Instructor’s Manual

Introduction to

Logic
FIFTEENTH Edition

Irving M. Copi
Carl Cohen
Victor Rodych
Preface
This Instructor’s Manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the fifteenth edi-
tion of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Victor Rodych’s Introduction to Logic. The manual
provides materials designed to assist instructors in presenting central concepts, preparing
instructional materials, leading classroom discussion, and evaluating student progress.
The Instructor’s Manual consists of two parts. Part I is organized according to the
chapter structure of the textbook. For each of the fourteen chapters, instructors will find
the following four instructional aids.

Key Concepts—This section provides a summary of what is covered in the chapter,

pointing out the themes, ideas, and concepts that the chapter emphasizes. This
section will help instructors organize a presentation of the chapter.
Key Terms—This section lists the most significant terms and concepts used in the
chapter; it will be most useful as a quick reference guide.
Questions for Discussion—This section provides questions that are intended to
stimulate student interaction with and involvement in the important topics cov-
ered by the chapter. Instructors should feel free to adapt them to suit the interests
and skill levels of their own students.
Essay Questions—This section provides questions that will reinforce concepts
learned in the chapter and foster critical thinking through writing.

After these concepts, terms, discussion questions, and essay questions are treated, Part
II of the Instructor’s Manual provides, also in chapter sequence, Questions for Evaluation
and other material for the new and enhanced components of Chapter 8 and Chapter 9.

Questions for Evaluation—This section includes multiple-choice, true/false, and

pattern-match questions.
Chapter 8: New and Enhanced Material for Propositional Logic—At the end
of the Chapter 8 Questions for Evaluation, new material is provided for §8.7, Testing
Argument Validity Using Truth Tables: The Complete Truth-Table Method (CTTM).
Chapter 9: New and Enhanced Material for Propositional Logic—At the end
of the Chapter 9 Questions for Evaluation, new material is provided for: (a) §9.9:
The Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT); (b) §9.11: Conditional Proof; (c) §9.12:
Indirect Proof; and (d) §9.13: Sound Arguments and Demonstrative Arguments
Further Distinguished. This material includes:

(i) Three more challenging exercises for Forced and Unforced Truth-Value
Assignments: these exercises supplement the 20 exercises on p. 385 (the solu-
tions for which are in the Solutions Manual), and are, accordingly, numbered
##21–23. Solutions for these four exercises are given immediately after the
exercises.
(ii) The Shorter Truth-Table Technique: Contrasting the STTT and the CTTM: This
illustrates the efficiency of the STTT in contrast to the CTTM by showing, step
iv

Preface

by step, how the STTT eliminates, one forced truth-value assignment at a time,
most of the lines in a complete truth table from its consideration.
(iii) “Making a Complex Compound Statement True”: This section illustrates Step
2P for the STTT.
(iv) A Conditional Proof-Indirect Proof Exercise.
(v) An Indirect Proof Exercise.
(vi) Section 9.13a: “Section 9.13a: Sound Arguments and Demonstrative Arguments
Further Distinguished.” This section illustrates the power of the definition of
“validity” in Introduction to Logic (15th Edition) by contrasting it with an all-
too standard definition of “validity.” It is shown that our definition easily and
clearly provides the correct answer to any question concerning (a) the validity
of an argument with inconsistent premises or (b) the validity of an argument
with a tautological conclusion. It is also shown that some arguments are neces-
sarily sound, and, for that very reason, those arguments are not demonstrative.

We hope that this Instructor’s Manual will be as useful for instructors teaching with
this new edition of Introduction to Logic as the textbook is for students encountering logic
for the first time.
Victor Rodych
Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
Contents
Part I 1
  Chapter 1 Basic Logical Concepts  2
Key Concepts  2
Key Terms  3
Questions for Discussion  3
Essay Questions  4

  Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments  5

Key Concepts  5
Key Terms  5
Questions for Discussion  5
Essay Questions  6

  Chapter 3 Language and Definitions  7

Key Concepts  7
Key Terms  8
Questions for Discussion  9
Essay Questions  9

  Chapter 4 Fallacies 10
Key Concepts  10
Key Terms  11
Questions for Discussion  11
Essay Questions  11

  Chapter 5 Categorical Propositions  13

Key Concepts  13
Key Terms  14
Questions for Discussion  14
Essay Questions  15

  Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms  16

Key Concepts  16
Key Terms  17
Questions for Discussion  17
Essay Questions  17

  Chapter 7 Syllogisms in Ordinary Language  19

Key Concepts  19
Key Terms  20
Questions for Discussion  20
Essay Questions  20

  Chapter 8 Propositional Logic I: Truth-Functional Statements and Arguments  22

Key Concepts  22
Key Terms  23
Questions for Discussion  24
Essay Questions  24

  Chapter 9 Propositional Logic II: Methods of Deduction  25

vi

Contents

Key Concepts  25
Key Terms  26
Questions for Discussion  27
Essay Questions  27

Chapter 10 Predicate Logic: Quantification Theory  29

Key Concepts  29
Key Terms  30
Questions for Discussion  30
Essay Questions  30

Chapter 11 Analogical Reasoning  32

Key Concepts  32
Key Terms  32
Questions for Discussion  33
Essay Questions  33

Chapter 12 Causal Reasoning  35

Key Concepts  35
Key Terms  36
Questions for Discussion  36
Essay Questions  36

Chapter 13 Science and Hypothesis  38

Key Concepts  38
Key Terms  39
Questions for Discussion  39
Essay Questions  39

Chapter 14 Probability 41
Key Concepts  41
Key Terms  41
Questions for Discussion  42
Essay Questions  42

Part II  Questions for Evaluation 43

Chapter 1  44

Chapter 2  47

Chapter 3  51

Chapter 4  54

Chapter 5  57

Chapter 6  60

Chapter 7  64

Chapter 8  68
The Complete Truth-Table Method (CTTM) and Validity  70

Chapter 9  75
 he Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT):
T
More Forced and Unforced Truth-Value Assignment Exercises  79
The Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT):
Contrasting the STTT and the Complete Truth-Table Method (CTTM)  82
 vii

Contents

 aking a Complex Compound Statement True:

M
This section illustrates Step 2P for the STTT  88
A Conditional Proof-Indirect Proof Exercise  98
An Indirect Proof Exercise  99
Sound Arguments and Demonstrative Arguments Further Distinguished  100
Validity Once More  101

Chapter 10  103

Chapter 11  107

Chapter 12  111

Chapter 13  115

Chapter 14  119

 part I
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
 chapter 1 Basic Logical Concepts

Key Concepts
1. Logic is the study of reasoning: How it is done correctly, how it goes wrong, and
how to distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning. Reasoning involves
constructing and evaluating arguments.
2. Arguments are made up of propositions. In an argument, we attempt to establish
the truth of a proposition on the basis of other propositions. A proposition, or a
statement, is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence is always
either true or false—although its truth or falsity may be unknown. A simple propo-
sition does not contain any other proposition, whereas a compound proposition
contains at least one other proposition. Compound propositions can be conjunctive,
disjunctive, conditional, biconditional, or negations. Although sentences express
propositions, a sentence and a proposition are not identical. The propositions that
provide evidence or support for the truth of some other proposition are called “prem-
ises.” The proposition for which evidence is provided is called the “conclusion.”
3. In everyday discourse, the word “argument” is used in two distinct senses: some-
times we mean dispute, and sometimes we mean inference. In logic, argument is
a technical term, designed to make the meaning of “argument” as inference more
rigorous. In logic, the word “argument” refers strictly to any group of propositions
of which one is claimed to be supported by the other(s). An inference, from one or
more propositions to an inferred proposition, is an argument. When we reason, we
infer one proposition, a conclusion, from other proposition(s) (i.e., the premises of
the argument or inference).
4. Arguments must be distinguished from other forms of expression involving sets of
propositions, for instance, expository passages and explanations. An explanation is
a group of statements that purport to account for why something happened or why
something is the way that it is. Arguments often contain conclusion and premise
indicators that allow one to identify them as arguments. When indicators are lack-
ing, the context of the passage provides cues as to whether it is argumentative in
nature. Once an argument is identified, care must be taken to identify premises that
are not in declarative form or that are unstated.
5. Some arguments are deductive, and some inductive—and all arguments are either
one or the other. Deductive arguments claim that it is impossible for the premises
all to be true and the conclusion false. A valid deductive argument cannot have
all true premises and a false conclusion. If the premises of a valid deductive argu-
ment are all true, the conclusion must be true. An invalid deductive argument

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 3

Instructor’s Manual

can have all true premises and a false conclusion. A sound deductive argument
is one that is valid and whose premises are all true. The relationship between
true (or false) propositions and valid (or invalid) arguments is sometimes quite
complex.
6. In inductive arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow only with high prob-
ability. Inductive arguments are never valid or certain; they can be better or worse,
more probable or less probable, but they can never be valid or invalid.

Key Terms
Argument
Aristotelian Syllogistic logic
Classical logic
Compound proposition
Conclusion
Conclusion indicator
Conjunctive proposition
Deduction
Disjunctive proposition
Enthymeme
Explanation
Hypothetical proposition
Induction
Inference
Modern symbolic logic
Necessity
Premise
Premise indicator
Probability
Proposition
Rhetorical question
Simple proposition
Soundness
Statement
Validity

Questions for Discussion

1. Why is logic relevant to everyday life? Why should one take a course in logic?
2. We often rely on appeals to emotion instead of providing arguments to persuade.
Give some examples of this from everyday contexts. Is this problematic? Are there
cases when appeals to emotion are appropriate?
3. Give an example of a simple argument you have made recently. Which statements
are the premises? Which one is the conclusion?
4. What is the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments? Give an exam-
ple of each to make your explanation clear.
5. What is the difference between validity and soundness? Why is the distinction
relevant for us as students of logic?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

4

Introduction to Logic

Essay Questions
1. What is the difference between a premise and a conclusion? Provide an example of
an argument (from a newspaper or journal) that highlights this distinction.
2. Why is reasoning considered to be both an art and a skill, and how does taking a
course in logic help us to develop that skill?
3. What is the difference between inductive and deductive arguments? What are the
ramifications of this difference?
4. The fact that a given argument is valid does not necessarily mean that the premises
and the conclusion are true. In some cases, a deductive argument will be valid even
when its premises and conclusion are false. If validity doesn’t mean truth, why
should a logician be concerned with validity?
5. In everyday contexts, we are confronted with arguments in a variety of different
spheres—political, religious, legal, medical, and so on. Why is it important to be
able to analyze and assess these arguments?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Analyzing Arguments chapter 2

Key Concepts
1. Once recognized, arguments can be analyzed by paraphrasing them or by diagram-
ming them. Paraphrasing involves rewording the argument in a clear and precise
form. Diagramming involves laying out the structure of the argument in two-
dimensional spatial relations. Premises and conclusion are numbered and arranged
in a way that makes it easier to identify the relations of support among propositions.
2. Some arguments are exceedingly complex, involving several arguments interwoven
together. Students must strive to understand the author’s intent and capture the
flow of reasoning. Often, an argument can be analyzed in more than one way, and
more than one plausible interpretation may be offered. Once the structure of the
argument is revealed through careful analysis, we can consider whether the prem-
ises really do support the conclusion.
3. Reasoning problems and games can be interesting and effective ways to strengthen
reasoning skills. Often, the solution to such problems can be made clearer with the
use of a matrix. In the problem-solving approach called retrograde analysis we must
reason from what exists to what the original state of affairs must have been at some
point in the past. Even though artificial problems and games of reasoning tend to
be much simpler and tidier than real-world problems, they nevertheless provide a
valuable opportunity to practice reasoning skills, and they can also be entertaining.

Key Terms
Brainteaser
Diagramming
Matrix
Paraphrasing
Retrograde analysis

Questions for Discussion

1. Take one of the examples on pp. 45–48 and paraphrase it to show its underlying
structure. Does the paraphrase help you to follow the argument? Do you find it
necessary to make any unstated premises explicit?
2. Find an argument in the newspaper on a topic of interest. Diagram the argument
using the method described in the text and share your diagram with the class.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

6

Introduction to Logic

3. Why is it important to consider the author’s intent when you are analyzing an
argument?
4. How can a matrix be helpful in solving a brainteaser? Apply the matrix technique
to the brainteasers on pp. 59–61.
5. In what way can contrived puzzles or brainteasers strengthen reasoning skills?

Essay Questions
1. Why is it unreasonable to require that every premise in an argument give immediate
support for the conclusion? Provide an example that explains your answer.
2. What are rhetorical questions? How can they be important to an argument?
3. Why is it sometimes difficult to paraphrase an argument?
4. What are some of the problems one faces when trying to determine the author’s
intent? Is the author always right about what he or she intended? Might an argu-
ment have a meaning that the author did not intend?
5. Find an example of a complex argument in the newspaper. Paraphrase and diagram
the argument and discuss how the methods explained in this chapter helped you
to understand the structure of the argument.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Language and Definitions chapter 3

Key Concepts
1. Language can be divided into three basic categories according to its function.
Informative discourse is language used to convey information. Expressive discourse is
used to convey or evoke feelings. Directive discourse is language used to cause or pre-
vent certain actions. Two less common functions include ceremonial language and
performative language. Sentences may be in declarative, interrogative, exclamatory,
or imperative form. Often, declarative sentences function directively or expressively;
and questions may be directive rather than interrogative. Therefore, grammatical
form, by itself, cannot be taken as the determining factor for language function.
2. At the word level, language is likewise complex. Words can have both literal mean-
ings and emotional impacts—and the literal and emotive meanings of words are
often unrelated. Although emotionally colored language may be appropriate in
some contexts, in logic we strive, as far as possible, to be free from the distortions
of emotive language.
3. Disputes are often not really disputes. Sometimes, because of the misunderstand-
ing or misuse of words, we think we disagree when, in fact, we do not. Therefore,
we must make a distinction between obviously genuine disputes, in which people
really explicitly disagree, and what we call “merely verbal disputes,” which occur
when some word or phrase in an argument is ambiguous or misused. Disputants
may find themselves defending the same proposition with different words.
4. Definitions, since they can expose and thus eliminate ambiguity, are indispensable.
There are five different forms:

A stipulative definition arises from the deliberate assignment of a meaning to

a definiendum.
A lexical definition reports a meaning that a definiendum already has. Dictionary
definitions are typically lexical.
A precising definition reduces vagueness; the definiendum is not a new term, but
the definition is not merely lexical—it delineates the concept more sharply.
A theoretical definition attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifi-
cally useful description of the objects to which the term applies.
A persuasive definition is formulated to influence attitudes or emotions in order to
resolve disputes or to persuade.

5. In defining general terms, logicians are careful to distinguish between the exten-
sion of a term (which is the collection of objects to which a term applies) and the
intension of the term (the shared attributes of those objects). Though the extension

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

8

Introduction to Logic

of a term is determined by its intension, the opposite is not true. Moreover, when
attributes are added to the intension of a term, the intension increases—though
extension decreases. Terms may, therefore, have intension but no extension.
6. Terms may be defined extensionally, by listing the collection of objects to which the
term being defined applies. Such definitions have limitations, since two terms with
different intensions may have the same extension. Moreover, any given object has
many different attributes, and thus is included in the extensions of many different
general terms. These difficulties are not cleared up by ostensive definitions, though
quasi-ostensive definitions, which include a descriptive phrase, sometimes resolve
the ambiguity.
7. Intensional definitions, which refer to the attributes of the denoted objects, can be
subjective, objective, or conventional. Using a synonym is the most common way
to define a word, but other techniques may be necessary when the word represents
strange or unfamiliar concepts. We might give an operational definition of a word
or, if that does not work, we might try a definition by genus and difference. If we
use this last technique, we must follow the five rules for definition.

Key Terms
Apparently verbal dispute
Ceremonial
Connotative definition
Conventional intension
Declarative
Definiendum
Definiens
Definition by example
Definition by genus and difference
Denotative definition
Directive
Disagreement in attitude
Disagreement in belief
Emotive language
Exclamatory
Expressive
Extension
Imperative
Informative
Intension
Interrogative
Lexical definition
Merely verbal dispute
Neutral language
Objective intension
Obviously genuine dispute
Operational definition
Ostensive definition
Performative

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 9

Instructor’s Manual

Persuasive definition
Precising definition
Quasi-ostensive definition
Stipulative definition
Subjective intension
Synonymous definition
Theoretical definition

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the three basic functions of language? Give a sentence as an example of
each.
2. How many functions can one passage serve at once? Give an example that serves
more than one function at once.
3. What are the five rules of definition by genus and difference? Why is each of these
rules necessary?
4. Give an example of an extensive definition, an ostensive definition, and a quasi-
ostensive definition. What are the limitations of each type of definition?
5. Consider some current social or political debates and identify one disagreement that
is genuine, one that is merely verbal, and one that is apparently verbal but really
genuine. If you cannot think of an example of each type of disagreement, choose
one of the examples you did find and adapt it to fit the definition. How do these
disagreements differ?

Essay Questions
1. Give an example of a discussion where words with strong emotional connotations
should be avoided. Then, give another example where underplaying emotional
meaning is not a good thing to do. What makes these two situations different?
2. “How could you forget my birthday, Bob?” “I can’t believe you are angry at me,
Marnie. You know how much work it takes to keep up a business!” Does Bob answer
Marnie’s question? Explain what is going on in this exchange, using the categories
and functions in the text.
3. Think of a particular belief, and then think of a possible attitude that this belief is
likely to foster. Use these examples to illustrate the four possible combinations of
agreement and disagreement.
4. What are the limitations of denotative definitions? Do ostensive and quasi-
ostensive definitions fully address these limitations?
5. What are the rules for definition by genus and difference? Why are they necessary
to make useful definitions?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 4
1 Fallacies

Key Concepts
1. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The word fallacy also refers to a type of argument
that may seem to be correct, but proves not to be so upon closer examination. An
argument is said to commit a fallacy when it makes a mistake of a given type. There
are four main categories of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defec-
tive induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.
2. Fallacies of relevance rely on premises that seem to be relevant to the conclusion
when, in fact, they are not. There are seven major fallacies of relevance:

1. Appeal to the populace

2. Appeal to emotion
3. Red herring
4. Straw man
5. Argument  ad hominem
6. Appeal to force
7. Missing the point

3. Fallacies of defective induction arise from the fact that the premises of the argu-
ment, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance
upon them is a blunder.
1. Argument from ignorance
2. Appeal to inappropriate authority
3. False cause
4. Hasty generalization

4. Fallacies of presumption arise when an argument relies on a proposition that is

assumed to be true, but is in fact false, dubious, or without warrant. There are three
such fallacies:

1. Accident
2. Complex question
3. Begging the question

5. Fallacies of ambiguity occur when arguments are formulated in a way that relies
on shifts in the meaning of words from their premises to their conclusions. Such
ambiguous language results in five fallacies of ambiguity:

1. Equivocation
2. Amphiboly

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 11

Instructor’s Manual

3. Accent
4. Composition
5. Division

Key Terms

Fallacies of Fallacies of defec- Fallacies of Fallacies of

relevance tive induction presumption ambiguity
Argument against the Argument from igno- Complex question Equivocation
person (abusive ad rance (ad ignorantiam)
hominem and circum-
stantial ad hominem)
Appeal to emotion Appeal to inappropri- Begging the question Amphiboly
(ad populum) ate authority (petitio principii)
(ad verecundiam)
Red herring False cause Accident Accent
Appeal to force Hasty generalization Composition
(ad baculum)
Irrelevant conclusion Division
(ignoratio elenchi)
Straw man

Questions for Discussion

1. What do the fallacies of relevance have in common? Choose three of them and
discuss how, though they are distinct, they share this common thread.
2. Why are ad hominem arguments usually made? Are such arguments ever valid?
Explain.
3. How does the argument ad populum differ from just using emotive language to
persuade?
4. One of the most common logical fallacies is that of begging the question. Think
of some examples of this fallacy, and discuss how they assume what they seek to
prove.
5. The fallacy of accent is common in advertising. Take some examples of adver-
tisements from the media and identify examples of this fallacy, showing how it
misleads the target audience in each case.

Essay Questions
1. What are the distinctions between fallacies of accent, equivocation, and amphi-
boly? Using examples of each, explain how these fallacies are distinct.
2. What do the fallacies of accident and false cause have in common? Are they really
the same fallacy, are they entirely distinct, or are they related in some ways but dif-
ferent in other ways? Explain your answer by giving an example of each fallacy.
3. At first glance, composition and division may seem to be the same as accident and
converse accident. However, they are entirely different. Explain what the real dif-
ference is between these pairs of fallacies.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

12

Introduction to Logic

4. Is arousing emotional responses in an argument always a fallacy? For example, some

charities use stirring appeals to rouse our pity. Are all such arguments fallacious
appeals to pity? Are references to prestigious experts always appeals to inappropriate
authority? Use examples to back up your claims.
5. Examine the following passage for fallacies, and write an essay describing any fal-
lacious reasoning you detect in it:

“Some people say the reasons to transplant organs from one human to another are obvious. I disagree.
People have vastly different religious and cultural beliefs, and may attribute spiritual significance to certain
organs. Terrible psychological damage could occur, for instance, if a person were to receive the heart of
a person regarded in that culture as having bad moral character. Moreover, there are other psychological
problems to consider. In the case of ovary transplants, any woman willing to subject herself to this dangerous
procedure must have an abnormal desire to produce children from her own body. Should society contribute
to these psychological problems by allowing organ transplants?”

