Validity and Truth

DEDUCTION AND
INDUCTION

1.

Types of
Arguments
Deductive
arguments

An argument in which it is impossible for a

conclusion to be false if its premises are true.

The conclusion claims to follow necessarily from
the premises.
All math classes are time-consuming.
All hard classes are math classes.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that all hard
classes are time-consuming.

2. Inductive arguments

An argument in which it is improbable for the

conclusion to be false if its premises are true.

Conclusion claims to follow probably from the
premises.
Socrates was Greek.
Most Greeks ate fish.

Distinguishing inductive from

deductive
The distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments is based on the strength of an
arguments inferential claim.
But the strength of a claim is hardly ever stated
outright, so we have to evaluate it.
Certain indicator words lean more towards
inductive and some lean towards deductive. But
theyre not always accurate. Pay attention to the
context of the argument.
Example: The word probably tends to be used in

inductive arguments, and words like therefore and

necessarily tend to lean towards deductive arguments.

Traits of a Deductive
Argument
Validity
A valid argument is one where it is

impossible to have true premises and a

false conclusion. If all premises are true,
the conclusion must be true.
An invalid deductive argument is one

where it is possible to have true

premises and a false conclusion. The
conclusion is not necessarily true even if
all premises are true.

Traits of a Inductive
Argument

Strength

Strong: If that claim is true, then its said

to be a strong inductive argument.

Weak: If its not improbable to have true

premises/false conclusion, its said to be

a weak inductive argument

Natural Deduction (Testing for

) arguments validity
How to Validity
test an
Assume its premises are true (whether they are or

not), and see if the conclusion follows forth from it

falsely. If it does, then the argument is invalid. If
not, then it passes the test and is valid.
Examples:
All television networks are media companies. (True)
GMA is a television network. (True)
Therefore, GMA is a media company. (True)
All automakers are computer manufacturers. (False, but
assumed true)
Philippine Airlines is an automaker. (False, but assumed
true)
Therefore, Philippine Airlines is a computer manufacturer .
(True, if the premises are true)

If an argument fails the

test?
Example:

All banks are financial institutions. (True)

Western Union is a financial institution. (True)

Therefore, Western Union is a bank. (Not
necessarily true)

Why did it fail? Because some financial

institutions are not banks.

Stock brokerages, credit unions, etc.

Example:

Pacman is a fighter.
All sordiers are fighters
Thus, Pacman is a soldier.

I.

II.

All mammals have lungs.

T
All Whales are mammals.
T
Thus, all whales have lungs. T

All four-legged creatures have wings.

F
All spiders have four legs.
F
Therefore, all spiders have wings.
F

III. If a pauper owns all the gold in the country, then

s/he would be wealthy.

T
The pauper doesnt own all the gold in the
country.
T
Therefore, S/He is not wealthy.
T
All ostrich have wings.
T
All flying animals have wings. T
So, No ostrich is a flying animal. T
IV. If Bill Gates owns all the gold in the country, then

he would be wealthy.
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in the country.
Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy.

V. All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.

F
Therefore, all whales are mammals.

F
T

VI. All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore, all whales are mammals.
VII. All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore, all mammals are whales.

F
T
F
F
F

INVALID ARGUMENT
TRUE CONCLUSION

FALSE CONCLUSION

TRUE PREMISES

Example III

Example IV

FALSE PREMISES

Example VI

Example VII

VALID ARGUMENT
TRUE CONCLUSION
TRUE PREMISES

Example I

FALSE PREMISES

Example V

FALSE CONCLUSION

Example II

Things to know regarding

validity
General
Rule: Truth

values do not
determine validity
Exception: When
premises are true and a
conclusion is false, it
automatically makes an
argument invalid
Validity depends on
whether an arguments
premises support its
conclusion.
In valid arguments, the
premises do support
the conclusion.

Premises

Conclusio
n

Validity

Invalid

I.
II.
III.

IV.

V.
VI.
VII.

All mammals have lungs. All Whales are mammals.

