Introduction to Basic Concepts

Dr. Ryan Learn

WSU-Tricities
What is Logic?

Logic is a systematized way to analyzing reasoning and arguments; It

lets us differentiate between good and bad reasoning.
This is often regarded as a useful thing to be able to do.
We constantly encounter arguments in our everyday lives, so having
some objective and rigid set of rules to evaluate those arguments
can save us from a lot of trouble.
This is where logic comes into play.

1
Arguments
The Building Blocks of Arguments

Arguments often contain several discrete claims used to arrive at

and support a conclusion;
An argument
Access to health care is a fundamental human right. The
government has a responsibility to guarantee human rights.
Therefore the government has a responsibility to guarantee access
to health care.

2
We can break this argument down into it’s discrete claims.

1. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right

2. The government has a responsibility to guarantee human rights
3. The government has a responsibility to guarantee access to
health care.

Each of these discrete claims is known as a proposition, which are

the building blocks of arguments.

3
Propositions

Propositions are claims that assert something is the case or it isn’t.

The Following are both propositions.

• The sky is blue

• The sky is not blue

Because they assert that something is the case, or that something is

not the case, propositions can be either be true or false.

4
You may not know whether a particular proposition is true or false,
but it still is either true or false, you just don’t know what it’s truth
value is.
Some propositions with unknown truth values

1. There is life on some other planet in the galaxy

2. Blackbeards treasure is buried in North Carolina
3. Dr. Learn will teach Linear Algebra in the spring

5
Propositions are often referred to as statements by some logicians,
and these terms will be used interchangeably in this course.
When you make some statement, you assert (or negate) some claim.
The claim you assert or negate may be true or false.

6
Questions, Commands, and Exclamations

Questions do not assert or negate some claim. So they are not

propositions.

• ”What time is the Intro to Logic class?”

The above is not a proposition; its a question without a truth value.

• ”Introduction to Logic is at 9am on Saturdays”

This is a proposition, as it is either true or false.

7
Command or Imperatives such as ”Duck!”, ”Stop!” or ”Come quickly!”
also do not assert or negate any claims so they are not propositions.

• ”Duck!”

This imperative is trying to save someone from head trauma, not

affirm or deny some claim. On the other had.

• ”Duck or you’ll walk into the door frame!”

Is making an affirmative claim. That not ducking results in walking

into the door frame; This is either true or false, so it’s a proposition.

8
Compound Propositions

Propositions can be simple, like most of the ones we’ve looked at so

far, where they only assert a single claim, or they can be compound,
where multiple propositions are contained in a single proposition.
We’ll split these compound propositions into three types.

• Conjunctive
• Disjunctive
• Conditional

9
Conjuctive Propositions

Consider the proposition

The amazon basin produces roughly 20 percent of the

Earth’s oxygen, creates much of its own rainfall, and harbors
many unknown species.

This is a compound proposition that consists of three separate

propositions.

10
Conjuctive Propositions

Consider the proposition

The amazon basin produces roughly 20 percent of the

Earth’s oxygen, creates much of its own rainfall, and harbors
many unknown species.

This is a compound proposition that consists of three separate

propositions.

• The amazon basin produces 20% of the Earth’s oxygen

• The amazon basin generates much of it’s own rainfall
• The amazon basin harbors many unknown species.

11
Our original proposition is equivalent to

The amazon basin produces roughly 20 percent of the

Earth’s oxygen AND creates much of its own rainfall AND
harbors many unknown species.

The truth of the original compound proposition depends on the

truth of each and every of it’s component simple propositions. They
are linked together.
If any of them are false, the entire compound proposition is false.
These compound propositions are known as Conjunctive
propositions.

12
Figure 1: Conjuctive, because all of the components are linked together
13
Conjuctive Proposition Example

Consider the conjunctive proposition

We are in Richland, Washington, it’s the afternoon of

Tuesday the 8th of January, and it’s raining outside.

What are the component propositions? Are they true or false? Is the
entire proposition true or false?

14
Disjunctive Propositions

Consider the compound proposition

It is either raining outside, or it is sunny.

This is a compound proposition that consists of two separate

propositions.

• It is raining outside
• It is sunny

15
However, unlike in the case of a conjuctive proposition, in this
proposition, the truth of the compound proposition does not
depend on the truth of all of the component propositions, but on
any one of them.
A compound proposition that is true if any one of it’s component
propositions is true is known as a disjunctive proposition.
Each component proposition stands alone and is able to make the
entire proposition true.

16
Disjunctive Proposition Example

Consider the compound proposition

It is either raining outside this building, or it isn’t.

What are the component propositions? Are they true or false? Is the
entire proposition true or false?

17
Conditional Propositions

Conditional propositions make truth claims conditionally, based on

knowledge of other propositions.
Consider the proposition

If it is raining, then I should not bike to work.

This contains two propositions within it; specifically

• It is raining
• I should not bike to work

Neither of these propositions are be asserted though; only the full,

if-then proposition is being asserted.
A conditional proposition can be true even if it’s component
propositions are both false.

18
Conisder the proposition

If you did not study, you failed the test.

This consists of two component propositions

• You did not study.

• You failed the test.

You being a studious student who studies, both of these component

propositions are false; not only did you study, you did very well on
the test and got a stamp on it.
Nevertheless, the entire if-then proposition is likely true. If you
hadn’t studied, you would have failed.

19
Building an argument

Propositions are the building blocks of arguments; by joining

propositions together, we can form a coherent argument and make a
particular claim.
In the specific context of logic, an argument refers to a group of
propositions where one is claimed to follow another, where the truth
of one or more propositions gives support to subsequent
propositions

Proposition 1 → Proposition 2 → Proposition 3 → Proposition 4

| {z }
Argument

20
The Structure of an Argument

The process of establishing the truth of new propositions based on

proceedings ones is the process of inference.
Some inferences are correct, others are incorrect
Consider the argument.

It is raining → The roads will be slippery →

Biking is dangerous on slippery roads → I should not bike to campus
| {z }
Argument

21
 • Based on our experience and knowledge of what rain does to
roadways, we can infer from the fact that it is raining that the
roads will be slippery.
• Based on our knowledge of slippery roads, we can infer that
biking is dangerous.
• Based on our knowledge of whether or not we should do
dangerous things, we can infer we should not bike

Inference Inference
It is raining −−−−−→ The roads will be slippery −−−−−→
Inference
Biking is dangerous on slippery roads −−−−−→ I should not bike
| {z }
Argument

22
Implied Propositions

Some propositions are considered so well-established and

unquestionable that they are often left out of arguments altogether,
with the assumption made that the reader will fill those arguments
in automatically as needed to move to the next proposition.
Consider the argument.

Throwing puppies into woodchippers in unconscionably evil.

Therefore, puppies should not be thrown into woodchippers.

This is an argument, as it has a premise-conclusion structure.

Someone who disagrees could point out though, that your
conclusion does not follow directly from the premise.

23
There is an implied proposition here, which we do not include
because we believe everyone would agree with it unquestionably.

Throwing puppies into woodchippers in unconsciounably

evil. One should never do what is evil. Therefore, puppies
should not be thrown in woodchippers.

24
Consider the alternative argument

Inference
It is raining −−−−−→ The roads will not be slippery →
Biking is safe on non-slippery roads → I should bike to campus
| {z }
Argument

Is this first inference warranted/correct?

25
Consider the alternative argument

Inference
It is raining −−−−−→ The roads will not be slippery →
Biking is safe on non-slippery roads → I should bike to campus
| {z }
Argument

Is this first inference warranted/correct?

Typically no; unless there is some exotic pavement material in play,
the first proposition does not lead to the second proposition
through valid inference. We lose our connection.

26
Consider the alternative argument

It is raining The roads will not be slippery →

Biking is safe on non-slippery roads → I should bike to campus
| {z }
Argument

Is this first inference warranted/correct?

Typically no; unless there is some exotic pavement material in play,
the first proposition does not lead to the second proposition
through valid inference. We lose our connection.
Are argument loses it’s structure and is derailed.

