MODULES

LOGIC

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Submitted by:
JAME LYOD S. CAYANAN
BsEd Mapeh-lV

Submitted to:
ALPHEE F. LACHICA., Maed
Professor
 MODULE 1
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Learning Outcome

Write statements expressing

inductive reasoning

Objective:

1. Explain the different concepts and importance of logic

Introduction
Logic is a discipline concerned with the rules of thinking and drawing conclusions.
Philosophers use logic in constructing and evaluating arguments. Arguments are used to justify
beliefs about reality, science, values, society, and religions. The purpose of this course is to
introduce students to basic logical and rules for correct thinking through the formal mechanisms
of Symbolic Logic. Students can be expected to develop a deeper awareness of the logical
structure of thinking, in every field of knowledge.

Basic Concepts
Logic came from the Greek word “logos” which includes word, thought, idea, account,
reason or principle, is the study of reasoning. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad
reasoning.

Logic is the science of the laws which the intellect must obey in order to acquire
available and concise knowledge of truth.

Logic is useful for looking forward to see truth, for safeguard against error and acquiring
proficiency in any science whatever.

Logic has three principal parts: the first investigates the nature and laws of reasoning;
the second expounds the general conditions of science and the third determines the general
rules of method. The object of logic is reasoning. Therefore, logic is divided into three parts
which correspond to the three aspects under which reasoning may be considered.

Types of Logic

1. Formal Logic

Formal logic is what is known to be traditional or philosophical logic, namely the

study of inference with purely formal and explicit content.

2. Informal Logic

Informal Logic is a recent discipline which studies natural language arguments,

and attempts to develop a logic to assess, analyze and improve ordinary language
reasoning. Natural language is referred to as the language that is spoken, written or
 signed by humans for general-purpose communication, is distinguished from formal
languages.

3. Symbolic Logic

Symbolic Logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features
of logical inference.

4. Mathematical Logic

Application of techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical

reasoning, and conversely the application of mathematical techniques to the
representation and analysis of formal logic.

Deductive Logic
Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from the given premises which
comes from the general to a particular one. An inference is valid to be deductive in which there
is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Example:

Major premise: All humans are mortal

Minor premise: Socrates is human
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

Inductive Logic

Inductive reasoning is derived from particular to general premise. Inductive logic is not
concerned with validity or conclusiveness but without the soundness of those inferences for
which the evidence is not conclusive.

Example:

All observed crows are black

All crows are black

Modal Logic

Modal Logic is any formal logic that attempts to deal with modalities involving
expressions associated with notions of possibility, probability and necessity). Modal logic
therefore deals with terms such as “eventually”, “formerly”, “possibly”, “can”, “could”, “might”,
“may”, “must”, etc.
 Propositional Logic

Propositional Logic is concerned only with sentential connectives and logical operators
(such as “and”, “or”, “not”, “if…” “then…”, “because” and “necessarily”), as opposed to
Predicate Logic which also concerns itself with the internal structure of atomic propositions.

Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic allows sentences to be analyzed into subject and argument in several
different ways, unlike Aristotelian syllogistic logic where the forms that form the relevant part of
the involved judgments took must be specific and limited.

Nature and Structure of Logic

Logic is the systematic study of the order to be observed in judging, reasoning, and
other processes of thought in order to arrive at the knowledge of truth.

The formal object of logic, or the point of view from which logic regards the acts of the
minds, is their adaptability to certain processes of thoughts which are called either particular
sciences or philosophy. These processes imply stages. The rational arrangement of reasoning
constitutes the logical order properly so called: “the order which reason constitutes for its own
facts”.

In psychology, as in all the sciences of the real, order is the necessary condition of
science, but logic has this order for its object. Its proper object is the form itself of this scientific
construction.

The systematization of the processes of reasoning has an ultimate purpose and it is to

make knowledge true. Before explaining how logic directs its operations towards the true, it
must be recalled that truth and error are qualities of the judgment, and not of the concept.
Logic is a general science in the sense that it regulates the content of all other sciences
and subjects them to its laws in their construction. Its object, of extreme simplicity and
boundless in content, is the being of reason.
Logic has for its object the same being, formally considered in its mental objectivity,
invested with attributes of reason which it acquires in thought and in virtue of thought.

Logic and Critical Thinking

Truth is the object of thinking. Some truths are obvious; others are difficult to acquire.
Some judgments people make are simple; some are complicated. Some arguments whether
made by us or by others may be straightforward and easily understood; others may be complex
and consist of a series of smaller arguments each needs to be critically examined and
evaluated.
Critical thinking involves the science of logic including the skills of logical analysis,
correct reasoning, and understanding statistical methods. Critical thinking however involves
more than just an understanding of logical procedures. Logic doesn’t just deal with thinking in
general, it deals more with correct thinking. Training in logic should enable us to develop the
skills necessary to think correctly, that is logically. Logic is the subject which teaches one
person the rules to reason correctly and properly. Logic is not intended merely to inform or to
instruct but it should be applied in our daily lives, in this sense we can say logic is more of a
science and an art.

