Basic Logical Concepts

BASIC LOGICAL
CONCEPTS

Task: To distinguish good arguments from bad

Two questions:
Are the premises true?
Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the

conclusion?

TWO ARGUMENT TYPES

Deductive arguments
(try to) PROVE their conclusions

Inductive arguments
(try to) show that their conclusions are
PLAUSIBLE or LIKELY

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Some pigs have wings.

All winged things sing.
Therefore, some pigs sing.

Everyone has one and only one biological mother.

Full sisters have the same biological mother.
No one is her own biological mother.
Therefore, there is no one whose biological mother
is also her sister.

EXERCISE: Solve the mysteries, CT pages 54-55.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Every ruby discovered thus far has been red.

So, probably all rubies are red.

Polls show that 87% of 5-year-olds believe in the

tooth fairy.
Marta is 5 years old.
Marta probably believed in the tooth fairy.

Chemically, potassium chloride is very similar to

ordinary table salt (sodium chloride).
Therefore, potassium chloride tastes like table salt.

THE DIFFERENCE
Key: deductive / inductive
If the premises are true the conclusion is
necessarily / probably true.
The premises provide conclusive / good
evidence for the conclusion.
It is impossible / unlikely for the premises to be
true and the conclusion to be false.
It is logically inconsistent / consistent to assert
the premises but deny the conclusion.

FOUR TESTS

Four tests allow us to identify deductive /

inductive arguments
The indicator word test
The strict necessity test
The common pattern test
The principle of charity test

INDICATOR WORD TEST

Deduction

Induction

Certainly
Definitely
Absolutely
Conclusively
This entails that
that

Probably
Likely
Plausible
Reasonable
The odds are

CAUTION!
-Arguments may not contain any indicator words.
Pleasure is not the same thing as happiness.
The occasional self-destructive behavior of the
rich and famous confirms this too vividly.
(Tom Morris)
-Arguers may use indicator words incorrectly.
(People very often overstate their cases.)
-In these cases, other tests must be used to
determine whether an argument is deductive or
inductive.

The Strict Necessity Test

An arguments conclusion either follows with
strict logical necessity from its premises or it
does not.
If an arguments conclusion does follow with
strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should always be treated as
deductive.
if an arguments conclusion does not follow with
strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as
inductive.

The Strict Necessity Test

Examples:

Alan is a father. Therefore Alan is a

male.

Jill is a six-year-old. Therefore, Jill

cannot run a mile in one minute flat.

COMMON PATTERN TEST

Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent)

If A then B.
A.

Therefore B.

(A = antecedent; B = consequent)
This is a very common pattern of deductive reasoning.

Common Pattern Test

Example (modus ponens)

If we are in Paris, then we are in France.

-------A------------------B---------- We are in Paris.
--------A-------- Therefore, we are in France.
---------B-----------

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY TEST

When interpreting an unclear argument,

always give the speaker / writer the
benefit of the doubt.
Fosters good will and mutual understanding

in an argument.
Promotes the discovery of truth by insisting
that we confront arguments that we
ourselves admit to be the strongest and
most plausible versions of those arguments.

Exceptions to the Strict Necessity Test

An argument in which the conclusion does

not follow necessarily from the premises
should be treated as deductive if either:

The language or context make clear that the

arguer intended to offer a logically conclusive
argument, but the argument is in fact not
logically conclusive;
2. The argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, and nothing else
about the argument indicated clearly that the
argument is meant to be inductive.
1.

Exceptions to the Strict

Necessity Test

Examples
1. Magellans ships sailed around the world. It
necessarily follows, therefore, that the earth is
a sphere. (The arguer intended to offer a
logically conclusive argument, so it should be
treated as deductive.)
2. If Im Bill Gates, then Im mortal. Im not Bill
Gates. Therefore, Im not mortal. (The
argument has a pattern of reasoning
characteristic of deductive arguments, so
should be treated as deductive.)

SUMMARY: How to distinguish

deductive from inductive arguments

If the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises =

deductive
If the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises = inductive, unless
Language indicates it is deductive
Argument has deductive pattern of reasoning

If the argument has a pattern of reasoning that is

characteristically deductive = deductive, unless
Clear evidence indicates it is intended to be inductive

If the argument has a pattern of reasoning that is

characteristically inductive = inductive unless
Clear evidence indicates it is intended to be deductive

If the argument contains an indicator word

If still in doubt: Principle of Charity

5 COMMON DEDUCTIVE
PATTERNS

Hypothetical syllogism

Categorical syllogism

Argument by elimination

Argument based on mathematics

Argument from definition

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

A syllogism is a three-line argument with two

premises, one of which is a conditional.

Modes ponens is a syllogism.

Other syllogisms are:

Chain arguments
Modus tollens (denying the consequent)
Denying the antecedent
Affirming the consequent

CHAIN ARGUMENT
If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore if A then C.

If you are blue in the face then you are lying.

If you are lying then you cant be my friend.
Therefore if you are blue in the face then you
cant be my friend.

MODUS TOLLENS

If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.
If were in Sacramento, were in California.
Were not in California.
Therefore, were not in Sacramento.
If you love me, youll come with me to Tibet.
You will not come with me to Tibet.
Therefore you do not love me.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT***

If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore not B.

*If Tiger Woods won this years Masters then hes a great
athlete.
Tiger Woods didnt win this years Masters.
Therefore, Tiger Woods is not a great athlete.
*If Jack comes to the party, Jill will leave.
Jack did not come to the party.
Therefore Jill did not leave.
***Denying the antecedent is a fallacious deductive pattern

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT***

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.
*If we are on Neptune then we are in the solar system.
We are in the solar system.
Therefore we are on Neptune.

