1. Deductive argum
ents: conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises (dien dich) 2. Inductive ar
guments : conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises (quy nap) 3. Ke y differences : 4. T est: a. The Indicator W ord Test: -
Deduction indicator word: necessarily, ,
logically it must be the case that, and this proves that -
Induction indicator word: probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to think that, and it's a good bet that
b. The Strict Necessity T
est : whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical necessity -
If it does  deductive argument - If it does not inductive ar  gument c. The Common Pa
ttern Test: whether the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive.  Deductive rea soning: - Hypothetical syllogism: 
Syllogism: 3-line argument: 2 premises + 1 conclusion 
Hypothetical = conditional (if-then premise)  5 types:
 Modus ponens: If A then B   A Therefore, B.
 Modus tollens: If A then B Not B  Theref  ore, not A.
 Chain argument: If A then B If B then C  Theref  ore, if A then C
 Denying the antecedent: If A then B Not A  Theref  ore, not B.
 Affirming the consequent: If A then B B  Theref  ore, A -
Categorical syllogism: 3-line argument: each statement begins with “all”, “some” or “no” -
Argument by elimination: logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains -
Argument based on mathematics: logical, step-by-step reasoning. Conclusion depend largely on some
mathematical calculation or measurement. -
Argument from definition: conclusion: being “true by definition”: follow some key words or phrases used  Inductive r easoning: -
Inductive generalization: generalization: probably true: based on information about (all or most) some members of a particular class. -
Predictive argument: a prediction: is defended with reasons -
Argument from authority: assert a claim + support that claim: citing some presumed authority or witness
(who has said that claim is true) -
Causal argument: assert or deny: sth is the cause of sth else -
Statically argument: rest on statistical evidence (% of some particular characteristic group or class) -
Argument form anaology: conclusion: depend on an analogy
(analogy: comparison: alike in some relevant respect)
d. The Principle of Charity T est: 5. Deductive v alidity: a.
Valid deductive argument: conclusion follow logically from the premises (impossible: all premises: true and conclusion: false)
b. Invalid deductive argument: conclusion does not follow logically from the premises c. The 3C test: -
Check: whether the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false. 
If they are  argument: invalid  If they are not: go on step 2 -
Conceive: possible scenario: premises be true and conclusion false 
Can conceive: argument: invalid 
Can’t conceive: go on to step 3 -
Counterexample – speacial kind of parallel argument.
 Step 1: Determine the logical form of argument
 Step 2: Construct a parallel argument: same logical pattern as the tested one: but has premises that are
clearly true and a conclusion that is clearly false 
Can construct: argument: invalid 
Can’t construct: probably valid 6. Inductive str ength : -
Strong inductive argument: conclusion follows probably form the premises -
Weak inductive argument: conclusion does not follow probably from the premises