Which of the following statements about reasoning and decision making is true

  Reasoning is something which is believed only humans are capable of. We do not just make random conclusions and decisions; each of them has a reason behind it - or at least we'd like to think so.
  
  But are we, humans, really as rational as we assume? In this post I will discuss some major types of reasoning including syllogistic, deductive, inductive and conditional reasoning, and will outline numerous biases and logical fallacies that people tend to commit while performing reasoning tasks.

Syllogisms

   In general, reasoning enables us to use our prior knowledge to derive new information, and the main principle we follow doing so is logic. The basic unit of logic is syllogism: a form of argument which consists of a major premise, minor premise and conclusion. For example:

   Major premise:  All men are mortal
   Minor premise: Socrates is a man
   Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

  Syllogisms can be described in terms of their validity and soundness; it is important not to confuse the two. Validity only refers to the structure of the argument, no matter what the content is. So, for the argument to be valid, if we assume that both premises are true then the conclusion can not be false. For example, the following syllogism:

   Major premise: All animals can breath under water
   Minor premise: Monkey is an animal
   Conclusion: Monkey can breath under water.
  
  It is obvious that the argument is not true, however it is valid, because the logic does follow through. On the contrary, soundness refers to the contents of an argument. For argument to be sound, both of its premises must be true and it must be valid. Thus, the first example bout Socrates is sound.

Syllogistic Reasoning

  Building on the syllogism definition above, syllogistic reasoning involves determining validity and soundness of a conclusion basing upon the given premises. It may be simple with the sort of syllogisms given above. However, consider this:

   All Dutchmen (B) are bicycle riders (A)
   Some bicycle riders (A) are students (C)
   Therefore, some Dutchmen (B) are students (C)

   The conclusion seems logical - but actually, it is invalid. In fact, the second premise does not provide enough evidence for neither falsifying nor supporting 'Some Dutchmen are students'. The following diagram (Euler's circles) will show why 'Some A are C' does not mean that 'some B are C'.

Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning

  Deductive reasoning is applying knowledge about general principles/statements to specific cases; if the statements are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true as well. For example, the argument All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal is an example of deductive reasoning; it is a top-down logic. 

  In contrast, inductive reasoning means deriving general principles from specific examples; it is based on bottom-up logic. This kind of reasoning is probabilistic, and does not provide the same level of certainty to a conclusion that deductive reasoning does even when the premise is true; consider the following example: My friend feels pain in her fingers after playing guitar for an hour; therefore all the guitarists feel pain in their fingers after an hour of playing. 

  Inductive

 reasoning is widely used in science and everyday life in order to test a hypothesis. For example, lets say you only ever used one microwave. You could then formulate a hypothesis, such as all microwaves have a 'defrost' function. Then you can test it by examining all the microwaves available to you and find evidence which either supports or falsifies your hypothesis.  
   It might have occurred to you though, that it would be tricky to check whether all the microwaves in the world have this function - however, just one microwave without the function would be enough to falsify the hypothesis. Therefore, in order to arrive to a true conclusion we always should be looking for an evidence which falsifies our hypothesis rather than supports it.

Confirmation bias

   The statement above appears to be quite obvious, however in general people try to find evidence only to confirm their hypothesis, showing what is known as a confirmation bias. This tendency was reflected in a famous Wason Selection task; you can test yourself by completing the task - it is fun and only takes about 3-5 min; just follow the link: Wason Selection Task. Your results will be discussed after you complete the task.
    I won't describe the task itself, as you will hopefully see how it works following the link. The amazing thing is that about 70-85% fail at this task, even though the only principle they need to follow is fairly simple and was outlined above: you should be looking for falsifying rather than confirming evidence for any hypothesis.

Conditional Reasoning and Logical Fallacies

   Conditional reasoning problems always contain two parts: a conditional clause (a statement of a relationship, such as 'if P then Q') and evidence related to the conditional clause (such as 'P'). Conditional reasoning involves deciding whether the evidence supports, refutes or is irrelevant to the stated relationship. For example, 'If I go for a run, then I will feel good'.
   Conditional clause consists of two parts; the 'if' part is known as an antecedent, and the 'then' part - consequent; antecedent states a possible clause, while consequent - effect of this possible clause.
    The evidence then follows, which states truth or falsity of either antecedent or consequent; so, four different variations. The task is then to take this evidence and make a conclusion as to whether the evidence supports or falsifies the second part of the clause or whether it is irrelevant.
    For our conditional clause 'If I go for a run then I will feel good', the four possible evidences are:
    (1) P is true ('I go for a run')
    (2) P is false ('I don't go for a run')
    (3) Q is true ('I feel good')
    (4) Q is false ('I don't feel good')

  However, only two of these evidences - namely, (1) and (4) - enable us to make a valid inference.
  In the first one, when we get an evidence that P is true ('I go for a run'), then Q must be true ('therefore, I feel good'). This is called 'affirming the antecedent' - or, in classical terms, 'modus ponens'. The general form is expressed as If P, then Q. Q; therefore P.
  The fourth evidence states that Q is false ('I don't feel good'), which means that P must be false ('therefore, I did not go for a run'). The form can be expressed as If P, then Q. not Q; therefore not P. This is referred to as 'denying the consequent' - or 'modus tollens'.

  This is all very well and fairly straightforward. However, consider the other two possibilities. They do not provide enough evidence to make any kind of valid consequence; however people often commit logical fallacies by either denying the antecedent (2) or affirming the consequent (3).
   Logical Fallacy I has the form of 'If P, then Q. not P; therefore not P', and is referred to as denying the antecedent. Such inference is invalid; logically, 'I don't go for a run' does not necessarily imply 'I will not feel good' (evidence (2)).
  Logical Fallacy II is 'If P, then Q. Q, therefore P', and is called affirming the consequent. Such evidence (3) also does not allow us to make valid inference about the antecedent. Thus, 'I feel good' is not enough evidence to say whether 'I went for a run' is true or false.

Which of the following statements is true of inductive reasoning?

Which of the following is a type of mental shortcut that helps us make quick decisions?

Which of the following is a type of mental shortcut that helps us make quick decisions about everyday matters quizlet?

Which of the following is true of gut judgments?