CGE14411 - Lecture 6 (Valid and Invalid Patterns)
CGE14411 - Lecture 6 (Valid and Invalid Patterns)
CGE14411
Lecture 6
1
In the last lecture
We covered
The basic features of a valid argument
If the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true
Invalid arguments
Counter-example
Faulty assumption
Specific case not fitting general law
2
Intended Learning Outcomes of this Lecture
3
Patterns of Arguments
4
A. Modus Ponens 肯定前提
Arguments with this pattern consist
of
one conditional premise (the “if” and
“then” part)
a second premise that asserts the
antecedent (the “if” part) of the
conditional as true
a conclusion that asserts the consequent
(the “then” part) of the conditional as
true
5
Example
A. If this object is made of copper, it conducts
electricity.
B. This object is made of copper.
C. So it conducts electricity.
6
Using symbols
We often use symbols (P and Q) to denote the
antecedent and the consequent
Common structure
A. If P is true, then Q is true. A.If P, then Q
B. Now P is true, B.P
C. Therefore Q is true C.Therefore Q
A.P Q
B.P
C. Q
7
However, don’t confuse modus
ponens with the following form of
argument, which is not valid
Affirming the consequent 肯定後項
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
8
Invalid: Affirming the consequent 肯定後項
Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy
( 邏輯謬誤 ) in reasoning
The following are all invalid.
If (P) Jane lives in Shanghai, then (Q) she lives in
China.
(Q) Jane lives in China.
Therefore, (P) Jane lives in Shanghai.
If (P) Peter gambles again, (Q) his mother will be
unhappy.
Today (Q) his mother is unhappy,
so (P) Peter must gamble again.
9
B. Modus Tollens 否定後項
Also called "denying the consequent"
Pattern
If P then Q
Not Q
Therefore not P
10
A. If typhoon signal #8 is A: If P, then Q
effective, we should see the
symbol on TV
P: signal #8 effective
Q: symbol on TV
11
Modus Tollens suggests that the following are
equivalent
If P, then Q
If not Q, then not P
Example
If one is a Legislative Council member, one is a Hong
Kong citizen
If one is not a Hong Kong citizen, one is not a
Legislative Council member
12
Invalid: Denying the antecedent 否定前項
But do not confuse modus tollens with the
following argument, which is a logical fallacy
Denying the antecedent 否定前項
If P then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not-Q
13
Invalid: Denying the antecedent
These are all invalid arguments
(P) If John is competent, (Q) he will have
been promoted.
(not P) But John is not competent.
(not Q) Therefore John will not be promoted.
(P) If you have a valid octopus card, (Q) you
can travel on the MTR.
(not P) You don’t have a valid octopus card,
(not Q) Therefore, you cannot travel on the
MTR.
14
Summary of the First Two Patterns
Valid Invalid
If P, then Q If P, then Q
P Q
Therefore Q Therefore P
Modus ponens Affirming the consequent
If P, then Q If P, then Q
Not Q Not P
Therefore not P Therefore not Q
Modus tollens Denying the antecedent
15
Exercises
If you love your country, you do not expose
your country’s secrets. Now you expose your
country’s secrets, that means you do not love
your country.
If your husband is unfaithful to you, he
definitely will send you some gifts for no
reasons. Today is nothing special, but he gives
you a diamond necklace. He must have been
unfaithful to you.
16
If Shakespeare wrote War and Peace, then he’s
a great writer. But Shakespeare didn’t write
War and Peace. Therefore, Shakespeare is not
a great writer.
17
C. Hypothetical Syllogism
Pattern
If P then Q.
If Q then R.
Therefore, If P then R.
(P) If you study in CCCU, you have a CCCU student ID
card.
(Q) If you have a CCCU student ID card, (R) you can
enter the library.
(P) Therefore, if you study in CCCU, (R) you can enter
the library.
18
D. Categorical Syllogism ( 直言三段論 )
19
Examples
A. No humans are perfect.
B. John is a human.
C. So, John is not perfect.
20
A. All Buddhists should not eat
meat The premise with
B. Lam is a Buddhist “All” is equivalent
C. therefore Lam should not eat to
the conditional
meat. premise in Modus
Ponens
Is equivalent to
D. If a person is a Buddhist, the
person should not eat meat
E. Lam is a Buddhist
F. therefore Lam should not eat
meat
21
Exercise: Rewrite the argument
A. All humans are mortal
P: human
Q: mortal
B. All Chinese are humans
R: Chinese
C. Therefore, all Chinese are mortal
A. If one is , one is
If then
B. If one is a , one is a
If then
C. Therefore, if one is a , one is
If then
22
Exercise: Rewrite the argument
A. If one is , one
If , then
B. If one is a Briton, one is human
C. Therefore, if one is a Briton, one cannot fly
23
E. Disjunctive Syllogism
Pattern
P or Q
Not-P.
Therefore Q.
For human beings, one must either be (P) a man
or (Q) a woman.
(not P) Hayden is not a man.
(Q) Hayden must be a woman.
24
Examining Complex Premises
Sometimes, the premises are not
expressed in a straightforward manner
Great care should be exercised to
distinguish whether it is
If p then q
If q then p
25
Unless you study hard, you cannot pass
the exam. Now that you have failed. You
must have not studied hard.
P: Study hard
Q: Pass the exam.
Which is true? A or B?
A. If P, then Q
B. If Q, then P
26
Equivalent Expressions of a Premise
30
Unless you are a HK
citizen, you cannot vote
P: citizen; Q: vote
You can watch TV only if
you have finished your
homework
P: watch TV; Q: finished
homework
If it is not cloudy, then it is
not raining.
P: cloudy; Q: raining
A passenger can only
smoke in car 10 of the
train
P: smoke; Q: in car 10
31
It is necessary that you
bring your library card in
order to enter the library
P: bring card; Q:enter library
You must be at least 21
years old if you stand for
the Council election
P: 21 years old; Q: stand for
Council election
Only HK citizens aged 65 or
above can enjoy the
benefits of a senior citizen
card.
P: aged 65 or above; Q:
enjoy benefits of a senior
citizen card
32
SOUND ARGUMENT
33
If a person takes 2 grams
Even if an of sugar every day, But this is not
argument is concentration will be true
valid, but if the enhanced.
premises are P: take sugar;
false, the Q: concentration
enhanced The
argument is argument is
senseless! John (P) takes 2 grams of meaningless
36
Review
Valid patterns Invalid patterns
• Modus Ponens • Affirming the
• Modus Tollens consequent
• Hypothetical • Denying the
syllogism antecedent
• Categorical
syllogism
• Disjunctive
syllogism
37
Reading
Required reading:
A rulebook for arguments, Chapter VI
on “Deductive arguments”.
But we have not discussed “Reductio ad
absurdum”; we will not assess it either.
Supplementary reading:
An introduction to critical thinking and
creativity, Chapter 11 “Arguments
mapping” and Chapter 12 “Arguments
analysis”
38