Critical Thinking

Week 3: Basic Logical Concepts

What we are concerned with:
• In evaluating any argument, one should always ask two key questions:
• Are the premises true?
• Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?
• We will only be concerned with the latter question in chapter 3.
• For any given argument, the answer to the latter question has nothing
to do with the answer to the former question.

3-2
Example:
• Take this argument:
1. Premise 1: If the moon is made of green cheese then you will score perfectly
on the next exam.
2. Premise 2: The moon is made of green cheese.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, you will score perfectly on the next exam.

You will never be able to show that premises don’t “provide good reason”
for a conclusion by pointing out that they are false.
Save “truth evaluation” for chapter 8.

3-3
Example:
Even though premises 1 & 2 are false, they still provide good reason to
accept the conclusion. Why?
Because, if they were true, the conclusion would have to be true

(i.e., If a green cheese moon really did ensure that you ace the next exam, and
it really was green cheese, then you really would ace the next exam.)

3-4
Answer the following Logic Problem
At a picnic, Mike went for soft drinks for Amy, Brian, Lisa, and Bill,
as well as for himself. He brought back iced tea, grape juice, Diet
Coke, Pepsi, and 7-Up.
• Mike doesn’t like carbonated drinks. Mike: Grape juice
• Amy would drink either 7-Up or Pepsi. Amy: Pepsi
• Brian likes only sodas. Brian: Diet Coke
• Lisa prefers the drink she would put lemon and sugar into. Lisa: Iced tea
• Bill likes only clear drinks.
Bill: 7-Up
What drinks did Mike bring for each person?
Deduction vs. Induction
• Deductive Arguments try to prove their conclusions
with rigorous and inescapable/certain logic.
Example:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is a human.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

3-6
Deduction vs. Induction
• Inductive Arguments try to show that their
conclusion are plausible (likely or probable), given
their premises.
Example:
1. So far, in every class, the professor has worn a tie.
2. Therefore, next class, the professor will wear a tie.

3-7
Deduction vs. Induction

https://youtu.be/BwtCScUoL_w?si=UNMmN5pMRb6qExEz

3-8
Telling the difference between Deductive and
Inductive Arguments

3-9
Avoid a Misconception
• Misconception:
• Deductive arguments go from the general to the
specific/particular--
• Inductive argument go from the specific/particular to the general.

This is wrong!!

3 - 10
Avoid a Misconception
They can do that:

Deductive:
• All Males are mortal. (general)
• I am Male. Therefore, I am mortal. (particular)

Inductive:
The last two winter days were cold. (particular)
Therefore, all winter days are cold. (general)
3 - 11
 Avoid a Misconception

But they can also do the exact opposite:

Deductive:
Lincoln was president from 1861-1865 (particular);
therefore, everyone born while he was president was born in the
1800’s. (general)
Inductive:
I have got A’s in all my classes so far (general).
Therefore, I will get an A in this class (particular).

3 - 12
Telling the difference between Deductive
and Inductive Arguments
There are four tests that greatly simplify the task of determining
whether an argument should be regarded as deductive or inductive:

• The Indicator Word Test

• The Strict Necessity Test
• The Common Pattern Test
• The Principle of Charity Test
The Indicator Word Test
Just as we use indicator words to signal the assertion of premises or conclusions,
we use indicator words to signal when our arguments are deductive or inductive.

For example, a phrase like “it necessarily follows that” almost always
indicates that an argument is deductive.

3 - 14
The Indicator Word Test

Indicator Words:
Deductive:

Inductive:

3 - 15
Limitations of the Indicator Word Test
Two limitations of the test should be noted:
1. First, many arguments contain no deduction or induction
indicator words. For example:

• This argument doesn’t contain any indicator words that would help us decide
whether it is deductive or inductive.
• For arguments such as these, we must rely on one or more of the other tests
discussed in this section.

3 - 17
Limitations of the Indicator Word Test
Two limitations of the test should be noted:
2. Second, arguers often use indicator words loosely or improperly.

• For example, it is common to hear speakers use strong phrases like “it must be
the case that” and “it is logical to assume that” when the context makes clear
that the argument is not intended to be strictly deductive.
• For these reasons the indicator word test must be used with caution.

3 - 18
The Strict Necessity Test
The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:
An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises
or it does not.
If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its premises,
the argument should always be treated as deductive.
If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should normally be treated as inductive.

Let’s see these

two examples

3 - 19
The Strict Necessity Test

• Does the conclusion of the first argument (“Alan is a male”) follow with strict
necessity from the premise (“Alan is a father”)?
• Could it possibly be true that Alan is a father yet false that he is a male?
Clearly not, for by definition all fathers are male.
• According to the strict necessity test, therefore, the first argument is clearly
DEDUCTIVE.

3 - 20
The Strict Necessity Test

• Could it be true that Jill is a six-year old girl yet false that she cannot run a mile in one
minute flat?
• Yes. Of course, it’s not physically possible for a six-year-old girl to run a mile in one
minute flat. Six-year-old girls (and human beings in general) just lack the physical
equipment to be able to do that.
• But there is no logical contradiction in thinking that there could be a six-year-old girl who
could run that fast.
It is logically possible, therefore, that the premise is true and the conclusion is false.
• Thus, the conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from the premises. So,
the argument should be treated as INDUCTIVE.

