# A short introduction to formal logic

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "A short introduction to formal logic"

Transcription

1 A short introduction to formal logic Dan Hicks v0.3.2, July 20, 2012 Thanks to Tim Pawl and my Fall 2011 Intro to Philosophy students for feedback on earlier versions. My approach to teaching logic has benefited a great deal from numerous exchanges with John Milanese. Contents 1 The idea of logic Arguments and argument patterns Truth, validity, and soundness Deductive validity Testing validity Some common argument patterns Conditionals Categories Other sentence logic arguments Induction Practical reasoning Conversational logic Modal logics Working with arguments in the wild Formulating an argument Reconstructing (and evaluating) an argument Enthymemes Improving arguments Terminology Additional resources 35 Note for instructors 37 Fig. 1: Categorical syllogisms 38 Fig. 2: Other argument patterns 39 1 The idea of logic Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with arguments. We often think of arguments in connection with disagreements, debates, and even shouting. Call this way of thinking about arguments argument as disagreement. For example, we might talk about the argument (meaning the disagreement) between Republicans and Democrats over taxes and the budget. But there s another way of thinking about arguments. This is less common than argument as disagreement, but it s still common. For example, suppose the Republicans say that we should balance the budget because it would help the economy. Here we would say that the Republicans are giving an argument to support their position on the budget. Call this way of thinking about arguments argument as reason. An argument, on this way of thinking, is a reason why someone does (or should) believe something: the Republicans, in giving their argument, are giving reasons why you (or 1

2 whoever they re talking to) should believe that we should balance the budget. It may seem to you that philosophy is mostly about argument as disagreement. You re probably not wrong to think this. But logic deals only with argument as reason. Logicians philosophers who study logic are interested in the connection between reasons and the claims they support. Throughout this pamphlet, we re going to be concerned entirely with arguments as reasons (even when those reasons show up in the context of a disagreement). Our goal will be to equip you with some basic concepts a logical toolkit for use in your philosophy class. 1.1 Arguments and argument patterns It s not the case that all logic textbooks are obligated to discuss this argument. But it s such a standard example that I can t help but start with it. (1) All humans are mortal. (2) Socrates is a human. (3) Socrates is mortal. (1,2) (Socrates was a philosopher in ancient Athens, and is often considered the father of Western philosophy. He famously died by drinking poison.) This argument is in premise-conclusion form. In premise-conclusion form, each distinct claim of the argument is written on its own line, and the lines are numbered to make them easy to refer to. Line (3) is called the conclusion of the argument. (See what I did there, with the line number?) The conclusion is the claim that the argument is meant to support. If I were giving you this argument, I would be trying to convince you that Socrates is mortal. (It s not a very interesting or surprising conclusion. But simple examples like this are easier to follow. You ll encounter many arguments with more interesting conclusions in your philosophy class.) Lines (1) and (2) of this argument are its premises. The premises are the reasons given to support the conclusion: if you believe that all humans are mortal and that Socrates is a human, then you have reason to believe that Socrates is mortal. Both premises and conclusions are steps of the argument. Premise (1) is the first step; the last step, (3), is the conclusion. This is a good time to mention two basic rules for writing arguments in premise-conclusion form. First, every step is a declarative sentence. You can think of a declarative sentence as a sentence that can be true or false. Here are some things that aren t declarative sentences, and so can t be steps of an argument: Is a human. This one isn t grammatically a sentence it doesn t have a subject. Make tacos! This one is a sentence, but it s an imperative sentence a command. There s a special logic for imperative sentences, but it s not one we ll discuss in this pamphlet. Is it raining? Another sentence, but this one is a question. I like corn. This one is actually tricky. It can be read as a declarative sentence: a report (true or false) of how I feel about corn. But it can also be read as an optative, which is an expression of a wish, desire, or preference. On this reading, this sentence is like saying Hooray for corn! which can t be true or false. 2

