Section 3.

Symbolic
Arguments

Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 What You Will Learn

Symbolic arguments
Standard forms of arguments

3.5-2 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Symbolic Arguments

A symbolic argument consists of a

set of premises and a conclusion.
It is called a symbolic argument
because we generally write it in
symbolic form to determine its validity.

3.5-3 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Symbolic Arguments

An argument is valid when its

conclusion necessarily follows from a
given set of premises.
An argument is invalid or a fallacy
when the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the given set of
premises.
3.5-4 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Law of Detachment
Also called modus ponens.
Symbolically, the argument is written:
Premise 1: p→q
Premise 2: p
Conclusion: ∴ q
If [premise 1 and premise 2] then conclusion
[(p → q) ⋀ p ] → q
3.5-5 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 To Determine Whether an
Argument is Valid
1. Write the argument in symbolic
form.
2. Compare the form of the argument
with forms that are known to be
either valid or invalid. If there are
no known forms to compare it with,
or you do not remember the forms,
go to step 3.
3.5-6 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 To Determine Whether an
Argument is Valid
3. If the argument contains two
premises, write a conditional
statement of the form
[(premise 1) ⋀ (premise 2)]  conclusion

4. Construct a truth table for the

statement above.

3.5-7 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 To Determine Whether an
Argument is Valid
5. If the answer column of the truth
table has all trues, the statement is
a tautology, and the argument is
valid. If the answer column of the
table does not have all trues, the
argument is invalid.

3.5-8 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 2: Determining the Validity
of an Argument with a Truth Table
Determine whether the following
argument is valid or invalid.

If you watch Good Morning America,

then you see Robin Roberts.

You did not see Robin Roberts.

∴ You did not watch Good Morning

America.
3.5-9 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 2: Determining the Validity
of an Argument with a Truth Table
Solution
Let
p: You watch Good Morning America.
q: You see Robin Roberts.
In symbolic form, the argument is
p→q
~p

∴ ~p
The argument is [(p → q) ⋀ ~q] → ~p.
3.5-10 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 2: Determining the Validity
of an Argument with a Truth Table
Solution Construct a truth table.
p q [(p → q) ⋀ ~ q] → ~p
T T T F F T F
T F F F T T F
F T T F F T T
F F T T T T T
1 3 2 5 4
Since the answer, column 5, has all T’s,
the argument is valid.
3.5-11 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
Standard Forms of Valid Arguments
Law of Detachment Law of Contraposition
pq pq
p ~q
q  ~p

Law of Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism

pq pq
qr ~p
p r  q
3.5-12 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Standard Forms of Invalid
Arguments
Fallacy of the Converse
pq
q
p
Fallacy of the Inverse
pq
~p
 ~q
3.5-13 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 4: Identifying a
Standard Argument
Determine whether the following
argument is valid or invalid.

If you are on Facebook, then you see

my pictures.
If you see my pictures, then you
know I have a dog.

∴ If you are on Facebook, then you

know I have a dog.
3.5-14 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 4: Identifying a
Standard Argument
Solution
Let
p: You are on Facebook.
q: You see my pictures.
r: You know I have a dog.
In symbolic form, the argument is
p→q
q→r
∴ p→ r
It is the law of syllogism and is valid.
3.5-15 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 5: Identifying Common
Fallacies in Arguments
Determine whether the following
argument is valid or invalid.

If it is snowing, then we put salt on

the driveway.
We put salt on the driveway.

∴ It is snowing.

3.5-16 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 5: Identifying Common
Fallacies in Arguments
Solution
Let
p: It is snowing.
q: We put salt on the driveway.
In symbolic form, the argument is
p→q
q
∴p
It is in the form of the fallacy of the
converse and it is a fallacy, or invalid.
3.5-17 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 5: Identifying Common
Fallacies in Arguments
Determine whether the following
argument is valid or invalid.

If it is snowing, then we put salt on the

driveway.
It is not snowing.

∴We do not put salt on the driveway.

3.5-18 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 5: Identifying Common
Fallacies in Arguments
Solution
Let
p: It is snowing.
q: We put salt on the driveway.
In symbolic form, the argument is
p→q
~p
∴ ~q
It is in the form of the fallacy of the
inverse and it is a fallacy, or invalid.
3.5-19 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 6: An Argument with
Three Premises
Use a truth table to determine whether
the following argument is valid or invalid.

If my cell phone company is Verizon, then I

can call you free of charge.
I can call you free of charge or I can send
you a text message.
I can send you a text message or my cell
phone company is Verizon.
∴ My cell phone company is Verizon.

3.5-20 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 6: An Argument with
Three Premises
Solution
Let
p: My cell phone company is Verizon.
q: I can call you free of charge.
r: I can send you a text message.
In symbolic form, the argument is
p→q
q⋁r
r⋁p
∴p
3.5-21 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 6: An Argument with
Three Premises
Solution

Write the argument in the form

(p → q) ⋀ (q ⋁ r) ⋀ (r ⋁ p)] → p.

Construct a truth table.

3.5-22 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 6: An Argument with
Three Premises
Solution

3.5-23 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 6: An Argument with
Three Premises
Solution

The answer, column 7, is not true in

every case. Thus, the argument is a
fallacy, or invalid.

3.5-24 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

Section 3.6

Euler
Diagrams
and
Syllogistic
Arguments
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 What You Will Learn

Euler diagrams
Syllogistic arguments

3.6-26 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Syllogistic Arguments

Another form of argument is called a

syllogistic argument, better known as
syllogism.
The validity of a syllogistic argument is
determined by using Euler
(pronounced “oiler”) diagrams.

3.6-27 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Euler Diagrams

One method used to determine

whether an argument is valid or is a
fallacy.
Uses circles to represent sets in
syllogistic arguments.

3.6-28 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Symbolic Arguments Versus
Syllogistic Arguments
Words or phrases Methods of
used determining
validity
Symbolic and, or, not, if-then, Truth tables or by
argument if and only if comparison with
standard forms
of arguments
Syllogistic all are, some are, Euler diagrams
argument none are, some are
not
3.6-29 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 3: Ballerinas and Athletes
Determine whether the following
syllogism is valid or invalid.

All ballerinas are athletic.

Keyshawn is athletic.
∴ Keyshawn is a ballerina.

3.6-30 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 3: Ballerinas and Athletes
Solution

All ballerinas, Keyshawn is athletic, so must

B, are be placed in the set of athletic
athletic, A. people, which is A. We have a
choice, as shown above.
The conclusion does not necessarily follow from
the set of premises. The argument is invalid.
3.6-31 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 4: Parrots and Chickens
Determine whether the following
syllogism is valid or invalid.

No parrots eat chicken.

Fletch does not eat chicken.
∴ Fletch is a parrot.

3.6-32 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 4: Parrots and Chickens
Solution
The first premise tells us that parrots
and things that eat chicken are disjoint
sets—that is, sets that do not
intersect.
Fletch is not a
parrot, the
argument is invalid,
or is a fallacy.
3.6-33 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
 Example 5: A Syllogism Involving
the Word Some
Determine whether the following
syllogism is valid or invalid.
All As are Bs.
Some Bs are Cs.
∴ Some As are Cs.

3.6-34 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 5: A Syllogism Involving
the Word Some
Solution
The premise “All As are Bs” is
illustrated.

3.6-35 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 5: A Syllogism Involving
the Word Some
Solution
The premise “Some Bs are Cs” means
that there is at least one B that is a C.

3.6-36 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 5: A Syllogism Involving
the Word Some
Solution
The first illustrations shows that the
conclusion “Some As are Cs,” does
not follow, the argument is invalid.

3.6-37 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 6: Fish and Cows

Determine whether the following

syllogism is valid or invalid.
No fish are mammals.
All cows are mammals.
∴ No fish are cows.

3.6-38 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

 Example 6: Fish and Cows
Solution
The first premise tells us that fish and
mammals are disjoint sets. The
second tells us that the set of cows is
a subset of the set of mammals.
The conclusion
necessarily follows
from the premises
and the argument
is valid.
3.6-39 Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.