ACTIVITY 1

1. In your own words, explain the concepts and importance of logic.

Logic is important because it influences every decision we make in our lives. Logical
thinking allows us to learn and make decisions that will affect our lifestyle. If no one
thought logically, we would all be running around like chickens with our heads cut off,
and nothing would make any sense.
 ACTIVITY 2

Let’s see if you can

do this

Write at least three examples of statements expressing deductive reasoning, refer to the
example given in the
lecture.______________________________________________________________________
______________________________

All men are mortal

______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Jason John Wilbert is a man

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Therefore, Jason John Wilbert is mortal

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

MODULE 2
ARGUMENTS, PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS

Learning
Outcome
Objectives:
Write statements 1. Define argument
expressing an 2. Explain the purpose of argument
argument
 Logic:
The basic principles and techniques that are used to distinguish correct (good) reasoning from
incorrect (bad) reasoning.
If we are to use the term “logic” correctly, however, we must avoid a common confusion.
The term is sometimes mistakenly thought to carry only the connotation of good or correct
reasoning. For example, when someone has reasoned well (correctly), we say that he or she is
being logical, and when someone has reasoned badly (incorrectly) we say that he or she is
being illogical. The discipline of logic studies both correct and incorrect reasoning. Accordingly,
when someone reasons illogically, we will say that he or she has made a logical mistake, that is,
a mistake in logic.

Now, let’s go through the definition of “logic” a little further. As it turns out, to reason
correctly is to argue correctly. In fact, an alternative definition of the subject matter of logic is as
follows: the basic principles and techniques that are used to distinguish good (correct)
arguments from bad (incorrect) arguments. But before we can say more about this distinction
between good and bad arguments, we must define what logicians mean by the term “argument.”

Argument,” like so many words, has various meanings. For many it is an entirely
negative term connoting confrontation, conflict and disagreement. Clearly this is what is meant
when a coed complains about her date, saying that all she and her boyfriend did was argue all
night. The assumption here is that arguing does not make for a pleasant relationship. And most
likely, the term “argument” conjures up for some the images of flying pots and pans and
shouting, perhaps even violence. Along these lines, we think of arguments as something like
school-yard fights in which the so-called “argument” consists of a heated disagreement in which
one party simply denies what the other party affirms, perhaps coming to blows over their
difference.

An argument is made up of several statements. However, not every group of statements

is an argument. What turns a group of statements into an argument is the relation between or
among them.

Accordingly, we need to clarify this relation between or among statements, for it is this
relation that transforms them into an argument.

But before we can do this, we need to define the term “statement” more precisely. As we
will use it, the term is defined as the content of an assertion that is either true or false. To mark
this special use of the term “statement” we will use the term “proposition” instead of “statement.”
Keep in mind, however, that the terms are synonymous for all practical purposes.

Argument:
A group of propositions is an argument if some of the propositions (the premises) are
asserted as supporting the truth of another of the propositions (the conclusion)
 An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are
intended to provide support, justification or evidence fir the truth of another statement or
proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are
those statements that are taken to provide the support or evidence, the conclusion is that which
the premises allegedly support.

The following is an example of argument:

The death penalty should be adopted only if it deters murder. However, it could
only do this if murderers understood the consequence of their actions before acting, and
since this is not so, we must reject adopting the death penalty.

The conclusion of this argument is the final statement: “we must reject adopting the
death penalty”. The other statements are the premises, they are offered as justifications or
reasons for this claim. The premises of an argument are sometimes also called the “data”, the
“grounds” or the “backup” given for accepting the conclusion.

Arguments are attempts to provide evidence or support for a certain claim, they often
contain words such as “therefore”, “thus”, “hence”, “consequently”, or “so” before their
conclusions. Similarly words or expressions such as “because, “inasmuch as,” “for the reason
that,” etc., are often found accompanying the premises of an argument.

In order for an argument to be persuasive, it must begin with premises that are accepted
as true or probably true. The reason for this is that the premises that are doing the supporting
are not themselves supported. They must be accepted if the conclusion of the argument is to be
accepted. It may help to think of premises as assumptions. Or as we might say, the premises of
an argument constitute the foundation on which the conclusion is established.

The most useful arguments are the ones that arrive at conclusions that were previously
not known. Correct useful arguments, in other words, provide us with conclusions that add to
our knowledge. This is so because a correct and useful argument establishes or proves that a
given proposition (the conclusion) is true or is probably true, depending on the truth of the
premises and on the kind of argument it is. (In a moment we will say more about how
conclusions depend on the truth of the premises, and about differences in kinds of arguments.)

 Summary of Definitions
  Logic: The basic principles and techniques that are used to distinguish correct
(good) reasoning from incorrect (bad) reasoning
  Proposition: The content of an assertion that is either true or false  Argument:
A group of propositions is an argument if some of the propositions (the premises)
are asserted as supporting the truth of another of the propositions (the
conclusion)
  Premise: A proposition in an argument that is used to give support.
  Conclusion: The proposition in an argument that is taken to receive support
 Deduction and Induction

Types of Arguments

There are basically two types of argument. Deductive arguments are arguments in which
the conclusion is presented as following from the premises with necessity. Inductive arguments
are arguments in which the conclusion is presented as following from the premises only with
probability.

