1 by SALVATORE - 5 September 2009, 10:44 PM I`m having difficulty understanding what steps to take in applying valid argument forms to do a proof. What determines which given premises one should select to apply the valid argument forms so that one can derive the intended conclusion? And how does one know which valid argument forms to apply? Also, in Argument #1 (Lecture 11, Slide 11), the inference from steps 2 and 3 to 4 is stated as: 2. ~y 3. j! y 4. ~j (from 2 and 3) How can this be Modus Tollens? given that Modus Tollens is actually as follow. Could anyone please assist? A! B ~B ~A by Norva Lo - 6 September 2009, 6:31 PM Hi Salvatore, If you swap the order of 2 and 3, you will more easily see that the argument is a case of Modus Tollens. 3. j! y 2. ~y 4. ~j (from 2 and 3) The two formulas in steps 2 and 3 are premises used together to derive the formula in step 4. It does not actually matter in what order the two premises are laid out. It still has the same argument form, Modus Tollens. Example: The following two arguments are one and the same: I am older than you. You are older than her. You are older than her. I am older than you I am older than her. I am older than her. Example: The following four arguments are all Constructive Dilemma: A v B A! C A! C B! D A! C B! D A v B A v B B! D A v B B! D A! C C v D C v D C v D C v D In the case of applying valid argument forms, the order in which the premises are laid out is not essential to the identify of an argument form. So long as all the premises used in an inference fit the forms of all the premises in a valid argument form and the conclusion of the inference also fits the form of the conclusion in the valid argument form, the inference fits that valid argument form.
2 About how to proceed in a proof using valid argument forms (a.k.a. natural deduction): Generally you select the premises that seem likely to generate some intermediate conclusions that seem likely generate the final conclusion that you need to prove. Example: You are asked to prove by natural deduction that the following argument is valid. p & q q! r r! s s The first thing to do is to lay out all the given premises in the following way: 1. p & q (given premise) 2. q! r (given premise) 3. r! s (given premise) Now, think how you can get the intended conclusion, s, by using from the information given in steps 1, 2, 3. A very useful strategy is to find a premise that already contains the conclusion you want to get, and then work backward. Clearly, you want to get s (the intended conclusion). So, you look for a premise that contains s. It is premise 3. Now, premise 3 can give you s by Modus Ponens - provided that you have r on its own. But there is no r on its own in the given premise. So, you need to generate r on its own first as an intermediate conclusion. How do you get r on its own? You look for a premise that contains r as a part. Ah! Premise 2 contains r as a part. But how can premise 2 give you r on its own? Premise 2 will give you r by Modus Ponens - provided that you have q on its own. But there is no q on its own. So how do you get q on its own? You look for another premise that contains q. Ah! q is part of in premise 1 which is a conjunction. Now, can premise 1 give you q on its own? Yes, it can, by Simplification, which says: A & B A & B or A B So, you now write step 4 in the following way: 4. q (from 1, by Simp.) And then, as we have seen before, from q (in step 4) together with q! r (in step 2), you can get r by Modus Ponens. So you write step 5 in the following way: 5. r (from 2 and 4, by MP) Again, as we have seen before, from r (in step 5) together with r! s (in step 3), you can get s by Modus Ponens. So you write step 6 in the following way: 6. s (from 3 and 5, by MP) So you get s eventually! And the proof ends here. For more examples with explanation, please read Core Reading 1 for Week 11. Natural deduction is to some extent a trial and error process especially for beginners. People get better at it after more practice and studying more examples given in the readings. Best, Norva
3 by ALEXANDRA - 17 September 2009, 5:30 PM I'm just reviewing Lecture 11 and I understand the content as far as the use of natural deduction (use of valid argument forms to prove the validity of an argument). However when it comes to me knowing which rule to use when and going through each of the steps I keep getting stuck and cannot go through to the end because there seem to be so many possibilities. Despite having these problems, when I look at all of your solutions it makes perfect sense and I can follow your method through completely. So my question is by the end of this lecture, should we be able to complete the problems from start to finish without any prompts, or do we just need to understand the process involved and when shown a complete example explain how they