Thus, all whales have lungs.
All four-legged creatures have wings. All spiders
have four legs. Therefore, all spiders have wings.
If I owned all the gold in the country, then I would
be wealthy. I do not own all the gold in the country.
Therefore, I am not wealthy.
If Bill Gates owned all the gold in the country, then
I would be wealthy. Bill Gates does not own all the
gold in the country. Therefore, Bill Gates am not
wealthy.
All fishes are mammals. All whales are fishes.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
All mammals have wings. All whales have wings.
Therefore, all whales are mammals.
All mammals have wings. All whales have wings.
Therefore, all mammals are whales.

Soundness
A sound argument is a deductive argument that

is valid and has all true premises.

Soundness: (Valid) + (True premises)
These conditions will also lead to a true conclusion as

well.

This is considered a truly good deductive

argument.

Testing an inductive arguments strength

Similar to testing for the validity of deductive

arguments.
Assume the premises are true, and see if the
conclusion is probably true, based on that.
Example:
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50
million years. Therefore, probably the next dinosaur bone to be
found will be at least 50 million years old
The premises are true and lead to a conclusion that is probably
true, so its a strong argument.
Example:
All meteorites found to this day have contained sugar. Therefore,
probably the next meteorite to be found will contain sugar
The premise is false in this argument, but if we assume its true,
then the conclusion is probably true too, so this is also a strong
argument.

Testing an inductive arguments strength

Similar to testing for the validity of deductive

arguments.
Assume the premises are true, and see if the
conclusion is probably true, based on that.
Example:

All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at

least 50 million years. Therefore, probably the next dinosaur
bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old
The premises are true and lead to a conclusion that is
probably true, so its a strong argument.
I saw Pedro the other day and I had a headache. I saw Him
also yesterday and again, I had a headache. Probably, I will
have a headache if Ill saw him today.
In this argument, the premises are true, but the conclusion
is false. Thus, it is not difficult to assume the premises to be
true. We merely check to see if they support the conclusion.
We find they do not, so the argument is weak.

Things to know regarding strength

An inductive arguments strength can

be measured in degrees.
To be strong, an inductive argument
must be more probable than
improbable.
Example:
This barrel contains 100 apples.
Three apples selected at random
were ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100 apples
are ripe

This barrel contains 100 apples.

Eighty apples selected at random
were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100 apples
are ripe.
The first argument can be
considered weak because it has
much less evidence to support its
conclusion.
The second argument is strong
since it has much more proof

Premises

Conclusio
n

Strength

Probabl
yT

Probabl
yF

Weak

Probabl
yT

Probabl
yF

Cogency
An inductive argument is said to be cogent

when it is both strong and has all true

premises.
Cogency: (Strong) + (True premises)
A cogent argument is considered to be the

ideal good inductive argument.

Inductive Argument forms

Prediction
An argument that works based on our

knowledge of the past in order to make a claim

about the future.
It rained yesterday and the other day, so it
will probably rain today.
Claims about the future cant be known with any
certainty, so they cant be absolutely true, even
though they can be justified. That makes them
inductive.

Argument from analogy

Depends on the existence of an analogy (or

similarity) between two separate things.

My Honda gets good gas mileage. So it
follows that Johns Honda also gets good
gas mileage.
The truth of an argument like this is based on chance,

 Generalization
An argument that is applied to a whole group

based on knowledge gained from a small

sample of people.
Five out of ten people in every barangay in the
country said they support the RH Bill. So I can say
that half of the countrys citizens support the RH Bill.
Statistical data is not always accurate, so the truth of
this form of argument can not be made certain. It
remains only probable.

Argument from authority

An argument that concludes something is true

because an expert said it is.

Centrum vitamins work because Dr. Jones did a
study that proved it.

This type of argument is only true with

probability since studies can be wrong or
mistaken.

 Argument based on signs

Conclusion based on knowledge gained from a

sign about what the sign claims to mean.

A sign on the side of the road says School
Zone so I can assume that a school is
somewhere up ahead.
The sign could have been moved from
somewhere else, or it could simply be wrong,
so it cant be true with absolute certainty.

Causal inference
Argument that proceeds from knowledge of a

cause to a claim about its effect, or vice versa,

that knowledge of an effect can provide
information about its cause.
I left a soda in the freezer last night, so I
can assume that it is frozen.

NALPASEN
APO!!!