Good Informal Logical Arguments
"Within informal logic the simplest criteria for judging arguments is an informal analogue of soundness. It requires that an argument’s premises be acceptable and that its conclusion follow from these premises. We may call the latter “informal” validity (leaving open the question how it is best understood) and these two criteria the “AV” (Acceptability, Validity) criteria for assessing arguments.
Following Johnson & Blair (1977, 1994) many informal logicians understand informal validity in terms of relevance and sufficiency, making the criteria for good argument acceptability, relevance and sufficiency (the “ARS” criteria). The premises of an argument count as relevant to its conclusion when they provide SOME support for the conclusion and sufficient when they provide enough support to establish it as plausible. Relevance can be contrasted with irrelevance, which occurs in various instances of non sequitor, as occurs in the case of “straw man” and “red herring” arguments, which are common in ordinary discourse."
"Some support," not a certitude of every individual on the planet and omniscience on the part of same.
Informal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
As with deduction, the inferential claim in an inductive argument should be examined to see if the premises indeed makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY to be true or acceptable. Here are some examples of induction:
P1 - The windows are broken.
P2 - There are footprints with mud on the floor.
P3 - Some jewels and electronics are missing.
A - Some intruders entered the house and burglarized it.
It’s been observed that the farther galaxies are from the Earth, the faster they are moving away.
P1 - It has been observed that the farther galaxies are from the Earth, the faster they are moving away.
A - The universe is expanding.
Deduction and Induction
Anyone seeing a trend?
Premises that give "some support," and are, "more likely to be true,"
Not universally accepted as true. If this were the case we wouldn't have inductive and Abductive arguments that are possible true in all of science!
So again 51% likely to be true as opposed to their contradictory, would be the lower bound.
Now I could have premises that only few people thought were good, and the conclusions follow from those premises but they would be insufficient to convince anyone who didn't already hold that view.
"An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an inductive argument's success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument, but this article uses the term "strong." Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to be weak; there is no sharp line between strong and weak."
Deductive and Inductive Arguments | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"If the premises were to be true."
Inductive arguments are strong or weak based on relevance and sufficiency of premises qua their conclusions.
Although these features are not philosophy 101, they are known without even looking it up to people with philosophy degrees or those who majored in philosophy.
Your misunderstood the role of premises in inductive arguments for the role in deductive. An elementary mistake.
