LP ITL LECTURE 4 MY ESSENTIALS

Definitions of Induction (from Particulars to Universal) and Deduction (from

Universal to Particulars), as Per Aristotle.

Amended Definition of Deductive Reasoning: Process of Reasoning from One

or More Universal Premises to a Conclusion Which is No Wider in Extent than
the Premises.

Distinction Between Two Independent Qs : “Are The Premises of The

Argument True?” and “Is The Inference Valid?”

Specific Use of the Terms “Truth” and “Validity”. “Truth” or its Opposite
“Falsehood” Only Applies Separately to the Premises or Conclusion of An
Argument. “Validity” Applies Only to the Relation of the Premises to the
Conclusion.

Four Types – True Premise Valid Inference, True Premise Invalid Inference,
False Premise Valid Inference, False Premise Invalid Inference. Crucial
Example to Illustrate This – Getting a Bill from Credit Card Company and
Checking Its Correctness.

Present Deduction Lecture Based Only on the Question of Validity, Therefore

Even Such Arguments With False Premises and Absurd Conclusions to be
Considered Valid. Truth/Falsehood of Premises/Conclusion to be Taken Up
During Lectures of Definitions and Induction.

Deductive Arguments Classified as Three Basic Types of Statement.

Hypothetical, Alternative, Categorical.

1. Form of Hypothetical Statement – If Something, Then Something.

2. Form of Alternative Statement – Either Something Or Something.
3. Form of Categorical Statement – A Straightforward Categorical
Assertion With No If-Thens, No Either-Ors.

Argument One – Mixed Hypothetical Argument. A Hypothetical Premise

Followed By a Categorical Premise With a Categorical Conclusion.

1. Structure of Argument One – If A Certain Thing Is True, Then Another

Thing Is True.
2. Antecedent (That Which Comes Before) Part of an Argument –
Whatever Follows The “IF” And Precedes The “THEN”. Consequent Part
of an Argument – The Part That Comes After The “THEN,” That Which is
a Consequence of The Antecedent.
3. Structure of The Argument Renamed – If a Certain Antecedent, Then a
Certain Consequent.

Validity is a Function of the Structure of an Argument, Independent of Its

Content. Therefore Even False/Meaningless Premises Can Lead to Valid
Inference.
 1. Content of an Argument Dispensed With in Deductive Reasoning
Because Validity (Does the Conclusion Follow from Premises) is
Determined by Structure (or “Form” for Aristotle) of an Argument.

Symbolizing Antecedent with “P” and Consequent with “Q”.

Symbolized Structure/Form of Argument One: If P, Then Q. P, Therefore Q. [P

Implies/Leads to Q].

Hypothetical Statement – P Implies Q – Does Not State Whether the

Individual Premises “P” or “Q” are True, Only States That the
Structure/Form of the Argument is Valid. Even Though the Premises be
Irrational/False and the Conclusion Nonsense.

Official Name of Argument One – AFFIRMING THE ANTECEDENT in a Mixed

Hypothetical Argument.

Argument Two – DENYING THE ANTECEDENT in a Mixed Hypothetical

Argument. (Invalid Reasoning).

1. Structure of Argument Two - P implies Q. P Prime, i.e., P is not true.

Therefore, Q Prime, i.e., Q is not true.
2. Argument Two is Invalid Form of Reasoning Because the Statement – P
implies Q – Gives You Only a SUFFICIENT Condition of Q, Not the
Necessary Condition, i.e., It Doesn’t Say “P is NECESSARY to Get Q”.
3. Argument Two, “P implies Q. P Prime. Therefore, Q Prime” is Invalid
Reasoning. First Formal Fallacy of Deductive Reasoning, Called the
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.

Third Form of Mixed Hypothetical Argument – AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.

(Invalid Reasoning).

1. Structure of Affirming The Consequent - P implies Q. Q. Therefore, P.

2. Invalid Reasoning, Same Reason as Denying the Antecedent Fallacy.
Because It Doesn’t Say “Only P Leads to Q”.

Fourth Form of Mixed Hypothetical – DENYING THE CONSEQUENT.

1. Structure of Denying the Consequent - P implies Q. Q Prime. Therefore,

P Prime.
2. Denying the Consequent is Valid Reasoning Because If P Leads to Q,
Then If Q Isn’t True P Will Not Be True Either.

Denial of Antecedent or Consequent a Matter of Logical Relation, and Not a

Grammatical Point, and Depends on the Second Premise’s Denial of Either.

“ONLY IF P THEN Q” Statement States P is a Necessary Condition of Q, But

Not Sufficient, Maybe Something Else is Required. That Statement is
Reverse of the “IF P THEN Q” Statement.

Two Options to Translate “ONLY” Statements to Plain “IF THEN” Without the
ONLY. Either Drop the ONLY and Negate the Two constituents Or Drop the
ONLY and Reverse the Two Constituents. ONLY P IMPLIES Q Same as P PRIME
IMPLIES Q PRIME and Q IMPLIES P.

Points on Translating From Ordinary English to Logical Form. If You Get the
Conditional Idea in the Premise, One Thing Depends on Another, Translate
Into IF. “When”, “Where” Can Substitute for IF; Some Conditional Statement
May be in Reverse Order; “Unless” Means “If Not”; Etc. Go By The Common
Sense Meaning.

Words Used as Logical Indicators to Identify Which are the Premises and
Which are the Conclusion of an Argument. Some Examples. For Conclusion –
Therefore. Thus. So. As a Result. I Conclude. Hence. Consequently. For
Premise – For. Because. Since. On the Grounds That. On the Premise That.
My Reason Is.

Steps in Working an Argument.

1. First, Find the Conclusion.

2. Second, Write Out the Premises and Conclusion in Standard Form.
3. Third Step, Symbolize. Put Parentheses Around the Words That the
Symbols Stand For (Around Antecedent and Consequent Only), IF-THEN
are Structural Elements that States the Relationship Between
Antecedent and Consequent, and the Word “Therefore” a Logical
Indicator Introducing the Conclusion. Collect the Symbolic Structure
Over on the Side.
4. Fourth and Final Step, Name the Form and State Whether it's Valid or
Invalid.

Argument Three – Pure Hypothetical Statement, Where Both the Premises

are Hypothetical Statements. A Valid Chain Argument.

1. Structure of Argument Three - IF P THEN Q, IF Q THEN R, Therefore IF P

THEN R.
2. Argument Three is Valid Chain Argument, The Q is the Link That Joins
the P and the R.
3. In Pure Hypothetical Argument There Can Be Unlimited Numbers of
Premises as Long As the Chain is Not Broken, Whereas In Mixed
Hypothetical There Were Just Two Premises, First One Hypothetical and
Second One Categorical.
4. Rule to Ensure that the Valid Chain is Intact: Antecedent of First
Premise Will Be Antecedent of Conclusion, Consequent of Last Premise
Will Be Consequent of Conclusion. A Deductive Argument with More
than Two Premises is Called Sorites.
5. A Pure Hypothetical Argument is Invalid When the Chain is Broken,
Called the Fallacy of the Broken Chain. Example, P implies Q, R implies
Q, Therefore P implies R.

Argument Four – Example of the Fallacy of the Broken Chain. P implies Q, Q

Prime implies R, Therefore P implies R. The Q and Q Prime Does Not Link P
and R.
Some Pure Hypothetical Arguments May Have a Real Valid Structure, A
Validly Linked Chain, But May Seem to Be Broken Chain. By Reformulating
Such Argument the Valid Chain Can be Established.

1. Tips to Identify Such Arguments Seeming to Have Broken Chain But

Which In Fact Has a Real Valid Structure/Chain. Tip Number One. One
May Change the Order of the Premises Freely to Show the Valid Chain.
2. Second, Watch for “ONLY IF”, And Remove the “ONLY” Either By
Negating or Reversing, as Explained Earlier. It Will Work Only If the
Argument Has a Real Valid Structure.
3. Third, Both Reverse and Negate a Plain IF-THEN Statement, Which has
No “ONLY.” “P implies Q” is identical in meaning to “Q Prime implies P
Prime.”
4. Difference Between Second and Third Tip. With ONLY IF Argument, You
Either Reverse or Negate to Remove the ONLY, But With a Plain IF-THEN
Argument, You Both Reverse and Negate.

Argument Five. A Seemingly Hopeless Argument – ONLY P implies Q; R

implies S; R Prime implies P Prime; Therefore, S Prime imply Q Prime,
CORRECTED to a Valid Argument – S Prime implies R Prime; R Prime implies
P Prime; P Prime implies Q Prime; Therefore, S Prime implies Q Prime.

Argument Six – Alternative Argument. EITHER-OR. One Alternative Premise,

One Categorical Premise and a Categorical Conclusion.

1. Two Types of Alternative Arguments. Strong Alternation – One or the

Other is True, But Both Can’t Be True, They are Mutually Exclusive. Weak
Alternation – One or the Other is True, And Maybe Both, They are Not
Mutually Exclusive.
2. Strong Alternation Symbolized with Two Vs, Weak Alternation Symbolized
with One V. Legal Expression of Weak Alternation – And/Or.
3. Rules of Validity for Weak Alternation.
3.1. Phrases In Alternative Premises are Called Alternants.
3.2. First Form of Weak Alternation. EITHER P OR Q; Possibly Both; P
Isn’t True Therefore, Q Is. Valid Because the Premise Says One Or the
Other, Maybe Both, But At Least One Must be True.
3.3. Next Form of Weak Alternation. P v Q, P, Therefore Q Prime. This
is Invalid Because Second Premise Saying That One of the Alternant is
True, Does Not Say Anything About the Other Alternant, So Cannot
Conclude that the Other Alternant is Not True.
3.4. Next Form of Weak Alternation. P v Q, Q, P Prime. Invalid Because
From Second Premise Saying Q is True You Cannot Infer that P is Not,
Because Maybe Both Can Be True.
4. Rule for Weak Alternation. Valid Forms When Categorical Premise Denies
One Alternant and Conclusion Affirms the Other. Invalid Forms (also called
Fallacy of Weak Alternation) When Categorical Premise Affirms One
Alternant and Conclusion Denies the Other.

Argument Seven. Strong Alternative Argument. A Strong Alternation.