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Categorical Propositions chapter 5

Key Concepts
1. A deductive argument is one that claims to establish its conclusion conclusively.
A valid deductive argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion.
If the premises of a valid argument are all true, the conclusion must be true. The
theory of deduction aims to explain the relationship between premises and conclu-
sion in valid arguments. It also aims to provide methods for evaluating deductive
arguments. There are two major logical theories that have been developed to accom-
plish these aims: Aristotelian Syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic.
2. Aristotelian Syllogistic logic is based on the idea of categories, or classes. A categori-
cal proposition affirms or denies, in whole or in part, that one class is included in
another. Since categorical propositions deal with two states of two classes, there are
four possible categorical propositions. The universal affirmative (A) proposition states
that every member of one class is also a member of the second class. The universal
negative (E) states that no member of one class is a member of the second. In a par-
ticular affirmative (I), some members of one class are members of the second; and in
a particular negative (O), some members of one class are not members of the second.
3. Propositions are said to have quality (either affirmative or negative) and quantity
(either universal or particular). They may also be distributed or undistributed: a
proposition is said to distribute a term if it refers to all members of the class desig-
nated by the term. In an A proposition, for example, the subject term is distributed,
but the predicate term is not.
4. The traditional square of opposition graphically displays the relationships that
exist among the four different standard-form categorical propositions. Propositions
can be contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, subalterns, or superalterns. Each
of these relationships leads to certain possible immediate inferences, which the
square of opposition outlines. Three additional immediate inferences are conver-
sion, obversion, and contraposition.
5. The problem of existential import presents some problems for the relationships sug-
gested by the traditional square of opposition. As a result, most modern logicians
adopt a different interpretation—called Boolean—of the square. Under this inter-
pretation, particular propositions (I and O) have existential import, but universal
propositions (A and E) do not.
6. Diagrams and symbolizing techniques are useful in helping to visualize the rela-
tionships of categorical propositions. Venn diagrams are especially effective at
exhibiting the relationships between classes by marking and shading overlapping
circles.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

14

Introduction to Logic

Key Terms
Boolean interpretation
Categorical proposition
Class
Classical or Aristotelian logic
Complement
Contingent
Contradictories
Contraposition
Contraries
ConvConversion
Copula
Corresponding propositions
Deductive argument
Distribution
Existential fallacy
Existential import
Immediate inference
Mediate inference
Modern symbolic logic
Obversion
Opposition
Particular affirmative (I)
Particular negative (O)
Predicate
Quality
Quantity
Square of opposition
Standard-form categorical proposition
Subaltern
Subcontraries
Subject
Superaltern
Theory of deduction
Universal affirmative (A)
Universal negative (E)
Venn diagrams

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the properties of A, E, I, and O propositions? Give examples of each of
these types of standard-form categorical propositions.
2. What do affirmative propositions have in common? What do particular proposi-
tions have in common? What do universal propositions have in common? What
do negative propositions have in common? What terms are used in logic to refer to
these attributes?
3. What is the difference between contraries and contradictories? Between contraries
and subcontraries?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 15

Instructor’s Manual

4. When does conversion result in valid inferences? Why does it work then, but not
in other cases? Consider the same question with contraposition and obversion as
well.
5. Why is existential import so problematic for Aristotelian logic? What changes does
it require to the square of opposition?

Essay Questions
1. What are the options for dealing with the question of existential import? Why
should we adopt one option over the other?
2. What is the meaning of the traditional square of opposition? How does the relative
placement of the propositions exhibit the relationships among them? What infer-
ences does it illustrate?
3. When using Venn diagrams, what do shading, overlapping, and “x” mean? How is
each of the standard-form categorical propositions diagrammed using this method?
4. What does existential import entail? Which propositions have existential import?
Why is this a problem for interpreting the traditional square of opposition?
5. What changes to the square of opposition result from the Boolean interpretation
of existential import?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms

Key Concepts

1. A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two

premises. Every syllogism has three terms: a major term, a minor term, and a mid-
dle term. The major term is the predicate of the conclusion; the minor term is the
subject of the conclusion; and the middle term appears in both premises but not in
the conclusion. A categorical syllogism is in standard form when its propositions
are in standard form (A, E, I, or O) and appear in the following order: (1) major
premise, (2) minor premise, and (3) conclusion. Its mood is determined by three of
the four letters (A, E, I, and O) that can identify the types of its three propositions.
There are sixty-four possible different moods.
2. The figure of a syllogism is determined by the position of the middle term in its
premises. There are four possible figures. Figure and mood together determine a
categorical syllogism’s logical form. Since all sixty-four moods can appear in all four
figures, there are 256 standard-form categorical syllogisms.
3. Deductive logic aims to discriminate between valid and invalid arguments.
The validity or invalidity of a syllogism is entirely a function of its form or
structure.
4. In some cases, mere inspection is enough to determine whether an argument is
valid. Venn diagrams can also be used to test for validity. In addition, there are six
essential rules for standard-form categorical syllogisms—and six corresponding fal-
lacies that occur when these rules are broken:

Rule 1: A valid syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used
in the same sense.
Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed in at least one premise.
Rule 3: If either term in the conclusion is distributed, then it must be distributed
in the premises.
Rule 4: No valid syllogism can have two negative premises.
Rule 5: If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
Rule 6: No valid syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal
premises.

5. There are only fifteen valid forms of the categorical syllogism. The vowels of their
Latin names correspond to their forms: Celarent t = EAE–1, etc. It is possible,
through a process of elimination, to prove that these fifteen are the only forms in
which none of the six basic rules is violated.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 17

Instructor’s Manual

Key Terms
Categorical syllogism
Conclusion
Existential fallacy
Fallacy of drawing an affirmative
conclusion from a negative premise
Fallacy of exclusive premises
Fallacy of four terms
Fallacy of illicit process
Fallacy of undistributed middle
Figure
Formal fallacy
Logical form
Major premise
Major term
Middle term
Minor premise
Minor term
Mood
Standard form
Syllogism
Valid form

Questions for Discussion

1. “All good stereos are made in Japan, but no good stereos are inexpensive; therefore,
no Japanese stereos are inexpensive.” Rewrite this syllogism in standard form, and
name its mood and figure.
2. Write a list of four possible moods, chosen at random. Then, pick one of the four
figures and combine it with the moods you wrote, to produce four different syllo-
gisms. Are any of the syllogisms valid?
3. What is the method of logical analogy? Apply it to the following argument to
determine if it is valid: “No logic professors are successful politicians, because no
conceited people are successful politicians, and some logic professors are conceited
people.”
4. Write out AOO–3 using S and P as the subject and predicate terms and M as the
middle term. Explain each step. (You may need to refer to the chart of the four syl-
logistic figures.)
5. Using the syllogistic form in question 4 (or any other form, if you like) construct a
Venn diagram to test it for validity. Explain each step.

Essay Questions
1. Take a current editorial from a major newspaper (such as The New York Times) and
find a categorical syllogism in it. Then, decide what its form is, and (using one of
the methods for testing validity) label it as valid or invalid.
2. Describe how Venn diagrams can be used to test the validity of a standard-form
categorical syllogism. Then, give an example of one valid and one invalid form and

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

18

Introduction to Logic

show how the diagram makes the status of each syllogism clear. (Be sure to mark
the premises in the right order!)
3. Explain the steps in one of the cases of the deduction of the fifteen valid forms of
the categorical syllogism.
4. Two of the six essential rules for the formation of valid standard-form categorical
syllogisms involve the distribution of terms. Explain what distribution means and
why these two rules are necessary. What fallacies result, for instance, when these
rules are broken?
5. Two of the six essential rules for the formation of valid standard-form categorical
syllogisms discuss the quality of categorical propositions. What are these two rules,
and which fallacies result when they are broken?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Syllogisms in Ordinary chapter 7
Language
Key Concepts

1. Syllogistic arguments do not always appear in standard form. Therefore, logicians

need to recognize the ways in which syllogistic arguments deviate from standard
form. They also need techniques for translating everyday syllogisms into standard-
form categorical syllogisms so that they can be evaluated using Venn diagrams or
the rules governing syllogisms.
2. Often, arguments that appear not to be in standard form can be put in standard
form by performing simple alterations that do not change the meaning of the argu-
ment. Some syllogisms in ordinary language that seem to have more than three
terms can have that number reduced to three by eliminating complementary classes
or by getting rid of synonyms.
3. Occasionally, the individual propositions of a syllogistic argument, when they do
not appear in standard form, can be changed into standard form. Nine different
types of nonstandard propositions can easily be translated into standard form:

Singular propositions Propositions with Propositions with verbs

adjectives as predicates other than “to be”
Statements not in Propositions having Exclusive propositions
standard-form order quantifiers other than using “only” or
“all,” “no,” and “some” “none but”
Propositions without Propositions not resem- Exceptive propositions
words indicating quantity bling standard-form using “all except”
propositions at all

  Parameters are useful in the uniform translation of propositions into standard

form—occasionally, propositions cannot be altered by any other method.
4. Some syllogistic arguments do not explicitly state each of their propositions. When
one of the propositions has been suppressed, the argument is called an enthymeme;
if the suppressed proposition is supplied, the complete syllogism can then be tested.
An enthymeme can be of the first, second, or third order, depending on whether the
major premise, minor premise, or conclusion is suppressed. At the other extreme,
a sorites is a chain of syllogisms compressed together. Sorites are considered to be in
standard form when each term is used exactly twice, and when every proposition
after the first has exactly one term in common with the one immediately preceding it.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

20

Introduction to Logic

5. A syllogism may contain propositions that are not categorical. Disjunctive propo-
sitions, which are compound “either. . .or” constructions, are used in disjunctive
syllogisms. Hypothetical propositions, which are “if. . .then” constructions, are used
in hypothetical syllogisms. Hypothetical syllogisms can be pure or mixed.
6. In argument, the dilemma is a powerful rhetorical tool. To respond effectively to a
dilemma, the logician has three choices: he/she can “go between the horns” of the
dilemma, “grasp the dilemma by the horns,” or devise a counterdilemma.

Key Terms
Complex dilemma
Counterdilemma
Dilemma
Disjunctive syllogism
Enthymeme
Exceptive proposition
Exclusive proposition
Fallacy of affirming the consequent
Fallacy of denying the antecedent
Hypothetical syllogism
Modus ponens
Modus tollens
Parameters
Reduction to standard form
Simple dilemma
Singular proposition
Sorites
Syllogistic argument
Uniform translation

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the three basic ways in which syllogisms can deviate from standard form?
What are the ways in which these deviations can be resolved?
2. Why are there no set rules for translating categorical propositions into standard
form?
3. What are parameters? Why are they sometimes necessary to translate the constitu-
ent propositions of a syllogistic argument?
4. What is an enthymeme? How many different types of enthymeme are there? How
are they related to sorites?
5. Why are dilemmas such powerful rhetorical devices? In what ways can they be
countered?

Essay Questions
1. Translating syllogistic arguments into standard form becomes problematic when
dealing with propositions referring to single individuals. Explain what the diffi-
culty is, using examples to show why no simple solution to this problem is entirely
satisfactory.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 21

Instructor’s Manual

2. One important subclass of hypothetical syllogism can be applied in two ways that
are classic argument forms, and also in two ways that are fallacies. What are these
forms and fallacies, and why are these fallacious forms not valid?
3. The dilemma is an important rhetorical device. Give an example of a dilemma, and
refute it using one of the three methods explained in this chapter.
4. Create a sorites. Then, translate it into standard form. Does your example pass a
Venn diagram test for validity? Explain why or why not.
5. What considerations are necessary when dealing with enthymemes? Give an exam-
ple of an enthymeme, and demonstrate why these considerations must be heeded.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 8 Propositional Logic I
Truth-Functional Statements and
Arguments

Key Concepts
1. Because the appraisal of arguments is made difficult by the peculiarities of natural
language, logicians have formulated an artificial, symbolic language system that is
not encumbered by linguistic defects. In some respects, it helps logicians to accom-
plish intellectual tasks without having to think as much. Symbolic logic is not tied
to syllogisms. It can also be used to probe the internal structure of propositions and
arguments.
2. Statements can be logically connected in a few simple ways. In English, we use “and,”
“not,” “or,” and “if . . . then.” Modern symbolic logic uses symbols to represent
these relationships more precisely. Conjunction (“and”) is symbolized with a dot
(·). Negation (“not”) is symbolized with a tilde (~). Disjunction (“or”) is symbolized
with a wedge (). Material implication (“if . . . then,” or more precisely, “implies”)
becomes a horseshoe (.). The language of symbolic logic, like all other languages,
uses punctuation marks to disambiguate complex statements. Punctuation includes
the use of parentheses, brackets, and braces.
3. Using symbols, the definition of “valid” can be made more precise. One method,
similar to the method of logical analogy, says simply that if any two arguments have
the same logical form, they are both either valid or invalid—no matter what their
content may be. Simple arguments can also be tested using truth tables, which are
arrays of T and F values. Common arguments forms, such as modus ponens, modus
tollens, and the Disjunctive Syllogism, are easily shown to be valid using truth
tables (i.e., the Complete Truth-Table Method). On the other hand, constructing
the appropriate truth table clearly shows common fallacies (such as affirming the
consequent) to be invalid.
4. A statement form is a sequence of symbols containing no statements, but con-
taining statement variables connected in such a way that when statements are
consistently substituted for the statement variables, the result is a statement. The
statements obtained by substituting statements for the statement variables of a
statement form are substitution instances of that form. A statement form with only
true substitution instances is a tautology. A statement form with only false substi-
tution instances is a contradiction. A statement form with at least one true and
one false substitution instance is contingent. When two statements have the same

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 23

Instructor’s Manual

truth value (either both true or both false), they are said to be materially equivalent
(“if and only if,” in English). The tribar (≡) symbolizes this connective. De Morgan’s
theorems are examples of important equivalences, as are the principle of double
negation and the definition of material implication.
5. The three “laws of thought”—the principles of identity, noncontradiction, and
excluded middle—are important principles, but they do not occupy a primary place
in logic.

Key Terms
Antecedent
Argument form
Component
Compound statement
Conditional statement
Conjunct
Conjunction (·)
Consequent
Contradiction
De Morgan’s theorems
Disjunct
Disjunction ()
Disjunctive Syllogism
Double negation
Exclusive disjunction
Hypothetical Syllogism
Inclusive disjunction
Invalid
Logical equivalence
Material equivalence (≡)
Material implication (.)
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Negation (~)
Principle of identity
Principle of noncontradiction
Principle of the excluded middle
Punctuation
Refutation by logical analogy
Simple statement
Specific form
Statement form
Substitution instance
Tautology
Truth-functional
Truth table
Truth value
Valid
Variable

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

24

Introduction to Logic

Questions for Discussion

1. Why is symbolic logic useful?
2. What is a truth table? How is it constructed? Show that modus tollens is a valid argu-
ment form by constructing a truth table.
3. What are the differences between tautologous, contradictory, and contingent state-
ment forms?
4. What are De Morgan’s theorems? How are they useful?
5. What are the different meanings of a conditional statement in ordinary language?
Why doesn’t material implication capture all of these meanings?

Essay Questions
1. How do truth tables clearly demonstrate the difference in validity between modus
ponens and denying the antecedent?
2. How does the method of logical analogy function in symbolic logic? Demonstrate
using an original example.
3. What is the argument form of modus tollens? Use substitution instances for the sym-
bols to construct a valid argument from the specific form. Would any substitution
instances work? Or is the content entirely beside the point?
4. What is the difference between logical equivalence and material equivalence? Why
is the distinction so important in logic?
5. What are the three “laws of thought”? Why do modern logicians generally no
longer consider them as primary principles of thought?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Propositional Logic II chapter 9

Methods of Deduction

Key Concepts

1. Our deductive reasoning is captured by proofs of validity in a system of natu-

ral deduction. By translating arguments into symbolism and using the method of
deduction, we can demonstrate the validity of simple and complex arguments by
validly inferring a conclusion from premises by a sequence of valid inferences.
2. Introduction to Logic provides nine rules of inference that can be used in constructing
formal proofs:

Modus Ponens (M.P.) Modus Tollens (M.T.) Hypothetical Syllogism

(H.S.)
Disjunctive Syllogism Constructive Dilemma Absorption (Abs.)
(D.S.) (C.D.)
Simplification (Simp.) Conjunction (Conj.) Addition (Add.)

  Each of these rules of inference corresponds to an elementary valid argument form.

We use these rules to make valid inferences from premises to a conclusion, ensuring
that each inference is valid, and that the proof demonstrates (i.e., proves) the validity
of a valid argument.
3. Some obviously valid arguments cannot be proved valid using just the nine rules of
inference. For many of these arguments the rule of replacement can be helpful. This
rule permits us to replace a statement, of a variety of different logical forms, with
a logically equivalent statement. Ten such logical equivalences are used as rules of
replacement in Introduction to Logic:

De Morgan’s Theorems Commutation (Com.) Association (Assoc.)

(De M.)
Distribution (Dist.) Double Negation (D.N.) Transposition (Trans.)
Material Implication Material Equivalence Exportation (Exp.)
(Impl.) (Equiv.)
Tautology (Taut.)

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

26

Introduction to Logic

These ten rules enable us to replace individual statements of one logical form with
 
individual, logically equivalent statements of a different logical form.
4. Simply failing to discover a formal proof of validity does not constitute a proof of
invalidity. However, there is an effective method for proving invalidity, related to
the Complete Truth Table Method (CTTM)—but shorter. This is the Shorter Truth-
Table Method (STTT). In many cases, the STTT only requires the construction of a
one-line shorter truth table!
5. One strange and potentially confusing situation arises when an argument contains
inconsistent premises. If a set of premises is inconsistent, they will validly yield
any conclusion at all—no matter how irrelevant. This is because an argument with
inconsistent premises cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion, sim-
ply because it cannot have all true premises! Of course, an argument that is valid
because of inconsistent premises is unsound because of those same inconsistent
premises. It is valid because it cannot have all true premises, but because it cannot
have all true premises, it cannot be sound.
6. The Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT) is a decision procedure for determining of
any argument of Propositional Logic whether it is valid or not. In many cases, the
validity or invalidity of an argument can be shown in a one-line truth table. In other
cases, it is sufficient to construct a shorter truth table of only two or three lines. The
STTT is much more efficient than the CTTM. However, the relation between the
CTTM and the STTT is very important, and we strongly recommend that students
fully understand what is proved by the CTTM and how, before they learn what is
proved by the STTT, and how.
7. Conditional Proof (C.P.) is a powerful proof technique, which, although not nec-
essary given the deductive completeness of the nineteen rules for Propositional
Logic, is a useful proof method, especially for very complex and very difficult
proofs. A conditional proof is executed by assuming a particular statement,
validly inferring other statements from the assumed statement and possibly
also premises, and concluding with a conditional statement that follows val-
idly from the special assumption of the conditional proof and possibly other
premises.
8. Indirect Proof (I.P.) is another powerful proof technique, which enables us to prove
that a statement validly follows from premises by assuming the negation of that
statement and validly inferring a contradiction. The fact that a contradiction fol-
lows from a set of premises and an additional I.P. assumption proves that that
enlarged set of assumption is inconsistent, and that, therefore, the negation of
the additional assumption follows validly from the premises. Like Conditional
Proof, Indirect Proof can also be used to prove the tautologousness of tautological
truth-functional propositions. Indirect and conditional proofs of tautologies do
not proceed from a set of premises, but only from the conditional or indirect proof
assumption.

Key Terms
Biconditional
Elementary valid argument
Formal proof

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 27

Instructor’s Manual

Inconsistency
Indirect proof
Logical equivalence
Natural deduction
Reductio ad absurdum
Rule of replacement
Rules of inference

Questions for Discussion

1. What is a formal proof? What must each step in a formal proof consist of? How are
the nine rules of inference used in formal proofs?
2. How is the validity of the nine rules of inference established? Using one or two of
the rules, show how this is the case.
3. Construct a formal proof for the validity of the following argument: “If the cake
wins first prize, then my reputation as a baker will increase a great deal; if the cake
wins second prize, my reputation will increase a little. Therefore, if I win either
prize, my reputation will increase.”
4. What is the justification for each line (except those that are premises) in the follow-
ing formal proof of validity?

P 1. (A · B) . C
P 2. (A . C) . D
3. (B · A) . C
4. B . (A . C)
5. B . D

Essay Questions

1. Construct a formal proof of validity for the following argument, using the sug-
gested notation: If you sell quality merchandise, your sales will go up; and if you
treat customers fairly, they will tell their friends about your business. And more
word-of-mouth publicity will surely mean increased sales. So if either you sell qual-
ity merchandise or treat customers fairly, your sales will go up. (Q—sell quality
merchandise, S—sales will go up, T—customer will tell their friends about your
business, F—treat customers fairly.)
2. Use the STTT to prove the following argument form invalid:

~p · q
(~p · ~q) . (r · s)
s . r
∴ r

3. Construct a formal proof for the validity of this argument:

(P  Q) . R
∴ P . R.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

28

Introduction to Logic

4. Construct a formal proof for the validity of this argument:

(A . ~B) . (~B . ~C)

∴ (A . ~B) . (C . B)

5. Construct a formal proof for the validity of this argument, using the suggested nota-
tion: “Ben will phone if he gets the message, if he still wants to talk. Even though he
didn’t phone, he still wants to talk—therefore, he didn’t get the message.” (C, M, T)

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Predicate Logic chapter 10

Quantification Theory

Key Concepts
1. The method of deduction does not apply to all types of arguments. When an argu-
ment contains noncompound statements, the validity of the argument may depend
on the inner logical structure of those statements. These statements, called singu-
lar propositions, require a new technique. Quantification provides this technique.
It enables us to interpret noncompound premises as compound statements, without
loss of meaning.
2. In quantification theory, lowercase letters stand for individuals that have attrib-
utes, and uppercase letters stand for the attributes (predicates). Propositions may
be formed from propositional functions by instantiation (substituting an individual
constant for an individual variable) or by quantification (placing a universal or
existential quantifier before the propositional function). The existential quantifier,
∃, is used in the expression (∃x), which means “there is at least one x such that.”
The universal quantifier (x) means simply “given any x.”
3. Each of the four main types of noncompound propositions (A, E, I, and O) can
be symbolized with propositional functions and quantifiers. They form a square
of opposition, which graphically displays the relationships among the four
propositions.
4. For this new type of argument, the list of 19 rules of inference must be expanded
by adding four new ones:
Universal Instantiation (U.I.)
Universal Generalization (U.G.)
Existential Instantiation (E.I.)
Existential Generalization (E.G.)
  Using these and the other nineteen rules of inference, we can construct formal
proofs of validity for arguments whose validity depends on the inner structure of
noncompound propositions.
5. Though the method of refutation by logical analogy can prove the invalidity of
arguments involving quantifiers, such analogies are difficult to devise. Fortunately,
the method of making truth-value assignments to the component statements in
arguments (in such a way that the premises are true but the conclusion is false) can
be adapted for use with these arguments. First, construct a model universe with
one individual and assign truth values to its premises. If that does not prove the

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

30

Introduction to Logic

argument invalid, construct a model with two individuals, and continue until the
argument is proven invalid in some model universe.
6. Some complex arguments are not in the form of categorical syllogisms. These asyl-
logistic arguments cannot be reduced to standard-form categorical syllogisms. The
logician must be especially sensitive to the meaning of the argument in English, and
be careful to symbolize the meaning in terms of propositional functions and quan-
tifiers. Especially tricky are exceptive propositions—propositions like “All except
winners may enter.” They must be translated into compound quantified proposi-
tions, but doing so requires great care.

