Basic Logical Concepts

Types of Arguments
1. Deductive Arguments
 If premise is supporting conclusion
i.e. premise is true and conclusion is also true.
Argument is Deductive

• DA Try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.

• Deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific.
• In a good deductive argument, the premises entail the conclusion.
• That is, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion has to be true

Deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from:

 Definitions
 mathematics and
 rules of formal logic.

Example
There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase.
There are no books anywhere else in my bookcase.
Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.

Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden.

If Bergen is in Norway, then Bergen is in Scandinavia.
If Bergen is in Sweden, then Bergen is in Scandinavia.
Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia.

All humans are mortal

Socrates is human
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

2. Inductive Arguments
 If premise is true and the conclusion is false or probably true
Argument is Inductive

• IA try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely or probable given the premise
(s)
• Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general.
• In a good inductive argument, the premises probabilize the conclusion.
• That is, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion probably is true.

Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging forms, including arguments dealing with:
 statistical data
 generalizations from past experience
 appeals to signs
 evidence or authority and
 causal relationships

1
Example

The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.

It has snowed in Kashmir every December in recorded history.

Therefore, it will snow in Kashmir this coming December.

Mini Mysteries
Either Moriarty was the murderer, or Stapleton was the murderer.
If Stapleton was the murderer, then traces of phosphorous should have been found on the body.
No traces of phosphorous were found on the body.
Q. Who was the murderer? MORIARTY

The murder did not occur in the library.

If Alder was the murderer, then the weapon was a revolver.
Either Hope was the murderer, or Adler was the murderer.
If Hope was the murderer, then the murder took place in the library.
Q. Who is the murderer? ALDER

 What makes an argument deductive or inductive is the type of support the premises are
claimed to provide for the conclusion.

How to determine whether arguments are Deductive or Inductive?

Tests to be applied
 The indicator word test
 The strict necessity test
 The common pattern test
 The principle of charity test

2
The Indicator word test

Deduction Indicator Words Induction Indicator Words

 It necessarily follows that  Probably

 Certainly  Likely
 Definitely  It is plausible to suppose that
 Absolutely  It is reasonable to assume that
 Conclusively  One would expect that
 It logically follows that  It is a good bet that
 It is logical to conclude that  Chances are that
 It logically implies that  Odds are that
 This entails that

The Strict Necessity Test

 If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its premises,
the argument should always be treated as deductive.

 If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should normally be treated as inductive.

Example

Alan is a father. Therefore, Alan is a male.

Q. Could it possibly be true that Alan is a father yet false that he is a male?
Ans: Clearly NOT
for all fathers are male.
i.e. premise is supporting conclusion
i.e. premise is true and conclusion is also true.
hence., it is a Deductive Argument

Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat.
Q. Is it possible for a 6-year old girl to run a mile in one minute flat?
Ans: NOT possible
i.e. premise is true and the conclusion is false
Hence, it is a Inductive Argument.

The Common Pattern Test

If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.
We are in Paris.
Therefore, we are in France.

3
Pattern Followed in the example
If [1st statement] is true, then [2nd statement] is true.
[1st statement] is true.
Therefore, [2nd statement] is true.
“we’re in Paris” = A
“we’re in France” = B

If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.

We are in Paris.
Therefore, we are in France.

If A then B.
A
Therefore, B.

*This pattern is called as Modus Ponens.

Principle of Charity Test

Q. When to apply?
Ans: When you have tried each of the three tests and you are still not sure whether a particular
argument should be treated as deductive or inductive.

• The test says that, “When interpreting an unclear arguments or passage, always give the
speaker or writer the benefit of doubt.”

 Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to attribute to him or her a stronger one.

 And never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits
us to interpret it as not an argument at all.

EXAMPLE
Andy told that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant yesterday.
But Maxine’s was completely destroyed by the fire less than a month ago.
It is certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or mistaken.

• The word “certain” indicates that it could be a Deductive Argument.

• But if the premises are considered to be true, the conclusion could be false or
probably true. This indicates that it could be a Inductive Argument.
• Strict Necessity test doesn't apply.

By, applying Principle of Charity Test it is better to conclude the Argument as an Inductive,
because in the 1st option the word ‘certain’ can be used generally, and not for indication of
deductive argument. And in the 2nd option, the conclusion could be false or could be probably
true, hence it should be considered as a Inductive Argument.

Examples

4
All whales are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Hence, all whales are animals.
Deductive Argument

All men are mortal.

