FLAW 109

VALID SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS

Instructor: Dr. Richmond Kwesi

Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG
Contact Information: [email protected]
A STATEMENT COULD EITHER BE SIMPLE OR
COMPOUND
 A simple statement is an atomic statement with only one
component part. It does not contain any other statement as
a component
 A compound statement is one that contains other
statements as a component.
 A compound statement is one that contains a logical
connective. Hence it is two or more statements connected
together by a logical connective. Sometimes it could be just
one simple statement that a logical connective operates on
to make it compound
SIMPLE AND COMPOUND STATEMENTS
 Simple: - Ama is going home.
 Compound: - Ama is going home and Kofi is coming to
school.
E.g. If the boy comes then I will go home
If it rains then the crops will germinate
Either it rains or the sun shines
Kofi is not a boy.
Logical Connectives
 They are words or symbols that link two statements or
different parts of a statement to make it compound.
 A compound statment must then have at least one
logical connective
Logical Connectives
 Conjucntion: and, but, yet
 Disjunction: or, either...or..., unless, alternatively
 Negation: not; it is not the case that
 Conditional: if...then....
 Bi-conditional: ....if and only if....
Logical Connectives
 Conjunction: Kofi is sweeping and Ama is praying
 Disjunction: Either the woman will survive or the son
will die.
 Negation: The woman will not survive
 Conditional: If you study hard then you will pass
 Bi-conditional: You will have the money if and only if
you come to my house
Logical Connectives - symbols
 Conjuction: ʌ or •
 Negation: ~ or ¬

 Condtional:  or →
 Disjuncion: v
 Bi-conditional:  or 
Truth Tables
 It specifies the truth conditions of the logical connectives.
It shows when the logical connectives are true or false. In
other words, it shows when a conditional statement is
true or false.
 The truth conditions of any two statements
are that:
 1. Both could be true (T T)
 2. The first could be true and the second false
(T F)
 3. The first could be false and the second true
(F T)
 4. Both could be false (F F)
Conjunction
P Q PʌQ
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

So the conjunction is true only when both conjuncts

are true; otherwise it remains false
Negation
P ¬P
T F
F T

If the statement “Kofi is a boy” denoted by P is true

then ¬P will be false. If the statement “Kofi will not
come” denoted by ¬P is true, then P is false.
Disjucntion
P Q PvQ
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

 The disjunction is false only when both disjuncts are

false; otherwise it remains true
Conditional
P Q PQ
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

The conditional is false only when the antecedent is

true and the consequent is false
Bi-conditional
P Q PQ
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

 The bi-conditional is true only when both sides are true

or when both sides are false
Material Conditional

 The first part of the conditional is known as the

antecedent and the second part known as the
consequent.
 The antecedent is the sufficient condition for the
consequent to be true
 The consequent is necessary for the antecedent to be
true.
Sufficient and Necessary conditions
If you study hard you will pass.You don’t study hard.
Therefore you won’t pass.
 P→Q Q→P
¬P ¬P
¬Q ¬Q
invalid valid
UNIVERSAL GENERALIZATIONS
 They are universal statements which applies to all the
entities in that domain.
 They are either universal affirmations or universal
negations
 Universal Affirmations: All As are Bs. Eg. All men are
mortal; All vandals are wise; All vague contracts are void.
 Universal negations: No As are Bs; All As are not Bs. Eg.
No cats are reptiles; All animals are not wise
 Universal affirmations and negations are
compound statements which can be re-
written as conditionals.
 Eg. 1. All men are mortal = if someone is a
man then that person is mortal
 Eg. 2. All vandals are wise = if x is a vandal
then x is wise
 Eg. 3. No cats are reptiles = If x is a cat then x
is not a reptile
Symbolism of universal generalizations
 1. All men are mortal.
Dictionary
P: x is a man
Q: x is mortal
P Q
2. No cats are reptiles
P: x is a cat
Q: x is a reptile
P  ¬Q
NB
 Universal negations are different from the negated
conditional.
 Eg. Not all men are mortal. - This is an example of the
negated conditional. This means that there are some men
who are mortal and there are some men who are not
mortal
¬ (P  Q)
 Universal Affirmation (Generalization)
“All As are Bs” – ‘All men are barkers’
 Universal Negation
“No As are Bs” = “Every A is not a B”
 Both understood as conditionals
If x is an A then x is a B
 Two parts of a conditional
 - the antecedent – [x is an A], [x is a man]
 - the consequent – [x is a B], [x is a barker]

21
FOUR VALID SYLLOGISMS
 P1: All footballers are rich
 P2: Rooney is a footballer
 C: Therefore, Rooney is rich
• Syllogism – 2 premises and a conclusion
• Enthymeme – usually one premise (or
conclusion) is unexpressed or implicit.
• P1: All comedians are bald
• C: Therefore, Rowan Atkinson is bald
Enthymemes
 An enthymeme is an argument with an unstated premise or an unstated
conclusion.

 Examples:
◦ Abortion takes the life of a fetus. So, abortion takes the life of a human being.

