TEAM HALIM

BUSA PRESIDENT HOPEFUL ‘24

LOGIC & CRITICAL THINKING

(BCM 101)

Basic Logical Concepts

Presented by: J. P. Tanyeh

The aim of argument should not be victory, but
progress! – Karl Popper.
• All arguments claim to provide support—that
is, evidence or reasons— for their conclusions.
But arguments differ greatly in the amount of
support they claim to provide.
 Deduction & Induction
• Deductive arguments try to prove their
conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.

• Inductive arguments try to show that their

conclusions are plausible or likely given the
premise(s).
 Deductive Arguments
Ø Eg 1
⁻ All humans are mortal.
⁻ Socrates is human.
⁻ Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Ø Eg 2
⁻ If the Regional Minister lives in the New Residency,
then he lives in Wa.
⁻ The Reg. Minister does live in the New Residency.
⁻ So, the Reg. Minister lives in Wa.
ØAt 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.
⁻ Amy would drink either 7-Up or Pepsi.
⁻ Brian likes only sodas.
⁻ Lisa prefers the drink she would put lemon
and sugar into.
⁻ Bill likes only clear drinks.
• What drinks did Mike bring for each person?
• Deductive arguments claim to provide
logically conclusive grounds for their
conclusions.

• That is, they attempt to show that their

conclusions must be true given the premises
asserted.
 InductiveArguments
Ø Eg 1
⁻ Polls show that 95 percent of Frafras eat dog meat.
⁻ Atinga is a frafra.
→ Therefore, Atinga likely eats dog meat

Ø Eg 2
⁻ The bank safe was robbed last night.
⁻ Whoever robbed the safe knew the safe’s combination.
⁻ Only two people know the safe’s combination: Pete and Paul.
⁻ Paul needed money to pay his gambling debts.
⁻ Paul was seen sneaking around outside the bank last night.
→ It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Paul robbed the safe.
• Inductive arguments, on the other hand,
simply claim that their conclusions are likely or
probable given the premises offered.
• It is often said that the difference between deduction
and induction is that deduction moves from general
premises to particular conclusions, whereas
induction moves from particular premises to general
conclusions. That, however, is a misconception.

• What makes an argument deductive or inductive is

not the pattern of particularity or generality in the
premises and conclusion.

• Rather, it is the type of support the premises are

claimed to provide for the conclusion.
Ø Example of a deductive argument that moves not
from general premises to a particular conclusion
but from particular premises to a general
conclusion:

⁻ Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865. (particular

premise)
⁻ So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were
born in the nineteenth century. (general conclusion)
ØHere is an example of an inductive argument
that moves from general premises to a
particular conclusion:

⁻ All of John Grishams’s previous novels have been

good. (general premise)
⁻ Therefore, John Grisham’s next novel will probably
be good. (particular conclusion)
 Key Differences between Deductive and
Inductive Arguments
Ø Deductive arguments claim Ø Inductive arguments claim
that . . . that . . .
• If the premises are true, then • If the premises are true, then
the conclusion must be true. the conclusion is probably
• The conclusion follows true.
necessarily from the • The conclusion follows
premises. probably from the premises.
• It is impossible for all the • It is unlikely for the premises
premises to be true and the to be true and the conclusion
conclusion false. false.
• It is logically inconsistent to • Although it is logically
assert the premises and deny consistent to assert the
the conclusion; if you accept premises and deny the
the premises, you must conclusion, the conclusion is
accept the conclusion. probably true if the premises
are true.
 How to Tell whether an argument is
Deductive or Inductive
ØThere 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
 Indicator Word Test
• These are words we use to signal whether our
arguments are Deductive or Inductive. Eg of
common deduction indicator words;
Certainly It logically follows that
Definitely it is logical to conclude that
Absolutely this logically implies that
Conclusively this logically entails
Common induction indicator words;
Probably one would expect that
Likely it is a good bet that
It is plausible to suppose that chances are that
It is reasonable to assume that odds are that
 Strict Necessity Test
• Deductive arguments claim explicitly that their
conclusions follow necessarily from their
premises.
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

• Hypothetical syllogism
• Categorical syllogism
• Argument by elimination
• Argument based on mathematics
• Argument from definition
 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.

