LECTURE 5

VALIDITY, TRUTH,
SOUNDNESS,
STRENGTH, COGENCY

PLEASE REFER TO PAGES 45-59 IN YOUR

TEXTBOOK
COPY RIGHT NUMBER: 14792/01
A RECAP
To distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, we attempt to:

(1) evaluate the strength of the argument’s inferential claim-

(2) how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises

(3) this claim is an objective feature of an argument, and it may or may not be
related to the subjective intentions of the arguer,
LECTURE OVERVIEW:
a valid deductive argument is an argument where it is impossible for the conclusion to be false
given that the premises are true. The conclusion follows from the premises strictly by necessity.

An invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument where it is possible for the conclusion to
be false even if the premises are true. The conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.
a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises
an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or
both
a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion is
false if the premises are true. The conclusion does follow probably from the premises.
a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from
the premises, even though it is claimed to.
GENERAL
INSIGHT TO
THIS CHAPTER
This chapter explores the idea that the validity
of a deductive argument is determined by its
form. This is suggested by the table.
This means that all arguments in the valid
column have the same valid form, and all
arguments in the invalid column have the same
invalid form.
The form of an argument illustrates the
argument’s internal structure or pattern of
reasoning. If the pattern of reasoning is good,
the argument will be valid; if not, it will be
invalid.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, 2018. A Concise

Introduction to Logic. 13 ed. United States:
Cengage Learning. P. 59)
ALL THE VALID ARGUMENTS HAVE THIS
FORM:
Lions have cells in their bodies(A), and all cells have DNA (B). Therefore, all lions have DNA(C).

All A are B.
All C are A.
All C are B.
HOW TO IDENTIFY VALID DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
We start by assuming that each of the premises is true, and then we look at whether it is
possible for the conclusion to be false given that assumption.

TAKE NOTE: there is no middle ground between valid and invalid.

There are no arguments that are “almost” valid and “almost” invalid.

If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is valid;

if not, it is invalid.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.45)

EXAMPLES OF VALID DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
Lions have cells in their bodies(A), and all cells have DNA (B). Therefore, all lions have DNA(C).

Both premises are true, so it is easy to assume that they(claims) are true.

Next, is the conclusion false?

If A=B , and B=C then A=C.

Therefore, your argument is rendered valid.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, pp.45- 46)

EXAMPLES OF INVALID DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
All banks are financial institutions(A). Old Mutual is a financial institution(B). Therefore, Old
Mutual is a bank(C). Both premises are true.

Next, is the conclusion false? If banks were included in one part of the group of financial
institutions and Old Mutual were included in another part this case insurance, then Old
Mutual would not be a bank, since it is an insurance company. Yes, thus, the argument is
invalid.

If A is true and B is true to some extent(inferential link), then C is false. Which then
renders your argument invalid.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.46)

GENERAL THINGS TO
REMEMBER
The truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion does not always establish something's
validity.

• Validity is determined by how the premises and conclusion are related.

HOWEVER

There is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the premises and conclusion that does
determine the question of validity. Any logical argument with genuinely true premises and an
incorrect conclusion is invalid. The premises could very well be false while the conclusion is
false if both premises are genuinely true.

Most important point of deductive logic is that any deductive argument having actually true
premises and a false conclusion is invalid.
SOUND AND UNSOUND DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
DEFINITION: a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises.

HOWEVER

DEFINITION: an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or

more false premises, or both.

Because a valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, and because a sound argument does, in fact, have true premises, it follows
that every sound argument will have a true conclusion.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.48)

SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
The false premise(s) are required to support the conclusion for the argument to be unsound.

A valid conclusion supported by true premises but with an unnecessary false premise
would still constitute a sound argument.

No addition of a false premise to an originally sound argument can make the argument
unsound. Such a premise would be superfluous(excessive) and should not be considered part of
the argument.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.48)

SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
CONTINUED
Similar comments apply to induction.

Every logical argument is either sound or unsound since every premise is either true or
false and every deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

Many, if not most, premises have truth values that are unknown or impossible to determine,
it is not always possible to determine the soundness of a deductive argument.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.48)

 STRONG AND WEAK INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
DEFINITION: an inductive argument claims that it is improbable for the conclusion to be false if
the premises are true. If this claim is true, the argument is said to be strong.

THEREFORE

DEFINITION: a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument in which it is improbable that

the conclusion is false if the premises are true. The conclusion does follow probably from the
premises.

BUT

DEFINITION: a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
UNIFORMITY OF NATURE
All inductive arguments depend on what philosophers call the uniformity of nature.
This idea holds that patterns that exist in one spatial location tend to appear in other areas and that
the future will often resemble the past.

