Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: 

Below each discussion is describing and explaining what deductive reasoning is and what inductive reasoning is. Give a responds on each discussion with your opinion and or ideal of the writer. Responses should be a minimum of 100 words and include direct questions.



1.    Deductive reasoning to me is an explanation to something based on common rules or laws, such as 2+3=5 and V=R*I, but also the combination of two or more rules or laws, e.g. (I) William Shakespeare lived from 1564 to 1616, (II) William Shakespeare wrote plays, therefore (III) all plays written by William Shakespeare was written between 1564 and 1616. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is where you for certain cannot use the Latin sentence Quod Erat Demonstrandum. In other words, a situation where one can draw a conclusion based on a certain amount on information and thereby assess it as common practice. Example: Based on ten equally valued  statements, where nine says “a” but one say “b”, I cannot come to the decisive conclusion of either “a” or “b”; however, I assess that “a” should be the right answer due to argument one, two and three. Reading the syllabus for this week, especially Nosich’s chapter on standards of critical thinking, has verified my opinion that most research uses inductive reasoning due to “how to become more” sentences. Researchers should strive to be more accurate and more clear in their work in order to get as close to deductive way as possible by using the outcomes mentioned on pp. 160-161. Could one argue that even a nowadays common rule such as the Pythagorean theorem and the like, was once based on inductive reasoning? Furthermore, would you say that an assessment is equal to the use of inductive reasoning?

2.    A well-constructed argument can be built on either deductive or inductive reasoning, or some combination of both. Successful deductive reasoning relies entirely upon true premises and valid construction, while sound inductive reasoning relies on acceptable statements which are relevant and sufficient or at least adequate (Tittle, 2011, p. 5). In my experience, deductive reasoning tends to be favored, whether it is the appropriate method or not. Its simple structure and authoritative conclusion can be an attractive feature. However, causal reasoning errors most frequently result from lack of understanding or oversimplification of a concept (Tittle, 2011, 349). People often build premises on bold or generalizing statements that sound convincing but may not hold up when tested. Yet when these premises are left unquestioned, the simple structure of deductive reasoning may give the argument an authoritative voice.
Deductive reasoning, when properly applied is indeed a convincing method. But the circumstances where it is appropriate in the complex context of reality are limited. Few situations in real life are simple enough to understand without question, especially those situations that trigger curiosity. For this reason, most research requires inductive reasoning, at least during phases of scientific discovery. Forming a hypothesis depends on imagination and conjecture, and the experimental testing of that hypothesis requires an open-minded approach that may be skewed if deductive reasoning were forced into the equation during this stage. 
That being said, the deductive reasoning template can be used to improve inductive reasoning. If you force an argument into deductive format when inductive reasoning is more appropriate, it can help identify areas in need of more investigation. For instance, I may say: “My pet is nice. My pet is a cat. Therefore, all cats are nice.” Clearly this is a flawed line of reasoning.  But seeing where the argument is flawed helps identify the information gap as the focal point for more investigation. I would have to study more cats to determine inductively whether or not my claim is well supported. What are some other ways that deductive reasoning can be used to improve inductive reasoning?


3.    When it comes to the use of deductive reasoning, this is where the approach entails taking information and making a specific conclusion out of that information. Basically, this is where a researcher would use a top-down approach of using the data gathered to form one conclusion based on the analysis of the data. When it comes to the use of inductive reasoning, this is where the approach entails gathering bits and pieces of data in order to come to a general conclusion of the data that was researched. Basically, this is where a researcher would use a bottom-up approach of making a broad conclusion based on the analysis of the data that was gathered to make the broad conclusion. When it comes to which type of reasoning is used more often in research, I think that it really depends on what is being researched and in what category. For instance, for scientific papers that are seeking a specific conclusion from scientific experiments, the researcher in this case would need to use deductive reasoning as they are needing to make a specific conclusion based on the analysis of their data that they had gathered. However, when it comes to historical research, inductive reasoning may be used as the researcher is taking a sample of primary and secondary documents of a certain era in time to make a broad conclusion of the effects of that time era in question. Overall, I would say the type of reasoning used merely depends on what is being researched and what the goal of the research is for the researcher.