All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Logical arguments are usually classified as e... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.
On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.
Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.
 
The author’s primarily concerned with
  • a)
    describing two modes of constructing a logical argument
  • b)
    explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterion
  • c)
    discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approach
  • d)
    establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived at
  • e)
    establishing the supremacy of one process over the other 
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or induct...
The author’s primarily concerned with
Passage Analysis
Summary and Main Point
Prethinking
This is a Main Idea question. The correct choice must be broad enough to encompass the various sections of the passage but specific enough to not veer outside the scope of the passage. Also, before going in to the answer choices, you must come to an approximate idea of what the author wants to convey through the passage. In fact, as soon as you finish reading the passage, you should have a fair idea of the primary purpose/main idea of the passage. Accordingly, let’s take a look at the overall structure of the passage.
As seen in the summary and main point section above, the author explains the two processes in the first two paragraphs and then goes on to evaluate them in the last paragraph. This evaluation is done with respect to how scientific these processes are. So we can conclude that the main purpose of the author is to explain the two normal processes of arriving at a logical argument and evaluate them on a specific criterion.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
describing two modes of constructing a logical argument
Incorrect: Partial Scope
This choice barely captures the scope of the first two paragraphs and fails to account for the final one. In addition to describing the two processes, the author also explains them in detail and then evaluates them in the end with respect to how they fare on a particular criterion.
B
explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterion
Correct
This choice is on the same lines as our pre-thought answer. The specific criterion mentioned in the choice refers to how scientific these processes are.
C
discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approach
Incorrect: Inconsistent
First of all, the author doesn’t say that the processes are not relevant for a scientific approach. He/she says that neither of two approaches is sufficient on its own. Secondly, this discussion is limited to only the third paragraph. 
D
establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived at
Incorrect: Out of Context
The negative points of the two processes are mentioned with respect to evaluating these process in terms of how scientific they are. The author by no means call them illogical. In fact, this statement goes against the following information given to us in the passage:
For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.
E
establishing the supremacy of one process over the other 
Incorrect: Opposite
First of all, the two processes are not pitched against each other in terms of which one of two is more credible in its way of developing an argument. Secondly, the author clearly states that neither of two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or induct...
The author’s primarily concerned with
Passage Analysis
Summary and Main Point
Prethinking
This is a Main Idea question. The correct choice must be broad enough to encompass the various sections of the passage but specific enough to not veer outside the scope of the passage. Also, before going in to the answer choices, you must come to an approximate idea of what the author wants to convey through the passage. In fact, as soon as you finish reading the passage, you should have a fair idea of the primary purpose/main idea of the passage. Accordingly, let’s take a look at the overall structure of the passage.
As seen in the summary and main point section above, the author explains the two processes in the first two paragraphs and then goes on to evaluate them in the last paragraph. This evaluation is done with respect to how scientific these processes are. So we can conclude that the main purpose of the author is to explain the two normal processes of arriving at a logical argument and evaluate them on a specific criterion.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
describing two modes of constructing a logical argument
Incorrect: Partial Scope
This choice barely captures the scope of the first two paragraphs and fails to account for the final one. In addition to describing the two processes, the author also explains them in detail and then evaluates them in the end with respect to how they fare on a particular criterion.
B
explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterion
Correct
This choice is on the same lines as our pre-thought answer. The specific criterion mentioned in the choice refers to how scientific these processes are.
C
discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approach
Incorrect: Inconsistent
First of all, the author doesn’t say that the processes are not relevant for a scientific approach. He/she says that neither of two approaches is sufficient on its own. Secondly, this discussion is limited to only the third paragraph. 
D
establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived at
Incorrect: Out of Context
The negative points of the two processes are mentioned with respect to evaluating these process in terms of how scientific they are. The author by no means call them illogical. In fact, this statement goes against the following information given to us in the passage:
For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.
E
establishing the supremacy of one process over the other 
Incorrect: Opposite
First of all, the two processes are not pitched against each other in terms of which one of two is more credible in its way of developing an argument. Secondly, the author clearly states that neither of two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or induct...
The author’s primarily concerned with
Passage Analysis
Summary and Main Point
Prethinking
This is a Main Idea question. The correct choice must be broad enough to encompass the various sections of the passage but specific enough to not veer outside the scope of the passage. Also, before going in to the answer choices, you must come to an approximate idea of what the author wants to convey through the passage. In fact, as soon as you finish reading the passage, you should have a fair idea of the primary purpose/main idea of the passage. Accordingly, let’s take a look at the overall structure of the passage.
As seen in the summary and main point section above, the author explains the two processes in the first two paragraphs and then goes on to evaluate them in the last paragraph. This evaluation is done with respect to how scientific these processes are. So we can conclude that the main purpose of the author is to explain the two normal processes of arriving at a logical argument and evaluate them on a specific criterion.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
describing two modes of constructing a logical argument
Incorrect: Partial Scope
This choice barely captures the scope of the first two paragraphs and fails to account for the final one. In addition to describing the two processes, the author also explains them in detail and then evaluates them in the end with respect to how they fare on a particular criterion.
B
explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterion
Correct
This choice is on the same lines as our pre-thought answer. The specific criterion mentioned in the choice refers to how scientific these processes are.
C
discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approach
Incorrect: Inconsistent
First of all, the author doesn’t say that the processes are not relevant for a scientific approach. He/she says that neither of two approaches is sufficient on its own. Secondly, this discussion is limited to only the third paragraph. 
D
establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived at
Incorrect: Out of Context
The negative points of the two processes are mentioned with respect to evaluating these process in terms of how scientific they are. The author by no means call them illogical. In fact, this statement goes against the following information given to us in the passage:
For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data.
E
establishing the supremacy of one process over the other 
Incorrect: Opposite
First of all, the two processes are not pitched against each other in terms of which one of two is more credible in its way of developing an argument. Secondly, the author clearly states that neither of two processes is sufficient on its own for a scientific approach.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?

Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.Which one of the following statements is true as per the information given in the passage?

The generally agreed upon definition of hallucinations is that they are actually perceptions in the absence of an external stimulus of the relevant sensory organ. These perceptions are accompanied by a persuasive sense of their reality. Hallucinations are not to be confused with illusions, which are misinterpretations of actual external stimuli. In other words, in the case of a hallucination, for a person hallucinating a sound for instance, the sound actually exists, but in reality it exists nowhere but in the persons mind; however, in the case of an illusion the stimulus that caused the illusion does exist in the real world. Although hallucinations are a key diagnostic feature of schizophrenia, a mental disorder that distorts the way a person thinks, acts, expresses emotions, perceives reality, and relates to others, they can occur in individuals devoid of any physical or mental disorder.In order to understand why people hallucinate, some researchers have been studying people suffering from what is called the phantom limb syndrome, a condition in which people who have undergone amputation feel as though the missing body part were still very much present and attached to the body; for instance, it is not uncommon for a person who has lost a leg to unknowingly try to stand and walk without any external support after their surgery. One of the two main hypotheses behind the phantom limb syndrome offers an explanation that is possibly applicable to why people hallucinate in certain circumstances. As per this theory, the brain is programmed for a body where every body part is intact and in the appropriate place. Accordingly, when some signals go missing, because of the missing body part, the brain compensates for the lack of sensory input by triggering spontaneous nerve cell activity. Although this theory has limited applicability for understanding why patients such as those of schizophrenia hallucinate in conditions not deemed out of the ordinary, it is a step forward in understanding why people experience visual or auditory hallucinations when they are placed in solitary confinements; after all the different areas of the brain that were used to receiving signals through the senses start to stimulate themselves in to action.The author is primarily concerned with