got to that point (because I could do that). Thanks :) by Norva Lo - 19 September 2009, 5:05 PM Dear Alexandra, I am very glad that by the end of the lecture you understood the solutions to the exercises. To respond to your questions: (1) Generally, the purpose of using some examples in a lecture is only to introduce new concepts or new skills (e.g., the method of natural deduction). (2) So, students are not expected to be able to work out the solutions to the examples in advance. They are only expected to follow the solution and understand it at the end. So, a student should feel good if they can understand the solution given in the lecture and the readings. (3) About natural deduction in particular, you are right in pointing out that there are more than one way to solve a problem, and it is difficult to work out in advance which way to go. Sometimes I myself have trouble too seeing in advance which way to go. So, I would simply do it by trial and error. (4) It is like playing a sport, e.g., football, you need to put the ball in the goal, but there can be more than one strategy, more than one way, to do that. How do you choose? You are standing in the middle of the field, and others are approaching you from different directions. What do you do with the ball? Where do you go next? Experienced players will tell you that in time after accumulating more experience of failure and success, you will develop a better sense of direction and judgement about how to respond. Mmm... to new players, that can sound uninformative, for the experienced players after all did not give you a rule of thumb about what to do in every different situation. At best, the experienced player can show you examples of how other good players play, and show you some examples of what decision a good player would make in certain situations. And by watching more and more of these examples, and also by playing at the field yourself, you will gradually learn and develop a better sense and better skills. (5) Now, doing natural deduction is the same thing. The examples in the lectures function to show what a good player would do. You are not asked to be like them in the beginning. However, it is hoped that after following and understanding those examples, you will learn a bit more, and then after practicing the questions in the quizzes and in the text book, your skill will be improved a bit more again. (6) This is a first year subject, and so it will not demand students to be able to give solutions of the kind given in the examples in the lectures. In the exam, students may be asked to do filling in the blanks of missing steps in a natural deduction proof (like in some questions in some quizzes).
4 (7) If students want to develop more sophisticated skills in the area, then they can do a more advanced level subject in logic and systematic thinking in their second year. Best, Norva by ALEXANDRA - 19 September :55 PM Thanks Norva, that is really helpful. It is definitely true that practice gives you that bit more confidence. I found after just going through the lecture and the two discussion board questions, by the time I got to the quiz questions I was a little bit more confident in how to approach them. Thanks again :)
5 Application of valid argument forms (1) by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 12:14 AM Consider the following argument - with 3 premises leading to the conclusion. p! q q! r ~r ~p The argument is valid. Its validity can be proven via a series of applications of the valid argument forms introduced in Lectures 10 and 11. The proof can be laid out as follows: 1. p! q [given premise] 2. q! r [given premise] 3. ~r [given premise] 4. p! r [from 1 & 2, by Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)] 5. ~p [from 3 & 4, by Modus Tollens (MT)] In the above proof, we have applied HS and MT to show that the three given premises validly lead to the designated conclusion. The whole argument is valid because it contains two atomic sub-arguments (one from 1 & 2 to 3, and the other from 3 & 4 to 5), and each of them is valid. The original argument can also be proven valid in the following alternative way: 1. p! q [given premise] 2. q! r [given premise] 3. ~r [given premise] 4. ~q [from 2 & 3, by Modus Tollens (MT)] 5. ~p [from 1 & 4, by Modus Tollens (MT)] In the above alternative proof, we have applied MT twice to show that the three given premises validly lead to the designated conclusion. The whole argument is valid because it contains two atomic sub-arguments (one from 2 & 3 to 4, and the other from 1 & 4 to 5), and each of them is valid. Now, can you prove that the following argument is valid? - via a series of applications of the valid argument forms covered in Lectures 10 and 11. p v q p! r ~r q Remember to number each step in your proof, and indicate the direction of inference for each atomic sub-argument. Your proof should look like the following: 1. p v q [given premise] 2. p! r [given premise] 3. ~r [given premise] [from... &..., by...] 5. q [from... &..., by...] Fill in the blanks! Re: Application of valid argument forms (1) by Julia - Sunday, 14 October 2012, 8:33 PM Reply Export to portfolio 1. p v q [given premise] 2. p! r [given premise] 3. ~r [given premise] 4. ~p [from P2 & P3, by Modus Tollens] 5. q [from P1 & P4, by Disjunctive Syllogism] Re: Application of valid argument forms (1) by Norva Lo - Monday, 15 October 2012, 9:45 PM Show parent Reply Well done! Reply Export to portfolio