ØEg
⁻ If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d better study
hard.
⁻ I do want to keep my financial aid.
⁻ Therefore, I’d better study hard.
 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

ØEg
⁻ Some Assembly members are elected officials.
⁻ All elected officials are politicians.
⁻ Therefore, some assembly members are politicians.
 Argument by Elimination
• An argument by elimination seeks to logically
rule out various possibilities until only a single
possibility remains.

ØEg
⁻ Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
⁻ But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
⁻ Therefore, Joe walked to the library.
 Argument Based on Mathematics
• In an argument based on mathematics, the
conclusion is claimed to depend largely or
entirely on some mathematical calculation or
measurement

Ø Eg
⁻ Eight is greater than four.
⁻ Four is greater than two.
⁻ Therefore, eight is greater than two.
 Argument from Definition
• In an argument from definition , the
conclusion is presented as being “true by
definition,” that is, as following simply by
definition from some key word or phrase used
in the argument.

ØEg
⁻ Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor.
⁻ Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.
 COMMON PATTERNS OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING
• Inductive generalization
• Predictive argument
• Argument from authority
• Causal argument
• Statistical argument
• Argument from analogy
 Inductive Generalization
• A generalization, as that term is used in
critical thinking, is a statement that attributes
some characteristic to all or most members of
a given class.

• Eg:
- Northern men are not romantic
• 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.

• Eg
- All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more
than sixty-five million years old.
- Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than
sixty-five million years old.
 Predictive Argument
• A prediction is a statement about what may or
will happen in the future. In a predictive
argument, a prediction is defended with
reasons.

• Eg
- It has rained in wa every easter monday since
weather records have been kept.
- Therefore, it will probably rain in wa next easter
monday.
 Argument from Authority
• An argument from authority asserts a claim
and then supports that claim by citing some
presumed authority or witness who has said
that the claim is true.

• Eg
• - There are lions in the mole game reserve. The game
warden told me so.
 Causal Argument
• A causal argument asserts or denies that
something is the cause of something else.

• Eg
- I can’t log on. The network must be down.
 Statistical Argument
• A statistical argument rests on statistical
evidence—that is, evidence that some
percentage of some group or class has some
particular characteristic.

• Eg
- Doctor to patient: Studies show that condoms have an annual
failure rate of 2 to 3 percent, even if they are used consistently
and correctly. So, you should not assume that condoms will
provide complete protection from the risk of pregnancy or
sexually transmitted diseases.
 Argument from Analogy
• 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 (i.e., a
comparison or similarity) between two or
more things.
 Argument from Analogy cont’d
• Eg
⁻ Mohammed is a graduate of UDS, and he is
bright, energetic, and dependable.
⁻ Mary is a graduate of UDS, and she is bright,
energetic, and dependable.
⁻ Paula is a graduate of UDS.
⁻ Therefore, most likely, Paula is bright,
energetic, and dependable, too.
 DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY

• More formally, a valid deductive argument is an

argument in which it is impossible for all the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• Put another way, a valid deductive argument (or
valid argument for short) is an argument in which
these conditions apply:
⁻ If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
⁻ The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
⁻ The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the
truth of the conclusion.
⁻ It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and
deny the conclusion.
 INDUCTIVE STRENGTH
• A well-reasoned inductive argument is called a
strong inductive argument.
• More precisely, in a strong inductive argument, the
conclusion follows probably from the premises.
• Put otherwise, a strong inductive argument is an
argument in which the following conditions apply:

• If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.

• The premises provide probable, but not logically conclusive,
grounds for the truth of the conclusion.
• The premises, if true, make the conclusion likely
Open your mind before your mouth! -
Aristophanes