3 - 21
The Strict Necessity Test

• Example of exceptions (deductive but not valid arguments):

1.If I am in Wilkes-Barre, then I'm in Pennsylvania.

2.I am not in Wilkes-Barre.
3.Therefore, I am not in Pennsylvania

3 - 23
The Principle of Charity Test
If it is unclear what kind of argument it is then…
…if it would make a bad deductive argument assume it is not a deductive
argument.
• If it’s a choice between “bad deductive” and “good inductive” go with the
latter—it’s nicer and more likely what the person had in mind.
• Example:
• Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s yesterday, but it burned down a month ago. It is
certain that he was lying or mistaken.

Since it is possible that Maxine’s was rebuilt quickly, this argument is deductively invalid.
Assume that the author intended it to be inductive.

3 - 24
The Common Pattern Test

There are many common patterns that valid arguments “use.”

For example:
1.If P then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q (Modus Ponens)
If an argument follows one of these patterns, it is deductive.
We will learn other common patterns for each type.

3 - 25
The Common Pattern Test
A B

A
B

This argument has a particular pattern or form that occurs frequently in

deductive reasoning.
The general pattern of the argument is this:
If [the first statement “A”] is true, then [the second statement “B”] is true.
[The first statement “A”] is true.
Therefore, [the second statement “B”] is true.

3 - 26
The Common Pattern Test

This is an argument pattern that logicians call modus ponens, a Latin

expression that means “affirmative mode.”
Because it is a logically reliable pattern of reasoning, arguments of this
pattern should always be treated as DEDUCTIVE.

3 - 27
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

1. Hypothetical Syllogism
2. Categorical Syllogism
3. Argument by Elimination
4. Argument Based on Mathematics.
5. Argument from Definition

3 - 28
Hypothetical Syllogism

A syllogism is a three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists of exactly

two premises and a conclusion.

A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains at least one hypothetical or

conditional (i.e., if-then) premise.

For Example:

3 - 29
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1-Hypothetical Syllogism
Three-line argument that contains at least one conditional.
• If A then B. A. Therefore B. (Modus Ponens)
• If A then B. if B then C Therefore if A then C. (Chain argument)
• If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A. (Modus Tollens)

Example of Modus Ponens

3 - 30
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1-Hypothetical Syllogism
Three-line argument that contains at least one conditional.
• If A then B. A. Therefore B. (Modus Ponens)
• If A then B. if B then C Therefore if A then C. (Chain argument)
• If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A. (Modus Tollens)

3 - 31
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1-Hypothetical Syllogism
Three-line argument that contains at least one conditional.
• If A then B. A. Therefore B. (Modus Ponens)
• If A then B. if B then C Therefore if A then C. (Chain argument)
• If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A. (Modus Tollens)

Example of Modus Tollens

3 - 32
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1-Hypothetical Syllogism
• Invalid versions (that are still deductive):
• If A then B. Not A. Therefore not B. (denying the antecedent)
• If I am female then I am a person. I am not female. Therefore I am not a person.

3 - 33
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1-Hypothetical Syllogism
• Invalid versions (that are still deductive):
• If A then B. B. Therefore A. (affirming the consequent)
• If we’re on Neptune then we are in the solar system. We are in the solar system. Therefore, we’re
on Neptune.

These are still called DEDUCTIVE because usually people think they are valid when they put
them forward.

3 - 34
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
2-Categorical Syllogism
A three-lined argument in which each statement begins with the word
all, some or no.
Example Forms:
• All a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, all a’s are c’s.
• Some a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore some a’s are c’s.
Example:
1. All oaks are trees
2. All trees are plants.
3. So all oaks are plants.

3 - 35
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
3-Argument by Elimination
seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single
possibility remains.
Example forms:
• A or B. Not B. Therefore A.
• P or Q. if A then ~P. A. Therefore Q.
Example:
1. Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
2. But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
3. Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

3 - 36
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
4-Arguments based on Mathematics

Argument in which the conclusion depends largely or entirely on some

mathematical calculation or measurement.
Example forms:
There are four a’s and two b’s. Therefore there are six things all together.
Example:
1. Eight is greater than four.
2. Four is greater than two.
3. Therefore, eight is greater than two.

3 - 37
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
5- Arguments from definition

An argument in which the conclusion is presented as being true in

virtue of the definition of some key word or phrase.

• Examples:
• Bob is a single. Therefore Bob is unmarried.
• Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor.

3 - 38
In Class Activity
For each of the following, indicate which type of hypothetical syllogism it is: modus
ponens, modus tollens, chain argument, denying the antecedent, or affirming the
consequent. In some cases, the argument may need to be rephrased slightly to
make the logical pattern explicit.
1. If we’re in London, then we’re in England. We are not in England. So, we are
not in London.
Modus tollens

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.
Affirming the consequent
In Class Activity
3. If we’re in the United States, then we are on Earth. We are in the United States.
So, we are on Earth.
Modus ponens

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.
Chain argument
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.
Denying the antecedent
Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning

1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Augment from authority
4. Causal Argument
5. Statistical Argument
6. Argument from Analogy

3 - 41
Inductive generalization

• Generalization: statement that attributes characteristics to all or most

members of some group or class.