27
Figure 2: Me arguing about politics

28
When formulating an argument, there is typically some final
proposition that you wish to reach; a decision to be reached, a point
to be made. This proposition is the conclusion of your argument.
In the previous example, I was trying to decide whether or not to
bike to work. I should not bike was my conclusion.
The propositions which I use to build up to that conclusion, either by
asserting them prima facie or by affirming them through other
propositions and inferences are known as premises

29
The premises of my previous argument were

• It is raining
• The road is slippery when raining
• Biking is dangerous on slippery roads

These provide the foundation for my conclusion that I should not

bike.
In this particular argument, negating any one of my premises
prevents me from arriving at my conclusion through this argument.
Depending on the structure of some arguments, the conclusion can
still be reached even if one or more premises is negated.

30
Generic Argument Structure

The generic train of an argument can be thought of as follows.

Premises
z }| { z }|
Conclusion
{
Inf Inf Inf
Proposition 1 −→ Proposition 2 −→ Proposition 3 −→ Proposition 4
| {z }
Argument

However, in reality, arguments can vary greatly in terms of their

complexity; they can contain intricate relations of propositions, or
follow very simply. They can start our with independent premises
that eventually link up, or two parallel chains of independent
premises that both support the same conclusion.

31
Analyzing and using arguments

In this class, the goal is not to establish the truth or falsity of

argument conclusions. We’re interested in the arguments
themselves.
Even if we personally agree with the particular conclusion of an
argument, we have to be willing as logicians to analyze and pick
apart and perhaps invalidate that particular argument.
Showing that an argument in support of a conclusion is invalid is
not equivalent to showing that said conclusion is false.

32
We’re going to start our with analyzing the form and structure of
arguments.
Subsequently, we’ll look at the quality of the argument to see if the
claimed conclusion is in fact warranted based on the argument.

33
Basic Arguments

At their most basic form, arguments can consist of a single premise

and a single conclusion. These arguments are structured such that
the conclusion can be inferred directly from the premise.

Premise Conclusion
z }| { Inf z }| {
Proposition 1 −→ Proposition 2
| {z }
Argument

34
Each proposition can make an appearance as it’s own sentence

No one was present when life first appeared on earth.

Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be
considered as theory not fact.

With the two propositions being

• No one was present when life first appeared on earth (Premise)

• Any statement of life’s origins should be considered a theory,
not a fact. (Conclusion)

35
Alternatively, the propositions can be bound together in a single
sentence.
Since it turns out that all humans are descended from a
small number of African ancestors in our recent
evolutionary past, believing in profound differences between
the races is as ridiculous as believing in a flat earth.

With the two propositions being

• All humans are descended from a small number of African

ancestors in our recent evolutionary past (Premise)
• Believing in profound differences between the races is
ridiculous (Conclusion)

36
An Essay as an argument

Think back to all of you persuasive/academic writing you do; these

can be regarded as arguments, albiet a bit longer and more involved
than the simple arguments we’ve covered so far.
Consider a specific essay, write down some propositions you made in
the course of that argument, and how they related to each other.
Which propositions were premises that you were asserting/affirming
Which propositon was your conclusion; does this correspond to
anything special about your essay?

37
Much like the sentence breakdown of an argument, the order in
which the premises appear in a text is not importantly in gauging the
qualitiy or validity of the argument. Often times, a conclusion will
precede a premise or set of premises.
In the simplest form this could look something like

I will bike to work today because it is not raining.

This is two propositions

• I will bike to work today (Conclusion)

• It is not raining (premise)

In an essay, a thesis statement is the conclusion of your logical

argument, and it is usually one of the very first things you say.

38
Arguments vs Propositions

It’s important though, to be able to tease out precisely when an

argument is being made, and when it is not.
Consider the following

If a state aims to be a society composed of equals, then a

state that is based on the middle class is bound to be the
best constituted.

This is a conditional (hypothetical) proposition. It consists of two

propositions, but asserts neither, it merely asserts the conditional
relationship of them. It’s a single compound proposition.
A single proposition is not an argument.

39
Now consider
A state aims to be a society composed of equals, and
therefore a state that is based on the middle class is bound
to be the best constituted.

This is an argument. You now have two propositions, one following

from the other, as opposed to a single compound proposition.