EITHER P OR Q, P, Q Prime. From One Being True, You Can Infer The Other
Isn't True. They Can't Both Be True, So If One Is True, The Other Can't Be.
When No Way of Identifying Weak or Strong Alternation, Then Assume It is
Weak, Because the Weak is the Minimum Meaning of EITHER OR, the Bare
Minimum the Person Must Have Intended, It Leaves Open Maybe Both.
Whereas Strong Alternation Give More Information, it is Mutually Exclusive.

One Can Convert Weak Alternation to Hypothetical Statement. P v Q Can

Always Be Rewritten P Prime implies Q. Switch from Alternation to
Implication and Negate Only the First Alternative.

Exercises on Identifying and Judging Validity of Different Types of

Arguments from ITL Workbook.

Introduction to Logic by Dr. Leonard Peikoff LECTURE 4

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Up to now we have discussed a miscellaneous variety of Common Fallacies, focusing
essentially on a number of errors that you should not commit.
This evening we're going to begin the more positive part of the course by discussing
positively and systematically the principles of correct Reasoning. And as we go along
we will collect further Fallacies appropriate to the various types of arguments that we
discuss, but we want to go at it more systematically now.
We have to begin by organizing the field of Argumentation, and there are two different
kinds of arguments, as you know, Deductive and Inductive Argument.

Definitions of Induction (from Particulars to Universal)

and Deduction (from Universal to Particulars), as Per
Aristotle. Error: Reference source not found
Now I will say just a word at the outset here this evening on the distinction between
these two types, and I will follow the Aristotelian tradition in giving you the definition
of the difference.
According to Aristotle, Induction and Deduction are differentiated by the fact that, in a
certain sense, they move in opposite directions.
In Inductive Reasoning, you go from a number of particular observations to a general
or universal Conclusion, embracing the entire class.
In Deductive Reasoning, you go in the reverse direction. You start with a general or
universal premise and apply it to a particular case.
Let me give you a formal Aristotelian definition of Induction: The process of
Reasoning to a general or universal Conclusion on the basis of a number of
particular observations.
For example if you say, pointing to one particular puppy dog, he wags his tail when
he's happy, and then you encounter the same in another, and in another, and after a
few points you get the principle involved, let us assume that that is valid, and you
generalize and say, “all puppy dogs wag their tails when happy,” that is an example of
Induction, which will be valid or invalid depending upon how you choose the sample,
something we will discuss when we get to the section on Induction.
Now according to Aristotle, Deduction is the reverse process. It's the process of
applying a universal or general proposition to a particular case and thereby
coming up with a particular Conclusion.
So for instance, if we use the same example, you would start with “all puppy dogs
wag their tails when happy”, then you turn to Fido and say, “he is a puppy dog, and
you conclude, therefore, Fido wags his tail when happy,” and that structure would be
a Deductive argument, starting with universal, applying it to a particular
case.

Amended Definition of Deductive Reasoning: Process of

Reasoning from One or More Universal Premises to a
Conclusion Which is No Wider in Extent than the
Premises. Error: Reference source not found
Now I have to put one amendment in here which Logicians frequently point out.
It is possible in Deductive Reasoning to have a Conclusion which is just as general,
just as wide as your premise. It is not the case that it is always true in Deduction that
you apply it to something narrower or to a more particular example.
For instance, consider this argument. You don't have to take it down because you can
remember it, but just as an example. “All men are rational beings. They have the
faculty of reason. All rational beings are moral agents. Therefore, all men are moral
agents.” Here my Conclusion in this case is no broader, no wider than my premise, but
that is still Deductive Reasoning.
So we amend the definition of Deduction to include a case like this.
Deductive Reasoning is the process of Reasoning from one or more universal
Premises to a Conclusion which is no wider in extent than the Premises.

Distinction Between Two Independent Qs : “Are The

Premises of The Argument True?” and “Is The Inference
Valid?” Error: Reference source not found
Turning to Deductive Reasoning, we first have to make a distinction between two
independent questions, and these same two independent questions are applicable in
Inductive Reasoning also.
These two questions are the Question Of Truth and the Question Of Validity.
The first question, the Question of Truth, is: Are The Premises Of The Argument
True?
In other words, do they state facts?
Do they describe things as they actually are?
Do they correspond to reality?
Those are all different meanings of saying are the Premises true.
A separate, distinct question is: Is The Inference Valid?
Inference is defined as the process of passing in thought from the Premises
to the Conclusion.
Now the question, “is the inference valid?” is entirely distinct from the question, “are
the Premises true?”
What we're asking when we ask, “is the inference valid?” is, “does the Conclusion
follow from the Premises? Is the Reasoning such that, given these Premises, you must
subscribe to the Conclusion? Is the Conclusion necessitated by the premise?”
For instance, if I give you, “all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates
is mortal,” my Premises are true and in this case the inference is valid. The Conclusion
that Socrates is mortal does follow.
If I give you, “all men are mortal, all pigs are mortal, therefore, all men are pigs,” the
Premises are true but the inference is invalid. The Conclusion does not follow.

Specific Use of the Terms “Truth” and “Validity”. “Truth”

or its Opposite “Falsehood” Only Applies Separately to
the Premises or Conclusion of An Argument. “Validity”
Applies Only to the Relation of the Premises to the
Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
Now we use these terms “truth” and “validity” in a very specific way. We only apply
the term “truth” or its negation, “falsehood,” to the Premises or to the Conclusion.
You can say, “is this premise true or is it false?”
“Is the Conclusion of this argument true or is it false?”
In other words, the terms “truth” and “falsehood” are applied to the separate
ingredients, the Premises and the Conclusion.
The term “validity” is applied to the Reasoning itself, to the relation of the Premises
to the Conclusion.
You can speak, “is the inference valid, is the Reasoning valid?”
You can even say, “is the argument valid?” by which you simply mean, “does the
Conclusion follow from the Premises?”

Four Types – True Premise Valid Inference, True Premise

Invalid Inference, False Premise Valid Inference, False
Premise Invalid Inference. Crucial Example to Illustrate
This – Getting a Bill from Credit Card Company and
Checking Its Correctness. Error: Reference source not found
Now it should be clear to you that these are two independent questions.
You can have true Premises and a valid inference.
You can have true Premises and an invalid inference.
You can have false Premises and a valid inference.
You can have false Premises and an invalid inference.
If you want an analogy to keep this distinction in mind, think that you get a bill from a
credit card company. It lists all the various items that you allegedly ran up, and then it
lists the total at the bottom. Now the total at the bottom would correspond to the
Conclusion of the argument, if we're using it as an analogy to a process of Reasoning.
Now there are two different ways that that Conclusion, that total at the bottom of the
column, could have gone wrong. Two independent ways.
One way would be one or more of the individual entries are incorrect. They're
mistaken. They charge you $75 for a meal, which was only $73, or whatever it
happens to be, however many times it happened. So you could have errors in the total
because of errors in the individual entries. Or, that corresponds to, “are the Premises
true?”
Or, the entries in the column could be immaculate and perfect, but the addition could
be wrong. You could have put them together wrong, and thereby come up with a total
that is not justified. And that would correspond to the question, “is the inference
valid?” Have you put the Premises together in a justified way to reach a Conclusion
that they actually lead to?
Now sometimes, as you could see in the case of this bill, if you make enough errors,
by sheer luck, you will come up with a correct Conclusion, because your errors will
cancel each other out. If there's enough errors in the items and in the addition, by
sheer blind luck, you might come up with the actual total you owe.
And the same is true in Reasoning. By enough mistakes in the Premises and/or in the
Reasoning, you might come up with a true Conclusion. Obviously, however, that would
simply be an accident.
The only time that you can know that your Conclusion is true is if you can answer
“yes” to both of these questions separately. “Yes, my Premises are true. Yes, my
inference is valid.” In that case, you can then say, “I know that this Conclusion is
true.”

Present Deduction Lecture Based Only on the Question of

Validity, Therefore Even Such Arguments With False
Premises and Absurd Conclusions to be Considered Valid.
Truth/Falsehood of Premises/Conclusion to be Taken Up
During Lectures of Definitions and Induction. Error: Reference
source not found
Now, we are going to focus in our discussion of Deduction for the next several weeks
exclusively on the question of validity.
We can't take all questions at the same time, so we are going to temporarily set aside
the question, “are the Premises of the various arguments we will be considering true?”
I do not mean to suggest that the truth of the Premises are unimportant. Obviously,
that is a crucial factor to our ultimate ability to know whether our Conclusion is true.
But we're simply dividing up these two questions and studying them one at a time.
We will discuss more the question of, “how do you establish the truth of the
Premises?” when we get to the discussion of Definitions and Induction.
So for now, we're simply going to ignore that question. We'll assume that the Premises
are acceptable of the arguments that we deal with.
And you can think of it as like if this were a math class, we're simply having exercises
in the rules of addition, and then we'll worry later about how we check the items we're
adding.
Now, if you get this point at the outset, you won't be bothered. Otherwise, you're
going to be enormously bothered because I'm going to be taking arguments which
have screamingly false Premises and fantastic, unbelievably absurd Conclusions and
saying this is a perfectly valid argument.
Now, if you hear that word “valid”, in connection to me that I subscribe to the
Premises or the Conclusion, you will validly think that something seriously wrong has
happened. But always when we say, “an argument is valid”, we're not going to mean
exclusively, “if these Premises were true, if we accepted them, this Conclusion would
follow.”
Whether the Conclusion is true, of course, depends on the additional question, which
we are setting aside, “are the Premises true?” You have that point.

All right, let's turn to Deductive argument then.

How are we going to approach the question of the rules of validity of Deductive
argument?
There are a great many types of Deductive argument. And it's traditional in
introductory Logic courses to take the main types, the ones that come up most often
in daily life and in the sciences. Therefore we are not going to cover every
conceivable type of Deductive argument, but those which are the most common and
the most important.
How are Deductive arguments classified? Well, there's a long tradition for thousands
of years which says you classify arguments, you name them and describe their
validity in terms of the type of statements which make them up, that is, Premises and
Conclusion, which make them up.

Deductive Arguments Classified as Three Basic Types of

Statement. Hypothetical, Alternative, Categorical. Error:
Reference source not found
So there are basically three different types of statement which are going to enter into
the arguments which we discuss in this course.
I'll give you a brief characterization in advance of each of these three types of
statement. And then different combinations of them will yield different kinds of
arguments.