3 - 42
Inductive generalization

• Inductive generalization: drawing a generalization as a likely conclusion from

observations.
Common Form:
So far, the b’s I have seen have had the property p. Therefore, all b’s must have the property p.
Example:
1. All dinosaur bones found so far have been over 65 million years old.
2. Therefore all dinosaur bones found will be over 65 million years old.

3 - 43
Predictive argument

• Prediction: a statement about what will happen in the future.

• Predictive argument: an argument that has, as a conclusion, a prediction.
Common form:
• So far, all the b’s I have seen have had property P.
• Therefore, the next b I see will have property P.
Example:
• Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
• Therefore, the next president will be tall.

3 - 44
Predictive argument

Although many inductive arguments are predictive (and vise-

versa) not all predictive arguments are inductive.
• Counter example:
1. If Amy goes, then Ted goes.
2. Amy will go.
3. Therefore, Ted will go.

3 - 45
Augment from authority

Asserts a claim and supports that claim by citing some presumed

authority or witness.
Common form:
• P said that A was true, therefore A is true.
Example:
• The Encyclopedia said that bats eat bugs; therefore it is likely that bats eat
bugs.
Since sources are not 100% reliable, conclusions of such arguments are
not guaranteed and thus such arguments are inductive.
• However, the better the source, the better the argument.

3 - 46
Augment from authority

Not all arguments from authority are inductive.

Example:
1. If the bible says it, it’s true.
2. The bible says you should love your neighbor.
3. Therefore, you should love your neighbor.

3 - 47
Causal Argument

Asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else.

Common form:
• X is true. The likely cause of X being true is Y being true. Therefore, Y must
be true.
Example:
• I can’t log in. The network must be down.
Not all causal arguments are inductive
Counter example:
1. Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it eventually rusts.
2. This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen.
3. Therefore, it will eventually rust.

3 - 48
Statistical Argument

Rests on statistical evidence (evidence that some percentage of some

group has some particular property).
Common form:
• 90% of b’s have property p and x is a b, therefore x probably has property
p.
Example:
1. 83% of Notre Dame students are Catholic.
2. Bob is a Notre Dame student.
3. Therefore Bob is probably Catholic.

3 - 49
Statistical Argument

Because stats aren’t necessarily reflective of the population, such

arguments are usually inductive arguments.
But not always:
• If 65% polled will vote Democratic, then Hillary will win.
• 65% polled will vote Democratic.
• Therefore, Hillary will win.

3 - 50
Arguing from Analogy

Taking two things that are alike in some way(s) and using that to
support claims that they are similar in (an)other way(s).
Common form:
1. These things are similar is such-and-such ways.
2. Therefore, they are similar in some further way.
Examples:
1. Hershey Park is a great amusement park and it has a great roller
coaster.
2. Dorney Park is a great amusement park.
3. Dorney Park probably has a great roller coaster.

3 - 51
Arguing from Analogy

Since, being similar in one way does not guarantee being

similar in another, most analogies are inductive.
However, some are deductive:
1. Cars and cigarettes both cause thousands of deaths.
2. Thus, if cigarettes are regulated, so too should cars.
3. But cars should not be regulated.
4. Therefore cigarettes should not be regulated either.

3 - 52
In Class Activity
• Determine whether the following arguments are deductive or
inductive.
• For each argument, state which test(s) you used in reaching your
decision (i.e., the indicator word test, the strict necessity test, the
common pattern test, and/or the principle of charity test).
• If the common pattern test is used, indicate which specific pattern
the argument exemplifies (e.g., causal argument, argument from
authority, and so on).
In Class Activity
• Because x = 3 and y = 5, then x + y = 8.
Deductive (Argument based on mathematics; also, the conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises.)

• According to the New York Public Library Desk Reference, the pop-up
toaster was 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 (Argument from authority; also, the conclusion follows only
probably from the premises; also, "it’s reasonable to believe that” is an
induction indicator phrase.)
In Class Activity
• There are no visible signs of forced entry. It seems certain, therefore, that
the burglar had a key.
Inductive (Causal argument; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from
the premises.)

• The sign says it is seven miles to Lake Lily. Therefore, it is approximately

seven miles to Lake Lily.
Inductive (Given that signs can be wrong, the conclusion follows only probably
from the premises.)
In Class Activity
• Seventy-three percent of Ft. Gibson residents enjoy fishing. Lonnie is
a Ft. Gibson resident. So, it’s likely that Lonnie enjoys fishing.

Inductive (Statistical argument; also, the conclusion follows only probably from
the premises; also, probably is an induction indicator word.)

• Either Trump will win the election or Baiden will win the election. But
Trump won’t win the election. Therefore, Baiden will win the election.
Deductive (Argument by elimination; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from
the premises.)
This Week’s Readings

Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction

5th Edition
Chapter 3
Questions