of class
activities, your task is to organize some of the information
around a theme or a question, make generalizations, and then
present information (statistics, quotes, examples) in a logical
way to support your argument.
Remind yourself that a synthesis is NOT a summary, a
comparison or a review. Rather a synthesis is a result of an
integration of what you heard/read and your ability to use this
learning to develop and support a key thesis or argument.
Learning to write a synthesis paper is a critical skill, crucial to
organizing and presenting information is academic and non-
academic settings.” (Adopted from
http://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/curricular/2001-
2002/poliecon2001/synthesis.htm)
The majority of points (60%) will be assigned to the
“Synthesized Reflection” portion of your review.

Style in Business Writing
The paper must be written in business writing style.
To develop an effective business writing style (adopted from
http://pages.uoregon.edu/ddusseau/101/199/style.html)
Use shorter sentences.
Use simpler sentence structures.
Use active voice.
Write from the point of view of the company/manager.
Avoid nominalizing verbs. (changing verbs into nouns, i.e.
"decide" into "decision.")
Recommend action rather than refer to individual mental states
(i.e. I think, I feel like, etc.).
Avoid personalizing pronouns such as “they,” “it,” “those,”
“you,” and “these.”
For example, change “You need to….” to “Managers need to…”
“They need to…” to “Employees need to…”
GRADING
Summaries
The purpose of the summaries is to give this person a clear
overview of the article’s main points.
The criteria for the summaries are

Conciseness and accuracy
Comprehensiveness and balance
Synthesized reflection: Importance
The criteria for this section are
Clearly stated the impact or importance the topic has on
managers
State WHY the topic is important
Using examples is a good way to explain why the topic is
important
Organization should be logical
Paragraphs should be developed with pertinent examples or
citations from the articles used for the summary
Writing style will be suited to the intended readers
Citing all three articles to support the main argument.
Clarity, readability, grammatical correctness, format
The paper must be typed, double spacing, 12 point Times New
Roman font. Expected length is at least 4-5 pages (2-3 pages for
article summaries, at least 2 pages for synthesized reflection).
Cover page – include the topic and student number
Include copies of articles that you read from
www.workforce.com.

Links to the articles are acceptable as long as the links lead to
the actual articles.
Put articles’ title and authors’ name on top of each summary.
Use headings and subheadings
I. First Draft
Double spaced
12 Font size Times New Roman; 11-font size if Arial used.
4 -5 page excluding the cover page
Must written in Word format. PDF or other formats are not
Accepted.
A paper must follow the layout:
Cover page with a proper title (2 points)
Title of 1st article, author’s name, and URL to the article (3
points)
Title of 2nd article, author’s name, and URL to the article (1
points)
Title of 3rd article, author’s name, and URL to the article (1
points)
Heading - Synthesized Reflection (2 points)
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Students who have not submitted their first draft by the deadline

will not receive a peer’s paper to review. This will result in
losing a total of 35 points (20 for the first draft and 15 for the
peer review).
Where to submit: Canvas - Assignments – Mini Research Paper
First Draft
Grading Rubric
Excellent (A)
Convincingly and ardently communicates a noteworthy idea to
an audience through business style writing.
Good (B)
Effectively conveys an insightful idea to an audience through
consistent and controlled use of business writing strategies.
Fair (C)
Communicates an idea, but does not consistently address the
needs of its audience.
Poor (D)
Ineffectively communicates its idea to its intended audience.
Fail (F)
Fails to present its ideas to the audience and does not meet
some or all of the criteria for the assignment.
Content & Development50 %
Content is comprehensive, accurate, and persuasive.
Major points are stated clearly and are well supported.
Content and purpose of the writing are clear.
Demonstrates an awareness of audience and is clearly

established and maintained throughout.
Content is accurate and persuasive.
Major points are stated.
Content and purpose of the writing are clear.
1123101
- Content is comp
Content is not comprehensive and /or persuasive.
Major points are addressed, but not well supported.
Content is inconsistent with regard to purpose and clarity of
thought.
Content is incomplete.
Major points are not clear and /or persuasive.
Reveals limited awareness of audience.
Development displays little knowledge of the subject, and fails
exhibit critical thinking or clear reasoning.
Content has no awareness, or limited awareness, its audience
and purpose.
Displays little or no knowledge of the subject, or fails to exhibit
critical thinking or clear reasoning.
Organization & Structure30 %
Structure of the paper is clear and easy to follow.
Paragraph transitions are logical and maintain the flow of

thought throughout the paper.
Conclusion is logical and flows from the body of the paper.
Demonstrates critical thinking that is clear, insightful, in depth,
and relevant to the topic.
Structure is mostly clear, logical and easy to follow.
Paragraph transitions are present.
Conclusion is logical.
Demonstrates critical thinking that is more than adequate, with
significant detail; may show depth in thinking and research
1123102
-Structure of the
Structure of the paper is not easy to follow.
Organization is choppy and may, at times, be difficult to follow.
Paragraph transitions need improvement.
Conclusion is missing, or if provided, does not flow from the
body of the paper.
1123093
- Structure is mos
Organization and structure detract from the message of the
writer.
Paragraphs are disjointed and lack transition of thoughts.

Organization is random and without focus.
Format
10%
Paper follows all designated guidelines.
Paper is the appropriate length as described for the assignment.
Format enhances readability of paper.
Paper follows designated guidelines.
Paper is the appropriate length as described for the assignment.
Format is good.
1123103
- Paper follows a
Paper follows most guidelines.
Paper is over/ under word length.
1123096
- Paper follows d
Paper lacks many elements of correct formatting.
Paper is inadequate/excessive in length.
Paper is not double spaced
1123095
- Paper follows m

Makes no attempts to use the elements of correct formatting.
Grammar, Punctuation & Spelling
10%
Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling
is correct.
Language is clear and precise; sentences display consistently
strong, varied structure.
Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with
minor errors.
Spelling is correct.
1123104
- Rules of gramm
Paper contains few grammatical, punctuation and spelling
errors.
Language lacks clarity or includes the use of some jargon or
conversationa-l tone.
1123099
- Rules of gramm
Paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling
errors.
Language uses jargon or conversational tone.
1123098

- Paper contains
Paper contains serious and multiple errors that seriously hinder
the reading of the paper.

Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWeek 3 Inductive ReasoningThis we.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWeek 3 Inductive ReasoningThis we.docx

Similar to Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWeek 3 Inductive ReasoningThis we.docx (20)

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 3 - Instructor GuidanceWeek 3 Inductive ReasoningThis we.docx