The document discusses different types of inductive arguments including generalizations, analogies, and causal arguments. It provides examples of each type and evaluates how to analyze inductive arguments. The key points are: inductive arguments claim their conclusions probably rather than absolutely follow from premises; there are three common types - generalizations draw conclusions about groups from samples, analogies compare two things based on similarities, and causal arguments claim one event causes another; careful evaluation of inductive arguments includes assessing sample size and bias for generalizations, relevant similarities for analogies, and strength of evidence for causal relationships.

1. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to
recognize, analyze, and evaluate inductive
arguments.

2. Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments claim that their conclusion probably
follows from the premises. As a result, inductive
arguments are either stronger or weaker, rather than
either true or false.
Certain words and phrases are commonly used in
inductive arguments; these include probably, most likely,
chances are, it is reasonable to suppose, we can expect,
and it seems probable that. However, not all inductive
arguments contain indicator words.
22
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

3. Most Corgis make good watchdogs.
My dog Mindy is a Corgi. Therefore,
Mindy is probably a good watchdog.
3
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

4. Three types of inductive arguments
 There are three common types of inductive arguments:
 Generalizations
 Analogies
 Causal arguments
44
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

5. Generalizations
 We use generalization when we draw a conclusion
about a certain characteristic of a group or population
based on a sample from that group.
 Certain data collection processes employ inductive
generalization. These include polls, surveys, and
sampling techniques. Types of sampling techniques
include representative samples, random samples, and
self-selected samples.
55
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

6. Hot or Not?
Have you ever made a
generalization in your life that you
later found to be false?
6
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

7. Problems with generalizations
 Although data collected using inductive generalization
techniques may be useful and credible, it is also
susceptible to problems.
 These problems include:
 Bias in wording, such as slanted questions, push polls, and
loaded questions.
77
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

8. Evaluating polls or surveys
 When evaluating poll or survey data, it is important to
ask questions to determine the data’s worth and
accuracy.
 Who conducted the poll and what was its purpose?
 How was the sample selected? Was it large enough?
 Was the sample representative of the study group?
 What method was used to carry out the poll?
 What questions were asked? Were they unbiased?
 What other polls have been taken on this issue? Is this poll
consistent with their findings?
88
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

9. Your participation in a poll helps to provide
an accurate portrayal of a specific group or
a population at large.
9
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

10. Internet polls and some polls sponsored by television
programs or stations, such as American Idol or CNN,
may be biased or unrepresentative, since they rely on
call-ins from their viewers or subscribers.
10
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

11. George Gallup
11
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

12. Comparative table of heights of
U.S. presidential candidates
12
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

13. Evaluating inductive arguments using
generalization
 When evaluating generalization-based arguments, the
following five criteria are useful:
 Check whether the premises are true.
 Decide if the sample is large enough.
 Decide if the sample is representative.
 Decide if the sample is current and up-to-date.
 Determine whether the premises support the conclusion.
1313
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

14. Women serving combat duty in the United States
military has been an issue of contention—but are we
against (or for) it for the right reasons?
14
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

15. Analogies
 An analogy is based on a comparison between two or
more things or events. Metaphors, a type of descriptive
analogy, are common in literature. Analogies can be
used on their own or as premises in arguments.
Arguments using analogies are common in personal
relationships, as well as in many fields such as law,
religion, politics, business, science, and the military.
 The success of an argument using an analogy depends
on the type and extent of relevant similarities and
dissimilarities between the things being compared.
1515
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

16. An alliance of tribes, Tecumseh argued, is like braided
hair. A single strand of hair is easy to break. But several
strands braided together are almost impossible to break.
16
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

17. Evaluating arguments based on
analogy
 Knowing how to evaluate arguments using analogy is a
valuable critical thinking skill.
 The following strategies are useful:
 Identify what is being compared.
 List the similarities.
 List the dissimilarities.
 Compare the lists.
 Examine possible counter-analogies.
 Determine if the analogy supports the conclusion.
1717
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

18. The argument from design states that God must
exist because the world displays purposefulness.
18
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

19. “I do [say what I mean],” Alice
hastily replied; “at least—at
least I mean what I say—that’s
the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said
the Hatter. “Why, you might just
as well say that ‘I see what I
eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat
what I see’!”
“You might just as well say,”
added the March Hare, “That
‘I like what I get’ is the same
thing as ‘I get what I like’!”
“You might just as well say,”
added the Dormouse, which
seemed to be talking in its
sleep, “That ‘I breathe when
I sleep’ is the same thing as
‘I sleep when I breathe’!”
19
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

20. “Your Brain on Drugs”
20
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

21. The claim that AI are not conscious and lack
feeling because they are not organic is based on
an irrelevant dissimilarity.
21
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

22. Causal arguments
 A cause is an event that brings about a change or
effect. In causal arguments, something is claimed as
the cause of something else. Understanding cause and
effect relations is a crucial component of effective critical
thinking.
2222
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

23. Serial killer Ted Bundy blamed
pornography for his crimes.
23
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

24. Antonia Novello
24
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

25. Correlations
 When two events occur together at rates higher than
probability, the relationship is called a correlation. If the
incidence of one event increases when the second one
increases, the relationship is called a positive
correlation. A negative correlation occurs when the
occurrence of one event increases as the other
increases.
2525
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

26. The correlation between cigarettes
smoked and lung cancer
26
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

27. Evaluating causal arguments
 Knowing how to evaluate causal arguments makes it
easier for you to employ them productively.
 Use the following four criteria:
 Determine whether the evidence for a causal relationship is
strong.
 Make sure the argument is free of fallacies.
 Decide whether the data is current and up-to-date.
 Make sure the conclusion does not go beyond the premises.
2727
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

28. When making decisions on the basis of causal arguments,
such as whether to allow your children to sit close to a
television, your information should be up-to-date. What
was true at one time may no longer be the case.
28
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

29. Conclusions
Knowledge of inductive arguments, including
generalizations, analogies, and causal arguments, is
essential for us to effectively function in the world. As good
critical thinkers, we must constantly identify and evaluate
these types of arguments, both our own and those
presented to us by others.
2929
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

30. Perspectives on legalizing marijuana
30
© 2012, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.