Chapter 3

Basic Logical Concepts

Introduction

In evaluating any argument, one should always ask two key questions:

• Are the premises true?

• Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?

We will only focus on the latter question in Chapter 3.

Example 1

Take this argument.

• Premise 1: If the moon is made of green cheese, then you will score perfectly on the next exam.

• Premise 2: The moon is made of green cheese.

• Conclusion: Therefore, you will score perfectly on the next exam.

Example 2

Even though premises 1 and 2 are false, they still provide good reasons to accept the conclusion. Why?

• Because, if they were true, the conclusion would have to be true.

• If a green cheese moon really did ensure that you ace the next exam, and it really was
green cheese, then you really would ace the next exam.

• So, you will never be able to show that premises do not provide “good reasons” for a conclusion
by pointing out that they are false.

• Save “truth evaluation” for Chapter 8.

Deduction and Induction 1

Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.

• Example.

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Deduction and Induction 2

Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely given the premises.

• Example.
 • Every ruby so far discovered has been red.

• So, probably all rubies are red.

Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 1

Misconception.

• Deduction moves from general premises to particular conclusions.

• Induction moves from particular premises to general conclusions.

Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 2

Arguments can be presented in this manner:

• Deduction: All males are mortal. (general premise) I am a male. Therefore, I am mortal.
(particular conclusion).

• Inductive: The last two winter days were cold. (particular premise) Therefore, all winter days are
cold. (general conclusion).

Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 3

But arguments can be presented in this manner as well:

• Deductive.

• Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865 (particular premise).

• So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the nineteenth century
(general conclusion).

• Inductive.

• All of John Grisham’s previous novels have been good (general premise).

• Therefore, Grisham’s next novel will probably be good (particular conclusion).

Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments 1

Deductive arguments claim that:

• If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

• The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

Inductive arguments claim that:

• If the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true.

• The conclusion follows probably from the premises.

Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments 2

• It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
 • It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion.

• It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

• Although it is logically consistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion
is probably true if the premises are true.

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 1

Indicator word test.

• Indicator words can be used to communicate when an argument is deductive or inductive.

• Examples of deduction indicator words: Certainly, definitely, absolutely, and

conclusively.

• Examples of induction indicator words: Probably, likely, one would expect that, odds
are that, and it is reasonable to assume that.

• Indicator words are not always present, and they are sometimes used loosely or improperly.

• For example, it is common to hear speakers use strong phrases like “it must be the case
that” and “it is logical to assume that” when the context makes clear that the argument
is not intended to be strictly deductive.

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 2

Strict necessity test.

• An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does
not.

• If it does, the argument should always be treated as deductive.

• If it doesn’t, the argument should be treated as inductive.

• Examples.

• Alan is a father. Therefore, Alan is a male (deductive).

• Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat (inductive).

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 3

Exceptions to the strict necessity test.

• An argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises should
nonetheless be treated as deductive in the following situations:

• The language or context makes clear that the arguer intended to offer a logically
conclusive argument, but the argument, in fact, is not logically conclusive.

• The argument has a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive and nothing
else about the argument clearly indicates that the argument is meant to be inductive.
Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 4

• Examples of exceptions.

• Magellan's ships sailed around the world. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the earth
is a sphere.

• If I’m Bill Gates, then I’m mortal. I’m not Bill Gates. Therefore, I’m not mortal.

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 5

Common pattern test.

• There are many common patterns that valid arguments “use.”

• For example: If A then B. A. Therefore, B.

• This argument pattern is called modus ponens.

• If an argument follows this pattern, it is deductive.

• We will learn other patterns shortly.

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 6

Principle of charity test.

• When interpreting an unclear argument or passage, always give the speaker or writer the
benefit of the doubt.

• Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits
us to attribute to them a stronger one.

• Never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to interpret it as not an argument at all.

Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or Inductive 7

Example: Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant yesterday. But Maxine’s was completely
destroyed by fire less than a month ago. It is certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or mistaken.

• Since it is not possible that Maxine’s was rebuilt quickly, this argument is deductively invalid.

• Assume that the author intended it to be inductive.

Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

• Hypothetical syllogism.

• Categorical syllogism.

• Argument by elimination.

• Argument based on mathematics.

 • Argument from definition.

Hypothetical Syllogism 1

Three-line argument that contains at least one hypothetical or conditional premise.

Varieties of hypothetical syllogisms.

• If A then B. A. Therefore, B (modus ponens).

• If A then B. If B then C. Therefore, if A then C (chain argument).