4 can go on to apply that to other arguments with the same pattern, whether they re about President Obama or the planet Mars or whatever. The move from English-language arguments (or, more generally, arguments in natural languages) to their patterns is like the move from drawing shapes on a piece of paper to studying geometry. Indeed, the study of argument-patterns goes by two names: formal logic because it studies logical form and mathematical logic because it s studied mathematically. If you re reading this pamphlet for a logic class, you ll go on to learn some of that mathematics. (If you re math-phobic, don t worry: you can be excellent at logic without knowing anything at all about algebra or calculus or any of that.) But, if you re not, you can still use the tools we develop here to analyze arguments. In fact, that s why I wrote this: so students who haven t learned any mathematical logic at all can still use it. So far, we ve only seen arguments with a single conclusion. These arguments are called simple arguments. We can build compound arguments by putting together simple arguments. Here s an example: (13) Either Obama is President or McCain is President. (14) McCain isn t President. (15) Obama is President. (13, 14) (16) If Obama is President then Biden is VP. (17) Biden is VP. (15, 16) In compound arguments, just like simple arguments, we arrange the premises first and the conclusion last. But, unlike simple arguments, compound arguments will have steps in the middle, that are neither independent premises nor the final conclusion. In this example, (15) isn t an independent premise it follows from (13) and (14) but it s also just a step on the way to (5). These intermediate steps are called subconclusions. Like conclusions, we mark subconclusions with and numbers indicating logical support. Notice that, after (17), we list only (15) and (16). This is because these only two steps, all by themselves, give support directly to the conclusion. The other steps (13) and (14) support the conclusion indirectly, by directly supporting (15). 1.2 Truth, validity, and soundness So far, we ve developed some important concepts to understand the anatomy of an argument: its premises, conclusions, and pattern. Next, we want to evaluate arguments: do the premises, taken together, give us a reason to believe the conclusion? The most familiar concept here is truth: we say that it s true that Obama is President, that it s false that it s raining, and so on. Defining truth is a huge philosophical problem; many philosophers think of truth as something like correspondence to reality, but there are plenty of philosophers who think this definition won t do. I ll assume that truth is something like correspondence. Notice that, with this conception of truth, truth isn t the same as belief and opinion. Contrast these three sentences: Juanita believes that humans are responsible for global warming. Juan believes that humans aren t responsible for global warming. Humans are responsible for global warming. The first two sentences are about what people believe. These sen- 4

6 gument that s not valid is called invalid. Here s an example of an invalid argument: (1) All cats are mammals. (2) Whiskers is a mammal. (3) Whiskers is a cat. (Since we ve started a new subsection, and so that the numbers don t get too big, I ve started over the numbering of the steps.) Validity is the core concept of logic: everything we do as logicians is about trying to determine whether arguments are valid. Just like arguments cannot be true or false, conclusions cannot be valid or invalid. That goes for any sentence, but students are often tempted to say that about conclusions when they really mean the whole argument is valid or invalid. Unlike truth, philosophers all basically agree on the official definition of validity. The problem is that this definition is complicated. 1 Here s a simpler definition: validity An argument is valid if, and only if, its premises give good reason to believe the conclusion. This definition is useful for some cases, but doesn t work with others. It works with (1-3): Even if Whiskers is a mammal and all cats are mammals, Whiskers might be some other kind of mammal, like a dog or an aardvark. Since the premises don t rule out this possibility, they don t give us good reason to believe the conclusion. So (1-3) is invalid. Next, consider these two arguments: (4) If Obama is President then Biden is VP. (5) Obama is President. (6) Biden is VP. (7) If McCain is President then Palin is VP. (8) McCain is President. (9) Palin is VP. It should seem reasonable to think that (4-6) is valid: these premises do indeed give good reason to believe this conclusion. What about (7-9)? This argument has a false premise, (8). You might think that a false premise doesn t give good reason to believe the conclusion; so this argument would be invalid. But someone else might say that a premise if you accept it for the sake of argument or suppose that it were true can give good reason to believe the conclusion, whether it s true or false. If someone really, sincerely believes that McCain is President, then that person has good reason to believe that Palin is VP. They re out of touch with reality, but they re not reasoning incorrectly. Things get even more difficult when we move to formal logic dealing just with patterns, not particular arguments. In formal logic, we don t know whether the premises are true or false. All we have to work with are the generic versions: (10) if p then q (11) p (12) q If we re going to say anything at all about validity in formal logic, it will have to be independent of the truth of the premises. It will have to depend only on the pattern itself. And it turns out that, for many arguments, their validity does depend only on the pattern itself: 1 How complicated? Just learning basic tests of validity for the simplest kinds of logic requires an entire semester-long course. Some mathematicians and philosophers devote their entire careers to studying logic. 6