Inductive argument:
An argument in which it is claimed that the premises offer some evidence for the conclusion but
do not guarantee the conclusion's truth

Of course the more likely it is that the conclusion follows from the premises, the better
the induction. In appraising an inductive argument, we will accordingly say that it is either weak
or strong—depending on how likely it is that the truth of the conclusion follows from the
premises. It should be clear from this definition that the truth of the premises in an inductive
argument is not taken to guarantee the truth of its conclusion. Rather, the premises are offered
as evidence in support of the claim that the conclusion is probably true. With this definition in
mind, it should be obvious that the following argument is an induction:

Every Full Professor in Harvard’s Philosophy Department holds a Ph.D. degree

Every Full Professor in Yale’s Philosophy Department holds a Ph.D. degree
In fact this is true of every Philosophy Department with which I am acquainted
Therefore it is likely that every Full Professor in every university Department of Philosophy
holds a Ph.D. degree

This inductive argument is what is called a generalization. But inductive arguments take
many forms. These forms include, among others, arguments from analogy, predictions, and
sometimes both.
Consider the following examples:
1. Analogy: That nest looks like the one I watched a Robin make in my backyard. So it
must also be a Robin’s nest
 2. Prediction: It usually rains in the late afternoon in the summer when the clouds gather
on the horizon like they are doing now. So I expect it will rain this evening
3. Both: When I took ancient philosophy in college we read Plato’s Republic. So if you
take that course when you go to college you will read it too.
Good and bad inductions are so in degree, not absolutely. Additional evidence, of
course, can make an inductive argument stronger or weaker. In fact, in some cases one new
piece of evidence can completely undermine the likelihood of its conclusion being true. For
example, if I am trying to establish that "All swans are white," seeing another white one adds
strength to my argument. However, it takes only one black swan to demonstrate that the
inductive generalization, “All swans are white,” regardless of how many white swans have been
observed, is not warranted.
Inductive Argument: Claims the conclusion is probably true based upon the premises
Strong: The sun has risen in the East for thousands upon thousands of mornings. So it
will rise in the East tomorrow morning
Weak: John has a Ph.D. but is unemployed. So this degree does not help you get a job

Deductive Argument:
An argument in which it is claimed that the conclusion follows from the premises with necessity

If the conclusion of such an argument does in fact follow with necessity, we say the
argument is a good (correct) one and if the conclusion does not follow from the premises with
necessity, we say that the argument is a bad (incorrect) one. When we say that the conclusion
follows from the premises with necessity in a correct deductive argument, we mean that this
conclusion is not just probably true, but must be true, that it cannot fail to be true, if the premises
were true. When the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, we say that this
deductive argument is valid.
We will turn in the next section to an elaboration of this definition of validity. First,
consider the following deductive arguments. Hopefully it is obvious to you that these are good
arguments:

All rabbits are mammals

All mammals are warm-blooded
Therefore, all rabbits are warm-blooded
All men are mortal Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
Given the premises of these arguments, the conclusions are not just likely to be true, but must
be true, that is, they cannot be false.
Be cautious here: just because we know that an argument is a deduction, we do not know
automatically that it is a good one. That is, what makes an argument a deduction is the claim
that the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises with necessity. However,
the claim that the conclusion follows from the premises with necessity does not mean that it
actually does. In such cases, where the conclusion of a deductive argument may be false even
if its premises are assumed to be true, the argument does not cease to be a deduction; it is
simply a bad or incorrect deduction.

Deductive Argument: Claims that it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false if the
premises were true
Correct (Valid): If John practices law in Florida, he must have passed the Florida Bar. John
practices law in Florida, so he must have passed the Florida Bar.
Incorrect (Invalid): If John practices law in Florida, he must have passed the Florida Bar. John
has passed the Florida Bar. Therefore, John practices law in Florida. (The conclusion here could
be false even if the premises were true.)

Consider this classical deductive argument:

 All men are mortal

 Jason John Wilbert is a man
 Therefore, Jason John Wilbert is mortal

The premises in this argument are the first two statements. The conclusion is the last
statement. The conclusion follows by necessity from the two premises; the conclusions follows
with certainty from the premises. It can’t be any other way. The premises fully support the
conclusion. Now let’s take this one inductive argument:

 Jason is human and is mortal

 Wilbert is human and is mortal
 Joebert is human and is mortal
  Sidney is human and is mortal
 Therefore, probably all humans are mortal

The premises in this argument are the first four statements. The conclusion is the last
statement. Note that the conclusion follows only with some degree of probability from the
premises. The conclusion does not follow from the premises by necessity or with certainty.

The difference between deductive and inductive arguments can be seen by noting that all
the information needed to reach the conclusion in the deductive argument above is contained in
the premises. It is not necessary to go outside the argument for any additional information.

On the other hand, in the inductive above, the conclusion is not contained by necessity in
the premises given. The conclusion requires us to go beyond the information contained in the
premises. If at some later time a human being is discovered to be immortal, the argument will
have to be reevaluated. Inductive arguments do not give us absolute certainty because the
premises cannot provide absolute support.

Deductive arguments prove or fail to prove their conclusions with certainty. A deductive
argument is either valid or invalid. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion is false.

The validity of a deductive argument is determined by its logical form, not by the content of its
argument.

Inductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid as the terms are used in deductive
arguments. Inductive arguments, since the conclusion is only probable, are said to be good or
bad, strong or weak, or better or worse. It depends on the strength of the supporting premises.