Key Terms
Asyllogistic argument
Existential Generalization (E.G.)
Existential Instantiation (E.I.)
Existential quantifier (∃)
Generalization
Individual constant
Individual variable
Instantiation
Normal-form formula
Possible universe
Propositional function
Quantifiers
Simple predicate
Singular proposition
Universal Generalization (U.G.)
Universal Instantiation (U.I.)
Universal quantifier (x)

Questions for Discussion

1. How do singular propositions differ from the compound propositions that we
have been analyzing? How does this difference make a new technique for analysis
necessary?
2. What is quantification? In what two ways can propositional functions be turned
into propositions?
3. What are asyllogistic arguments? Why do they present a problem for logical
analysis?
4. What is the existential quantifier? What role does it play in quantification?
5. “Guitarists who play well are accomplished musicians. There are some guitarists in
the rock band. Therefore, some musicians are accomplished.” (G, P, A, M, B)

How might this argument be translated into symbolic form? Does constructing a
model universe prove it invalid?

Essay Questions
1. What are the four logical equivalences in quantification theory? What do they
mean, and how do they relate to the four corners of the square of opposition?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 31

Instructor’s Manual

2. How are normal-form formulas derived from the logical equivalences in quantifica-
tion theory?
3. Construct a formal proof of validity for this argument, being sure to justify each
line:

(x)[(Ax  Bx) . Cx]
(∃y)(Ay · Dy)
∴ (∃y) Cy

4. Why must E.I. always be used first in any proof using both E.I. and U.I.?
5. What is the procedure for proving the invalidity of arguments containing general
propositions? What are the most problematic steps?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

chapter 11 Analogical Reasoning

Key Concepts
1. In inductive arguments, there is no claim of certainty made for the conclusion.
Instead, premises are intended to support the conclusion in only a probable way.
Despite this, inductive arguments can be very powerful and we find them in many
everyday contexts.
2. When we indicate that two or more things are similar in one or more respects, we
draw an analogy. In an argument by analogy, the similarity of two or more things
is used as the premise—and the conclusion is that those two things are also similar
in some further respect.
3. Though analogies are common in argumentation, not all analogies are arguments.
Many are used for literary effect or explanation. It is important, therefore, to be
able to distinguish analogies used as explanations or for effect from those used
in arguments. However, it is not always easy to decide which use—argument or
description—is intended.
4. Because analogical arguments are inductive rather than deductive, the terms “valid”
and “invalid” do not apply to them. Instead, the conclusion of an analogical argu-
ment (like the conclusion of every other inductive argument) has a degree of
probability, but makes no claim to certainty.
5. Logicians use six criteria to determine whether the premises of an analogical argu-
ment render its conclusion more (or less) probable:

The number of entities The variety of the instances in the premises

The number of similar respects The relevance of the respects
The number of disanalogies The modesty (or boldness) of the conclusion

6. Refutation by logical analogy is an effective method for refuting both deductive

and inductive arguments. To show that an argument is mistaken, the logician can
present another argument, which is both obviously mistaken and very similar in
form to the argument in question. This is, in fact, the same principle that underlies
the testing of categorical syllogisms.

Key Terms
Analogical argument
Analogy
Disanalogies
Inductive argument

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 33

Instructor’s Manual

Modesty
Number of entities
Number of respects
Refutation by logical analogy
Relevance
Variety

Questions for Discussion

1. How can you tell the difference between arguments containing logical analogies
and the nonargumentative use of analogy in explanation or for literary effect?
Choose two examples from the passages on pp. 448–452—one that is an argument,
and one that is not. Discuss the differences.
2. How is the number of entities in the analogy relevant in assessing the relative prob-
ability of an analogical argument? Give an example that clarifies your answer.
3. What is a disanalogy? How are disanalogies connected to assessing the probability
of an analogical argument?
4. Why is it that a more modest conclusion makes an argument stronger? Explain,
using two original examples.
5. How are refutations by logical analogy similar to the principle of testing categorical
syllogisms?

Essay Questions
1. Analogies are neither valid nor invalid; they are relatively weak or strong. This
makes their evaluation more subjective than assessing the validity of a deductive
argument. Explain how to judge the strength of an analogy, and spell out the cri-
teria that you use to make such judgments.
2. An American vice president was criticized for never disagreeing with the presi-
dent. He responded, “You don’t tackle your own quarterback!” One might have
responded, “You do if he is running the wrong way!” Analyze the structure of both
of these analogies, and compare them: what two sorts of things are being compared?
Can you construct a counteranalogy to defend one side and refute the other?
3. Here is an example of analogical reasoning from Plato’s Gorgias. How is analogy
being used here? Does Socrates prove his point?

Socrates—Look for example at painters, builders, shipwrights, and all other crafts-
men [ . . . ] and see how each one disposes each element [ . . . ] and compels one to
fit and harmonize with the other until he has combined the whole into something
well-ordered and regulated. Other craftsmen, who had to do with the body, physical
trainers and doctors, give order and discipline to the body. Do we admit the truth
of this, or not?
Callicles—Let it be granted.
Socrates—Then harmony and order will make a building good, but disorder bad?
Callicles—I agree.
Socrates—Is it not the same too with a ship?
Callicles—Yes.
Socrates—And with our bodies also?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

34

Introduction to Logic

Callicles—Certainly.
Socrates—And what about the soul? Will it be good if disordered, or rather if it
achieves a certain order and discipline?
Callicles—Here, too, our previous argument demands that we agree.

4. A famous American president once argued that Americans should vote for him
because America was in the midst of a war and no one should change horses in the
middle of the stream. Evaluate this argument by analogy, and offer a refutation.
5. With reference to the westward expansion of the United States in the 19th cen-
tury, two people are having a disagreement. One claims that the displacement and
death which occurred to the Native American population is like the Holocaust of
European Jews during World War II. The other responds by saying that you can’t
make an omelet without breaking a few eggs—so you can’t expect a country to be
formed without some people getting hurt in the process. Comment on both argu-
ments by analogy, and construct a refutation against the weaker side.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Causal Reasoning chapter 12

Key Concepts
1. Inductive arguments are often based on more than analogy. Frequently, they involve
reasoning from effect to cause and from cause to effect. The word “cause” can have
various meanings. Logicians distinguish between necessary and sufficient condi-
tions for the occurrence of an event. A necessary condition is something in whose
absence an event cannot occur; a sufficient condition is a circumstance in whose
presence an event must occur. Another related sense of the word is “a factor that is
critical or crucial in the occurrence of some phenomenon.” There are two types of
this sense of cause: remote causes and proximate causes. When we speak of “root”
causes, we are referring to remote causes.
2. Every assertion that a particular circumstance was the cause of a phenomenon
implies the existence of a causal law, a general truth about the way things work.
It is not deductive, however, and cannot be discovered by a priori reasoning: it can
only be discovered through experience, a posteriori.
3. Inductive generalization is the process of arriving at universal propositions from
the particular facts of experience. Unlike argument by analogy, the conclusion is
not about one further event, but about all such events. Such general conclusions
are called inductions by simple enumeration. Due to the similarity between these
inductions and analogies, similar criteria for appraisal apply.
4. John Stuart Mill’s five “canons” represent a more powerful method of induction,
not so limited as simple enumeration. These five methods of inductive inference,
though now very old, are still widely used:

1. The method of agreement

2. The method of difference
3. The joint method of agreement and difference
4. The method of residues
5. The method of concomitant variation

5. Though Mill believed that his methods could discover and prove causal rela-
tions, modern logicians disagree. Things cannot have only one circumstance in
common—or every circumstance except one, for that matter—and we cannot exam-
ine all possible circumstances to find out. Mill’s formulations refer to the set of all
relevant circumstances, but they give no clue as to how these are to be sorted out
from the others. Nevertheless, Mill’s methods are effective paths to discovery, and
they are still central to science when used with causal hypotheses about the circum-
stances being investigated.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

36

Introduction to Logic

Key Terms
a posteriori
a priori
Causal law
Causal reasoning
Cause
Induction by simple enumeration
Inductive generalization
Joint method
Method of agreement
Method of concomitant variation
Method of controlled experiment
Method of difference
Method of residues
Mill’s methods
Necessary and sufficient condition
Necessary condition
Proximate cause
Remote cause
Sufficient condition

Questions for Discussion

1. What are some of the meanings of the word “cause” identified in this chapter? Give
examples of each meaning to illustrate the differences between them.
2. What is induction by simple enumeration? What are its limitations?
3. When is the method of agreement most effective? What are its most serious limi-
tations? What other methods can we use to conduct a more refined search for
causes?
4. What distinguishes the method of residues from the other methods?
5. Which method should we use when we cannot eliminate all the possible causes of
a phenomenon? Why does this method work when others fail?

Essay Questions
1. Describe how the joint method of agreement and difference has been used in the
following incident: A winemaker has made an exciting discovery in his vineyard.
Something about this year’s harvest was great, and the quality of the wine was
extraordinary. However, he discovered something puzzling: Each of the four differ-
ent varieties of grape grown on his estate required different weather conditions to
be at its peak (he did this deliberately as a kind of insurance against bad weather).
But this year, all of the wine tasted better. He looked for other possible causes, and
the new aging barrels seemed to be the thing, since there seemed to be nothing
else that all of the four wines had in common—they all were fermented and aged
differently. He tested his hypothesis by taking the last of the grapes from the vines,
fermenting one last batch of each variety, and aging each one as usual in its old
cask. He found that the new, intriguing taste was now gone.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 37

Instructor’s Manual

2. Why is the method of concomitant variation so widely used in physics and medi-
cine? Describe one recent experiment or advance in one of these areas (for instance,
the discovery that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is good for the heart) that
used this method.
3. Analyze the following incident, describing which of Mill’s methods seems to be
at work: Camp counselors were puzzled by the loss of their best silverware and
some electronic equipment. No one seemed to know anything about the apparent
thefts, and accusing people would make the atmosphere unpleasant for everyone.
Inspections of backpacks and lockers yielded nothing. One counselor proposed
that, since campers wore identical uniforms, it would make sense to weigh a com-
plete uniform and combine that piece of information with the data they had on
each camper’s body weight. This would allow them to “weigh out” each camper
before they got on the bus to go home. Anyone smuggling heavy items in their
clothing would be bound to be caught. Sure enough, two campers were caught the
next week.
4. What are the major limitations of Mill’s methods? If they are so limited, why do
scientists still use these methods to investigate causal laws?
5. What method or methods are at work in the following incident? A waitress at a
neighborhood diner notices that some of the people who order Key lime pie com-
plain of heartburn shortly thereafter. They seem to be of every age, race, and gender.
She is at a loss—until she realizes that some people order decaf coffee with their pie,
and some order regular coffee. So she begins serving everyone regular coffee (no
matter what they order), and finds that no one complains of heartburn anymore.
She decides that the cause of the heartburn must be the combination of the decaf
coffee and the pie.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

chapter 13 Science and Hypothesis

Key Concepts
1. Modern science has had a profound impact on our lives—mostly for the better. The
laws and principles of science are valuable quite apart from their practical useful-
ness, though: They are also important in that they satisfy our curiosity about the
world. We can know particular phenomena merely by observation, but science seeks
not only to record these things—it also seeks to understand and explain the general
laws that govern all such phenomena.
2. Explanations (scientific and otherwise) are stories or statements from which a thing to
be explained can be logically inferred, and whose acceptance removes or diminishes
its problematic or puzzling character. Explanation is really the same thing as inference
regarded from a different point of view. The chief criterion for judging explanations is
relevance, though it is not, by itself, sufficient, and we want explanations to be true
as well. However, while it is possible to show that a scientific explanation is false, it
is usually impossible to verify directly that it is universally true.
3. Even though myths and scientific explanations share the lack of direct verifica-
tion, they are different in important and crucial ways. Science and dogma take
different attitudes towards explanations: dogmatic explanations are regarded by
those who hold them as absolutely true and beyond correction. Scientists, on
the other hand, take scientific explanations as tentative, merely as hypotheses.
Furthermore, there are reasons for holding scientific beliefs—usually sensible,
empirical evidence; there is usually no rational basis for accepting or rejecting
unscientific explanations.
4. There are five criteria by which scientific hypotheses are evaluated:

Compatibility with Relevance Testability

previously well-established Predictive or explanatory Simplicity
hypotheses power

In addition, there are seven stages of any genuinely scientific investigation

1. Identification of the problem

2. Construction of preliminary hypotheses
3. Collection of additional data
4. Formulation of a full explanatory hypothesis
5. Deduction of further consequences
6. Testing of the consequences deduced
7. Application of the theory developed

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 39

Instructor’s Manual

5. Crucial experiments allow the testing of two competing hypotheses to determine

which is correct. They are sometimes difficult or impossible to set up; furthermore,
since it is impossible to test only one hypothesis at once, we cannot always be sure
which theory is in error. Some scientists, when a hypothesis is under attack, seek
to save it using an ad hoc hypothesis. Such hypotheses, which are undertaken only
to save other hypotheses and have no other predictive or explanatory power, are
generally regarded with scorn.
6. Classification, though it is often seen as merely the first undeveloped stage of a
scientific field, actually remains a valuable instrument of scientific inquiry. This
is because classification suggests general truths and helps to formulate powerful
explanatory hypotheses. Closely akin to description, classification has both practi-
cal and theoretical motives. Even historians, because they can never describe any
event in complete detail, rely on the selective recording of details—and it is clas-
sification that serves as the basis of the decision, regarding what is relevant and
what is not.

Key Terms
Ad hoc hypothesis
Classification
Crucial experiment
Dogmatism
Empiricism
Hypothesis
Scientific explanation
Unscientific explanation

Questions for Discussion

1. Has science been, on balance, a benefit to mankind? Are our lives better, freer
from pain and disease, more valuable and pleasant, more meaningful? Consider
the whole history of science (as far as you know it) to evaluate this question.
2. What is the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law? How is this dif-
ference important to the distinction between science and dogma?
3. Why is relevance not a sufficient condition for judging a scientific hypothesis valid?
4. What are the five criteria by which scientific hypotheses are evaluated? What are
the requirements of each?
5. Why is each of the seven stages of scientific investigation necessary? Why couldn’t
a few of the steps be dropped?

Essay Questions
1. What is an explanation? What weaknesses do scientific and unscientific explana-
tions share? What strengths does each type of explanation have? Are the two types
of explanation equally valuable?
2. Many critics of science point out that even the best scientific explanation remains
a hypothesis—no matter how widely accepted a theory is, it is still “just a theory.”

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

40

Introduction to Logic

The Big Bang theory, the theory of relativity . . . even the theory of gravity is “just a
theory.” What does the phrase “just a theory” really mean? Is it necessarily a nega-
tive judgment?
3. What are the five criteria for evaluating scientific hypotheses? How does either the
Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution stand up to these criteria?
4. How does the role of the theory/hypothesis vary at different stages of scientific
inquiry?
5. Some thinkers disagree with the notion that classification is hypothesis, claiming
that it is simply a matter of getting the labels on things right. This assessment seems
fair. What is wrong with it? Why should we consider classification to be more than
just putting labels on things?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Probability chapter 14 

Key Concepts
1. All inductive arguments are governed by probability. In some inductive arguments,
however, this probability can be measured quantitatively—stated as a fraction
between 0 and 1. Two different theories describe how to quantify this probabil-
ity: The a priori theory and the relative frequency theory. Both of these theories
accommodate the development of a calculus of probability that allows logicians to
compute the probability of complex events.
2. Two basic theorems—the product theorem and the addition theorem—are used in
the calculation of probabilities of complex events. If the complex event is a joint
occurrence, we should apply the product theorem. If the event is an alternative
occurrence, then we should use the addition theorem.
3. The product theorem states that if the component events of a complex event are
independent, the probability of their joint occurrence is equal to the product of
their separate probabilities. If the component events are not independent, then the
probability of both events occurring is equal to the probability of event (a) multi-
plied by the probability of (b if a).
4. The addition theorem states that if the component events of an alternative occur-
rence are mutually exclusive, we sum their probabilities to find the probability
of their alternative occurrence (either one or the other). If they are not mutually
exclusive, their probability may be computed either by:

analyzing the favorable cases into mutually exclusive events, and then sum-
ming those probabilities; or by
determining the probability that the alternative occurrence will not t occur,
and subtracting that fraction from 1.

5. To compute the expectation value of an investment or wager, you must consider

both the probability of the possible outcomes and the value of the return received
in the event of each possible occurrence. For each possible outcome, multiply the
anticipated return by the probability of that outcome’s occurring. The sum of those
products is the expectation value of the investment.

Key Terms
Addition theorem
Alternative occurrence
A priori theory of probability

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

42

Introduction to Logic

Calculus of probability
Expectation value
Independent events
Joint occurrence
Mutually exclusive events
Numerical coefficient of probability
Product theorem
Relative frequency theory

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the two theories that can be used for quantitative determinations of prob-
ability? Do they always yield the same answer? On what grounds do we prefer one
method to the other?
2. What are the differences between the product theorem and the addition theorem?
When is each theorem properly applied?
3. What is expectation value? How do we compute it?
4. What is a joint occurrence? Give some examples of joint occurrences, and discuss
how the probability of these occurrences would be determined.
5. What is an alternative occurrence? Give some examples, and show how their prob-
abilities would be determined, both for mutually exclusive and non-mutually
exclusive occurrences.

Essay Questions
1. The word “probability” can be taken in three distinct senses. What are they? Give
your own original examples of cases that illustrate each sense.
2. Imagine that a state lottery pays fair odds. If a ticket costs two dollars and the win-
ner must pick a sequence of five digits, what would the return have to be? How do
you decide how to figure out the answer? (Remember, there are 100,000 different
sequences of five digits.)
3. I have a sure-fire way to win in Vegas. I know about “clumping”—the phenom-
enon that occurs in statistics—and I know that strictly alternating outcomes
are highly unlikely and that outcomes come in “runs” or “bunches” instead.
Therefore, I know that if I bet a lot when I am on a hot streak, and bet small when
I am cold, I should win big. What are my chances of coming home a winner?
Explain.
4. What are the main considerations when computing an expectation value? Is
this calculation useful for areas other than gambling? Given that predictions are
necessarily speculative, how can we calculate a precise expectation value?
5. According to one popular gambling strategy, in a game like roulette you should
always bet on the same outcome and double your wager each time. You can’t lose
if you continue the pattern. What is wrong with this strategy?

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 part II
Questions for Evaluation
 chapter 1 Basic Logical Concepts

Multiple Choice
1. In which of the following subjects is reasoning outside the concern of logicians?

a. science and medicine

b. ethics
c. politics
d. none of the above

Answer: d

2. In correct reasoning,

a. all of the propositions are true

b. the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion
c. the conclusion is never false
d. the conclusion supports the premises

Answer: b

3. The process of arriving at and affirming one proposition on the basis of one or more
other propositions is called:

a. inference
b. hypothetical proposition
c. soundness
d. validity

Answer: a

4. “If undergraduate education in the Humanities is to be successful, students must

take courses in a broad range of areas including history, literature, philosophy,
and art.”
This is an example of:

a. an argument
b. a disjunctive proposition
c. a conditional proposition
d. none of the above

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 45

Instructor’s Manual

5. “Either cigarette smoking in eating establishments should be banned or these estab-

lishments should have designated smoking areas.”
This is an example of:

a. an argument
b. a disjunctive proposition
c. a hypothetical proposition
d. none of the above
Answer: b
6. “Cigarette smoking should be banned in all public eating and drinking establishments
because second-hand smoke has been shown to be detrimental to one’s health.”
This is an example of:

a. an argument
b. a disjunctive proposition
c. a hypothetical proposition
d. none of the above
Answer: a
7. “(1) If you raise prices even a little, fewer people will buy your product. (2) If fewer
people buy your product, your scale of production will become smaller. (3) If your
scale becomes smaller, you won’t be able to pay the same low bulk prices for sup-
plies that you get now, and (4) if you pay higher prices for your supplies, your costs
will go up. (5) If that happens, your profits will go down.”
What is the conclusion of this passage?

a. (1)
b. (2)
c. (5)
d. There is no stated conclusion
Answer: d
8. “(1) The government should enact legislation permitting euthanasia. (2) Without
this legislation people are denied their autonomy. (3) People have the right to die
with dignity and ought to be able to choose to live or die.”
What is the conclusion of this passage?

a. (1)
b. (2)
c. (3)
d. There is no stated conclusion
Answer: a
9. “In this area, a lot of snow usually means we’ll have a cool summer. We’ve had a lot of
snow this winter (even though it wasn’t very cold). I think we’ll have a cool summer.”
This is:

a. a deductive argument with an unstated conclusion

b. an inductive argument with the last sentence as a conclusion

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

46

Introduction to Logic

c. neither inductive nor deductive, because its conclusion is false

d. not an argument at all
Answer: b
10. “Women’s liberation is solely the product of technological advances in the control
of reproduction and the social need to have more bodies to tend to the machines
produced by technology.”
This is an example of:
a. an argument
b. a complex proposition
c. a simple proposition
d. none of the above
Answer: b

True/False
11. An invalid deductive argument is always unsound.
Answer: T
12. In logic, the truth of the premises must be established before any other analysis can
occur.
Answer: F
13. An argument with a false premise cannot be valid.
Answer: F
14. No valid deductive argument can be made any stronger by adding more premises,
no matter what the premises state.
Answer: T
15. If a passage does not contain a conclusion, it cannot be an argument.
Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. A __________ proposition makes only one assertion.
complex, simple, disjunctive
17. The _________ of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of
other propositions in the argument.
conclusion, premise, complex proposition
18. An inductive argument claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of
_________.
validity, probability, soundness
19. ______________ arguments are never evaluated in terms of validity.
Deductive, Sound, Inductive
20. An argument is ________ when it is valid and all of its premises are true.
sound, invalid, valid

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Analyzing Arguments chapter 2

Multiple Choice
1. “The killing of an innocent person is immoral. Therefore, abortion is immoral.”
The unstated proposition in this argument is:

a. murder is illegal
b. innocent people have no rights
c. abortion kills innocent persons
d. abortion is legal in the United States

Answer: c

2. “Torture treats the victim as merely a means to an end. Therefore, it is immoral.”

The unstated proposition in this argument is:

a. torture is useful for getting information out of people

b. the United States sanctions the use of torture
c. treating a person as merely a means to an end is immoral
d. none of the above

Answer: c

3. “(1) Workers are often exposed to contamination in the workplace and are not
warned of the dangers of this exposure. (2) For instance, asbestos workers were not
told for many years of the dangers of contracting asbestosis. (3) And farm workers
are often misled about the dangers of insecticides and fertilizers. (4) Tougher legisla-
tion should be enacted in order to insure the safety of all workers.”
Which sentence is the conclusion?

a. sentence (1)
b. sentence (2)
c. sentence (3)
d. sentence (4)

Answer: d

4. “(1) The prince greeted a small crowd of well-wishers outside his palace yes-
terday. (2) He pointed out several architectural features of the building that
historians have found interesting. (3) Apparently, there are several aspects of the
building that are not typical of the time it was built, and (4) the prince clearly
enjoyed having the opportunity to share his knowledge with such an apprecia-
tive audience.”

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

48

Introduction to Logic

Which sentence presents the conclusion of the passage?

a. sentence (1)
b. sentence (2)
c. sentence (3)
d. sentence (4)
e. there is no conclusion

Answer: e

5. “(1) Lawns need constant maintenance, so (2) busy people should hire someone to
take care of them. (3) I like a nicely kept lawn.”
Which sentence is the conclusion?

a. sentence (1)
b. sentence (2)
c. sentence (3)
d. there is no conclusion

Answer: b
6. “(1) Computer processor speeds double every eighteen months, so business com-
puters should be replaced every three years or so. (2) This amazing fact has been
true since personal computers entered the marketplace. (3) So, these four-year-old
computers on our desks ought to be replaced.”
Which is true about this argument?

a. (1) and (2) independently support (3)

b. (1) and (2) jointly support (3)
c. (2) and (3) independently support (1)
d. (2) and (3) jointly support (1)

Answer: b

7. “(1) It has come to my attention that the staff has turned my free-meal policy into
a considerable expense to the restaurant. (2) For example, though our lobster pur-
chases have risen dramatically, our sales of lobster dinners have remained flat. (3) We
are going to have to charge employees a percentage of the price of the meals they eat
at work. (4) After all, who wouldn’t give themselves the best of everything for free?”
How does sentence (4) function in this passage?

a. it is a conclusion in the form of a question

b. it is a premise that works jointly with (1) and (2)
c. it is really a premise that independently provides some support for (3)
d. it is a rhetorical question with no logical force in the passage

Answer: c

8. “(1) I’ll tell you why the mayor decided to modify the city’s curbs for wheelchair
users. (2) First, the city has a moral obligation to do so. (3) Second, since there are
more voters in wheelchairs than ever before, they will be more likely to vote for the
mayor in the next election if he makes life easier for them.”
What is true of this passage?
a. sentences (2) and (3) support the truth of (1)
b. sentences (1), (2) and (3) deductively support an unstated conclusion

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 49

Instructor’s Manual

c. sentences (2) and (3) explain (1)

d. sentence (1) explains (2) and (3)

Answer: c

  9. “(1) Skinner’s utopian society ought to be rejected. (2) The sort of society Skinner
proposes in Walden Two is a non-competitive, lifeless society that lacks creativity
and imagination. (3) It also lacks the conditions that make for festivity and fantasy,
two significant human traits. (4) The type of society that Skinner proposes would
turn people into robots.”
Which sentence expresses the conclusion of the argument?

a. (1)
b. (2)
c. (3)
d. (4)

Answer: a

10. Brainteasers are valuable activities because:

a. they develop reasoning skills

b. they reveal the complexities of life
c. they waste time
d. none of the above

Answer: a

True/False
11. Paraphrasing an argument allows us to see more clearly the logical relations between
the statements in the argument.

Answer: T

12. Retrograde analysis is the use of spatial relations to map the structure of an argument.

Answer: F

13. In logic, the term “matrix” refers to virtual reality.

Answer: F

14. In a complex interwoven argument, “premise” and “conclusion” can be relative

terms.

Answer: T

15. In analyzing an argument one must ignore authorial intent.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. To clarify the relations between the premises and conclusion in an argument, it is
often helpful to ________ or diagram them.

analyze, paraphrase, deduce

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

50

Introduction to Logic

17. Often, problems of reasoning can be solved by the use of a(n) __________.

deduction, induction, matrix

18. Diagramming involves laying out an argument in ____________________.

one-dimensional spatial relations, two-dimensional spatial relations, three-

dimensional spatial relations

19. Retrograde analysis involves reasoning from what now exists to consider what
would be the case in the _________.

past, future, present

20. Problems of reasoning are interesting and effective ways to _____________.

develop reasoning skills, pass the time, drive you crazy

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Language and Definition chapter 3

Multiple Choice
1. Which is most likely an expressive use of language?

a. a lie to your spouse

b. a note in a birthday card
c. AN evaluation of your English paper
d. an order in a restaurant

Answer: b

2. When your father says to you, “I am really sick of coming home to such a mess!”
the best description of his sentence is:

a. an exclamatory sentence used expressively

b. an exclamatory sentence used directively
c. a declarative sentence used directively
d. an imperative sentence used directively

Answer: b

3. “Hey, Jim! You about done there?”

When Jim’s carpool partner says this to him, it is an example of:
a. an interrogative sentence used in ceremonial discourse
b. an interrogative sentence used in directive discourse
c. an exclamatory sentence used in directive discourse
d. an exclamatory sentence used in performative discourse

Answer: b

4. “The word home means ‘that place where, when you have to go there, they have to
take you in.’”
This definition is best described as a:

a. stipulative definition
b. precising definition
c. theoretical definition
d. lexical definitio

Answer: a

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

52

Introduction to Logic

  5. Which type of definition is found in the dictionary?

a. stipulative
b. precising
c. theoretical
d. lexical

Answer: d

  6. What is the relationship between the definiendum and the definiens?

a. the  definiendum is that which defines the definiens
b. the  definiens is that which explains the meaning of the definiendum
c. the  definiendum applies to stipulative definitions, the definiens does not
d. a  definiendum is a definition that eliminates ambiguity; a definiens is a defini-
tion that eliminates vagueness

Answer: b

  7. If you are told that pig means “swine,” what kind of definition have you been given?

a. a false one
b. a definition by genus and species
c. a synonymous definition
d. a precising definition

Answer: c

  8. “I think that good food is the best thing in the world.”

“Well, I think that it is more important to eat organic produce than anything else.”
This exchange is:

a. an obviously genuine dispute

b. an apparently verbal but genuine dispute
c. a merely verbal dispute
d. not a dispute at all

Answer: c

  9. A teacher says that amphibian means “frogs, newts, and salamanders.” Is she giving

the students a definition?

a. no (a list of objects is not a definition)

b. no (the teacher is referring to some objects, but a real definition must refer to
the intension of the term)
c. yes (this is an intensional definition)
d. yes (this is a definition by example)

Answer: d

10. A child points at her family dog and says “doggie” to her mother. This is an:

a. intensional definition
b. extensional definition
c. ostensive definition
d. operational definition

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 53

Instructor’s Manual

True/False
11. In attempting to motivate someone, a speaker should consider beliefs and attitudes
alike, since arguments almost always involve both of these things.

Answer: T

12. Love letters are, generally, good examples of the performative function of language.

Answer: F

13. Extension refers to the collection of objects to which a term applies.

Answer: T

14. Ostensive definitions avoid some of the limitations of extensional definitions.

Answer: F

15. Directive discourse in language is used to express emotion.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. When a pastor says to a couple, “I now pronounce you man and wife,” he/she is
using ________ language.

exclamatory, performative, imperative

17. We use ________ when we want to disguise or underplay the emotive meaning of
words.

emotively neutral language, emotionally charged language, directive discourse

18. “Man is the only rational animal.”

In this definition by genus and difference, “rational” refers to ________.

species, genus, difference

19. Definitions should not be ________, because then the definition will only explain
the term to those who already understand it.

circular, ambiguous, rude

20. Pollsters influence the responses they receive unless they avoid ________ language.

emotive, offensive, stipulative

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 4
5 Fallacies

Multiple Choice
1. Advertisements featuring famous musicians selling life insurance are examples of
the fallacy of:

a. appeal to emotion
b. appeal to inappropriate authority
c. appeal to pity
d. argument  ad hominem

Answer: b

2. “You should buy these shoes, because everyone has them! Except ugly people, of
course.”
This speaker is using the fallacy of:

a. argument  ad populum
b. argument  ad hominem
c. appeal to inappropriate authority
d. argument from ignorance

Answer: a

3. Which fallacy occurs when we confuse temporal with causal relations?

a. equivocation
b. false cause
c. amphiboly
d. division

Answer: b

4. Which fallacy is committed when a statement’s meaning is indeterminate?

a. equivocation
b. division
c. false cause
d. amphiboly

Answer: d

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 55

Instructor’s Manual

  5. Which other fallacy of ambiguity is the reverse of the fallacy of division?

a. equivocation
b. amphiboly
c. composition
d. accent
Answer: c
  6. “I often see dogs in the park. You have a dog; therefore, I often see your dog in the
park.”
This commits the fallacy of:

a. equivocation
b. accent
c. false cause
d. none of the above
Answer: d
  7. An abusive ad hominem is present whenever:

a. an insulting remark is made in place of reason in an argument

b. one speaker seeks to degrade another during an argument
c. people begin screaming epithets at each other
d. words that are hateful or malicious are used
Answer: a
  8. Defense lawyers sometimes explain the actions of a client by referring to the client’s
own mistreatment as a child. What fallacy may be committed by such explanations?

a. appeal to the populace

b. appeal to force
c. appeal to pity
d. irrelevant conclusion
Answer: c
  9. “I know there are angels! There must be: no one can prove that they don’t exist!”
This commits the fallacy of:

a. irrelevant conclusion
b. argument from ignorance
c. appeal to inappropriate authority
d. appeal to emotion
Answer: b
10. “Why is it always the case that stores run out of the sale items just before the sale
paper arrives, so that I can’t ever buy what’s on sale?”
What fallacy is committed in this example?

a. false cause
b. accident

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

56

Introduction to Logic

c. begging the question

d. complex question

Answer: d

True/False
11. Fallacies of accident arise when a generalization has some exceptions.

Answer: T

12. Every circular argument commits the fallacy of begging the question.

Answer: T

13. The fallacy of amphiboly confuses the several meanings of a word.

Answer: F

14. False cause is one of the fallacies of relevance.

Answer: F

15. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when something is taken out of context and
misconstrued.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. The fallacy of complex question is one of the fallacies of ________.

ambiguity, presumption, relevance

17. The 
petitio principii assumes the ________ of what it seeks to prove.

falsity, truth, ambiguity

18. In the fallacy of ________, we reason from the attributes of the parts to the attributes
of the whole.

composition, division, hasty generalization

19. If an ad hominem argument accuses someone of prejudice because of his race and
contends that he is therefore not a good source of information, it is a(n) ________ ad
hominem.

abusive, circumstantial, honest

20. When we presume the applicability of a generalization to an individual case, we

commit the fallacy of ________.

hasty generalization, composition, accident

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Categorical Propositions chapter 5

Multiple Choice
1. Categorical propositions:

a. never refer to just one single object

b. concern classes of objects, and tell whether one class is included within the
other
c. are affirmative statements about classes of objects
d. are false if their quality is negative

Answer: b

2. The categorical proposition “Some men who go bald are not happy individuals” is a:

a. universal affirmative
b. particular affirmative
c. universal negative
d. particular negative

Answer: d

3. “No good student is a person who would be seen staying up late on a weeknight.”
  What is the quality of this proposition?
a. universal
b. particular
c. affirmative
d. negative

Answer: d

4. “Some people are annoying drunks who sing too loudly.”

What is the quantity of this proposition?

a. affirmative
b. universal
c. particular
d. indeterminate

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

58

Introduction to Logic

  5. “All professors of logic are gentle souls who just want to be loved.”
Which term in this proposition is distributed?

a. both the subject and the predicate

b. gentle souls
c. professors of logic
d. neither the subject nor the predicate

Answer: c

  6. “No logic problems are valuable experiences.”

“Some logic problems are valuable experiences.”
How are these two propositions related?

a. they are contradictories

b. they are contraries
c. they are corresponding propositions—super- or subalterns
d. they are subcontraries

Answer: a
  7. The proposition “No man is a monkey” may be obtained from the proposition
“No monkey is a man” by:

a. conversion
b. obversion
c. inversion
d. contraposition

Answer: a

  8. The obverse of “No sofas are chairs” is:

a. all non-chairs are non-sofas

b. all sofas are non-chairs
c. no sofa is a non-chair
d. no chair is a sofa

Answer: b

  9. In the Boolean interpretation of propositional logic:

a. subalternation is no longer valid

b. A and I propositions are no longer contraries
c. the square of opposition is rescued by making the existential presupposition
d. universal propositions have existential import

Answer: a

10. To symbolize the proposition “Some dinosaurs were not large creatures” with a
Venn diagram:

a. a small x is placed in the intersection of the two circles representing “dino-

saurs” and “large creatures”
b. a small x is placed inside the circle representing “dinosaurs,” but outside the
other circle representing “large creatures”

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 59

Instructor’s Manual

c. a small x is placed inside the circle representing “large creatures,” but outside
the other circle representing “dinosaurs”
d. the part of the circle representing “dinosaurs” is shaded out, except that part
overlapping the circle representing “large creatures”

Answer: b

True/False
11. Classical logic applies only to inductive arguments.

Answer: F

12. Categorical propositions affirm or deny that a class S is included in some other
class P, in whole or in part.

Answer: T

13. There are only four standard forms of categorical propositions.

Answer: T

14. The copula, which connects S and P, can be any form of “to be.”

Answer: T

15. Subalternation occurs when two propositions are not corresponding propositions.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. There are only ________ ways in which propositions may be “opposed.”

two, four, three

17. ________ occur(s) between corresponding propositions.

Contradictories, Subalternation, Conversion

18. ________ occurs when the subject and predicate terms of a proposition are
interchanged.

Conversion, Obversion, Subalternation

19. To ________ a proposition, change its quality and replace the predicate term by its
complement.

obvert, convert, contradict

20. “No men are women” is the ________ of “No women are men.”

converse, obverse, opposite

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms

Multiple Choice
1. “No children are soldiers; some males are soldiers; therefore, some males are not
children.”
Which term in this standard-form syllogism is the middle term?

a. children
b. soldiers
c. males
d. therefore

Answer: b

2. “Some logic professors are not good speakers. All logic professors are indi-
viduals who have nice suits. Therefore, no individuals with nice suits are good
speakers.”
What is the mood of this standard-form syllogism?

a. OAO
b. AOA
c. AOE
d. OAE

Answer: d

3. What happens in the fallacy of the undistributed middle?

a. The major and minor terms are not directly linked by the middle term, because
the major term is undistributed.
b. The major and minor terms are not directly linked by the middle term, since
either the major or minor term is undistributed.
c. The major and minor terms are not directly linked by the middle term, since
the minor term is undistributed.
d. The major and minor terms are not directly linked by the middle term, since
the middle term is not distributed in at least one premise.

Answer: d

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 61

Instructor’s Manual

4. “No men are dogs. No dogs eat cheese. Therefore, all cheese-eaters are men.”
What fallacy is committed by this argument?

a. existential fallacy
b. fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
c. fallacy of exclusive premises
d. fallacy of illicit process

Answer: c

5. Which syllogism is not valid in the fourth figure?

a. AEE
b. IAI
c. EIO
d. OAO

Answer: d

6. What characterizes the third figure?

a. The middle term is the subject of both premises.

b. The middle term is the predicate of both premises.
c. The middle term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the
minor premise.
d. The middle term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the
minor premise.

Answer: a

7. When you test a syllogism with a Venn diagram, how do you diagram the
conclusion?

a. you don’t
b. last
c. first
d. after the major premise

Answer: a

8. “All wild animals are vicious; some wild animals are from Africa; therefore, some
animals from Africa are vicious.”
Which proposition should be diagrammed first in a Venn diagram test of
validity?

a. It makes no difference.
b. All wild animals are vicious.
c. Some wild animals are from Africa.
d. Therefore, some animals from Africa are vicious.

Answer: b

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

62

Introduction to Logic

  9. “All good chairs are made in a factory. All wooden chairs are good chairs; therefore,
all good wooden chairs are made in a factory.”
Which of the six syllogistic rules, if any, does the preceding syllogism break?

a. It breaks rule #6.

b. It breaks rule #3.
c. It breaks rule #1.
d. It breaks no rule—it is valid.

Answer: c

10. “No risks are things worth taking; some things worth taking are not exciting; there-
fore, some things that are not exciting are not risks.”
Which fallacy is committed in this syllogism?

a. the existential fallacy

b. the fallacy of exclusive premises
c. the fallacy of undistributed middle
d. the fallacy of the illicit major

Answer: b

True/False
11. A valid syllogism must have its major and minor premises in the proper order.

Answer: F

12. The conclusion of a syllogism is never diagrammed in a Venn diagram test.

Answer: T

13. In a valid syllogism, you cannot derive a negative conclusion from two negative
premises.

Answer: T

14. In a syllogism of the second figure, the major term is in the subject position and
the minor term is in the predicate position.

Answer: F

15. In syllogistic logic, “loud” and “noisy” count as the same term.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. The mood and ________ of a syllogism determine its form.

figure, quantity, quality

17. A valid syllogism will always distribute the ________ term in at least one premise.

subject, middle, predicate

18. The ________ of a syllogism is determined by the letters A, E, I, and O, correspond-

ing to the propositions it contains.

mood, figure, validity

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 63

Instructor’s Manual

19. The term “________” describes the position of the middle term in the premises.

figure, mood, subject

20. If either premise in a syllogism is ________, then the conclusion must be negative.

false, negative, positive

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 7 Syllogisms in Ordinary Language

Multiple Choice
1. “No physicians are poverty-stricken. Some residents of Chicago are MDs. Therefore,
some Chicagoans are not poor.”
What, if anything, must be done to put this syllogism in the proper form to test it
for validity?

a. Nothing. It is perfectly valid as it is.

b. The two terms in the conclusion are not represented exactly in the premises.
“Residents of Chicago” needs to be replaced with “Chicagoans” and “poverty-
stricken” with “poor.”
c. This syllogism contains six terms, three pairs of which are synonyms. All three
pairs must be reduced to one term each.
d. There is nothing that can be done to make this syllogism valid.

Answer: c

2. “All logic professors are funny individuals. No businessman is a funny individual.

Therefore, all businessmen are non-logic professors.”
Is this argument ready for testing, or does it need to be rewritten?

a. No. It is clearly valid as it is.

b. The conclusion should be changed to its logically equivalent form, “No busi-
nessman is a logic professor.”
c. The conclusion should be changed to its logically equivalent form, “No non-
logic professor is a businessman.”
d. This syllogism is clearly invalid. No further testing is necessary.

Answer: b

3. Consider a syllogism with the premise “Some logic professors are unreasonable.”
What, if anything, needs to be done to get it into standard form?

a. Nothing needs to be done. The terms are “logic professors” and

“unreasonable.”
b. Nothing can be done with this proposition because there are not really two
different terms here.
c. Both terms of this proposition must be rewritten to eliminate adjectives.
However, when you do this the premise contains three terms, not two.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 65

Instructor’s Manual

d. The predicate term must be converted to a noun phrase, such as “unreasonable

people.”

Answer: d

4. What is the correct standard-form translation of “Not every animal is a vicious

beast”?

a. No animal is a vicious beast.

b. Some animal is a vicious beast.
c. Some vicious beast is not an animal.
d. Some animal is not a vicious beast.

Answer: d

5. What is the standard-form translation of “None but qualified people need

apply”?

a. All people who may apply are qualified people.

b. No non-applicants are not qualified people.
c. No person who is qualified is not a person who may apply.
d. All qualified people are people who may apply.

Answer: a

6. In testing an enthymeme for validity, the logician must:

a. supply any missing information that logic requires, and then treat it exactly
as any other syllogism.
b. be careful to remember not to “read into” the material anything that is not
explicitly stated.
c. supply any missing parts to the argument, making allowances for the fact that
this may make the argument slightly less plausible than might be desired.
d. supply any missing premises required by the logic of the argument, but remem-
ber not to supply a missing conclusion; this is the same mistake committed
when the conclusion is diagrammed with a Venn diagram.

Answer: a

7. “No person who cries is a person who can be trusted. Fred is a logic professor. No
untrustworthy person is a logic professor. Therefore, Fred does not cry.”
To tell if this argument is valid, we must:

a. choose the relevant premises for deriving the conclusion and test the resulting
syllogism for validity. The other premises are not relevant and need not be
tested.
b. first derive the conclusion, “some logic professors do not cry,” and test that
syllogism for validity.
c. first derive the conclusion, “Fred is a trustworthy person,” and test that syl-
logism for validity. Then test a second syllogism, which has that conclusion
as a premise.
d. do nothing, since this argument is illogical. The conclusion cannot be derived
from what is given.
Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

66

Introduction to Logic

  8. “Either I play ball, or I keep my new shoes clean. I can’t resist playing ball, so I guess
my new shoes will be getting dirty.”
How should we label this argument?

a. an invalid argument that contains extraneous material

b. denying the antecedent
c. modus tollens
d. disjunctive syllogism

Answer: d

  9. Starting with the major premise, “If the heater is turned on, then the house will
get warm,” which of the following completed arguments commits the fallacy of
affirming the consequent?

a. The heater is turned on, so the house is warm.

b. No one turned the heater on, so the house must be cold.
c. The house is warm, so someone must have turned on the heater.
d. The house is cold, so we know that no one turned on the heater.

Answer: c
10. “Either I keep eating beef and get a heart attack, or I quit and eat yucky vegetables.
Since I know I must either eat beef or not, I know I will be stuck either with yucky
vegetables or a heart attack.”
To escape between the horns of this dilemma, I might argue:
a. I haven’t really considered the alternatives, though. I can always learn to exer-
cise more so that eating beef won’t give me a heart attack.
b. Now that I think of it, the outlook isn’t so bleak. Lots of people manage on
vegetables. I’ll start eating more vegetables now so that I can avoid heart dis-
ease later.
c. Let’s look at it in a new light. Either I eat just enough beef to make my vegeta-
bles taste OK now, or I quit eating beef now, and concentrate on looking for
better food. Either way, I end up with a different diet.
d. Of course, the choice shouldn’t be between beef and vegetables. What I really
need is to find more variety in foods.

Answer: d

True/False
11. A second-order enthymeme is one in which the major premise is left unstated.

Answer: F

12. In a disjunctive syllogism, one premise is a disjunction and the other premise denies
the truth of one of the disjuncts.

Answer: T

13. “They told me that if I ran the mile in under four minutes, I’d be on the team. Well,
I did! So I am!”
This argument contains a pure hypothetical syllogism.

Answer: F

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 67

Instructor’s Manual

14. “If someone turns on the sprinklers, my paint job will get wet. No one turned them
on, so I know my paint job is dry.”
This argument is an example of modus tollens.

Answer: F

15. The point of posing a counterdilemma is not usually to invalidate an opponent’s

dilemma.

Answer: T

Pattern Match
16. An argument is a(n) ________ argument if it can be translated into a standard-form
categorical syllogism.

syllogistic, valid, invalid

17. In a ________ -order enthymeme, the minor premise is unstated.

third, second, first

18. When you deny the consequent, you use the logical technique called modus ________.

tollens, ponens, operandi

19. ________ syllogisms contain “if . . . then” propositions.

Hypothetical, Categorical, Disjunctive

20. To “grasp a dilemma by the horns,” you must show that one of the ________ it con-
tains is false.

disjuncts, conjuncts, ambiguities

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 chapter 8 Symbolic Logic

Multiple Choice
1. How could you symbolize the statement, “I will love you unless you kiss me”?

a. L  K
b. L . K
c. ~L  K
d. L ≡ K
Answer: a
2. ~(p · ~q) is the same as:

a. ~p · q
b. ~p · ~q
c. (~p · ~q)
d. p . q
Answer: d
3. What is the symbolic representation of modus tollens?

a. p . q, q, ∴ p
b. p . q, p, ∴ q
c. p . q, ~q, ∴ ~p
d. p . q, ~q, ∴ p
Answer: c
4. q and ~~q mean the same thing. What does this illustrate?

a. material equivalence
b. logical equivalence
c. repetition
d. double negation
Answer: d

5. “I will either kill you, or I will love you.”

This statement might be symbolized as:

a. K  L
b. ~K · L

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 69

Instructor’s Manual

c. ~K . L
d. K . L

Answer: a

 6. “p . q is logically equivalent to ~p  q.”

This statement is:

a. De Morgan’s Theorem
b. the definition of material implication
c. a negation of the conjunction of two statements
d. an invalid argument

Answer: b

 7. Let B symbolize the statement “All birds are beautiful.” Then ~B must symbolize all
of the following, except:

a. Some bird is not beautiful.

b. No birds are beautiful.
c. It is not the case that all birds are beautiful.
d. It is false that all birds are beautiful.

Answer: b

  8. “If you can’t use a computer, you won’t get a job. I can use a computer very well,
so I’m going to get a good job!”
  What is the best symbolic representation of this argument?

a. p . q, ~p, ∴ ~q
b. ~p  ~q, p, ∴ ~q
c. p . q, ~q, ∴ ~p
d. ~p . ~q, p, ∴ ~q

Answer: a

  9. “If dogs can fly, then the Earth is a sponge.”

Is this statement true? Why or why not?

a. This is a contingent statement, since it may be either true or false.

b. This is false, but we must check the world to discover this.
c. This is false, as neither the consequent nor the antecedent is true.
d. This is a true statement because it is in the form of a material conditional and
has a false antecedent.

Answer: d

10. Let B mean “the bread rises” and Y abbreviate “the yeast is good.” The he compound
statement B . Y correctly represents any of the following propositions, except:

a. That the yeast is good is a necessary condition for the bread to rise.
b. That the yeast is good is a sufficient condition for the bread to rise.
c. The bread rises only if the yeast is good.
d. If the bread rises, the yeast is good.

Answer: b

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

70

Introduction to Logic

True/False
11. The following two arguments share the same argument form: “If wishes were horses,
beggars could ride; beggars cannot ride; so wishes are not horses.” “If price fixing
becomes a common practice, the consumer will lose choices and taxpayers will be
burdened with debt. We do not want consumers to lose choices and be burdened
with debt, so we know that we should not allow price fixing.”

Answer: T

12. A truth table for an argument contains one row in which there are Ts under the
premises and an F under the conclusion. This single row shows that the entire argu-
ment is invalid.

Answer: T

13. Another term for material equivalence is material implication.

Answer: F

14. If an argument form is expressed as a conditional (with the conclusion as the con-
sequent and a conjunction of the premises as the antecedent), and it shows one
row on its truth table where Ts appear under the premises but an F appears under
the conclusion, it may still be valid.

Answer: F

15. The principle of excluded middle asserts that no statement can be both true and
false at the same time.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. Two statements are logically equivalent if their biconditional is a ________.

tautology, statement, proposition

17. p . q is ________ equivalent to ~p  q.

sufficiently, logically, empirically

18. The only way for a disjunction to be false is if both of the disjuncts are proven to
be ________ simultaneously.

true, false, invalid

19. Any statement is a ________ instance of its own statement form.

substitution, logical, sufficient

20. A conjunction is true only when both of its conjuncts are ________.

false, true, valid

The Complete Truth-Table Method (CTTM) and Validity

Over many years of teaching logic, we found that it is easy to teach the CTTM in a way
that enables most students to master the technique and give the correct answer (i.e.,

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 71

Instructor’s Manual

“valid” or “invalid”). However, we have also found that most of those students do not
understand how a completed (complete) truth table proves that an argument is valid (or
invalid). Most students cannot explain how a completed truth table constitutes a proof of
the validity (or invalidity) of an argument. Why is this? Part of answer lies in the fact that
the earlier definition of “validity” was not sufficiently helpful. With the new fifteenth
edition definition of “validity” in hand, students have a much clearer conception of
their goal: to determine whether a given argument can have all true premises and a false
conclusion.
The second part of the answer lies in the fact that when we, as instructors, learned
to ask for explanations, and quickly discovered that most students cannot give good
explanations, we had to go back to the drawing board. In doing so, we determined that
all that a student needs is a clear understanding of what a complete truth table is. They
need to understand that:

a complete truth table for an argument gives the truth values of the premises and the conclusion for all pos-
sible combinations of truth values for the constituent simple statements of the argument.

Most importantly, this means that if an argument can have all true premises and a false
conclusion—i.e., if it is invalid—that argument does in fact have all true premises and a
false conclusion for at least one combination of truth values for its constituent simple
statements. This is one way, a very important way, that the new definition of “validity”
works so well with a fundamental component of logic, namely truth tables.
Of course, this also means that if an argument cannot have all true premises and a
false conclusion—if, that is, it is valid—that argument does not have all true premises
and a false conclusion for any combination of truth values for its constituent simple
statements (i.e., on any line of its completed truth table). We have emphasized this
important fact on pp. 295–296 and again in the Overview of the CTTM on p. 302.
We encourage instructors to review the Overview on p. 302 and discuss with students
“cannot have and does not have” (and “can have and does have”). If an argument can
have all true premises and a false conclusion, that argument and its truth table, drawn
on a white board in another room on campus (!), actually does have all true premise
and false conclusion. It must! The same goes for a valid argument. Write out the com-
plete truth table for a valid argument on a piece of paper, and write the argument itself
on the white board. Ask your students: “If that argument is valid, what do you already
know about its completed truth table on this here piece of paper?!” And: “What do you
know about the argument itself?” When students understand that there is no “case” or
“row” of the truth table—no combination of truth values for its simple statements—such
that a valid argument actually has all true premises and a false conclusion, they will
understand the important relationship between “cannot have” and “does not have” for
a valid argument.
Learning techniques is one thing. Understanding what one is doing with a technique
is another matter. We hope you will agree that Logic students and Philosophy students
should learn how a complete truth table proves validity in some cases, and how a com-
plete truth table proves invalidity in other cases.
Consider the following argument from pp. 305–306.

If the first native is a politician, then the first native lies.

If the first native lies, then the first native denies being a politician.
Therefore if the first native is a politician, then the first native denies being a politician.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

72

Introduction to Logic

This argument may be symbolized as follows:

P.L
L.D
∴P.D

P1 P2 ∴
P L D P.L L.D P.D
1 T T T T T T
2 T T F T F F
3 T F T F T T
4 T F F F T F
5 F T T T T T
6 F T F T F T
7 F F T T T T
8 F F F T T T

When the CTTM is being taught, and after five or six arguments have been tested, it
is very helpful to students to slow down a little, and to go through the components of a
completed complete truth table.
Take, for instance, the cell in Row 2 below the compound statement P . L. Inside that
cell is the letter “T” standing for the truth value True. Why is there a T in that cell? Why
is P . L true in that particular cell? The answer is simple, but well worth discussing: There
is a T in that cell because P . L is true for that particular combination of truth values.
Which combination of truth values? In Row 2 P . L is true for the following combination
of truth values: Simple statement P is true, simple statement L is true, and simple state-
ment D is false. (One may think that the truth value of D is irrelevant and need not be
mentioned, but it is worth noting that P is true on Row 1, and L is also true on Row 1.)
The combination of truth values for Row 2 is this precise combination of truth values
for these three particular simple statements. In fact, Row 2 consists of six distinct truth
values for six distinct statements. For example, the cell in Row 2 under L . D contains
an F. This is because L . D is false for that same combination of truth values; namely,
when simple statement P is true, simple statement L is true, and simple statement D is
false (or, more briefly: TTF). What is the truth value of the conclusion, P . D, for TTF?
Statement P . D is false when TTF, because in this combination of truth values, P is true
and D is false.
This type of discussion with students is very helpful, once they have achieved a cer-
tain level of CTTM mastery. It is also helpful to point out that simple statement D has
a truth value in Row 2: D is false in Row 2, because D is false in the combination TTF.
D has a truth value in each row, because each row is nothing but truth values for specific
statements, for one combination of truth values for three simple statements!
This, in turn, is another good way to discuss the number of rows for a complete
truth table. There are eight rows in this truth table. Why? Because the argument con-
tains exactly three simple statements. When an argument contains exactly three sim-
ple statements, there are exactly eight combinations of truth values for those three
simple statements: TTT (Row 1), FFF (Row 8), TTF (Row 2), FTT (Row 5), and so forth.
The reason we can use a complete truth table to prove that an argument is valid is that,

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 73

Instructor’s Manual

in a complete truth table, we exhaust all (possible) combinations of truth values for
the argument’s simple statements, and then we show that for no combination of truth
values for its simple statements does the argument actually have all true premises and
a false conclusion. That shows that the argument cannot have all true premises and a
false conclusion.
Let’s review the components of a completed complete truth table for an argument.
A truth table for an argument has rows, columns and cells. Inside each cell is a truth
value—either a T (for True) or an F (for False).
Each CELL in a complete truth table contains a truth value. A particular cell contains
the truth value for the statement at the top of that column, given the truth values for the
simple statements in the guide columns (i.e., at the far left of the truth table)—i.e., for
that particular combination of truth values for the simple statements of the argument.
Each COLUMN contains all of the (possible) truth values for the statement at the
top of the column. What is here meant by “possible”? All of the possible truth values
for a statement such as a premise means: each truth value for that particular statement
for each actual combination of truth values for the simple statements of the argument.
Since each combination of truth values is a row (or line) in the truth table, each cell in a
column contains the truth value for that statement given the truth values of the simple
statements listed at the beginning of that line in the guide columns. There are eight T’s or
F’s below a statement, such as L . D, because that statement has a particular truth value
(i.e., either True or False) for each truth-value combination listed in the guide columns
on a particular row. For example, L . D is true in Line 7 (Row 7). Why? Because the truth
value combination for that row is: P is F, L is F, and D is true. Since the antecedent of
L . D is F (false), L . D is true (regardless of whether its consequent, simple statement
D, is true or false).
Each ROW of truth table for an argument contains (a) a combination of truth values
for the constituent simple statements of the argument, and (b) the truth values for each of the
statements required to build the premises and the conclusion, and (c) the truth values
for each premise and for the conclusion.
It is very helpful for students to emphasize (a) now and then: Each row is a com-
bination of truth values for the constituent simple statements of the argument. This is why an
argument with exactly three simple statements has exactly 8 rows; and it is also why
an argument with exactly four simple statements has exactly sixteen rows. This is what
truth-functionality is in Propositional Logic! Every statement, simple or compound, is a
truth-function of the truth values of its simple statements. Whether or not an argument
can have all true premises and a false conclusion is completely dependent upon whether
its premises are actually all true and its conclusion is actually false for some particular
combination of truth values for its constituent simple statements. If this is not the case,
that argument is valid. If an argument’s premises are in fact all true and its conclusion is
in fact false for one or more combinations of truth values for its simple statements, then
that argument (obviously) can have all true premises and a false conclusion—because it
actually does have all true premises and a false conclusion for at least one combination of
truth values for its simple statements. Such an argument is invalid. Its conclusion does
not follow (necessarily) from the truth of its premises, since its conclusion is actually false
in (at least) one case in which its premises are all true.
As is said on pp. 295–296, and again in the Overview on p. 302, a valid argument
(and a valid argument form) has a very concrete linkage between the “cannot” and the
“does not”: it cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion in the very concrete

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

74

Introduction to Logic

sense that it does not have all true premises and a false conclusion for any (possible)
combination of truth values for its simple statements. The opposite is true of an invalid
argument (and invalid argument form): an invalid argument can have all true premises
and a false conclusion in the very concrete sense that it does (as a matter of fact!) have
all true premises and a false conclusion for at least one (possible) combination of truth
values for its simple statements.
The new fifteenth edition instructional material for Chapter 9, just below, provides a
step-by-step comparison of the CTTM and the STTT for one illustrative argument. Once
your students have achieved a solid degree of mastery of the CTTM and the STTT, you
may wish to take them through that illustrative example, or an example of your own
making.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Methods of Deduction chapter 9

Multiple Choice
1. Which is not one of the nine rules of inference?

a. simplification
b. modus tollens
c. subtraction
d. absorption

Answer: c

2. Which of the rules of inference is described by this formula?

(p . q) · (r . s)
p  r
∴ q  s
a. conjunction
b. absorption
c. disjunctive syllogism
d. constructive dilemma

Answer: d
3. What is the formula for simplification?

a. p · q, ∴ p
b. p, q, ∴ p · q
c. p, ∴ p  q
d. p · q, p, ∴q

Answer: a

4. “Either I get married or I live alone; I didn’t get married; therefore, I live by myself.”
What is the elementary valid argument form of this argument?

a. constructive dilemma
b. modus tollens
c. disjunctive syllogism
d. hypothetical syllogism

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

76

Introduction to Logic

5. What is the rule of inference by which the conclusion of this argument follows
from the premise?

C . (A . B)
∴ C . (~~A . B)
a. distribution
b. double negation
c. addition
d. constructive dilemma

Answer: b

6. For the following valid argument, state the rule of inference by which the
conclusion follows from its premises:

[F . (G ≡ ~H)]  (I  J)

~[F . (G . ~H)]
∴ I  J
a. constructive dilemma
b. disjunctive syllogism
c. absorption
d. modus ponens

Answer: b

7. By which rule of inference does the conclusion of this argument follow from its
premises?

~(A · B) . (C  D)
~(A · B)
∴ (C  D)
a. modus ponens
b. modus tollens
c. disjunctive syllogism
d. simplification

Answer: a

8. The method of proving invalidity by assigning truth values to statements in a

shortened truth table:

a. can become more cumbersome than the full truth table method because of
the time and energy involved
b. works only with modus tollens and modus ponens
c. is resorted to for convenience—it saves time and space
d. is not as accurate as using Venn diagrams

Answer: c

9. Which rule of inference makes the conclusion of this argument follow from
its premise?
[F . ~(G  H)] . (I  J)
∴{[F . ~(G  H)] · [F . ~(G  H)]} . (I  J)
a. transportation
b. tautology

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 77

Instructor’s Manual

c. association
d. commutation

Answer: b

10. Which rule of inference makes the conclusion of this argument follow from
its premise?

A . B
∴ (~A . ~B)
a. addition
b. exportation
c. commutation
d. transposition

Answer: d

True/False
11. Conjunction is symbolically represented by p, q, ∴ p · q.

Answer: T

12. Simplification is symbolically represented by p . q, ∴ (p · q).

Answer: F

13. You can replace [(p · q) . r] with [p . (q . r)].

Answer: T

14. One of De Morgan’s theorems states that (p  q) is logically equivalent to (q  p).

Answer: F

15. Material implication states that (~p  q) is logically equivalent to (p . q).

Answer: T

Pattern Match
16. An argument is proved invalid when its premises are ________ and its conclusion is
false in one line of its truth table.

false, true, ambiguous

17. If no truth values can be given to the statements of an argument to make its
premises true and its conclusion false, then the argument must be ________.

valid, invalid, unsound

18. When the rule of ________ is applied to “If it rains, I will get wet,” it becomes “If it
rains, not only will it be raining but I will get wet.”

addition, absorption, simplification

19. “p · q, ∴ p” is the form of ________.

simplification, disjunction, addition

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

78

Introduction to Logic

20. We can use ________ to substitute (p . q) for (~p  q).

material implication, De Morgan’s rule, simplification

The Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT)

In this, the fifteenth edition of Introduction to Logic, the section on the Shorter Truth-
Table Technique has been enlarged and enhanced. First and foremost, we believe that
the seven illustrative examples in Introduction to Logic gradually guide the student from
very simple arguments with simple statement conclusions, to more complex arguments
with conditional and disjunctive conclusions, to arguments whose conclusions are false
on multiple truth-value combinations (e.g., a conjunctive conclusion, such as O · P).
Instructors who used the fourteenth edition of Introduction to Logic will see that
Section 9.9 in the fifteenth edition, “The Shorter Truth-Table Technique,” is a consid-
erable expansion of the technique. Section 9.9 begins with a clear introduction to the
STTT and how it is used to establish the validity or the invalidity of an argument. Please
note that this introduction begins with the new fifteenth edition definition of validity: a
valid deductive argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. This definition
it used to greatly clarify the Complete Truth-Table Method in Chapter 8. Here the new
definition of ‘validity’ is similarly used to clarify the aim of the STTT. As is said on p. 380,
the motivating idea of the STTT is that, since we need only check all cases in which the
conclusion is false (or all cases in which the premises are all true), it is far more efficient
to construct a shorter truth table with only false conclusions (or only all true premises).
We encourage instructors to read this introduction and to use it in class!
The introduction to the STTT is followed by Section A: “An Essential Skill: Making
Forced and Unforced Truth-Value Assignments.” This section, along with the rules of
thumb for the five logical operators (p. 383) will help students understand what it is that
they are trying to do. Maxims I and II on p. 384 will suffice for many simple arguments.
Section B, “The Four Steps of the Shorter Truth-Table Technique,” clearly explains,
with the help of a flow-chart, how we decide whether to first make the conclusion false
or to first make all of the premises true.
Section C, “The C-Sequence in simple Cases,” guides the student through four simple
arguments whose conclusions are false in only one way (i.e., for only one combination of
truth values for its constituent simple statements). We encourage instructors to execute
the applications of the STTT in class, as that will give students a great deal of confidence
that they can easily tackle most arguments in Introduction to Logic.
Section D, “Conclusions that are False on Multiple Truth-Value Assignments,” pro-
vides three arguments whose conclusions are false in multiple ways. In Example 5, we
proceed with the C-Sequence, as no premise is true in fewer ways than the three ways in
which the conclusion is false. In Example 6, however, students will see on p. 402 that,
by following Step 1, they will simplify the task by making a forced truth-value assign-
ment of True (T) to the simple statement of Premise 4, namely G. Lastly, in Example 7, it
is shown that a biconditional of two simple statements requires only a two-line shorter
truth table. When students are brought along slowly, as Section 9.9 brings them along,
they acquire the knowledge and skills gradually and completely. Our students love the
STTT! Some good students wonder why we teach them the Complete Truth-Table Method
(CTTM) (earlier, in Chapter 8)!
There are many good, inter-connected answers to that good question. Below we
provide a helpful instructional case that instructors may wish to use in class, or provide

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 79

Instructor’s Manual

to students as supplementary material. Together with the new discussion of the CTTM
in the last, Chapter 8, section of this Instructor’s Manual, we believe that instructors
will be better equipped to teach the CTTM and the STTT, to answer all good questions
about both methods, and to clearly explain why both methods are important for a well-
grounded and complete understanding of Propositional Logic.

The Shorter Truth-Table Technique (STTT): More Forced

and Unforced Truth-Value Assignment Exercises
Exercise: Truth-Value Assignments: For the following statements, determine, using
Maxims IV and V, the requisite truth-value combinations on which, and the number of
ways that, the statement can be true (or false), as the case requires.

21.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(T . W) ≡ J]
T

22.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T

23.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
F

Solutions for Unforced Truth-Value Assignments

for the Instructor’s Manual
21: The entire statement is a conjunction. In order for a conjunction to be true, both
conjuncts must be true.
The left conjunct is M ≡ (R · S). This statement is a biconditional, which can be true
in the following four ways. To enumerate the ways in which this biconditional is true,
we employ Maxim V. We construct a true biconditional by (a) using only those truth-value
combinations that yield the desired truth value for the biconditional, and (b) construct these
in the order they would appear in a complete truth table (see §8.7). As we see below, the truth
values that yield a true biconditional are TTT, FTF, FFT, and FFF.

M ≡ (R · S)
T T T T T
F T T F F
F T F F T
F T F F F

With the second biconditional, namely (T . W) ≡ J, we proceed in the same way. We

enumerate the ways in which it can be true by employing Maxim V. There are four such
combinations of truth values: TTT, FTT, FFT, and TFF.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

80

Introduction to Logic

(T . W) ≡ J
T T T T T
F T T T T
F T F T T
T F F T F

For each of the four ways that M ≡ (R · S) can be true, there are four ways that
(T . W) ≡ J is true. This yields the following truth table with sixteen rows. We first have
four rows in which M ≡ (R · S) is held constant as TTT and we enumerate, in order, the
four ways that (T . W) ≡ J is true.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(T . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T F T T T T
T T T T T T F T F T T
T T T T T T T F F T F
F T T F F T T T T T T
F T T F F T F T T T T
F T T F F T F T F T T
F T T F F T T F F T F
F T F F T T T T T T T
F T F F T T F T T T T
F T F F T T F T F T T
F T F F T T T F F T F
F T F F F T T T T T T
F T F F F T F T T T T
F T F F F T F T F T T
F T F F F T T F F T F

The complete truth table for an argument with this statement as a premise would
minimally have sixty-four lines.
22: The entire statement, namely [M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J], is a conjunction. Both
conjuncts are biconditionals.
The left conjunct is again M ≡ (R · S). This statement is a biconditional, which can be
true in the following 4 ways: TTT, FTF, FFT, and FFF. Following Maxim V, begin with TTT
and enumerate the ways in which the right biconditional, namely (R . W) ≡ J, can be
true. Given that simple statement R appears in both biconditionals, there are two ways
for the right biconditional to be true (i.e., TTT, and TFF) when the left biconditional
is TTT.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T F F T F

What about when M ≡ (R · S) is true by way of FTF? Since R is true, there are, again,
two ways for (R . W) ≡ J to be true: TTT, and TFF.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 81

Instructor’s Manual

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T F F T F
F T T F F T T T T T T
F T T F F T T F F T F

The third way for M ≡ (R · S) to be true is FFT. In this case, R is false. If R is false,
R . W is true, and therefore J must be true. Since there are two ways for R . W to be true
when R is false (i.e., FT, and FF), there are two ways for (R . W) ≡ J to be true when R is
false: FTT and FFT. This gives us Rows 5 and 6.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T F F T F
F T T F F T T T T T T
F T T F F T T F F T F
F T F F T T F T T T T
F T F F T T F T F T T

Lastly, the fourth way for M ≡ (R · S) to be true is FFF. Again, R is false, and so there are
two ways for R . W) ≡ J to be true when R is false: FTT and FFT. This yields Rows 7 and 8.

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T F F T F
F T T F F T T T T T T
F T T F F T T F F T F
F T F F T T F T T T T
F T F F T T F T F T T
F T F F F T F T T T T
F T F F F T F T F T T

We are done. There are 8 ways for the conjunction [M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J] to be
true. The complete truth table for an argument with this statement as a premise would
minimally have thirty-two lines.

23:

[M ≡ (R · S)] · [(R . W) ≡ J]
T T T T T F T T T F F
T T T T T F T F F F T
F T T F F F T T T F F
F T T F F F T F F F T
F T F F T F F T T F F
F T F F T F F T F F F
T F T F F F T T T F F

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

82

Introduction to Logic

T F T F F F T F F F T
T F F F F F F T T F F
T F F F F F F T F F F
F F T T T F T T T F F
F F T T T F T F F F T
T F T F F F T T T T T
T F T F F F T F F T F
T F F F T F F T T T T
T F F F T F F T F T T
T F F F F F F T T T T
T F F F F F F T F T T
F F T T T F T T T T T
F F T T T F T F F T F

Twenty ways. The complete truth table for an argument with this statement as its
conclusion would minimally have thirty-two lines.
The following example illustrates the relations between the CTTM and the STTT, and
between a complete truth table for a given argument and the shorter truth table for that
same argument.

Shorter Truth-Table Technique: Contrasting

the STTT and the CTTM
To clearly see how the STTT is much more efficient than the CTTM, we here use the
argument of Example 2 to illustrate the efficiency of the STTT by periodically stopping
to show how the STTT eliminates, one forced truth-value assignment at a time, most of
the lines in a complete truth table from its consideration.
Experience has taught us that some students come to fully understand what they are
doing with the STTT by contrasting it with the CTTM.

EXAMPLE 2: The Conclusion is a Simple Statement

Consider the following argument, whose conclusion is a simple statement.

(P1): (E  F) . (G · H)
(P2): (G  H) . I
(P3): E
∴I

To construct a shorter truth table, write out the premises in sequence, separating each
from its successor by a comma, and separating the last premise from the conclusion by
the three dots for ‘therefore’ (∴). To the left of the first premise, create guide ‘columns’
for each simple statement.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 83

Instructor’s Manual

Since this argument contains five distinct simple statements, its complete truth
table would have 25 or thirty-two rows. Using the STTT, we will determine whether this
argument is valid or invalid in a one-line truth table.

STEP 1: Determine Whether Any Premise is True

in Fewer Ways than the Conclusion is False
To determine whether to begin with Step 2C or Step 2P, we first ascertain whether at least
one premise is true in fewer ways than the conclusion is false. Since the conclusion, sim-
ple statement I, is false for only one combination of truth values for its constituent simple
statement(s) (i.e., statement I), the answer is ‘No,’ and so we begin with Step 2C.

STEP 2C: Make the Conclusion False

In Step 2, we are first directed by Maxim I.

MAXIM I: If possible, first make forced truth-value assignments to the conclusion or a

premise, as determined in Step 1.

There is only one way for the conclusion of this argument to be false: statement I
must be false. So, we place an F (false) under statement I.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
F F

When we assign a truth value to a simple statement, that truth value must be imme-
diately assigned to that simple statement wherever else it occurs in the argument (and
underneath that simple statement in the guide columns). Statement I occurs also in
Premise 2, so we immediately assign the truth value false to I in Premise 2 (and also to I
in the guide columns).

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
F F F

It is important to understand why we do this. Statement I is made false also in Premise 2

because a line in a shorter truth table—like a line in a complete truth table—just is a par-
ticular combination of truth values for the argument’s constituent simple statements (and
the truth values of compound statements consisting only of these simple statements). If,
therefore, a statement, such as I, is false somewhere on a given line, all occurrences of that
statement on that line must have the same truth value. For this reason, when we assign a
truth value to a simple statement on a line in a shorter truth table, we immediately assign
the same truth value to that simple statement in all of its occurrences on that line.
To see how much simpler and efficient the STTT is compared with the Complete
Truth-Table Method (CTTM), note that there are five distinct simple statements in this
argument and, therefore, its complete truth table (shown below) has 25 or thirty-two
lines. In assigning the truth value “F” (false) to the conclusion, statement I, we are con-
sidering, maximally, only those sixteen (even-numbered) lines in the complete truth
table in which I is false (i.e., all combinations of truth values for the constituent simple
statements in which I is false); these lines are highlighted in blue.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

84

Introduction to Logic

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
  1 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F T F
  3 T T T F T T T T F T F F T T F T T T T
  4 T T T F F T T T F T F F T T F F F T F
  5 T T F T T T T T F F F T F T T T T T T
  6 T T F T F T T T F F F T F T T F F T F
  7 T T F F T T T T F F F F F F F T T T T
  8 T T F F F T T T F F F F F F F T F T F
  9 T F T T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T T
10 T F T T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T F
11 T F T F T T T F F T F F T T F T T T T
12 T F T F F T T F F T F F T T F F F T F
13 T F F T T T T F F F F T F T T T T T T
14 T F F T F T T F F F F T F T T F F T F
15 T F F F T T T F F F F F F F F T T T T
16 T F F F F T T F F F F F F F F T F T F
17 F T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T T F T
18 F T T T F F T T T T T T T T T F F F F
19 F T T F T F T T F T F F T T F T T F T
20 F T T F F F T T F T F F T T F F F F F
21 F T F T T F T T F F F T F T T T T F T
22 F T F T F F T T F F F T F T T F F F F
23 F T F F T F T T F F F F F F F T T F T
24 F T F F F F T T F F F F F F F T F F F
25 F F T T T F F F T T T T T T T T T F T
26 F F T T F F F F T T T T T T T F F F F
27 F F T F T F F F T T F F T T F T T F T
28 F F T F F F F F T T F F T T F F F F F
29 F F F T T F F F T F F T F T T T T F T
30 F F F T F F F F T F F T F T T F F F F
31 F F F F T F F F T F F F F F F T T F T
32 F F F F F F F F T F F F F F F T F F F

Even if the STTT had us construct only the sixteen even-numbered lines, it would
be more efficient than the Complete Truth-Table Method. But notice, for example, that
Premise 3, simple statement E, is false in Lines 17–32. On each of these lines it is not pos-
sible for all of the premises to be true and the conclusion false, because Premise 3 is false!
As we shall now see, the STTT is efficient because it systematically eliminates such lines
before they are constructed by making premises true by forced truth-value assignments.

OUR GOAL
STEP 3C: Make as Many Premises True as Possible
Now that the conclusion has been made false, it is worth remembering that our
C-Sequence goal is to make all of the premises true on the truth-value assignment(s)

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 85

Instructor’s Manual

that make(s) the conclusion false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid; if it is not
possible, the argument is valid. In executing this procedure correctly, we will either
prove that the argument is invalid or prove that the argument is valid.
At this juncture, we employ Maxim II, a rule that ensures that we execute the STTT
in the simplest and most efficient manner possible.

MAXIM II: Make forced truth-value assignments to premises that are simple statements or
the negations of simple statements before making forced truth-value assignments to more
complex compound premises.

A forced truth-value assignment is the assignment of a truth value to a simple or

compound statement that is compelled or required by:

  (i)  the truth-functional nature of simple and compound statements,

   (ii)  our goal(s), and/or
(iii)  truth-value assignments already made.

For example, (ii) our first goal forces us, in Step 2C, to make all and only truth-value
assignments to simple statements in the conclusion that make the conclusion false.
Since there is only one way for the conclusion, simple statement I, to be false, we first
assigned the truth value false to simple statement I in all of its occurrences. Once this is
done, since (ii) our next goal, in Step 3C, is to make all of the premises true, sometimes
(iii) the truth-value assignments already made to simple statements in a premise force us
to make particular truth-value assignments to other simple or compound statements to
(ii) achieve our goal of making that particular premise true, given (i) the truth-functional
nature of compound statements.
Applying Maxim II, are any premises simple statements or negations of simple state-
ments? Yes. Premise 3 is simple statement E. We are therefore compelled, by Maxim II,
to first make E true in Premise 3, and in all of its other occurrences, before moving on
to forced truth-value assignments to compound statements. Thus, we make E true in
Premise 3 and in Premise 1 (and in the guide column for E).

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T F T F T F

In assigning the truth value true to E, we are now considering only those lines in the
complete truth table where E is true and I is false. This means that in making these forced
truth-value assignments, we eliminate the remaining rows in which E is false (i.e., rows
17–32), leaving the following eight-line truth table (i.e., lines 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16).

E F G H I (E  F ) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
2 T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F T F
4 T T T F F T T T F T F F T T F F F T F
6 T T F T F T T T F F F T F T T F F T F
8 T T F F F T T T F F F F F F F T F T F
10 T F T T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T F
12 T F T F F T T F F T F F T T F F F T F
14 T F F T F T T F F F F T F T T F F T F
16 T F F F F T T F F F F F F F F T F T F

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

86

Introduction to Logic

Given that E is true and I is false, are there any other forced truth-value assign-
ments? Yes, there are two. Since E is true, we are forced to make E  F true, for a dis-
junction is true provided that a least one of its disjuncts is true. Given that I is false,
we are also forced to make G  H false, for Premise 2, (G  H ) . I, is a conditional with
a false consequent, which is only true if its antecedent is false. Since these two truth-
value assignments—to Premise 1 and to Premise 2—are equally forced, we must apply
Maxim IV.

MAXIM IV: If truth-value assignments to two or more premises are equally forced (e.g.,
to two simple statements) or equally unforced, make the left-most truth-value assign-
ment first.

Applying Maxim IV, we begin with the left-most forced truth-value assignment, to
Premise 1. Since E is true in Premise 1, the antecedent of Premise 1, E  F, is true; so we
place a T under the wedge of E  F.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T F T T F T F

Given that E  F is true, Premise 1 is true only if its consequent, G · H, is true; so we

place a T (true) under the dot of G · H.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T F T T T F T F

Making forced truth-value assignments means in part that, to execute Step 3C,
the truth value of a compound statement forces truth-value assignments to compound
and/or simple statements (see Section 9.9A). For example, since the conditional (E  F)
. (G · H) has a true antecedent, it is true only if its consequent, the conjunction G · H,
is true. In turn, the conjunction G · H is true only if both of its conjuncts, simple state-
ment G and simple statement H, are true. The truth values of compound statements force
truth-value assignments in the following ways.

Conjunction:  G · H is true: Make G true and H true

Disjunction:      G  H is false: Make G false and H false
Conditional:     G . H is false: Make G true and H false
Negation:    ~ G is true: Make G false
         ~ G is false: Make G true

Thus, we are now forced to make G true and H true in the conjunction G · H
(and in the guide columns for G and H).

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T T T F T T T T T F T F

In assigning the truth value true to G, we now eliminate from our consideration
those remaining lines in the complete truth table in which G is false (i.e., lines 6, 8, 14,
and 16), leaving the following 4-line truth table (i.e., lines 2, 4, 10 and 12).

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 87

Instructor’s Manual

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
  2 T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F T F
 4 T T T F F T T T F T F F T T F F F T F
10 T F T T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T F
12 T F T F F T T F F T F F T T F F F T F

And in assigning the truth value true to H, we now eliminate from our consideration
those remaining lines in the complete truth table in which H is false (i.e., lines 4 and 12),
leaving the following two-line truth table (i.e., lines 2 and 10).

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
 2 T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F T F
10 T F T T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T F

Returning to the STTT, since the consequent of Premise 1 is now true, Premise 1 is
true; so we place a T under the horseshoe of Premise 1.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T T T F T T T T T T F T F

As always, once we have assigned truth values to simple statements G and H, we

make those same truth-value assignments to G and to H in all of their occurrences. We
therefore make G and H both true in the antecedent of Premise 2, G  H.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T T T F T T T T T T T T F T F

If G and H are both true, the disjunction G  H is true; so we place a T under the
wedge of G  H in Premise 2.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T T T F T T T T T T T T T F T F

Premise 2, the conditional (G  H) . I, now has a true antecedent and a false conse-
quent, which makes it false.

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
T T T F T T T T T T T T T F F T F

We have completed our shorter truth table, in accordance with Steps 2C and 3C, and
are now ready for Step 4. It should be noted that we have not assigned a truth value to
simple statement F because it was not necessary.1
Before moving to Step 3, let us compare our completed shorter truth table with the
two remaining lines of the complete truth table.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

88

Introduction to Logic

E F G H I (E  F) . (G · H) , (G  H) . I , E ∴ I
 2 T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F T F
10 T F T T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T F

We can see above that the only difference between these two lines and the completed
shorter truth table is that each of these lines has a distinct truth value for F, whereas no
truth value was assigned to F in properly executing the STTT. In effect, we have directly
constructed both of these lines (i.e., lines 2 and 10) via the STTT, by making forced truth-
values assignments to I, E, G and H: I is false, E is true, G is true, and H is true.

STEP 4: Test for Validity

Is the argument valid or invalid? It is easy to see from the complete one-line truth table
that the argument is valid, for the premises cannot all be true for any truth-value assign-
ment in which the conclusion is false. There is only one truth-value assignment on which
the conclusion is false (i.e., when I is false), and there is only one truth-value assignment
on which Premise 3 is true (i.e., when E is true). These truth-value assignments, in turn,
force the consequent of Premise 1 to be true, which in turn forces G and H to both be
true. These forced truth-value assignments make the antecedent of Premise 2, G  H, true,
which, given the falsity of I, makes Premise 2, (G  H) . I, false. So, although we can
make Premise 3 and Premise 1 true given the falsity of the conclusion, we cannot make
Premise 2 true.2 Thus, on the only assignment of truth values that makes the conclusion
false, the premises are not all true. This proves that this argument cannot have a false
conclusion and all true premises, which proves that it is valid.3
Our work is complete. Instead of constructing the thirty-two-line complete truth
table, we have executed the STTT in a single line and determined that the argument is
valid. Although a proof of this argument consists of only five inferences (Add., M.P.,
Simp., Add., and M.P.), the STTT takes no more time than the proof. For arguments that
require more difficult and lengthy proofs, the STTT will typically be much more efficient.
And in a case when one is trying vainly to prove an invalid argument valid, the STTT is
almost always far more efficient than the CTTM.4

Making a Complex Compound Statement True

Step 1 for Multiple-Line Shorter Truth Tables
To illustrate Step 2 P for the STTT, consider, again, the compound statement of
Appendix B:

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E

Step 1 (ii): Determine the Main Logical Operator

In Appendix B, we determined that because the horseshoe is outside all of its parentheses,
brackets, and braces, the horseshoe is the main logical operator of this statement, and
the statement is a conditional.
We assumed in Appendix B that this conditional statement was the conclusion of
an argument, and we proceeded to ascertain that it is false in six distinct ways. That

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 89

Instructor’s Manual

meant that we would proceed with the C-Sequence unless at least one premise was true
in five or fewer ways.

Step 1 (ii): Assign a Truth Value to the Main Logical Operator

Here will assume that we have already calculated the number of ways that the conclusion
of an argument is false, and that the conditional statement

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E

is the simplest premise of the argument. We now need to determine, in Step 1, whether
to execute the C-Sequence or the P-Sequence. If this statement is the simplest premise
of the argument, we will need to calculate the number of ways in which this statement is
true. To make this calculation, we begin by placing a T under the statement’s main logi-
cal operator, the horseshoe.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
T

Step 1 (iii): Construct Each Combination of Truth Values in

Which the Premise is True (or the Conclusion is False)
This premise is a conditional, which is true in three ways: T . T, F . T, and F . F.
We begin with the first truth-value assignment (i.e., T . T): the antecedent, (A  B) ⋅
(C ≡ D), is true and the consequent, E, is true. Since the antecedent is a conjunction, we
place a T under the dot and a T under the consequent, E.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
T T T

In line 1, both conjuncts, namely A  B and C ≡ D, must be true. A  B is true in three

ways (i.e., T  T, T  F, F  T), and C ≡ D is true in two ways (T ≡ T, F ≡ F), so this expands
line 1 into 3 × 2 or six lines. Since there is no single forced truth-value assignment,
we follow Maxim III and make the left-most truth value assignments, to A  B, first. We
first make assign T  T to A  B, and, holding this truth-value assignment constant, we
assign all possible truth-value combinations to C ≡ D which make the entire antecedent,
(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D), true. Thus, in the first two lines, A  B is T  T, and C ≡ D is first T ≡ T
(line 1) and then F ≡ F (line 2).

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T

Next, we move to the second truth-value assignment on which A  B is true, and,

again, holding this constant, assign all possible truth-value combinations to C ≡ D which
make the entire antecedent, (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D), true. Thus, in lines 3 and 4, A  B is T  F,
and C ≡ D is first T ≡ T (line 3) and then F ≡ F (line 4).

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

90

Introduction to Logic

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T

The last truth-value assignment on which A  B is true is F  T. We make this assign-

ment, and holding this constant, assign all possible truth-value combinations to C ≡ D
which make the entire antecedent, (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D), true. Thus, in lines 5 and 6, A  B
is F  T, and C ≡ D is first T ≡ T (line 5) and then F ≡ F (line 6).

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T

This exhausts all of the truth-value combinations in which the antecedent of

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E is true and its consequent is true. In other words, there are
six lines of the complete truth table for this statement in which this conditional state-
ment is T . T:

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
T T T

We now move on to the second way in which this conditional is true: F . T. We

therefore make the antecedent false by putting an F under the dot and we make the
consequent, E, true.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 F T

We next determine how many ways (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D) is false. Since this conjunction

is false provided that at least one of its conjuncts is false, it is false in at least three ways:
T ⋅ F, F ⋅ T, and F ⋅ F. As always, we begin with the first of these, T ⋅ F, and enumerate the
ways in which the antecedent of the conditional, namely the conjunction

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 91

Instructor’s Manual

is false as T ⋅ F. We begin this enumeration by making the left conjunct true and the
right conjunct false.

[(A  B) · (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 T F F T

Given that the left conjunct, the disjunction A  B, is true in three ways (T  T,
T  F, F  T), and given that the right conjunct, namely C ≡ D, is false in two ways (T ≡ F,
F ≡ T), the conditional is true in six ways when its antecedent is true and its consequence
is false (F . T); because of this, this one line (i.e., line 7) expands to 3 × 2, or six lines.
We know, therefore, that our truth table for all of the ways in which this conditional
statement is true will be at least twelve lines long.
As above, we enumerate these six combinations by first making the left conjunct true
in the first way, and, holding that truth-value assignment constant, we enumerate the
ways in truth-value combinations on which the right conjunct is true. A  B is first true
on T  T; therefore, on this truth-value assignment we make C ≡ D false as T ≡ F (line 7)
and F ≡ T (line 8).

[(A  B) · (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 T T T F T F F T T
8 T T T F F F T T T

Next, when A  B is true on T  F, we make C ≡ D false as T ≡ F (line 9) and F ≡ T (line 10).

[(A  B) · (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 T T T F T F F T T
8 T T T F F F T T T
9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

92

Introduction to Logic

The third and last truth-value combination on which the conjunction, (A  B) ⋅

(C ≡ D), is false, is when A  B is true on F  T, and C ≡ D false as T ≡ F (line 11) and
F ≡ T (line 12).

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
    1 T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T F T T
  3 T T F T T T T T T
 4 T T F T F T F T T
  5 F T T T T T T T T
  6 F T T T F T F T T
  7 T T T F T F F T T
  8 T T T F F F T T T
  9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
  11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T

This exhausts all of the truth-value combinations in which the antecedent of

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E, namely

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

is false as T ⋅ F. We now move on to the second way in which the conjunction (A  B) ⋅

(C ≡ D) is false: namely, F ⋅ T.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
    1 T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T F T T
  3 T T F T T T T T T
 4 T T F T F T F T T
  5 F T T T T T T T T
  6 F T T T F T F T T
  7 T T T F T F F T T
  8 T T T F F F T T T
  9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F T T T

The disjunction A  B is false in only one way, F  F, and C ≡ D is true in two ways,
namely T ≡ T and
F ≡ F. This yields the truth-value combinations for lines 13 and 14.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 93

Instructor’s Manual

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 T T T F T F F T T
8 T T T F F F T T T
9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F F F T T T T T
14 F F F F F T F T T

This exhausts all of the truth-value combinations that which the antecedent of
[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E is false as F ⋅ T. We now move on to the third way in which the
conjunction (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D) is false: F ⋅ F.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
1 T T T T T T T T T
2 T T T T F T F T T
3 T T F T T T T T T
4 T T F T F T F T T
5 F T T T T T T T T
6 F T T T F T F T T
7 T T T F T F F T T
8 T T T F F F T T T
9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F F F T T T T T
14 F F F F F T F T T
15 F F F T T

The disjunction A  B is false in only one way, F  F, and C ≡ D is false in two ways,
namely T ≡ F and F ≡ T. This yields the truth-value combinations for lines 15 and 16.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
    1 T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T F T T
  3 T T F T T T T T T

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

94

Introduction to Logic

 4 T T F T F T F T T
  5 F T T T T T T T T
  6 F T T T F T F T T
  7 T T T F T F F T T
  8 T T T F F F T T T
  9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F F F T T T T T
14 F F F F F T F T T
15 F F F F T F F T T
16 F F F F F F T T T

Let us review. We have just enumerated all of the truth-value combinations on

which the antecedent of [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E is false and the consequent is true
(i.e., all cases of F . T for this conditional statement). The third and last way in which
this conditional is true is F . F.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
    1 T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T F T T
  3 T T F T T T T T T
 4 T T F T F T F T T
  5 F T T T T T T T T
  6 F T T T F T F T T
  7 T T T F T F F T T
  8 T T T F F F T T T
  9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F F F T T T T T
14 F F F F F T F T T
15 F F F F T F F T T
16 F F F F F F T T T
17 F T F

Please note that we have just enumerated the ten ways in which the antecedent of
the conditional statement,

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

is false, for the truth-value combination F . T for the entire conditional statement. This
enumeration is given in rows 7–16: these are the ten ways in which the (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)
is false—i.e., for ten distinct combinations of truth values for A, B, C, and D.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 95

Instructor’s Manual

We now enumerate these same ten truth-value combinations again with the
consequent, statement E, as false (i.e., where the conditional statement is F . F). This
yields lines 17–26.

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
    1 T T T T T T T T T
  2 T T T T F T F T T
  3 T T F T T T T T T
 4 T T F T F T F T T
  5 F T T T T T T T T
 6 F T T T F T F T T
 7 T T T F T F F T T
  8 T T T F F F T T T
 9 T T F F T F F T T
10 T T F F F F T T T
  11 F T T F T F F T T
12 F T T F F F T T T
13 F F F F T T T T T
14 F F F F F T F T T
15 F F F F T F F T T
16 F F F F F F T T T
17 T T T F T F F T F
18 T T T F F F T T F
19 T T F F T F F T F
20 T T F F F F T T F
  21 F T T F T F F T F
  21 F T T F F F T T F
23 F F F F T T T T F
24 F F F F F T F T F
25 F F F F T F F T F
26 F F F F F F T T F

We are done!
This conditional, [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E, is true on twenty-six distinct combinations of
truth values for its constituent simple statements. If the conditional [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E
were the only premise of an argument, we would begin with Step 2P only if the conclusion
were false in more than twenty-six ways.
It might well seem as if the CTTM would be more efficient than the STTT for any
argument with statement [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E as its only premise. However, this is not
always the case. Consider the following valid argument.

(P1): [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E

∴ ~ E . ~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

Though it is true that the premise can be true in twenty-six distinct ways, in how
many ways is the conclusion false? How many ways is the conditional statement

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

96

Introduction to Logic

~ E . ~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

false? It is easy to see that in order for this conditional statement to be false, its
antecedent, ~ E, must be true, which means that E must be false (i.e., to make ~ E true).
And if the conditional

~ E . ~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

is false, it consequent, the negated conjunction

~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

must be false (i.e., to make the entire conditional false). But this means that that the
negated statement, namely the conjunction

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

must be true, which means that both of its conjuncts must be true. Since A  B is true in
three ways and C ≡ D is true in two ways, (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D) is true in six ways, from which
it follows that the conditional conclusion, namely

~ E . ~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

is false in six ways. Step 1 of the STTT will, of course, enable us to determine that this
conclusion is false in six ways, and its premise is true in twenty-six ways. It is probably
more efficient to complete a six-line shorter truth table via Step 2C of the STTT than to
complete a thirty-two-line truth table using the CTTM! Indeed, once one has learned the
STTT, one will very quickly determine that this conclusion is false in six ways, and that the
premise is true is many more ways than six. One does not need to calculate the numbers
of ways that this premise is true—one need only determine that:

• the C-Sequence is more efficient than the P-Sequence, and

• the C-sequence of the STTT is more efficient than the CTTM.

In our experience, any student who has done the twenty-four STTT exercises on
pp. 410–412 will have achieved a solid level of mastery. Such a student will look at this
conclusion,

~ E . ~ [(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)]

and quickly see that it is false only if its consequent is false, and that that requires that
the conjunction

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

be true. How many ways, s/he will ask her/himself, is the left conjunct true? Three ways.
And how many ways is the right conjunct true? Two ways. 3 × 2 = 6. The conjunction
(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D) is true in six ways. Hence, the conclusion is false in six ways.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 97

Instructor’s Manual

Then s/he will ask: How many ways is the premise

[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E

true? Students who achieve an A-level understanding of the STTT will quickly understand
that this conditional is true if its antecedent, the conjunction

(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)

is false. And this conjunction is false if either

AB

is false (one way), or

C≡D

is false (two ways), or both

AB

and

C≡D

are false!
If A  B is false, the entire conjunction, (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D), is false in two ways, because
although A  B is false in only one way (F  F), its right conjunct, C ≡ D, can be true in
two ways (T ≡ T, and F ≡ F). And for each of the two ways that C ≡ D is false (T ≡ F, and
F ≡ T), A  B is true in three ways. Thus, (A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D) is false in six total ways for the
two ways in which its right conjunct, C ≡ D, is false. We have already determined that
the premise can be true in at least eight ways because its antecedent can be false in at
least eight ways.
In general, if a valid argument has a conclusion that is false in numerous ways, it will
have a premise that is true in many fewer (more manageable) ways. And if the premises
of a valid argument are each true in numerous ways, the conclusion will be false in many
fewer (more manageable) ways.
The reader might well wonder whether there is any point calculating beyond, say,
line 16 for a premise (as we did above). Given the foregoing, surely the conclusion is false
in fewer ways. Or if it isn’t, surely the CTTM is more efficient.
Our first response is that this is good practice! Students often want tougher exercises
so that the exercises they meet on a test or exam are easy by comparison.
Though it is true that most introductory logic textbooks, like Introduction to Logic,
do not have many or any arguments whose premises are all true in twenty-six ways
or whose conclusion is false in twenty-six ways, we here present the STTT as a rigor-
ous decision procedure. The fact is that a premise can be true in twenty-six ways and a
conclusion can be false in more than twenty-six ways if an argument contains many
simple statements. For example, for arguments whose statements are only slightly

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

98

Introduction to Logic

larger than those of this book, containing five or more distinct simple statements, as
[(A  B) ⋅ (C ≡ D)] . E does, it is necessary to know how to determine the number of rows
for the shorter truth table. If an argument contains seven or more simple statements,
its complete truth table consists of 128 or more lines. In many such cases it would be
more efficient to execute the STTT. It is hoped that this information will enable instruc-
tors to answer all of the many good questions that students will raise concerning the
STTT and the CTTM.

A Conditional Proof-Indirect Proof

The Rule of Conditional Proof is new to the fifteenth edition. Instructors have asked for
this addition, and we are happy to oblige.
There is no substitute for a mastery of the nineteen rules, so we encourage instruc-
tors to promote that mastery first, before introducing Conditional Proof (C.P.). If C.P. is
introduced too early, many students will not master the nineteen rules because they will
lean, prematurely, on C.P.
In addition to the proofs given in Introduction to Logic, here is another conditional
proof containing an indirect proof.

(P1): (J  A) . [(S  K) . (~ I · Y)]

(P2): (~ I  ~ M) . E
∴ J . (S . E)

 1. (J  A) . [(S  K) . (~ I · Y)]

 2. (~ I  ~ M) . E
 3. | J / ∴ S . E (A.C.P.)
  4. | | ~ (S . E) / ∴ S . E (A.I.P.)
  5. | | ~ (~ S  E) 4, Impl.
  6. | | ~ ~ S · ~ E 5, De M.
  7. | | S · ~ E 6. D.N.

  8. | | J A 3, Add.
  9. | | (S  K) . (~ I · Y) 1, 8, M.P.
10. | | S 7, Simp.
11. | | S  K 10, Add.
12. | | ~ I · Y 9, 11, M.P.
13. | | ~ E · S 7, Com.
14. | | ~ E 13, Simp.
15. | | ~ (~ I  ~ M) 2, 14, M.T.
16. | | ~ ~ I · ~ ~ M 15, De M.
17. | | I · ~ ~ M 16, D.N.
18. | | I · M 17, D.N.
19. | | I 18, Simp.
20. | | ~ I 12, Simp.
21. | | I · ~ I 19, 20, Conj.
22. | S . E 4–21, I.P.
23. J . (S . E) 3–22, C.P

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 99

Instructor’s Manual

An Indirect Proof
Consider the following argument (#9, p. 416; the Solutions Manual gives the proof of this
in twenty-two lines):

(P1): T . (U · V)
(P2): U . (W · X)
(P3): (T . W) . (Y ≡ Z)
(P4): (T . U) . ~ Y
(P5): ~ Y . (~ Z . X)
∴X

It is very good practice to employ Indirect Proof (I.P.) to prove valid all of the valid
arguments in Introduction to Logic. If we employ I.P. in this case, a proof can be executed
in twenty-eight lines.

 1. T . (U · V)
 2. U . (W · X)
 3. (T . W) . (Y ≡ Z)
 4. (T . U) . ~ Y
 5. ~ Y . (~ Z . X) / ∴ X
  6. | ~ X / ∴ X (A.I.P.)
  7. | ~ X  ~ W 6, Add.
  8. | ~ (X · W) 7, De M.
  9. | ~ (W · X) 8, Com.
10. | ~ U 2, 9, M.T.

11. | ~ U ~ V 10, Add.
12. | ~ (U · V) 11, De M.
13. | ~ T 1, 12, M.T.
14. | ~ T  W 13, Add.
15. | T . W 14, Impl.
16. | Y ≡ Z 3, 15, M.P.

17. | ~ T U 13, Add.
18. | T . U 17, Impl.
19. | ~ Y 4, 18, M.P.
20. | ~ Z . X 5, 19, M.P.
21. | ~ ~ Z 20, 6, M.T.
22. | Z 18, D.N.
23. | (Y . Z) · (Z . Y) 16, Equiv.
24. | (Z . Y) · (Y . Z) 23, Com.
25. | Z . Y 24, Simp.
26. | Y 25, 22, M.P.
27. | Y · ~ Y 26, 19, Conj.
28. X 6–27, I.P.

Can this proof be executed more efficiently with I.P.? That is a good challenge for
instructors and students alike!

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

100

Introduction to Logic

Sound Arguments and Demonstrative

Arguments Further Distinguished
Argument IX (p. 445) and Argument X (p. 446) can be used to emphasize the great strength
of the new definition of “deductive validity” in the fifteenth edition of Introduction to
Logic versus other very common definitions.
Recall that Argument IX is the symbolized form of the following argument.

Today is Sunday.
Today is not Sunday.
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.

We symbolized this argument in Section 9.10 and 9.13 as:

(P1): S ARGUMENT IX
(P2): ~ S
∴M

The text just after Argument IX is (p. 445): “Argument IX is valid because it cannot
have all true premises and a false conclusion, and this is so because Argument IX cannot
have all true premises.”
A great advantage of the definition of “deductive validity” given in Introduction to
Logic (fifteenth edition) is that it provides a clear and direct answer to the question “Is
an argument with inconsistent premises valid or invalid?” Consider a different, quite
standard definition: “A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are all true,
its conclusion must be true.” This standard definition fails to tell us whether or not
Argument IX is valid, since the premises of Argument IX cannot all be true.
Consider again the natural language argument of Argument X in Section 9.13.

Paris is the capital of France.

Therefore, either New York is the capital of England or New York is not the capital of
England.

(P1): P ARGUMENT X
∴N~N

The text just after Argument X is (p. 446): “Note first that this argument is valid.
It is valid because, like Argument VII in Section 9.12, it has a tautological conclusion. Any
argument with a tautological conclusion is valid because it cannot have all true premises
and a false conclusion, and this is because it cannot have a false conclusion.”
Here too the definition of “deductive validity” given in Introduction to Logic (fifteenth
edition) is preferable to other common definitions. Our definition—i.e., that a valid
deductive argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion—tells us clearly
and directly that Argument X is valid because it cannot have a false conclusion. The standard
definition given above—i.e., “A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are all
true, its conclusion must be true”—suggests that an argument is valid only if its conclu-
sion must be true if its premises are all true. The conclusion of Argument X must be true,
but not because its premises are all true. The conclusion of Argument X must be true
even if its premise is false.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 101

Instructor’s Manual

In connection with Argument X, it is worth considering an argument not in the text.

Either Paris is the capital of France or Paris is not the capital of France.
Therefore, either New York is the capital of England or New York is not the capital of England.

This argument may be symbolized as follows.

P  ~ P ARGUMENT XII
∴N~N

Argument XII is sound. Indeed, one might say that it is necessarily sound because
its soundness results from its logical form alone, and has nothing to do with matters
of fact or contingent truth. Since its conclusion is a tautology, it is valid; and given
that its premise is also a tautology, it is a valid argument with all true premises and a
true conclusion (i.e., it is sound). Any argument with all tautological premises and a
tautological conclusion is sound, but its soundness does not depend on matters of facts
or contingent truth. Such an argument is sound no matter how the world or universe
happens to be constituted.
Argument XII has much in common with Argument X. Like Argument X, Argument
XII is valid because it cannot have a false conclusion. Secondly, like Argument X, since the
premise of Argument XII is irrelevant to its conclusion, that premise does not and cannot
establish the truth of its conclusion. Thirdly, like Argument X, Argument XII is sound, but
unlike Argument X, which is sound because its premise happens to be true, Argument XII is
necessarily sound. It is sound no matter how reality is constituted. Mostly importantly, as
with Argument X, since Argument XII has a tautological conclusion, Argument XII does
not and cannot establish the truth of its conclusion.
Just as Argument X demonstrates that soundness is not sufficient if we aim to know
how reality is, Argument XII further establishes the inadequacy of argument soundness.
Instead, we should demand that arguments be demonstrative—that they be sound and
have contingent conclusions—because only in such cases do sound arguments demon-
strate the truth of their conclusions.

Validity Once More

The justification of Indirect Proof (pp. 434–437) is complete. Most justifications of
Indirect Proof in textbooks are not complete. This is because most putative justifications
of Indirect Proof treat only one of three ways in which an argument can be valid.
Let us review the three ways in which an argument can be valid, as is detailed on
p. 435 of 9.12 (Indirect Proof).
An argument can be valid in three distinct ways:

(A) A valid argument with consistent premises and a contingent conclusion can have
all true premises, and it can have a false conclusion, but it cannot have both all true
premises and a false conclusion, because the truth of its conclusion is contained
within (or entailed by) the truth of its premises (Argument VI, below).
(B) A valid argument with a tautological conclusion cannot have all true premises and
a false conclusion because it cannot have a false conclusion (Argument VII, below).
(C) A valid argument with inconsistent premises cannot have all true premises and a
false conclusion because it cannot have all true premises (Argument VIII, p. 437).

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

102

Introduction to Logic

Most textbooks treat only (A). We strongly believe that students greatly benefit from
being clearly shown, by Introduction to Logic and by their instructor, that there are three
distinct kinds of valid arguments.
Indeed, we have distinguished sound arguments and demonstrative argu-
ments in Introduction to Logic, and also here, because (C) an argument with inconsistent
premises is valid because it cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion—
and this is so simply because it cannot have all true premises (Argument VIII, p. 437).
Furthermore, it is not enough to recognize that arguments with inconsistent premises
cannot be sound, because, as we have just seen again, and as is shown in detail in 9.13
of Introduction to Logic, Argument X and Argument XII are indeed sound, but they are
not demonstrative.
We encourage instructors to take a little time at or near the end of Chapter 9 to dis-
cuss the three kinds of valid arguments. If this is discussed while Indirect Proof is being
justified, good students may well wonder about the irrelevance of the premises to argu-
ments of type (B) and type (C). This wonderment, and the questions that may well issue
from it, will be well answered by 9.13, and by good classroom discussion.

End Notes
1 A good logician is a lazy logician! We always aim to prove validity or invalidity in the fewest
possible steps.
2 If we did not follow Maxim IV, and instead tried to make Premise 2 true, we would have made
G  H false in Premise 2 by making both G and H false. If G and H are false in Premise 1, since
E is true, the conditional (E  F) ⊃ (G · H) would be false.
3 In proving that the argument cannot have a false conclusion and all true premises, although
we have not constructed the complete truth table for this argument, we have proved that that
complete truth table does not have a line in which the premises are all true and the conclusion
is false.
4 The STTT is more efficient than the CTTM for all of the arguments in Introduction to Logic.

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Quantification Theory chapter 10

Multiple Choice

1. “The only people who cannot vote are those convicted of a felony.”
Translated into symbols, this would be:

a. (x)(Fx . ~Vx) · (x)(~Fx . Vx)
b. (x)(Fx ≡ Vx)
c. (x)(~Fx . Vx)
d. (x)(Fx . ~Vx)

Answer: a

2. Which of the assignments of truth values for Na, Ra, and Va shows the following

proof invalid?

1. (x)(Nx . Rx) Na . Ra
2. (x)(Vx . Nx) Va . Na
3. ∴ (x)(Rx . Vx) Ra . Va

a. Na Ra Va — TTF
b. Na Ra Va — TFT
c. Na Ra Va — FFT
d. Na Ra Va — FTT

Answer: a

3. Which statement is true of asyllogistic arguments?

a. They are arguments using propositional variables and quantifiers.

b. They can be translated with the help of quantifiers and propositional functions
into forms compatible with Aristotelian syllogisms.
c. They are called asyllogistic because they are not actual arguments.
d. They are cogent arguments that cannot be reduced to standard-form categori-
cal syllogisms.

Answer: d

4. Which of the choices below is a correct translation of “Real apricots are crunchy
and delicious” (R, A, C, D)?

a. (x)[(Rx · Ax) . (Cx  Dx)]
b. (x)[(Rx · Ax) . (Cx · Dx)]

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

104

Introduction to Logic

c. (x)[(Cx · Dx) . (Rx · Ax)]
d. (x)[(Rx · Ax) . (Cx . Dx)]

Answer: b
5. Which of the choices below is a correct translation of “Rocks will fall if and only if
they are nudged” (R, F, N)?

a. (x)[Rx . (Fx . Nx)]
b. (x)[(Fx . Nx) . Rx]
c. (x)[(Rx · Nx) . Fx]
d. (x)[(Rx . (Nx . Fx)]

Answer: a
6. Which of the following is a correct translation of “Not all books that are easy to
read are either cheap or enjoyable” (B, R, C, E)?

a. (x)[~(Cx · Ex) . (Bx  Rx)]
b. (x)[(Bx · Rx) . ~(Cx  Ex)]
c. (∃x)[(Bx · Rx)  ~(Cx  Ex)]
d. (∃x)[(Bx · Rx) · ~(Cx  Ex)]

Answer: d
7. Where is the mistake in the following proof?

  1. (∃x)(Fx · Ax)
  2. (∃x)(Fx · Ox)
 3. ∴ (∃x)(Ax · Ox)
 4. Fb · Ab (1, E.I.)
 5. Fb · Ob (2, E.I.)
 6. Ab · Fb (4, Com.)
 7. Ab (6, Simp.)
 8. Ob · Fb (5, Com.)
 9. Ob (8, Simp.)
10. Ab · Ob (7, 9, Conj.)
11. (∃x)(Ax · Ox) (10, E.G.)

a. line 4
b. line 8
c. line 5
d. line 9

Answer: c
8. “Hotels are both expensive and depressing. Some hotels are shabby. Therefore,
some expensive things are shabby.” Quantifier logic is superior to syllogistic logic
in rendering arguments such as this one into symbolic form. Why?
a. Quantifier logic allows us to take arguments at face value; it is a lot of unneces-
sary trouble to rearrange them into syllogisms and a lot easier to have a logic
that is a better match for ordinary language.
b. Syllogistic logic fell in after the discovery of the existential fallacy. The new
logic allows us to remove ourselves from the problem using quantifiers.
c. Syllogistic logic was burdened with meaningless and redundant structure, such
as the meticulous stacking of major and minor premises into the correct order.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
 105

Instructor’s Manual

d. Quantifier logic allows us to “bundle” concepts with parentheses instead of

“hiding” them in the subject or predicate terms, where they become unavail-
able for use in the proof.

Answer: d

  9. The principle of Universal Instantiation (U.I.) asserts that:

a. from the substitution instance of a particular propositional function with

respect to the name of any arbitrarily selected individual, one can validly
infer the universal quantification of that propositional function.
b. from any true substitution instance of a propositional function, we may
validly infer the universal instantiation of that propositional function.
c. any substitution instance of a propositional function can be validly inferred
from its existential quantification.
d. any substitution instance of a propositional function can be validly inferred
from its universal quantification.

Answer: d

10. Why do we use Universal Generalization (U.G.) in proofs?

a. to allow us to reason about the characteristics of individuals from premises

that include generalizations
b. to allow us to unlock simple statements from inside of compound statements
about particular individuals so that they may be used in proofs
c. to take isolated instances and put them in the form of “all” statements so that
conclusions may be drawn from them about more than one individual
d. to get from compound statements to simple ones so we can use the compo-
nents of those statements

Answer: c

True/False
11. The existential quantifier (∃x) stands for x or the phrase “there is at least one 
x such that.”

Answer: T

12. The biconditional relationship [(∃x)Nx] ≡ [~(x)~Nx] tells us that the universal and
existential quantifiers negate each other, and so the two quantifiers may never be
transformed into one another.

Answer: F

13. The universal quantifier may be dropped from a statement in a proof because of the
principle that any substitution instance whatsoever may be validly inferred from a
universally quantified proposition.