7 formal validity property A pattern has the formal validity property (FVP) if, and only if, every argument with that pattern has the same validity. The FVP isn t based on the definition of validity up above. It s based on the much more complicated, actual definition of validity. Fortunately, you don t need to know this definition to use the FVP. The pattern (10-12) has the FVP: every argument with this pattern has the same validity. Now, (4-6) has this pattern, and it s valid. So every argument with this pattern is also valid. In particular, (7-9) is valid. Here s the pattern for (1-3): (13) All F s are Gs. (14) x is a G. (15) x is a F. x is a variable for an individual (like Whiskers); F and G are classes or sets of individuals. This argument has the FVP. (1-3) has this pattern and is invalid. So this argument, which has the same pattern, is also invalid: (16) All ethicists are philosophers. (17) Peter Singer is a philosopher. (18) Peter Singer is an ethicist. (Peter Singer is an ethicist who has written several famous papers and books on poverty, vegetarianism, and medical ethics.) The examples of Whiskers (1-3) and Singer (16-18) illustrate how validity isn t a matter of the premises being true. Every step in each of these arguments is true. The problem is that the (true) premises don t support the (true) conclusion. For arguments with a FVP pattern, the question of validity is settled purely by the logical relationship between its premises and its conclusion. It has nothing to do with whether any of the steps are true or false or even whether we have any idea what they re talking about. Both of these arguments, because they have the same pattern as (10-12), are valid: (19) If McCain is President than Obama is VP. (20) McCain is President. (21) Obama is VP. (22) If bandersnatches are frumious then mome-raths outgrabe. (23) Bandersnatches are frumious. (24) Mome-raths outgrabe. (The nonsense words in (22-24) come from a famous poem, Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland and was also a logician.) Truth (of the steps) and validity (of the argument as a whole) are independent. We ve seen examples of an invalid argument with all true steps, and examples of a valid argument with all false steps. (This would be a good time to stop and review. Go back and find these examples, and explain to yourself why they re valid or invalid.) My students usually start talking about flow or the argument hanging together and making sense at this point. I think all of this language is trying to say that validity depends on the relation between the steps of the argument, not features of the steps taken individually. In other words, when we re trying to decide whether or not an argument is valid, we don t look at the individual steps. Instead, we look at the argument as a whole. The definition we started with suggests that, but it could 7

8 be more explicit. If we have the FVP and plenty of examples of valid and invalid patterns, we have that explicitness. Not all patterns have FVP. Here are some examples of an important exception: (25) Michelle Obama is the First Lady. (26) The First Lady lives in the White House. (27) Michelle Obama lives in the White House. (28) The robber is the guard s daughter. (29) The guard believes his daughter was at home during the robbery. (30) The guard believes the robber was at home during the robbery. (25-27) is valid, but (28-30) is not. In many cases, when we have two labels for the same thing, we can replace one label with the other and get a valid argument. However, in some cases especially dealing with what people believe this doesn t work. Suppose the guard doesn t know that his daughter is the robber the guard doesn t know (28). He believes that his daughter and the robber are completely different people. He also believes (falsely) that his daughter was at home during the robbery. Then (29) is true it s a true report of what the guard believes. (Note the difference between the guard s belief and the sentence reporting the belief. The first is false and the second is true!) And (30) is false: the guard doesn t believe the robber was at home; he believes the robber was out committing the robbery! So we can t swap one label ( the guard s daughter ) for the other ( the robber ) in this case. Patterns without FVP are called questionable. They live between valid and invalid. Questionable arguments aren t flawed; it s more accurate to think of them as fragile. A questionable argument can be a very good argument its premises can provide very good reason to believe the conclusion. (As in (25-27).) But it s easy to mistake a very good questionable argument for a very bad questionable argument. So we have to be careful with questionable arguments, and think carefully about whether the premises support the conclusion on a case-by-case basis. Distinguishing patterns with and without FVP is difficult. And, for ones with FVP, it s often difficult to tell whether each is valid or invalid. You won t be expected to do any of that in this pamphlet. Instead, when we get to the list of common patterns ( 2), I ll tell you whether they re valid, questionable, or invalid. Most of the argument patterns we ll meet have FVP. That means we ll be able to say, precisely and for all cases, whether they re valid or invalid. Still, some common patterns are questionable, so it s important to keep the distinction in mind. We bring the concepts of truth and validity back together with the concept of soundness. soundness An argument is sound if, and only if, it is valid and all of its premises are true. By contrast, an argument is unsound if either it is invalid or at least one of its premises is false. Arguments (1-3) and (16-18) are unsound because they are invalid. While arguments (4-6), (7-9), and (19-21) are all valid, only (4-6) is sound; the others are unsound because they have false premises. 1.3 Deductive validity Philosophers often like to work with a version of validity that s much stronger than the way I ve defined it here, which is called 8

9 deductive validity: deductive validity An argument is deductively valid if, and only if, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Consider these two arguments: (1) Dan is a reliable authority on logic. (2) Dan says that all sound arguments are valid. (3) All sound arguments are valid. (4) All sound arguments have true premises. (5) This argument is sound. (6) This argument has true premises. Both arguments are valid (and sound). But (4-6) guarantees its conclusion in a way that (1-3) doesn t. The fact that I m a reliable authority on logic doesn t make it impossible for me to get things wrong sometimes. So there s a chance that (3) is false even when (1) and (2) are true. On the other hand, given (4) and (5), it s completely impossible for (6) to be false. These premises, together, guarantee that the conclusion is true. If you go on to study formal logic, you ll probably focus on deductive validity. But often deductive validity is too demanding for practical purposes. We don t usually need absolute guarantees for the conclusions of our arguments; we just need good, even if imperfect, reasons. Since this pamphlet is all about practical formal logic, I m not going to say much about deductive validity. 1.4 Testing validity Logic, as such, is only concerned with validity. The question of whether a given premise is actually true is usually turned over to someone else, or at least to a different branch of knowledge. For most of the arguments in the last subsection, a logician can tell us which ones are valid and which ones are invalid, but we ll have to ask someone who knows something about politics to determine whether the premises of these arguments are true. In other words, logic only gives us tools for testing the validity of arguments. If you take a formal logic class, you ll learn some sophisticated tools for testing arguments. However, like with math, it takes quite a bit of explanation and practice to understand just how and why these tools work. We won t go into that detail here. So, instead of explaining all the nuts and bolts to you, I m going to introduce you to a couple of simple tests that come out of the more sophisticated tools. This is like using a graphing calculator to graph the function y = 2x + 4. The inner workings of the calculator are much, much more complicated than this simple function. But you don t have to understand why the calculator does what it does in order to use it; you just have to know how to tell the calculator to graph the function The pattern test Our first test is called the pattern test. We ve already used the pattern test in the last subsection, when we compared an argument to a known pattern to determine whether it was valid. Here s an example with a pattern we haven t seen before: 9