40
Arguments vs Collection of Propositions

Additionally, not every collection of related propositions is an

argument. Consider

32% of bicycle accident occur is adverse weather conditions

(fog/rain/sleet). 22.7% occur on wet road surfaces. 71 % of
bicyclist fatalities occurred in urban area. Richland is
classified as an urban area.

This is a collection of related propositions, but it does not seek to

establish a conclusion. So the premise-conclusion relationship does
not exist, and you do not have an argument.

41
Arguments vs Collection of Propositions

On the other hand.

32% of bicycle accident occur is adverse weather conditions
(fog/rain/sleet). 22.7% occur on wet road surfaces. 71 % of
bicyclist fatalities occurred in urban area. Richland is
classified as an urban area. Therefore, I should not bike in
the rain in Richland.

This collection of premises is used to establish the proposition that

is our conclusion. Thus, it’s an argument.

42
Identify Premises and Conclusions: Example

Identify the premises and conclusions in the following argument.

Sir Edmund Hillary is a hero, not because he was the first

person to climb Mount Everest, but because he never forgot
the Sherpas who helped him achieve this impossible feat.
He dedicated his life to helping build schools and hospitals
for them.

43
• Edmund Hillary completed an impossible task (Premise)
• Sherpa’s helped him complete this task (Premise)
• Those who do not forget their helpers are heroes (Premise)
• Hillary did not forget the Sherpas who helped him (Premise)
• Edmund Hillary is a Hero (Conclusion)

44
The Argument Clinic

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to

establish a proposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

45
Recognizing Arguments
Indicators

In order to evaluate arguments, we must be able to determine when

their being made, and what the involved propositions are; while this
may be a straightfoward task for relatively simple arguments, more
complex arguments require careful analysis to tease out, and
sometimes can’t be determined unambiguously.
We’ll cover some indicators of arguments, as well as ways of using
language to determine the relationship of the involved propositions.

46
Conclusion Indicators

Certain words can often suggest that a conclusion follows from

certain observations; these words are useful conclusion indicators.
Such words may include.

• Therefore
• Hence
• Thus
• So
• It follows that
• From which we can infer
• Consequently

With a full partial list included in the book.

47
Premise Indicators

Certain other words/phrases often indicate that a proposition is

serving as the foundation for another proposition; such a
proposition must be a premise, so we label these words/phrases
premise indicators.

• Since
• Because
• following from
• as shown by
• may be inferred from
• in view of the fact

With another full partial list included in the book.

48
Indicator Warning

A word of caution though

• Not all conclusions or premises will have conclusion and

premise indicators.
• The presence of conclusion/premise indicators does not
necessarily indicate the existence of an argument.

These indicators only serve as a helpful tool and a guide to the

structure of an argument; they are not ever-present and ironclad
roadmaps to argument comprehension.

49
The wonderful world of context

As premise/conclusion indicators alone can’t be relied on to reveal

the full structure of an argument, we can turn to the use of context
to aide us.
Indicators can especially be absent if the person making the
argument naturally or intentionally using language that is
less-sterile or clinical than dry logicians prose.
Consider the following argument.

As we send our young men and women abroad to bring

order to Iraq, many of it’s so-called leaders have abandoned
their posts. We have given Iraqis the opportunity to iron-out
their differences and they throw it back in our face. Iraq
does not deserve our help.

50
We could make essentially an identical argument paraphrased as

In light of the fact that Iraqi leaders have abandoned their

posts as we try to help, in addition the fact that the Iraqi
people are ungrateful for our help, we can conclude that
Iraq does not deserve our help.

The premise-conclusion relationship here is obvious, given the

indicators, but the prose loses quite a bit of it’s rhetorical and
emotive flourish.

51
The original quote’s argument can be paraphrased out as (unstated
premises in grey)

• We have sent our troops to Iraq

• Sending troops to Iraq comes at great cost to us
• They abandoning their own responsibilities
• They are ungrateful for the help we are providing
• You should not help people when it comes at great cost to you,
they will not help themselves, and they are ungrateful
• We should not help Iraq

This is all clear despite the lack of indicators.

