In logic, there are two ways of arguing an argument it could be either be inductive or deductive. Deductive reasoning involves reasoning from the general towards the specific; it is a top-down approach that involves using the theory to get a top hypothesis. Observations are then collected to verify the hypothesis and then make a conclusion. The premises are planned to offer support for the end that is so strong that, if they are true, it would be impractical for the conclusion to be false. In inductive thinking, the system is the opposite of the deductive, since we start from the bottom going towards the top. Observations are made first then hypotheses are created from which the theories and generalizations are made.
This kind of reasoning is open and very general while the other one is very specific to its hypothesis. (Turvery, 1999) notes “the premises are planned only to be very strong that, and if they are true, then it is likely that the conclusion is true.” The major difference comes in the way a person views the form of relation that exists between the premises and the conclusion. If the personal beliefs that the premises institutes the truth of the conclusion due to logic or some mathematical process, then the argument is deductive. (Turvery, 1999) adds “if the person believes that the premises shows the truth of the conclusion but still thinks that the truth presents a concrete reason to believe the conclusion is true, then the argument is inductive.”
In this case, if one uses deductive reasoning then the conclusion will be that Crow performed the murder because he was at the site earlier. Crow could have been the driver and decided to park the car at the turnaround to fit his story then disappeared. No one claims to have seen Crow and his girlfriend at the site hence he could be lying that they were there. Another observation is that he says he drove in the opposite direction yet he had not even talked with the Chevy driver to find out what he or she wanted. From the above observations and reasoning, “somebody shot the two, the person must have been the Chevy driver who is Crow and a conclusion can be made that crow was the murderer.”
If we use inductive reasoning we would start from the various observations; Crow was at the site with his girlfriend, then a Chevy came by and he drove away, the driver was not able to get them so he parked at the turnaround and maybe he or she was contemplating on the next cause of action. While at it, Faraday and Jensen came by, and assuming that the driver was out to do something wrong, he decided to kill the two then walked on foot. The fact that Faraday was shot from close range means that it was intentional, and also Jensen must have been running away when she was shot. In this way of reasoning, the conclusion is “someone shot the two, and the shooter must have been the Chevy driver.”
Both methods are good but inductive reasoning is criticized because events happening in the past will not always determine the future. After all, it could be different. The driver may do not attack Faraday as he did before to Crow and his girlfriend, he could have just walked away. Deductive reasoning is preferred by people more because it uses the present observations available for analysis although it is also criticized for being specific and not open-minded. However different arguments will require different ways of reasoning, not all arguments will be suitable for deductive reasoning and also not all will be fit for the inductive method it all depends on the situation and the available observations.
Reference list
Turvery, B. (1999). Criminal Profiling, Second Edition: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. NJ: Academic Press.