A strategy that uses logical reasoning to reach a conclusion is called:

Prepare for the State Board Instructor Exam. Study with flashcards and multiple choice questions with hints and explanations. Get ready to excel!

Multiple Choice

A strategy that uses logical reasoning to reach a conclusion is called:

The main idea here is using logic to connect a general rule to a specific case and arrive at a conclusion that follows with certainty if the premises are true. That’s deductive reasoning: you start with a rule or premise that is considered true, and you apply it step by step to a particular situation to deduce a conclusion that must be true. For example, if the rule is “All humans are mortal,” and the particular case is “Socrates is a human,” then the conclusion you reach is that Socrates is mortal. When the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false, which is what makes this kind of reasoning powerful for proving things in math, logic, and formal arguments. Inductive reasoning, by contrast, builds generalizations from a pattern of observed cases. The conclusion is probable, not guaranteed, because future observations could contradict the generalization. Abductive reasoning looks for the best explanation or hypothesis that would account for the available evidence, which is useful for diagnosing and explaining but doesn’t guarantee the true cause. Analogical reasoning infers that because two things are similar in some respects, they will be similar in others as well; this depends on the strength of the similarities and isn’t guaranteed to hold. So when a conclusion must follow from general rules applied to a specific instance, that’s deductive reasoning.

The main idea here is using logic to connect a general rule to a specific case and arrive at a conclusion that follows with certainty if the premises are true. That’s deductive reasoning: you start with a rule or premise that is considered true, and you apply it step by step to a particular situation to deduce a conclusion that must be true.

For example, if the rule is “All humans are mortal,” and the particular case is “Socrates is a human,” then the conclusion you reach is that Socrates is mortal. When the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false, which is what makes this kind of reasoning powerful for proving things in math, logic, and formal arguments.

Inductive reasoning, by contrast, builds generalizations from a pattern of observed cases. The conclusion is probable, not guaranteed, because future observations could contradict the generalization. Abductive reasoning looks for the best explanation or hypothesis that would account for the available evidence, which is useful for diagnosing and explaining but doesn’t guarantee the true cause. Analogical reasoning infers that because two things are similar in some respects, they will be similar in others as well; this depends on the strength of the similarities and isn’t guaranteed to hold.

So when a conclusion must follow from general rules applied to a specific instance, that’s deductive reasoning.

More practice questions