Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

LOGIC

Remember an argument consists of two essential parts: (1) a claim (or conclusion), and (2) support for the claim (or
premises) in the form of reasons, evidence, or facts. A good argument (sound or cogent) requires that the premises
genuinely support the conclusion.

Three Types of Logical Arguments


There are three important forms of reasoning or arguments with which students of logic should be familiar.

1. Deductive Arguments:
Deductive arguments are constructed in such a way as to produce conclusions that follow with certainty or with
logical necessity from the premises. In a valid deductive argument, the reasoning process between the premises and
conclusion is so well connected so as to guarantee or ensure the conclusion.
Heres an example of a particular type of deductive argument:

If Joan is a mother, then she must be a woman.


Joan is a mother.
Therefore, Joan is a woman.

2. Inductive Arguments:
Inductive arguments are constructed to produce conclusions that will probablyfollow from the premises. A strong
inductive argument offers enough evidence to make the conclusion likely (or highly likely).
Heres an example of an inductive argument:

Voters in the state of Massachusetts predominantly vote for Democratic candidates over Republicans. Therefore, its
expected that the next U.S. senator elected in Massachusetts will be a Democrat.

3. Abductive Arguments:
Abductive arguments attempt to arrive at the best explanation for an event or a given series of facts. Unlike
deduction, abduction provides no certainty in its conclusions but, like induction, yields more or less probable truth.
In contrast to induction, however, abductive reasoning doesnt try to predict specific probable outcomes. Rather, this
method tries to provide the best broad explanatory hypothesis. I use abductive reasoning in arguing that the best
explanation of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ is that he was the divine Messiah (see chapter 8 of my
book Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions).

These are the three basic types of reasoning (or arguments) found in the study of logic. If you would like to sharpen
your own thinking skills, my critical thinking course is offered in Reasons Institute. (And Im pleased to say its the
most popular class among the students.)
For more about the importance of logic and critical thinking, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian
Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. For a great handbook in dealing with logical fallacies, see Attacking Faulty
Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer.
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
The Structure of Arguments
Abstract: The concept of an argument is discussed together with the related
concepts of premiss, conclusion, inference, entailment, proposition, and
statement.
I. We have seen that one main branch of philosophy is epistemology and one
main branch of epistemology is logic.
A. What is epistemology?
B. What is logic? Simply put, the purpose of logic is to sort out the good
arguments from the poor ones.
II. So the chief concern of logic is the structure of an argument.
A. Every argument in logic has a structure, and every argument can be
described in terms of this structure.
1. Argument: any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow
logically from the others.
a. In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my neighbor yelling
to me about my trashcans is not termed "an argument" in logic.
b. By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of some
statement, not emotional language. E.g., "That bird is a crow; therefore,
it's black."
2. The central parts of an argument include ...
a. Premiss: (more usually spelled "premise") a proposition which gives
reasons, grounds, or evidence for accepting some other proposition,
called the conclusion.
b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on
the basis of other propositions.
B. Consider the following example of an argument paraphrased from an
argument given by Fritz Perls in In and Out of the Garbage Pail.
If we set our ideals too high, then we will not meet those ideals.
If we do not meet those ideals, then we are less than we could be.

If we are less than we could be, then we feel inferior.


If we set ideals too high, then we feel inferior.
1. By convention, the reasons or premisses are set above a line that
separates the premisses from the conclusion. The line is sometimes thought
of as symbolizing the word "therefore" in ordinary language.
2. As you read the passage and come to understand it, you are undergoing
a psychological process called "making the inference."
a. An inference is the reasoning process by which a logical relation is
understood.
b. The logical relation is considered valid (good) or not valid (not good)
even if we do not understand the inference right away. In other words, it
is convenient to consider the logical relation as not being dependant for
its validity on the psychological process of an inference.
c. In this manner, logic is not considered as "the science of reasoning."
It is prescriptive, as discussed in a previous class.
3. So, this logical relation between the premisses and conclusion of Perl's
argument holds regardless of whether we pay attention or not.
a. Using the bold letters, we can symbolize his argument as follows:
HN
NL
LI
HI
b. This kind of logical relation is called an entailment.
An entailment is a logical relation between or among propositions
such that the truth of one proposition is determined by the truth of
another proposition or other propositions, and this determination is a
function solely of the meaning and syntax of the propositions
concerned.
c. Another way to remember the difference between an inference and
an entailment is to note that people infersomething, and
propositions entail something.
d. The argument structure is the sum and substance of logic. All that
remain in this course is to sketch out a bit of what this means. (Note
that Perls', argument has a good structure, so if the conclusion is
false, one of the premisses has to be false.)
III. We have spoken earlier of the relation between or among propositions. What
is a proposition or statement (we will use these words interchangeably)?
A. Statement: a verbal expression that can be regarded as true or false (but
not both). Hence, a statement or a proposition is a sentence with a truth-value.
We can still regard a sentence as a statement even if the truth-value of the
statement is not known.

B. Hence logic is just concerned with those statements that have truth-values.
(There is very much of life that is irrelevant to logic.)
Consider the confusion that would result if we considered the following
sentences as statements:
1. "Good morning." (What's so good about it?)
2. "You are looking good today." (Well, I just saw my doctor and ...)
3. "What is so rare as a day in June? Then, if ever, come perfect days..."
(Well, I don't know about that.)
4. To a waiter: "I'd like a cup of coffee." (Yeah, but I think bigger, I'd
like a BMW.)
Thus, phatic communication, greetings, commands, requests, and poetry,
among other uses of language, are not mean to be taken as statements.
C. Which of the following sentences are statements?
1. There is iron ore on the other side of Pluto.
2. Tomorrow, it will rain.
3. Open the door, please.
4. Whales are reptiles.
5. "Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look."
6. Pegasus has wings.
7. You should vote in all important elections.
IV. More distinctions with regard to statements are worth suggesting.
A. Consider whether there are two statements in the box:
A Republican is President (of the U.S.).
A Republican is President (of the U.S.).
1. Aside from the ambiguity of when the statements are uttered, of which
President is being spoken, and so on, we would say that there is one
statement and two sentences in the box. Sometimes logicians make a
distinction between a sentence token (the ink, chalk marks, or pixels) and a
sentence type (the meaning of the marks).
2. Every statement comes with an implicit time, place, and reference.
B. Summary of the distinction between a sentence and a statement assumes
that adequate synonymy of expression and translation between languages is
possible.
1. One statement can be expressed by two different sentences. For
example, the sentence "The cup is half-empty." expresses the same

statement as "The cup is half-full."


A sentence can express different statements at different times. For
example, the sentence "A Democrat is the U.S. President" as expressed in
1962 and 2002 is two differentstatements.
3. A statement is independent of the language in which it is asserted, but a
sentence is not. For example, the sentences "Das ist aber viel!' and "But
that is a lot" express the same statement, ceteris paribus.
4. A sentence can express an argument composed of several statements.
For example, the sentence "The graphical method of solving a system of
equations is an approximation, since reading the point of intersection
depends on the accuracy with which the lines are drawn and on the ability
to interpret the coordinates of the point" can be interpreted as two or three
different statements depending on how we wish to analyze it.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi