Both inductive and deductive reasoning are important and useful; they are essentially two sides of the same coin. Deductive reasoning starts with a premise and works toward a conclusion, working from the general to a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning does the opposite. It works from specifics to a more general conclusion.

Select a posts and address the following:

• Which of the two arguments do you think is the stronger one? Why? Is there a way to make the weaker of the two arguments better?
• Do you agree with the original post's position about the strength of inductive and deductive arguments? Why or why not?

Deductive argument:

• My dog Duke is an albino Doberman. (True Statement)
• Albino Dobermen are white. (True Statement)
• Therefore, my dog is white. (Has to be true, and is)

Inductive argument:

• I have a white dog. (True)
• My dog is a Doberman. (True)
• Therefore, my dog is an albino Doberman. (In this case, the conclusion is potentially true based on all the give premises being true.)

I believe that my deductive argument is stronger than my inductive argument. In my deductive argument, I told that my dog was an albino Doberman and that albino Doberman are white. So, this has to mean my conclusion, that my dog is white has to be true. Whereas, in my inductive argument, I say that I have a white dog and that he is a Doberman and concluded that he is an albino Doberman. In this situation, the conclusion I present is most likely true, but not guaranteed to be true. In any argument, if you can provide a guarantee for the conclusion, it will always be stronger than an argument that offers the same number or more true premises. Still, those premises do not facilitate a guarantee but provide a probability for truth instead. However, in most cases, your strongest and most useful arguments are going to be an inductive arguments. We as people generally tend to build cases with lots ofprobability premises because life is chaotic and rarely offers arguments to be deductive based on the content of the arguments not offering strong enough true premises that arrive at a guanteed conclusion.