Joe is a man.
Therefore Joe is mortal
Deductive Argument

Bachelor's are unmarried men.

Bill is unmarried.
Therefore, Bill is a bachelor.
Deductive Argument

To get a Bachelor's degree at Utah Sate University, a student must have 120 credits.
Sally has more than 130 credits.
Therefore, Sally has a bachelor's degree.
Deductive Argument

All sheep that I've seen are white

All sheep must be white
Inductive Argument

This cat is black.

That cat is black A third cat is black.
Therefore all cats are black.
Inductive Argument

Most universities and colleges in Utah ban alcohol from campus.

That most universities and colleges in the U.S. ban alcohol from campus.
Inductive Argument

I have seen many birds.

All birds I have seen can fly.
Therefore, all birds can fly.
Inductive Argument

If my car has gas and is not broken, it will be able to run.

My car has gas and is not broken.
Therefore, it will be able to run.
Inductive Argument

All turtles have shells

The animal I have captured is a turtle
I conclude that the animal in my bag has a shell
Inductive Argument

5
Common patterns of Reasoning
Quickest way to find whether an argument Is Deductive or Inductive is to note whether it has a
pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive.

5 – common patterns of Deductive Reasoning

 Hypothetical Syllogism
 Categorical Syllogism
 Argument by Elimination
 Argument based on mathematics
 Argument from definition

Hypothetical Syllogism
Syllogism: is simply a three-line argument.
i.e. an argument that consist of exactly two premises and one conclusion.

Hypothetical Syllogism: is a syllogism that

contains at least one hypothetical or
conditional (i.e. if-then) premise.

Examples
If the Tigers beat the Yankees, then the
Tiger will make the playoffs.
The Tiger will beat the Yankees.
So, the Tigers will make the playoffs.

If I want to keep my financial aid,

I’d better study hard.
I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, I’d better study hard.

Pattern Followed
If A, then B (Affirming the Antecedent)
A
Therefore, B.

*This pattern is followed in Modus Ponens (i.e. Common Pattern Test)

Other varieties of Hypothetical Syllogism,

 Chain Arguments
 Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
 Denying the Antecedent
 Affirming the Consequent

Chain Arguments
Pattern Followed:
If A, then B.

6
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

Example
If we don’t stop for gas soon, then we’ll run out of gas.
If we run out of gas, then we’ll be late for the wedding.
Therefore, if we don’t stop for gas soon, we’ll be late for the wedding.

Modus Tollens
Pattern Followed: (Denying the Consequent)
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
Example
If we’re in Sacramento, then we’re in California.
We’re not in California.
Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento.

Denying the Antecedent

Pattern Followed:
If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B.
Example
If Shakespeare wrote War and Peace, then he’s a great writer.
Shakespeare didn’t write War and Peace.
Therefore, Shakespeare is not a great writer.

Affirming the Consequent

Pattern Followed:
If A, then B
B
Therefore, A.
Example
If we’re on Neptune, then we’re in the solar system.
We’re in the solar system.
Therefore, we’re on the Neptune.

Logically Reliable Patterns of Deductive Reasoning.

Modus-Ponens
If A, then B
A
Therefore, B.

Modus-Tollens
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

7
i.e. Any argument that has one of these patterns is absolutely guaranteed to have a true
conclusion if the premises are also true.

NOT Logically Reliable Patterns of Deductive Reasoning.

Denying the Antecedent
If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B.

Affirming the Consequent

If A, then B
B
Therefore, A.

Although these are not logically reliable patterns of reasoning, nevertheless, they should
generally be treated as Deductive because they have a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive.

Categorical Syllogism
Syllogism: is simply a three-line argument.
i.e. an argument that consist of exactly two premises and one conclusion.

Categorical Syllogism: is a three line argument in

which each statement begins with the word all, some, or no.

Example
All oaks are tree.
All trees are plants.
So, all oaks are plants.

Some Democrats are elected officials.

All elected officials are politicians.
Therefore, some Democrats are politicians.

Arguments by Elimination
 They logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains.

Example
Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

Either Dutch committed the murder, or jack committed the murder, or Celia committed the
murder.
If Dutch or Jack committed the murder, then the weapon was a rope.
The weapon was not a rope.
So, neither Dutch nor Jack committed the murder.
Therefore, Celia committed the murder.

8
Arguments Based on Mathematics
 In arguments based on mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to depend largely or
entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement.

