Multiple choice (all correct options required) · #110
At the weekly meeting, Xiao Li said: "We surveyed customers in the East China region and found that they value after-sales service more. Therefore, all customers nationwide value after-sales service more, and we should immediately shift our promotional focus to after-sales." Lao Zhang from the sales department retorted: "The East China data is only based on 50 questionnaires, and they all come from just three major clients. You can't generalize like that." Which of the following statements are correct?
Show answer & explanation
Answer: AC
- AXiao Li used inductive reasoning, and the conclusion is probabilistic, not certain.✓ Correct. Xiao Li generalized from specific data about East China to all customers nationwide, which is induction. Inductive conclusions only provide possibility, not certainty.
- BXiao Li used deductive reasoning because the data are facts, and conclusions drawn from facts must necessarily hold.✗ Incorrect. This confuses induction with deduction. Generalizing from a limited sample to a population is induction; factual premises do not guarantee the conclusion's necessity.
- CLao Zhang's questioning of the small sample size and the concentration of sources among major clients points out that the inductive conclusion may be invalid, which is a test of the reliability of the premises.✓ Correct. Whether the sample is sufficient and representative directly affects the reliability of an inductive conclusion.
- DLao Zhang should use analogy to refute, that is, cite failure cases of other companies to prove Xiao Li wrong.✗ Incorrect. Analogy only provides heuristic insight; it cannot serve as a standalone disproof. To refute an induction, one needs evidence showing sample bias or counterexamples.
Explanation:Xiao Li directly inferred from "customers in East China value after-sales service more" to "all customers nationwide value after-sales service more," which is an inductive inference from sample to population, making the conclusion probabilistic. Lao Zhang's point that the sample has only 50 questionnaires from three major clients is precisely a challenge to the sample size and representativeness, which weakens the reliability of the inductive conclusion. The claim that "data are facts, so conclusions from facts must necessarily hold" treats factual premises as deductively necessary, confusing induction with deduction; the suggestion to "cite failure cases of other companies to refute" mistakenly believes analogy can alone negate an inductive conclusion.