Deductive Arguments
| Description: This quiz will test your understanding of deductive arguments, a type of logical argument in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. | |
| Number of Questions: 15 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: deductive arguments logic philosophy |
Which of the following is a valid deductive argument?
-
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.
-
All roses are red. This flower is red. Therefore, this flower is a rose.
This is a valid deductive argument because the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. The first premise states that all men are mortal, and the second premise states that Socrates is a man. Therefore, the conclusion that Socrates is mortal is guaranteed to be true.
Which of the following is an example of a deductive argument?
-
The sky is blue. Therefore, the grass is green.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
I am feeling tired. Therefore, I should go to bed.
-
The sun is shining. Therefore, it is daytime.
This is an example of a deductive argument because the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. The first premise states that all dogs are mammals, and the second premise states that Fido is a dog. Therefore, the conclusion that Fido is a mammal is guaranteed to be true.
What is the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument?
-
A deductive argument is based on evidence, while an inductive argument is based on logic.
-
A deductive argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is not.
-
A deductive argument is based on a single premise, while an inductive argument is based on multiple premises.
-
A deductive argument is used to prove a general statement, while an inductive argument is used to prove a specific statement.
The main difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument is that a deductive argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is not. A deductive argument is based on logic, while an inductive argument is based on evidence.
Which of the following is an example of an inductive argument?
-
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
-
I have flipped a coin 10 times and it has landed on heads each time. Therefore, the next time I flip the coin, it will land on heads.
This is an example of an inductive argument because the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true even if the premises are true. The first premise states that I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year, and the second premise states that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, it is possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, even though I have seen it rise every day for the past year.
What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
-
Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
-
Assuming that the premises of an argument are true and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion.
-
Assuming that one premise of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the other premise.
-
Assuming that the opposite of the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that the conclusion of an argument is true and then uses that assumption to prove the premises. This is a fallacy because the truth of the conclusion does not guarantee the truth of the premises.
Which of the following is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
-
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining.
-
If I study hard, then I will get a good grade. I got a good grade. Therefore, I must have studied hard.
-
If I eat chocolate, then I will get a headache. I have a headache. Therefore, I must have eaten chocolate.
-
If I go to the beach, then I will see the ocean. I saw the ocean. Therefore, I must have gone to the beach.
This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent because the conclusion (it is raining) is assumed to be true and then used to prove the premise (the streets are wet). However, just because the streets are wet does not mean that it is raining. There could be other reasons why the streets are wet, such as someone washing their car.
What is the fallacy of denying the antecedent?
-
Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
-
Assuming that the premises of an argument are false and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion.
-
Assuming that one premise of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the other premise.
-
Assuming that the opposite of the conclusion of an argument is false and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
The fallacy of denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that the antecedent of a conditional statement is false and then uses that assumption to prove the consequent. This is a fallacy because the falsity of the antecedent does not guarantee the truth of the consequent.
Which of the following is an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent?
-
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet.
-
If I study hard, then I will get a good grade. I did not study hard. Therefore, I will not get a good grade.
-
If I eat chocolate, then I will get a headache. I did not eat chocolate. Therefore, I will not get a headache.
-
If I go to the beach, then I will see the ocean. I did not go to the beach. Therefore, I will not see the ocean.
This is an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent because the antecedent (it is raining) is assumed to be false and then used to prove the consequent (the streets are not wet). However, just because it is not raining does not mean that the streets are not wet. There could be other reasons why the streets are wet, such as someone washing their car.
What is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?
-
A valid argument is based on logic, while a sound argument is based on evidence.
-
A valid argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while a sound argument is not.
-
A valid argument is based on a single premise, while a sound argument is based on multiple premises.
-
A valid argument is used to prove a general statement, while a sound argument is used to prove a specific statement.
The main difference between a valid argument and a sound argument is that a valid argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while a sound argument is not. A valid argument is based on logic, while a sound argument is based on evidence.
Which of the following is an example of a sound argument?
-
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
-
I have flipped a coin 10 times and it has landed on heads each time. Therefore, the next time I flip the coin, it will land on heads.
This is an example of a sound argument because it is both valid and has true premises. The first premise (all men are mortal) is true, and the second premise (Socrates is a man) is also true. Therefore, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is also true.
Which of the following is an example of an unsound argument?
-
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
-
I have flipped a coin 10 times and it has landed on heads each time. Therefore, the next time I flip the coin, it will land on heads.
This is an example of an unsound argument because it is valid but has a false premise. The first premise (I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year) is true, but the second premise (the sun will rise tomorrow) is false. Therefore, the conclusion (the sun will rise tomorrow) is also false.
What is the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument?
-
A deductive argument is based on logic, while an inductive argument is based on evidence.
-
A deductive argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is not.
-
A deductive argument is based on a single premise, while an inductive argument is based on multiple premises.
-
A deductive argument is used to prove a general statement, while an inductive argument is used to prove a specific statement.
The main difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument is that a deductive argument is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is not. A deductive argument is based on logic, while an inductive argument is based on evidence.
Which of the following is an example of an inductive argument?
-
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
-
All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
-
I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
-
I have flipped a coin 10 times and it has landed on heads each time. Therefore, the next time I flip the coin, it will land on heads.
This is an example of an inductive argument because the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true even if the premises are true. The first premise states that I have seen the sun rise every day for the past year, and the second premise states that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, it is possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, even though I have seen it rise every day for the past year.
What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
-
Assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
-
Assuming that the premises of an argument are true and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion.
-
Assuming that one premise of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the other premise.
-
Assuming that the opposite of the conclusion of an argument is true and then using that assumption to prove the premises.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that the conclusion of an argument is true and then uses that assumption to prove the premises. This is a fallacy because the truth of the conclusion does not guarantee the truth of the premises.
Which of the following is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
-
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining.
-
If I study hard, then I will get a good grade. I got a good grade. Therefore, I must have studied hard.
-
If I eat chocolate, then I will get a headache. I have a headache. Therefore, I must have eaten chocolate.
-
If I go to the beach, then I will see the ocean. I saw the ocean. Therefore, I must have gone to the beach.
This is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent because the conclusion (it is raining) is assumed to be true and then used to prove the premise (the streets are wet). However, just because the streets are wet does not mean that it is raining. There could be other reasons why the streets are wet, such as someone washing their car.