(i) The roles of induction involve taking the description of a given sample and then extending it to outside its area of operation. The explanation consists of the use of the actual concepts without the inclusion of the new ideas to explain.
Abduction plays the roles of formulating a theoretical explanation to show the cause of the results that occurred in a particular situation. It explains the things not seen and gives the conclusion (Blackburn, 10-21).
The deduction is the process of concluding whether a given experience valid or invalid. Additionally, the inference is the act of completing whether something is either true or false depending on the right or wrong considering the outcome.
(ii) The problem of induction involves coercion and contradiction when explaining a wider area. The assumptions given to clarify whether the idea is true or false provides opposition when different views are put under test. The more complex ideas bring vague propositions at the end (Sober, 30-33).
(iii) The solution to the problem is using formal logic. The legal reasoning can enable ending of the contradiction that may arise in the premise. The correct reasoning avoids vague solutions that may not help in solving the problem at hand.
(iv) My assessment to solve the problem can be applying some ideas according to the things we have met in life. The plans can reasonable to acquire the right answer for particular issues.
(i) The classical truth table has assumptions. The first proposition is that the (p, q,) contain one truth in its values. The hypothesis is that it is either true or false and cannot act as both. The second assumption is that logic deals with the central part. When “if” is used it means that what is done to the values that explain the truth. In case “if” is used and no values given thus the proposition “not-p” is used. The writers, therefore, should avoid using “Not-p, which many people may use. The correct assumption can be written as “-p” which, explains better to show the denial of “p” occurring in any situation. When an assumption is correct (T) can be used and when false (F) and they cannot be used while both. When true p is used while false –p is used (Smith, 5-11).
(ii) The reason why the arrow operator used in SL may not show same meaning with use of English condition such as (if…, then…,), is that the operator may show emphasis during the English limited show circumstance.
(iii) According to my suggestion is that the English conditional is synonymous with the arrow operator. They both show the explanations of a certain assumption and can thus be said to be synonymous.
(i) The natural fallacy is an assumption that science cannot be used to explain a specific phenomenon. Moore argues that one cannot derive a particular claim of what should be done from the case without a clear description of the action. Moore contends that any attempt to do that is considered natural fallacy (Smith, 5-11).
(ii) The fallacy constraints how we do ethics because it does not consider whether the case is right or wrong. Ethics deals with the investigation of morality by use of right and wrong and thus this does not deal with that and therefore strongly constrains with the fallacy.
(iii) Singer states that common intuition is different from rational being that rational has more foundation for its argument and is more clear and precise while common intuition lacks organization and clarity (Smith, 5-11).
(iv) Rational intuition can be used to gain knowledge because it requires reasoning that enables one to think to get the right solution. The thinking thus creates room for acquiring the knowledge necessary for solving issues.
(v) The program started by Singer cannot be used systematically without making naturalistic fallacy. The program only gives the common teachings about ethics and fail to provide the whole meaning of ethics. The plan fails to provide reasoning for concluding whether something is right or wrong. Therefore, the program cannot be used alone without committing the naturalistic fallacy.
(i) The analogical argue on things that are purely prior. It explains the existence of God with the definition. The concept does not require any empirical premises or any measuring while the abduction states that God is a designer. The idea argues that God is an engineer who created organisms that perform various activities. The theory also deals with randomness in which the organisms grew (Sober, 30-33).
(ii) The theory of randomness in abduction where the physical forces are stated to act and turn to living things lacks support. There is no supportive evidence to show how the effects turned into living things (Smith, 5-11).
(iii) I accept the objection because the forces cannot act and produce the living organisms. The proposition is therefore weak and cannot present enough evidence to explain the existence of God as compared to analogical (Sober, 30-33).
(i) According to Smith propositions exists and are just the abstract objects used in the sentences. They live naturally and are used in many phrases as introduction and conclusion to create meaning. The propositions are considered to have truth in their conditions. They are mostly used because of the fact in them and thus are reliable by the users. According to Smith, the proposition are original primary bearers of truth that explain the various reasons for given circumstances. They are stated to represent some things considered as absolute and exists in the current situation and have no contradiction. The proposition doesn’t need any explanation to enable people to understand them because they are clear and precise (Sober, 30-33).
(ii) According to Quine, the proposition is non-existence and should not be considered as other English premises. Quene states that plan are meaningless of their own and thus does not exist. She indicates that the propositions lack logic in which they are made and therefore fails to show any meaning (Sober, 30-33).
(iii) The Smith argument does not show unparsimonious to the proposition. According to Smith, he argues that scheme exists which is parsimonious and thus is contrary to stingy that differs with it. Smith gives much evidence of existence of the proposition and therefore is considered to provide valid reason that can make his proof considered complete (Sober, 30-33).
(iv) According to the findings of the two between Smith and Quene, my preference goes to Smith. My choice goes to Smith because it is evident that proposition exists and there is clear supportive evidence to show that. The thesis is stated to exist in many parts of the sentence both in the introduction, central section and conclusion. The proposition of Smith is thus considered as the best compared to that of Quene when analyzing the existence and truth of plan (Sober, 30-33).