Critical Thinking Discussion Question: Deductive vs Inductive Logic

Imagine your child is trying to prove that she did not steal chocolate chip cookies from the cookie jar, so she makes this argument: “There are no chocolate stains on my hands, so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.”

Does this example require deductive or inductive logic? What are the premises? Are the premises stated or unstated? What is the argument’s conclusion? In your opinion, is this a convincing argument? Why or why not?

The above example requires inductive logic rather than deductive logic. Deductive logic is where if the premise is true, then the conclusion must also be absolutely true. Inductive logic is defined as the premise supporting the conclusion rather proving the conclusion.

A premise is the reason to believe the conclusion; therefore the premise of this argument is “There are no chocolate stains on my hands.” The conclusion of the argument is “…so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.”

Unfortunately, I do think that this is a convincing argument. While this argument is not convincing to me, this type of inductive logic is used every day in business and politics. Take Johnnie Cochran’s famous inductive logic quote, “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.” Or from my own “neck of the woods”, our North Carolina Governor has recently been questioned on his lavish spending of tax payer dollars - $64,000 for a chauffeured Mercedes on his “recruiting trip” to Europe.
"If you go overseas, that’s what you see. You don’t get off the plane in Rome and tell them you want a Crown Vic. The taxis are Mercedes. Now it sounds like a big deal here. And somebody’s got to drive it. If you’re in Ireland, or Belgium, or England, they drive on the other side of the road. We don’t know how to do that."

The inductive argument is that all they have in Rome is Mercedes and they don’t know how to drive on the other side of the road, therefore they need a chauffeured Mercedes on taxpayer money.