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.
Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?
  • a)
    There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.
  • b)
    A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.
  • c)
    One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.
  • d)
    The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.
  • e)
    One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.
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 an Inference question. We know that the correct answer will be based on the information given in the second or the third paragraph as induction as a process is only discussed in these two sections. However, since there are multiple ideas mentioned (regarding induction) in these paragraphs, we cannot pre-think on very specific lines.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.
Incorrect: Inconsistent
In the second paragraph, the author says that the theories, though logical, cannot be fully proved as correct. Hence, this choice is not consistent with the information given in the passage.
B
A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.
Correct
This information is a combination of two pieces of information given to us in the second paragraph. First, we are told that:
In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.
Second, we are told that:
Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data.
C
One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.
Incorrect: Opposite
This statement is made in the first paragraph for the process of deduction. For induction, the author says that one can never be fully sure of the theory one arrives at through it.
Reference (final paragraph):
And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory.
D
The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.
Incorrect: Out of Context
The causal relation drawn between parents behavior/ genetic makeup and children’s chances of developing schizophrenia does not suggest that most of the conclusions arrived at through the process of induction are causal in nature. This relation is specific to the example given to explain the process.
E
One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.
Incorrect: Out of Scope
Although we are told that there could be more than one theory to explain the data in induction, there is no information regarding the cause of the same.
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 an Inference question. We know that the correct answer will be based on the information given in the second or the third paragraph as induction as a process is only discussed in these two sections. However, since there are multiple ideas mentioned (regarding induction) in these paragraphs, we cannot pre-think on very specific lines.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.
Incorrect: Inconsistent
In the second paragraph, the author says that the theories, though logical, cannot be fully proved as correct. Hence, this choice is not consistent with the information given in the passage.
B
A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.
Correct
This information is a combination of two pieces of information given to us in the second paragraph. First, we are told that:
In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.
Second, we are told that:
Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data.
C
One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.
Incorrect: Opposite
This statement is made in the first paragraph for the process of deduction. For induction, the author says that one can never be fully sure of the theory one arrives at through it.
Reference (final paragraph):
And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory.
D
The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.
Incorrect: Out of Context
The causal relation drawn between parents behavior/ genetic makeup and children’s chances of developing schizophrenia does not suggest that most of the conclusions arrived at through the process of induction are causal in nature. This relation is specific to the example given to explain the process.
E
One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.
Incorrect: Out of Scope
Although we are told that there could be more than one theory to explain the data in induction, there is no information regarding the cause of the same.
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 an Inference question. We know that the correct answer will be based on the information given in the second or the third paragraph as induction as a process is only discussed in these two sections. However, since there are multiple ideas mentioned (regarding induction) in these paragraphs, we cannot pre-think on very specific lines.
With this understanding in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.
Incorrect: Inconsistent
In the second paragraph, the author says that the theories, though logical, cannot be fully proved as correct. Hence, this choice is not consistent with the information given in the passage.
B
A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.
Correct
This information is a combination of two pieces of information given to us in the second paragraph. First, we are told that:
In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.
Second, we are told that:
Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data.
C
One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.
Incorrect: Opposite
This statement is made in the first paragraph for the process of deduction. For induction, the author says that one can never be fully sure of the theory one arrives at through it.
Reference (final paragraph):
And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory.
D
The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.
Incorrect: Out of Context
The causal relation drawn between parents behavior/ genetic makeup and children’s chances of developing schizophrenia does not suggest that most of the conclusions arrived at through the process of induction are causal in nature. This relation is specific to the example given to explain the process.
E
One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.
Incorrect: Out of Scope
Although we are told that there could be more than one theory to explain the data in induction, there is no information regarding the cause of the same.
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 is true as per the information given in the passage?

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 authors 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?

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.Each of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT

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 most aptly describes the function of the first paragraph?

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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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.Which one of the following statements can be inferred about the induction process of arriving at a logical argument?a)There is no way to be certain whether the theories it provides are fully logical.b)A theory arrived at through it is not likely to be the only possible explanation of the observed facts.c)One can provide a hundred percent proof for the conclusion drawn through it.d)The conclusion arrived at through it are very likely to be causal in nature.e)One of the reasons it fails to provide a single theory is that no two individuals are likely to interpret a given set of information in the same way.Correct 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