Question at position 16 What distinguishes a cogent inductive argument from a non-cogent one?A cogent argument has irrelevant premises and a strong conclusionA cogent argument has true premises and a strong conclusionA cogent argument has false premises and a weak conclusionA cogent argument has true premises and a strong argument

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

A cogent inductive argument is one that is both strong (the premises make the conclusion highly probable) and has all true premises; this combination is what distinguishes it from a non-cogent inductive argument.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Inductive argument: premises support the conclusion probabilistically rather than guaranteeing it.
- Strength: an inductive argument is strong if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true (high degree of support).
- Truth of premises: for an inductive argument to be cogent, its premises must actually be true in the real world.
- Cogency: defined as “strong + true premises.” A non-cogent inductive argument fails on at least one of these counts.

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- Start with the definition: an inductive argument can be strong or weak based on the degree of support the premises provide.
- Even a strong inductive argument isn’t persuasive unless the premises are true; false premises undermine the conclusion’s credibility.
- Therefore, to be cogent an inductive argument must combine strength (good probabilistic support) with true premises.

3. Intermediate steps / illustrative example
- Example: Premise: “90% of observed swans are white.” Premise true from observed data. Conclusion: “The next swan will probably be white.” This is strong; if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely → cogent.
- If premises were false (e.g., “All swans are white” when many are black), the argument is not cogent even if the inferential pattern is strong.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- “True premises and a strong conclusion” captures the need for premises to be true and the conclusion to be well-supported (i.e., highly probable given those premises). That matches the standard definition of cogency for inductive reasoning.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- “Irrelevant premises and a strong conclusion”: irrelevant premises do not support the conclusion, so the argument cannot be strong or cogent.
- “False premises and a weak conclusion”: both conditions fail cogency—false premises and weak support.
- “True premises and a strong argument”: this is awkwardly worded; cogency is about having true premises and a strong inferential relation to the conclusion. The offered correct choice more precisely states the needed criteria.

6. Conclusion / confirmation
The correct choice is “A cogent argument has true premises and a strong conclusion,” which matches the provided answer.

类似问题

Question at position 15 Inductive arguments claim that conclusions follow with certainty from the premises.TrueFalse

Question at position 11 Sarah has two shih tzu dogs ; Angelo gave her a shih tzu puppy on her birthday. So, Sarah has three shih tzu dogs. This is an example of an inductively strong argument. TrueFalse

Question at position 9 Either Jack is registering in ESL 1303 course or in GE2023 course. Jack is not going to register in GE2023 course. Therefore, Jack is registering in ESL 1303 course. This is an example of an inductive argument by analogy.TrueFalse

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单