11 situation, the argument invalid. Or, fourth, if you can t imagine such a situation, the argument is valid. A situation real or fictional in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false is called a counterexample hence the name of the test. Counterexamples are especially useful for understanding why questionable and invalid arguments are question or invalid. Consider our most recent example: (13) If Obama is President then Biden is VP. (14) If Obama isn t President then Biden isn t VP. In the first few decades of the US, the VP wasn t picked by the Presidential candidate before the election as part of the ticket; instead, he or she was the person who got second in the election. Suppose we still had this system. Since the election was very controversial, we might also suppose that there were two possible outcomes: McCain wins, and Obama only gets a small share of the vote; or Obama wins, and McCain only gets a small share of the vote. In either case, Biden, who was a much less controversial politician, would have gotten second. Then, in this situation, (13) is true: If Obama is President then Biden (who got second, after Obama) would be VP. But (14) is false: If Obama wasn t President then Biden (who got second, after McCain) would be VP. Just in case that was too complicated, here s a simpler argument with the same pattern: (15) If the window is hit by a baseball then it ll break. (16) If the window isn t hit by a baseball then it won t break. There are lots of different ways to break a window; hitting it with a baseball is just one. For example, if it s hit with a rock, it ll break. So (19) is true but (20) is false, and the argument is invalid. We saw another use of the counterexample test in the last subsection. This was (28-30): (17) The robber is the guard s daughter. (18) The guard believes his daughter was at home during the robbery. (19) The guard believes the robber was at home during the robbery. Suppose the guard doesn t know that his daughter is the robber the guard doesn t know (21). He believes that his daughter and the robber are completely different people. He also believes (falsely) that his daughter was at home during the robbery. Then (22) is true it s a true report of what the guard believes. And (23) is false: the guard doesn t believe the robber was at home; he believes the robber was out committing the robbery! Here we have a counterexample: a situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. So this argument is invalid. Unlike the pattern test, the counterexample test can help you understand why an argument is valid or invalid. It can also help you identify logical gaps in an argument premises that the author has assumed, or that can be added to make the argument valid. For example, you might repair argument (17-18) by adding a premise in this way: (20) If Obama is President then Biden is VP. (21) If Biden is VP then Obama is President. (22) If Obama isn t President then Biden isn t VP. Another advantage of the counterexample test is that you can use it when you can t identify the pattern of the argument. Even if you didn t realize that (7-9) could be rewritten in line with the pattern (10-12), you could still use the counterexample test to con- 11

12 firm that it s valid. Similarly, if you encounter an argument with very complex premises, the counterexample test might be easier to use than the pattern test. The counterexample test has a couple of important weakness, and they both come from the way the test relies on your imagination. First, even if you can t think of a counterexample, this might be due to a lack of creativity rather than the validity of the argument. If you didn t know about the way we used to elect the VP, for example, you might not think of the counterexample to argument (17-18). Second, philosophers often disagree about the outcome of thought experiments. A situation that you think is quite plausible and shows that the argument is invalid might strike someone else as completely implausible and so show nothing at all about the validity of the argument. 2 Some common argument patterns To use the pattern test, we need a stockpile of patterns, both valid and invalid. This section gives you exactly that. The field of biology can be subdivided based on the kinds of organisms that are studied: microbiology (which studies bacteria and other microscopic organisms), botany (which studies plants), and zoology (which studies animals), for example. Similarly, the field of logic can be subdivided based on the kinds of arguments that are studied. There are two common ways to make these divisions: by the strength of the arguments and by the logical concepts that the argument involves. I m going to take the second approach, since this will make it easier for you to find the pattern for an argument you re analyzing. But I ll also tell you how strong each argument is along the way. Example: your argument involves a conditional, so take a look at 2.1; you see that it s an instance of modus ponens, and so it s valid. All of these arguments are listed, in brief, in figs. 1 and Conditionals One of the most frequently used patterns is modus ponens. (The Latin name means the method of affirmation.) (1) if p then q (2) p (3) q We ve seen several examples of modus ponens already. Modus ponens is valid. Premise (1) is also an example of a conditional statement a statement that says one thing (p, called the antecedent) is a condition for another thing (q, called the consequent). (1) says that, if the antecedent is true, then the consequent is also true. (2) says that the antecedent is true. And so (3) says that the consequent is true. Another pattern that uses a conditional premise is modus tollens ( the method of denial ): (4) if p then q (5) not-q (6) not-p Modus tollens is like modus ponens in reverse: (1) and (4) are the same, but (5) says that the consequent is not true. So, in (6), the antecedent cannot be true either. Modus tollens is also valid. In formal logic, it s very important to make all of the connections between our ideas explicit. Consider this argument: 12

16 This argument doesn t say that Whiskers does purr, or does have fur, or is a cat. Instead, it links two conditionals together. It s called a hypothetical syllogism: (40) if p then q cats mammals things with fur mammals (41) if q then r (42) if p then r As with modus ponens, a hypothetical syllogism is valid. 2.2 Categories Categorical logic is the oldest kind of logic, going back to the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. It deals with the relationship between sets, classes, or categories of things. In this argument, the classes are cats, mammals, and things with fur : (1) All mammals have fur. (2) All cats are mammals. (3) All cats have fur. We symbolize this argument using letters for each of the categories: (1 ) all M is F (2 ) all C is M (3 ) all C is F Sometimes categorical logic is studied in high school and junior high school math classes, using Venn diagrams and Euler diagrams. Here are the Venn and Euler diagrams for the last argument: things with fur cats (Venn diagrams were developed by the nineteenth-century British logician John Venn. Euler diagrams were developed by the eighteenth-century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler.) We also use categorical logic to talk about the individual members of categories: (4) All mammals have fur. (5) Mowser is a mammal. (6) Mowser has fur. When we symbolize these arguments, we use a lower-case letter for the individual: (4 ) all M is F (5 ) m is M (6 ) m is F When we evaluate validity, we can treat the lower-case letter as the name of a single-member class the class of all the things that are m. Until the late nineteenth century, much of the study of logic focused on categorical logic involving three classes. These arguments are called categorical syllogisms. Logicians developed terminology to precisely describe the patterns of categorical syllogisms and 16

17 determine whether they were valid and invalid. (These arguments, when valid, are all deductively valid, as in (1-3).) To help memorize the valid patterns, they gave them names. All 15 deductively valid categorical syllogisms are listed, with their names, in fig. 1. However, categorical syllogisms have a number of limitations. For one thing, it s often quite difficult to make these arguments sound, because they involve very strict relations among very broad categories. (2), for example, is false, because some mammals (like whales, dolphins, hippos, and shaved cats) don t have fur. For another, the terminology and rules don t work as soon as we add in a fourth class, as in this example: (7) All cats are either mammals or birds. (8) All mammals are warm-blooded. (9) All birds are warm-blooded. (10) All cats are warm-blooded. This argument is deductively valid, but the rules for categorical syllogisms can t tell us that. Driven by these limitations, in the nineteenth century logicians began to develop a much more powerful, flexible, and interesting logical system called quantifier logic or predicate logic. Quantifier logic can do everything that categorical syllogisms can do, and much, much more. But this also means that quantifier logic is much more complicated far too complicated for me to explain in this short introduction. 2.3 Other sentence logic arguments Over the last two subsections, you may have noticed that we were using two different kinds of variables. When we were discussing conditionals, we used variables p and q that stood in for sentences. And when we were discussing categorical logic, we used variables S, P, and M that stood in for categories of things. For example, we might fill in p with Whiskers is a cat and P with is a cat or the property of catness. The logic of arguments that use sentence variables is called sentence logic or propositional logic. In this subsection, we ll take a look at a few other common argument patterns from sentence logic. One fairly common pattern from sentence logic is disjunctive syllogism: (1) either p or q (2) not-p (3) q (4) Either Obama is President or McCain is President. (5) McCain isn t President. (6) Obama is President. (You can replace (2) with not-q to conclude p compare the pattern to the example below.) This pattern is deductively valid. A related pattern is called affirming a disjunct: (7) Either I ll have Mexican for dinner or I ll have sushi for dinner. (8) I ll have sushi for dinner. (9) I won t have Mexican for dinner. (10) either p or q (11) p (12) not-q (Again, the order doesn t matter.) As with the conditional, there are several ways to understand the disjunction (either-or). English typically uses an exclusive disjunction: either p or q but not both. The example above makes the most sense with an exclusive 17