Form of Hypothetical Statement – If Something, Then

Something. Error: Reference source not found
The first is a statement that is called a Hypothetical Statement.
It is any statement of the form – IF SOMETHING, THEN SOMETHING.
If you are a man, then you are mortal.
If you fall in a puddle, then you get wet, etc.
The key structural words indicating that type of statement are – IF, THEN.
Form of Alternative Statement – Either Something Or
Something. Error: Reference source not found
A second type of statement is called an Alternative Statement.
It is of the form – EITHER SOMETHING OR SOMETHING.
Either you are alive or you are dead.
Either you are dry or you are wet, etc.
Any statement of that – EITHER SOMETHING OR SOMETHING – structure is called
an Alternative Statement.

Form of Categorical Statement – A Straightforward

Categorical Assertion With No If-Thens, No Either-Ors.
Error: Reference source not found
And finally, there is a statement which, for our purposes in this course, we will
categorize Negatively. A straightforward Categorical assertion with no if-thens, no
either-ors.
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
This is a class on Logic.
It's very cold out tonight, etc.
Any straightforward Categorical assertion which has no if-thens, no either-
ors, just a plain Categorical utterance is called a Categorical statement.

You will see that we classify arguments and work out the rules of their validity
according to the different combinations of these three types of statements.

Now let us plunge right in to the first type of argument we're going to do this evening.
Turn to Page 8 of the Exercise Booklet, ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL FOR LECTURE 4.

Argument One – Mixed Hypothetical Argument. A

Hypothetical Premise Followed By a Categorical Premise
With a Categorical Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
Consider Number One.

Now for the moment ignore all the Ps and Qs and parentheses and the funny looking
stuff on the right and just read the English words.
You will see you have an argument there with two Premises and a Conclusion.
The Premises are “if this man has worked hard, then he is tired.”
Second premise, “this man has worked hard.”
Conclusion, “therefore, he is tired.”
Notice that it is a convention which you'll find helpful in working arguments, always to
draw a line under your Premises, separating the Premises from the Conclusion.

What is the content of this argument in terms of the type of statements that make it
up?
The first statement, “if this man has worked hard, then he is tired,” is a Hypothetical
Statement.
The second premise, “this man has worked hard,” is a Categorical statement.
And the Conclusion, “therefore, he is tired,” is a Categorical statement.
Therefore, the pattern of this type of argument is a Hypothetical premise followed by
a Categorical premise with a Categorical Conclusion. Now, any argument with this
combination is given the name a Mixed Hypothetical Argument.
You can see the obvious reason for that. It is a Mixed Hypothetical because it
hinges (centers) on a Hypothetical statement, but it is a mixture which has
one Hypothetical statement and then combines that with a Categorical
premise to yield a Categorical Conclusion.

Structure of Argument One – If A Certain Thing Is True,

Then Another Thing Is True. Error: Reference source not found
This Argument No. 1 obviously has a certain structure.
It says, if a certain thing is true, then another thing is true.
And then the next premise tells us, “but the first thing is true”. And then the
Conclusion says, “well, then, the second thing must be true.”
Now, we are going to make reference to the structure of this argument so that we
don’t repeat the first and second things all the time. So we introduce two new words.

Antecedent (That Which Comes Before) Part of an

Argument – Whatever Follows The “IF” And Precedes The
“THEN”. Consequent Part of an Argument – The Part That
Comes After The “THEN,” That Which is a Consequence
of The Antecedent. Error: Reference source not found
The part that comes immediately after the if and before the comma in the first
statement, the part that reads, “this man has worked hard,” is called the
Antecedent, which means that which comes before, that is Latin for “that which
sits before.”
It is by definition – whatever follows the “IF” and precedes the “THEN” is
called the Antecedent.
Then the name given to the part that comes after the “THEN”, in this case, “he is
tired,” the thing which flows from the Antecedent, which is a consequence of the
Antecedent, is called the Consequent.
Structure of The Argument Renamed – If a Certain
Antecedent, Then a Certain Consequent. Error: Reference
source not found
Observe that this Argument has the following structure: If a certain Antecedent,
then a certain Consequent; and then the next premise tells you that the
Antecedent is True, and finally the Conclusion says, “well, then the Consequent must
be True.”

Validity is a Function of the Structure of an Argument,

Independent of Its Content. Therefore Even
False/Meaningless Premises Can Lead to Valid Inference.
Error: Reference source not found
There are millions of possible arguments which have exactly that same structure. I
could take that little mold, that pattern, and give you endless examples.
“If this man is rich, then he needs a chauffeur.
But this man is rich,
therefore he needs a chauffeur.”
“If you step into a puddle, then you get wet.
But you stepped into a puddle,
therefore you get wet.”
I could even have False Premises, and it would not affect the structure of the
argument.
“If three and three likes elephants, then four and four like bananas.
Three and three does like elephants,
therefore four and four does like bananas.”
I can even have statements that are partly meaningless.
“If you are an ish, then you are a trish.
But you are an ish,
therefore you are a trish.”
Now, it's obvious that as far as Validity is concerned, (remember, I'm using Validity to
mean only – does the Conclusion follow from the Premises?) all these examples I just
gave you stand or fall together.
If any one of them is valid, they're all valid.
They have the same status as far as Validity is concerned.
From this we draw a lesson which will hold true throughout the discussion of
Deductive Reasoning: Validity is a function of the structure of an argument. Validity is
independent of the content, the particular filling. Whether you talk about hard-working
men or two and two, or falling in puddles, it doesn't make any difference. If it has a
certain structure, it will always have a certain validity , “Yes or no”, depending upon
whether “it's valid or not.”
Content of an Argument Dispensed With in Deductive
Reasoning Because Validity (Does the Conclusion Follow
from Premises) is Determined by Structure (or “Form”
for Aristotle) of an Argument. Error: Reference source not found
The fact that Validity is Determined by Structure of an Argument was first
discovered by Aristotle.
His word for “Structure” was “Form”, as against, the Content of an Argument. That is
why to this day courses in Logic that focus on Deduction are called Formal Logic.
Because the first thing they do is point out Aristotle's discovery that whether the
Conclusion follows or not is determined by the FORM of the argument. Therefore, to
determine Validity, we do not need to know the Content, we need to know only the
Structure.
Therefore, the first thing we do is say, “let us dispense with the content and just put
before us in naked skeletal Form the Structure of this Reasoning. Work out the rules of
which structures are valid and which aren't, and then we will always know.”

Symbolizing Antecedent with “P” and Consequent with

“Q”. Error: Reference source not found
Now, for this purpose, we engage in what's called Symbolizing. We simply let some
letter stand for the Antecedent and some letter stand for the Consequent.
Theoretically, you're free to make any letter or mark that you want stand for the
Antecedent or the Consequent. It's traditional for many centuries for the P to stand for
the Antecedent and Q to stand for the Consequent, a venerable tradition which I have
followed.

Symbolized Structure/Form of Argument One: If P, Then

Q. P, Therefore Q. [P Implies/Leads to Q]. Error: Reference
source not found
You will see that I have put parentheses around the Antecedent and put a P over it
and put parentheses around the Consequent and put a Q over it. And then in the
second premise, when we restate that the Antecedent is true, I'll put another P around
that because it's the same one again. And, of course, the Conclusion is “he is tired”.
We put a Q.
So the Structure of Argument One is: If P, Then Q. P, Therefore Q. And we
would like to write that separately.
It would, however, be intolerable if you do many of these to have to write, “If P, then
Q,” because you'd have to write “IF THEN”, and a comma, which would be seven
characters, which is simply too much for anybody to put up with if you do many of
these.
Logicians have devised a symbol which has no meaning other than “IF THEN”. And it
is that symbol which you see on the right of the argument, a horseshoe on the side
like that. That little symbol simply means “IF P, THEN Q.” Or in a single word, you
can read it “P implies Q.” “P leads to Q.”
Therefore, on the right of that number one, we have this symbolic structure. Notice
the little three dots before the Q. That's a way of saving us from writing the word
“therefore” out. And it tells us that what comes after it is the Conclusion, in this case
Q.

Hypothetical Statement – P Implies Q – Does Not State

Whether the Individual Premises “P” or “Q” are True,
Only States That the Structure/Form of the Argument is
Valid. Even Though the Premises be Irrational/False and
the Conclusion Nonsense. Error: Reference source not found
All we want to know is: Is this type of argument valid?
If it has a structure like this, is it valid?
My premise tells me, “P implies Q,” and my next premise tells me, “P is true.” Am I
entitled to conclude that Q is true? It depends entirely on the structure.
It doesn't make any difference what P and Q mean. But simply, does this structure
justify this Conclusion?
To answer this, we have to refer to what does it mean to say “P implies Q?” What does
it mean to say, “if P, then Q?”
Does the Hypothetical statement, that “P implies Q”, tell us that P is true? No. It
doesn't commit itself one way or the other. Does it tell us that Q is true? No. It doesn't
commit itself one way or the other.
It gives us, however, only one piece of information: If P is true, then Q must be
true. That's the one thing it tells us. If it tells us that and then the next premise goes
on and says, “yes, P is true,” inescapably then we must come to the Conclusion: “Q is
true.”
Therefore, we say that any argument of this Structure is Valid. But that doesn't mean
that it's a good argument. Maybe the Premises are crazy and the Conclusion is
hopeless.
When we say it's Valid, we mean merely: From these Premises this Conclusion follows.

Official Name of Argument One – AFFIRMING THE

ANTECEDENT in a Mixed Hypothetical Argument. Error:
Reference source not found
Now we want a name for this particular Form of the Mixed Hypothetical Argument, in
order to distinguish it from other Forms that we're going to look at. We are going to
name these Forms according to what the Categorical premise does, the second
premise does.
In this case, the second premise tells us the Antecedent is true. It affirms the
Antecedent. It says, “Yes, the Antecedent is true.” Therefore, this Form is called
AFFIRMING THE ANTECEDENT.
So what you have before you in number one is an example of Affirming The
Antecedent in a Mixed Hypothetical Argument.
Remember that it's a matter of convention that the names are given according to
what the second premise does. Obviously, in this case, the Conclusion affirms the
Consequent, but it happens to have been named according to what happens in the
premise. And in this case, the premise tells you the Antecedent is true. So it's called
Affirming the Antecedent.
All right, Affirming the Antecedent is Valid, and it is always Valid when it has that
structure. Valid meaning “the Conclusion follows.”

