Question

. In order to direct an orchestra you 4634 + 739

Answer 1

This is an example of:
A. deductive reasoning.
B. commutative property.
C. complementary angles.
D. inductive reasoning.

Answer 2

Definitely the thing about the angles.

Answer 3

complementary angles. ?

Answer 4

I'm kidding. That's ridiculously unrelated.

Answer 5

-___- Lol

Answer 6

inductive

Answer 7

Complementary angles are two angles that add up to 90 degree.
Commutative property basically says you can do a+b or b+a and get the same thing.
Inductive reasoning is when you look at specific examples and make general statements about them.
Deductive reasoning uses general principals and applies them to specific situations.

Answer 8

sooo

Answer 9

Inductive or deduective

Answer 10

mhmm. This is not really talking about geometry (complementary angles) or algebra (commutative property) so it's either inductive or deductive reasoning, which is logic.

Answer 11

Now, in general, good sound logic is deductive rather than inductive.

Deductive logic applies a general principal to specific situations, so here's an example:
General principal: People who can dunk are tall.
Conclusion: Michael Jordan can dunk, so he must be tall.

Inductive logic goes backwards. It starts with specific examples and makes general statements. Here's an example:
Observations: Michael Jordan is tall and can dunk. Lebron James is tall and can dunk. Kobe Bryant is tall and can dunk.
Conclusion: All tall people can dunk.

Notice that oftentimes, inductive reasoning can prove to be wrong. In general though, if applied correctly, deductive reasoning will be correct.

Answer 12

Thank you! After reading the definitions over I felt like deductive would fit better

Answer 13

That's correct =)

The person's logic starts with a general principal:
In order to direct an orchestra you must be able to read music.
And the conclusion is an application of that principal to a specific situation:
Michael is a director, therefore Michael can read music.