CRITICAL THINKING

Course code: PE008IU (3 credits)

Instructor: TRAN THANH TU
Email: [email protected]

1
BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

[email protected]
[email protected]
 Remember!

 Before we can effectively analyze and

evaluate an argument, we need to
understand clearly what kind of
argument is being offered.
[email protected]
 Deduction & Induction

Types of Arguments:

Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is

Deductive arguments
claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises.

Inductive
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is
arguments
claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.

[email protected]
 Deduction & Induction
Arguments below
deductive or
inductive?
Argument 1
 All Humans are Mortal.
 Socrates is human.
 Therefore, Socrates is Mortal.
Argument 2
 If the president lives in the White House, then he
lives in Washington, D.C.
 The president does live in the White House.
 So the president lives in Washington, D.C.
[email protected]
 KEY DIFFERENCES
Deductive arguments claim that Inductive arguments claim that
 If the premises are true, then  If the premises are true, then
the conclusion must be true. the conclusion is probably true.
 The conclusion follows  The conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises. probably from the premises.
 The premises provide  The premises provide good
conclusive evidence for the (but not conclusive) evidence
truth of the conclusion. for the truth of the conclusion.
 It is impossible for all the  It is unlikely for the premises to
premises to be true and the be true and the conclusion
conclusion false. false.
 It is logically inconsistent to  Although it is logically
assert the premises and deny consistent to assert the
the conclusion, meaning that if premises and deny the
you accept the premises, you conclusion, the conclusion is
must accept the conclusion. probably true if the premises
are true.
 Deduction & Induction

 There are four tests that can be used to

determine whether an argument is deductive or
inductive:

1. The Indicator Word Test

2. The Strict Necessity Test
3. The Common Pattern Test
4. The Principle of Charity Test

[email protected]
 1. The Indicator Word Test
 Common deduction indicator words include words
or phrases like necessarily, logically, it must be the
case that, and this proves that.
 Common induction indicator words include words
or phrases like probably, likely, it is plausible to
suppose that, it is reasonable to think that, and it's a
good bet that.
Tom is an IT student.
Most IT students own laptops.
So, probably Tom owns a laptop.
[email protected]
 2. The Strict Necessity Test
Texans are architects.
No architects are Democrats.
So, no Texans are Democrats.

 The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion

follows from the premises with strict logical necessity.

 If it does, then the argument is deductive.

 If it does not, then the argument is inductive.

[email protected]
 3. The Common Pattern Test
 The common pattern test asks whether the
argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive.
 If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically deductive, then the
argument is probably deductive.
 If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically inductive, then the
argument is probably inductive.

[email protected]
 4. The Principle of Charity Test
Andy told me that he ate at B restaurant yesterday.
But that restaurant was completely destroyed by fire
less than a month ago. It is certain, therefore, that
Andy is either lying or mistaken.

 Indicator: “It is certain that”  YES

 Conclusion follows necessarily from premise?? 
NO
 Common pattern??  NOT CLEAR
According to the principle of charity test, we
should always interpret an unclear argument or
passage as generously as possible.
[email protected]
 3. COMMON PATTERN TEST
Deduction & Induction reasoning

 The quickest way to determine whether an

argument is deductive or inductive is to note
whether it has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive

[email protected]
 3.1 Deductive reasoning
 The are five common patterns of deductive
reasoning:
 3.1.1 Hypothetical syllogism
 3.1.2 Categorical syllogism
 3.1.3 Argument by elimination
 3.1.4 Argument based on mathematics
 3.1.5 Argument from definition

[email protected]
 3.1.1 Hypothetical syllogism

 A syllogism is simply a three – line argument,

exactly two premises and a conclusion.
 Hypothetical syllogism contains at least one
hypothetical or conditional (i.e, if – then)
premise
 There are 5 types of hypothetical syllogism

[email protected]
Types of syllogism Structure

Modus ponens If A then B.

A.
Therefore, B.
Modus tollens If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
Chain argument If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.
Denying the If A then B.
antecedent Not A.
Therefore, not B.
Affirming the If A then B.
consequent B.
Therefore, A.
 3.1.2 Categorical syllogism

 A categorical syllogism may be defined as a

three-line argument in which each statement
begins with the word all, some, or no.

 Example
 All bats are mammals.
 All mammals are warm-blooded.
 So, all bats are warm-blooded.

[email protected]
 3.1.3 Argument by elimination

 An argument by elimination seeks by elimination

seeks to logically rule out various possibilities
until only a single possibility remains.

 Example
 Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
 But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
 Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

[email protected]
 3.1.4 Argument based on mathematics
 Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-step
reasoning. They claim to prove that their conclusion on
the basis of precise mathematical concepts and
reasoning.
 In an argument based on mathematics, the conclusion is
claimed to depend largely or entirely on some
mathematical calculation or measurement.

 Example:
 Eight is greater than four.
 Four is greater than two.
 Therefore, eight is greater than two.
[email protected]
 3.1.5 Argument from definition

 In Argument from definition, the conclusion is

presented as being “true by definition”, that is, as
following simply by definition some key words or
phrases used in the argument.

 Example
 Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a
doctor.
 Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.
[email protected]
 3.2 Inductive reasoning
 The are six common patterns of
inductive reasoning:
 3.2.1 Inductive generalization
 3.2.2 Predictive argument
 3.2.3 Argument from authority
 3.2.4 Causal argument
 3.2.5 Statically argument
 3.2.6 Argument from analogy

[email protected]
 3.2.1 Inductive generalization
 A generalization is a statement that attribute some
characteristic to all or most members of a given
class.
 An inductive generalization is an argument in which
a generalization is claimed to be probably true
based on information about some members of a
particular class.
 Example:
 All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more
than sixty-five million years old.
 Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more
than sixty-five million years old.
[email protected]
 3.2.2 Predictive argument
 A prediction is a statement about what may or will
happen in the future.
 In a Predictive argument, a prediction is defended
with reasons.
 Example
 It has rained in Vancouver every February since
weather records have been kept.
 Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next
February.

[email protected]
 3.2.3 Argument from Authority

 An argument from authority asserts a claim and

then supports that claims by citing some
presumed authority or witness who has said that
the claim is true.

 Example
 There are bears in these woods.
 My neighbor Frank said that he saw one last week.

[email protected]
 3.2.4 Causal argument

 A causal argument asserts or denies that

something is the cause of something else.

 Example
 I can’t log-in.
 The network must be down.

[email protected]
 3.2.5 Statically argument

 A Statically argument rests on statistical evidence,

that is, evidence that some percentage of some
group or class has some particular characteristic.

 Example
 Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s student are
Episcopalian.
 Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
 So, Beatrice is probably Episcopalian.

[email protected]
 3.2.6 Argument from analogy
 An analogy is a comparison of two or more
things that are claimed to be alike in some relevant
respect.
 In an Argument from analogy, the conclusion is
claimed to depend on an analogy between two or
more things.
 Example
 Hershey Park has a thrilling roller- coaster ride.
 Dorney Park, like Hershey Park, is great amusement
park.
 Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a thrilling
roller-coaster ride.
[email protected]
 TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
Deductive arguments Inductive arguments

3.1.1 Hypothetical syllogism 3.2.1 Inductive generalization

3.1.2 Categorical syllogism 3.2.2 Predictive argument
3.1.3 Argument by 3.2.3 Argument from
elimination authority
3.1.4 Argument based on 3.2.4 Causal argument
mathematics 3.2.5 Statically argument
3.1.5 Argument from 3.2.6 Argument from analogy
definition
[email protected]
Valid does not mean “true”!!!
Valid means that the argument is well reasoned, that
the pattern of reasoning is a logically reliable pattern of
reasoning, that the conclusion follows necessary
from the premises.
[email protected]
 Deductive Validity
 Deductive arguments are either 100% valid or 100%
invalid.
 A valid deductive argument is a deductive argument in
which the conclusion follows logically (i.e., with strict logical
necessity) from the premises. In other words, a valid argument
is a deductive argument in which it would be contradictory to
assert all the premises as true and yet deny the conclusion.