◦ All composite substances are substances that have parts. Therefore, no souls
are composite substances.

◦ No matter of faith is provable. At least one belief about life after death is a
matter of faith.

 Going by the strict definitions we’ve been using in this course, two of the
above passages are invalid, and one of them isn’t even an argument (since it
lacks a conclusion).

 However, it seems easy to interpret these passages as valid arguments. In fact,

that is what we should do.
Enthymemes
 Principle of Charity: Whenever it is possible to interpret
an argument as a good argument, one should do so.

Suppose an invalid argument could be turned into a valid argument by

inserting a premise that was not actually stated in the argument.Then the
Principle of Charity says you should interpret the argument as though the
unstated premise were included.

What premises could be added to these passages to make them valid

arguments?

Abortion takes the life of a fetus. So, abortion takes the life of a human
being.
All composite substances are substances that have parts. Therefore, no
souls are composite substances.
Enthymemes
 What premises could be added to these passages to make
them valid arguments? [Inserted in bold below]

◦ Abortion takes the life of a fetus. [A fetus is a human

being.] So, abortion takes the life of a human being.

◦ All composite substances are substances that have parts.

[No souls have parts.] Therefore, no souls are
composite substances.

 The Principle of Charity says that we should interpret the

passages above as if they included the premises written in
bold.
Enthymemes
 What conclusion could be added to this passage to
make it a valid argument?

◦ No matter of faith is provable. At least one belief

about life after death is a matter of faith.
Enthymemes
 What conclusion could be added to this passage to
make it a valid argument?

◦ No matter of faith is provable. At least one belief

about life after death is a matter of faith.
[Therefore, at least one belief about life
after death is not provable.]

 The Principle of Charity says that we should

interpret the passage above as if it included the
conclusion written in bold.
Valid Argument Forms
 An argument form is a pattern of reasoning.

 Example: These two arguments share the same form.

1) If Tyrion is a Lannister, then Tyrion is a royal.

2) Tyrion is a Lannister.
3) So Tyrion is a royal.

1) If Obama is a US president, then Obama is a US citizen.

2) Obama is a US president.
3) So Obama is a US citizen.
Valid Argument Forms
 An argument form is a pattern of reasoning.

1) If Tyrion is a Lannister then Tyrion is a royal

2) Tyrion is a Lannister.
3) So Tyrion is a royal.

1) If Obama is a US president, then Obama is a US citizen.

2) Obama is a US president.
3) So Obama is a US citizen.

The shared form of these arguments is called modus ponens:

1) If P, then Q.
2) P.
3) Therefore Q.
Valid Argument Forms
1. Modus ponens:
1) If P, then Q. // 1. All Ps are Qs
2) P. 2. This is a P
3) Therefore Q. 3. Therefore, this is a Q

 Modus ponens is a valid argument form. A valid argument form is

such that every argument which has that form is valid.

 Because modus ponens is a valid form, you can substitute any

statement for P, and any statement for Q, and the resulting argument
will always be valid.

◦ For instance, in modus ponens let P = Santa Clause has big trousers
and Q = The moon is made of cheese. The resulting argument is
valid.
Valid Argument Forms
 Another valid argument form is called 2. MODUS TOLLENS:

Modus tollens
1) If P, then Q. // 1. All Ps are Qs
2) Not Q. 2. This is not a Q
3) Therefore, not P. 3. Therefore, this is not a P

Here are two arguments that have the form of modus tollens. It’s easy to
see that they’re both valid.

1)If it’s raining [= P], then the park is closed [= Q].

2)The park is not closed [= not Q].
3)Therefore, it’s not raining [= not P].

1) If Accra is in China [= P], then Accra is in Asia [= Q].

2) Accra is not in Asia [= not Q].
3) Therefore, Accra is not in China [= not P].
Valid Argument Forms
3. Disjunctive Syllogism (two forms)

Either P or Q. Either P or Q.
Not P. Not Q
Therefore, Q. Therefore, P.

Example: Either Pat went to the show or Betsy went to the

show. Pat did not go to the show. Therefore, Betsy went to
the show.
Example 2: Either Kotoko won the league, or Hearts won the
league. Hearts did not win the league. So Kotoko won.

Example 3: Either the Earth is round, or I am the Pope. I am not

the Pope. So the Earth is round.
Valid Argument Forms
 4. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
 A categorical syllogism is an argument made up of statements about
classes of things. For example: “All dogs are animals” and “Some humans are
women.”
◦ A class (or set) is a collection of objects—e.g., the class of dogs.

All X are Y.
All Y are Z.
Therefore, all X are Z.

Example:
1) All pediatricians are physicians.
2) All physicians are people who have medical degrees.
3) Therefore, all pediatricians are people who have medical
degrees.
 Formal Fallacies
 A formal fallacy is an invalid argument form. If an argument
has an invalid argument form, then the argument is invalid.

Contrast with modus ponens:

1. Affirming the consequent If P, then Q.
If P, then Q. P.
Therefore, Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example: An invalid argument that affirms the consequent.

