Read the following argument and answer the question that follows:
1. According to the 2010/11 Statistics Canada census aboriginal Canadians constituted 4.3% of the Canadian population.
2. According to the 2011 Statistics Canada data, 27% of the adult population incarcerated in Provincial and Territorial correctional facilities were aboriginal, and 20% of the adult population incarcerated in Federal prisons were aboriginal.
3. Therefore, being aboriginal is a cause of criminality (from 1 + 2)
Is the inference to (3) inductively valid? Explain.
Remember that for an inductive inference with linked premises to be valid the premises must be acceptable and they must be sufficient to render the conclusion probable. An assessment of inductive validity requires you to explain your reasons for weighing the evidence as you do.
What do you think? Your teacher doesn't want to know what I think.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
The inference to statement (3) is not inductively valid. To determine the inductive validity, we need to assess whether the premises provided in the argument are acceptable and whether they are sufficient to render the conclusion probable.
First, let's evaluate the acceptability of the premises. Premise 1 states that according to the 2010/11 Statistics Canada census, aboriginal Canadians constituted 4.3% of the Canadian population. This premise seems to be acceptable as it is based on official census data.
Next, premise 2 claims that according to the 2011 Statistics Canada data, 27% of the adult population incarcerated in Provincial and Territorial correctional facilities were aboriginal, and 20% of the adult population incarcerated in Federal prisons were aboriginal. This premise is also acceptable as it is based on official data from Statistics Canada.
Now, let's evaluate whether the premises are sufficient to render the conclusion probable. The conclusion in statement (3) asserts that being aboriginal is a cause of criminality. However, the premises alone cannot establish a causal relationship between being aboriginal and criminality. The premises only provide information about the proportion of incarcerated aboriginal Canadians compared to the general population.
To determine causality, additional factors and evidence need to be considered, such as socio-economic factors, historical context, systemic biases, and individual circumstances. Failing to account for these factors can lead to improper generalizations and stereotypes.
In conclusion, the premises provided in the argument are acceptable, but they are not sufficient to render the conclusion probable. Therefore, the inference to statement (3) is not inductively valid. To make a more accurate assessment, further research and analysis are needed to understand the complex factors contributing to the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in correctional facilities.