Deductive Reasoning Books
Showing 1-33 of 33

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.85 — 146,123 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.86 — 5,394 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.23 — 146 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.17 — 210 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.18 — 138 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.32 — 1,572 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.40 — 1,982 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.11 — 2,235 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.41 — 11,325 ratings — published 108

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.33 — 532 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.56 — 406 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.87 — 13,680 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.78 — 867 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.25 — 758 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.58 — 396 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 5.00 — 2 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.79 — 719 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.07 — 369 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.27 — 543 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.90 — 126 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.94 — 481 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.14 — 2,449 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.42 — 135 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.81 — 116 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.86 — 1,249 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.89 — 1,058 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.89 — 174,716 ratings — published 1890

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.30 — 322,853 ratings — published 1892

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.40 — 10 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 5.00 — 1 rating — published

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.00 — 4 ratings — published 1982

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 3.70 — 10 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 1 time as deductive-reasoning)
avg rating 4.25 — 4 ratings — published 1874

“Do the religious texts and exemplars support anymal welfare or anymal liberation? What do religions teach us to be with regard to anymals?
A concise formal argument, using deductive logic, rooted in three well-established premises, can help us to answer these questions about rightful relations between human beings and anymals:
Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach human beings to avoid causing harm to anymals.
Premise 2 : Contemporary industries that exploit anymals—including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries—harm anymals.
Premise 3 : Supporting industries that exploit anymals (most obviously by purchasing their products) perpetuates these industries and their harm to
anymals.
Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions indicate that human beings should avoid supporting industries that harm anymals, including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries.
It is instructive to consider an additional deductive argument rooted in two well-established premises:
Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals who are suffering.
Premise 2 : Anymals suffer when they are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, or clothing industries.
Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals when they are exploited in laboratories, entertainment, food, and clothing industries.
If these premises are correct—and they are supported by abundant evidence—the world’s dominant religions teach adherents
• to avoid purchasing products from industries that exploit anymals, and
• to assist and defend anymals who are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, and clothing industries.”
― Animals and World Religions
A concise formal argument, using deductive logic, rooted in three well-established premises, can help us to answer these questions about rightful relations between human beings and anymals:
Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach human beings to avoid causing harm to anymals.
Premise 2 : Contemporary industries that exploit anymals—including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries—harm anymals.
Premise 3 : Supporting industries that exploit anymals (most obviously by purchasing their products) perpetuates these industries and their harm to
anymals.
Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions indicate that human beings should avoid supporting industries that harm anymals, including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries.
It is instructive to consider an additional deductive argument rooted in two well-established premises:
Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals who are suffering.
Premise 2 : Anymals suffer when they are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, or clothing industries.
Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals when they are exploited in laboratories, entertainment, food, and clothing industries.
If these premises are correct—and they are supported by abundant evidence—the world’s dominant religions teach adherents
• to avoid purchasing products from industries that exploit anymals, and
• to assist and defend anymals who are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, and clothing industries.”
― Animals and World Religions

“His idea was to begin with those broad truths that must underlie all conceivable mental existences and establish a basis on those. The great principles of geometry, to begin with. He proposed to take some leading proposition of Euclid's, and show by construction that its truth was known to us, to demonstrate, for example, that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal, and that if the equal sides be produced the angles on the other side of the base are equal also, or that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the two other sides. By demonstrating our knowledge of these things we should demonstrate our possession of a reasonable intelligence.”
― The First Men in the Moon
― The First Men in the Moon