Valid and Invalid Arguments, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens

1. Valid Arguments.
a. Definition: An argument is a sequence of statements in which all of the statements
except the last one are premises (aka assumptions, aka hypotheses), and the last one is
the conclusion.
b. Definition: An argument form is a sequence of statement forms in which all of the
statement forms except the last one are premises (aka assumptions, aka hypotheses),
and the last one is the conclusion.
c. Examples:
 p q
p
q
 If Sally is a freshman, then Sally has not declared a major.
Sally is a freshman.
Sally has not declared a major.
d. Definition: An argument form is valid if no matter what particular statements are
substituted for the statement variables in its premises, the conclusion is true whenever
all of the premises are true.
e. Definition: An argument is valid if its form is valid.
2. Testing an Argument Form for Validity.
a. To test an argument form for validity:
1. Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument form.
2. Construct a truth table showing the truth values of all premises and the
conclusion.
3. If the truth table contains any rows in which all of the premises are true and the
conclusion is false, then the argument form is invalid. Otherwise, the argument
form is valid.
(So, the crucial rows to check the conclusion are the ones in which all of the
premises are true.)
b. Examples:
 p (q r)
r
p q

Show that the above argument form is valid.

 p (q r)
q (p r)
p r

Show that the above argument form is invalid.

3. Modus Ponens (method of affirming) and Modus Tollens (method of denying).
a. Argument forms consisting of two premises and a conclusion are called syllogisms.
The first and second premises are called the major premise and the minor premise.
A very important and commonly used form of syllogism is called modus
ponens, which is Latin for "method of affirming." It has this classic form:
 p q
p
Therefore, q
You may construct a truth table to prove the validity of this argument form.
b. Another important and commonly used form of syllogism is called modus
tollens, which is Latin for "method of denying." It has this classic form:
p q
q
Therefore, p.
You may construct a truth table to prove the validity of this argument form.

This is sometimes referred to as proof by contradiction.

c. Examples:
 If today is Monday, then I will go to MA 125.
Today is Monday.
Therefore, I will go to MA 125.

Is the conclusion always true whenever both premises are true?

Is this a valid argument?
What happens on Wednesday? I go to MA 125 (but it is not Monday).
The argument is valid every day of the week, but it is only a sound argument
on Monday. Every other day of the week it is still a valid argument, but it is
an unsound argument since one or more premises is false.
 If my car is out of gas, then it will not run.
My car runs [is running].
Therefore, my car is not out of gas.
ESSONS IN LOGIC: HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
MARCH 17, 2012JIM 4 COMMENTS
Pretty big words for a concept that you already understand, and it’s definitely something you already get. A hypothetical
syllogism is a rule of inference which allows us to compound related material conditional statements. Maybe that wasn’t
helpful either. I’ll show you.
Here’s an example:
1. If snow is white, then frogs jump. (S → F)
2. If frogs jump, then Elvis walks among us. (F → E)
3. Therefore, if snow is white, then Elvis walks among us (S → E)
You use this all the time to make inferences about things. Note that what connects the two premises is that the consequent
of the first (F) is the antecedent of the second. Also, as for any other rule of inference, the conclusion is only true if both
of the premises are true. If one of them is false, then the conclusion has to be false. The actual content of the conditionals
in the premises is irrelevant, except so far as it dictates the truth of the conditional.
We encounter bad hypothetical syllogisms all the time, and they aren’t always easy to spot. All it takes is one conditional
that’s false, and the whole thing falls apart. Today’s example of bad logic comes via beantown mom at dailykos.com,
talking about her daughter’s experiences after her school found out she uses birth control. The actual origin of this
argument is renowned radio logician Rush Limbaugh, who drew a similar conclusion about law student Sandra Fluke. The
argument goes something like this:
1. If a girl takes birth control, then she is sexually promiscuous. (B → P)
2. If a girl is sexually promiscuous, then she is a slut. (P → S)
3. Therefore, if a girl takes birth control, then she is a slut. (B → S)
Now, I’m simplifying it a bit for the sake of the example, but I think we can capture Rush’s and the students’ meaning if
we define a slut as “someone worthy of blame” in this case. Still, it’s pretty clear that premise 1 is false. There are lots of
reasons to take birth control, such as the treatment of ovarian cysts. And even if it’s to prevent pregnancy, it still doesn’t
follow that one is sexually promiscuous. Premise 2 is also false, because it’s not at all clear that one should be
blameworthy if one is sexually promiscuous. Since both premises are false, the conclusion is also false.
And that’s hypothetical syllogism. Use it to make brilliant connections, and amaze your friends! We’ve just got three
more rules of inference to get through, and then we’re on to counter examples, or how to prove that your friends (or
enemies) are wrong (so long as they are).
Description
The basic form of the conditional syllogism is: If A is true then B is also true. (If A then B). It appears
through a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
Major premise
The major premise (the first statement) for example:
Ladies prefer Xanthos.
This statement is not challenged and is assumed to be true.
The 'A', the 'if' part of the statement ('adding sugar to coffee' in the example) is also called the antecedent.
The 'B', the 'then' part of the statement ('tastes better') is also called the consequent.
Minor premise
A minor premise, which may not be spoken, gives further detail about the major premise. For example:
Xanthos smells great.
The minor premise is also assumed to be true. In adverts, it often appears as the secondary line to the main
strapline of the major premise.
Conclusion
The conclusion is a third statement, based on a combination of the major and minor premise.
If you use Xanthos cologne, you will attract women.
In adverts, this may well not be mentioned, but it is most clearly what you are intended to conclude.
Example
Here is the bones of many the proposition of many therapists:
You are sad.
I am qualified to help people who are sad.
I can make you happy.
Thus, when the therapist says 'You are sad', the patient gets the idea that the therapist can make them happy.
The qualifications of the therapist may be framed on the wall or on the brass plate outside. This principle is
also used by many professions, which is why it is ok for hairdresser to criticize your hair (in fact it provides a
contrast with what your hair will soon look like).
Discussion
Conditional syllogisms are seldom completed with all three sentences -- often only the major and minor
premises are needed and sometimes only the major premise is enough.
The conclusion of the conditional syllogism is often unspoken and it is intended that the listener infers it for
themselves.
Advertisers love conditional syllogisms because this gives them a way around laws that prevent advertisements from
telling direct lies. Lies such as 'use cologne, attract women' are also a bit obvious, and people who will believe the
syllogism would not necessary believe the direct lie of the conclusion.