Argument Two – DENYING THE ANTECEDENT in a Mixed

Hypothetical Argument. (Invalid Reasoning). Error: Reference
source not found
There are three more forms of the mixed Hypothetical.
Now, Look at Number Two.

That gives you a different form of the Mixed Hypothetical.

If this man deliberately kept the same premise, if this man has worked hard, then he's
tired. Now we say this man has not worked hard, and we're concluding, “therefore, he
is not tired.”
First a word on the symbols. If we are using P for the Antecedent, “this man has
worked hard,” we will need some other symbol for this man has not worked hard. We
want some symbol that will stand for not P, the negation of P, the denial of P. The
symbol is with the little thing that looks like an apostrophe beside the P. That is the
signal of negation, which is read P Prime. That means “not P”.

Structure of Argument Two - P implies Q. P Prime, i.e., P

is not true. Therefore, Q Prime, i.e., Q is not true. Error:
Reference source not found
The structure of Argument Number Two: P implies Q. P Prime, i.e., P is not true.
Therefore, Q Prime, i.e., Q is not true.
This particular form of the Mixed Hypothetical is called DENYING THE ANTECEDENT.

Argument Two is Invalid Form of Reasoning Because the

Statement – P implies Q – Gives You Only a SUFFICIENT
Condition of Q, Not the Necessary Condition, i.e., It
Doesn’t Say “P is NECESSARY to Get Q”. Error: Reference
source not found
Now the question is: Is this Reasoning valid?
P implies Q. If P, then Q. But P is not true. And the person concludes, “therefore, Q is
not true.”
This is not Valid Reasoning. Any Argument of this Structure is Invalid.
To understand the Reasoning here, you must grasp clearly what is meant by the IF-
THEN statement, by the Hypothetical statement.
The Hypothetical statement here tells you, “if a man has worked hard, then he is
tired.” Does it say, “hard work is the only possible explanation of tiredness?” Does it
say, “if a person is tired, he must have worked hard?” No, it doesn't. It says simply, “if
you work hard, then you're tired.” But it leaves the question wide open, maybe there
are dozens of other things that would make you tired. For instance, you've been sick
for a long time. If you've been sick, then you're tired, maybe. Or you watch television
for 40 hours without a stop. You might not call that hard work, but it could make you
tired. Or you're coming out of LSD in another dimension, and you feel tired.
The premise doesn't exclude any of those. It doesn't say, “only if a man worked hard
is he tired,” in which case, you could say, “well, he hasn't worked hard, so he's not
tired.”
It says, “if he's worked hard, then he's tired.” From that you cannot conclude, “just
because it isn't true, therefore, he's not tired.”
It would be as though I say, “if you stab a man in the heart, then he will die. But you
didn't stab him in the heart, therefore, he won't die.”
That's obviously Invalid Reasoning, because I didn't say, “only if he's stabbed in the
heart will he die.”
So you have, for those of you who know the distinction between a necessary and a
sufficient condition, the statement P implies Q gives you only a sufficient
condition of Q. It says, “P is enough to produce Q. If you have P, you'll get Q.” But it
doesn't tell you that, “P is necessary to get Q.” It doesn't say, “you have to have P
to get Q.” And Consequently, any Reasoning of this Form is Invalid.

Argument Two, “P implies Q. P Prime. Therefore, Q

Prime” is Invalid Reasoning. First Formal Fallacy of
Deductive Reasoning, Called the Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent. Error: Reference source not found
Later, we're going to discuss what you do if your premise was “only if P, then Q,” and
we'll have a whole production made of that when the time comes. But for now, I
simply want to point out to you that the argument as presented in Number Two that “P
implies Q. P Prime. Therefore, Q Prime” is Invalid Reasoning. So you have your First
Formal Fallacy of Deductive Reasoning. It's called the Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent.

Third Form of Mixed Hypothetical Argument – AFFIRMING

THE CONSEQUENT. (Invalid Reasoning). Error: Reference source
not found
There are two other forms left.
If you understand that, if you wanted the full thing, you should write, “this man has
worked hard,” but I'll just condense that to “worked.” And instead of “he is tired,” I'll
just say “tired.” And then you can fill in the rest of the English and make it pleasant
sounding.
Here is the model for a third type of Mixed Hypothetical.
First Premise, If this man has worked (P), then he is tired (Q).
Second premise, he is tired (Q).
Now, I draw a line.
Conclusion, therefore, he has worked (P).
Now, put the symbols around that.
For “worked,” you'd have P. For “tired,” you have Q.
For the second premise, simply says “he is tired.” Put a Q around that with
parentheses around it. And your Conclusion, he worked, we're just using the word
“worked,” put a P.

Structure of Affirming The Consequent - P implies Q. Q.

Therefore, P. Error: Reference source not found
Collect your symbols and write them on the side and you'll have: “P implies Q. Q.
Therefore, P.”
This is AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT. Remember, we always name them by what
happens in the Second Premise. In this case, the second premise tells us “the
Consequent is true.” We conclude, “therefore, the Antecedent is true.” So, it's called
Affirming the Consequent.

Invalid Reasoning, Same Reason as Denying the

Antecedent Fallacy. Because It Doesn’t Say “Only P Leads
to Q”. Error: Reference source not found
Now, is this version Valid or Invalid?
This argument is Invalid for exactly the same reason as the preceding one was. It
doesn't tell us “P is the only possible explanation of Q.” It doesn't tell us “only P leads
to Q.” And therefore, “the fact that Q is true, we cannot infer P is true.”
Maybe something else other than P produced Q in this case. Therefore, you can say as
a general law, Affirming the Consequent is Invalid.

Fourth Form of Mixed Hypothetical – DENYING THE

CONSEQUENT. Error: Reference source not found
The last Form of Mixed Hypothetical Argument.
First Premise, If he has worked hard (P), then he is tired (Q).
Second Premise, He is Not tired (Q Prime).
Conclusion, he has Not worked hard (P Prime).
If this man has worked hard, then he is tired. He is not tired, therefore, he has not
worked hard. Put the symbols in on this one. P for your Antecedent, worked. Q for
tired. Then your second premise would be Q Prime. He is not tired. Your Conclusion
would be P Prime. He has not worked.

Structure of Denying the Consequent - P implies Q. Q

Prime. Therefore, P Prime. Error: Reference source not found
Collect it on the side and you'll have: P implies Q. Q Prime. Therefore, P Prime.
This is called Denying the Consequent. Because we always name them by what
happens in the second premise.
Is this type of Reasoning Valid?

Denying the Consequent is Valid Reasoning Because If P

Leads to Q, Then If Q Isn’t True P Will Not Be True Either.
Error: Reference source not found
Yes, This type of Reasoning is Valid.
Again, to grasp the Validity, you have to go back to the meaning of the IF-THEN
Statement. The statement tells us “if P is true, then Q is true.” And then it goes on to
say, “but Q isn't true.” Given that setup, you have no choice but to say, “P couldn't be
true.” Because “if P were true, Q would be true, and it isn't.”
You got that? It says, “if he's worked hard, then he must be tired.” It has to be that,
“he's tired if he's worked hard.” That's what the premise tells you. And then the next
one says, “but he isn't tired.” Well, then the Conclusion must be, “he didn't work
hard.” Because if he had worked hard, he would be tired. And he isn't.
Putting it abstractly, when you have this Structure, it is always Valid because the
premise tells you P leads to Q. Combine that with not Q, and your Conclusion must be
not P.
Because if P were true, it would have led to Q, and it didn't. Therefore, we can say
that Denying the Consequent is always Valid.

In summary, we have Mixed Hypothetical Argument in four different Forms.

Two are Valid – Affirming the Antecedent and Denying the Consequent. And two Invalid
– Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent.

Denial of Antecedent or Consequent a Matter of Logical

Relation, and Not a Grammatical Point, and Depends on
the Second Premise’s Denial of Either. Error: Reference source
not found
A few points to mop up this type of Argument.
First, when we talk about Denial of the Antecedent or Denial of the Consequent, it is a
point of Logic, not a point of grammar. It doesn't make any difference where the word
“not” occurs. Whatever comes after the IF is called the Antecedent and is symbolized
simply by P, whether it has a “not” in it or “not”. Example to illustrate this.
“If a man is not Logical, then he is not happy.” Suppose that's your Hypothetical
premise.
Your next premise is, “this man is happy.”
And you draw the Conclusion, “therefore, this man is Logical.”
If you were symbolizing this argument, the Antecedent, the part that comes right after
the IF is, “this man is not Logical,” which will be symbolized as P. And for “he is not
happy,” you would have a Q. That's your Consequent.
When you come to the second premise and it tells you “he is happy,” that is the
Denial of the Consequent, so you symbolize it as Q Prime, and your Conclusion would
be P Prime.
The fact that the “not” is in one clause or the other doesn't make any difference.
When we say Denial of the Antecedent, the premise that does the Denial may be
Affirmative in form. We are focused on the Logical relation. Whenever your second
premise tells you the Antecedent, however formulated, isn't so, then it's called
Denying the Antecedent or Denying the Consequent, as the case may be.

“ONLY IF P THEN Q” Statement States P is a Necessary

Condition of Q, But Not Sufficient, Maybe Something Else
is Required. That Statement is Reverse of the “IF P THEN
Q” Statement. Error: Reference source not found
The IF-THEN form that we just worked out in four versions is the standard form of the
Mixed Hypothetical.
Now let's figure out how do you translate when people mean that, but they don't
literally say it, from the way people speak into this standard form. The first major
point to make under this is what do you do when people say, “ONLY IF P THEN Q.” As I
pointed out to you earlier, the statement, “ONLY IF P THEN Q,” is an entirely distinct
statement from the statement, “IF P THEN Q.”
For instance, if I tell you, “only if there is oxygen can there be a fire,” that doesn't
mean, “if there is oxygen there is a fire.”
If I tell you, “only if you come to class will you pass,” that doesn't say, “if you come to
class you will pass.”
If I say, “only if you're a veteran are you eligible for this award,” that is not the same
as saying, “if you're a veteran you're eligible.”
The ONLY statement, when it's “ONLY IF” is the reverse of the IF statement in the
following way.
The IF statement without the ONLY, just the “IF P THEN Q” gives you a Sufficient
condition.
The ONLY statement gives you a Necessary condition but it may not be Sufficient.
When you say “ONLY IF P THEN Q” you are saying, “P is a Necessary condition for Q.”
You can't get Q without P but it doesn't tell you yet that, “P is Sufficient,” that it's
enough, maybe something else is required.

Two Options to Translate “ONLY” Statements to Plain “IF

THEN” Without the ONLY. Either Drop the ONLY and
Negate the Two constituents Or Drop the ONLY and
Reverse the Two Constituents. ONLY P IMPLIES Q Same as
P PRIME IMPLIES Q PRIME and Q IMPLIES P. Error: Reference
source not found
Now we worked out our rules only for plain IF THEN statements. Consequently we
need some way of translating ONLY statements into a plain IF THEN form without the
word ONLY. Yet, we have to keep exactly the same meaning.
So we now ask ourselves how do you take a statement that's of the form “ONLY IF P
THEN Q” and rewrite it with the identical meaning but without any “ONLY,” keeping
the same meaning?
Obviously we can't just drop the “ONLY” because it would change the meaning so we
have to do something.
As a matter of fact, you have two different translations for statements which contain
“ONLY,” which are completely Optional.
Consider the statement, “only if you attend classes do you pass the course.”
That means one or the other equally of two different things.
One possibility you could translate it as, “if you do not attend classes then you do not
pass.” In other words we would simply drop the “ONLY” and Negate both constituents.
As an abstract equation, you could say “ONLY P IMPLIES Q,” using the Horseshoe
symbol for “IMPLIES.”
ONLY P IMPLIES Q is the same as P PRIME IMPLIES Q PRIME.
The other thing you could do if you wanted to get rid of the ONLY is, in the current
example, “only if you attend classes do you pass.” Well then from that we are entitled
to say if you passed then you attended classes. In that case what did we do?
We dropped the ONLY and reversed the order of the two constituents. If we put that
abstractly you can put it down this way. “Only P implies Q” is the same as “Q
implies P.”
So just to take an example, taking the oxygen example. “Only if there is oxygen is
there a fire.” You could rewrite that.
“If there is no oxygen then there is no fire.” Or, “if there is a fire then there was
oxygen.”
“Only if you are a veteran are you eligible.”
“If you are eligible then you are a veteran.”
“If you are not a veteran then you are not eligible.”
Putting it now, you want to just have it in ordinary English. If you want to get rid of an
ONLY you have two choices.
You either drop the ONLY and negate the two constituents or you drop the ONLY and
reverse the two constituents.
Either drop the ONLY and negate the two or drop the ONLY and reverse the two.

To emphasize this point, sometimes students get so traumatized that if anybody at 3

in the morning says the word ONLY to them they stand up and begin to Reverse or
Negate.
This is only applicable if the ONLY precedes the IF. If the statement is “ONLY IF
SOMETHING THEN SOMETHING” then this rule is applicable.
But you should not become panic stricken in the face of an ordinary “only.”
This rule applies only if the ONLY IF goes together.
So when you are working an argument of which one of the Premises is ONLY IF you
take your option, whichever one you want it makes no difference.

Points on Translating From Ordinary English to Logical

Form. If You Get the Conditional Idea in the Premise, One
Thing Depends on Another, Translate Into IF. “When”,
“Where” Can Substitute for IF; Some Conditional
Statement May be in Reverse Order; “Unless” Means “If
Not”; Etc. Go By The Common Sense Meaning. Error:
Reference source not found
Few further tips on translating from English into standard form. There are many words
in English which in various contexts serve as synonyms for IF and you have to be on
the alert for them and simply rewrite substituting IF for the word.
For instance, “When” can substitute for “If”.
“When men think then they prosper.” That’s obviously a Conditional idea.
“If men think then they prosper.”
“Where” can very often function as meaning “If”.
“Where there is science there is wealth.” Again it's Conditional.
“If there is science there is wealth.”
Provided that is nice two words to use to mean simply IF.
“On the condition that,” “assuming that,” etc.
I'm not going to give you a whole lexicography of synonyms for IF but the idea is – if
you get the conditional idea in the premise, one thing depends on another,
translate into IF.

Sometimes in ordinary language the two will be presented to you in reverse order.
For instance, a statement like this, “he will pass if you motivate him.” Now, how would
you rewrite that to simply get it in standard form?
“If you motivate him then he'll pass.” You just put the IF part at the beginning.

I call attention to the word “unless.”

“Unless you study you fail.”
What does “unless” mean?
No, “unless” does not mean “only”. “Unless you study you fail,” does not mean, “only
if you study you fail.”
Unless actually means “if not”.
So for, “unless you study you fail” you just write, “IF you do not study you fail.”
The best thing is to go by the common sense meaning and not memorize a
hundred tips of translation.

Words Used as Logical Indicators to Identify Which are

the Premises and Which are the Conclusion of an
Argument. Some Examples. For Conclusion – Therefore.
Thus. So. As a Result. I Conclude. Hence. Consequently.
For Premise – For. Because. Since. On the Grounds That.
On the Premise That. My Reason Is. Error: Reference source not
found
There's one point to consider for this type of argument. When you're analyzing an
argument you cannot assume that the last statement offered is the Conclusion. In
ordinary speech and writing people are free to either state their Conclusion first, in the
middle, or at the end.
Take the classic Socrates argument that I've been using. I could say to you, “all men
are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal.” In which case my
Conclusion is at the end.
But suppose I came in and I said, “Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal and
Socrates is one.” Then my first statement was the Conclusion or I could stick it in the
middle. I could say, “all men are mortal so Socrates must be, because he is one.” In
which case my Conclusion is sandwiched between my two Premises.
Now, how do you tell which are the Premises and which are the Conclusion of an
argument?
That's obviously crucial. You cannot assume that, whichever order it's stated in, the
last one is the Conclusion.
Well, there are certain words in English which are called Logical Indicators,
because they indicate whether the sentence that comes after them is
premise or Conclusion.
The following are just a few obvious Logical Indicators that introduce Conclusions:
Therefore.
Thus.
So.
As a result.
I conclude.
Hence.
Consequently.
All of those words make you light up and say, “Aha, what's coming is the Conclusion.”
On the other hand, all the following words and phrases indicate that what follows is a
Premise:
For.
Because.
Since.
On the grounds that.
On the premise that.
My reason is.
Whenever you see any such words as those, you know that what's coming is a
Premise.
If there are no Indicators at all, and the person simply walks in and says, “Oh man, I'm
mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.” Then you have to assume, for lack of
anything, that the last one is his Conclusion. But, in almost all cases, there are some
Indicators to suggest what's Premise and what's Conclusion.

Steps in Working an Argument. Error: Reference source not found

Now, take down these steps in working an argument. You should follow these steps in
this order, in any argument you want to analyze.
First, Find the Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
First, find the Conclusion. I emphasize this because, in my experience, about one third
of people assume automatically the last sentence is the Conclusion. And then they
throw the whole argument down the drain because they're not analyzing the right
argument.
Decide what the Conclusion of the argument is first.

Second, Write Out the Premises and Conclusion in

Standard Form. Error: Reference source not found
Second, write out the Premises and Conclusion in standard form.
Now, in connection with the Mixed Hypothetical, the standard form will be: IF
Antecedent THEN some Consequent. And then, whatever your second premise is and
whatever your Conclusion is.
So that means get rid of the ONLY, get rid of the UNLESS, do all the translation, until
you have it in standard form.
Now at the beginning, you're well advised to do that writing out in full.
“If this man has worked hard, then he is tired.”
If you find that you're getting bored, reduce it to “if worked hard, then tired.”
And if you get too up on it and you can't take that much writing, make it just if
worked. And if even that's too much, write if w all or even if w.
As long as you remember what it stands for. But that's fine. You can condense them
into simply as brief a thing as you want. The only tip I give you is that if you
abbreviate, do it consistently.
So if you're going to write “work” for the first Antecedent, then when it comes up
again in the next premise, write “work” again.
Use the same abbreviations so you know what you're doing.

Third Step, Symbolize. Put Parentheses Around the

Words That the Symbols Stand For (Around Antecedent
and Consequent Only), IF-THEN are Structural Elements
that States the Relationship Between Antecedent and
Consequent, and the Word “Therefore” a Logical
Indicator Introducing the Conclusion. Collect the
Symbolic Structure Over on the Side. Error: Reference source
not found
Now to symbolize, you always put parentheses around the words that your symbol
stands for.
Those parentheses indicate to you that the symbol stands for everything between the
parentheses.
Notice that in a Hypothetical argument, the IF and the THEN are not part of the phrase
that the symbol stands for. They are the structural elements that tell you the
relationship.
So, the parentheses come simply around the Antecedent and the Consequent in this
case. And of course the word “therefore” is simply a Logical Indicator introducing the
Conclusion. It's not part of the Conclusion.
So put your symbols on and as part of that same step, collect the symbolic structure
over on the side, just in the way we have done in the booklet here.

Fourth and Final Step, Name the Form and State Whether
it's Valid or Invalid. Error: Reference source not found
Fourth and final Step, name the form and state whether it's valid or invalid.
So you'd say, for instance, affirming the Antecedent, valid. Denying the Antecedent,
invalid. The fallacies in this case are only two and they're the same name as the name
of the form, Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent.

Argument Three – Pure Hypothetical Statement, Where

Both the Premises are Hypothetical Statements. A Valid
Chain Argument. Error: Reference source not found
Illustration Number 3, Page 8.

Premise One – “IF a person is young, THEN he is enthusiastic.”

Premise Two – “IF he is enthusiastic, THEN he is diligent.”
Conclusion – “Therefore, IF a person is young, THEN he is diligent.”
In this case, both Premises and the Conclusion are all the same type of statement, a
Hypothetical Statement.
Consequently, this is a called a Pure Hypothetical Argument.
Now, notice it's an Argument. It has Premises and a Conclusion.
In this case, the Conclusion is, “if a person is young, then he is diligent,” which is
something which requires proof and which these Premises purport to prove.
We are not here concerned with the truth of the Premises or Conclusion, but simply
this is a structure of Premises leading to a Conclusion, but every one of them is
Hypothetical in its form, and so the argument as a whole is Pure Hypothetical.

Structure of Argument Three - IF P THEN Q, IF Q THEN R,

Therefore IF P THEN R. Error: Reference source not found
I've symbolized it for you right on there. Take our first Antecedent of the First Premise,
“a person is young.” We've stuck parentheses around it and call it P. And the
Consequent, “he is enthusiastic,” Q. When we come to, “he is enthusiastic” in the
Second Premise, obviously we again call it Q, because that's what Q stands for.
Now we have a chance for inventiveness and creativity, because we see “he is
diligent,” which never came up in the Argument before. So we symbolize it by R. And
then we put the appropriate symbols in the Conclusion, the P and the R, and collect
the symbols at the side, and you see the structure is – P implies Q, Q implies R,
therefore P implies R. Or if P then Q, if Q then R, therefore if P then R.

Argument Three is Valid Chain Argument, The Q is the

Link That Joins the P and the R. Error: Reference source not found
Now is this Argument Number Three valid or invalid? Remembering that Valid means
only the Conclusion follows from those Premises, not necessarily that the Conclusion is
true, because we're leaving aside the question whether the Premises trueor not.
Is this Reasoning valid? Yes, it is. This is what is known as a Chain Argument, also
called a Valid Chain, because the structure is the Q, in this particular case, is the link
joining up the P and the R.
P leads to Q, Q leads to R, then P must lead to R. So it is a Chain with Q serving
as the Middle link. The P is connected to the Q, the Q to the R, therefore the P to the
R.

In Pure Hypothetical Argument There Can Be Unlimited

Numbers of Premises as Long As the Chain is Not Broken,
Whereas In Mixed Hypothetical There Were Just Two
Premises, First One Hypothetical and Second One
Categorical. Error: Reference source not found
There's nothing very complex about a Pure Hypothetical Argument, there's no reason
why you have to restrict yourself to two Premises.
In a Mixed Hypothetical Argument, you always have just two Premises, one
Hypothetical, one Categorical.
But in this type, you can go on as long as you want, and it will remain valid no matter
how long you go on, so long as you don't break the chain.
For instance, suppose we took the two Premises we have right here. “If a person is
young, then he's enthusiastic.” “If he's enthusiastic, then he's diligent.” And I added
to it, “and if he's diligent, then he's productive.” “And if he's productive, then he's
wealthy.” I added two more Premises. What Conclusion could I come to from those
four Premises? “If a person is young, then he is wealthy.”
Obviously, I can have as many links as I want, so long as I do not break the chain.
Each new link will get a new letter, and if you want to take it down, if we had four
Premises, let me just give it to you symbolically so you can see a big chain before your
eyes. Put these down one underneath the other.
P implies Q.
Q implies R.
R implies S.
S implies T.
And our Conclusion would therefore be, P implies T.
Any argument like this, no matter how long it is, as long as the chain is nowhere
broken, is Valid.

Rule to Ensure that the Valid Chain is Intact: Antecedent

of First Premise Will Be Antecedent of Conclusion,
Consequent of Last Premise Will Be Consequent of
Conclusion. A Deductive Argument with More than Two
Premises is Called Sorites. Error: Reference source not found
Now, how do we know whether the chain is broken? Well, you can formulate the rule
abstractly like this. The Antecedent of the First Premise, in this case P, has to be the
Antecedent of the Conclusion. The Consequent of the Last Premise has to be the
Consequent of the Conclusion. And in between, no matter how far you go, the Last
one of One Premise must be the First one of the next.
So, if Q is the Consequent of the First Premise, it must be the Antecedent of the Next.
If R is that Consequent, it must be the Antecedent of the next. If S is that Consequent,
it must be the Antecedent of the next, so long as you have a structure in which the
very first one is identical to the very first one in the Conclusion, and the very last one
is identical to the very last one in the Conclusion, and in between you have these
linked up pairs, two Qs, two Rs, two Ss, however you've got, you can go on indefinitely
and it is a Valid Chain.
If you want another name, when a Deductive argument has more than two Premises
it's called a Sorites.
So the argument discussed just now – P implies Q, Q implies R, R implies S, etc., that
would be called a Pure Hypothetical Sorites.

A Pure Hypothetical Argument is Invalid When the Chain

is Broken, Called the Fallacy of the Broken Chain.
Example, P implies Q, R implies Q, Therefore P implies R.
Error: Reference source not found
When is a Pure Hypothetical Argument invalid?
Whenever the chain is broken, in which case it has the technical name, the Fallacy of
a Broken Chain.
Let me dictate to you an example of an Invalid Pure Hypothetical.
First Premise “IF you are a doctor, THEN you went to school.”
Second Premise, “IF you are a lawyer, THEN you went to school.”
Conclusion: “IF you are a doctor, THEN you are a lawyer.”
Now that is a Pure Hypothetical Argument, but a miserable one. It's a Broken Chain.
If you symbolize that, you'd put P for doctor, Q for school, R for lawyer, Q for school
again, and then P for doctor and R for lawyer.
Collect the symbols on the side and you have – P implies Q, R implies Q, therefore P
implies R. See that there is no chain there.
What would my second premise have had to be for this argument to be able to be
valid?
It would have to be, if I could say Q implies R, then I would have P implies Q, Q implies
R, therefore P implies R. But I can't because Q implies R in this case would mean, “if
you went to school, then you're a lawyer.” And obviously that simply is too implausible
and the person did not mean it. He meant, “if you are a lawyer, then you went to
school,” not the reverse.
Therefore this is a clear example of a broken chain.

Argument Number Four – Example of the Fallacy of the

Broken Chain. P implies Q, Q Prime implies R, Therefore P
implies R. The Q and Q Prime Does Not Link P and R. Error:
Reference source not found

Illustration Number Four on Page 8 is another example of the same fallacy, the Fallacy
of a Broken Chain. Slightly different kind of break here, but it's still a broken chain.
Premise One – IF (a man is a doctor) (P), THEN (he's been to school) (Q).
Premise Two – IF (a man has not been to school) (Q Prime), THEN (he's ignorant) (R).
______________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion – Therefore, IF (a man is a doctor), THEN (he's ignorant). (P implies R).
P implies Q, Q Prime implies R, therefore P implies R.
Where did it go off? Obviously the Q and Q Prime do not match in this case.
If our First Premise had been P implies Q Prime, then the argument would be okay. If
our Second Premise was Q implies R, the argument would be all right. But these
Premises do not yield this Conclusion. We broke the chain by having that Q and Q
Prime in that succession. Now, however the chain is broken, it's simply called the
Fallacy of the Broken Chain.
So when you get these arguments just symbolize, collect, and see whether you have a
valid chain or it has been broken.

Some Pure Hypothetical Arguments May Have a Real

Valid Structure, A Validly Linked Chain, But May Seem to
Be Broken Chain. By Reformulating Such Argument the
Valid Chain Can be Established. Error: Reference source not found
Now, there's only one difficulty in working Pure Hypothetical Arguments, and that is
there are many cases in which the chain at first glance appears to be broken. So it
looks as though it's an invalid argument. But actually there is a perfectly valid chain.
There only it is disguised. And by suitable tinkering and reformulation, you can bring
out the fact that there is a real structure there, a real valid structure, and show that
the argument is valid.
I'd like to caution you that it is not true that all Pure Hypothetical arguments are Valid.
It is not true that if you're ingenious enough in tinkering with them, you can take
anything that anybody says and make it valid.
But it is sometimes true that an argument may appear to be invalid, a Pure
Hypothetical Argument, and yet it really is valid if you play around with it. That is, do
legitimate things to it, only reveal the chain that's actually there.
In this connection I give you three helpful tips in playing around with a chain before
you say it is Invalid.

Tips to Identify Such Arguments Seeming to Have Broken

Chain But Which In Fact Has a Real Valid Structure/Chain.
Tip Number One. One May Change the Order of the
Premises Freely to Show the Valid Chain. Error: Reference
source not found
Tip number one. The Premises may not have been presented in the right order.
You're always free to change the order of the Premises. And it may be the case that
you can show the chain only by making the second premise come first or the tenth
premise come eighth or whatever it happens to be. There's nothing sacrosanct about
the order of Premises.

Second, Watch for “ONLY IF”, And Remove the “ONLY”

Either By Negating Or Reversing, as Explained Earlier. It
Will Work Only If the Argument Has a Real Valid
Structure. Error: Reference source not found
Second Tip. Watch out for “ONLY”s, which can appear in Pure Hypotheticals just as in
Plain Mixed Hypothetical cases. And whenever you have an “ONLY IF,” your eyes
should light up. You seize on the ONLY and you remember you've got to get rid of this
ONLY and you have two choices.
What are the two choices again to remind you? You drop the ONLY and you either
negate or you reverse.
You must get rid of the ONLY because the chain is not defined with reference to an
ONLY.
So you can take your pick and sometimes you'll find negating both is just what you
need and sometimes you'll find reversing both is just what you need and sometimes
it's hopeless because the argument is Invalid.

Third, Both Reverse and Negate a Plain IF-THEN

Statement, Which has No “ONLY.” “P implies Q” is
identical in meaning to “Q Prime implies P Prime.” Error:
Reference source not found
Third, you are always entitled to rewrite the plain ordinary “P implies Q” as “Not Q
implies not P.” In other words, “P implies Q” is identical in meaning to “Q Prime
implies P Prime.”
For instance, “IF you're a man, THEN you're mortal,” is identical to “IF you're not
mortal, THEN you are not a man.”
I reverse and negate.
“IF you study, THEN you pass,” is identical to “IF you don't pass, THEN you didn't
study.”
Reverse and negate.
“IF you're poor, THEN you're hungry,” will be identical to “IF you're not hungry, THEN
you're not poor.”
As a general principle, you are always entitled to reverse and negate when you
deal with a straight IF-THEN statement.

Difference Between Second and Third Tip. With ONLY IF

Argument, You Either Reverse or Negate to Remove the
ONLY, But With a Plain IF-THEN Argument, You Both
Reverse and Negate. Error: Reference source not found
The whole trick is keeping in mind the difference between what you do to get rid of
“ONLY”s and what you do when you use this rule.
When you have ONLY IF, you drop the ONLY and you either Reverse or Negate.
When you want to rewrite a statement, you both reverse and negate. That's
applicable only when there are no ONLYs.

