2.

1 Topic: Introduction to Logic

 Definition and Importance of Logic

 Truth and Validity

Source: Introduction To Logic

Harry Gensler
2nd Editon

Introduction

Logic is about reasoning – about going from premises to a conclusion. As we

begin our study of logic, we need to be clearer on what logic is and why it’s
important. We also need to learn some concepts (like “valid” and “argument”)
that are central to the study of logic.

1.1 Logic
Logic1 is the analysis and appraisal of arguments. When you do logic, you try to clarify
reasoning and separate good from bad reasoning. As you work through this book, you’ll examine
reasoning on various topics, both philosophical (like free will and determinism, the existence of
God, and the nature of
morality) and non-philosophical (like backpacking, water pollution, football, Supreme Court
decisions, and the Bible). You’ll come to see logic not as an irrelevant game with funny symbols,
but as a useful tool to clarify and evaluate our reasoning – whether on life’s deeper questions or
on everyday topics.
Why study logic? I can think of three main reasons. First, logic is important because reasoning is
important. While you’ve been reasoning about things all your life, this may be the first time that
you try to understand reasoning and become better at it. Reasoning and general analytical skills
are important in
law, politics, journalism, education, medicine, business, science, mathematics, computer science,
and most other areas.

Second, logic can deepen your understanding of philosophy. Philosophy can be defined as
reasoning about the ultimate questions of life. Philosophers ask questions like “Why accept or
reject free will?” or “Can one prove or disprove God’s existence?” or “How can one justify a
moral belief?” If you don’t know any logic, you’ll have only a vague grasp of such issues; and
you’ll lack the tools needed to understand and evaluate philosophical reasoning. If you’ve
studied philosophy, you’ll likely recognize many of the pieces of philosophical reasoning in this
book. If you haven’t studied philosophy, you’ll find this book a good introduction to the subject.
In either case, you should get better at recognizing, understanding, and appraising philosophical
reasoning. Finally, logic can be fun. Doing logic is like playing a game or doing puzzles; logic
will challenge your thinking processes in new ways. The rigor of logical systems will likely
fascinate you. Most people find logic enjoyable.
1.2 Valid arguments

I begin my basic logic course with a multiple-choice test. The test has ten problems; each
problem gives information and asks what conclusion necessarily follows. The problems are easy,
but most students get about half wrong.1 Here are two of the problems – with the right answers
boxed:

If you overslept, you’ll be late.

You aren’t late.
Therefore:
(a) You did oversleep.
(b) You didn’t oversleep.
(c) You’re late.
(d) None of these follows.
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
You didn’t oversleep.
Therefore:
(a) You’re late.
(b) You aren’t late.
(c) You did oversleep.
(d) None of these follows.

While almost everyone gets the first problem right, many students wrongly pick “(b)” for the
second problem. Here “You aren’t late” doesn’t necessaryfollow, since you might be late for
some other reason; maybe your car didn’t start. Most students, once they grasp this point, will
see that (b) is wrong. Untrained logical intuitions are often unreliable. But logical intuitions can
be developed; yours will likely improve as you work through this book. You’ll also learn special
techniques for testing arguments.3An argument, in the sense used in logic, is a set of statements
consisting of premises and a conclusion. The premises are statements that give supporting
evidence; the conclusion is what is allegedly supported by these statements. Arguments put into
words a possible act of reasoning. Here’s an example:
1
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
You aren’t late.
Á You didn’t oversleep. (“Á” = therefore)

An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and
conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true.
We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all
true, then the conclusion also would have to be true. In saying this, we implicitly assume that
there’s no shift in the meaning or reference of the terms; hence we must use “overslept,” “late,”
and “you” the same way throughout the argument.

Our argument is valid because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions (like “if-
then” and “not”) and content phrases (like “You overslept”and “You’re late”). We can display an
argument’s form by using words orsymbols for logical notions and letters for content phrases:
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
You aren’t late.
Á You didn’t oversleep.
If A then B Valid
Not-B
Á Not-A

Our argument is valid because its form is correct. If we take another argument
of the same form, but substitute other ideas for “A” and “B,” then this second
argument also will be valid. Here’s an example:
If you’re in France, you’re in Europe.
You aren’t in Europe.
Á You aren’t in France.

If A then B Valid
Not-B
Á Not-A
Logic studies forms of reasoning. The content can deal with anything – backpacking,
mathematics, cooking, physics, ethics, or whatever. When you learn logic, you’re learning tools
of reasoning that can be applied to any subject. Consider our invalid example:

If you overslept, you’ll be late.

