MODULE 1:

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
JAMES MATHEW B. VIERNES
BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
1. What Logic Is
2. Propositions and Arguments
3. Recognizing Arguments
4. Arguments and Explanations
5. Deductive and Inductive Arguments
6. Validity and Truth
1. LOGIC

The study of the methods and principles used

to distinguish correct from incorrect
reasoning.
2. PROPOSITIONS AND ARGUMENTS

PROPOSITIONS - Propositions are the building

blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that
something is the case or it asserts that something is not.

A statement; what is typically asserted using a

declarative sentence, and hence always either true or
false—although its truth or falsity may be unknown.
PROPOSITIONS
There are many propositions about whose truth we are
uncertain. “There is life on some other planet in our
galaxy,” for example, is a proposition that, so far as we
now know, may be true or may be false. Its “truth
value” is unknown, but this proposition, like every
proposition, must be either true or false.
PROPOSITIONS
A question asserts nothing, and therefore it is not a
proposition. “Do you know how to play chess?” is
indeed a sentence, but that sentence makes no claim
about the world. Neither is a command a proposition
(“Come quickly!”), nor is an exclamation a proposition
(“Oh my gosh!”). Questions, commands, and
exclamations—unlike propositions—are neither true
nor false
PROPOSITIONS
Sentences are always parts of some language, but
propositions are not tied to English or to any given language.
The four sentences:

It is raining. (English)
Está lloviendo. (Spanish)
Il pleut. (French)
Es regnet. (German)

are in different languages, but they have a single meaning: all

four, using different words, may be uttered to assert the very
same proposition.
STATEMENT
The term statement is not an exact synonym of
proposition, but it is often used in logic in much the
same sense.

A proposition; what is typically asserted by a

declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself. Every
statement must be either true or false, although the truth
or falsity of a given statement may be unknown.
PROPOSITIONS
Propositions may be simple or compound.

Compound Proposition may constitutes a conjunctive or disjunctive

propositions.

Conjunctive proposition is equivalent to asserting each of its component

propositions separately.

Disjunctive (alternative) proposition – no one of the components is asserted.

Hypothetical (conditional) proposition asserted by the hypothetical or

conditional statement, and that compound statement might be true even if both
of its components
were false.
ARGUMENTS
With propositions as building blocks, we construct
arguments. In any argument we affirm one proposition
on the basis of some other propositions. In doing this,
an inference is drawn. Inference is a process that may
tie together a cluster of propositions. Some inferences
are warranted (or correct); others are not. The logician
analyzes these clusters, examining the propositions with
which the process begins and with which it ends, as
well as the relations among these propositions.
Inference - a process by which one proposition is
arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other
proposition or propositions.

Argument is a technical term in logic. It need not

involve disagreement, or controversy. In logic,
argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of
which one is claimed to follow from the others, which
are regarded as providing support for the truth of that
one. For every possible inference there is a
corresponding argument.
An argument is not merely a collection of propositions; it is a
cluster with a structure that captures or exhibits some
inference. We describe this structure with the terms
conclusion and premise.

The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is

affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the
argument.

Those other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as

providing support for the conclusion, are the premises of
the argument.
3 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators

One useful method depends on the appearance of certain

common indicators, certain words or phrases that typically
serve to signal the appearance of an argument’s conclusion or
of its premises.
3 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS

Conclusion Indicators

A word or phrase (such as “therefore” or “thus”) appearing in

an argument and usually indicating that what follows it is the
conclusion of that argument.
3 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Conclusion Indicators

therefore for these reasons

hence it follows that
so I conclude that
accordingly which shows that
in consequence which means that
consequently which entails that
proves that which implies that
as a result which allows us to infer that
for this reason which points to the conclusion that
thus we may infer
4. Arguments and Explanations

Passages that appear to be arguments are sometimes not

arguments but explanations. The appearance of words that are
common indicators—such as “because,” “for,” “since,” and
“therefore”—cannot settle the matter, because those words are
used both in explanations and in arguments (although “since” can
sometimes refer to temporal succession). We need to know the
intention of the author.
5. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Every argument makes the claim that its premises

provide grounds for the truth of its conclusion; that
claim is the mark of an argument. However, there are
two very different ways in which a conclusion may be
supported by its premises, and thus there are two great
classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive.
Understanding this distinction is essential in the study of
logic.
Deductive argument: involves the claim that the truth of its premises
guarantees the truth of its conclusion; the terms valid and invalid are
used to characterize deductive arguments. A deductive argument
succeeds when, if you accept the evidence as true (the premises), you
must accept the conclusion.

