Logical Thinking

Deductive Thinking

Logical thinking is a process that has two different methods. Within logical thinking, there is deductive thinking and inductive thinking. In deductive thinking, the reasoning starts with either two, but can be more premises, then results in an ending that follows those premises. The syllogism is used in deductive thinking. Categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms are three different types used for deductive thinking. A categorical syllogism uses a form of argument that either affirms or denies whether a topic is an element of a group or has a definite property. Hypothetical syllogisms follow an if-then statement. It is making a hypothetical assumption that if something happens, then something else will happen. Disjunctive syllogisms use either/or statements and it denies one term and affirms another (Kirby & Goodpaster, 2007). For a syllogism to make a sound argument, it must have not only a true premise, but it must also be valid. Venn diagrams are good examples to use and check the legitimacy of a syllogism.
Inductive Thinking Inductive thinking starts by developing a collection of evidence or observations either elements of a group or some certain type of event. From this evidence, one can come to a conclusion about other elements of that group or another event. With inductive thinking, the conclusion is not definite, rather it is probable or likely to occur. One form of inductive thinking is analogical argument. This is a reasoning that relies on the similarities among two things. Causation is a frequent use in inductive thinking because it is discovering causes based upon observations of one thing that can be generalized into similar things. Fallacies arise often in both inductive and deductive thinking and awareness to these are necessary to keep thinking valid. Logical thinking is very important to critical thinking. “The world has become vastly more complicated, necessitating such skills as reasonableness and logical thinking” (Gunn, Grigg, & Pomahac, 2008).

References

Gunn, T., Grigg, L., & Pomahac, G.. (2008). Critical Thinking in Science Education: Can Bioethical Issues and Questioning Strategies Increase Scientific Understandings? The Journal of Educational Thought, 42(2), 165-183. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1588845641).

Kirby, G.R., & Goodpaster, J.R. (2007). Thinking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

References: Gunn, T., Grigg, L., & Pomahac, G.. (2008). Critical Thinking in Science Education: Can Bioethical Issues and Questioning Strategies Increase Scientific Understandings? The Journal of Educational Thought, 42(2), 165-183.  Retrieved March 18, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1588845641). Kirby, G.R., & Goodpaster, J.R. (2007). Thinking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.