Argument Number Five. A Seemingly Hopeless Argument

– ONLY P implies Q; R implies S; R Prime implies P Prime;
Therefore, S Prime imply Q Prime, CORRECTED to a Valid
Argument – S Prime implies R Prime; R Prime implies P
Prime; P Prime implies Q Prime; Therefore, S Prime
implies Q Prime. Error: Reference source not found
I deliberately concocted one that looks hopeless.
Premise One – ONLY IF (you are not rich) (P), (do you not pay high taxes) (Q).
Premise Two – IF (you do not succeed) (R), THEN (you are not persistent) (S).
Premise Three – IF (you do succeed) (R Prime or R1), THEN (you are rich) (P Prime or
P1).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion – Therefore, IF (you are persistent) (S Prime), THEN (you pay high taxes) (Q
Prime).

Is this Argument Valid or not? There is no way to tell just by looking at it, because it's
all mixed up. So this is how you work this type of art.
To begin with, you just go along in order and stick on letters. However, the first thing
that should leap out at you here from the First Premise is ONLY. So you just
underscore. Remember that.
Now remember, we carry the ONLY across. So our symbols read ONLY P implies Q. R
implies S. R Prime implies P Prime. Therefore, S Prime imply Q Prime.
Now the question is, can we make a valid chain? This is the information the Premises
give us reduced to its structural content.
Now the question is, do those three Premises yield that Conclusion?
On the face of it, you can't tell. Now we start applying our rules, if we want to yield a
Conclusion, S Prime implies Q Prime.
That's the Conclusion we want to come to. We know the First Premise must begin with
the Antecedent S Prime, if we're going to construct a Valid chain.
But there are no S Prime Premises. There is an S.
Is there any way of making that S into the Antecedent and also making it Negative?
Because we want to start with S Prime.
And then your eye lights up on the Second Premise. You see, “R implies S” and you
know that, whenever you have an implication, you can always Reverse and Negate.
So translate R implies S into S Prime implies R Prime.
Write that down on top somewhere – S Prime implies R Prime.
Now cross out the R implies S because you've used that information already.
Now the next premise must begin with the Antecedent R Prime. Premise number three
starts with R Prime, so change its order from premise three to premise two.
Write down R Prime implies P Prime.
Now cross out the one we just used up. All we need now is one more premise.
And we know that if the argument is to be valid, this last premise has to start with the
Antecedent – P Prime. And it has to have Q Prime as Consequent at the end, because
that's the Consequent of the Conclusion.
We need P Prime implies Q Prime.
We have only one thing left, ONLY P implies Q. I know that I have to remove the ONLY
by either Reverse or Negate. In this case the appropriate thing would be the option of
negating the two.
So drop the ONLY and write P Prime implies Q Prime.
Then just write in the Conclusion as it is. Now you look at what you've written, you
haven't changed the original meaning at all. You kept exactly to the information given
in the Premises. And you now have it in the form.
S Prime implies R Prime.
R Prime implies P Prime.
P Prime implies Q Prime.
Therefore, S Prime implies Q Prime.
Perfect change.
Therefore you say this a Valid Argument in the sense that the Conclusion follows from
the Premises.
Now you are in a position to figure out in English what was the guy saying. You
translate your chain back into English now that you've worked out the structure.
We know that S Prime here means persistent. R Prime means succeed. P Prime means
rich. We're just reading off what we put in originally. And Q Prime means pay high
taxes.
Therefore, substituting words for our new statement of the symbols, we get like this:
IF you are persistent, THEN you succeed.
IF you succeed, THEN you're rich.
IF you're rich, THEN you pay high taxes.
Therefore, IF you are persistent, THEN you pay high taxes.
Thus, you get the Logic of the argument before you perfectly clearly.
And then you can, if you want, challenge a particular premise if you think it's invalid
because you know exactly what the structure of the Reasoning is.
So one of the values of this is not only to determine the validity but to figure out what
actually is the meaning of the argument because if it gets long enough and complex
enough, you can't hold it in mind in the way it's originally presented.
Argument Six – Alternative Argument. EITHER-OR. One
Alternative Premise, One Categorical Premise and a
Categorical Conclusion. Error: Reference source not found
All right, let us look at one more type of argument. This is called an Alternative
argument. Numbers Six and Seven on Page 8 are examples of Alternative arguments.
Look at Argument Number Six.
It has an Alternative premise – EITHER he is bored OR he is dense. That’s the First
Premise.
The Second Premise is a Categorical – He is not bored.
The Conclusion – He is dense. That is a Categorical.
This type of argument is known as an Alternative Argument.
You do not call this a “mixed” Alternative Argument because there is no “pure”
Alternative Argument.
If somebody says Either P Or Q, Either Q Or R, nice but nothing follows. There is no
Argument which follows from two Alternatives. And Consequently, we don't have to
say a Mixed Alternative, just an Alternative Argument.
The question is, under what circumstances are Alternative arguments Valid? They
always have one Alternative premise, one Categorical premise, and a Categorical
Conclusion.

Two Types of Alternative Arguments. Strong Alternation –

One or the Other is True, But Both Can’t Be True, They
are Mutually Exclusive. Weak Alternation – One or the
Other is True, And Maybe Both, They are Not Mutually
Exclusive. Error: Reference source not found
Before we can discuss the Rules of Validity of this type of argument, we have to
distinguish two different kinds of Alternative statements. These two types are referred
to respectively as Strong Alternation and Weak Alternation.
This distinction comes from the fact that EITHER OR phrase in English can have two
different meanings. It is ambiguous.
In some languages such as Latin, there are two different words to stand for OR,
depending upon which meaning it has.
Consider a statement like this. EITHER he is still alive OR he is dead.
What does the EITHER OR tell you in a case like that? It tells you that one or the other
is true, but both can't be true. The two are mutually exclusive. If he's alive, he's not
dead. If he's dead, he's not alive. It's one or the other, but not both.
Or to switch the example, if I say to you, “either your martini is dry or it's sweet,”
that's the same type of alternation, still Strong Alternation. I'll explain why it's called
strong in a few minutes. It means one or the other, but not both. The two are mutually
exclusive. They can't both be true.
Just as we use “the horseshoe” to symbolize IF-THEN, we symbolize Strong Alternation
with two Vs, one inside the other, taken from “Vel,” which is the Latin word for OR.
When you have two Vs, that is the signal for Strong Alternation. It means one is
true or the other is true, but both can't be. At least one must be true.
On the other hand, Weak Alternation is a different meaning to the statement EITHER-
OR.
A student does poorly in class. And several Alternatives come to mind. I think to
myself, “EITHER he's bored OR he's dense,” or I might think several others. And I utter
the statement, “EITHER he's bored OR he's dense.” In that context, I want to leave
open the possibility that maybe several of these things are true. If we restrict
ourselves to just the two cases of being bored or dense, my thought is either he's
bored or he's dense, or possibly both. And yet I can express that same thought in
English by just thinking aloud, “EITHER he's bored OR he's dense.” But there I do not
want to say they're mutually exclusive, that at most one is true. I want to say, “well,
these are various possibilities. It's either one or the other, and maybe both.”
Or your electric typewriter stopped working, and you mused to yourself, “well, let's
see, either the plug came out or some part broke down, or maybe both.” That, again,
would be Weak Alternation.

Strong Alternation Symbolized with Two Vs, Weak

Alternation Symbolized with One V. Legal Expression of
Weak Alternation – And/Or. Error: Reference source not found
Weak Alternation is symbolized with just one V, as in Number Six on page 8.
When you see a single V like that, it means EITHER P OR Q, and possibly both.
The premise doesn't say. The person doesn't commit himself.
Now, in legal terminology, there is an exact expression to capture the meaning of
Weak Alternation when you want to say, “one or the other, and possibly both.” What is
the expression that's used in contracts and generally legal discussion to capture that
idea, “one or the other, and possibly both”? P and/or Q.

Rules of Validity for Weak Alternation. Error: Reference source

not found
Now these have two very different meanings. And Consequently, we have separate
rules of Validity if your premise is a Weak Alternative or if your premise is a Strong
one. Let's first work out the rules for Weak Alternation.
There'll be four forms of it, but I only put one down on your sheet. Number Six on
page 8 is an example of Weak Alternation.
First Premise – EITHER he's bored OR he's dense.
Second Premise – He’s not bored.
Conclusion – “He is dense.”
Phrases In Alternative Premises are Called Alternants.
Error: Reference source not found
First a point of terminology. Is the phrase “he is bored” in the first premise the
Antecedent? No.
This is not an IF-THEN statement. Consequently, the terminology of Antecedent and
Consequent is no longer applicable. All you say about “he is bored” is it is one of the
Alternants. It is the first Alternant, but there's really no use saying whether it's first
or second because it doesn't make any difference which order they're presented.
But you see me say it's one Alternant and “he is dense” would be another Alternant.
As far as the Symbolizing is concerned, we leave the EITHER-OR out because that's
the structural element here.
First Form of Weak Alternation. EITHER P OR Q, Possibly
Both; P Isn’t True, Therefore Q Is. Valid Because the
Premise Says One Or the Other, Maybe Both, But At Least
One Must be True. Error: Reference source not found
Put parentheses around the first Alternant, call it P. Around the second, call it Q.
The Second Premise, he's not bored, would be P Prime. The Conclusion, he is dense is
Q. Collect it on the side using a V now because it's Weak Alternation, and so we get P
v Q, which means: EITHER P OR Q, POSSIBLY BOTH; P isn't true, therefore Q
is.
This is the first of four possible forms of Weak Alternation. Is this form Valid? Yes, this
form is Valid, because the First Premise tells you one or the other, maybe
both, but at least one must be true. If then the next premise tells you P is not
true, you are entitled to Conclude Q must be true, because the premise said one
or the other at minimum has to be true, maybe both, but at least one.
Well, if P is not true, then obviously Q is true, therefore that is Valid.
Next Form of Weak Alternation. P v Q, P, Therefore Q
Prime. This is Invalid Because Second Premise Saying
That One of the Alternant is True, Does Not Say Anything
About the Other Alternant, So Cannot Conclude that the
Other Alternant is Not True. Error: Reference source not found
Now, I'll dictate to you another form of Weak Alternation.
First Premise, EITHER he is bored OR he is dense. P v Q
Second Premise, he is bored. P
Conclusion, he is not dense. Q Prime
That one would be symbolized – P v Q, P, Therefore, Q Prime.
This form is Invalid because this is Weak Alternation, therefore the premise tells you
one or the other, and possibly both. Therefore, if your Second Premise tells you, “well,
P is true,” you can't conclude anything about Q, because maybe both are true, maybe
not, maybe so, but you don't know. Therefore, from the Second Premise telling you
that one of the Alternants is true, you can't conclude anything about the other one,
therefore it's Invalid.
Next Form of Weak Alternation. P v Q, Q, P Prime. Invalid
Because From Second Premise Saying Q is True You
Cannot Infer that P is Not, Because Maybe Both Can Be
True. Error: Reference source not found
First Premise, EITHER he is bored OR he is dense. P v Q
Second Premise, he is dense. Q
Conclusion, he is not bored. P Prime
Now, that would be P v Q, Q, Therefore P Prime.
Is that valid? No, for the same reason, Weak Alternation, one or the other,
possibly both, from the fact that Q is true, you cannot then infer that P is
not, because maybe both.
Last Form of Weak Alternation. P v Q, Q Prime, Therefore P. Valid, Same Reason as First
Form.
Take down the last form.
First Premise, EITHER he is bored OR he is dense. P v Q
Second Premise, he is not dense. Q Prime.
Conclusion, therefore, he is bored. P
Symbolically, that would be P v Q, Q Prime, therefore P.
Is that valid? Yes, for the same reason that the first one was. The premise tells you
one or the other, possibly both, but at least one.
Then if we know Q is not true, we are entitled to conclude P must be true.

