LOGIC SUMMARY

- Arguments are group of Statements (declarative setences/propositions with truth values t

or f) not questions, proposals, suggestions, commands or exclamations.
- Atleast one of the statements must claim to present evidence/reasons
- There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies something (Explicit
claim: Conclusion or premise indicators, though no guarantee OR implicit claim:
inferential link)
- Non args: C.i.e.n.e

TYPE

- Deductive inductive checks: indicators, actual or probable support, sometimes doesn't

follow at all so check: form/character (dsm/gascap, induction by conf, crucial exp, inf to
best exp, proportional syllogism)
- Checks in order of Importance: absolute support, d character, i character, i indicator, d
indicator, probable support

EVALUATION

1. Deductive:
o valid/invalid (no middle ground)
o T premise, false conc are the only actual truth values that determine validity,
others don't
o Sound/unsound
o To be unsound the false premise(s) must actually be needed to support conc.
(False superfluous premises are no problem)
o Sound arg with necessarily true conc doesn't require premises to be related
2. Inductive:
o Strong/weak
o Based on uniformity of nature (future tends to replicate the past/regularities
prevail accross spatial regions
o Assuming truthfulness of premises, see if conclusion probably true by linking up
premises with regularities in experiential background AND probability of
conclusion must be based on the assumption that premises are true (if probably
true independently of premises then its weak)
 o Allows for degrees of strength. Strong must he more probable than improbable
(more than 50% probability of truthfulness of conclusion) adding extra premises
may weaken or strengthen argument
o True premises and probably false conclusion are the only actual truth values that
determine strength UNLESS total evidence requirement (TER) not met.
o TER: premises must not exclude or overlook some crucial piece of evidence that
undermines the stated premises and requires a different conclusion
o Cogent is strong, all true premises and total evidence requirement met i.e. total
evidence taken into account for actual truth of premises and probability of
conclusion
**superfluous false premise wont make an originally cogent argument uncogent

COUNTER EXAMPLE

- Argument form is an arrangement of letters and words such that the uniform substitution
of words and phrases in place of the letters results in an argument
- Any substitution instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument
- Substitution instance of invalid form is an invalid argument IF it is not also a substitution
instance of a valid form or conclusion is a tautology
- Counter example method consists of isolating the form of an argument which it is relying
on and constructing a substitution instance that has true premises and a false conclusion
(useful to start with conc)
- Identify premises and conc, form words and content words, replace content words with
letter
- Only useful for deductive arguments
- For categorical syllogisms remember: cats, dogs, mammals, fish, animals
- For hypothetical syllogisms: better if substitution for conditional premise expresses
necessary relation. For conditional conclusion use true antecedent and false consequent

LANGUAGE

- Separate emotive meaning from cognitive and value claims

- Vagueness/ ambiguity
- Terms. Proper names, common names, descriptive phrases
- Intension/ extension. Subjective conventional connotation. Intension determines
extension
- Definition types PLSTP
- Definition techniques:
o Extensional (demonstrative, ennumerative, by subclass) may be partial or
complete. Used chiefly for lexical and stipulative, rarely for theoretical and
 persuasive (very unusual), and can't be used as precising which has to do with
intension. Extensions can suggest intensions but not determine them
- Intensional (synonymous, etymological, operational, by genus and difference)

INFORMAL FALLACY

- Relevance: Appeal to force, pity, people (fear, bandwagon, vanity, snobbery, tradition),
accident strawman, red herring, ad hominem (direct, circumstantial, tu quoque), missing
the point
- Weak induction: hasty Generalization (converse accident), unqualified authority, false
cause (post hoc ergo proper hoc, non causa pro causa, multiple causes, gamblers fallacy),
weak analogy, appeal to ignorance, slippery slope
- Presumption (insufficient support): begging the question (shaky premise missing, shaky
premise, restated in conclusion, circular reasoning. For the latter two, conclusion is
usually presented first. Illusion of support is necessary to count as fallacy and not
redundancy. See if arguer trying to hide something) complex question, false dichotomy
(disjunction of what you want + some unacceptable proposition presented as only
alternative. Reject unacceptable proposition), suppressed evidence
- Ambiguity: equivocation (meaning of word/phrase), amphiboly (syntactical ambiguity)
- Illicit transference: composition (conclusion depends on erroneous transference of
attribute from parts of something onto the whole), division (opposite of composition).
These differ from generalization and accident based on collective vs distributive
predication. Also for these, you need general knowledge of situation and nature of
attribute