18 disjunction. Since p (having Mexican) excludes q (having sushi), if p is true then q must be false. With an exclusive disjunction, this pattern is deductively valid. But sometimes we use an inclusive disjunction: either p or q but maybe also both. We might have some of fusion Mexican sushi. Here s another example: (13) Either I ll study hard or I ll fail the test (and maybe also both, oh no!). (14) I ll study hard. (15) I won t fail the test. It would be nice if studying hard could guarantee passing, but unfortunately sometimes you end up with both. Since p (studying) doesn t exclude q (failing), we can t conclude that q is false just because p is true. With an inclusive disjunction, this pattern is invalid. So, in general, affirming a disjunct is questionable: you need to figure out which kind of disjunction the author is using before you evaluate the argument. Our last pattern from sentence logic combines conditionals and disjunctions. (16) Whiskers is either a cat or a bird. (17) If Whiskers is a cat then Whiskers is warm-blooded. (18) If Whiskers is a bird then Whiskers is warm-blooded. (19) Whiskers is warm-blooded. This pattern is called dilemma or proof by cases. It is valid. As a proof by cases, this pattern is used to show that something is true whatever the case: we re in case A or case B or.... And in each of these cases, p is true. So, whatever the case, p is true. The example above is a proof by cases. As a dilemma, this pattern is often used to show that, whatever we do, something bad will happen, as in this example: (20) Either we balance the budget or we let the debt continue to grow. (21) If we balance the budget then we damage the economy. (22) If we let the debt continue to grow then we damage the economy. (23) We damage the economy (whatever we do). Here s the pattern for a dilemma: (24) either p or q (25) if p then r (26) if q then r (27) r 2.4 Induction Induction is a mode of reasoning where we infer generalizations from particular cases. Arguments using induction are called inductive arguments. Often the particular cases are actual observations of some category of objects, and the generalization is meant to cover all objects of that type; this is called enumerative induction or simple induction. For example: (1) Robin #1 was observed eating worms. (2) Robin #2 was observed eating worms. (3) Robin #3 was observed eating worms. (4) All robins eat worms. 18

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

### Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

Logic Book Part 1 by Skylar Ruloff Contents Introduction 3 I Validity and Soundness 4 II Argument Forms 10 III Counterexamples and Categorical Statements 15 IV Strength and Cogency 21 2 Introduction This

### HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the

### Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

### Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Philosophy 1100: Ethics Topic 1 - Course Introduction: 1. What is Philosophy? 2. What is Ethics? 3. Logic a. Truth b. Arguments c. Validity d. Soundness What is Philosophy? The Three Fundamental Questions

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

### What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.

### Criticizing Arguments

Kareem Khalifa Criticizing Arguments 1 Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Written August, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Step 1: Initial Evaluation

### Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Week 4: Propositional Logic and Truth Tables Lecture 4.1: Introduction to deductive logic Deductive arguments = presented as being valid, and successful only

### PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim

### Unit 4. Reason as a way of knowing. Tuesday, March 4, 14

Unit 4 Reason as a way of knowing I. Reasoning At its core, reasoning is using what is known as building blocks to create new knowledge I use the words logic and reasoning interchangeably. Technically,

### Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Study Guides Chapter 1 - Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)

### Overview of Today s Lecture

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,

### Chapter 1. What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life

Chapter 1 What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life Why Study Philosophy? Defining Philosophy Studying philosophy in a serious and reflective way will change you as a person Philosophy Is

### Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument

### PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts.

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1 W# Section (10 or 11) 1. True or False (5 points) Directions: Circle the letter next to the best answer. 1. T F All true statements are valid. 2. T

### Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

A03.1 Introduction Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: With valid arguments, it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are all true. Obviously valid arguments play a very important

### MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

### Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.

### PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ Critical Thinking: Quiz 4 Chapter Three: Argument Evaluation Section I. Indicate whether the following claims (1-10) are either true (A) or false (B). 1. If an arguer precedes

### Introduction to Logic

University of Notre Dame Fall, 2015 Arguments Philosophy is difficult. If questions are easy to decide, they usually don t end up in philosophy The easiest way to proceed on difficult questions is to formulate

### Deduction. Of all the modes of reasoning, deductive arguments have the strongest relationship between the premises

Deduction Deductive arguments, deduction, deductive logic all means the same thing. They are different ways of referring to the same style of reasoning Deduction is just one mode of reasoning, but it is

### CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those

### Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall Stetson University Chapter 8 - Sentential ruth ables and Argument orms 8.1 Introduction he truth-value of a given truth-functional compound proposition depends

### Introduction to Logic

University of Notre Dame Spring, 2017 Arguments Philosophy has two main methods for trying to answer questions: analysis and arguments Logic is the the study of arguments An argument is a set of sentences,

### Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations

### Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language

### Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic)

Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic) There's no easy way to say this, the material you're about to learn in this chapter can be pretty hard for some students. Other students, on the other

### 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

I. LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION 1 A. LOGIC 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 3. It doesn t attempt to determine how people in fact reason. 4.

