Chapter 7

C. NATURE OF ARGUMENT

D. TYPES OF MEDIATE INFERENCE

1. INDUCTIVE INFERENCE
2. DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE
 E. DETERMINING AN ARGUMENT
There are no fast rules for telling when a collection of
statements is intended to be an argument, but there are a
few rules of thumb. Often, an argument can be identified as
such, because its conclusion is marked. Other times, neither
the conclusion nor the premises of an argument are marked,
so it is harder to tell that the collection of statements is
intended to be an argument.

 An argument is present when certain special words are

used. We call these words and phrases inference
indicators. They are words or phrases (sometimes even
whole sentences) that tell us that some statements are
being offered as a reason for some statements. They
indicate that the speaker or writer has made an
inference, and has reached a conclusion based on some
reasons. "Therefore" is used to indicate that the first
statement after it is a reason and, often, the statement
before it is a conclusion.
It is useful to divide inference indicators into two kinds,
based on the status of the statements that comes
immediately after them. Conclusions come right after
consclusion indicators, and reasons comes right after
reason indicators.
Reasons / Premise Conclusion Indicators
Indicators
because, therefor,
due to the fact that, so,
is based on, thus,
is proven by, which proves that,
is shown by, which shows that,
which follows from, from which it follows that,
is a consequence of, consequently,
since, which leads to,
for which is why
 The following, are some connective words that
are never considered inference indicators: but,
however, moreover, in addition, furthermore, and
nevertheless. Hence, inference indicators are
words and phrases which connect statements,
but the above words and phrases that connect
statements are not inference indicators.
 F. EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
To assess the worth of an argument, only two aspects of
the argument need to be considered: the truth of the
premises and the validity of the reasoning from them to
the conclusion. Of these, logicians study only the
reasoning; they leave the question of the truth of the
premises to empirical scientists.
An argument is considered to be "logically correct" when
it satisfies the following conditions that are: If the
premises were true, this fact would constitute good
grounds for accepting the conclusion as true.
Nevertheless, this condition is not concerned with
whether the premises are true. In evaluating arguments,
therefore, one is concerned with the relation between
the premises and conclusion and not with the question
of whether the premises are in fact true.
 A deductive argument is said to be valid when the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Here are
two equaivalent ways of stating that standard:

* If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its

conclusion must also be true.

* It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to

be false while its premises are true.
 Note: The validity of the inference of a deductive
argument is independent of the truth of its premises.
This criterion for deductive validity does not require
that the premises are true, nor the conclusion true,
rather it says that, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true, Hence, deductive validity is a
function of the form, or structure, of the statements in
the argument and not a function of whether the
statements are in fact true.
Argument 1 Argument 2
All humans are mortal. (T) All mammals are four-legged beings. (F)

Pedro is a human being. (T) Pedro is a mammal (T)

/: Pedro is mortal (T) /: Pedro is a four-legged being. (F)

In Argument 1, both premises and the conclusion are true.

In Argument 2, the premise and the conclusion are false.
Notice, that the arguments have the same form or structure.
It is because of this form that we can say that the truth
of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
If it were true that all mammals are four-legged, then it
must be true that Pedro, as a mammal is four-legged.
The argument form in this example is one of many
deductively valid argument forms. If an argument in
ordinary discourse fits into a deductively valid
argument form, then we can say that if the premises
are true the conclusion must be true even though we
do not know whether the premises are true.
 We can know that an argument is valid and not know the
meaning of the terms in the premises and conclusion.
Consider this example:
All unicorns are one-eyed

All one-eyed beings are colored white

Therefore, all unicorns are colored white.
The terms in this argument may be nonsense or out of this world.
But that makes no difference to the validity of the argument. It is
a deductively valid argument because of the form.
If the premises turn out to be true, they guarantee the truth of
the conclusion.
G. FORM VERSUS CONTENT OF AN ARGUMENT
H. VALIDITY AS A FUNCTION OF FORM
 Content is what a text says. Form is the way in which what it
says is arranged. Everything from a chapter to a paragraph to
a punctuation mark is a way of arranging the content of a
text, and thus a formal quality. Form and content can't be
disconnected from one another because no two formal
arrangements of a text would convey the same impression.
What's more, form can actually determine content. For
instance, when Andrew Marvell writes in his poem 'The
Bermudas' "he hangs in shades the orange bright /Like golden
lamps in the green night', the fact that he has to find a rhyme
to complete the couplet requires him to write 'orange bright',
rather than 'bright orange', because nothing rhymes with
orange.
 FORM Vs cONTENT

Focus is CONTENT (not a concern of logic);:

An argument is factually correct if and
only if all of its premises are true.
<<<The truth or falsity of statements is thee
subject matter of the sciences>>>
 H.VALIDITY AS A FUNCTION OF FORM
Although the definition of an argument may give us a
general idea concerning what 'valid' means in logic, it is
difficult to apply to specific instances. Hence, we could
also say that if an argument is valid, then every argument
with the same form is also valid. An argument form then
is a pattern of reasoning.

 Consider the following substitution instances of the concrete

argument below. To the right are their corresponding argument
forms.
Substitution Instances Argument Forms
All cats are mammals. (T)---All X are Y
Some mammals are dogs. (T)-----Some Y are Z
Some cats are dogs. (F) ---------------/:Some X are Z

First,notice that the premises of the given argument are both

true, but the conclusion is false. Therefore, in virtue of the
principle, the argument above is invalid. But if the argument is
invalid, every argument with the same form as others is also
invalid.The following arguments below are invalid.
(1) All cats are mammals.(T)------------------All X are Y
Some mammals are pets. (T)-----------------Some Y are Z
/:Some cats are pets.(T)------------------/: Some X are Z Some X
are Z

J. TRUTH, VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS OF AN

ARGUMENT