CATEGORICAL PROPS

- Relates two categories (part or all of the class denoted by subject term is included or
excluded from the class denoted by predicate term)
- Standard categorical form (quantifier, subject, copula, predicate)
- Quality, quantity for propositions. Distribution for terms
- Existential import (all or some of the things denoted by subject term of universal
categorical prop actually exist).
o Boole: Venn, modern square, immediate inferences, boolean existential fallacy.
o Aristotle: traditional square. Conditionally valid immediate inferences: Contrary
(A and E, both can't be true but both can be false), Subcontrary (I and O, both
can't be false but both can be true), Subalteration (truth goes down, falsity goes
up). Existential fallacy: when contrary, sub contrary, subalteration used for
nonexistent things (different from "illicits" which is when conditions are present
 but inference is wrongly applied). Venn diagram (subject and predicate term must
be same as those of premise. Use circled x for universal premise, not conclusion)
- Logically equivalent (same truth value and meaning) and unconditionally valid:
Conversion (Switch subject term with predicate term/ EI), Obversion (switch quality,
not quantity and predicate term complement), contraposition (switch subject and
predicate, and complement both/ AO)
- Unconditionally valid: Contradictory (diagonals)
- Not all cases of universal to particular fallacies are existential eg illicit contradictory
(wrong application of contradictory)

TRANSLATING TO CATEGORICAL

- Terms without nouns (plural noun or pronouns)

- Nonstandard verbs ("to be" to "are/are not")
- Singular statements (parameters affect form but not meaning. "Identical to")
- Adverbs and pronouns (spatial/temporal adverbs to places and times. Pronouns to people
and things. Language following W goes into subject term)
- Unexpressed quantifiers (most probable)
- Nonstandard quantifiers (common sense. "Few", "almost all", "not quite all" and some
beginning with "a few" to compound I and O statement)
- Conditionals (always to universals if antecedent and consequent refer to same class. After
if: subject. After only if: predicate. Negated consequent to E. Unless to if not.)
- Exclusive prop (put into predicate term the plural language after: only, none but, none
except, no...except. For individual, use all A are B and all B are A)
- The only (put following language in subject term)
- Exceptive propositions ("all except S are P", "all but S are P". Use pair of conjoined
categorical propositions

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

- 3 Categorical propositions, 3 different terms (major, minor, middle) each of which

appears twice in distinct propositions (major, minor premises and conclusion)
- Standard form categorical prop: all 3 standard form, 2 occurrences of term identical, used
in the same sense, major premise, then minor
- Mood (letters), figure (numbers)
- Venn: check with Boolean standpoint, then look for universal premises and particular
conclusion. Enter circled x in venn circle completely shaded except one area. Determine
if x of shaded circle represents an existing thing. In case of 2 fully shaded circles, focus
on the one needed for conclusion (also, in these arguments, shade universal premise first
for ease)
 - Fallacies: Distribution (undistributed middle, illicit major/minor), Quality (exclusive
premises, affirmative from negative/negative from affirmative), Quantity (Existential
fallacy, both premises particular). Existential fallacy not a problem from Aristotelian
point if critical term (superfluously distributed term) denotes at least one existing thing.
- When more than 3 terms, reduce to 3 (assign letters, then reduce terms, then standard
form, then conv/obv/cont). For ordinary language args, find common factor in props and
express with parameters (for exceptive props, make 2 syllogisms for each prop. It is valid
as long as at least one syllogism valid)
- Enthymeme: arg expressible as categorical syllogism but missing premise or conclusion.
o Identify nature of missing statement (if indicator then premise, if no indicator
then: if conjunction then missing conc/if no conj then missing premise and first
statement usually conclusion).
o Write it down: two of the terms in given statements will match up. The other two
are missing statement terms. Use rules for valid syllogisms. Sometimes 2 args
may be needed (intermediate conclusion.
o Convert to standard form
- Sorites: chain of categorical syllogism in which intermediate conclusions have been left
out
o Standard form sorites: standard props, each term occurs twice, predicate of
conclusion is in first premise, each successive premise has a term in common with
the previous one
o Technique 1: make standard form, draw intermediate conclusions with venn, test
each component syllogism for validity
o Technique 2: 5+1 rules for validity

