Argument Basics 2

ENYA AMEZA-XEMALORDZO

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING,
KSB
Argument
• An argument is an attempt to convince
someone (possibly yourself) that a
particular claim, called a conclusion, is
true,
– The rest of the argument is a collection of
claims called the premises, which are
given as the reasons for believing the
conclusion is true.
– The conclusion is sometimes called the
issued that is being debated.
 Argument Basics

Premises
1) Acceptable
2) Relevant

Conclusion
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated

The laws of nature and moral law are one and the same.
[Human beings can understand the laws of nature.]
[Human beings must follow the laws of nature.]
So, the human community is charged with the task of
ordering its life according to the same kind of objective
principles by which the cosmos itself is ordered.

-- Adapted from The American Soul, by Jacob Needleman

About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent

Dependent premises need at least one other premise

to provide support for a conclusion.
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent

Dependent premises need at least one other premise

to provide logical support for a conclusion.
Independent premises provide some support for an
argument’s conclusion whether or not any other
premises are present (given reasonable
assumptions).
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
In every free society, which the U.S. intends to be, there
must be opposite parties and violent dissensions.
Generally, one party must prevail over the others.
A free society cannot be preserved if the parties do not
commit to remaining united even if they don’t prevail.
So, a durably free America must include both strong
dissent and commitment to preserve the union.
Adapted from Thomas Jefferson
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent

In every free society, there must be opposite parties and

violent dissensions.
A free society cannot be preserved if the parties do not
commit to remaining united.
So, a free America can be expected to include both
strong dissent and commitment to preserve the union.
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
Indicator Words
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
Since… For the reason that…
For… In view of…
Because… This is implied by…
In as much as… Given that…
Suppose that… It follows from…
It follows from… Due to…
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
• May need support or explanation
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
• May need support or explanation

This is usually provided in a supporting or

explanatory paragraph or in more detailed
discussion.
About Premises
• May be stated or unstated
• May be dependent or independent
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
• May need support or explanation
• May be surrounded by irrelevancies
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
Religious freedom is the first freedom guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights.
It was also the single most important reason why the
earliest settlers in the Colonies left the safety and
relative comfort of their homes to start new lives here.
The bedrock freedoms of American civilization will
always need to be protected and interpreted for the
times.
So…
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
Religious freedom is the first freedom guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights.
It was also the single most important reason why the
earliest settlers in the Colonies left the safety and
relative comfort of their homes to start new lives here.
The bedrock freedoms of American civilization will
always need to be protected and interpreted for the
times.
So, we must still interpret and defend religious freedom.
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial

Madonna’s productions frequently contain religious

themes and symbolism.
Her work has been the topic of serious study by
respected scholars of religion.
So, Madonna’s work, even her highly sexual material,
must be protected as religious expression by the First
Amendment.
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
Thus… Therefore… This shows that…
So… Accordingly... This implies that…
Hence… Consequently… This proves that…
Ergo… It follows that… This suggests that…
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
• Must contain only terms found in the
premises (or their equivalents)
About Conclusions
• May be stated or unstated
• May be controversial
• May be indicated by lead-in words or
phrases
• Must contain only terms found in the
premises (or their equivalents)

The presence of new terms in a conclusion is

strong evidence of unstated premises.
About Arguments
• Valid Arguments: Argument is valid if
it is impossible for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false (at the
same time; otherwise it is invalid.
About Arguments
• Strong and Weak Arguments: Invalid
arguments are classified on a scale
from strong to weak. An argument is
strong if it is very unlikely for the
premises to be true and the conclusion
false (at the same time); an argument is
weak if it is likely for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false.
In any of these ways is the
conclusion false?
Ways The Premises Could Be True

NO = VALID
Every Way The Premises YES = INVALID
Could Be True
The Conclusion is True

Very Unlikely Not so Likely

STRONG WEAK
Deductive and Inductive Arguments

One way of conceptualizing

arguments is by the degree of
confidence one is supposed to
have in the conclusion if the
premises are true.
 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive arguments are

constructed with the
intention of supporting
their conclusions
perfectly, that is, with
premises that, if true,
guarantee the truth of
the conclusion.
 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive arguments are Inductive arguments are

constructed with the constructed with the
intention of supporting intention of providing
their conclusions the strongest possible
perfectly, that is, with support for the
premises that, if true, conclusion, even
guarantee the truth of though they are unable
the conclusion. to guarantee the truth
of 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.
 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 Probably
Definitely Likely
Absolutely Plausible
Conclusively Reasonable
This entails that The odds are
that
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 argument’s conclusion either follows with
strict logical necessity from its premises or it
does not.
• If an argument’s 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.