The Criteria for Good Arguments

A good deductive argument, wherein the conclusion can be trusted to be true, is said to
be sound. To be a sound deductive argument, three things are important:

 the argument must be valid

 the truth of the premises must be well established
 the arguments must be circular

The validity of deductive argument is determined by its form, not by the content of its form.

Inductive arguments are more difficult to evaluate than deductive arguments. In any
inductive argument we must consider the relative strength that the premises provide to support
the conclusion. The stronger the support of the premises (assuming them to be true), the more
probable the conclusion is true.
Truth, Validity and Soundness

We must be careful not to think that arguments, inductive or deductive, can be evaluated
as being either true or false. These terms are reserved solely for propositions. Remember also
that the terms “true” and “false” do not apply to sentences, but only to the propositions that are
expressed in them. This is so, because there are many sentences that are neither true nor false,
because they do not express propositions. “Help!” was our earlier example of such a sentence
that is neither true nor false.

Recall that deductive arguments make a claim. That claim is that the conclusion follows
from the premises with necessity. Now of course not every claim is warranted. I may claim that I
can beat you at tennis. You would be well advised, however, to invite me to the court to see if I
can actually make good on this claim.

Similarly, if I claim that a conclusion follows from a set of premises with necessity, this
does not mean that the conclusion actually does guarantee the conclusion. We might need to
take this claim to a different sort of court, a court of appeals. Well, what are we to appeal to in
trying to decide whether or not our claims are satisfied? Obviously we need a criterion. That is,
we need a very precise test for judging whether or not the claim of any deductive argument is
satisfied. If a deductive argument passes or fails this test (and the test is strictly pass/fail with
nothing in between) we say that the argument is either valid or invalid. So what is this test?

Before I say what the criterion of validity is, and later what the criteria for soundness are,
let’s note some likely misuses of the terms. Notice that when we introduced the idea of validity
above, we did not qualify it as “deductive validity.” The reason for this is that the logical term
“validity” applies only to deductive arguments. The logician reserves “validity/invalidity” for
evaluating deductive arguments, just as the terms “weak” and “strong” are reserved for
evaluating inductive arguments. The same is true in our use of the term “soundness”: it is
reserved for the evaluation of deductive arguments. That is, inductive arguments cannot be
said to be either valid or invalid, nor can they be sound or unsound.

Of course the terms “valid” and “invalid” have uses beyond logic. We have valid or
invalid driver’s licenses for example. Sometimes people say things. Like: “that is a valid
conclusion…” and we know what they mean. But in logic conclusions are either true or false
since they are propositions. We can say that a conclusion has been reached validly, in which
case we are not talking about its truth but its relation to its premises.

Well enough of these qualifications, we are now ready to make explicit our criterion for validity,
and hence invalidity.

Validity: An argument is valid if and only if it would be impossible for its conclusion to be false if
its premises were true, i.e. the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion
This criterion is deceptively simple. What is deceptive about it is that it is phrased in the
subjunctive mood (which we seldom use anymore), not in the indicative mood, which we almost
always use. But this is just a fancy way of saying that our criterion of validity (and hence
invalidity) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the premises or conclusion of a
particular argument are true in fact (indicative mood), but has everything to do with whether or
not the conclusion of a particular argument would be true, if its premises were true (subjunctive
mood).

What is tricky here is to notice that even though the terms „true” and “false” occur in the
statement of the criterion of validity, that criterion has nothing to do with what is true or false in
fact. Or another way to put this is to say that the judgment of validity (and hence invalidity) is a
judgment about the relation between the premises and the conclusion of an argument, and not a
judgment about truth.

Above we talked about conclusions following from premises. Now we are able to give a more
precise meaning to this idea. To say that the conclusion of a deductive argument “follows from”
the premises is just to say that that conclusion has a certain relation to the premises. Validity is
more about this relation than it is about truth. That relation amounts to this:

In valid arguments the conclusion is so related to its premises that it would be impossible for the
conclusion to be false if the premises were in fact true, regardless of whether or not they are

If you want to see just how little the notion of validity (and hence invalidity) has to do with truth,
and how much it has to do with the relation between its premises and its conclusion, consider
the following valid argument:

All roaches are millionaires

Ron Hall is a roach
Therefore Ron Hall is a millionaire
 We don’t think you will have much trouble agreeing that the first premise of this
argument is in fact false. Indeed we hope that you will also concede that the second one is
false. But take it from us, Ron Hall is no millionaire. Yet this is a perfectly valid argument. Why?
It meets our criterion. If the premises were true, (and here they are not) then the conclusion
would have to be true (even though in this case, it is not true in fact).

But think of the situation in which an argument has premises that are true in fact and even a
conclusion that is true in fact. Would it have to be valid? No. Consider the following such
argument:

All philosophers love wisdom

Jon Smith is a philosopher
Therefore, Jon Smith teaches logic

Now all of these propositions are true in fact, but the argument is not valid. The reason is
that the conclusion, although true in fact, would not have to be true given the truth of the
premises. By the same token, if we know that the premises of a given argument are in fact true,

and the relation between these premises and its conclusion is valid, we would thereby know that
the conclusion would have to be true, that is, could not be false.