NATURAL DEDUCTION

- PHILOSOPHY
o LNC: -(P and -P), LEM: (P or -P), identity: P = P
o Tautological invalidity and Q invalidity imply actual invalidity iff a valuation that gives it
true premises and a false conclusion corresponds to a real world situation
o In both propositional and predicate logic interpretations, it is up to us to determine under
what conditions atoms say something true and it is up to the world whether the relevant
conditions actually obtain. We ignore arguments with mixed interpretations (neither
definitely true nor definitely false), incomplete propositions (doesn't denote anyone), liar
sentences and certain interpretations of mathematical truths.
o Don't confuse valuations (assignment of truth value)) with interpretations (conditions
under which statements are true)
o QL= syntax, semantics, existential import, countermodels
o Existential quantification isn't true if and only if one of its substitution instances is true as
there may not be enough named things. Universal quantification isn't true if and only if
 all of its substitution instances are true as some unnamed things may not have the
property
o Extensional/intensional contexts
o Leibniz’s law and co referential designators
o Theory of descriptions (Russellians and anti Russellians)
o Existence claims: QL= can do it for predicative experssions like Fs do/don't exist,
definite descriptions (translate to “there is one and only one A” or “it is not the case that
there is one and only one A). QL= can't do it for existence claims involving names. Eg Ex
x=x is always true (problem for real names as we didn't imply necessary existence) and
it's negation always false (problem with empty names as they don't refer to anything).
This is because QL= assigns objects to all names.
- PRED LOGIC
o Nothing is B: -EvBv / Av-Bv
o All B are C: Av(Bv⊃Cv) [needs existential import of A for "some B are C" to be true]
o No B is C: Av(Bv⊃-Cv)/-Ev(Bv∧Cv)
o Some B are C: Ev(Bv∧Cv)
o Some B are not C: Ev(Bv∧-Cv)
o Not all ...: -Ax
o Equivalence between
-Ax; E-x
-Ex; A-x
-Ex-Fx; AxFx
-Ax-Fx; ExFx
Ax(Fx ∧ Gx); (AxFx ∧ AxGx)
Ex(Fx ∨ Gx); (ExFx ∨ ExGx)
(AxFx ∨ AxGx) q entails but isn't equivalent to Ax(Fx ∨ Gx)
ExAy(Dxy) isn't logically equivalent to but entails AxEy(Dxy)
o For presence of variable in just A or just B universal or existential quantification can be
extracted from both "ands" and "ors", to give equivalent wffs
o For conditionals, above rule applies if variable only in consequent, but if only in
antecedent, a universal or existential quantification in antecedent extracts into the other.
Extracting any type of quantification doesn't work if variable in both antecedent and
consequent EXCEPT: Ex(Fx ⊃ Gx); (AxFx ⊃ ExGx). (These switches are all equivalent
btw)
- TRANSLATIONS (see chap 29 for practice)
o Identify DoD, set predicates. If all objects in the argument have same property then you
could make things easier by restricting DoD to them.
o When translating, don't forget assertions about names, whether an object actually exists,
and proper translation of "ands" in english.
o Consider:
▪ All A are B
▪ All A are every/”any” B
▪ All A are any/some B
▪ No A are B
 ▪ No A are every/“any” B
▪ No A are any/some B
▪ Some A are B
▪ Some A are Every/”any” B
▪ Some A are some/any B
▪ Some A are not B
▪ Some A are not every/”any” B
▪ Some A are not any/some B
o No A (relation) every B (or emphasis "any" B)
¬Ex(Gx ∧ Ay(Fy ⊃ Lxy))
or Ax(Gx ⊃ ¬Ay(Fy ⊃ Lxy))
o No A (relation) any B
¬Ex(Gx ∧ Ey(Fy ∧ Lxy))
or Ax(Gx ⊃ ¬Ey(Fy ∧ Lxy))
or Ax(Fx ⊃ Ay(Hy ⊃ ¬Rxy)) (from chap 29: no philosophy student admires any rotten
lecturer)
o For "all A relation any B" take into consideration if B exists or not (chap 29: all wise
people admire any good philosopher example)
o If everyone loves Nerys then Owen does. (Or Anyone loves Nerys, and if anyone loves
Nerys, then Owen does) (AxLxn ⊃ Lon)
o If anyone loves Nerys then Owen does (ExLxn ⊃ Lon)
- IDENTITY
o Qualitative and strict numerical identity are both transitive, symmetric and reflexive
relations, i.e. are both equivalence relations. But strict numerical identity is the ‘smallest’
equivalence relation – it relates an object to nothing other than itself
o Ref: Ax x=x OR ∀xRxx OR ∀x∃yRxy
Sym: AxAy(Rxy ⊃ Ryx) OR AxAy(x=y ⊃ y=x)
Tran: AxAyAz((x=y ∧ y=z) ⊃ x = z) OR AxAyAz((Rxy ∧ Ryz) ⊃ Rxz)
Euclidean: AxAyAz((Rxy ∧ Rxz) ⊃ Ryz)
You can instantiate multiple universal quantifiers with the same names in a wff. (Useful
to close tree if there is a reflexive relation wff present anywhere)
o Only, the only, no... except (followed by individual): the general form of such
statements is that a designated individual has a stated attribute and anything having that
attribute is identical to the designated individual. (if the only are >1 then join by
disjunctions when expressing equivalence to all people who have the property). (For all
x, If x is not A then x is not B)
o All except: the general form of such statements is that a designated individual lacks a
stated attribute and that anything not identical to the designated individual has the stated
attribute. (If all except >1 things, then join them by conjunctions when stating their non-
