Content
The abductive argument It is one that, starting from a statement or fact, allows to extract a hypothesis. The reasoning used in these arguments is that of syllogism, which uses two parts or premises from which it draws a conclusion.
Types of reasoning
There are three types of reasoning:
- Deductive reasoning. Its premises start from something general and then particularize it. For example: If all the sheep are white, I deduce that the sheep to be born will also be all white.
- Theinductive reasoning. It starts from something individual or particular and generalizes it in the premises (performs the opposite way to the deductive one). For example: the roof of my house was razed after the storm so, by induction, I would believe that all the roofs of my neighbors' houses suffered the same damage.
- Theabductive reasoning. Consider the first premise to be true and the second premise to be only probable. From both, he draws a conclusion as a logical result by abducting the previous premises.
Aristotle devised the most famous syllogism in history. By starting from true premises, he asserts that the conclusion is also true:
1st premise: all men are mortal
2nd premise: Socrates is a man
- conclusion: Socrates is deadly
However, true premises are not always used, and consequently the conclusion sometimes is not. For example:
1st premise: All Orientals practice Buddhism
2nd premise: Juan is oriental
- conclusion: Juan practices Buddhism
The risk with this type of reasoning is that the premises are taken as accurate and conclusions are drawn from there. However, we know that not all Orientals practice Buddhism, so a wrong conclusion can be reached. Therefore, it is important to confirm that the premises are correct in order to reach appropriate conclusions.
Examples of abductive argument
1st premise: The most elegant women shop at Alicia's store.
2nd premise: Rosa is an elegant woman.
- conclusion: So Rosa must shop at Alicia's store.
1st premise: Today is a sunny day.
2nd premise: On sunny days we go for a walk with my dad.
- conclusion: Today we will go for a walk with my dad.
1st premise: The drug is consumed by many young people.
2nd premise: Many young people have free time.
- conclusion: Young people with free time use drugs.
1st premise: The kitchen floor was wet today.
2nd premise: The refrigerator lost water.
- conclusion: The floor was wet from the loss of water from the refrigerator.
1st premise: All truckers are womanizers.
2nd premise: Pedro is a road worker.
- conclusion: Pedro is a womanizer.
1st premise: Uruguayans are nice and calm people.
2nd premise: Carlos and María are nice and calm.
- conclusion: Carlos and María are Uruguayans.
1st premise: The wallets in your store are very expensive.
2nd premise: Sofia only buys expensive handbags.
- conclusion: Sofia will have bought or will buy in your store.
1st premise: The restaurant was always packed with tourists.
2nd premise: Rodrigo is a tourist.
- conclusion: Rodrigo is in that restaurant.
1st premise: The neighbors are noisy.
2nd premise: Sabrina is my neighbor.
- conclusion: Sabrina is loud.
1st premise: All the birds in this area migrate in winter.
2nd premise: This is a bird.
- conclusion: This bird must migrate when winter arrives.
