Induction - What Kind Of Inductive Argument Is This?

[Wannabelifeguard]

Hi guys,

 

I am currently studying inductive logic in my spare time. I was writing out arguments and then analysing them based on what I had learned so far. I wrote this one down:

 

P1: Strong legs are good for climbing mountains.

P2: When the COVID19 lockdown ends I want to go and climb a mountain. (EDIT1: We are not allowed out in the wilderness during lockdown (including mountains))

C1: Therefore I should focus on strengthening my legs.

 

This is an inductive argument because the premises strengthen the likelihood that the conclusion is true. It is obviously not a deduction because the conclusion can still be wrong even if the premises are correct. For example, I might have other priorities that are more important. Or perhaps my legs are already strong enough. Or endurance might be a bigger issue for me. So I have concluded that this argument is inductive. But which one is it:

 

1. A prediction

2. Argument from analogy

3. Generalisation

4. Argument from authority

5. Argument from signs

6. Causal effect

 

The argument does not seem to fall under any of those classes of argument.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Wannabelifeguard

[GAHD]

it's probably more a fallacy like "it does not follow."

mainly because you're relating two disparate things.

[Wannabelifeguard]

Oh wow, that is interesting. I did not expect that.

 

Do you know what the logical fallacy would be called in this example?

 

And what is meant by "two disparate things"?

 

If I restated it this way:

 

P1: Strong legs are good for climbing mountains.

P2: When the COVID19 lockdown ends I want to go and climb a mountain.

C1: Therefore, strengthening my legs now, will be good for climbing a mountain after the lockdown ends.

 

Does it become deductive? If it is deductive, would it be a hypothetical syllogism?

 

If P1 and P2, then C1. That would make it a hypothetical syllogism right?

 

Thanks for your response.

[GAHD]

Primarily the non sequitur is an implied one: There's nothing stopping you from climbing a mountain with the COVID19 thing happening. In fact getting AWAY from urbanized areas is a logical conclusion.

You'd have to link things that aren't apples and oranges to have either deductive or inductive reasoning chains.
EG:
-Strong legs are good for climbing mountains
-(my/your) legs are (strong/weak)
:. it is a (good/bad) idea to climb a mountain.

But even that is an oversimplification, and a poor use of logic because of that poor simplification. It might be a misapplication of "climb" where "hike" should be used, it might be simply that there are far too many undefined concepts that are implied.

It's not wrong that training your legs is good for hiking, but the "lockdown" probably isn't going to prevent you from doing it so it's an extraneous variable. That doesn't mean the CONCLUSION is wrong, but it does mean that the logic leading to that conclusion is poor. It's perfectly common to get to a valid conclusion with false precepts

[Wannabelifeguard]

Primarily the non sequitur is an implied one: There's nothing stopping you from climbing a mountain with the COVID19 thing happening. In fact getting AWAY from urbanized areas is a logical conclusion.

 

You'd have to link things that aren't apples and oranges to have either deductive or inductive reasoning chains.

EG:

-Strong legs are good for climbing mountains

-(my/your) legs are (strong/weak)

:. it is a (good/bad) idea to climb a mountain.

 

But even that is an oversimplification, and a poor use of logic because of that poor simplification. It might be a misapplication of "climb" where "hike" should be used, it might be simply that there are far too many undefined concepts that are implied.

 

It's not wrong that training your legs is good for hiking, but the "lockdown" probably isn't going to prevent you from doing it so it's an extraneous variable. That doesn't mean the CONCLUSION is wrong, but it does mean that the logic leading to that conclusion is poor. It's perfectly common to get to a valid conclusion with false precepts

 

Okay, I think this might just come down to a factual misunderstanding here. In my country it is against the law to go in to the mountains/wilderness during the lockdown. With this added fact, does that make my argument more acceptable?

 

My understanding of your response is that you could not see how the lockdown was relevant to my argument - is that correct? Hence why you said "you're relating two disparate things.".

Edited March 31, 2020 by Wannabelifeguard