• If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not A (modus tollens).

Hypothetical Syllogism 2

• Patterns of deductive reasoning that are not logically reliable.

• If A then B. Not A. Therefore, not B (denying the antecedent).

• If A then B. B. Therefore, A (affirming the consequent).

• These should be treated as deductive because they have a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive.

Categorical Syllogism

Three-line argument in which each statement begins with the word all, some, or no.

Forms.

• All A’s are B’s. All B’s are C’s. Therefore, all A’s are C’s.

• Some A’s are B’s. All B’s are C’s. Therefore, some A’s are C’s.

Example.

• All oaks are trees.

• All trees are plants.

• So, all oaks are plants.

Argument by Elimination 1

Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains.

• Example 1.

• Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.

• But Joe didn’t drive to the library.

• Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

Argument by Elimination 2
 • Example 2.

• If Dutch or Jack committed the murder, then the weapon was a rope.

• The weapon was not a rope.

• So, neither Dutch nor Jack committed the murder.

• Therefore, Celia committed the murder.

Arguments Based on Mathematics

Argument in which the conclusion depends largely or entirely on some mathematical calculation or
measurement.

Example.

• Eight is greater than four.

• Four is greater than two.

• Therefore, eight is greater than two.

Arguments from Definition

An argument in which the conclusion is presented as being “true by definition,” that is, as following
simply from the meaning of some key word or phrase used.

Examples.

• Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor.

• Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.

Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning

• Inductive generalization.

• Predictive argument.

• Augment from authority.

• Causal argument.

• Statistical argument.

• Argument from analogy.

Inductive Generalization 1

Argument in which a generalization is claimed to be probably true based on information about some
members of a particular class.

• Generalization: Statement that attributes characteristics to all or most members of a given class.

Common form.
 • So far, the B’s I have seen have had property P. Therefore, all B’s must have property P.

Inductive Generalization 2

Example.

• All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more than sixty-five million years old.

• Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than sixty-five million years old.

Predictive Argument 1

An argument in which a prediction is defended with reasons.

• Prediction: A claim about what someone thinks will happen in the future.

Common form.

• So far, all the B’s I have seen have had property P.

• Therefore, the next B I see will have property P.

Predictive Argument 2

Example.

• Most U.S. presidents have been tall.

• Therefore, probably the next president will be tall.

In some cases, predictions can be argued for deductively.

• Example.

• If Amy comes to the party, Ted will come to the party.

• Amy will come to the party.

• Therefore, Ted will come to the party.

Argument from Authority 1

Asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some presumed authority or witness who has said
that the claim is true.

Common form.

• P said that A was true. Therefore, A is true.

Example.

• The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia. In general, the
Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly reliable source of information. Therefore, it’s probably true
that Jefferson was born in Virginia.

Argument from Authority 2

Normally treated as inductive because one can never be absolutely certain that a supposed authority or
witness is accurate or reliable.

• Arguments from authority can sometimes be deductive.

• Example.

• Whatever the Bible teaches is true.

• The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbors.

• Therefore, we should love our neighbors.

Causal Argument

Asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else.

• Example: I can’t log on. The network must be down.

Not all causal arguments are inductive.

• Example.

• Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts.

• This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen and water.

• Therefore, it will rust.

Statistical Argument 1

Rests on statistical evidence (evidence that some percentage of some group or class has some particular
characteristic).

Example.

• Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s students can swim.

• Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.

• So, Beatrice probably can swim.

Statistical Argument 2

Because statistical evidence is used to support claims that are presented as probable, statistical
arguments are usually inductive.

• Statistical evidence can also be used in deductive reasoning.

• Example.

• If 65% of likely voters polled support Senator Beltway, then Senator Beltway will
win in a landslide.

• Sixty-five percent of likely voters polled do support Senator Beltway.

 • Therefore, Senator Beltway will win in a landslide.

Argument from Analogy 1

Argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend on an analogy (that is, a comparison or
similarity) between two or more things.

• Analogy: Comparison of two or more things that are claimed to be alike in some relevant
respect.

Common form.

• These things are similar in such-and-such ways.

• Therefore, they are probably similar in some further way.

Argument from Analogy 2

Example.

• Hershey Park has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.

• Dorney Park, like Hershey Park, is a great amusement park.

• Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.

Because the conclusions of arguments of this pattern are claimed to follow only probably from the
premises, such arguments are clearly inductive.

Argument from Analogy 3

Some analogical arguments are deductive.

• Example.

• Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each year and produce noxious and offensive
fumes.

• Smoking causes thousands of deaths each year and produces noxious and offensive
fumes.

• Thus, if smoking is heavily regulated, automobiles should also be heavily regulated.

• But automobiles shouldn’t be heavily regulated.

• Therefore, smoking shouldn’t be heavily regulated, either.

Deductive Validity 1

A valid deductive argument is an argument in which it is impossible for all the premises to be true and
the conclusion false.

• The following conditions apply in a valid deductive argument:

• If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

 • The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

• The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion.

• It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and deny the conclusion.

Deductive Validity 2

It is not necessary to know whether an argument’s premises or conclusion are true to know whether the
argument is valid.

• Some valid arguments have obviously false premises and a false conclusion.

• Example: All squares are circles. All circles are triangles. Therefore, all squares are
triangles.

Deductive Validity 3

• Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion.

• Example: All fruits are vegetables. Spinach is a fruit. Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.

• Some valid arguments have true premises and a true conclusion.

• Example: If you’re reading this, you are alive. You are reading this. Therefore, you are
alive.

• No valid argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.

Deductive Validity 4

Valid does not mean “true.”

• Valid means that the argument is deductively well reasoned, that the conclusion does, in fact,
follow necessarily from the premises.

Invalid deductive argument: Deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises.

Deductive Validity 5

Notice, in the following argument, even though the premises and conclusion are true, it is invalid:

• All dogs are animals.

• Lassie is an animal.

• Therefore, Lassie is a dog.

• What if “Lassie” here referred to an iguana? The premises would still be true, and yet
the conclusion would be false.

Deductive Validity 6
 • If you get rid of your assumption (which is not in the argument) that we are talking about the TV
dog, the invalidity becomes clear. Let’s use a different name:

• All dogs are animals.

• Jub-Jub is an animal.

• Therefore, Jub-Jub is a dog.

Validity is important because it preserves truth.

Deductive Validity: Sound and Unsound Deductive Arguments

• Sound deductive argument: Deductive argument that is both valid and has all true premises.

• Unsound deductive argument: Deductive argument that either is invalid or has at least one false
premise, or both.

Inductive Strength 1

Strong inductive argument: Inductive argument in which the conclusion follows probably from the
premises.

• The following conditions apply in a strong inductive argument:

• If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.

• The premises provide probable, but not logically conclusive, grounds for the truth of the
conclusion.

• The premises, if true, make the conclusion likely.

Inductive Strength 2

• Example.

• All recent U.S. presidents have been college graduates.

• Thus, it is likely that the next U.S. president will be a college graduate.

Weak inductive argument: An inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably
from the premises.

• Example.

• All previous popes have been men.

• Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman.

Inductive Strength 3

Inductively strong arguments can have combinations of truth or falsity in the premises and conclusion.
 • Some inductively strong arguments have:

• False premises and a probably false conclusion.

• Example: All previous U.S. presidents have been electricians. Hence, it is likely
that the next U.S. president will be an electrician.

• False premises and a probably true conclusion.

• Example: Every previous U.S. president has flown on Air Force One. So, the next
U.S. president probably will fly on Air Force One.

Inductive Strength 4

• True premises and a probably true conclusion.

• Example: No previous U.S. president has been a native Alaskan. So, the next U.S.
president probably will not be a native Alaskan.

• No strong inductive argument can have true premises and a probably false conclusion.

Weak inductive arguments can have any combination of truth or falsity in the premises and conclusion.

• Example: Most U.S. presidents have been women. Therefore, probably the next U.S. president
will be married.

Inductive Strength 5

The examples show that inductive strength or weakness of an argument has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of its premises and the conclusion.

• Depends on whether the conclusion would probably be true if the premises were true.

• If the answer is yes, the argument is strong.

• If the answer is no, the argument is weak.

Inductive Strength Comes in Degrees 1

This argument . . .

• According to the National Weather Service, there is a 10 percent chance of rain today.

• Therefore, probably it will rain today.

. . . is weaker than this one:

• According to the National Weather Service, there is a 60 percent chance of rain today.

• Therefore, probably it will rain today.

Inductive Strength Comes in Degrees 2

Recall that a deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

 • No two valid arguments differ in “how valid” they are.

Some inductively strong arguments are inductively stronger than others.

Cogency

• Even if an argument is inductively strong, it can still have a false premise and be a poor
argument.

• Cogent argument: An argument that is inductively strong and has all true premises.

• Uncogent argument: An inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false
premise, or both.