A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises would make the falsity of the conclusion very unlikely. Unlike valid deductive arguments, inductive arguments do not aim at absolute necessity but at high probability. When the premises give robust support to the conclusion, the argument is said to be strong. Thus the criterion described in the stem corresponds to inductive strength.
Option A:
Option A, invalid, is a label used for deductive arguments in which it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. It is not a measure of inductive support and therefore does not match the probabilistic description in the question.
Option B:
Option B, weak, refers to an inductive argument whose premises provide little support for the conclusion. In a weak argument, the conclusion could easily be false even if the premises are true. This is the opposite of the condition noted in the stem.
Option C:
Option C is correct because strong inductive arguments specifically aim to make the conclusion unlikely to be false given the premises. This standard prepares the ground for the notion of cogency when the premises are also true.
Option D:
Option D, circular, indicates a flawed structure where the conclusion is essentially assumed in the premises. Such reasoning is not characterised by probability relations between distinct premises and conclusion, so it does not fit the stem.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up
Answers commented by others
No answers commented yet. Be the first to comment!