Question 1:

The conclusions from inductive arguments follow with some degree of probability.

(The conclusions from deductive arguments follow with certainty, as long as (1) the premises are ASSUMED true, (2) the argument's structure is valid.)

Decide whether the following arguments are inductive or deductive:

If our team scores a touchdown in their next game, then they will win. Our team always scores a touchdown. So, our team will win.

Definitions reduce ambiguity. Either you understand how definitions work or you don't. Definitions limit the possible interpretations. So, definitions reduce ambiguity.

Our team will probably score a touchdown in their next game. They usually don't score until the last minutes, though. So, we won't be sure until the last minute.

Grey parrots can be taught to identify forty shapes, several colors, and 200 names of items, and appears to make requests like, "I'd like a shower." Gray parrots are probably able to communicate about things in their environment with other parrots using vocalizations.

The weather bureau predicted a snow storm for this weekend. They are usually quite accurate, but it probably won't snow because we are going skiing this weekend.

Question 2: 

Match the follow vocabulary with its operational definition:

ask: what follows from these premises?        contradictory, first step in deductive reasoning,         consistency,  principle of charity, second step in deductive reasoning

One statement is true and the other false.    contradictory, first step in deductive reasoning, consistency,  principle of charity, second step in deductive reasoning

Invent arguments to support the opposing view.     contradictory, first step in deductive reasoning, consistency,  principle of charity, second step in deductive reasoning

Two statements are either both true or both false.  contradictory, first step in deductive reasoning, consistency,  principle of charity, second step in deductive reasoning

Assume the premises are true.     contradictory, first step in deductive reasoning, consistency,  principle of charity, second step in deductive reasoning

Question 3:

If a deductive argument is structured correctly, then the truth of its premises will guarantee the truth of its conclusion. If a deductive argument has correct structure, then it is a valid argument.

If a valid argument's premises turn out to be false. The structure of the argument is still valid.

When a deductive argument's premises are true, and the structure is valid, then the argument is sound.

An inductive argument cannot be either valid or sound.

It is possible to change an inductive argument into deductive standard form argument.
__________
Use the definitions above to decide whether the following statements are true or false:

An argument that is valid, but not sound must have a true conclusion.

The validity of a deductive arguments depends entirely on its structure.

If all its premises are true, and its structure is valid, then its conclusion must be true.

An inductive argument may be changed into a deductive argument.

The conclusion of an inductive argument must be true, if its premises are true.

A sound argument must also be valid.

An inductive argument can be valid.

It is possible for a deductively valid argument to also have a false or nonsense conclusion.

It is possible to have a valid argument that is not sound.

Question 4:

A conditional statement has three parts: an antecedent, consequent and logical operator.

If (antecedent) then, (consequent)

If an argument's structure is deductively valid, and its premises ARE TRUE, it is not POSSIBLE that its conclusion CAN be false.

Review the documents linked to Moodle about common mistakes in reasoning and formal argument structure. Then decide whether the following arguments are valid.

USE ONE OF THESE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW: invalid fallacy of affirming the consequent, invalid fallacy of denying  the antecedent, valid modus tollens, valid modus ponens

If X is true, then Y is true. Y is true, therefore X is true.

If the party is on campus, then students will not drink alcohol. The party is not on campus. So, students will drink alcohol.

If it is raining outside, then the pavement will be wet. The pavement is wet. So, it is raining outside.

If the medicine is taken correctly, then it will cure most cases of TB. Everyone in this village took the medicine correctly. So, the medicine cured most cases of TB in this village.

If the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the scientists' motive was to reassure the public, and that they had an obligation to warn the public of the risks, then the scientists' are guilty of misinforming the public. The scientists are guilty of misinforming the public. Therefore, the prosecution must have proven the scientists motive and obligation beyond a reasonable doubt.

If K, then M. Not M. So, Not K.

If he works here for 5 years, he will go on a month long vacation to Hawaii. He did not work here for 5 years. So, he did not go on a month long vacation to Hawaii.

If K, then M. Not K. So, Not M.

If it is raining outside, then the pavement will be wet. It is raining outside. So, the pavement is wet.