1) If Los Angeles is the capital of the USA, then Los Angeles

is in the USA.
2) Los Angeles is in the USA.
3) Therefore, Los Angeles is the capital of the USA.
 Formal Fallacies
1. Affirming the consequent
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example 2:
1) If Mary is at university, then Mary passed WASSCE.
2) Mary did pass WASSCE
3) So Mary is at university.

Example 3:
1) If Jacob committed suicide, then Jacob is dead.
2) Jacob is dead.
3) So Jacob committed suicide.

Affirming the consequent is an invalid form, while modus

ponens is a valid form.
 Formal Fallacies
2. Denying the Antecedent
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Contrast with modus tollens:
Therefore, not Q. If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

Example: An invalid argument that denies the antecedent.

1) If Napoleon was killed in a car accident, then Napoleon is

dead.
2) Napoleon was not killed in a car accident.
3) Therefore, Napoleon is not dead.
 Formal Fallacies
Denying the Antecedent
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Example 2:

1) If you get 100% for the final exam, you will pass the
course.
2) Jane did not get 100% for the final exam.
3) Therefore, Jane did not pass the course.

Denying the antecedent is an invalid form, while modus tollens is

a valid form.
Summary of Valid and Invalid Argument Forms
Valid Argument Forms Invalid Argument Forms
Modus ponens Affirming the consequent
If P, then Q If P, then Q
P Q
Therefore Q Therefore P

If it’s raining, then the streets are wet If it’s raining, then the streets are wet
It is raining The streets are wet
So the streets are wet So it is raining

Modus Tollens Denying the antecedent

If P, then Q If P, then Q
Not-Q Not-P
Therefore not-P Therefore not-Q

If it’s raining, then the streets are wet If it’s raining, then the streets are wet
So the streets are not wet It’s not raining
So it’s not raining So the streets are not wet.
 Formal Fallacies
3. Eliminative fallacy
Either P or Q.
P.
Therefore, not Q.
Example: An invalid argument that commits the eliminative fallacy.
1) Either a monkey is a mammal, or a human being is a mammal.
2) A monkey is a mammal.
3) Therefore, a human being is not a mammal.

Contrast with eliminative syllogism: The eliminative fallacy is an

Either P or Q. invalid form, while eliminative
Not P. syllogism is a valid form.
Therefore, Q.
4. False hypothetical syllogism
All As are Cs.
All Bs are Cs.
So: All As are Bs.

Example I:
All girls are mean
All boys are mean
So all girls are boys

Example II
All NDC supporters want to win the election in 2016
All NPP supporters want to win the election in 2016
So all NDC supporters are NPP supporters
Valid or Invalid….
 Nobody saw what happened. If nobody witnessed it,
nobody can testify. If nobody can testify, you can’t be
convicted. So you can’t be convicted.

 If a fetus is a person, it has a right to life. So, if a fetus is

not a person, it doesn’t have a right to life.

 Nothing is better that liberty. Prison life is better that

nothing. Therefore, prison life is better than liberty.

41
Valid or Invalid…
 If Sally has pneumonia, she needs penicillin and lots of
rest. Sally does need penicillin and lots of rest. So Sally
has pneumonia

 If chicken is overcooked, it is dry. This chicken is not

overcooked. Therefore, this chicken is not dry.

 If Socrates died, he died either while he was living or

while he was dead. But he did not die while living;
moreover, he surely did not die while he was already
dead. Hence Socrates did not die. (Sextus Empiricus)
42
Valid or Invalid….
 Nobody saw what happened. If nobody witnessed it,
nobody can testify. If nobody can testify, you can’t be
convicted. So you can’t be convicted.

 If no one testifies against him, Richie will continue to run

the mob. Someone will testify against him. So Richie
won’t continue to run the mob.

43
 Socrates (SS): As thus: he who sees knows, as we say, that which he sees;
for perception and sight and knowledge are admitted to be the same.
 Theaetetus (TT): Certainly
 SS: But he who saw, and has knowledge of that which he saw, remembers,
when he closes his eyes, that which he no longer sees.
 TT: True
 SS: And seeing is knowing, and therefore not-seeing is not-knowing?
 TT: Very True.
 SS: Then the inference is, that a man may have attained the knowledge, of
something, which he may remember and yet not know, because he does
not see; and this has been affirmed by us to be a monstrous supposition.
 TT: Most true
 SS: Thus, then, the assertion that knowledge and perception are one,
involves a manifest impossibility?
 TT. Yes
 (from Plato)
44
 Again, it is a proper office of public authority to guard against
accidents. If either a public officer or anyone else saw a person
attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be
unsafe, and there was no time to warn him of his danger, they
might seize him and turn him back, without any real
infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what
one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river.
Nevertheless, when there is not a certainty, but only a danger
of mischief, no one but the person himself can judge of the
sufficiency of the motive which may prompt him to incur the
risk: in this case therefore (unless he is a child, or delirious, or
in some state of excitement or absorption incompatible with
the full use of the reflecting faculty), he ought, I conceive, to be
only warned of the danger; not forcibly prevented from
exposing himself to it. (John Stuart Mill).
45