Example
Eight is greater than four.
Four is greater than two.
Therefore, eight is greater than two.

Light travels at a rate of 186,000miles per second.

The sun is more than 93 million miles distant from the earth.
Therefore, it takes more than eight minutes for the sun’s light to reach the earth.

Arguments from Definition

• In an argument from definition, the conclusion is presented as being “true by definition,”
that is, as following simply by definition from some key word or phrase used in the
argument.

EXAMPLE
Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore Janelle is a Doctor.

Bertha is an aunt. Therefore Bertha is a women.

6 – common patterns of Inductive Reasoning

 Inductive generalization
 Predictive Argument
 Argument from Authority
 Causal Argument
 Statistical Argument
 Argument from Analogy

Inductive Generalization
Generalization: is a statement that attributes some characteristic to all or most members of a
given class.

Example
All wild grizzly bears in the US live west of the
Mississippi River.

Most college students work at least part-time.

Inductive Generalization: is an argument in which a generalization is claimed to be probably

true based on information about some members of a particular class.

9
All Dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more than sixty-five million years old.
Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than sixty-five million years old.

Example
Six months ago I met a farmer from lowa, and he was friendly.
Four months ago I met an insurance sales man from lowa, and he was friendly.
Two months ago I met a dentist from lowa, and she was friendly.
I guess most people from lowa are friendly.

As all inductive generalizations claim that their conclusions are probable rather than certain, such
arguments are always inductive

Predictive Arguments
Prediction: is a statement about what may or will happen in future.
In Predictive Argument, a prediction is defended with reasons.

Example
It has rained in Vancouver every Feb since weather records have been kept.
Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next Feb.

Most US presidents have been tall.

Therefore, probably the next US president will be tall.

Exception
If Amy comes to the party, Ted will come to the party.
Amy will come to the party.
Therefore, Ted will come to the party.

Even though this argument contains a prediction, it is clearly deductive because the conclusion
must be true if the premise are true.

Arguments from Authority

An argument from authority asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some
presumed authority or witness who has said that the statement is true.

Example
Most Americans die of skin cancer each year than die in car accidents. How do I know? My
doctor told me.

Example
There are bears in these woods.
My neighbor Frank said he saw one last week.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that parts of Virginia are farther west than Detroit.
In general, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly reliable source of information.
Therefore, its probably true that parts of Virginia are farther west than Detroit.

Exception
Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
10
The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbors.
Therefore, we should love our neighbor.

Because, the conclusion of this argument follows necessarily from the premises, the argument
should be regarded as Deductive.

Causal Argument
A casual argument asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else.

Example
I cant log-in. The Network must be down.

Rashid isn’t allergic to peanuts.

I saw him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight from Dallas.

Exception
Whenever Iron is exposed to Oxygen, it rusts.
The Iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen.
Therefore, it will rust.

As the conclusion strictly and scientifically follows the premises, it is taken as a Deductive
Argument, even though it shows a causal relationship.

Statistical Argument
A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence. i.e. evidence that some percentage of some
group has some particular characteristics.

Example
Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s students are Episcopalian.
Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
So, Beatrice is probably Episcopalian.

Exception
If 65% of likely voters polled support Senators
Beltway, then Senators Beltway will win in a landslide.
65% of likely voters polled do Support Senator Beltway.
Therefore, Senators Beltway will win in a landslide.

Argument from Analogy

Analogy: is a comparison of two or more things that are claimed to be alike in some relevant
respect.

Example
Habits are like a cable. We weave a strand of it every day and soon it cannot be broken.

As man casts off worn-out garments and puts on others that are new, similarly the embodied
soul, casting off worn-out bodies, enters into others, which are new.

In an argument from analogy, the conclusion is claimed to depend on an analogy (i.e. a

11
comparison or similarity) between two or more things.

Example
Hershey Park has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.
Dorney park, like Hershey Park, is a great amusement park.
Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.

Basic logical pattern of argument form analogy:

“These things are similar in such-and-such ways.
Therefore, they are probably similar in some
future way.”

Exception
• Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each year and produce noxious and offensive
fumes.
• Smoking causes thousands of deaths each year and
produces noxious and offensive fumes.
• Thus, if smoking is heavily regulated, automobiles
should also be heavily regulated.
• But automobiles shouldn’t be heavily regulated.
• Therefore, smoking shouldn’t be heavily regulated,
either.

12