6 Application of valid argument forms (2) by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 12:12 AM Consider the following argument - with 3 premises leading to the conclusion. p! (q & r) p ~s r v ~s The argument is valid. Its validity can be proven via a series of applications of the valid argument forms introduced in Lectures 10 and 11. The proof can be laid out as follows: 1. p! (q & r) [given premise] 2. p [given premise] 3. ~s [given premise] 4. q & r [from 1 & 2, by Modus Ponens (MP)] 5. r [from 4, by Simplification (Simp.)] 6. r & ~s [from 3 & 5, by Conjunction (Conj.)] In the above proof, we have applied MP, Simp. and Conj. to show that the three given premises validly lead to the designated conclusion. The whole argument is valid because it contains three atomic sub-arguments (one from 1 & 2 to 3, another one from 4 to 5, yet another one from 3 & 5 to 6), and each of them is valid. Now, can you prove that the following argument is valid? - via a series of applications of the valid argument forms covered in Lectures 10 and 11. (p v q) & r p! h q! b ~h b Remember to number each step in your proof, and indicate the direction of inference for each atomic sub-argument. Your proof should look like the following: 1. (p v q) & r [given premise] 2. p! h [given premise] 3. q! b [given premise] 4. ~h [given premise] v... [from..., by...] v... [from... &... &..., by...] 7. b [from... &..., by...] Fill in the blanks! Re: Application of valid argument forms (2) by Jack - Monday, 15 October 2012, 10:54 AM Reply Export to portfolio 1. (p v q) & r [given premise] 2. p! h [given premise] 3. q! b [given premise] 4. ~h [given premise] 5. p v q [from 1 by simplification] 6. h v b [from 4 & 2 & 3 by Constructive Dilemma] 7. b [from 4 & 6 by Disjunctive Syllogism] Re: Application of valid argument forms (2) by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 8:41 PM Show parent Reply Very good! All your answers are correct - except for the "from 4 & 2 & 3" in step 6 (typo probably?). It should be "from 5 & 2 & 3" instead. Show parent Reply Export to portfolio
7 Symbolize the whole argument - Hume & Kant by Norva Lo - Monday, 8 October 2012, 6:26 PM Consider the following argument: If Hume is right, then morality is founded on sympathy. If Kant is right, then morality is founded on reason. Now, morality is founded on sympathy or reason. Therefore, Hume is right or Kant is right. Kant is indeed right! It follows that Hume is not right. So, we should conclude that morality is not founded on sympathy." (a) Use different small letters to label all the atomic statements contained in the argument. Hints: One atomic statement contained in the argument is "Hume is right". So we have: h = Hume is right. Another atomic statement contained in the argument is "morality is founded on sympathy". So, we have: s = Morality is founded on sympathy. Can you identify and label all the other atomic statements? (b) Put all the premises, intermediate conclusions, and the final conclusion into logical formulas. List all the formulas in the order of the argument's direction of inferences - indicating which one is supposed to follow from which other ones. Hints: The first premise in the argument is "If Hume is right, then morality is founded on sympathy", which should be symbolized as the logical formula: h! s. The last intermediate conclusion is "Hume is not right", which should be symbolized as: ~h. The final conclusion is "morality is not founded on sympathy", which should be symbolized as: ~s. Can you identify and label all the other premises and intermediate conclusion? When the whole argument is put as an ordered list of formulas, it should like look the following: 1. h! s 2....! v h v... (from 1 &... &...) ~h (from... &...) 