52
Premises or Conclusions not in Declarative Form

We mentioned previously that commands, questions, and

exclamations are not statements, and thus cannot contain a
proposition.
As conclusions and premises must be propositions, they cannot be
commands, questions, or exclamations?
But sometimes premise and conclusions are in the form of a
question.
Is this a paradox or a contradiction?

53
Rhetorical Questions

These are questions that aren’t really questions at all; they’re

trojan-horse questions. They look like a question, but they make
unstated or implied assertions; thus rising to the level of a
proposition. These questions aren’t after an answer, but serve a
rhetorical purpose; they are rhetorical questions
Consider the following excerpt from a NYT article commenting on a
plan to issue US coins thta will honor former first ladies.

I am irked by the new set of coins being issued. While some

first ladies have influenced our country, should we bestow
this honor on people who are unelected, whose only
credential is having a prominent spouse?

54
The proposition being asserted is essentially;

We should not bestow the honor of coin placement on

unelected people on they basis of who they married.

The author asks it as a question, but they don’t want you to answer
it; Clearly you couldn’t answer him if you wanted to. Instead, they are
asserting the answer to that question is No.

55
The coin-conscious writer continues
Wouldn’t honoring women who have served as governors,
Supreme Court justices, or legislators be a more fitting
tribute to this nation’s womens than coins featuring ”First
Spouses”?

56
Danger of Rhetorical Questions

Rhetorical questions can often be useful in sneaking in arguments,

or making propositions seem much more certain than they actually
are, but they also come with some drawbacks.
The reader may miss the point completely, or, even worse, they may
actually try to answer the question.
In order to avoid those issues, is best to keep rhetorical questions
for asserting propositions that really are universally agreed upon.

57
Additionally, rhetorical questions can be used in a somewhat
specious and dishonest way; to assert something with having to
carry the responsibility of asserting something. Consider this
statement made by Congressmen Steve King last week.

White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization —

how did that language become offensive?

In the context of the interview which this statement was made, his
not asking because he is genuinely curious about the answer. He’s
asking to make the point that it is not offensive. Yet, if he were to
come out and say that directly, there would uproar about his
comment.
As a rhetorical question, he can avoid taking responsibility for his
argument and instead fall back on the defense that his is ”just
asking questions”.

58
Figure 3: Give it up for rhetorical questions, ladies and gentleman.

59
Betteridges Law of Headlines

There’s a commonly accepted adage to the effect

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered

by the word no.

This comments on the propensity of some news sources to assert

some fact via a rhetorical question, without actually asserting it at
all.
This allows them to avoid making outright false claims, but still
publish news articles that seem like major stories that actually
aren’t.
http://betteridgeslaw.com/

60
Commands

It is also not uncommon for propositions to be hidden in commands.

Consider the following

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom.

This sees like an argument; there is even a conclusion indicator!

But ”therefore get wisdom” obviously has no truth value; it’s a
command. Therefore this can’t be a proposition, and thus not an
argument.

61
But it is making an argument; one that could be written more
explicitly as:

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore you should get

wisdom.

Now everything is a proposition with truth values, and we have an

argument.
Commands can often be treated as propositions that it is wise to do
something, or that you ought to do something.

62
Unstated Propositions

The last form of an argument that isn’t explicitly framed as such is

when cetairn propositions are unstated. Recall our
puppy-woodchipper example.

Throwing puppies into woodchippers is unscoioably evil.

Therefore, you should not throw puppies in woood chippers.

The unstated proposition ”you should not do evil things”, is taken for
granted.
An argument that appears incomplete because one or more
propositions is taken as assumed is called an enthymeme.

63
Arguments vs Explanations

Not every time something has the structure of an argument is in fact

an argument. Consider the following hypothetical scenario, where I
am responding to your email about your grade on a homework.

In light of the fact that you turned you homework in late,

you lost points. The late penalty is 10% per school day, and
you turned it in 3 school days late, thus, your score was 70%.

This has the structure of an argument and even premise and

conclusion indicators. But it is not an argument.

64
An argument is a series of connected statements to establish the
truth of a proposition (your conclusion).
In this case, we’re not trying to establish what your grade was, or
whether or not your grade is 70%, but merely provide you with the
reasoning why your grade was 70%
If some fact is known to be true, and several propositions are used
to explicate the why of that truth, those connected propositions form
not an argument, but an explanation.