***Affirming the consequent is a fallacious deductive

pattern
Exercise: Identify the argument pattern (ex. 3.2, p.
65)

MODUS PONENS (affirming the antecedent): If A then

B. A. Therefore B.
CHAIN: If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C.
MODUS TOLLENS: If A then B. Not B. Therefore not
A.
*DENYING THE ANTECEDENT: If A then B. Not A.
Therefore not B.
*AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: If A then B. B.
Therefore A.

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY

Attribute an arguer the strongest argument

possible.
Andy told me he ate at JBs yesterday.
But JBs was destroyed by a fire a month ago.
It is certain therefore that Andy is either lying or
mistaken.

Caution The Principle of Charity is a principle of

argument interpretation, not a principle of
argument repair.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A three-line argument in which each

statement begins with one of the words
all, some, or no.
Some pigs have wings

All winged things sing.

Therefore some pigs sing.

ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION

Rules out various logical possibilities until

only a single possibility remains.
Either Dutch or Jack or Celia committed the
murder.
If D or J committed the murder then the weapon
was a rope.
The weapon was not a rope.
Therefore neither D nor J committed the murder.
Therefore C committed the murder.

MATHEMATICS

The conclusion depends largely or entirely on

mathematical calculation or measurement.
Light travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per second.
The sun is more than 94 million miles from earth.
Therefore it takes more than 8 minutes for the
suns light to reach earth.

Caution not all arguments that make use of

numbers and mathematics are deductive.

DEFINITION

The conclusion follows from the

definition of some key word or phrase in
the argument.

Josefina is a drummer.
Therefore Josefina is a musician.

COMMON INDUCTIVE
PATTERNS

There are 6 common inductive patterns:

Inductive generalization
Predictive argument
Argument from authority

Casual argument
Statistical argument

Argument from analogy

INDUCTIVE
GENERALIZATION

A generalization attributes some characteristic

to all or most members of a given class.
Information about some members of the class
is said to license the generalization.

All dinosaur bones discovered thus far

have been more than 65 million years old.
Therefore probably all dinosaur bones are
more than 65 million years old.

PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT

A statement about what will (likely)

happen in the future is defended with
reasons.

It has rained in Vancouver every

February since records have been kept.
Therefore it will probably rain in
Vancouver next February.

AUTHORITY, CAUSE, STATISTICS

Argument from Authority

The conclusion is supported by citing

some presumed authority or witness.

Causal Argument
Asserts or denies that something is the

cause of something else.

Statistical Argument
Rests on statistical evidence.

ANALOGY

Common Pattern:
Two (or more) things are alike in one way. Therefore
they are probably alike in some further way.
As a man casts off worn-out garments and puts on
others that are new,
similarly, the soul, casting off worn-out bodies, enters
into others, which are new.
(Bhagavad-Gita)

Exercise: Determine whether arguments are deductive

or inductive (ex. 3.3, p. 71-72)

VALIDITY
VALID arguments may have false premises
and false conclusions!
At issue is the form. If the premises are true the
conclusion must be true.

All circles are squares.

All squares are triangles.
Therefore all circles are triangles.

All fruits are vegetables.

Spinach is a fruit.
Therefore spinach is a vegetable.

VALIDITY, CONTD
It is not enough that the conclusion happens
to be true. If the conclusion doesnt follow
from the premises by strict logical necessity,
a deductive argument is invalid.

All pigs are animals.

Wilber is pink.
Therefore Wilber is a pig.

Exercise: What conclusions follow validly? (ex.

3.4, p. 73-74)

SOUNDNESS

A deductive argument is sound if it is valid

and has true premises.

A deductive argument with (at least) one

untrue premise, valid or invalid, is unsound.

Exercise: Determine whether arguments are

valid / sound (ex. 3.5 I & II, p. 81-82)

INDUCTIVE STRENGTH
A good deductive argument is valid.
A good inductive argument is strong.
An inductive argument is strong if the
conclusion follows probably from the
premises.

All recent US presidents have been college

graduates.
It is likely that the next US president will be a
college graduate.

WEAKNESS

An argument that is not strong is weak.

Most US presidents have been men. It is likely
that the next US president will be a woman.

In a weak inductive argument, the conclusion

does not follow probably from the premises.

I dream about monsters. You dream about

monsters.
Therefore everybody probably dreams about
monsters.

INDUCTIVE PROBABILITY

The premises and conclusion do not have to be

true The question is:
If the premises were true, would the conclusion

follow?

Deductive arguments are either 100% valid or

100% invalid.
Inductive arguments can be somewhat strong,
strong, very strong, depending on the degree of
support the premises provide for the conclusion.

According the National Weather Service, there is a

60% - 70% - 90% chance of rain today.
It is likely that it will rain today.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

A valid deductive argument with true premises is sound.

A strong inductive argument with true premises is cogent.
An inductive argument that is either weak or has at least
one false remise is uncogent.
- No US president has been a skateboarding champion.
Therefore the next US president will probably not be a skateboarding
champion. (Cogent)
- All previous US presidents have been rocket scientists.
Therefore the next US president will probably be a woman. (Uncogent)
- All previous U.S. Presidents have been Democrats. Therefore the next
U.S. President will be a Democrat. (Uncogent)

Exercise: Determine whether arguments are cogent or

uncogent (ex. 3.5 III, p. 82-83)