What conclusion should the research team reach for each of the following possible test results? Explain the inductive or deductive reasoning strategy that led to your answer.

a.       All of the mice given K turned purple, while the control mice did not.

The above conclusion is the most suitable and relevant to the possible test results. If this answer is analyzed as per inductive and deductive reasoning, then it can be said that inductive reasoning was behind this conclusion. As per Premise P1, it was revealed that scientists have made a statement for an experiment that if mice will be exposed to compound K, then their hair will turn into purple color. According to deductive reasoning, it is important to use some propositions or premises, and then conclusions are deducted after testing some observations. So, here scientists used deductive reasoning, where the pattern was proposed, which was then proved by the test results.

b.      None of the mice turned purple.

c.       Some of the mice given K turned purple, but so did a couple of the control mice.

2.      (1 point each) Which of the following arguments are VALID deductive arguments?  Identify the valid argument structure, or explain briefly why it is not valid.

a.       If you watch cartoons, you’re a child. You’re not a child.Therefore, you don’t watch cartoons.

It could be considered as deductive reasoning due to the outline has clearly arranged that you are not a child, and therefore, you do not watch cartoons. Then the conclusion has formed from this outline that if you watch cartoons, then you are a child, and the result is that, because you are not a child, therefore you do not watch any cartoon.

b.      If you watch cartoons, you’re a child.You don’t watch cartoons.Therefore, you’re not a child.

It is based on deductive reasoning because the pattern has been set that whoever watches the cartoon, he/she is a child, and if you don’t watch cartoons, then the conclusion is made following the previous pattern that you are not a child.

c.       If it lives on Andromeda, it’s an extraterrestrial.  If it speaks Galactoc, it is an extraterrestrial. Therefore, Andromedans speak Galactoc.

This sentence is also based on deductive reasoning. The reason is due to an outline or pattern has been arranged that if it lives on Andromeda, it is an extraterrestrial. Then, if it speaks Galactoc, then it is an extraterrestrial. As a consequence, Andromedans speak Galactoc because it has mentioned in the previous pattern that it is an extraterrestrial that speaks Galactoc, and the first pattern clearly defined that an extraterrestrial lives on Andromeda, and thus, they are named with Andromedan, and they speak in Galactoc.

d.      Any decent human being is happier with a pet. You’re a decent human being, so you’d be happier with a pet.

Same is the case with this sentence, it is based on deductive reasoning, because a pattern is set earlier that a decent human being is happier with a pet, so if you are a decent human being, then you would be happier with a pet.

e.       My doctor tells me that red meat is bad for you. I read several articles in reputable medical journals that said the same thing. Therefore, red meat is bad for you.

f.        Rahim and his date will go either to dinner or to a movie. They will go to a movie. Therefore, they will not go to dinner.

Here again, a pattern has been decided that they will either go to a movie or dinner. That’s why the conclusion is made on the proposition that they went to a movie, so it was an obvious conclusion that they will not go for dinner. However, if the same argument is analyzed as per inductive reasoning, then it is not correct because they have not provided any logic that if they will go for a movie, then why they can’t go for the dinner. The pattern is set, but it has deductive reasoning, where the conclusion is not made based on logical reasoning, rather it is based on a given proposition and a pattern.

3.      (6 points) Compare and contrast Inductive Generalization, Hasty Generalization, and Statistical Inferences.

Before, comparing and contrasting these three concepts, it is important to understand each concept with some relevant examples so that their comparison is more valid with some evidence. It is important to know what is meant by inductive generalization. It is a concept, where a conclusion is derived from a given pattern of information, and the result is generalized based on probability. The thing is that the conclusion made from inductive reasoning can be right, but it also can be wrong, as there is no 100% guarantee that a derived conclusion will always be true. Let us understand this with the help of an example. For instance, a statement is made that “Bob leaves for his office at 8 am and reaches the office in time, so if he leaves for office today at 8 am, again he will be there in time. As per the probability, he may reach the office in time, but this statement cannot be generalized always, because no other aspects are included in the statement. Today, Bob can face any kind of issue, like he can be late due to traffic jam, or can get late due to any other reason. It shows that it can be right to say that Bob will reach the office in time, but it has not considered anything else, so if any issue will happen at any day, Bob will get late from the office.

The hasty generalization is another concept, which concludes based on non-representative or insufficient samples. It means that the sample is too small to jump to a generalized or universal conclusion applying to the whole population. For instance, if a person says that his father started smoking at the age of 16 and he used to smoke two packs of cigarettes in daily routine, and he did that till the age of 65, and he died at the age of 66 years old. That’s why it is not true that smoking kills you and your life is shortened due to smoking cigarettes. Looking at the conclusion made by the person with regards to his father is correct, as he lived for so many years; even he kept smoking for his whole life. But this fact cannot be generalized for others, because studies have proved that smoking is a bad thing for health, and it can be life-threatening for many people. Even if a study is conducted for the same issue in a city of one country, then its results cannot be generalized for the whole world, because the sample is small and insufficient to make a considerable conclusion. If inductive generalization and hasty generalization are compared, it can be said that both are quite similar in terms of making false conclusions, which cannot be right for every situation. On the other hand, Statistical inference is quite different from both inductive and hasty generalization. In this concept, the data is taken from a large population with a sufficient sample, and then statistics are analyzed to test hypotheses so that a considerable result or finding is made. It means that statistical inference makes conclusions based on good enough evidence. As compared to statistical inference, the conclusions made in inductive and hasty generalization are incorrect, because both don’t base any logical reasoning or good enough sample to generalize the conclusion.

  (4 points) Explain the difference between valid Chain Arguments and Slippery Slope fallacies.

It is important to understand that when arguments are made to get to a conclusion, various things can be part of the arguments. One such type is a valid chain argument. In chain argument, the arguments and premises are connected in the shape of a chain, where one argument is made, then the next argument is connected with the previous one, and then all arguments make a chain, which leads to a valid conclusion. For instance, if an argument is made that traffic is jammed, so David will be late. If David will be too late, then he will miss his flight at the airport. Therefore, if traffic remains s jammed, then David will miss his flight. It is evident that the chain of arguments is connected, and then a valid conclusion is made. On the other hand, Slippery Slope fallacy is a concept, where when a claim is made by someone, then he would come up with more claims to reach to a conclusion, which would be a bad event for all. It means that when someone starts the argument with some fallacy, he continues with it until reaching an awful or bad conclusion. For example, if someone says that gun control laws should not be enacted in any kind, as they can be bad. If we will not be allowed to have guns, then we will not be able to defend ourselves. Therefore, when terrorists will attack us, we will not be able to defend our country; so ultimately, terrorists will capture the control of our country. It is evident that a first false argument is proposed, which continued with false arguments reaching a bad and false conclusion.