7. ~s (from 1 & 6) Fill in the blanks above! (c) How many atomic sub-arguments does the whole argument contain? For each of them, state its supposed direction of inference. Hint: The last atomic sub-argument goes from 1 and 6 to 7. (Note: an atomic sub-argument contains only 1 inference). (d) For each atomic sub-argument identified in part (c) above: (i) Check whether it fits any argument form covered in Lectures 10 and 11. (ii) If an atomic sub-argument fits one of those argument forms, name the argument form, and state whether it is valid or invalid. (iii) If an atomic sub-argument does not fit any of those argument forms, make a judgment of your own on whether it is valid or invalid. Hint: The last atomic sub-argument fits one of the argument forms covered in Lectures 10 and 11. What is it? Is it valid or invalid? What about the other atomic subarguments? Do they fit any argument forms covered in Lectures 10 and 11? And are they valid or invalid? (e) Is the whole argument valid? Give reasons for your answer. Re: Symbolize the whole argument - Hume & Kant by Anna - Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 7:30 PM Reply Export to portfolio a) atomic statements h = Hume is right. s = Morality is founded on sympathy. k = Kant is right. r = Morality is founded on reasoning. b) logical formulas 1. h -> s 2. k -> r 3. s v r 4. h v k (intermediate conclusion, from 1, 2 and 3) 5. k 6. ~h (intermediate conclusion, from 4 and 5) 7. ~s (final conclusion, from 1 and 6)
8 c) Sub-arguments There are 3 atomic sub arguments. The first sub-argument is from 1 and 2 [and 3] to 4. The second sub-argument is from 4 and 5 to 6. The third sub-argument is from 1 and 6 to 7. d) Argument forms The first sub-argument, from 1 and 2 [and 3] to 4, is not in a form mentioned, but is valid. When combined with 3, t[t]his argument is almost in the constructive dilemma form. [Incorrect. This sub-argument is actually invalid - despite that fact that it looks very similar to CD. The difference is that in both the 2nd and 3rd premises, the antecedent and consequent are swapped when the sub-argument in question is compared to CD. That is what makes the sub-argument invalid. It is rather like swapping the antecedent and consequent in the valid form Modus Ponens (MP) which would give rise to the invalid form Affirming the Consequent (AC)] More explanation: The sub-argument in question has the form: A v B C! A D! B C v D This argument form is invalid. For there are counterexamples to it. That is, not all arguments that fit the form are valid, so the argument form itself is invalid. Consider the following argument which fits the form: Inspector Rex is male or female. If Inspector Rex is a man, then Rex is male. if Inspector Rex is a woman, then Rex is female Inspector Rex is a man or a woman. A = Inspector Rex is male. B = Inspector Rex is female. C = Inspector Rex is a man. D = Inspector Rex is a woman. Now, the above argument fits the form in question, but it is invalid - because all its premises are true but its conclusion is false! This shows that the argument form itself is invalid.] The second sub-argument is from 4 and 5 to 6, and is in the form of disjunctive syllogism, and is valid. [Incorrect. The argument form here is actually not DS! And the actual argument form is invalid. You should try to give a counter-example of your own to the actual argument form - to show that it is invalid.] The third sub-argument is from 1 and 6 to 7, and is in the form denying the antecedent. This argument form is invalid. e) Validity The entire argument is invalid, as at least one of the sub arguments has been proven to be invalid. (Edited by Norva Lo - original submission Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 07:29 PM) Re: Symbolize the whole argument - Hume & Kant by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 5:42 PM Show parent Reply Some of your answers are very good. But some of them are incorrect. I have put come comments in colour next to the incorrect answers. This is one of the most difficult discussion questions on the forums. I am very glad that you took up the challenge. Cheers, Norva Show parent Reply Export to portfolio
9 Symbolization and Natural deduction by Norva Lo - Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 5:53 PM (a) There are 6 premises and/or intermediate conclusions and 1 final conclusion in the argument. But none of them are atomic statements. How many atomic statements appear in the argument? List all of them, and use different small letters to label them. Hints: "John is a pianist" is one atomic statement. "John has big hands" is another atomic statement. p = John is a pianist. b = John has big hands. Identify and label the other atomic statements. (b) Put the whole argument (including all the premises, intermediate conclusions, and the final conclusion) into logical formulas. Also indicate which formula follows from which other formulas. Hints: The first premise "John is a pianist only if he has big hands" should be symbolized as: ~b! ~p. Symbolize the rest of the argument. The argument, when put into logical formulas, should look like the following: 1. ~b! ~p (intermediate conclusion, from 1 and 2) (intermediate conclusion, from 4 and 5) (final conclusion, from... and...) Fill in the blanks! Re: Symbolization and Natural deduction