### Philosophical Arguments

Philosophical Arguments An introduction to logic and philosophical reasoning. Nathan D. Smith, PhD. Houston Community College Nathan D. Smith. Some rights reserved You are free to copy this book, to distribute

### HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for

### PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 7.1 Introduction PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions What has been made abundantly clear in the previous discussion

### Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic

Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 Propositions A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. Propositions are sometimes called

### Handout 1: Arguments -- the basics because, since, given that, for because Given that Since for Because

Handout 1: Arguments -- the basics It is useful to think of an argument as a list of sentences.[1] The last sentence is the conclusion, and the other sentences are the premises. Thus: (1) No professors

### A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around

### Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

### Logic: A Brief Introduction

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions 7.1 Introduction What has been made abundantly clear in the previous discussion

### Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.

Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to

### Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure

Pryor, Jim. (2006) Guidelines on Reading Philosophy, What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments. Published at http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html, and http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html

### 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

### Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments

5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous

### Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

Argument and Persuasion Stating Opinions and Proposals The Method It all starts with an opinion - something that people can agree or disagree with. The Method Move to action Speak your mind Convince someone

### Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

### 5.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

M05_COI1396_13_E_C05.QXD 11/13/07 8:39 AM age 182 182 CHATER 5 Categorical ropositions Categorical propositions are the fundamental elements, the building blocks of argument, in the classical account of

### Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last

### Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments 2.1 Introduction Now that we have gotten our "mental muscles" warmed up, let's see how well we can put our newly

### Instructor s Manual 1

Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The

### Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism

Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity

### The Little Logic Book Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema The Calvin College Press, 2013

The Little Logic Book Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema The Calvin College Press, 2013 Exercises for The Little Logic Book may be downloaded by the instructor as Word documents and then modified

### What would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic?

1 2 What would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic? Wilfrid Hodges Herons Brook, Sticklepath, Okehampton March 2012 http://wilfridhodges.co.uk Ibn Sina, 980 1037 3 4 Ibn Sīnā

### In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the

The Flow of Argument Lecture 9 In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the central concept of validity. Visualizing syllogisms in terms of three-circle Venn diagrams gave us

### PRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin.

PRACTICE EXAM 1 I. Decide which of the following are arguments. For those that are, identify the premises and conclusions in them by CIRCLING them and labeling them with a P for the premises or a C for

### Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms

Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms Consider Argument 1 and Argument 2, and select the option that correctly identifies the valid argument(s), if any. Argument 1 All bears are omnivores. All omnivores

### Critical Thinking. The Four Big Steps. First example. I. Recognizing Arguments. The Nature of Basics

Critical Thinking The Very Basics (at least as I see them) Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point What You ll Learn Here I. How to recognize arguments II. How to

### PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT 1. ARGUMENTS PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1.1 DEDUCTIVE VS INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1. Arguments 1.1 Deductive vs Induction Arguments 1.2 Common Deductive Argument Forms 1.3 Common Inductive Argument Forms 1.4 Deduction: Validity and Soundness

### A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS 0. Logic, Probability, and Formal Structure Logic is often divided into two distinct areas, inductive logic and deductive logic. Inductive logic is concerned

### Relevance. Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true

Relevance Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Premises are irrelevant when they do not 1 Non Sequitur Latin for it does

### The antecendent always a expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent

Critical Thinking Lecture Four October 5, 2012 Chapter 3 Deductive Argument Patterns Diagramming Arguments Deductive Argument Patterns - There are some common patterns shared by many deductive arguments

### What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing Logical relations Deductive logic Claims to provide conclusive support for the truth of a conclusion Inductive

### Lecture 4: Deductive Validity

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity Right, I m told we can start. Hello everyone, and hello everyone on the podcast. This week we re going to do deductive validity. Last week we looked at all these things: have

### Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 2012 CONTENTS Part I Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Basic Training 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Logic, Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Deduction and Induction

### Logical (formal) fallacies

Fallacies in academic writing Chad Nilep There are many possible sources of fallacy an idea that is mistakenly thought to be true, even though it may be untrue in academic writing. The phrase logical fallacy

### 7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions

Unit 7.1 Terms and Propositions Nature of propositions A proposition is a unit of reasoning or logical thinking. Both premises and conclusion of reasoning are propositions. Since propositions are so important,

### MATH 1000 PROJECT IDEAS

MATH 1000 PROJECT IDEAS (1) Birthday Paradox (TAKEN): This question was briefly mentioned in Chapter 13: How many people must be in a room before there is a greater than 50% chance that some pair of people

### There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.

INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds

### Three Kinds of Arguments

Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculan-analyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at

### 6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010

6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010 Deduction vs. induction reviewed In chapter 14, we spent a fair amount of time

### Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

### Revisiting the Socrates Example

Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified

### Introduction Symbolic Logic

An Introduction to Symbolic Logic Copyright 2006 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved CONTENTS Chapter One Sentential Logic with 'if' and 'not' 1 SYMBOLIC NOTATION 2 MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLIC NOTATION

### Conditionals II: no truth conditions?

Conditionals II: no truth conditions? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Arguments for the material conditional analysis As Edgington [1] notes, there are some powerful reasons

### PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES LECTURE CONTENTS LECTURE 1: CLAIMS, EXPLAINATIONS AND ARGUMENTS LECTURE 2: CONDITIONS AND DEDUCTION LECTURE 3: MORE DEDUCTION LECTURE 4: MEANING

### Mr Vibrating: Yes I did. Man: You didn t Mr Vibrating: I did! Man: You didn t! Mr Vibrating: I m telling you I did! Man: You did not!!