The generally agreed upon definition of hallucinations is that they are actually perceptions in the absence of an external stimulus of the relevant sensory organ. These perceptions are accompanied by a persuasive sense of their reality. Hallucinations are not to be confused with illusions, which are misinterpretations of actual external stimuli. In other words, in the case of a hallucination, for a person hallucinating a sound for instance, the sound actually exists, but in reality it exists nowhere but in the persons mind; however, in the case of an illusion the stimulus that caused the illusion does exist in the real world. Although hallucinations are a key diagnostic feature of schizophrenia, a mental disorder that distorts the way a person thinks, acts, expresses emotions, perceives reality, and relates to others, they can occur in individuals devoid of any physical or mental disorder.In order to understand why people hallucinate, some researchers have been studying people suffering from what is called the phantom limb syndrome, a condition in which people who have undergone amputation feel as though the missing body part were still very much present and attached to the body; for instance, it is not uncommon for a person who has lost a leg to unknowingly try to stand and walk without any external support after their surgery. One of the two main hypotheses behind the phantom limb syndrome offers an explanation that is possibly applicable to why people hallucinate in certain circumstances. As per this theory, the brain is programmed for a body where every body part is intact and in the appropriate place. Accordingly, when some signals go missing, because of the missing body part, the brain compensates for the lack of sensory input by triggering spontaneous nerve cell activity. Although this theory has limited applicability for understanding why patients such as those of schizophrenia hallucinate in conditions not deemed out of the ordinary, it is a step forward in understanding why people experience visual or auditory hallucinations when they are placed in solitary confinements; after all the different areas of the brain that were used to receiving signals through the senses start to stimulate themselves in to action.Which of the following is mentioned in the passage?

Though the truism about Inuits having a hundred words for snow is an exaggeration, languages really are full of charming quirks that reveal the character of a culture. Dialects of Scottish Gaelic, for instance, traditionally spoken in the Highlands and, later on, in fishing villages, have a great many very specific words for seaweed, as well as names for each of the components of a rabbit snare and a word for an egg that emerges from a hen sans shell. Unfortunately for those who find these details fascinating, languages are going extinct at an incredible clip, - one dies every 14 days - and linguists are rushing around with tape recorders and word lists, trying to record at least a fragment of each before they go. The only way the old tongues will stick around is if populations themselves decide that there is something of value in them, whether for reasons of patriotism, cultural heritage, or just to lure in some language-curious tourists. But even when the general public opinion is for preservation of their linguistic diversity, linguists are finding it increasingly difficult to achieve such a task.Mathematicians can help linguists out in this mission. To provide a test environment for programs that encourage the learning of endangered local languages, Anne Kandler and her colleagues decided to make a mathematical model of the speakers of Scottish Gaelic. This was an apposite choice because the local population was already becoming increasingly conscious about the cultural value of their language and statistics of the Gaelic speakers was readily available. The model the mathematicians built not only uses statistics such as the number of people speaking the languages, the number of polyglots and rate of change in these numbers but also figures which represent the economic value of the language and the perceived cultural value amongst people. These numbers were substituted in the differential equations of the model to find out the number of new Gaelic speakers required annually to stop the dwindling of the Gaelic population. The estimate of the number determined by Kandlers research helped the national Gaelic Development Agency to formulate an effective plan towards the preserving the language. Many languages such as Quechua, Chinook and Istrian Vlashki can be saved using such mathematical models. Results from mathematical equations can be useful in strategically planning preservation strategies. Similarly mathematical analysis of languages which have survived against many odds can also provide useful insights which can be applied towards saving other endangered languages.The passage is primarily concerned with which of the following?

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Logical arguments are usually classified as either deductive or inductive, depending on the process used to arrive at them. In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called premises, which are assumed to be true, and you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, in mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms are true. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions,since your premises are considered correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable; they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.On the other hand, in the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from that data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.Both deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world; there is no place for observation or experimentation - no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Accordingly, a synthesis of these two logical approaches is required for an actual scientific method.The author’s primarily concerned witha)describing two modes of constructing a logical argumentb)explaining two processes while evaluating them on a specific criterionc)discussing how neither one of the two mentioned processes is relevant for a scientific approachd)establishing how logical arguments are more or less flawed, no matter through which process they are arrived ate)establishing the supremacy of one process over the otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup