Introduction to Logic

DURATION

3 Hours

OBJECTIVES

a) Define logic, truth and validity.

b) Understand the relationship between truth and validity.
c) Differentiate premise and conclusion.
d) Analyze the different kinds of arguments which true/false and conclusion.
e) Apply the concepts of truth and validity by writing their own argument.

READINGS AND VIDEOS (Please see the digital copies of the materials.)

Reading 2.1 Gensler, H. (2010).Introduction to Logic Second Edition. New York: Routledge

Reading 2.2 Copi, I., Cohen, C & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic Fourteenth
Edition. London: Pearson Education Limited

Video 2.1 Critical Thinking –Fundamentals: Truth and Validity in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCGnyaa5E5g
Video 2.2 Critical Thinking –Fundamentals: Truth and Validity in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdJ6aGToDlo

2.1 Topic: Introduction to Logic

• Definition and Importance of Logic

• Truth and Validity

Source: Introduction To Logic

Harry Gensler
2nd Editon

Introduction

Logic is about reasoning – about going from premises to a conclusion. As we

begin our study of logic, we need to be clearer on what logic is and why it’s
important. We also need to learn some concepts (like “valid” and “argument”)
that are central to the study of logic.

1.1 Logic

Logic is the analysis and appraisal of arguments. When you do logic, you try to clarify reasoning
and separate good from bad reasoning. As you work through this book, you’ll examine reasoning
on various topics, both philosophical (like free will and determinism, the existence of God, and
the nature of morality) and non-philosophical (like backpacking, water pollution, football,
Supreme Court decisions, and the Bible). You’ll come to see logic not as an irrelevant game with
funny symbols, but as a useful tool to clarify and evaluate our reasoning – whether on life’s
deeper questions or on everyday topics.
Why study logic? I can think of three main reasons. First, logic is important because reasoning
is important. While you’ve been reasoning about things all your life, this may be the first time that
you try to understand reasoning and become better at it. Reasoning and general analytical skills
are important in law, politics, journalism, education, medicine, business, science, mathematics,
computer science, and most other areas.

Second, logic can deepen your understanding of philosophy. Philosophy can be defined as
reasoning about the ultimate questions of life. Philosophers ask questions like “Why accept or
reject free will?” or “Can one prove or disprove God’s existence?” or “How can one justify a moral
belief?” If you don’t know any logic, you’ll have only a vague grasp of such issues; and you’ll lack
the tools needed to understand and evaluate philosophical reasoning. If you’ve studied
philosophy, you’ll likely recognize many of the pieces of philosophical reasoning in this book. If
you haven’t studied philosophy, you’ll find this book a good introduction to the subject. In either
case, you should get better at recognizing, understanding, and appraising philosophical
reasoning. Finally, logic can be fun. Doing logic is like playing a game or doing puzzles; logic will
challenge your thinking processes in new ways. The rigor of logical systems will likely fascinate
you. Most people find logic enjoyable.

1.2 Valid arguments

I begin my basic logic course with a multiple-choice test. The test has ten problems; each problem
gives information and asks what conclusion necessarily follows. The problems are easy, but most
students get about half wrong.1 Here are two of the problems – with the right answers boxed:

If you overslept, you’ll be late.

You aren’t late.
Therefore:
(a) You did oversleep.
(b) You didn’t oversleep. (c) You’re late.
(d) None of these follows.
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
You didn’t
oversleep.
Therefore: (a)
You’re late. (b) You
aren’t late.
(c) You did oversleep.
(d) None of these follows.

While almost everyone gets the first problem right, many students wrongly pick “(b)” for the
second problem. Here “You aren’t late” doesn’t necessaryfollow, since you might be late for some
other reason; maybe your car didn’t start. Most students, once they grasp this point, will see that
(b) is wrong. Untrained logical intuitions are often unreliable. But logical intuitions can be
developed; yours will likely improve as you work through this book. You’ll also learn special
techniques for testing arguments.3An argument, in the sense used in logic, is a set of statements
consisting of premises and a conclusion. The premises are statements that give supporting
evidence; the conclusion is what is allegedly supported by these statements. Arguments put into
words a possible act of reasoning. Here’s an example:
1
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
You aren’t late.
Á You didn’t oversleep. (“Á” = therefore)

An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and
conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true.
We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all
true, then the conclusion also would have to be true. In saying this, we implicitly assume that
there’s no shift in the meaning or reference of the terms; hence we must use “overslept,” “late,”
and “you” the same way throughout the argument.

Our argument is valid because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions (like “ifthen”
and “not”) and content phrases (like “You overslept”and “You’re late”). We can display an
argument’s form by using words orsymbols for logical notions and letters for content phrases:

If you overslept, you’ll be late.

You aren’t late. Á You
didn’t oversleep.
If A then B Valid
Not-B
Á Not-A

Our argument is valid because its form is correct. If we take another argument
of the same form, but substitute other ideas for “A” and “B,” then this second
argument also will be valid. Here’s an example:
If you’re in France, you’re in Europe.
You aren’t in Europe.
Á You aren’t in France.

If A then B Valid
Not-B
Á Not-A
Logic studies forms of reasoning. The content can deal with anything – backpacking,
mathematics, cooking, physics, ethics, or whatever. When you learn logic, you’re learning tools
of reasoning that can be applied to any subject. Consider our invalid example:

If you overslept, you’ll be late.

You didn’t oversleep.
Á You aren’t late.
If A then B Invalid
Not-A
Á Not-B

Here the second premise denies the first part of the if-then; this makes itinvalid. Intuitively, you
might be late for some other reason – just as, in this similar argument, you might be in Europe
because you’re in Italy:
If you’re in France, you’re in Europe.
You aren’t in France. Á
You aren’t in Europe.
If A then B Invalid
Not-A
Á Not-B

1.3 Sound arguments

Logicians distinguish valid arguments from sound arguments: An argument is valid if it would be
contradictory to have the premises all true and conclusion false.
An argument is sound if it’s valid and has every premise true. Calling an argument “valid” says
nothing about whether its premises are true. But calling it “sound” says that it’s valid (the
conclusion follows from the premises) and has true premises. Here’s an example of a sound
argument:

Valid
and true
premise
s
􀃎
If you’re reading this, you aren’t illiterate.
You’re reading this.
Á You aren’t illiterate.

When we try to prove a conclusion, we try to give a sound argument. We must make sure that
our premises are true and that our conclusion follows from our premises. If we have these two
things, then our conclusion has to be true. The conclusion of a sound argument is always true.
An argument could be unsound in either of two ways: (1) it might have a false premise or (2) its
conclusion might not follow from the premises:

First premise false:

All logicians are millionaires.
Gensler is a logician.
Á Gensler is a millionaire.
Conclusion doesn’t follow:
All millionaires eat well.
Gensler eats well.
Á Gensler is a millionaire.

When we criticize an opponent’s argument, we try to show that it’s unsound. We try to show
either that one of the premises is false or that the conclusion doesn’t follow. If the argument has
a false premise or is invalid, then our opponent hasn’t proved the conclusion. But the conclusion
still might be true – and our opponent might later discover a better argument for it. To show a
view to be false, we must do more than just refute an argument for it; we must invent an argument
of our own that shows the view to be false.

Besides asking whether premises are true, we could ask how certain they are, to ourselves or to
others. We’d like our premises to be certain and obvious to everyone. We usually have to settle
for less than this; our premises are often educated guesses or personal convictions. Our
arguments are only as strong as their premises. This suggests a third strategy for criticizing an
argument; we could try to show that one or more of the premises are very uncertain. Here’s
another example of an argument. In fall 2008, before Barack Obama was elected US president,
he was far ahead in the polls. But some thought he’d be defeated by the “Bradley effect,” whereby
many whites say they’ll vote for a black candidate but in fact don’t. Barack’s wife Michelle, in a
CNN interview with Larry King (October 8), argued that there wouldn’t be a Bradley effect:

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

If there was going to be a Bradley effect, Barack wouldn’t be the
nominee [because the effect would have shown up in the primary
elections]. Á There isn’t going to be a Bradley effect.