equivalence to everything else). (For all x, if x is not A then x is B)
o Superlatives: These are statements asserting that, of all the members of a class,
something is the largest, tallest, smallest, heaviest, lightest, and so on. To translate these
statements, first give the designated item the class attribute, and then say that, if anything
else has that attribute, it is somehow exceeded by the designated item
 o Definite description: an item of a certain sort exists, there is only one such item, and that
item has the attribute assigned to it by the statement. (Scope matters here when negating a
definite description)
o Only a relation b: (Lab ∧ Ax(¬x = a ⊃ ¬Lxb))
o Everyone except a relation b: Ax(¬x = a ⊃ Lxb)
o a relation everyone but b: Ax(¬x = b ⊃ Lax)
o Some predicate only relation b: Ex((Gx ∧ Lxb) ∧ Ay(Lxy ⊃ y = b))
o Whoever wrote the Iliad wrote the Odyssey: Ax(Ix ⊃ Ox)
o Whoever is a present King of France is sexy: Ax(Fx ⊃ Hx)
o Angharad loves only Bryn and Caradoc, who are different people: {((Fb ∧ Fc) ∧ ¬b = c)
∧ Ax(Fx ⊃ (x = b ∨ x = c))}
o the tallest girl: {Gy ∧ Az((Gz ∧ ¬z = y) ⊃ Myz)}
o Existence claims involving predicative expressions and definite descriptions get rendered
into QL = using the existential quantifier. Existence claims involving names don't e.g. Ex
x=n is always true and its negation always false. This is a problem with real names and
empty names (as QL= assigns objects to all names)
- PRELIMINARIES
o When in doubt, use indirect proof
o Tautologies can be proved by conditional or indirect proof. Tautologies expressed as
equivalences are usually proved using two conditional sequences, one after the other.
- ND RULES OF IMPLICATION
Applicable to whole line only
Note that whenever we use this strategy of working backward from the conclusion, the rules of
replacement are the only rules we may use. We may not use the rules of implication, because
these rules are one-way rules.
o Standard rules
▪ Modus ponens
▪ Modus tollens
▪ Pure hypothetical syllogism
▪ Disjunctive syllogism
▪ Constructive dilemma
▪ Simplification (& E)
▪ Conjunction
▪ Addition (or I)
OR
▪ And introduction/elimination
▪ Or introduction/elimination
▪ Conditional elimination (ponens, tollens)/ conditional intro (conditional proof,
weakening, Pure hypothetical syllogism (look for diagonals))
▪ negation introduction (indirect proof)
▪ Constructive/ destructive dilemma
▪ Argument by cases
o Quant rules
▪ Since these are rules of implication, they apply to whole lines only
▪ As long as quantifier attached, rules of inference can't be applied
▪ When dealing with multiple quantifiers, with each successive
instantiation, the outermost quantifier drops off generalization restores
the quantifiers in reverse order
▪ Instantiation is an operation that consists in deleting a quantifier and
replacing every variable bound by that quantifier with the same instantial
letter
▪ EI: introduce only name (do before UI). The name introduced must be a new
name that has not occurred in any previous line, including the conclusion to be
derived.
▪ UI: introduce name (old name or new name {if it doesn't appear before}) or
variable (that ends up free and not captured in the process by another quantifier)
depending on context (variable if intending to universally generalize later over
some part of the statement, name if intending to match some part of universal
statement to another statement).
▪ Generalization is an operation that consists in introducing a quantifier
immediately prior to a statement, statement function or another
quantifier AND replacing one or more occurances of a certain instantial
letter in the statement or statement function with the same variable that
appears in the quantifier. The instantial letter may be the same as the
variable in the quantifier.
▪ EG: quantify over name or variable and replace atleast one of their occurrences
with quantifier variable. It is important that the instantial letter be replaced by a
variable that is captured by no previously introduced quantifier and that no other
variables be captured by the newly introduced quantifier
▪ UG: quantify only over variables and replace all their occurrences with quantifier
variable.
a. In conditional and indirect proof, UG must not be used within the scope
of an indented sequence if the instantial variable y is free in the first line
of that sequence.
b. To keep AxEy(Mxy) from entailing ExAy(Mxy), UG must not be used if
the instantial variable y is free in any preceding line obtained by EI.
c. It is important that the instantial letter be replaced by a variable that is
captured by no previously introduced quantifier and that no other
variables be captured by the newly introduced quantifier
The instantial letter is one over which quantification occurs or which is an
instance of the quantification.
For universals you can generalise and instantiate with the same variables as given
before.
When translating these statements, the point to remember is simply this: The
 subject of the original statement is represented by a capital letter in the
antecedent, and the predicate by a capital letter in the consequent.