 A valid deductive argument is an argument in

which it is impossible for all premises to be
true and the conclusion false.
 An invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument in
which the conclusion does not follow logically from the
premises.
[email protected]
 Valid does not mean “true”!!!
Deductive validity
 Both valid and has all true premises  sound
deductive argument
 Either invalid or has at least one false premise 
unsound deductive argument
Deductive argument

False Ps, false C.

False Ps, true C. valid Invalid (all True Ps, false C.
True Ps, true C. are unsound)

Sound Unsound
True Ps, true C. False Ps, false C.
False Ps, true C. Chapter 9&10
[email protected]
 Deductive Validity
"The C's Test.“ is a helpful (but not foolproof)
method for testing arguments for validity.
The Three C's Test involves three steps:

1. Check to see whether the premises are actually true and

the conclusion is actually false.
• If they are, then the argument is invalid. (By definition,
no valid argument can have all true premises and a false
conclusion.)
• If they are not, or if you don't know whether the premises
are true and the conclusion is false, then go on to step 2.

[email protected]
 Deductive Validity

2. See if you can conceive a possible scenario in which

the premises would be true and the conclusion false.
• If you can, then the argument is invalid.
• If you can't, and it is not obvious that the conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises, then go on to
step 3.

[email protected]
 Deductive Validity
3. Try to construct a counterexample- a special kind of
parallel argument--that proves that the argument is invalid.
Constructing a counterexample involves two steps:
(1) Determine the logical form of the argument you are testing
for invalidity, using letters (A, B, C, etc.) to represent the
various terms in the argument.
(2) Construct a parallel argument that has exactly the same
logical pattern as the argument you are testing but that has
premises that are clearly true and a conclusion that is
clearly false. If you can successfully construct such a
counterexample, then the argument is invalid. If, after
repeated attempts, you cannot construct such a
counterexample, then the argument is probably valid.
[email protected]
 All dogs are carnivores.
Some carnivores are cats.
So, some cats are dogs.

In this argument the premises are both clearly true and

the conclusion is clearly false.
This shows that arguments with this pattern of reasoning
are not guaranteed to have true conclusions if the
premises are true.
And this shows that all arguments that have that
pattern of reasoning are invalid.

[email protected]
[email protected]
 Inductive strength
 Inductive arguments can be well reasoned
(STRONG) or poorly reasoned (WEAK) at a certain
degree/percentage.
 A strong inductive argument: conclusion follows
probably from the premises.
 If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
 The premises provide probable, but not logically
conclusive, grounds for the truth of the conclusion.
 False premises – a probably false conclusion
 False premises – a probably true conclusion
 True premises – a probably true conclusion
 True premises – a probably false conclusion
[email protected]
 Inductive strength

 A weak inductive argument: conclusion does not

follow probably from the premises.
 The premises, even if they are assumed to be
true, do not make the conclusion probable.
 Can have any combination of truth or falsity in the
premises and conclusion

[email protected]
 Inductive strength

 Whether an inductive argument is strong or weak

generally does not depend on the actual truth or
falsity of the premises and the conclusion. Rather, it
depends on whether the conclusion would
probably true if the premises were true.
If the argument’s premises were true, would the
conclusion probably be true?

YES  STRONG
NO  WEAK
[email protected]
 Inductive strength

 Both inductively strong and has all true premises

 cogent argument
 Either weak or has at least one false premise 
uncogent argument
Inductive argument

strong Weak (all are

uncogent)

Cogent Uncogent [email protected]

 Deductive validity - Inductive strength

Deductive arguments

valid Invalid (all

are unsound)
Inductive arguments
Sound Unsound

strong Weak (all are

uncogent)

Cogent Uncogent

[email protected]