Reasoning and Inference: Premise Typicality and Fallacies

Premise typicality suggests that individuals are less likely to generalize to other elements if one element is highly representative of an inferred superordinate category.

According to premise-conclusion asymmetry, a single-premise argument is viewed as stronger if the more typical member of an inferred superordinate category is used in the premise rather than in the conclusion.

The inclusion fallacy favors conclusions with a weak similarity relation between the premise and the conclusion category.

Category similarity weakens inductive arguments and decreases the probability of generalizing a novel property.

The similarity-coverage model by Osherson et al. (1990) suggests that individuals do not automatically compute similarity when there is a great deal of overlap between the features of the premise and conclusion categories.

Premise- conclusion similarity effect is explained by the similarity-coverage model.

Perceived dissimilarity between the premise category and the conclusion category strengthens inductive arguments.

The more diverse the premises are, the higher the probability of generalizing a novel property according to premise diversity.