Scribd
Upload
62 views13 pages

Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

1. The document discusses different forms of deductive arguments including categorical syllogisms and hypothetical syllogisms. 2. It explains that for an argument to be valid, it must have proper logical form where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. 3. One way to test for validity is through substitution instances - replacing the terms in an argument form with new terms while keeping the logical structure intact. If the substitution instance turns out invalid, then the original argument form is invalid.

Uploaded by

Daniel Emmanuel De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views13 pages

Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

1. The document discusses different forms of deductive arguments including categorical syllogisms and hypothetical syllogisms. 2. It explains that for an argument to be valid, it must have proper logical form where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. 3. One way to test for validity is through substitution instances - replacing the terms in an argument form with new terms while keeping the logical structure intact. If the substitution instance turns out invalid, then the original argument form is invalid.

Uploaded by

Daniel Emmanuel De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Argument

Forms:
Proving
Invalidity
Overview
• Proper form for a deductive argument

• Substitution instances

• Steps needed to prove an argument is invalid


Popular deductive
forms
• Categorical syllogisms
– Three line arguments….two premises followed by a conclusion.
– Use the words “all”, “some”, and “no”.
– Example:
• All people are humans.
All humans are happy.
- - - - - -
-- Therefore, all
people are happy.

• Hypothetical syllogisms
– Three line arguments, also have two premises and a conclusion.
– Use if-then to form an argument using a conditional statement.
– The first line establishes the condition, and the second line makes a claim based
on that condition.
– Example:
• If humans are happy, then the world is good.
Humans are happy.
- - - - - - -
Therefore, the world is good.
Proper form of an argument

• For some arguments, it can be unclear how to test for validity since
arguments can be expressed in many different forms.
• However, many of these arguments are incomplete since they are
missing certain premises.
• Example:
– “Geese are migratory waterfowl, so they fly south for the winter” .
– This argument is missing the premise that “Migratory waterfowl fly
south for the winter” .
By including this premise, we are able to create what can be
• considered an acceptable form of a deductive argument. Each step
in the premises can be followed to the conclusion.
Proper form,
continued
• The argument can be rewritten to include the missing premise and
its validity becomes clear.
– Example:
• “All geese are migratory waterfowl.
All migratory waterfowl are birds that fly south for the winter.
Therefore, all geese are birds that fly south for the winter”.

– The form of this argument can be illustrated as:


• All A are B.
All B are
C.
-
All A are C.
– This can be considered a valid argument form since the conclusion is supported
by its premises.
– B follows from A, and C follows from B. So C follows from A.
– AB and BC, therefore AC.
Proper form,
continued
• Any argument that fits this form can be considered valid, so we can
insert any terms we wish into A, B, or C since they only act as
placeholders.
– Example:
• “All daisies are flowers.
All flowers are plants.
-
Therefore, all daisies are plants”.

– Any argument that fits this form, where different terms can be used in
place of the letters, can be called a substitution instance.
Recognizing invalid
forms
• What if we try using a substitution instance with a form that doesn’t work?
Example:
 A
ll
A

a
r
e

B
•. “All cats are animals. (true)
All dogs are animals.
A (true)
ll - - - - -
•C Therefore, all cats are
dogs. (false)
The conclusion does not
a follow from the premises
r so this is not a valid
Exceptions to the
rule
• Every substitution instance of a valid form is a valid argument, but…
– It’s not the case that every substitution of an invalid form is an invalid
argument.
– Example:
• “All bachelors are persons.
All unmarried men are persons.
All bachelors are unmarried men”.

• This example has the same form as the invalid argument we used earlier
and here it’s valid, but only because of the definition of the words used.
• Bachelors (A) and unmarried men (C) refer to the same type of person, but
different terms can be used here that don’t have that same overlap.
Invalid
• A substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion
substitutions
is called a counterexample.

• The method used to prove a substitution’s invalidity is called the


counterexample method.
– It’s done by establishing the form of the argument (All A are B, etc.)
and creating a substitution instance where the premises are true and
conclusion is false, just like we did in the cat and dog example.
– It can be used to prove that invalid forms are invalid, but not that valid
forms are valid. Thus, for the counterexample method to work, it’s best
to know or suspect that an argument is invalid in the first place.
– The following categorical syllogism is invalid, so we’ll use a substitution
instance to prove it.
– Example:
• Since some employees are not social climbers and all vice-presidents are
employees, we may conclude that some vice-presidents are not social
climbers.
Invalid substitutions,
continued
• This example can be rewritten into the following form:
– Some E are not S.
All V are E.

Some V are not S.

• Now we insert terms that will make the premises true and the
conclusion false.
– “Some animals are not mammals.
All dogs are animals.
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals”.

• The substitution instance is invalid, thus the form is invalid and the
argument itself is invalid.
Substituting
tips
• When dealing with categorical syllogisms, keep in mind the terms “cat”,
“dog”, “mammal”, “fish”, and “animal”.

• The connection between these words is easy to understand so they can be


used in accurately testing a substitution instance’s validity.

• It sometimes helps to begin with the conclusion first and find two terms
that will make the conclusion false, then insert a third term in the premises
to make them true.

• Pay attention to key words. In CS’s, look for “all”, “no”, “some”, “are”, and
“not”, which are form words.

• In HS’s, look for “if”, “then”, and “not”. These are all form words for this
specific form.
Other invalid
forms
• Here’s an example of an invalid hypothetical syllogism:
– “If the government imposes import restrictions, the price of automobiles will rise.
Therefore, since the government will not impose import restrictions, the price of
automobiles will not rise.

– The form of this argument is as follows:


– If G then P.
Not G.
-
Therefore,
not P.

– Now we
make a
substitution
to see if
this
argument
can be
Deductive fallacies in hypothetical
syllogisms
• There are two logical fallacies that can help you to identify invalid
hypothetical arguments.
– Affirming the consequent
• Example:
– If A then B
B

Therefore, A
• This form doesn’t work since it asserts that if the consequent is true (statement after
then), then the antecedent (statement after if, before then) also has to be true.

– Denying the antecedent


• Example:
– If A then B
Not A

Therefore, not B
• This form doesn’t work, as it claims that if we deny the statement in the antecedent
(statement after if, before then) then the consequent (statement after then) can also
be denied.

You might also like