65
Determining Arguments vs Explanations

Given a connection of propositions of the form

P because Q
The general rule for determining if something is an argument or an
explanation is.

• If we know in fact that P is the case, and the author is making no

attempt to persuade that P is true, then the propositions form
an explanation.
• If P is not known to be true, and the truth value of P is
considered an open question, these connected propositions
likely form an argument.

66
Explanation vs Proposition Example

Classify the following as either arguments are explanations.

The sky is blue on a a clear day owing to the Rayleigh

scattering of light; Because of the wavelegnth dependence
on scattering, air particles are more effective at scattering
blue light than redder tones. Thus, blue light appears to be
coming from every point in the daytime sky, and thus, the
sky appears blue.

Because light is visible to us from very distant stars, and the

speed of light is fixed, such light must have been generated
many millions of years ago. If this light was generated
many millions of years ago, the stars to make it must have
existed. Thus, the universe is many millions of years older
than 6,000 years.

67
1. This is an explanation; no one argues about the color of the
daytime sky on a clear day; the question is not open for
discussion. Everyone knows the answer, and here we are
explaining that is the particular case.
2. This is an argument; the so-called ”star light problem” used to
argue against young Earth creation theorists. There is some
pushback about the notion that the universe is 13.4 billion years
old. So it’s an argument against a 6,000 year old universe.
Needless to say, this hasn’t ended the controversy.

68
Inductive and Deductive
Arguments
Types of Reasoning

In this course, we’ll mainly consider two forms of arguments and

reasoning. The first is that of the ironclad argument, the deductive
argument.
A deductive argument is one, where if the premises are true, and
connected by correct inferences, the conclusion is known with
certainty.

69
Deductive Argument Examples

• Jan is a TSA Agent

• No TSA agents are currently being paid by the
government.
• Therefore, Jan is not currently being paid by the
government.

• All people are mortal

• All men are people
• All men are mortal.

70
Validity

Through the deductive argument, we can arrive at the concept of

validity.

• If all the premises of a deductive argument are true, and

because of that, it’s conclusion must be true, that argument is
said to be valid.
• If all the premises of a deductive argument are true, but the
conclusion is not necessarily true despite those premises, the
argument is invalid.

The validity of an argument is gauged assuming all premises are

true. It is independent of the truth of the premises.

71
Validity Example

Consider the following argument.

• All humans are champion gymnasts.

• Some humans are female.
• Therefore, some females are champion gymnasts.

To gauge whether or not this argument is valid, we ignore whether or

not the propositions are true. We assume they are true and measure
whether or not the premises necessarily entail the conclusion.
If all people are champion gymnasts, and some people are girls,
don’t those girls have to be champion gymnasts?
They do; the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise; this is
a valid deductive argument.

72
Validity Example

Consider the following argument.

• If the government is shutdown, some federal employees

don’t get paid.
• Jan is a government employee and isn’t getting paid
• Therefore, the government is shutdown.

So once again, we assume all the premises are true, and see if the
conclusion must be true because of them.
Could there be other reasons Jan isn’t getting paid (unpaid leave)?
So does Jan not getting paid necessitate that the government must
be shut down?
It doesn’t; the conclusion does not necessarily follows from the
premise; this is a invalid deductive argument.

73
All deductive arguments either succeed if all the premises is true, or
they fail if all the premises are true, thus, every deductive argument
is either valid or invalid.
We will discuss at length, the varieties of valid and invalid deductive
arguments, and how to analyze them.
In chapters 5,6 and 7, we’ll use Classical, Aristotlean logic to analyze
and determine the validity of arguments.
In chapters 8,9,10, we’ll use modern, symbolic logic to determine
validity.

74
Why you as a computer scientist should care

The validity of logical arguments is of tantamount importance to

computer programmers, because logical directives and the flow of
control for computer programs can be thought of as logical
arguments.
Consider the following snippet of computer code.

if( side_1 == … == side_n) then

shape_is_square = TRUE
if(shape_is_square == TRUE) then
print("This is a square")

75
This is equivalent to the argument.

• If all sides of a shape are equal length, then it is a

square.
• Shape A has sides of all equal length
• Therefore, Shape A is a square

Is this a valid argument? Will this code work as intended?

