1. Who doesnt love logic? Inductive and deductive reasoning All information can be found on 467-476 in your textbook.

2. Inductive Reasoning This thought process starts with observing small details (evidence) and using that evidence to form an inductive leap (a hypothesis or generalization). Example: evid 1: I have a fever. evid 2: I keep sneezing. Conclusion: I am sick.

3. Example from your book: Several people were mugged last night while shopping in town (evidence). Several homes and apartments were burglarized in the past few weeks. (evidence) Several cars were stolen from peoples driveways. The police hasnt protected the town. (conclusion or inductive leap)

4. Be careful with inductive leaps You cannot 100% rule out other possible conclusions. For example, maybe it isnt the polices fault. Maybe individuals were making careless or risky decisions with their property.

5. Deductive Reasoning Starts with a broad conclusion. Narrows generalization to a concise point. Opposite of inductive reasoning. Three logical parts are required to use deductive reasoning: 1. major premise 2. minor premise 3. conclusion.

6. Major Premise: Space programs in the past have led to important developments in technology, especially in medical science. Minor premise: The Cosmos Mission is the newest program. Conclusion: The Cosmos Mission will likely lead to developments in medical science. Conclusion: Congress should continue funding the Cosmos Mission.

7. Be careful of making a faulty conclusion Major Premise: Students who plagiarize papers must appear before the Faculty Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures. Minor Premise: Yesterday, Jennifer, the president of the student government appeared before the Committee. Conclusion: Jennifer plagiarized a paper. Action: Jennifer must resign. (WTH?)

8. Toulmin Logic Claim: thesis, action, or conclusion. Data/Reason: the evidence (facts, stats., observations, etc.) Warrant: underlying assumption between the claim and reason.

9. Toulmin Example Data/Reason: The train engineer was under the influence of drugs when the train crashed. Claim: Transportation employees entrusted with the publics safety should be tested for drug use. Warrant: Transportation employees entrusted with the public safety should not be allowed to work stoned.