Arguments Man: Ah. I d like to have an argument, please. Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before? Man: No, I haven t, this is my first time. Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have

### Recall. Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true. Soundness. Valid; and. Premises are true

Recall Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true Soundness Valid; and Premises are true Validity In order to determine if an argument is valid, we must evaluate all of the sets of

### The Relationship between the Truth Value of Premises and the Truth Value of Conclusions in Deductive Arguments

The Relationship between the Truth Value of Premises and the Truth Value of Conclusions in Deductive Arguments I. The Issue in Question This document addresses one single question: What are the relationships,

### Informalizing Formal Logic

Informalizing Formal Logic Antonis Kakas Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus antonis@ucy.ac.cy Abstract. This paper discusses how the basic notions of formal logic can be expressed

### OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5

University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5 May 14th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Commentary pm Krabbe Dale Jacquette Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive

### Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test In the Introduction, I stated that the basic underlying problem with forensic doctors is so easy to understand that even a twelve-year-old could understand

### Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic Logic defined Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Informal logic is the attempt to represent correct reasoning using the natural language

### 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity

4. Proofs 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity Given that we can test an argument for validity, it might seem that we have a fully developed system to study arguments. However, there

### Directions: For Problems 1-10, determine whether the given statement is either True (A) or False (B).

Critical Thinking Exam 2: Chapter 3 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS EXAM. Directions: For Problems 1-10, determine whether the given statement is either True (A) or False (B). 1. Valid arguments never have

### PHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic

HIL 115: hilosophical Anthropology Lecture #4: Stoic Logic Arguments from the Euthyphro: Meletus Argument (according to Socrates) [3a-b] Argument: Socrates is a maker of gods; so, Socrates corrupts the

### Formal Logic. Mind your Ps and Qs!

Formal Logic Mind your Ps and Qs! Argument vs. Explanation Arguments and explanations often have a similar structure. They both have what we might (vaguely) call a basis and a result. They might both

### Test Item File. Full file at

Test Item File 107 CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1: Basic Logical Concepts Multiple Choice 1. In which of the following subjects is reasoning outside the concern of logicians? A) science and medicine B) ethics C)

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 2. Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators Inference-Indicators and the Logical Structure of an Argument 1. The Idea

### PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING

PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING By John Bloore Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy, written by John Wttersten, http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#h7 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905 1997) Known for Deductive-Nomological

### Notes on types of Arguments (for Philosophy of Science) by Justin C. Fisher

1. Arguments Notes on types of Arguments (for Philosophy of Science) by Justin C. Fisher An argument is a set of statements (called premises ) offered in support of a conclusion. Philosophers typically

### Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014

Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional

### In more precise language, we have both conditional statements and bi-conditional statements.

MATD 0385. Day 5. Feb. 3, 2010 Last updated Feb. 3, 2010 Logic. Sections 3-4, part 2, page 1 of 8 What does logic tell us about conditional statements? When I surveyed the class a couple of days ago, many

### Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments

### Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 1 - Basic Training 1.1 Introduction In this logic course, we are going to be relying on some mental muscles that may need some toning

### LOGIC LECTURE #3: DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION. Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11 th Ed. (Patrick Hurley, 2012)

LOGIC LECTURE #3: DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11 th Ed. (Patrick Hurley, 2012) Deductive Vs. Inductive If the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty

### INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include

### A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary. Jason Zarri. 1. An Easy \$10.00? a 3 c 2. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary Jason Zarri 1. An Easy \$10.00? Suppose someone were to bet you \$10.00 that you would fail a seemingly simple test of your reasoning skills. Feeling

### L4: Reasoning. Dani Navarro

L4: Reasoning Dani Navarro Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning Informal reasoning WE talk of man* being the rational animal; and the traditional intellectualist philosophy has always made a great point

### A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice

A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice Logic is a skill and, like any skill, it s improved with practice. I) Analyzing Arguments Sometimes it can be difficult to identify the ultimate conclusion of

### Possibility and Necessity

Possibility and Necessity 1. Modality: Modality is the study of possibility and necessity. These concepts are intuitive enough. Possibility: Some things could have been different. For instance, I could