by Peter - Thursday, 18 October 2012, 9:55 PM Reply Export to portfolio how does this look? 1. ~b! ~p 2. ~f! ~b 3. p! f (intermediate conclusion, from 1 and 2) 4. ~p 5. ~o! ~p 6. ~o (intermediate conclusion, from 4 and 5) 7. ~f (final conclusion, from?4 and?6) Re: Symbolization and Natural deduction by Norva Lo - Friday, 19 October 2012, 3:58 PM Show parent Reply Your response is quite good indeed! See my comments below and you can post a revised answer to score more. About 5: The most direct or straight forward symbolization is: o v ~p (although yours is logically equivalent to it). About the sub-argument involving 4, 5, 6: You have put the formulas in the order of the corresponding statements given in the original argument. But note the position of the inference indicator "for". The sub-argument in question has the structure: ~p. For o v ~p. But ~o. This indicates that o v ~p and ~o are used as reasons to support ~p (which is an intermediate conclusion). So, the structure of the sub-argument in question should be revised as: 4. o v ~p 5. ~o 6. ~p (intermediate conclusion, from 4 and 5) About 7: The "from... and..." part is incorrect. Can you work out the correct answers and rewrite the whole symbolized argument in logical form? Hint: The whole argument is actually valid! And so is every sub-argument in it. So, step 7 is validly derived from two previous steps. Which two? Show parent Reply Export to portfolio
10 Re: Symbolization and Natural deduction by Anna Jane Burns - Friday, 19 October 2012, 10:04 PM a) Atomic statements: p = john is a pianist b = john has big hands f = john has long fingers o = john has a piano at home There are four atomic statements in this argument. b) Formulas 1. ~b! ~p 2. ~f! ~b 3. p! f (equivalent to ~f! ~p, intermediate conclusion from 1 and 2 - valid inference) 4. o v ~p 5. ~o 6. ~p (intermediate conclusion from 4 and 5, by Disjuctive Syllogism) ~f (final conclusion from 3 and 6, by Modus Tollens) The whole argument is valid because all the inferences contained in it are valid. Show parent Reply Re: More from Question 4 in Quiz 9 by Norva Lo - Monday, 22 October 2012, 4:05 PM Perfect!! Show parent Reply Export to portfolio
11 Symbolize the whole argument - Abelard & Heloise by Norva Lo - Monday, 8 October 2012, 6:48 PM Consider the following argument: If Abelard is not praying, then he is seeing Heloise. If Abelard is seeing Heloise, then he is either in the church or in the garden. If he is in the church, then he is carrying a bible. But if he is in the garden, then he is carrying a bunch of flowers. Now, we know that Abelard is not praying. Therefore, he is seeing Heloise, which implies that he is either in the church or in the garden. It follows that he is carrying a bible or a bunch of flowers." (a) Use different small letters to label all the atomic statements contained in the argument. Hints: One atomic statement contained in the argument is "Abelard is praying". So, we have: p = Abelard is praying. Another atomic statement contained in the argument is "Abelard is seeing Heloise". So we have h = Abelard is seeing Heloise. Can you identify and label all the other atomic statements? (b) Put all the premises, intermediate conclusions, and the final conclusion into logical formulas. List all the formulas in the order of the argument's directions of inferences - indicating which one is supposed to follow from which other ones. Hints: The first premise in the argument is "If Abelard is not praying, then he is seeing Heloise". This premise should be symbolized as the logical formula: ~p! h. Can you identify and label all the other premises, intermediate conclusions, and also the final conclusion? When the whole argument is put as an ordered list of formulas, it should like look the following: 1. ~p! h 2. h! (... v...) 3....! ! ~p 6. h (from 1 & 5) v... (from 2 &...) v... (from... &... &...) Fill in the blanks above! (c) How many atomic sub-arguments does the whole argument contain? For each of them, state its supposed direction of inference. Hint: The first atomic sub-argument goes from 1 and 5 to 6. Can you tell the directions of inference for the other atomic sub-arguments? (Note: an atomic subargument contains only 1 inference). (d) For each atomic sub-argument identified in part (c) above: (i) Check whether it fits any argument form covered in Lectures 10 and 11. (ii) If an atomic sub-argument fits one of those argument forms, name the argument form, and state whether it is valid or invalid. (iii) If an atomic sub-argument does not fit any of those argument forms, make a judgment of your own on whether it is valid or invalid. Hint: The first atomic sub-argument has the form Modus Ponens (MP). Is it valid or invalid? What about the other atomic sub-arguments? Do they fit any argument forms covered in Lectures 10 and 11? And are they valid or invalid? (e) Is the whole argument valid? Give reasons for your answer. Re: Symbolize the whole argument - Abelard & Heloise by Heath Joseph Robson - Sunday, 14 October 2012, 1:14 AM Hi Norva, I gave it a shot but I'm not sure how it has turned out :) a) There are 6 atomic statements: p = Aberlard is praying. h = Aberlard is seeing Heloise. c = Aberlard is in the church. g = Aberlard is in the garden. b = Aberlard is carrying a bible. f = Aberlard is carrying a bunch of flowers. Reply Export to portfolio