As we pointed out above, in a deduction, to argue correctly is to argue validly. And

validity is high praise for a deductive argument, even though it does not depend upon the truth
of the propositions in the argument. Rather, validity depends solely on the relation between
premises and conclusion. Having said this, we are ready to see that validity is not the highest
praise we can give to deductive arguments. The reason for this is that truth is important when it
comes making the final judgment as to whether or not we have reasoned well. The highest
praise for an argument is to say that it is sound.

As in the case of validity, we have criteria for soundness (and hence for unsoundness). Those
criteria are as follows:

Soundness:

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has all true premises

Notice that there are two criteria for soundness (and hence for unsoundness). The first criterion
is that of validity.
 However, even though validity is necessary for soundness, and its absence is sufficient
for unsoundness, it is not sufficient by itself. Sound arguments must not only be valid, they must
also have all true premises. Likewise, having all true premises is not itself a sufficient condition
for soundness, even though a single false premise is a sufficient condition for unsoundness.
The two criteria, (1) validity and (2) all true premises, taken together are sufficient to determine
that a particular argument is sound. Consider the following examples:

1. Sound Argument: If Ron Hall is a philosopher, then Ron Hall loves wisdom. Ron Hall is a
philosopher. Therefore Ron Hall loves wisdom. (Valid, all true premises)

2. Unsound Argument A: If Jon Smith is a philosopher, then Jon Smith loves wisdom. Jon Smith
loves wisdom. Therefore Jon Smith is a philosopher. (Invalid, all true premises and a true
conclusion)

3. Unsound Argument B: If Socrates is a philosopher then Socrates loves wisdom. Socrates

does not love wisdom. Therefore Socrates is not a philosopher. (Valid, one false premise and a
false conclusion)

Be sure to notice this: even though the criteria of soundness do not mention the conclusion, the
conclusion of a sound argument must be true. If an argument is valid, then if its premises were

true, its conclusion would necessarily be true. But in sound arguments all the premises are true;
hence the conclusion must be true as well.

The upshot of this is that there are two ways to evaluate an argument as being incorrect.
We can say that it is invalid or we can say that it is unsound. Just because a proposition follows
from a set of premises, we do not have to accept it as true. It is always open to us to call the
truth of one or more of the premises into question.

This issue of truth, however, is not something that we can investigate in a logic course.
We will have to leave this to others. In other words, in this course we will not be in the business
of evaluating soundness. Rather, we will restrict our evaluations to questions of validity. But this
is no small matter, for in order to reason soundly, we must first reason validly. And of course if
we reason invalidly, there is Cases Premises Conclusions no way for our arguments to
be sound. 1 2
1st T T T
The following table represents all of the eight
combinations and 2nd F T T permutations of truth-values
that are possible in arguments that have two
premises. 3 rd
T F T

4th F F T

5th T T F

6th F T F

7th T F F

8th F F F
 In the light of our discussion of validity and soundness ask yourself this question: “Which
of these combinations of truth-values could represent a valid argument? Careful reflection ought
to tell you that every one of these combinations could be valid, except one. Do you see which
one? Clearly, the combination in case #5 could not ever be valid since it is the only one that
directly violates our definition of validity. Remember, if the premises were true then the
conclusion would have to be true. In case #5 the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
Such a combination could never be valid.

Don’t jump to the conclusion that all of the other combinations are valid. All that we can say is
that arguments with any of the other combinations of truth-values could be valid. You can take
any of the other combinations and construct a valid or an invalid argument. For example, we
can take combination case 3 and construct both a valid and an invalid argument as follows:

1. Valid: Either Ron Hall is a philosopher or he likes to walk. He does not like to walk.
Therefore he is a philosopher. (The first premise is true, the second is false, and the
conclusion is true.)

2. Invalid: If Jon Smith is a philosopher then he loves wisdom. Jon Smith is not a philosopher.
Therefore, he loves wisdom. (The first premise is true, the second is false, and the conclusion
is true.)

We could make similar constructions on all of these combinations of truth-values except in

combination case # 5. In this case, it is impossible to construct a valid argument with this
combination of truth-values.
 Now consider these same combinations in relation to soundness. Ask yourself this
question: Which of these combinations could never be sound? Well obviously no sound
argument can have any false premise. So we can eliminate cases #2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 7, and #8,
since in all of these at least one premise is false. We are left then with cases #1 and #5. But
surely case #5 can be eliminated since it can never be valid, and every sound argument is valid.
So we are left with case #1. Is such a combination always sound? If you reflect carefully you will
see that the answer to this question is “no.” Case #1 is the only one of these 8 possibilities that
could be sound. However, the fact remains that even this combination can be invalid. And
hence we can construct an unsound argument with all true premises if the argument we
construct is invalid. Consider the following example of an argument that is unsound because it is
invalid:

All philosophers love wisdom

Jon Smith is a philosopher
Therefore Jon Smith is an avid sailor

All of the premises and the conclusion of this argument are true. Yet the argument is not sound
precisely because it is not valid. It is not valid precisely because its conclusion could be false
even though the premises are true, and even though the conclusion is true as a matter of fact.

Before we get to the Activities, let’s review our remarks about truth, validity and soundness in
the following table. In this table we see that deductive arguments can be valid, invalid, sound, or
unsound:

Valid: Could not have a false conclusion if its premises were true and could be sound or
unsound
Invalid: Could have a false conclusion if its premises were true but could not be sound
Sound: Must be valid and have all true premises
Unsound: Has at least one false premise or is invalid
 ACTIVITY 1

Try these
1. In your own words, define argument in not more than fifteen (15) words.

an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

2. Write three (3) statements expressing argument

>The brief mirrors the argument of the Texas suit in saying that the states acted
unconstitutionally when either their judiciaries or executive branches changed their elections
laws.

