Back
0

Inductive Arguments and Strength

Description: This quiz is designed to test your understanding of inductive arguments and their strength. Inductive arguments are a type of logical argument that uses evidence to support a conclusion, but the conclusion is not necessarily guaranteed to be true. The strength of an inductive argument is determined by the quality and quantity of the evidence used to support the conclusion.
Number of Questions: 15
Created by:
Tags: inductive arguments strength of arguments logical reasoning
Start the Quiz
Attempted 0/15 Correct 0 Score 0
‹
›

Which of the following is an example of an inductive argument?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is an inductive argument because it uses evidence (the fact that I have seen many white swans) to support a conclusion (that all swans are white). However, the conclusion is not necessarily true, because it is possible that there are black swans that I have not seen.

Which of the following is an example of a deductive argument?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is a deductive argument because the conclusion (that Socrates is mortal) is guaranteed to be true if the premises (that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man) are true.

What is the difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument?

  1. Inductive arguments use evidence to support a conclusion, while deductive arguments do not.

  2. Inductive arguments are always true, while deductive arguments are not.

  3. Inductive arguments are based on probability, while deductive arguments are based on certainty.

  4. Inductive arguments are used to make predictions, while deductive arguments are used to prove facts.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The main difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument is that inductive arguments use evidence to support a conclusion, while deductive arguments do not. Inductive arguments are based on probability, while deductive arguments are based on certainty.

What is the strength of an inductive argument determined by?

  1. The quality and quantity of the evidence used to support the conclusion.

  2. The number of premises in the argument.

  3. The length of the argument.

  4. The complexity of the argument.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The strength of an inductive argument is determined by the quality and quantity of the evidence used to support the conclusion. The more evidence there is, and the better the quality of the evidence, the stronger the argument will be.

Which of the following is an example of a strong inductive argument?

  1. All swans are white.

  2. I have seen many white swans.

  3. Therefore, all swans are white.

  4. Most people who smoke cigarettes get lung cancer.

  5. I know someone who smoked cigarettes and got lung cancer.

  6. Therefore, most people who smoke cigarettes get lung cancer.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is a strong inductive argument because the evidence (the fact that I know someone who smoked cigarettes and got lung cancer) is relevant to the conclusion (that most people who smoke cigarettes get lung cancer). The evidence is also strong because it is based on a large sample size (the population of people who smoke cigarettes).

Which of the following is an example of a weak inductive argument?

  1. All swans are white.

  2. I have seen many white swans.

  3. Therefore, all swans are white.

  4. Most people who smoke cigarettes get lung cancer.

  5. I know someone who smoked cigarettes and got lung cancer.

  6. Therefore, most people who smoke cigarettes get lung cancer.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is a weak inductive argument because the evidence (the fact that I have seen many white swans) is not relevant to the conclusion (that all swans are white). The evidence is also weak because it is based on a small sample size (the number of white swans that I have seen).

What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

  1. Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument.

  2. Assuming that the premises of an argument are true and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion of the argument.

  3. Assuming that one premise of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the other premise of the argument.

  4. Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument. This is a fallacy because it is possible for the conclusion of an argument to be true even if the premises are false.

What is the fallacy of denying the antecedent?

  1. Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument.

  2. Assuming that the premises of an argument are true and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion of the argument.

  3. Assuming that one premise of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the other premise of the argument.

  4. Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument.

Show answer
Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The fallacy of denying the antecedent is assuming that the conclusion of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the premises of the argument. This is a fallacy because it is possible for the conclusion of an argument to be false even if the premises are true.

What is the difference between a fallacy and a valid argument?

  1. A fallacy is an argument that is based on false premises, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on true premises.

  2. A fallacy is an argument that is based on invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on valid reasoning.

  3. A fallacy is an argument that is based on both false premises and invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on both true premises and valid reasoning.

  4. A fallacy is an argument that is based on either false premises or invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on both true premises and valid reasoning.

Show answer
Correct Option: B
Explanation:

The main difference between a fallacy and a valid argument is that a fallacy is based on invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is based on valid reasoning. A fallacy can have true premises, but it will still be a fallacy if the reasoning is invalid. A valid argument can have false premises, but it will still be a valid argument if the reasoning is valid.

Which of the following is an example of a fallacy?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is an example of a fallacy because the reasoning is invalid. The fact that I have seen many white swans does not necessarily mean that all swans are white. It is possible that there are black swans that I have not seen.

Which of the following is an example of a valid argument?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is an example of a valid argument because the reasoning is valid. The conclusion (that Socrates is mortal) follows logically from the premises (that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man).

What is the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument?

  1. A sound argument is an argument that is based on true premises and valid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on valid reasoning.

  2. A sound argument is an argument that is based on true premises and invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on false premises and valid reasoning.

  3. A sound argument is an argument that is based on false premises and valid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on true premises and invalid reasoning.

  4. A sound argument is an argument that is based on false premises and invalid reasoning, while a valid argument is an argument that is based on true premises and valid reasoning.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The main difference between a sound argument and a valid argument is that a sound argument is based on true premises, while a valid argument is not necessarily based on true premises. A sound argument is both valid and true, while a valid argument is only valid.

Which of the following is an example of a sound argument?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is an example of a sound argument because it is both valid and true. The premises (that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man) are true, and the conclusion (that Socrates is mortal) follows logically from the premises.

Which of the following is an example of a valid but unsound argument?

  1. All men are mortal.

  2. Socrates is a man.

  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

  4. All swans are white.

  5. I have seen many white swans.

  6. Therefore, all swans are white.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

This is an example of a valid but unsound argument because it is valid but not true. The premises (that I have seen many white swans) are true, but the conclusion (that all swans are white) is not necessarily true. It is possible that there are black swans that I have not seen.

What is the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument?

  1. Deductive arguments are based on evidence, while inductive arguments are not.

  2. Deductive arguments are always true, while inductive arguments are not.

  3. Deductive arguments are based on probability, while inductive arguments are based on certainty.

  4. Deductive arguments are used to make predictions, while inductive arguments are used to prove facts.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The main difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument is that deductive arguments are based on evidence, while inductive arguments are not. Deductive arguments are based on certainty, while inductive arguments are based on probability.

- Hide questions
ADVERTISEMENT

Find more quizzes from top tags

general knowledge
3615 Quizzes
119858 Questions
 technology
307 Quizzes
36705 Questions
 sports
963 Quizzes
19148 Questions
 history
1187 Quizzes
13475 Questions
 physics
598 Quizzes
13441 Questions
 biology
1160 Quizzes
12174 Questions
 science & technology
551 Quizzes
11015 Questions
 chemistry
490 Quizzes
9892 Questions
 maths
518 Quizzes
9324 Questions
 softskills
0 Quizzes
7131 Questions