CHAPTER 3.

BASIC LOGICAL
CONCEPTS
DR. PHAM THANH TUNG
[email protected]
 2

CONTENT

1. Deduction & Induction

2. Common pattern test – Deductive reasoning
3. Common pattern test – Inductive reasoning
 3

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION

 4

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION - DEFINITION

Two types of arguments:

• Deductive arguments: Try to prove the conclusion
with rigorous logic.
• Inductive arguments: Try to show the conclusion
are likely/plausible given the premises.

All humans are mortal. (1) Polls show that 80% of IU students
Socrates is human. (2) like this course. (1)
Socrates is certainly mortal. (3) John is an IU student. (2)
John probably likes this course. (3)
 5

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION - DIFFERENCES

Deductive Arguments: Inductive Arguments:
• If all premises are true, then • If all premises are true, then
conclusion MUST be true. conclusion is PROBABLY true.
• It is IMPOSSIBLE for all premises to • It is UNLIKELY for all premises to
be true and conclusion false. be true and conclusion false.
• Conclusion follows NECESSARILY • Conclusion follows PROBABLY
from premises. from premises
• Premises provide CONCLUSIVE • Premise provide GOOD evidence
evidence for the truth of conclusion. for the truth of conclusion.
• If you accept premises, you MUST • If you accept premises, you
accept conclusion. PROBABLY accept conclusion.
 6

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – FOUR TESTS

Four tests used to determine deductive/inductive arguments:

1. Indicator Word Test
2. Strict Necessity Test
3. Common Pattern Test
4. Principle of Charity Test
 7

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – INDICATOR WORD

Deductive Indicator Words: Inductive Indicator Words:

• Certainly • Probably
• Definitely • Likely
• Absolutely • It’s plausible to suppose that
• Conclusively • It’s reasonable to assume that
• Must • One would expect that
• Necessarily • It’s a good bet that
• It logically follows that • Chances are that
• It’s logically to conclude that • Odds are that
• This logically implies that
• This entails that
 8

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – INDICATOR WORD

All humans are mortal. (1) Polls show that 80% of IU students
Socrates is human. (2) like this course. (1)
Socrates is certainly mortal. (3) John is an IU student. (2)
John probably likes this course. (3)

John is an engineer. (1) Every ruby so far discovered has been

All engineers are human beings. (2) red. (1)
John must be a human being. (3) All rubies are likely to be red. (2)
 9

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – STRICT NECESSITY

Strict necessity test:

• If the conclusion follows with strict logical
necessity from its premises, the argument should
ALWAYS be treated as deductive.
• If the conclusion doesn’t follow with strict logical
necessity from its premises, argument should
NORMALLY be treated as inductive.
 10

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – STRICT NECESSITY

John is a father. (1) John is 10 year olds. (1)

Therefore, John is a male. (2) Therefore, John does not
know Calculus. (2)
 11

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – COMMON PATTERN

Common pattern test: Whether argument exhibits a

pattern of deductive/inductive reasoning.
• If argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, then argument is probably
deductive.
• If argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically inductive, then argument is probably
inductive.
 12

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY

Principle of charity test:

• Always interpret a doubtful argument in the way most
favorable to the arguer.
• The most charitable way to interpret a doubtful
argument is to interpret it as INDUCTIVE.
 13

DEDUCTION & INDUCTION – PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY

Example:
• Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant yesterday. (1)
• But Maxine’s was completely destroyed by fire less than a
month ago. (2)
• It is certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or mistaken. (3)

→Bad deductive argument, good inductive argument

→ View as inductive argument
COMMON PATTERN
TEST – DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
 COMMON PATTERN TEST 15

• The quickest way to determine whether an

argument is deductive or inductive is to note
whether it has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING 16

Five common patterns of deductive reasoning:

1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Argument by elimination
4. Argument based on mathematics
5. Argument from definition
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 17
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

• Syllogism: Three-line argument (2 premises + 1

conclusion)
• Hypothetical syllogism includes at least 1
hypothetical/conditional premise (if-then)
• There are 5 types of hypothetical syllogism.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 18
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Chain argument If A then B. If B then C.

Therefore, if A then C.
MODUS PONENS If A then B. A.
Affirming the Antecedent Therefore, B.
MODUS TOLLENS If A, then B. Not B.
Denying the Consequent Therefore, not A.
Denying the Antecedent If A then B. Not A.
Therefore, not B.
Affirming the Consequent If A then B. B.
Therefore, A.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 19
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Example of chain argument:

• If we get up late, then we will miss the bus.
• If we miss the bus, then we will go to work late.
• If we get up late, then we will go to work late.

→Logically reliable pattern of reasoning

 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 20
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Example:
• Antecedent (A): Rain
• Consequent (B): Wet street.
• If A then B: If it rains, the street will be wet.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 21
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Modus ponens: Modus tollens:

• If it rains, the street will • If it rains, the street will
be wet. be wet.
• It rains. • The street is not wet.
• Therefore, the street is • Therefore, it does not
wet. rain.
→Logically reliable pattern of reasoning
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 22
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Denying the antecedent: Affirming the consequence:

• If it rains, the street will • If it rains, the street will
be wet. be wet.
• It does not rain. • The street is wet.
• Therefore, the street is • Therefore, it rains.
not wet.
→Not logically reliable pattern of reasoning, but still
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 23
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Exercise 1: For each of the following, indicate which

type of hypothetical syllogism it is:
1. If we’re in London, then we’re in England. We are not
in England. So, we are not in London.
2. If we’re in Los Angeles, then we are in the United States.
We are in the United States. So, we are in Los Angeles.
3. If we’re in the United States, then we are on Earth. We
are in the United States. So, we are on Earth.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 24
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

4. If we’re in Paris, then we are in France. If we’re in

France, then we are in Europe. So, if we are in Paris,
then we are in Europe.
5. If we’re in Houston, then we are in the United States.
We are not in Houston. So, we are not in the United
States.
6. If we’re in Shanghai, then we are in China. So, we are in
China, because we are in Shanghai.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 25
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

7. We are not in Mexico, because if we are in Mexico City,

we are in Mexico, and we are not in Mexico City.
8. Since we’re in India, we are in Calcutta, since we are in
India if we are in Calcutta.
9. If we’re in Toronto, then we are in Canada. So, because
if we are in Canada, we are in North America, if we are
in Toronto, then we are in North America.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 26
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

• A categorical syllogism may be defined as a three-

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

• All oaks are trees. • All bats are mammals.

• All trees are plants. • All mammals are warm-
• So, all oaks are plants blooded.
• So, all bats are warm-
blooded.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 27
ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION

• An argument by elimination seeks by elimination

seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until
only a single possibility remains. (either-or)
• Either John walked to the • Either John failed the exam or
library or he drove. he passed.
• But John didn’t drive to the • But John didn’t fail the exam.
library. • Therefore, John pass the
• Therefore, John walked to the exam.
library.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 28
ARGUMENT BASED ON MATHEMATICS

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

reasoning. They claim to prove that their conclusion
on the basis of precise mathematical concepts and
reasoning.
• In an argument based on mathematics, the
conclusion is claimed to depend largely or entirely
on some mathematical calculation or measurement.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 29
ARGUMENT BASED ON MATHEMATICS

Examples of argument based on math:

• Mary has twice as many cats as John. John has 3 cat.
Therefore, Mary has 6 cats.
• The area of a circle is π × r^2. This circle has a r
(radius) of 3. Therefore the area of the circle is π × 3^2.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 30
ARGUMENT FROM DEFINITION

• In Argument from definition, the conclusion is

presented as being “true by definition”, that is, as
following simply by definition some key words or
phrases used in the argument
• Examples:
• Mary is a cardiologist. Therefore, Mary is a doctor.
• A bachelor is an unmarried man. Bob is a man, and
Bob is unmarried, so Bob is a bachelor.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING - SUMMARY 31

Five common patterns of deductive reasoning:

1. Hypothetical syllogism -> If - then
2. Categorical syllogism -> All, no, some
3. Argument by elimination -> Either - or
4. Argument based on mathematics -> Calculations
5. Argument from definition -> True by definition
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 32
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Exercise 2: For each of the following, indicate which

pattern of deductive reasoning it is:
1. If we’re in HCMC, then we’re in Vietnam. We are in
HCMC. So, we are in Vietnam.
2. The murder did not occur in the library. Either Hope
was the murderer, or Adler was the murderer. If Hope
was the murderer, then the murder took place in the
library. Conclusion: Adler was the murderer.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 33
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

3. John is a sophomore. Therefore, John is a student.

4. If my car is out of gas, it won’t start. My car won’t start.
Therefore, it is out of gas.
5. Hugh is the father of John. It follows that Hugh is the
grandfather of Dave because John is the father of Dave.
6. If Steve is 48 years old and Pam is exactly 19 years old
younger than Steve, it necessarily follow that Pam is 29
years old.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING – 34
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

7. No reptiles are mammals. All snakes are reptiles.

Therefore, no snakes are mammals.
8. Every argument is either deductive or inductive.
Because this argument isn’t deductive, it must be
inductive.
9. All politicians are public figures. Some actors are
politicians. Therefore, some actors are public figures.
COMMON PATTERN
TEST – INDUCTIVE
REASONING
 INDUCTIVE REASONING 36

Six common patterns of inductive reasoning:

1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Argument by authority
4. Causal argument
5. Statistical argument
6. Argument from analogy
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION 37

• A generalization is a statement that attribute some

characteristic to all or most members of a given class.
• An inductive generalization is an argument in
which a generalization is claimed to be probably true
based on information about some members of a
particular class.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION 38

Example:
• Six months ago I met a farmer from HCMC, and he was
friendly.
• Four months ago I met an insurance salesman from
HCMC, and he was friendly.
• Two months ago I met a dentist from HCMC, and she was
friendly.
• I guess most people from HCMC are friendly.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT 39

• A prediction is a statement about what may or will

happen in the future.
• In a Predictive argument, a prediction is defended
with reasons.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT 40

Example 1:
• Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
• Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be tall.

Example 2:
• It has rained in Vancouver every February since weather
records have been kept.
• Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next February.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY 41

• An argument from authority asserts a claim and then

supports that claims by citing some presumed
authority or witness who has said that the claim is
true.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY 42

Example 1:
• The Encyclopedia Britannica says that parts of Virginia are farther
west than Detroit.
• In general, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly reliable source of
information.
• Therefore, it’s probably true that parts of Virginia are farther west
than Detroit.

Example 2:
• There are bears in these woods. My neighbor Frank said he saw one
last week.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
CAUSAL ARGUMENT 43

• A causal argument asserts or denies that something is

the cause of something else.
• Examples:
• I can’t log on. The network must be down.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
STATISTICAL ARGUMENT 44

• A Statically argument rests on statistical evidence,

that is, evidence that some percentage of some group
or class has some particular characteristic.
• Examples:
• Eighty-three percent of IU student like this course.
• John is an IU student.
• So, John probably like this course.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY 45

• An analogy is a comparison of two or more things

that are claimed to be alike in some relevant respect.
• In an Argument from analogy, the conclusion is
claimed to depend on an analogy between two or
more things.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING –
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY 46

Example:
• Bill is a graduate of IU, and he is bright, energetic, and
dependable.
• Mary is a graduate of IU, and she is bright, energetic, and
dependable.
• John is a graduate of IU.
• Therefore, most likely, John is bright, energetic, and
dependable, too.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING – 47
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Exercise 3: For each of the following, indicate which

pattern of inductive reasoning it is:
1. According to the New York Public Library Desk
Reference, the pop-up toasterwas invented by Charles
Strite in 1927. The New York Public Library Desk.
Reference is a highly reliable reference work. Therefore,
it’s reasonable to believe that Charles Strite did invent
the pop-up toaster in 1927.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING – 48
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

2. Seventy-three percent of Ft. Gibson residents enjoy

fishing. Lonnie is a Ft. Gibson resident. So, it’s likely
that Lonnie enjoys fishing.
3. If it rains, the game will be postponed until next
Saturday. According to the National Weather Service,
there’s a 90 percent chance of rain. Therefore, probably
the game will be postponed until next Saturday.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING – 49
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

4. Klaus ingested a large dose of rat poison just before he

died. Therefore, the rat poison must have caused Klaus’s
death.
5. Yale is an Ivy League school, and it has a good library.
Harvard is an Ivy League school, and it has a good
library. Therefore, because Brown is an Ivy League
school, it must have a good library, too.
 INDUCTIVE REASONING – 50
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

6. All previously observed polar bears have weighed less

than 1,500 pounds. Therefore, all polar bears probably
weigh less than 1,500 pounds.
7. Five alleged eyewitnesses have testified that they saw
Frank Lane stab Melissa Jenkins. So, Frank Lane did
stab Melissa Jenkins.