• James is a six-year-old. Therefore,

James 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:
1. 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.
 Exceptions to the Strict Necessity Test
• Examples
1. Magellan’s 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 I’m Bill Gates, then I’m mortal. I’m not Bill Gates.
Therefore, I’m not mortal. (The argument has a
pattern of reasoning characteristic of deductive
arguments, so should be treated as deductive.)
 Common Argument Patterns
– There are five very common, deductively
valid argument patterns.
– If a passage fits one of these patterns, then
you know/recognize that the passage
contains an argument.
– A syllogism is a deductive argument in
which a conclusion is inferred from two
premises
1. Modus Ponens
• If P then Q  If you exercise, then
• P you’ll live longer.
• So, Q  You exercise.
 So, you’ll live longer.

P = You exercise.
Q = You’ll live longer.
2. Modus Tollens
• If P then Q  If you study hard,
• Not-Q then you earn an A.
• So, Not-P.  You didn’t earn an A.
 So, you didn’t study
hard.

P = You study hard.

Q = You earn an A.
Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens

These 2 methods are used to prove or

disprove arguments,
• Modus Ponens by affirming the truth of
an argument (the conclusion becomes
the affirmation), and
• Modus Tollens by denial (again, the
conclusion is denial). Consider the
following argument:
Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens

STATEMENT: If it is bright and sunny today,

then I will wear my sunglasses.

Modus Ponens.
It is bright and sunny today. Therefore, I
will wear my sunglasses.

Modus Tollens
I will not wear my sunglasses.
Therefore, it is not bright and sunny
 3. Hypothetical syllogism
• If P, then Q.  If your parents love
• If Q, then R. you, then someone
• So, if P, then R. loves you.
P = Your parents love  If someone loves you,
you. then you won’t be a
Q = Someone loves turd.
you.  So, if your parents
R = You won’t be a love you, then you
turd. won’t be a turd.
Hypothetical syllogisms

Hypothetical syllogisms are short, two-

premise deductive arguments, in which at
least one of the premises is a conditional,
the antecedent or consequent of which also
appears in the other premise.
 4. Disjunctive Syllogism
• P or Q  You take Logic in the
• Not-Q second semester or you
• So, P. take Logic in the first
semester.
 You don’t take Logic in
P = You take Logic the first semester.
in Sem 2  So, you take Logic in the
Q = You take second semester.
Logic in Sem 1.
 4. Disjunctive Syllogism
• Disjunctive
Example 1
syllogisms follo
w a “Either A or Premise 1: This cake is either red
B is true, if it’s A, velvet or chocolate.
B is false” Premise 2: It’s not chocolate.
pattern. Conclusion: This cake is red velvet.
• This type of Example 2
syllogism has a
Premise 1: On the TV show Akan
“disjunction” as
a premise, that drama, Osofo Dazy’s wife is either
is, an “either-or” dead or alive.
statement. Premise 2: He’s not alive.
Conclusion: Osofo Dazy’s wife is
dead.
 5 Categorical Syllogism
• All F’s are G’s.  All professors are
• a is an F educated.
• So, a is G.  Khalifa is a professor
 So, Khalifa is
educated.
F = is a professor.
G = is educated.
a = Khalifa
5 Categorical Syllogism
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive
argument consisting of three categorical
propositions that together contain
exactly three terms, each of which
occurs in exactly two of the constituent
propositions.
 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
– The language indicates it is deductive
– The argument has a 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 can’t be my friend.
Therefore if you are blue in the face then you
can’t be my friend.
 MODUS TOLLENS
• If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.
• If we’re in Sacramento, we’re in California.
We’re not in California.
Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento.
• If you love me, you’ll 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 year’s Masters then he’s a great
athlete.
Tiger Woods didn’t win this year’s 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)
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 JB’s yesterday.

But JB’s 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
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 sun’s
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
– Causal 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.
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, CONT’D
• It is not enough that the conclusion
happens to be true. If the conclusion
doesn’t 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)
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

• Exercise: Determine whether

arguments are cogent or uncogent (ex.
3.5 III, p. 82-83)
 Summary of Argument Types
Deductive Inductive

Valid Invalid Strong Weak

(all are (all are
unsound)
uncogent)

Sound Unsound Cogent

Uncogent
Culminating Activity

Determine whether the arguments are

deductive or inductive. If the argument is
deductive, determine whether it is valid or
invalid. If the argument is inductive,
determine whether it is strong or weak.
Deductive vs. Inductive Logic

SAMPLE QUESTIONS
 Deductive vs. Inductive Logic

Deductive logic determines whether the premises

support the conclusion perfectly.
 Deductive vs. Inductive Logic

Deductive logic determines whether the premises

support the conclusion perfectly.

Inductive logic determines the degree to which

the premises support the conclusion.
 Deductive vs. Inductive Logic
Example

The sun rose on day 1.

The sun rose on day 2.
:
The sun rose today.

So the sun will rise tomorrow.

The argument is not valid.

But the premises strongly support the conclusion.
Deductive vs. Inductive Logic
Example

9 of 10 marbles in this bag are black.

I have chosen one of them randomly.

So the marble I chose is black.

The argument is not valid.

But the premises support
9/10 confidence in the conclusion.