12 b) The whole argument symbolized (premises, intermediate conclusions, and final conclusion in the original given order): 1. ~p! h 2. h! (c v g) 3. c! b 4. g! f 5. ~p 6. h (from 1 & 5) 7. c v g (from 2 & 6) 8. b v f (from 7 & 3 & 4) c) All sub-arguments with their directions of imorenference indicated (order of premises, intermediate conclusions rearranged to show their directions of inference more easily): P1 (1) ~p! h P2 (5) ~p P3 (6) h (from 1 & 5) P4 (2) h! (c v g) P5 (7) c v g (from 2 & 6) P6 (3) c! b P7 (4) g! f C (8) b v f (from 7 & 3 & 4) d) Arguments forms of the sub-arguments: P1 (1) ~p!h P2 (5) ~p P3 (6) h (from 1 & 5) Modus Ponens VALID P3 (6) h P4 (2) h! (c v g) P5 (7) c v g (from 2 & 6) This is actually in the form of Modus Ponens - VALID - because if we switch P1 & P2 and make h = A and (c v g) = B we get: A! B A B P5 (7) c v g P6 (3) c! b P7 (4) g! f C (8) b v f (from 7 & 3 & 4) Constructive Dilemma VALID e) As each sub-argument is valid then the whole argument is valid as well Re: Symbolize the whole argument - Abelard & Heloise by Norva Lo - Monday, 15 October 2012, 2:53 PM Perfect and very well done!! :) :) Show parent Reply Show parent Reply Export to portfolio
Explanation for Question 1 in Quiz 8 by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 9:39 AM The following is the solution for Question 1 in Quiz 8: (a) Which term in the argument is being equivocated. (b) What
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)
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9- Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truth-functional arguments.
M09_COPI1396_13_SE_C09.QXD 10/19/07 3:46 AM Page 372 9 Methods of Deduction 9.1 Formal Proof of Validity 9.2 The Elementary Valid Argument Forms 9.3 Formal Proofs of Validity Exhibited 9.4 Constructing
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
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
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
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.
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
Theorem A Theorem is a valid deduction. One of the key activities in higher mathematics is identifying whether or not a deduction is actually a theorem and then trying to convince other people that you
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
Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential
Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete
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
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
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
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 ------------.
Reconstructing Arguments Argument reconstruction is where we take a written argument, and re-write it to make the logic of the argument as obvious as possible. I have broken down this task into six steps:
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.
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.
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
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
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman 2 Is this a valid argument? Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines
Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.
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
UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:
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
MAH1061/MAH7861 Discrete Mathematics Semester 2, 2016 Learning Goals 1. Understand the meaning of necessary and sufficient conditions (carried over from Wednesday). 2. Understand the difference between
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
Syllogistic Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning Syllogistic Reasoning Erol ÖZÇELİK The other key type of deductive reasoning is syllogistic reasoning, which is based on the use of syllogisms. Syllogisms are
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
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
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
Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Instructor: Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now! Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Wednesday Instructor:
The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.