- ND RULES OF REPLACEMENT
Applicable to parts or whole even when quantifier attached
o Demorgans
o Commutativity
o Associativity
o Distribution
o Double negation (--A⋁B and -A⊃B are equivalent). See result of 8.3, 1, 16
o Transposition
o Material implication
o Material equivalence
o Exportation: [(p ^ q) ⊃ r] :: [ p ⊃ (q ⊃ r)]
o Tautology
o 4 quantifier negation rules

ANALOGY

- Number of relevant similarities: common attributes or requirements must be relevant to

target feature
- Nature and degree of disanalogy (differences in attributes and requirements): either
strengthen or weaken arg depending on how they relate to conclusion eg if disanalogy
should weaken target feature but doesn’t, then it points to abundance of target feature
(good fuel economy inspite of greater expenditure than secondary analogue)
- Number of primary analogues and counter analogies (cases with attributes but not target
feature): more primary analogues reduce chances of target feature being fluke
- Diversity amongst analogues: strengthens argument
- Specificity of conclusion: more specific conclusion weakens argument as it is easier to
falsify

SCIENCE AND SUPERSTITION

- For hypotheses, look at adequacy: fit (extent to which data can be interpreted or
explained in terms of hypothesis) and precision (accuracy with which data is accounted
for), internal coherence, external consistency and fruitfulness still apply. Other measures
are Coherence, simplicity and generality (scope of explanation. Maybe same as fit)
- Also consider psychological (influence of subjective states on perception) and volitional
elements (needs and desires)
o Evidentiary support: supported by evidence (measurement and maths, not
anecdotes), replicable under controlled conditions, precision, falsifiable, no adhoc
modifications (becomes mere description), naturalistic explanations, correct
predictions that change the way we view the world.
 o Objectivity: unaffected by conditions peculiar to the experiencing subject
(motivational or observational). Superstition affected by fear and anxiety, and
disposition to fantasy and mental laziness. Science deals with this through
instruments
o Integrity: Honesty in gathering and presenting evidence, and honest, logical
thinking in responding to theoretical problems

PROPORTIONAL SYLLOGISM
- z% (<100%) of all As are Bs
x is an A
There is a z% probability that x is a B

INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION
- Things and instances
x no of As have been observed
All or z% of observed As are B
All or z% of all As are B

Use interval, random sampling with replacement and large sample (or increase interval
which will reduce accuracy). Interval size doesn’t change much unless observed relative
frequency less than 0.1 or greater than 0.9.