For example, in the past, sugar has always tasted sweet. According to the uniformity of nature, sugar
will continue to taste sweet in the future. Also, just as sugar tastes sweet in Los Angeles, so does it in
New York, London, and everywhere else.

Our conclusions about what we would ordinarily expect to occur are ultimately supported by
nature's consistency.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, pp.48-49)

GOOD INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Good inductive arguments are those that accord with the uniformity of nature. They draw
conclusions that we would naturally anticipate to be accurate.

If the conclusion was false, this occurrence would cause us to react with surprise.

The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to that for
deduction.

• We first assume the premises are true,

• then we determine whether, based on that assumption, the conclusion is probably true.

• This determination is accomplished by linking up the premises with regularities that exist in
our experiential background.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.49)

IN PRACTICE
If the argument is a causal inference, we link the information in the premises with known
causal patterns.

If the argument is an argument from signs, we connect the information in the premises with
what we know about signs: some kinds of signs are trustworthy, others are not.

If the argument is a generalization, we connect the information in the premises with what we
know about a sample being representative of a population.

The strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity
of the premises and conclusion, BUT from the probabilistic support the premises give the
conclusion.
EXAMPLE OF A STRONG INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENT
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old. Therefore,
probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old.

The premise is true, given that all dinosaur bones discovered have been over 50 million
years old (and that thousands of such bones have been discovered).

The uniformity of nature dictates that the next one to be discovered will also be over 50
million years old. This is what we would naturally expect, and anything contrary would be
surprising.

Thus, the conclusion is probably true, and the argument is strong.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.49)

EXAMPLE OF A WEAK INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENT
A scientist went out and did a survey on how many bird species there were along with their
colours. They came across a lake where they were told there were 30 unknown birds (we now
call them swans). Of the 30, they counted 29 white swans. They could not find the other swan
but assumed it was a white swan too. Therefore, they concluded that all swans are white.

The uniformity of nature principle has been rejected because not all swans in the past have
been white and we can therefore not assume that all swans in the present are white either.
A black swan might appear. This black swan could have such an impact as to invalidate our
conclusion, even if our premise was true.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.50)
GENERAL THINGS TO REMEMBER
Premises must not exclude or overlook evidence that undermines the stated premises and requires
a different conclusion. This provision is called the total evidence requirement.
 If not met, an argument might have literally true premises and a probably false conclusion and still
be strong.

When we speak of the conclusion being probably false, we mean probably false in the actual world
considering known evidence.

NOTE: the only arrangement of truth and falsity missing for strong arguments is true premises
and probably false conclusions.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.51)

SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
Unlike the validity and invalidity of deductive arguments, the strength and weakness of inductive
arguments allow from degrees.

To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than
improbable.

In other words, given that the premises are true, the likelihood that the conclusion is true must be
more than 50 percent, and as the probability increases, the argument becomes stronger.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.51)

EXAMPLES IN PRACTICE
1. This barrel contains 100 apples. Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore,
probably all 100 apples are ripe.

2. 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 is weak and the second is strong. However, the first is not absolutely weak nor
the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened by the random
selection of a larger or smaller sample. The incorporation of additional premises into an inductive
argument will also generally tend to strengthen or weaken it.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.51)

COGENT AND UNCOGENT INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
DEFINITION: a cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true
premises. A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument
because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true premises.

HOWEVER

DEFINITION: an uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is weak, has one or

more false premises, fails to meet the total evidence requirement, or any combination of
these.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.52)
EXAMPLES OF COGENT AND UNCOGENT
ARGUMENTS

As an illustration of the need for the total evidence requirement, consider the following argument:
Swimming in the Caribbean is usually lots of fun. Today the water is warm, the surf is gentle, and on
this beach there are no dangerous currents. Therefore, it would be fun to go swimming here now.

If the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent. But if they ignore the fact
that several large dorsal fins are cutting through the water (suggesting sharks), then obviously the
argument is not cogent.

(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.52)

STRONG COGENT ARGUMENT
EXAMPLES
The grave marker at Arlington National Cemetery says that John F. Kennedy is buried there.
It must be the case that he is buried in that cemetery.

Queenstown is a city in South Africa. Lisa was born in Queenstown. Therefore, Lisa is a
South African.
STRONG UNCOGENT ARGUMENT
EXAMPLE
The vast majority of Rose Bowl games have been played in freezing weather. Therefore,
probably the next Rose Bowl game will be played in freezing cold weather.

People have been listening to rock music for hundreds of years. People will probably still be
listening to it years from now.
WEAK UNCOGENT ARGUMENT
EXAMPLE
The ebb and flow of the tides has been occurring every day for millions of years. But nothing
lasts forever. Therefore, the motion of the tides will die out within a few years.

Franklin Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear. Therefore, we do not have to fear a
serial killer attack.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.50)
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.53)