Deductive logic involves deciding what must be true given the rules of logic and some starting set of facts(premises).

Inductive logic involves deciding what is likely to be true given some starting set of beliefs or observations.

1. Inductive

2. No stains on hands

3. Yes

4. Did not steal cookies

5. No because the child could have washed his/her hands

This is inductive, although it does skip some steps. Deductive starts with a theory and moves toward observations that result in conclusions. Inductive starts with the observation, and moves towards a theory that can explain the observation.

The premise, unstated, is that you must have chocolate stains on your hands in order to take chocolate chip cookies.

The conclusion is that if you can’t find the chip, you must acquit.

This argument is not convincing at all for several reasons:

1. It ignores a myriad of varibles, such as hand washing, wearing gloves or using tongs to take the cookies

2. It is not an observation that can be stated categorically, or even with a marginal amount of repeat observations.

The argument is simply not supported by any kind of imperical evidence. With no evidence other than that presented, you could just as easily state that all people that steal chocolate chip cookies wash their hands…

1) Deductive, proving a lack of evidence. 2) That if i stole a cookie i would have chocolate stains on my hands if i had stolen the cookie 3)unstated in this example, but the premise does have some validity (IMO) 4) that if i had stolen a cookie there would probably be chocolate on my hands, as my hands would have melted the chips and leave stains. The fact there is no chocolate on my hands clears me of your accusations. 5) hell no, i just ate a CC cookie 20 minutes ago and i don’t see anything on my hands. The kid could have washed his/her hands or not have gotten a chocolate on her/his hands. DO UR OWN HOMEWORK