>The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 meeting today provided a sharp contrast both in the
compelling argument for an EUA and the open discussions.

>So, the argument goes, both companies are dangerous monopolies in the same
technology industry, but different parts of that industry.
 MODULE 3
INFORMAL FALLACIES

Learning Outcome
Analyze arguments expressing composition fallacy

Objectives
1. Explain formal and informal
fallacy
2. Identify composition and division
fallacy

Correct reasoning involves correct expression and valid form. Formal fallacies are a
matter of invalid form. Informal fallacies are a matter of unclear expression. Formal fallacies
deal with the logic of the technical structure, while informal fallacies deal with the logic of the
meaning of language. Informal fallacy does not mean it is inferior, casual, or improper. It
only means that our focus is not on the form of the argument, but on the meaning of the
argument.

An informal fallacy involves such things as: the misuse of language, words or grammar,
misstatements of facts or opinion, misconceptions due to underlying presuppositions, or just
plain illogical sequences of thought. We encounter both formal and informal fallacies every
day, but unlike formal fallacies, we cannot reduce informal fallacies to symbolic formulas.

A fallacy is simply a mistake in reasoning. Some fallacies are formal and some are
informal. A formal fallacy is simply an argument whose form is invalid. Thus, any
argument that has that form will automatically be invalid, regardless of the meaning of the
sentences. Two formal fallacies that are similar to, but should never be confused with,
modus ponens and modus tollens are denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent.
 Any argument that has either of these forms is an invalid argument. For example:

1. If Kant was a deontologist, then he was a non-consequentialist.

2. Kant was not a deontologist.
3. Therefore, Kant was a not a non-consequentialist.

The form of this argument is:

1. D ⊃ C

2. ~D

3. ∴ ~C

As you can see, this argument has the form of the fallacy, denying the antecedent. Thus, we
know that this argument is invalid even if we don’t know what “Kant” or “deontologist” or “non-
consequentialist” means. (“Kant” was a famous German philosopher from the early 1800s,
whereas “deontology” and “non-consequentialist” are terms that come from ethical theory.) It is
mark of a formal fallacy that we can identify it even if we don’t really understand the meanings of
the sentences in the argument. Here’s an argument which uses silly, made-up words from
Lewis Carrol’s “Jabberwocky.” See if you can determine whether the argument’s form is valid or
invalid:

1. If toves are brillig then toves are slithy.

2. Toves are slithy.
3. Therefore, toves are brillig.

You should be able to see that this argument has the form of affirming the consequent:
1. B ⊃ S
2. S
3. ∴ B

As such, we know that the argument is invalid, even though we haven’t got a clue what “toves”
are or what “slithy” or “brillig” means. The point is that we can identify formal fallacies without
having to know what they mean.

In contrast, informal fallacies are those which cannot be identified without understanding the
concepts involved in the argument. A paradigm example of an informal fallacy is the fallacy of
composition. We will consider this fallacy in the next sub-section. In the remaining subsections,
we will consider a number of other informal logical fallacies.
1. Composition fallacy
Consider the following argument:
Each member on the gymnastics team weighs less than 110 lbs.
Therefore, the whole gymnastics team weighs less than 110 lbs.

This arguments commits the composition fallacy. In the composition fallacy one argues that
since each part of the whole has a certain feature, it follows that the whole has that same
feature. However, you cannot generally identify any argument that moves from statements
about parts to statements about wholes as committing the composition fallacy because whether
or not there is a fallacy depends on what feature we are attributing to the parts and wholes.
Here is an example of an argument that moves from claims about the parts possessing a
feature to a claim about the whole possessing that same feature, but doesn’t commit the
composition fallacy:

Every part of the car is made of plastic.

Therefore, the whole car is made of plastic.

This conclusion does follow from the premises; there is no fallacy here. The difference
between this argument and the preceding argument (about the gymnastics team) isn’t their
form. In fact both arguments have the same form:

Every part of X has the feature f. Therefore, the whole X has the feature f.

And yet one of the arguments is clearly fallacious, while the other isn’t. The difference between
the two arguments is not their form, but their content. That is, the difference is what feature is
being attributed to the parts and wholes. Some features (like weighing a certain amount) are
such that if they belong to each part, then it does not follow that they belong to the whole. Other
features (such as being made of plastic) are such that if they belong to each part, it follows that
they belong to the whole.

Here is another example:

Every member of the team has been to Paris.

Therefore the team has been to Paris.

The conclusion of this argument does not follow. Just because each member of the team has
been to Paris, it doesn’t follow that the whole team has been to Paris, since it may not have
been the case that each individual was there at the same time and was there in their capacity as
a member of the team. Thus, even though it is plausible to say that the team is composed of
every member of the team, it doesn’t follow that since every member of the team has been to
Paris, the whole team has been to Paris. Contrast that example with this one:
 Every member of the team was on the plane.
Therefore, the whole team was on the plane.

