Deductive and Inductive Arguments

“I deleted a post I shared on Facebook.” 

QUESTION 1: What can one deduce from these premises? 

One thing that one can deduce from this premise is that the arguer provides evidence of deleting a post he/she had shared on Facebook. As such, it is only true that the post was deleted based on the evidence offered by the ‘I’ as the witness and the performer of the said action. We can also deduce that some of the information was permanently deleted from the account. Some of the information was, however, not deleted permanently.

“I permanently deleted my Facebook account.”. 

QUESTION 2: What can we deduce with these premises? What can we not deduce?

We can deduce that the Facebook account user permanently deleted his account. It is also outright that the information was deleted permanently following the deletion of the account.

However, we cannot deduce which information was deleted permanently in the first deletion of the post.

It is also not clear whether the deleted information would still be there if the user returned the Facebook account.

QUESTION 3: Does the information provided by Facebook logically imply that all your information is deleted from Facebook servers when you permanently delete your Facebook account? The information provided by Facebook does not logically imply that all your information is deleted from Facebook servers when you permanently delete your Facebook account. First, the information indicates that only some of the information is deleted permanently after one deletes the account. Yet, Facebook sends an email later seeking to have the user return the account. It is evident that Facebook still remained with some information even after deleting the account.

Part II

Argument 1: When I deleted my account from Facebook, the next day I got an e-mail from Facebook asking me to return to Facebook. THEREFORE, when you delete your account you will get an e-mail from Facebook the next day asking you to return.

QUESTION 1: Is this argument deductive or inductive? Why?

This argument is an inductive premise. It draws its conclusion through generalizing a specific case. The fact that the arguer received an email from Facebook after permanently deleting his account is used to conclude that whenever a person deletes an account he/she will receive an email from Facebook being asked to return to Facebook. As such, the conclusion has been extrapolated from the particular case such that the argument expects the same to happen in every case. This manifestation of epistemic uncertainty in that some cases may be different makes it characteristically an inductive premise.

Argument 2: Every person I know who uses Facebook also uses Twitter. Therefore, everyone who uses Facebook uses Twitter.

QUESTION 2 Is this argument deductive or inductive? Why?

The argument is a deductive argument. The reason is that it is top-down reasoning such that the conclusion is drawn from general information. If the preceding premise that every person the speaker knows to be using Facebook uses Twitter, then the conclusion that everyone who uses Facebook uses Twitter follows the deductive logic. As well, the conclusion reached is drawn from the understanding of the general information going down to the particular conclusion. Consequently, the conclusion drawn is necessarily true.