Once she gives this argument, we can’t just say “Well, my opinion is that there will be a Bradley
effect.” Instead, we have to respond to her reasoning. It’s clearly valid – the conclusion follows
from the premises. Are the premises true? The first premise was undeniable. To dispute the
second premise, we’d have toargue that the Bradley effect would appear in the final election but
not in the primaries; but it’s unclear how one might defend this. So an argument like this changes
the nature of the discussion. (By the way, there was no Bradley effect when the general election
took place a month later.) Logic, while not itself resolving substantive issues, gives us intellectual
tools to reason better about such issues. It can help us to be more aware of reasoning, to express
reasoning clearly, to determine whether a conclusion follows from the premises, and to focus on
key premises to defend or criticize. I have two points on terminology. We’ll call statements true
or false (notvalid or invalid). And we’ll call arguments valid or invalid
(not true or false). While this is conventional usage, it pains a logician’s ears to hear “invalid
statement” or “false argument.”So far we’ve seen deductive arguments, where the conclusion is
claimed to follow with necessity. There also are inductive arguments, where the conclusion is
claimed to follow only with probability; this claim is either implicit orelse expressed by terms like
“probably.” Consider these examples:

Deductively valid Inductively strong

All who live in France live in Europe.
Pierre lives in France.
Á Pierre lives in Europe.

Most who live in France speak French.

Pierre lives in France.
This is all we know about the matter.
Á Pierre speaks French (probably).

The first argument has a tight connection between premises and conclusion; it would be
impossible for the premises to all be true but the conclusion false. The second has a looser
premise–conclusion connection. Relative to the premises, the conclusion is only a good guess;
it’s likely true but could be false (perhaps Pierre is the son of the Polish ambassador and speaks
no French).

2.2 Truth and Validity

Source: Introduction to Logic

Irving Copi
Carl Cohen
Kenneth McMahon
14th edition

There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in both valid
and invalid arguments. Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by the statement
of the combination (of truth and validity) that it represents. With these illustrations (whose content
is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a position to formulate some important principles
concerning the relations between truth and validity.

I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and

a true conclusion:
All mammals have lungs.
All whales are mammals.
Therefore all whales have lungs.

II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises

and a false conclusion:
All four-legged creatures have wings.
All spiders have exactly four legs.
Therefore all spiders have wings.

This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its

conclusion would have to be true also—even though we know that in
fact both the premises and the conclusion of this argument are false.

III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their

premises are true, and their conclusions are true as well:
If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.
I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore I am not wealthy.

The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true
premises. This will be seen more clearly when the immediately following
illustration is considered.
IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion. This
is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one
(III) in form, changed only enough to make the conclusion false.

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates would be wealthy.
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.

The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false. Such an
argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a
valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.
Therefore all whales are mammals.

The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it

may be validly inferred from these two premises, both of which are
wildly false.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.
Therefore all whales are mammals.

From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from
the fact that an argument has false premises and a true conclusion
whether it is valid or invalid.

VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false premises and a
false conclusion:
All mammals have wings.
All whales have wings.
Therefore all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions
(Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (ExamplesIII and VI). Hence it is
clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine the validity
or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee
the truth of its conclusion (ExampleII). Invalid arguments can have every possible combination
of true and false premises and conclusions.
Invalid Arguments
True Conclusion False Conclusion
 If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may be certain that its conclusion is true
also. To put it another way: If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of its premises
can be true. Some perfectly valid arguments do have false conclusions, but any such argument
must have at least one false premise. When an argument is valid and all of its premises are true,
we call it sound. The conclusion of a sound argument obviously must be true—and only a sound
argument can establish the truth of its conclusion. If a deductive argument is not sound—that is,
if the argument is not valid or if not all of its premises are true— it fails to establish the truth of its
conclusion even if in fact the conclusion is true. To test the truth or falsehood of premises is the
task of science in general, because premises may deal with any subject matter at all. The logician
is not (professionally)interested in the truth or falsehood of propositions so much as in the logical
relations between them. By logical relations between propositions we mean those relations that
determine the correctness or incorrectness of the arguments in which they occur.

The task of determining the correctness or incorrectness of arguments falls squarely within the
province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premises
may be false. Why do we not confine ourselves to arguments with true premises, ignoring all
others? Because the correctness of arguments whose premises are not known to be true may
be of great importance. In science, for example, we verify theoriesby deducing testable
consequences from uncertain theoretical premises—but we cannot know beforehand which
theories are true. In everyday life also, we must often choose between alternative courses of
action, first seeking to deduce the consequences of each. To avoid deceiving ourselves, we must
reason correctly about the consequences of the alternatives, taking each as a premise. If we
were interested only in arguments with true premises, we would not know which set of
consequences to trace out until we knew which of the alternative premises was true. But if we
knew which of the alternative premises was true, we would not need to reason about it at all,
because our purpose was to help us decide which alternative premise to make true. To confine
our attention to arguments with premises known to be true would therefore be self-defeating.