BASIC LOGICAL

CONCEPTS

Leadership Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong

 Deduction &
Induction
“When asked how World War III would be fought,
Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how
World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones!”

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Deduction & Induction

Types of Arguments:

Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is

claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises.

Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is

claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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
Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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
Leadership
are true.
 Deduction & Induction

 There are four tests that can be used to determine

whether an argument is deductive or inductive:

 The Indicator Word Test

 The Strict Necessity Test
 The Common Pattern Test
 The Principle of Charity Test

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 The Indicator Word Test

Tom is a IT student.
Most IT students own laptops.
So, probably Tom owns a laptop.

 The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator
words that provide clues whether a deductive or inductive
argument is being offered.
 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.
 In the example above, the word probably shows that the
argument is inductive. Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Deductive reasoning
 The are five common patterns of deductive
reasoning:
⚫ Hypothetical syllogism
⚫ Categorical syllogism
⚫ Argument by elimination
⚫ Argument based on mathematics
⚫ Argument from definition

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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
An example form:

If A then B.
A
Therefore, B.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
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.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
Argument by elimination

 An argument by elimination seeks by

elimination seeks to logically rule out
various possibilities until only a single
possibility remains.
⚫ Either Joe walked to the library or he
drove
⚫ But Joe didn’t drive to the library
⚫ Therefore, Joe walked to the library

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Argument based on mathematics

 Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-step

reasoning. They claim to prove that prove that
their conclusion on the basis of precise
mathematical concepts and reasoning. In a
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

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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 word
or phrase used in the argument.
 Example
⚫ Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is
a doctor
⚫ Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a
women

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Inductive reasoning
 The are six common patterns of inductive
reasoning:
⚫ Inductive generalization
⚫ Predictive argument
⚫ Argument from authority
⚫ Causal argument
⚫ Statically argument
⚫ Argument from analogy

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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 very February
since weather records have been kept.
⚫ Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver
next February
Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
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.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 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
Leadership
thrilling roller-coaster ride.
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Exercise 1
Tess: Are there any good Italian restaurants
in town?

Don: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had

their Neapolitan rigatoni, their lasagne col
pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't
think you can go wrong with any of their
pasta dishes.
Inductive.
The argument is an inductive generalization, which is a common
pattern of inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not
follow with strict necessity from the premises.
Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Exercise 2

I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology

textbook as well as my biology and history textbooks.
Let's see, I have $200. My biology textbook costs $65
and my history textbook costs $52. My psychology
textbook costs $60. With taxes, that should come to
about $190. Yep, I have enough.

Deductive!
 This argument is an argument based on mathematics, which is a
common pattern of deductive reasoning. Plus, the conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises.

Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Exercise 3
Mother: Don't give Billy that brownie. It contains peanuts, and I
think Billy is allergic to peanuts. Last week he ate some oatmeal
cookies with peanuts, and he broke out in a severe rash.

Father: Billy isn't allergic to peanuts. Don't you remember he ate

some peanut fudge ice cream at Melissa's birthday party last
spring? He didn't have any allergic reaction then.

Inductive.
 The father's argument is a causal argument, which is a common
pattern of inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises. (Billy might have developed
an allergic reaction to walnuts since last spring.)
Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong
 Exercise 4

John is an agnostic.
It necessarily follows that he doesn't believe in
God.

 Deductive.
 This argument is an argument by definition, which is a
common pattern of deductive inference. Also, the phrase "it
necessarily follows that" is a deduction indicator phrase. Also,
the conclusion follows from the premises.
Leadership
Assoc. Ho Thanh Phong