Answer: T

14. The rule of Existential Generalization (E.G.) is used to justify this inference:

(x)(Px . Qx)
∴ Pa . Qa

Answer: F

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

106

Introduction to Logic

15. To prove invalidity when working with quantified propositions, first construct a
possible universe containing two members.

Answer: F

Pattern Match
16. In quantifier logic, the lower-case c (denoting, say, Carl) is an individual ________.

person, variable, constant

17. The process of placing a universal quantifier before a propositional function is

called      .

universalization, generalization, simplification

18. “      professors are not human” may be rendered in symbolic logic as
(∃x)(Px · ~Hx).

All, Some, Wild

19. Any formula in which ________ signs apply only to simple predicates is called a
normalform formula.

negation, predication, quantification

20. In quantification theory, propositions are formed either by quantification

or by       .

negation, predication, instantiation

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Analogical Reasoning chapter 11

Multiple Choice
1. “Compromising with an enemy in your midst is like trying to reason with a cancer
in the body. The doctor does not compromise with the cancer—he cuts it out before
it can spread.”
Of the choices below, which counteranalogy most decisively refutes this argument?
a. People are rational agents, and cancers are not.
b. If a person can be a cancer, then we could call anything we don’t like a disease,
like taxes or tornadoes.
c. A doctor who performs surgery when other less drastic measures would have
worked instead is a bad doctor—perhaps even a criminal.
d. Calling people of other ethnic backgrounds “cancers” is like calling them
“cockroaches”—it is certainly bigotry.
Answer: c
2. “Getting up in the morning and going to work without taking a morning jog is like
expecting your car to drive without first turning on the engine.”
Which of the following counteranalogies most decisively refutes this reasoning?
a. Getting up and immediately jogging around the block is like jogging right after
a full meal. I wouldn’t advise it.
b. Getting up in the morning and taking a morning run before going to work is
like running around the track until you’re exhausted just before competing in
a big race.
c. Trying to get up and jog every morning is like remembering to floss your teeth:
It is the sort of New Year’s resolution that does not last past January.
d. Going to work right after jogging is like filling out tax forms in your dentist’s
waiting room—why do this to yourself?
Answer: b
3. “I have been to Florida two times. Each time, I had great weather and a great time.
I conclude, therefore, that Florida is a great place to vacation.”
What would be the best way to make this conclusion stronger?
a. if I had been there a dozen times
b. if I gave more information about the state of Florida
c. if I had said where I stayed while there
d. if I had discussed other vacations not taken in Florida
Answer: a
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
108

Introduction to Logic

4. “I have always liked Fords. They are great cars: you’ll get at least 200,000 miles on
an Escort; it will never break down!”
What is the best way to make this claim even stronger?

a. saying “300,000” instead of “200,000”

b. saying why Fords are better than Hondas
c. estimating a bit less than “200,000” and saying “almost never”
d. letting someone actually drive the Escort in question

Answer: c

5. “This chef is from the south of France—the same place that Chef Picard is from! We
should dine at his restaurant as soon as we can!”
On which criterion is this analogical argument rather weak?

a. number of entities
b. variety of instances in the premises
c. relevance
d. all of the above

Answer: d
6. “I have been to McDonald’s in New York City, in Los Angeles, and in London—and
in all three places, the French fries have tasted exactly the same. Because of these
three experiences, I am confident in saying that McDonald’s French fries taste the
same everywhere.”
This argument’s strength rests on the criterion of:

a. number of entities
b. relevance
c. variety of the instances in the premises
d. all of the above

Answer: d

7. “What do you mean I should be careful eating this chili? I have been to Wendy’s for
lunch every day since 1985—except for Sundays and holidays. Each time, I have eaten
chili, and each time it has been great. It has never caused me the least bit of discom-
fort, either. I conclude from this that Wendy’s chili will not cause me discomfort now.”
The speaker’s argument relies mostly on the criterion of:

a. number of entities
b. relevance
c. variety of the instances in the premises
d. number of similar respects

Answer: a

8. “I don’t care that you think that you and your silly friend have so much in com-
mon. You may be the same age, and weight, and height; you may even both like
Pokémon and pizza. But that doesn’t matter: he comes from a Baptist family, and
we are Buddhist.”
This speaker’s argument rests on the criterion of:

a. disanalogies
b. relevance

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 109

Instructor’s Manual

c. variety of the instances in the premises

d. number of similar respects

Answer: b

  9. Which conclusion would make an argument the strongest?

a. I know that we will always be together.
b. I know that we will be together for years.
c. I know that we will be friends for a long time.
d. I know that we will have a good time tomorrow.

Answer: d

10. Zibby has taken four logic courses in college, and has liked them all. So she decides
to take one more, expecting that she will like it, too. Which of the following addi-
tional pieces of information would make this conclusion more probable?

a. Her previous logic courses have all been with the same professor, but she does
not know the professor teaching this course.
b. Her previous logic courses have all been in Aristotelian logic, and this one is
in symbolic logic.
c. Her previous logic courses have been the most exciting experiences of her
life—and she has very high expectations of this one.
d. She also took logic courses in high school, and she liked them as well.

Answer: d

True/False
11. To be deductively valid, an argument by analogy must pass all six of the criteria for
appraising analogical arguments.

Answer: F

12. Because I’ve dropped my watch in a pond, worn it in the rain, and had it on me
while swimming, my belief in its quality is more justified now than when the sales-
person first demonstrated it to me.

Answer: T

13. It is not possible to logically refute an analogy, even if the counteranalogy has
exactly the same form, because analogical reasoning is inductive, which means that
the premises never support the conclusion with certainty.

Answer: T

14. If I have always had excellent advice from my best friend, and another friend asks
me how good her advice is, my claim will be stronger if I say that her advice has
been pretty good instead of excellent.

Answer: T

15. One serious disanalogy always tends to weaken an analogy, regardless of the fact
that the two things being compared may have a great many similarities.

Answer: T

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

110

Introduction to Logic

Pattern Match
16. In order for a refutation by logical analogy to be successful, the counteranalogy
needs to have a form ________ to that of the original.

different, opposite, similar

17. In a refuting analogy, the conclusion should be known to be ________.

false, valid
true, 

18. Pointing out a ________ is often the same as detecting the fallacy of accident.

false premise, disanalogy, true premise

19. An argument is _________ when its conclusion is made less bold.

strengthened, lengthened
weakened, 

20. The more dissimilar the instances mentioned in the premises of an analogical argu-
ment are, the ________ the argument is.

weaker, stronger, harder

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Causal Reasoning chapter 12

Multiple Choice
1. Our experience is of particular events. Causal laws, however, refer to all events of a cer-
tain type. Therefore, in order to use our experience to test causal assertions, we must:

a. gather as many confirming instances as we can before declaring that we know

any causal fact with certainty
b. not become confused by the apparent contradiction. Just because our experi-
ence is only of particular events does not mean we cannot definitely declare
general laws to be true
c. remember that every time we confirm a causal assertion, we are only confirm-
ing a single instance of it
d. remember that no causal assertion is ever completely confirmed

Answer: d

2. Which of the following statements is not true of induction by simple enumeration?

a. It is a trustworthy way to generate basic hypotheses in science to use for fur-

ther testing.
b. It is really extended argument by analogy, and differs from analogy only in
that it has a more general conclusion.
c. It makes no distinctions between genuine confirming instances of a law and
sheer coincidence.
d. It takes no account of critical disconfirming instances of causal laws, and thus
does not work for testing causal hypotheses.

Answer: a

3. The method of agreement is particularly useful when:

a. we want to narrow down the range of phenomena in question for possible

further scientific research.
b. we are interested in pinpointing the exact cause of a phenomenon such as an
epidemic.
c. we cannot separate the cause we are interested in from the effects it is entan-
gled with, though we do know what some of the other causes are.
d. we have a phenomenon to study that cannot be disconnected from a network
of other significant factors, and any experiment involving the elimination of
factors one by one is impossible.

Answer: a

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

112

Introduction to Logic

4. The joint method of agreement and difference is commonly used in medical inves-
tigation because:

a. it allows researchers to double-check their results.

b. other methods are forbidden by laws against human experimentation.
c. it prevents wasted time and research money by doubling the possibility of
obtaining results.
d. it allows a substance to be suggested as a cause while allowing other candidate
substances to be eliminated.

Answer: d

5. “I was wondering why my houseplants were dying. Perhaps I was watering and
fertilizing them incorrectly. Then I realized that my apartment got pretty hot
when the air conditioning was off when I was away. I decided to try to find the
right temperature to keep my plants healthy. For three days, I left the air con-
ditioner set on one particular temperature, and in five-degree increments I tried
temperatures from sweltering to chilly, until I finally found the temperature they
liked best.”
This experiment used:

a. the method of agreement

b. the method of concomitant variation
c. the joint method of agreement and difference
d. a poor approximation of the method of concomitant variation

Answer: b

6. Which of the following actions is not an example of the application of the method
of residues?

a. Moving guests at a hotel, where large numbers of guests became ill, out of a
suspected wing to see if the wing’s climate control system is at fault.
b. Weighing an inflated balloon to find out how much the air inside it weighs.
c. Identifying all of the possible causes for an irregularity in the orbit of a planet,
concluding that they do not completely explain it, and hypothesizing on that
basis that there must be some other unknown cause.
d. Running a truck over a truck scale and concluding that it is carrying too much
freight.

Answer: a

7. The method of residues is designed to deal with situations where

a. a cause that operates within a complex set of effects is sought, and while the
exact variable cannot be isolated, it is possible to manipulate it experimentally.
b. a cause is sought for a similar effect occurring in disparate circumstances,
and the major candidates for possible causes can be eliminated or produced
experimentally.
c. a cause that operates within a complex set of effects is sought, and many but
not all of the contributing causes are already known.
d. a cause, the necessary cause of an effect, is sought—investigators wish to con-
firm that an effect simply cannot happen without this antecedent event.

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 113

Instructor’s Manual

  8. Which of the following situations would not be a likely candidate for the use of the
joint method of agreement and difference?

a. Allergists suspect that some common substance is causing my rash; they decide
to conduct experiments to track down the exact cause.
b. Epidemiologists suspect that a high intake of salt is related to heart disease, so
they decide to investigate the question.
c. Medical researchers want to know the cause of a nerve disease; they hope to
study a population which has a high incidence of the disease to see if they can
learn something about it and, if possible, develop a treatment and test it on
the same population.
d. A dentist wants to know if her new denture linings are as good as she thinks,
so she phones all of her denture-wearing patients, including those wearing
other linings, and asks them how their denture linings are holding up.

Answer: b

  9. Which of the following phenomena would be best investigated using the method
of residues?

a. Researchers want to study the relationship between drinking wine and heart
disease in humans.
b. A detective wants to determine who last touched a murder weapon; he has a
fingerprint dusting kit.
c. The government wants to know the weight of the freight a semi-truck is carrying.
d. A professor of logic wants to know how much lecturing is optimal for teaching
about the method of residues.

Answer: c

10. We can legitimately infer cause from effect only in the sense of:

a. proximate cause
b. sufficient condition
c. necessary condition
d. remote cause

Answer: c

True/False
11. A necessary condition for the occurrence of an event is a circumstance in whose
presence the event must occur.

Answer: F

12. We can never completely confirm a causal assertion, no matter how many confirm-
ing instances we accumulate.

Answer: T

13. “Double-arm” trials, in which one group receives a treatment while another does
not, and then the treatment groups are reversed, are based upon the joint method
of agreement and difference.

Answer: T

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

114

Introduction to Logic

14. Scientists cannot use the method of residues when they cannot conduct experi-
ments to produce one isolated effect in the lab.

Answer: F

15. When using the method of concomitant variation, it is necessary to have a measur-
ing system already established.

Answer: T

Pattern Match
16. When researchers study hundreds of families to try to find something unique to
the genetic makeup of persons suffering from a particular disease, they are using
the method of ________.

agreement, residues, difference

17. “Knockout mice” that are missing a crucial gene are specifically bred for use in
experiments that use the method of ________.

difference, residues, agreement

18. The method of ________ differs from the other methods in that it may be used to
examine only one case.

residues, agreement, difference

19. To say that A causes B is to claim that there is some ________ law determining that
A will always generate B in this way.

particular, general, necessary

20. A ________ condition describes a circumstance in whose absence an event cannot

occur.

sufficient, true, necessary

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Science and Hypothesis chapter 13

Multiple Choice
1. Which, of the choices below, is the least important reason for scientists to pursue
their fields?
a. They want to satisfy their curiosity.
b. They want to find practical solutions to human problems.
c. They want to increase the total amount of information available to humanity.
d. They want to unify knowledge and make it simpler.
Answer: c
2. The five criteria for evaluating scientific hypotheses do not tell us that:
a. the facts in question must be deducible from the proposed hypotheses.
b. certain procedures must be followed in order to generate truly scientific
hypotheses.
c. there must be the possibility of making observations that confirm or discon-
firm the proposed hypothesis.
d. any system of explanatory hypotheses must be self-consistent.
Answer: b
3. Sir Isaac Newton’s celestial mechanics based on his theories of gravitation and
motion replaced the astronomical theories of Kepler and Galileo because it:
a. explained everything that the previous theories did, and some additional
phenomena.
b. was set on a firmer scientific basis than the older theories.
c. got rid of a system of confusing epicycles.
d. had been proved to be true with a series of brilliant crucial experiments.
Answer: a
4. Scientific investigation cannot begin until:
a. a considerable amount of background research has been done on a given ques-
tion to determine which hypothesis is the most promising.
b. all the scientists engaged on a project can agree upon what method to use to
find answers to a question.
c. the problem to be solved is clearly identified.
d. scientists meet and decide to cooperate in research activity.
Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

116

Introduction to Logic

5. Which sentence describes a preliminary hypothesis?

a. It is the sort of thing that misleads researchers who are searching for objective
answers.
b. It should not be formulated until all available information has been evaluated.
c. It is that scientific explanation which subsequent research will ultimately con-
firm or disconfirm.
d. It is a framework which guides researchers in the collection of data.

Answer: d

6. In formulating a final hypothesis which eventually becomes an accepted scientific

explanation,

a. researchers must take care not to reach beyond the facts.

b. scientists must account for all of the new information which their investiga-
tion uncovers, but they need not worry about explaining facts accounted for
by previous theories.
c. an “imaginative leap” is often necessary which reaches beyond the facts.
d. the sky is the limit—scientists should realize that a creative hypothesis is like
a great work of art, and has no conceptual limits.

Answer: c

7. When a hypothesis is labeled ad hoc, one of several senses may be intended. Which
of the statements below does not describe one of these senses?

a. The hypothesis was devised in order to take some specific data into account.
b. The hypothesis was devised in order to cover up an inconsistency in the theo-
retical structure caused by the appearance of some new data.
c. The hypothesis was created in a sort of theoretical vacuum: it explains the
phenomenon that needs explaining, but nothing else.
d. The hypothesis was created in order to provide an adequate explanation of
some data, but does not succeed in doing so.

Answer: d

8. An objective scientist, when comparing two classification schemes, would:

a. realize that one cannot reasonably be preferred over the other, since all clas-
sification springs from whatever practical interests inspired it.
b. prefer the simpler scheme.
c. prefer the scheme which allows more facts to be predicted and more theories
to be generated out of it.
d. prefer the scheme which reflects reality most accurately.

Answer: c

9. Which one of the following statements does not help explain why every classifica-
tion we make is also a bit of a hypothesis?

a. The best classifications tell us something essential about the thing they name,
something that is so much a part of that thing, that if it were changed, the
thing really wouldn’t be what it is.
b. There is not enough time in the world to describe any event or object in infi-
nite detail; thus, choices must be made about what to include and exclude in

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 117

Instructor’s Manual

the description. These choices are made on the basis of hypotheses concerning
what is important.
c. Scientists can’t classify organisms without making guesses about how those
organisms are causally related to each other; when they do that, they are pro-
posing biological hypotheses.
d. Classifications are always made in order to make comprehending a mass of
information easier and “easier” is, of course, defined in accordance with what-
ever interests the classifier has.

Answer: a

10. Why do scientists accept scientific theories?

a. because they come on good authority

b. because they have overwhelming evidence in their favor
c. because they are based on longstanding tradition
d. because they trigger deeply felt intuitions

Answer: b

True/False
11. Scientists are not primarily interested in cataloging facts.

Answer: T

12. Scientific explanations, because they are based on empirical evidence, inspire greater
loyalty than unscientific explanations.

Answer: F

13. There is no difference between dogmatic explanation and scientific explanation.

Answer: F

14. There are no rules that can tell anyone how to generate good hypotheses, and no
rules to which acceptable hypotheses must conform.

Answer: F

15. Problems in science are sometimes solved by scientists who are motivated by the
desire to show the connections between the earlier discoveries of two of their
teachers.

Answer: T

Pattern Match
16. The only real test of truth in science for a hypothesis is whether it is supported by
________.

evidence, scientists, politicians

17. Science is ________—that is, it holds that sensory experience is the basis for every
scientific statement.

a priori, empirical, biased

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

118

Introduction to Logic

18. Sometimes a hypothesis is chosen over a rival hypothesis, even though they both
explain the world equally well, just because it is ________.

simpler, more elegant, more popular

19. After a preliminary hypothesis has been confirmed, a second, more complete
________ hypothesis is formulated.

simple, causal, explanatory

20. A(n) ________ hypothesis is helpful in sorting relevant from irrelevant facts when
an investigator is collecting facts.

explanatory, preliminary, final

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

Probability chapter 14

Multiple Choice
1. What is the formula for the joint occurrence of two dependent events?

a. P(a and b) = P(a) × P(b if a)

b. P(a and b) = P(a) + P(b if a)
c. P(a or b) = P(a) × P(b if a)
d. P(a or b) = P(a) + P(b if a)

Answer: a

2. Which of the following is an example of the joint occurrence of two independent

events?

a. drawing the king of clubs from a deck of cards, in two draws, replacing the first
card after the first draw
b. drawing the king of clubs from a deck of cards, in two draws, not replacing the
first card after the first draw
c. drawing an ace or a deuce from a deck of cards, in two draws, not replacing
the first card after the first draw
d. None of the above

Answer: a
3. My insurance agent claims that my chances of living to age sixty-five (as a non-
smoking female) are 75%. However, another agent, from another agency, told me
just last week that my chances are better than 78%. What is the most reasonable
explanation for these different figures?

a. One agent is giving me false numbers to justify charging a higher rate for life
insurance. Both sets of numbers cannot be accurate at the same time.
b. One agent is using more accurate figures than the other. One set is obviously
incorrect.
c. They are both correct—both are judging probabilities based on the evidence
available.
d. Statistics cannot really tell us anything reliable about what has not happened.

Answer: c

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

120

Introduction to Logic

4. What is the probability of rolling at least one three on a single roll of three
dice?

a. 1/6 × 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/216

b. 1/6 × 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/18
c. 1/6 +1/6 + 1/6 = 1/2
d. 1/2 + 2/6 + 3/6 = 5/6

Answer: c

5. I have two cars. I need to know the probability of at least one of my cars starting
in the morning. To figure this out, I take the probability that each car itself will
start, and:

a. I add them together.

b. I multiply them together.
c. I add them together and subtract from one.
d. I add them together and subtract the possibility of their joint occurrence.

Answer: a
6. I would like to know my chances of surviving to see my son’s high-school gradu-
ation. I need to live another twelve years, of course, and my son has to live that
long as well—and he also has to graduate! What formula would I use to calculate
my chances?

a. the addition theorem for mutually exclusive alternatives

b. the addition theorem for nonexclusive alternatives
c. the general product theorem for the joint occurrence of independent
events
d. the general product theorem for the joint occurrence of dependent events

Answer: c

7. I have two jars of coins. One jar contains fifteen coins (five pennies and ten dimes)
and the other contains twenty coins (ten of each). What are my chances of drawing
two of the same coin if I take one coin from each jar?

a. 1/2 + 15/20 = 125%

b. 1/6 × 1/3 = 5.5%
c. 1/2 × 15/20 = 37.5%
d. 1/6 + 1/3 = 50%

Answer: d

8. Where investments are concerned, safety and productivity are considerations that
always:

a. serve as indicators of each other

b. complement each other
c. get in the way of a rational assessment of an investment
d. pull in opposite directions

Answer: d

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

 121

Instructor’s Manual

  9. I have $400 to invest. I am considering buying a CD (which will pay 6%), but I also
just got a prospectus from a corporation selling bonds, which promises 24%. I don’t
know where to put my money! That is probably because:

a. I don’t know what the expectation value of the CD is.

b. I don’t know what the expectation value of the bond is.
c. I don’t know the probability of the corporation making good on the bond.
d. I don’t know what the return on the bond is.

Answer: c

10. I take the separate probabilities of at least one of two events (which cannot both
happen at once) and add them together. I am trying to figure:

a. a joint occurrence
b. an alternate occurrence of mutually exclusive events
c. an alternate occurrence of nonexclusive events
d. the expectation value of the occurrences

Answer: b

True/False
11. Two events are mutually exclusive when the occurrence of one prevents the occur-
rence of the other thereafter.

Answer: F

12. To figure the probability of either of two mutually exclusive events (A or B) occur-
ring, the probability of B occurring is subtracted from the probability of A occurring.

Answer: F

13. We use the addition theorem to compute the probability of the alternative occur-
rences of nonexclusive events.

Answer: F

14. To figure the probability of getting at least one head on your first two coin tosses,
figure out how likely it would be not to get any heads at all, and subtract from one.

Answer: T

15. “Expectation value” is the calculated value of a wager or investment, taking into
account not only the value but also the probability of each possible return.

Answer: T

Pattern Match
16. The two formulas for the calculation of the probability of the joint occurrence of
simple events are known as the ________ theorem.

product, addition, independent

© 2019 Taylor & Francis

122

Introduction to Logic

17. The probability of a complex event that consists of nonexclusive alternatives can
be computed by changing it into a set of mutually exclusive alternatives, and then
using the ________ theorem.

addition, product, expectation value

18. In the __________ view of probability, we figure the probability of the occurrence of
an event by dividing the number of ways in which the event can occur by the total
number of equipossible outcomes.

a priori, relative frequency, product

19. Events are called ________ if the occurrence or nonoccurrence of one has no effect
upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the other.

probable, independent, dependent

20. To compute the probability of the joint occurrence of two independent events, you
________ their separate probabilities together.

add, subtract, multiply

© 2019 Taylor & Francis