Ram is rational because all people are rational and Ram is a person. This argument is a deductive argument as if the two reasons for Ram to be rational are true i.e. if all people are rational and Ram is a person then the conclusion Ram is rational must also be true. Taking the same form, an inductive argument would be: Ram is rational because most people are rational and Ram is a person.

The use of most instead of all delineates a probability that Ram lies within the most but does not guarantee that possibility. The way in which formal logic operates is very similar to mathematics in its exactness. In algebraic form the deductive argument like the one above works as such: if x = y and y = z then x = z.

The premises in an argument are still open to scrutinisation and questioning in an argument, for instance the claim that all people are rational might not necessarily be taken as a truth.

In daily conversations we have mostly used inductive arguments and many a time will have questionable premises on which they are based. A popular explanation for things done in Nepal is “because it is the way it has always been done/is being done.”

Such an argument leaves the question begging as to why it has been done in this particular way.

Such reasoning or the lack there of not only erodes our cultural and social norms with people acting without knowing why, but also supports a placated and apathetic thought process. (Concluded)