This argument, in contrast to the last one, contains no fallacy. It is true that if every member is
on the plane then the whole team is on the plane. And yet these two arguments have almost
exactly the same form. The only difference is that the first argument is talking about the
property, having been to Paris, whereas the second argument is talking about the property,
being on the plane. The only reason we are able to identify the first argument as committing the
composition fallacy and the second argument as not committing a fallacy is that we understand
the relationship between the concepts involved. In the first case, we understand that it is
possible that every member could have been to Paris without the team ever having been; in the
second case we understand that as long as every member of the team is on the plane, it has to
be true that the whole team is on the plane. The take home point here is that in order to identify
whether an argument has committed the composition fallacy, one must understand the concepts
involved in the argument. This is the mark of an informal fallacy: we have to rely on our
understanding of the meanings of the words or concepts involved, rather than simply being able
to identify the fallacy from its form.

2. Division Fallacy

The division fallacy is like the composition fallacy and they are easy to confuse. The
difference is that the division fallacy argues that since the whole has some feature, each part
must also have that feature. The composition fallacy, as we have just seen, goes in the
opposite direction: since each part has some feature, the whole must have that same feature.
Here is an example of a division fallacy:

The house costs 1 million dollars.

Therefore, each part of the house costs 1 million dollars.

This is clearly a fallacy. Just because the whole house costs 1 million dollars, it doesn’t follow
that each part of the house costs 1 million dollars. However, here is an argument that has the
same form, but that doesn’t commit the division fallacy:

The whole team died in the plane crash.

Therefore each individual on the team died in the plane crash.
In this example, since we seem to be referring to one plane crash in which all the members of
the team died (“the” plane crash), it follows that if the whole team died in the crash, then every
individual on the team died in the crash. So this argument does not commit the division fallacy.
In contrast, the following argument has exactly the same form, but does commit the division
fallacy:

The team played its worst game ever tonight.

Therefore, each individual on the team played their worst game ever tonight.
 It can be true that the whole team played its worst game ever even if it is true that no
individual on the team played their worst game ever. Thus, this argument does commit the
fallacy of division even though it has the same form as the previous argument, which doesn’t
commit the fallacy of division. This shows (again) that in order to identify informal fallacies (like
composition and division), we must rely on our understanding of the concepts involved in the
argument. Some concepts (like “team” and “dying in a plane crash”) are such that if they apply
to the whole, they also apply to all the parts. Other concepts (like “team” and “worst game
played”) are such that they can apply to the whole even if they do not apply to all the parts.

3. Begging the Question

Consider the following argument:

Capital punishment is justified for crimes such as rape and murder

because it is quite legitimate and appropriate for the state to put to death
someone who has committed such heinous and inhuman acts.

The premise indicator, “because” denotes the premise and (derivatively) the conclusion of this
argument. In standard form, the argument is this:

1. It is legitimate and appropriate for the state to put to death someone

who commits rape or murder.
2. Therefore, capital punishment is justified for crimes such as rape and murder.

You should notice something peculiar about this argument: the premise is essentially the same
claim as the conclusion. The only difference is that the premise spells out what capital
punishment means (the state putting criminals to death) whereas the conclusion just refers to
capital punishment by name, and the premise uses terms like “legitimate” and “appropriate”
whereas the conclusion uses the related term, “justified.” But these differences don’t add up to
any real differences in meaning. Thus, the premise is essentially saying the same thing as the
conclusion. This is a problem: we want our premise to provide a reason for accepting the
conclusion. But if the premise is the same claim as the conclusion, then it can’t possibly provide
a reason for accepting the conclusion. Begging the question occurs when one (either explicitly
or implicitly) assumes the truth of the conclusion in one or more of the premises. Begging the
question is thus a kind of circular reasoning.

One interesting feature of this fallacy is that formally there is nothing wrong with
arguments of this form. Here is what I mean. Consider an argument that explicitly commits the
fallacy of begging the question. For example,
1. Capital punishment is morally permissible
2. Therefore, capital punishment is morally permissible
 Now, apply any method of assessing validity to this argument and you will see that it is
valid by any method. If we use the informal test (by trying to imagine that the premises are true
while the conclusion is false), then the argument passes the test, since any time the premise is
true, the conclusion will have to be true as well (since it is the exact same statement). Likewise,
the argument is valid by our formal test of validity, truth tables. But while this argument is
technically valid, it is still a really bad argument. Why? Because the point of giving an
argument in the first place is to provide some reason for thinking the conclusion is true for those
who don’t already accept the conclusion. But if one doesn’t already accept the conclusion, then
simply restating the conclusion in a different way isn’t going to convince them. Rather, a good
argument will provide some reason for accepting the conclusion that is sufficiently independent
of that conclusion itself.
Begging the question utterly fails to do this and this is why it counts as an informal
fallacy. What is interesting about begging the question is that there is absolutely nothing wrong
with the argument formally.
Whether or not an argument begs the question is not always an easy matter to sort out.
As with all informal fallacies, detecting it requires a careful understanding of the meaning of the
statements involved in the argument. Here is an example of an argument where it is not as
clear whether there is a fallacy of begging the question:
Christian belief is warranted because according to Christianity there exists a
being called “the Holy Spirit” which reliably guides Christians towards the truth
regarding the central claims of Christianity.

