Please provide a response to my below relating to philosophy:

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments. Despite studying deductive arguments in the text, reviewing the Week 1 lectures, and researching online, I'm having difficulty grasping such a, at least for me, murky, far from clear concept.The textbook states that, "...a deductive argument is an argument of such a form that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true too...Deductive arguments differ from the sorts of arguments so far considered, in which even a large number of true premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion."

The textbook also offers the following example of a deductive argument:

• If there are no chance factors in chess, the chess is a game of pure skill.
• There are no chance factors in chess.
• Therefore, chess is a game of pure skill.

We are urged to presume that the premises are true, and that we can thereby conclude "with perfect assurance" that chess is indeed a game of pure skill. "There is no way to admit the truth of these premises but deny the conclusion." The above argument seems to be of valid form and sound. The best I can say about the example given for discussion is that the author's reasoning is probably true. I deduce therefore that the argument is inductive. I doubt I would categorize it as "Very Strong" but it might be so. I would say it's "Strong" even in spite of the fact that the true premises may yet yield a false conclusion. The lecture states clearly that, "This situation never happens with deductive arguments."

The only logical fallacy I can detect - and it's very weak - is that, in my experience, art tends to vary wildly as regards price, and the reasoning used to arrive at a price for any given piece seems to be devoid of any endorsement by logic. This may be the case for Leslie and the photographs in the waiting area. Her best bet: leave what must be a most comfortable seat and verify first hand.