Inductive argument: involves the claim that the truth of its premises
provides some grounds for its conclusion or makes the conclusion more
probable; the terms valid and invalid cannot be applied.
6. Validity and Truth
A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in linking, with
logical necessity, the conclusion to its premises. Its validity
refers to the relation between its propositions—between the
set of propositions that serve as the premises and the one
proposition that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If
the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the
premises, we say that the argument is valid. Therefore validity
can never apply to any single proposition by itself, because the
needed relation cannot possibly be found within any one
proposition
Validity A characteristic of any deductive argument
whose premises, if they were all true, would provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
Such an argument is said to be valid. Validity is a
formal characteristic; it applies only to arguments,
as distinguished from truth, which applies to
propositions.
Truth is the attribute of those propositions that assert what really is the case.
When I assert that Lake Superior is the largest of the five Great Lakes, I assert
what really is the case, what is true. If I had claimed that Lake Michigan is the
largest of the Great Lakes my assertion would not be in accord with the real
world; therefore it would be false. This contrast between validity and truth is
important: Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or
statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments
Truth is the attribute of those propositions that assert what really is the case.
When I assert that Lake Superior is the largest of the five Great Lakes, I assert
what really is the case, what is true. If I had claimed that Lake Michigan is the
largest of the Great Lakes my assertion would not be in accord with the real
world; therefore it would be false. This contrast between validity and truth is
important: Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or
statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments
Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion). The
premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
The conclusion is what is being argued for. An argument attempts to
draw some logical connection between the premises and the
conclusion.
Premises: The premises (and there can be more than one) are the
statements being offered in support for the conclusion. The premises
also embody the reasons or facts providing evidence for the
conclusion's credibility. Conclusion: The conclusion is the statement
being argued for.

Conclusion: Logical result of the relationship between the premises.

Conclusions serve as the thesis of the argument. Argument: The
assertion of a conclusion based on logical premises. Syllogism: The
simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by
Aristotle.
Example of a major and minor premise, as well as a
conclusion

1. All humans are mortal. [major premise]

2.G.W. Bush is a human. [minor premise]
3.Therefore, G.W. Bush is mortal. [conclusion]
May notes that the validity of an argument in philosophy
(and in general) depends on the accuracy and truth of the
premise or premises. For example, May gives this
example of a bad (or inaccurate) premise:

1.All women are Republican. [major premise: false]

2.Hilary Clinton is a woman. [minor premise: true]
3.Therefore, Hilary Clinton is a Republican. [conclusion:
false]
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of
the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises
are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the
premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by

assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still
possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the
argument is invalid.
 Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not
statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a
statement valid or invalid. True and false apply only to
statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense
to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire
to validity.
If you consider the definitions of validity and invalidity
carefully, you'll note that valid arguments have the following
important property: valid arguments preserve truth. If all your
premises are true and you make a valid argument from them, it
must be the case that whatever conclusion you obtain is true.
Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains
only true premises.

Unsound: an argument that is not sound.

Counterexample: an example which contradicts some statement or

argument (ex. a counterexample to the statement “All fifteen year-
olds have blue hair” would be a fifteen-year-old without blue hair); for
an argument, a counterexample would be a situation in which the
premises of the argument are true and the conclusion is false;
counterexamples show statements to be false and arguments to be
invalid.
ACTIVITY
For each of the argument descriptions provided below, construct a deductive
argument (on any subject of your choosing) having only two premises.
1. A valid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a false
conclusion
2. A valid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a true
conclusion
3. An invalid argument with two true premises and a false conclusion
4. An invalid argument with two true premises and a true conclusion
5. A valid argument with two false premises and a true conclusion
6. An invalid argument with two false premises and a true conclusion
7. An invalid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a true
conclusion
8. A valid argument with two true premises and a true conclusion