One might think that there is a kind of circularity (or begging the question) involved in
this argument since the argument appears to assume the truth of Christianity in justifying the
claim that Christianity is true. But whether or not this argument really does beg the question is
something on which there is much debate within the sub-field of philosophy called epistemology
(“study of knowledge”). The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues persuasively that the argument
does not beg the question, but being able to assess that argument takes patient years of study
in the field of epistemology (not to mention a careful engagement with Plantinga’s work). As this
example illustrates, the issue of whether an argument begs the question requires us to draw on
our general knowledge of the world. This is the mark of an informal, rather than formal, fallacy.

4. False Dichotomy
Suppose I were to argue as follows:
Raising taxes on the wealthy will either hurt the economy or it will help it.
But it won’t help the economy.
Therefore it will hurt the economy.

The standard form of this argument is:

1. Either raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy or it will help it. 2. Raising taxes on
the wealthy won’t help the economy. 3. Therefore, raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt the
economy.
This argument contains a fallacy called a “false dichotomy.” A false dichotomy is simply a
disjunction that does not exhaust all of the possible options. In this case, the problematic
disjunction is the first premise: either raising the taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy or it
will help it. But these aren’t the only options. Another option is that raising taxes on the wealthy
will have no effect on the economy. Notice that the argument above has the form of a
disjunctive syllogism:

AvB
~A
∴B

However, since the first premise presents two options as if they were the only two options, when
in fact they aren’t, the first premise is false and the argument fails. Notice that the form of the
argument is perfectly good—the argument is valid. The problem is that this argument isn’t
sound because the first premise of the argument commits the false dichotomy fallacy. False
dichotomies are commonly encountered in the context of a disjunctive syllogism or constructive
dilemma (see chapter 2).

In a speech made on April 5, 2004, President Bush made the following remarks about the
causes of the Iraq war:

Saddam Hussein once again defied the demands of the world. And so I had a
choice: Do I take the word of a madman, do I trust a person who had used
weapons of mass destruction on his own people, plus people in the
neighborhood, or do I take the steps necessary to defend the country? Given
that choice, I will defend America every time.
The false dichotomy here is the claim that:
Either I trust the word of a madman or I defend America (by going to war against
Saddam Hussein’s regime).
The problem is that these aren’t the only options. Other options include ongoing diplomacy and
economic sanctions. Thus, even if it true that Bush shouldn’t have trusted the word of Hussein,
it doesn’t follow that the only other option is going to war against Hussein’s regime.
(Furthermore, it isn’t clear in what sense this was needed to defend America.) That is a false
dichotomy.
As with all the previous informal fallacies we’ve considered, the false dichotomy fallacy requires
an understanding of the concepts involved. Thus, we have to use our understanding of world in
order to assess whether a false dichotomy fallacy is being committed or not.

5. Equivocation
Consider the following argument:
Children are a headache. Aspirin will make headaches go away. Therefore,
aspirin will make children go away.

This is a silly argument, but it illustrates the fallacy of equivocation. The problem is that the
word “headache” is used equivocally—that is, in two different senses. In the first premise,
“headache” is used figuratively, whereas in the second premise “headache” is used literally.
The argument is only successful if the meaning of “headache” is the same in both premises.
But it isn’t and this is what makes this argument an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.

Here’s another example:

Taking a logic class helps you learn how to argue. But there is already too much
hostility in the world today, and the fewer arguments the better. Therefore, you
shouldn’t take a logic class.

In this example, the word “argue” and “argument” are used equivocally. Hopefully, at this point
in the text, you recognize the difference.
 ACTIVITY 1

MIND BOOSTER

1. What is an argument?

>An argument is a disagreement between two or more people, but it can also be a statement
backed by evidence, like your argument that your school doesn't need a dress code. Argument
also means "a discussion between people who have contrary views."

2. Identify which of the following sentences are arguments which express composition
fallacy, write letter C for composition and D for division. Write the correct answer on the
space provided before each number.

C :Each member on the gymnastics team has a petite figure. Therefore, the whole
gymnastics team has a petite figure.

D :Each student in Physical Education class dances well. Therefore the whole class
dances well.

C. : Every part of the car is made of plastic. Therefore, the whole car is made of plastic.

C. : Every member of the team has been to Paris. Therefore the team has been to
Paris.

C :Every member of the team was on the plane. Therefore, the whole team was on
the plane.
 ACTIVITY 2
Is there a fallacy?

1. Kindly read this statement and tell whether it is a fallacy or not. Explain why it is a fallacy
and why it is not.

Each part of the house in the subdivision is concrete. Therefore houses in the whole
subdivision is concrete.

>The part of his house in subdivision are all concrete. But his house is part of
subdivision that all house's are concrete. FALLACY

The team played its worst game ever tonight.

Therefore, each individual on the team played their worst game ever tonight.

>The whole team played its worst game ever tonight. But not all players game worst
ever only chosen individual do. NOT FALLACY

References:

Cleave, M. J. (2015). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Version 4.0. Retrieved
from Google: solr.bccampus.ca>bcc>file

Herdegree. (n.d.). Basic Concepts of Logic. Retrieved from Google:

courses.imass.edu>text

Cornejo, N. I. (2015). Logic The Art of Defining and Reasoning. Intramuros, Manila:
Mindshapers Co., Inc.