You didn’t oversleep.
Á You aren’t late.
If A then B Invalid
Not-A
Á Not-B

Here the second premise denies the first part of the if-then; this makes itinvalid. Intuitively, you
might be late for some other reason – just as, in this similar argument, you might be in Europe
because you’re in Italy:
If you’re in France, you’re in Europe.
You aren’t in France.
Á You aren’t in Europe.
If A then B Invalid
Not-A
Á Not-B

1.3 Sound arguments

Logicians distinguish valid arguments from sound arguments: An argument is valid if it would
be contradictory to have the premises all true and conclusion false.
An argument is sound if it’s valid and has every premise true. Calling an argument “valid” says
nothing about whether its premises are true. But calling it “sound” says that it’s valid (the
conclusion follows from the premises) and has true premises. Here’s an example of a sound
argument:
Valid
and true
premises
􀃎
If you’re reading this, you aren’t illiterate.
You’re reading this.
Á You aren’t illiterate.

When we try to prove a conclusion, we try to give a sound argument. We must make sure that
our premises are true and that our conclusion follows from our premises. If we have these two
things, then our conclusion has to be true. The conclusion of a sound argument is always true. An
argument could be unsound in either of two ways: (1) it might have a false premise or (2) its
conclusion might not follow from the premises:

First premise false:

All logicians are millionaires.
Gensler is a logician.
Á Gensler is a millionaire.
Conclusion doesn’t follow:
All millionaires eat well.
Gensler eats well.
Á Gensler is a millionaire.

When we criticize an opponent’s argument, we try to show that it’s unsound. We try to show
either that one of the premises is false or that the conclusion doesn’t follow. If the argument has
a false premise or is invalid, then our opponent hasn’t proved the conclusion. But the conclusion
still might be true – and our opponent might later discover a better argument for it. To show a
view to be false, we must do more than just refute an argument for it; we must invent an
argument of our own that shows the view to be false.

Besides asking whether premises are true, we could ask how certain they are, to ourselves or to
others. We’d like our premises to be certain and obvious to everyone. We usually have to settle
for less than this; our premises are often educated guesses or personal convictions. Our
arguments are only as strong as their premises. This suggests a third strategy for criticizing an
argument; we could try to show that one or more of the premises are very uncertain. Here’s
another example of an argument. In fall 2008, before Barack Obama was elected US president,
he was far ahead in the polls. But some thought he’d be defeated by the “Bradley effect,”
whereby many whites say they’ll vote for a black candidate but in fact don’t. Barack’s wife
Michelle, in a CNN interview with Larry King (October 8), argued that there wouldn’t be a
Bradley effect:

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

If there was going to be a Bradley effect, Barack wouldn’t be the nominee
[because the effect would have shown up in the primary elections].
Á There isn’t going to be a Bradley effect.

Once she gives this argument, we can’t just say “Well, my opinion is that there will be a Bradley
effect.” Instead, we have to respond to her reasoning. It’s clearly valid – the conclusion follows
from the premises. Are the premises true? The first premise was undeniable. To dispute the
second premise, we’d have toargue that the Bradley effect would appear in the final election but
not in the primaries; but it’s unclear how one might defend this. So an argument like this changes
the nature of the discussion. (By the way, there was no Bradley effect when the general election
took place a month later.) Logic, while not itself resolving substantive issues, gives us
intellectual tools to reason better about such issues. It can help us to be more aware of reasoning,
to express reasoning clearly, to determine whether a conclusion follows from the premises, and
to focus on key premises to defend or criticize. I have two points on terminology. We’ll call
statements true or false (notvalid or invalid). And we’ll call arguments valid or invalid (not true
or false). While this is conventional usage, it pains a logician’s ears to hear “invalid statement”
or “false argument.”So far we’ve seen deductive arguments, where the conclusion is claimed to
follow with necessity. There also are inductive arguments, where the conclusion is claimed to
follow only with probability; this claim is either implicit orelse expressed by terms like
“probably.” Consider these examples:

Deductively valid Inductively strong

All who live in France live in Europe.
Pierre lives in France.
Á Pierre lives in Europe.

Most who live in France speak French.

Pierre lives in France.
This is all we know about the matter.
Á Pierre speaks French (probably).

The first argument has a tight connection between premises and conclusion; it would be
impossible for the premises to all be true but the conclusion false. The second has a looser
premise–conclusion connection. Relative to the premises, the conclusion is only a good guess;
it’s likely true but could be false (perhapsPierre is the son of the Polish ambassador and speaks
no French).