chart. It is the substantive law proposition—the elements of the crime or the civil wrong. It is also the matter to be proved. Once proved, there is no more to say on the point. This is the minor proposition (or premise) of an deductive argument that we have already noted as inevitably becoming the thesis of the necessary inductive argument.

2012 ◽  
pp. 248-248
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Substantive Law

The basic issue surrounds whether the law has been broken. We have been told Mary has been charged with theft under s 1 of the Theft Act. We are to assume that the three statements provided containing all of the information in this scenario have been produced just for us to read and work on. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume that these statements were produced in ways not calling into doubt their admissibility or credibility. This means therefore that we only have to concentrate on their probative value. (What do they prove?) The seven point approach of Twining and Miers will be used. 1 Standpoint: the standpoint of the Chart is that of the author of this book demonstrating the Wigmore Chart Method for the purposes of demonstrating the method and argument construction. 2 Stages 2, 3 and 4: relate to setting up the propositions and then key listing and charting. The impossibility of approaching each task in an isolated way is immediately perceived as we are going to work from statements. We have to find out the facts before we can draft the UP, PP, and interim probanda. Task: so that you can appreciate the levels of analysis go back to the statements and highlight the key words and phrases that begin to allow you to break into them and locate the story, and the law. Then try to give answers to the following questions: (1) What are the relevant facts? (2) What key phrases in the statements give you clues as to the application of the law? (3) Can you construct the deductive argument for the prosecution? (4) Can you construct the inductive argument for the prosecution? (5) Can you construct the opposing inductive argument for the defence? (6) Are there any conditions of doubt in your mind surrounding the wording of s1(1) of the Theft Act which may apply? (For example questions surrounding the presence of both mens rea and actus reus.) DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL YOU HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS (1)–(6).

2012 ◽  
pp. 253-254
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Key Words And Phrases ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Key Phrases

Proof Frames of Preservice Elementary Teachers

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Gary Martin ◽  
Guershon Harel
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Teachers ◽  
Mathematical Proof ◽  
Preservice Elementary Teachers ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Mathematics Course

This study asked 101 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a sophomore-level mathematics course to judge the mathematical correctness of inductive and deductive verifications of either a familiar or an unfamiliar statement. For each statement, more than half the students accepted an inductive argument as a valid mathematical proof. More than 60% accepted a correct deductive argument as a valid mathematical proof; 38% and 52% accepted an incorrect deductive argument as being mathematically correct for the familiar and unfamiliar statements, respectively. Over a third of the students simultaneously accepted an inductive and a correct deductive argument as being mathematically valid.

scholarly journals The Deductive/Inductive Distinction

1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
George Bowles
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument

In this paper I examine five distinctions between deductive and inductive arguments, concluding that the best of the five defines a deductive argument as one in which conclusive favorable relevance to its conclusion is attributed to its premises, and an inductive argument as any argument that is not deductive. This distinction, unlike its rivals, is both exclusive and exhaustive; permits both good and bad arguments of each kind; and is both useful and needed in evaluating at least some arguments.

Faith and the Existence of God: Arguments for the Existence of God

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 121-133
Author(s):  
R. G. Swinburne
Keyword(s):  
Existence Of God ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument

Arguments move from premises to conclusions. The premises state things taken temporally for granted; if the argument works, the premises provide grounds for affirming the conclusion. A valid deductive argument is one in which the premises necessitate, that is, entail, the conclusion. (It would involve a self-contradiction to assert the premises but deny the conclusion.) What I shall call a ‘correct’ inductive argument is one in which the premises in some degree probabilify the conclusion, but do not necessitate it. More precisely, in what I shall call a correct P-inductive argument the premises make the conclusion probable (i.e. more probable than not); in what I shall call a correct C-inductive argument, the premises add to the probability of the conclusion (i.e. confirm it, make it more probable than it was; but do not necessarily make it overall probable). Arguments only show their conclusions to be true if they start from true premises; arguments of the above types which work (i.e. are valid or correct) and do start from such premises I will call sound arguments. Arguments are only of use to show to an individual that the conclusion is true if he already knows the premises to be true. Most of what I shall have to say today concerns arguments with respect to which there is no doubt that the premises are true.

