It can be alleged that the dissimilarity between deductive and inductive arguments is that the deductive arguments develop from the general to the particular while all inductive ones go from the particular to the general. In a deductive reasoning argument, thus, it is impossible for the premises to be said to be true while the conclusion is false. This means that the conclusion ought to follow necessarily from the inferences and premises in which it is supposed to have a definitive proof of what it claims. In a deductive argument, if one accepts the truth of the premises, they ought to accept the truth of the conclusion since if they reject it; they will be rejecting the whole logic.
In an inductive argument, the principles are supposed to offer support to the conclusion in which if they are true it is improbable that the conclusion will be false. This means that the conclusion follows probably from the inferences and premises. It can be argued that inductive arguments are weak as compared to deductive arguments since there ought to remain the possibility of them arriving at false conclusions, but which is not true entirely. Effective deductive reasoning arguments do not face a related peril, and they are called indefeasible. The strength of inductive comes in degrees while deductive validity does not.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Critical Thinking"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

How misleading thinking is used to sway others
Misleading reasoning is a form of manipulation in which the manipulators are able to know the victims weaknesses and capitalize on them. Misleading reasoning is a fallacious argument which has an error in reasoning. Misleading reasoning can be created intentionally or unintentionally to deceive other people. People are influenced by misleading reasoning since most of it has explanation and definitions which make people believe in it. The misleading reasoning thoroughly analyzes own and other’s assumptions and prudently appraises the relevance of the context when presenting its position. Using rhetorical tricks is an effective way to influence others in the political scene. Misleading reasoning is often used in the media where they give information which might not be true to influence others.

Eye witness topic
Where the eye witness testimony was crucial, it is difficult for someone to be in a position to have the relevant knowledge since they did not see what happened. The eye witness cases can influence people to believe a misleading reasoning. Someone who aims to tell the truth and is in a position to have the relevant knowledge may be unreliable because of the circumstances which may interfere with the accuracy of their judgment.

Empirical generalization
Empirical generalization is the relationship between variables observed over time which are obtained from experiments carried on different variables. The reasoning in empirical generalization is questionable since the data generated does not support the conclusions drawn. In judging the representativeness; one has to consider the sample size and the sample randomness. The sample size is a trade off of the margin, size level of confidence and error. The random selection is used to improve the probability that biasness might be involved in the selection.