Rule for Weak Alternation. Valid Forms When Categorical

Premise Denies One Alternant and Conclusion Affirms the
Other. Invalid Forms (also called Fallacy of Weak
Alternation) When Categorical Premise Affirms One
Alternant and Conclusion Denies the Other. Error: Reference
source not found
So we have two valid and two invalid forms. Here's the rule for Weak Alternation:
It is valid whenever the Categorical Premise denies one Alternant and the
Conclusion affirms the other.
It's always valid because the premise tells you one or the other, maybe both, but
at least one. Therefore, if your next premise tells you one isn't true, one you deny,
the other must be.
But it is always Invalid when the reverse happens. It is always invalid in Weak
Alternation when the Categorical premise affirms one Alternant and the
Conclusion denies the other.
Then it is invalid because the meaning of Weak Alternation is one or the other
and possibly both. Therefore, the fact that you know that one of them is true
doesn't permit you to come to any Conclusion about the other.
Now, in the two cases which are invalid, it's simply called the Fallacy of Weak
Alternation in the two cases where it's fallacious.
That's unfortunate terminology because it makes it sound like any Weak Alternative
argument is invalid. That's not true. There's two valid forms of it. But in those cases
where it's invalid, it happens to receive the name the Fallacy of Weak Alternation.

Argument Seven. Strong Alternative Argument. A Strong

Alternation. EITHER P OR Q, P, Q Prime. From One Being
True, You Can Infer The Other Isn't True. They Can't Both
Be True, So If One Is True, The Other Can't Be. Error:
Reference source not found

Look at Argument Number 7 on page 8, and there is an argument which has a Strong
Alternative as its premise.
First Premise, EITHER he is still alive OR he is dead. P vv Q
Second Premise, he's still alive. P
Conclusion, therefore, he's not dead. Q Prime
Now, we take that to be Strong Alternation, meaning EITHER P OR Q, But Not
Both. One must be true at minimum. One can be true at maximum. At least
one, at most one, can be true.
In this case, you don't really have to bother working out the rules because if you are
not a hopelessly psychotic, you can't go wrong. I mean, for instance, if you say,
“Either he's still alive Or he's dead. He is still alive, therefore Napoleon lost the Battle
of Waterloo.” That obviously is INVALID.
But anything within the realm of plausibility, you cannot go wrong in Strong
Alternation. If you say, for instance, “he's still alive,” then you can infer, “he's not
dead,” because you know one or the other, but not both. Therefore, from one
being true, you can infer the other isn't true.
If you say, “he's dead,” in your second premise you can conclude, “he's not alive.”
Same Reasoning. They can't both be true, so if one is true, the other can't be.
If you say, “he isn't alive,” you negate one. Well, then, of course, you can infer, “he is
dead.” It's one or the other. At minimum, one must be true.
And if you say, “he isn't dead,” then you can conclude, therefore, “he is alive” again.
In other words, you are always free because of the nature of Strong Alternation.
The premise tells you at least one is true and at most one is true.
Therefore, if your Second Premise affirms one, your Conclusion can deny the
other. If your Second Premise denies one, your Conclusion can affirm the
other.
So, in general, you simply can't go wrong in any normal case.

When No Way of Identifying Weak or Strong Alternation,

Then Assume It is Weak, Because the Weak is the
Minimum Meaning of EITHER OR, the Bare Minimum the
Person Must Have Intended, It Leaves Open Maybe Both.
Whereas Strong Alternation Give More Information, it is
Mutually Exclusive. Error: Reference source not found
Now, the whole trick with Weak and Strong Alternative Arguments is how to tell which
is which. When is it intended as Weak and when is it intended as Strong?
In most cases, you can tell from the content. For instance, if Either a person is alive Or
dead, you can tell. Obviously, those are mutually exclusive. In those cases where you
can't tell from the content, usually the person will tell you from the context or by
adding some phrase, like, “and maybe both,” or, “but not both,” or something to give
you a clue.
But we have to have a policy on what to do if there's absolutely no way of telling. If
you can't tell from either the content or the context or any other signs, is it weak or
strong.
The rule is we always assume that it is Weak Alternation if you can't tell from any
information available to you. We assume that because the Weak interpretation
commits the person who said it to less information. It is the minimum meaning of
EITHER OR. And if we don't know what the speaker intended when he said the EITHER
OR, we want to take the bare minimum that he must have intended and not ascribe to
him a commitment beyond what he intended. And this is why the Weak version is
called Weak and the Strong version is called Strong.
The Strong gives you more information than the Weak. The Weak simply tells you, if
Either is false, the other is true. But the Weak does not tell you, if Either is true, the
other must be false. It leaves open, maybe both.
On the other hand, on a Strong interpretation, you are told, if Either is true, the other
must be false. If Either is false, the other must be true. In other words, you're given
twice the information. That's why it's called a Strong Alternative. It gives you twice as
much information.
Consequently, we adopt the rule. If we don't know which the speaker meant, the
minimum he must have meant is what's involved in the Weak statement. And
therefore, we interpret it as Weak in the absence of any other information.

One Can Convert Weak Alternation to Hypothetical

Statement. P v Q Can Always Be Rewritten P Prime
implies Q. Switch from Alternation to Implication and
Negate Only the First Alternative.
I have one final point before we leave this.
If you want, you can always transform an Alternative Statement into a Hypothetical.
And therefore, if you don't like working Alternative arguments, you can convert them
into mixed Hypotheticals. And now I'm about to tell you how to do it.
If you have the statement, “EITHER we resist aggression OR we shall be conquered,”
that's an EITHER-OR, how would we rewrite that in an IF-THEN form? Same meaning.
You can't change the person's meaning.
Assume that's Weak Alternation. It's one or the other, maybe both. Maybe our
resistance won't be successful, but at least one of these two. How would you rewrite
that in a Hypothetical form? “EITHER we resist aggression OR we shall be conquered.”
It would be, “IF we do not resist aggression, THEN we shall be conquered.”
As a general rule, whenever you have P v Q you can always rewrite that as P Prime
implies Q. In other words, when you have two Alternatives put in the Weak form, you
simply switch from Alternation to implication and negate the First, Only the First.
I won't say how to transform Strong Alternation into a Hypothetical, because there's
no reason to do it. Strong Alternation arguments never cause any trouble in terms of
validity, and so why have two techniques for dealing with them when one isn't
necessary to begin with?
But in the Weak case, if you want, you can switch it into a Hypothetical.

Exercises on Identifying and Judging Validity of Different

Types of Arguments from ITL Workbook. Error: Reference
source not found
On Page Seven Numbers One through Ten, and those are Hypothetical and Alternative
Arguments.
The first thing you have to do is decide what kind of Argument is it. Is it a Mixed
Hypothetical, a Pure Hypothetical, or whichever?
And then you follow the general rules. First, find the Conclusion. Look for “so,”
“therefore,” “hence,” “for,” “because,” etc.
Then write it out in standard form. IF-THENs, EITHER-ORs, whatever it happens to be.
Then symbolize, collect your symbols on the side, and then just simply apply the rules
and say whether it's Valid or not.
You say it is Denying the Antecedent, Invalid. Fallacy of Weak Alternation. Strong
Alternation, Valid, whatever it happens to be.
Next week we will turn to the Syllogism of Aristotle. And we'll take a minute or two
break, and then we will take some accumulated questions and the homework on
fallacies that we had from last week. Thank you.

HYPOTHETICAL AND ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS From ITL

Workbook
1. To get to Boston by the time the speech started, he would have had to drive at
least 60 mph on the average. Obviously, therefore, he did make the speech on time,
because he always drives over 70 mph.

2. Either the advocates of the Keynesian policies are ignorant of the facts of
economics, or they are prejudiced in favor of statism. I know that these men are
definitely prejudiced in favor of statism. It follows that at least they do know the facts
of economics.

3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,
possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be
prior to itself, which is impossible.”
4. Only if you are eligible for marriage are you not a child. If you are a child, then you
don’t wear large-size clothing. If you’re tall, you wear large-size clothing. Hence, if
you’re not eligible for marriage, you’re not tall.

5. Either you take a full lunch hour or you complete your letter today, but not both.
You can’t, therefore, take a full lunch hour, because you must complete your letter
today.

6. In today’s world, a man becomes an altruist unless he is an independent thinker. I

can only conclude that John must be opposed to altruism, because no one is more
intellectually independent than he.

7. If you are rich, then you are happy. If you are not rich, then you haven’t worked
hard. Unless you are happy, you need a psychiatrist. Hence, if you have worked hard,
you do not need a psychiatrist.

8. There are two possible explanations of the American Constitution: (a) The Founding
Fathers were philosophically committed to the principle of individual rights; (b) The
Founding Fathers were selfishly interested in protecting their own private property.
There is no doubt that this latter is definitely true. Therefore, the Founding Fathers
were not philosophically committed to the principle of individual rights.

9. Only were A a Q could G be a T. Thus G is not a T, since A is not a Q.

10. Given the premises: If you study, you learn the course material; only if you
graduate with honors and get a well-paying job have you done well in the course; you
will be truly happy provided that you graduate with honors and get a well-paying job;
if you don’t do well in the course, you haven’t learned the course material. Can one
validly conclude: If you study, you will be truly happy?