The common law model rests on assumptions that underlie both theory and practice and this will become clear as legal study is undertaken. It is said that in fact it rests on notions of the ideal type of rationalist tradition (Twining and Miers (1999)) This model involves the pursuit of ‘truth’ through rational means. Can you make accurate present judgements based on reasoning in cases occurring in the past on similar facts? This is certainly what the doctrine of precedent demands. The English legal system has developed principles designed to draw out that past reasoning and use it in the present and to obtain consistent decision making. Such a pursuit has as a high, but not overriding priority, the securing of justice under law. The model of adjudication is instrumentalist in that the pursuit of truth through reason is only a means to achieving a particular type of justice: the implementation of substantive law. • The mode of decision making is rational not irrational, and because it is highly aspirational its practice is often critiqued. • The mode of reasoning is inductive (to be explained below). Although there is room for constructing deductive argument (again to be explained below) proof always needs to be by inductive means, as will be described. As you will have noted by now, argument requires careful attention to detail, planning and understanding that there is a close relationship between: • cases of authority; • language usage; • logic and reasoning; • planning; • imagination; and above all • excellent skills in critical thinking. The phrases ‘critical thinking’, ‘critical reasoning’, ‘critical reflection’ come up often so it is important to be clear about what these mean. 7.4 CRITICAL THINKING Central to the task of study is the cultivation of excellent critical thinking. Every day, all the time, information is received, processed, evaluated, ignored or acted upon by the human brain. This information is received via all the senses, hearing, seeing, touching, smelling. It is processed in micro seconds, and often without the person’s conscious awareness of the process of: • receipt of information; • evaluation of information; • action based on evaluation (do nothing/do something/store information for later use). In our everyday life, if we refuse the information, or do not receive it, or fail to evaluate and act on it in some way, even if it is just to decide to ignore it, we would

2012 ◽  
pp. 213-213
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Conscious Awareness ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Critical Reasoning ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The Common ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Time Information

NOTE ON INDUCTION

Think ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (33) ◽  
pp. 37-39
Author(s):  
Ted Parent
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
As If

Some logic textbooks say, as if it were the received wisdom, that inductive arguments are partly defined by the thinker's intentions. The claim is that an inductive argument is one where the premises are intended to make the conclusion likely. This contrasts with a deductive argument, where the premises are intended to entail the conclusion. However, since entailing is one way of making more likely, a further way to distinguish induction is needed. The addition offered is that the premises are not intended to entail the conclusion. Taken together, the result is: (1) An argument is inductive if the premises are (a) intended to make the conclusion likely, but (b) not intended to entail the conclusion.

Faith and the Existence of God

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 121-143
Author(s):  
R. G. Swinburne ◽  
D. C. Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Existence Of God ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument

Arguments move from premises to conclusions. The premises state things taken temporally for granted; if the argument works, the premises provide grounds for affirming the conclusion. A valid deductive argument is one in which the premises necessitate, that is, entail, the conclusion. (It would involve a self-contradiction to assert the premises but deny the conclusion.) What I shall call a ‘correct’ inductive argument is one in which the premises in some degree probabilify the conclusion, but do not necessitate it. More precisely, in what I shall call a correct P-inductive argument the premises make the conclusion probable (i.e. more probable than not); in what I shall call a correct C-inductive argument, the premises add to the probability of the conclusion (i.e. confirm it, make it more probable than it was; but do not necessarily make it overall probable). Arguments only show their conclusions to be true if they start from true premises; arguments of the above types which work (i.e. are valid or correct) and do start from such premises I will call sound arguments. Arguments are only of use to show to an individual that the conclusion is true if he already knows the premises to be true. Most of what I shall have to say today concerns arguments with respect to which there is no doubt that the premises are true.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document