All U.S. Presidents have come from the original 48 states. No person from Alaska can be President. Is this deductive or inductive reasoning? I am very confused about this one.
Since this argues from the general to specific, it must be a deductive argument.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-deductive-reasoning.htm
what's a point of inflection
Determining whether this is an example of deductive or inductive reasoning requires understanding the distinction between the two.
Deductive reasoning involves drawing logically certain conclusions based on premises or general principles. In this type of reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, involves drawing probable or likely conclusions based on observed patterns or evidence. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does not provide certainty.
In the given statement, it is stated that all U.S. Presidents have come from the original 48 states and that no person from Alaska can be President.
If we analyze this statement, we can conclude that it is an example of inductive reasoning, rather than deductive reasoning. Here's why:
1. The premise that all U.S. Presidents have come from the original 48 states is a generalization based on historical observation and evidence. While it is true for all the Presidents up to now, it does not necessarily guarantee that it will always be the case in the future.
2. The premise that no person from Alaska can be President is a legal restriction set by the U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 1. This is an established rule and is not subject to change without modifying the Constitution.
Therefore, the conclusion that no person from Alaska can be President is based on an inductive reasoning pattern. It is drawn from historical observations and legal restrictions, but it doesn't provide absolute certainty for all future instances.