Critical Thinking Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 3! Validity & Soundness Summary: In this week s lectures, we will learn! (1) What it is for an argument to be. (2)
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,
Revised final draft A Critique of Friedman s Critics Milton Friedman s essay The methodology of positive economics  is considered authoritative by almost every textbook writer who wishes to discuss
National Qualifications 06 06 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 06 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only
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
CRITICAL THINKING Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 8! Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Part-Whole Relations Summary In this lecture, we will learn three more
Logic -type questions [For use in the Philosophy Test and the Philosophy section of the MLAT] One of the questions on a test may take the form of a logic exercise, starting with the definition of a key
Please check only one: Pitt State Pathway (Undergraduate Course Numbers through 699) Course is currently a General Education course Course is listed in the current catalog, but is NOT a General Education
Suppressed premises in real life Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises Analyzing inferences: finale Suppressed premises: from mechanical solutions to elegant ones Practicing on some real-life
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL - and thus deduction
CRITICAL THINKING Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 4! Nondeductive Success: Statistical Syllogism, Inductive Generalization, Analogical Argument Summary In this week
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
Prof. C. Byrne Dept. of Philosophy SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC Syllogistic logic is the original form in which formal logic was developed; hence it is sometimes also referred to as Aristotelian logic after Aristotle,
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
1 Department/Program 2012-2016 Assessment Plan Department: Philosophy Directions: For each department/program student learning outcome, the department will provide an assessment plan, giving detailed information
1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4 Summary Notes These are summary notes so that you can really listen in class and not spend the entire time copying notes. These notes will not substitute for reading the
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
The Philosopher s World Cup Monty Python & the Flying Circus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vv3qgagck&feature=related What is an argument? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqfkti6gn9y What is an argument?
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
Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE If you are searching for a book Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic by R.A. Neidorf in pdf format, in that case you come on to the correct website.
16. Universal derivation 16.1 An example: the Meno In one of Plato s dialogues, the Meno, Socrates uses questions and prompts to direct a young slave boy to see that if we want to make a square that has
IN CLASS LOGIC EXERCISES Instructions: Determine whether the following are propositions. If some are not propositions, see if they can be rewritten as propositions. (1) I have a very refined sense of smell.
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
On Priest on nonmonotonic and inductive logic Greg Restall School of Historical and Philosophical Studies The University of Melbourne Parkville, 3010, Australia firstname.lastname@example.org http://consequently.org/
Chapter 7.1! Symbolizing English Arguments! 5 Important Logical Operators!The Main Logical Operator Today s Lecture 1/28/10 Quiz State from memory (closed book and notes) the five famous valid forms and
H SPECIMEN S85/76/ National Qualications ONLY Philosophy Paper Date Not applicable Duration hour 5 minutes Total marks 50 SECTION ARGUMENTS IN ACTION 30 marks Attempt ALL questions. SECTION KNOWLEDGE AND
VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY A research paper, discussing the terms and definitions of inductive and deductive logic, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the certificate in Christian Apologetics
Introduction to Cognitivism; Motivational Externalism; Naturalist Cognitivism Felix Pinkert 103 Ethics: Metaethics, University of Oxford, Hilary Term 2015 Cognitivism, Non-cognitivism, and the Humean Argument
Scientific Method and Research Ethics 17.09 Questions, Answers, and Evidence Dr. C. D. McCoy Plan for Part 1: Deduction 1. Logic, Arguments, and Inference 1. Questions and Answers 2. Truth, Validity, and
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
In Defense of The Wide-Scope Instrumental Principle Simon Rippon Suppose that people always have reason to take the means to the ends that they intend. 1 Then it would appear that people s intentions to
An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truth-theoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.
Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Fall 2013 Class 1 - Introduction to Introduction to Philosophy My name is Russell. My office is 202 College Hill Road, Room 210.
A romp through the foothills of logic Session 3 It would be a good idea to watch the short podcast Understanding Truth Tables before attempting this podcast. (Slide 2) In the last session we learnt how
STUDIES IN LOGIC, GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC 50(63) 2017 DOI: 10.1515/slgr-2017-0028 Yong-Sok Ri Kim Il Sung University Pyongyang the Democratic People s Republic of Korea MODUS PONENS AND MODUS TOLLENS: THEIR
Informalizing Formal Logic Antonis Kakas Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus email@example.com Abstract. This paper discusses how the basic notions of formal logic can be expressed