Final answer:
The terms "valid" and "warranted" indicate the key differences between deductive and inductive reasoning: deductive arguments provide conclusions that are logically compelled by true premises, whereas inductive arguments propose probable conclusions based on evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The lexical definitions of "valid" and "warranted" provide insight into the nature and purpose of deductive and inductive arguments. A "valid" argument, in a deductive sense, means its conclusion is logically necessitated by its premises; that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. This is a hallmark of deductive reasoning, where the structure of an argument is focally important, as exemplified by forms like the Disjunctive Syllogism:
X or Y.
Not Y.
Therefore X.
Conversely, an argument is "warranted" when it has sufficient backing or reason to be accepted as true. Inductive reasoning, which approaches conclusions based on probable support, is more about the strength of the connection between evidence and conclusion, unlike the guarantee of truth provided by a valid deductive argument. Inductive inferences, while reliable, do not offer a guarantee of the conclusion's truth but instead suggest a generalization based on observed instances.
Therefore, understanding the nuances between "valid" and "warranted" inferences helps differentiate the certitude and approaches of deductive and inductive reasoning, respectively, where one provides a logical guarantee under true premises (deductive), and the other offers a credible conjecture from the evidence available (inductive).