INDUCTION BY CONFIRMATION
- hypothesis is a description or explanation of an object (too small, too far away), event
(too long ago) or a process (too long) that cannot be observed
- Based on data and goes beyond it (not mere description of data), though it can be
completely novel as well.
- data is information that comes from observation of the world, not simulations
- prediction should be a testable deduction that is preferably only likely true if hypothesis
is true, not otherwise. P(E|-H) must be low. Make sure it is precise enough so that you
can tell if it matches data
- data for building hypothesis and testing should be separate (though testing data can be
older data not used to build hypothesis)
- If data doesn’t match prediction then hypothesis false by Modus Tollens (given you can
rule out ambiguities in the extent to which data matches prediction; and any errors in
observation of data)
- After confirmation check for any other reasonable explanations using criteria for best
hypothesis (Hypothesis indeterminate if other explanations just as good. Hypothesis
supported if this is the best explanation)
- Sometimes prediction isn’t a deduction (which can compromise Modus Tollens) and
maybe prediction is also likely if hypothesis false. In that case, use Bayes Rule, which
 can quantify degree of support hypothesis gets from E or lack of support from –E. You
can also find posterior odds of H against –H
- Procedure
o State hypothesis and its important features
o Make prediction (If … Then …). Assign probabilities to hypothesis.
o Describe data then collect
o See if match
o If doesn’t match use MT to falsify hypothesis or Bayes rule to quantify probable
falsity. If match then look for alternate explanations that provide explanations
just as good (if yes then hypothesis indeterminate, if no then use Bayes rule to
quantify evidential support for hypothesis).
o Make conclusion

THE CRUCIAL EXPERIEMENT

- 2 hypotheses compete to explain the same phenomenon
- Design 1 experiment with 2 predictions (1 from each hypothesis)
- If contradictory predictions, experiment MUST yield at least one of these predictions i.e.
data collection will reveal prediction 1 or 2
- If predictions contraries instead of contradictories then experiment will yield prediction 1
or 2 or none, as both can be false
- If contradictory predictions then the falsification of one hypothesis by MT or probable
falsity by Bayes will support the other hypothesis
- If contrary predictions then the falsification of one hypothesis by MT or its probable
falsity will not necessarily provide support for the other hypothesis unless both are the
best explanations available. The matching hypothesis does however get support by
induction. In this case, again, rule out alternative explanations.
- Procedure
o State both Hypotheses and their important features
o Make predictions (If … Then …) and assign probabilities if using Bayes rule
o Describe data and collect
o Check for match
o If contradictory predictions and one prediction doesn’t match then MT or Bayes
(automatic support for the other hypothesis if contradictory prediction). For the
other one, see if alternative hypotheses provide explanations just as good.(if yes
then indeterminate but still better than the other hypothesis. if no then we have a
winner). Use Bayes for quantifying support.
o If contrary predictions and one prediction doesn’t match then MT or Bayes
(automatic support for the other hypothesis if best explanations available). For the
other one, induction still provides support. Just check for alternative hypotheses
that give explanations just as good (if yes then indeterminate but still better than
the other hypothesis. if no then quantify support for hypothesis with Bayes).
Alternatively both predictions can come out false.
o Give conclusion
INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
- For when predictions can’t be made.
- Given data we have multiple probable hypotheses for explanations
- pick one with the best explanation (Coherence, scope of explanation, simplicity)
- Notice that since hypothesis is generated from this data, it is more conservative than is
possible by induction by confirmation (which can be novel)

NECESSARY CONDITION
A is a necessary condition for B if consequent of conditional
OR
Not -> Not
Yes <- Yes
Rest are indeterminate
SUFFICIENT CONDITION
A is a sufficient condition for B if antecedent of conditional
OR
Yes -> Yes
Not <- Not

MILLS METHODS
- Reason from phenomenon to probable cause
- Mills MoA for necessary condition: antecedent condition always present with
phenomenon, but may be present in absence of phenomenon which rules it out as
sufficient cause
- Modified Mills MoD for sufficient condition: Antecedent condition present in atleast one
case with phenomenon and absent in all cases where phenomenon is absent, but may be
absent when phenomenon is present which rules it out as necessary cause.
- Mills JMoAD for necessary and sufficient condition: One to one correspondence between
antecedent condition and phenomenon
- Mills MoR: rule out possible causes. The one that remains is the probable cause.
(probable because not all causes may be known)
- Mills MoCV: primitive correlation
- Start by looking at patterns. If you see mostly cause and effect present together, go for
MoA unless one to one correspondance (JMoAD). If you see mostly absence of cause
and effect then try MoD.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
- identify nature of statements
- Find conc and reasons
- Find hidden premises and separate useless stuff - Lay out pattern: vertical, horizontal
(independent), conjoint (dependent), multiple conc.
- Deductive or inductive evaluation
- Language issues + fallacies
- If argument defective, give counter example or RAA
- If you need to pick hypothesis is given time frame, try to falsify as many as possible.
From the remaining, use induction by confirmation or crucial experiment unless
predictions not possible. Pick inference to best explanation then.