76
Shape 1

Figure 4: A square

77
Shape 2

Figure 5: A rectangle

78
Shape 3

Figure 6: A rhombus

79
Shape 4

Figure 7: An equilateral triangle

80
If you want you code to run correctly, all your logical statements
must be composed of or reducible to valid deductive arguments.
If you want your code to behave correctly, all your premises must
be true.

81
Inductive arguments

As a contrast to deductive arguments, inductive arguments are the

more typically encountered arguments, which guide our approach to
practical problems.
Inductive arguments are arguments from which, if the premises are
all true, the conclusion only follows with some probability. They do
not make the claim that the conclusion must be true if the premises
are all true.
We can use to inductive arguments to tell us how to act or what we
should do in some given scenario.

82
Inductive vs Deductive argument example

Consider the following argument.

Alex is a nursing student. All nursing students are women.

Therefore Alex is a woman.

This is a deductive argument. It makes the claim that if we know

know the premises are true, we know Alex’s gender with certan.
By constrast.

Alex is a nursing student. 95% of nursing students are

women. Therefore Alex is probably a woman.

This is an inductive argument. Despite knowing the premises are

true, we can’t know for certain Alex’s gender. But we have a good
idea of what it is.

83
Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is used constantly. We use it to make decisions

about future events, or cause-relationship effects we can’t know for
certain.
Heavy smokers are over 100 × more likely than
non-smokers to get lung cancer. Therefore, heavy smoking
causes lung cancer.

This conclusion can’t be arrived at deductively, but we can arrive at it

inductively. And we treat it as a fact even though we cannot deduce
it with certainty.

84
There are numerous ways to analyze inductive arguments, but
because they do not make claims with certainty, the notions of
validitiy and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments, as they
do to deductive arguments.
If we have time at the end of the semester, we’ll look at a method of
formalizing inductive reasioning mathematically to assign
probabilities to certain conclusions, through the use of Bayesian
Statistics.

85
Validity and Truth

It’s important to distinguish between the validity of an argument,

and the truth of it’s propositions and conclusions.
Validity is the property that if the premises are true the conclusions
must be true, it doesn’t address if any of the propositions are
actually true.
Propositions themselves are either true are false; they are not valid
or invalid, because invalid is a property of an argument, not
propositions.
Arguments cannot be true or false; only valid or invalid. Truth or
falsity is a property of the propositions within the argument.

86
Invalid Argument Table

For an invalid argument, you can have any combination of false/true

premises and false/true conclusions.

Conclusion True Conclusion False

Premises True Possible Possible
Premises False Possible Possible

87
Invalid Argument: True Premises, True Conclusions

If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.

I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox. Therefore, I am not
wealthy.

Invalid Argument: False Premises, True Conclusions

All mammals have wings, all whales have wings, therefore,

all whales are mammals.

88
Invalid Argument: True Premises, False Conclusions

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates
would be wealthy. Bill Gates does not own all the gold in
Fort Knox. Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy.

Invalid Argument: False Premises, False Conclusions

All mammals have wings, all whales have wings, therefore,

all mammals are whales.

89
Valid Argument Table

On the other hand, if you know the premises of a valid argument are
true, you know immediately that the conclusion is true. This follows
from the definition of a valid argument.

Conclusion True Conclusion False

Premises True Necessary Impossible
Premises False Possible Possible

90
Valid Argument: True Premises, True Conclusion

All mammals have lungs. All whales are mammals.

Therefore, all whales have lungs.

91
Valid Argument: False Premises, False Conclusions

All for legged creatures have wings, all spiders have exactly
4 legs, therefore all spiders have wings.

Valid Argument: False Premises, True Conclusions

All fish are mammals, all whales are fish, therefore all
whales are mammals.

92
Then, you see if the premises being true forces the conclusion to be
true.
None of this depends on the actual truth of the
premises/conclusionsRemember, when gauging the validity of an
argument; you assume all premises are true.
Then, you see if the premises being true forces the conclusion to be
true.
None of this depends on the actual truth of the
premises/conclusions

93