ARGUMENTS

INTRODUCTION
In philosophy, an argument consists of
a set of statements called premises that
serve as grounds for affirming another
statement called the conclusion.
Philosophers typically distinguish
arguments in natural languages (such as
English) into two fundamentally
different kinds: deductive and inductive.
In the philosophical literature, each type
of argument is said to have
DEDUCTIVE
Deductive arguments are sometimes
ARGUMENTS illustrated by providing an example in
which an argument’s premises logically
entail its conclusion. For example:

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
INDUCTIVEInductive arguments are said to be
ARGUMENTS those that make their conclusions
merely probable. They might be
illustrated by an example like the
following:

 Most Greeks eat olives.

 Socrates is a Greek.
 Therefore, Socrates eats olives.
LOGICAL 
ARGUMENTS Logical arguments are used to
persuade people to think a
certain way by presenting a
series of statements or
propositions, where some are
presented as reasons or
evidence (premises) aimed at
supporting or proving a
GOOD AND  A good argument has a conclusion that is
BAD
ARGUMENTS worthy and gives good reasons to accept a
claim, where a bad argument fails to have a
premise or conclusion or both. If an
argument is good, then you MUST accept
its conclusion. Good arguments make very
few and very reasonable assumptions, while
bad arguments make very many and highly
VALID and 7

INVALID An argument is a valid argument if

ARGUMENTS the CONCLUSION can follow from
the given PREMISES

It is an argument in which LOGIC

CONDITION is satisfied
It verifies the COCLUSION in light
of the given PREMISES
It looks for logical connectivity
among the PREMISES and the
EXAMPLE 1.

Premise: Andrix is over 90 years old.

Conclusion: So Andrix is over 20 years
old. Is it a Valid Argument?
YES

Because LOGIC
CONDITION is satisfied.
EXAMPLE 1.

Premise: Marie is over 20 years old.

Conclusion: So Marie is over 90 years
old. Is it a Valid Argument?

NO

Because LOGIC CONDITION is NOT

satisfied.
EXAMPLE 1.

Premise 1: All healthy plants have green leaves

Premise 2: My plant is a healthy plant.
Conclusion: So the leaves on my plant are green.
Is it a Valid
Argument?YES

Because LOGIC CONDITION is

satisfied.
EXAMPLE 1.

Premise 1: All humans have legs.

Premise 2: Also Donkey have legs.
Conclusion: Therefore, All Donkeys are humans.
Is it a Valid
Argument?
NO

Because LOGIC CONDITION is NOT

satisfied.
 STEPS TO
DETERMINE THE
12

VALIDITY OF THE
1. Symbolize the argument
ARGUMENTS
Example:
If it is snowing, then it is cold.
It is snowing.(p)
Therefore, it is cold (q)
P: p→q
P: p
C: \ ∴q
2. Construct a truth table
Formula: 2 raised to the power n or 2n

3. Apply the rule in determining the

validity of arguments in symbolic logic

p q p→q p q

T T T T T

T F F T F

F T T F T

F F T F F
Example 2
If it is raining, then the streets are wet (p→q)
P:p→q
The streets are wet (q) P:q
Therefore, it is raining (p) C:\ ∴p
p q p→q q p

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T T F

F F T F F
Example 3:
P:p ∧ q
The sun is purple and the sun sets in the
C:\ ∴p
west. (p ∧ q)
Therefore, the sun is purple (p)

p q p ∧q p

T T T T

T F F T

F T F F

F F F F
Example 4:
P:pvq
P:¬p
C:q

p q pvq ¬p q

T T T F T

T F T F F

F T T T T

F F F T F
 THE RULE OF
CONDITIONAL PROOF

Ren Charles A. Gorospe

CONDITIONAL
PROOF
● is a proof which we assume the
truth of one premises to show that
if that premise is true then the
argument displayed is valid
 CONDITIONAL
PROOF
● In a conditional proof, the conclusion
depends only on the original premise, and
not on the assumed premise.
● When the scope of the assumes premise
ends, it has been discharged.
 3 STEPS IN DERIVING A
CONDITIONAL PROOF
● Assume the antecedent of the conditional
that you’re trying to prove.
● Write the consequent at the bottom of the
scope line.
● Discharge the conditional proof.
𝒑 ⟹ 𝒒

1. Premise
2. Assumption for
conditional proof

3. Modus tollens for 1, 2

4. Conditional proof 2-3
 R
R

1. r Premise
2. Premise
3. r Assumption
𝑠 Modus ponen 1,3
𝑞 Modus ponen 2,3
( 𝒔 ∧ 𝒒) Conjunction 4,5
𝒓 ⟹( 𝒔 ∧𝒒) Conditional proof
 RULES OF
INDIRECT PROOF
 INDIRECT PROOF 24

Quite frequently you will find that it is difficult

to prove something directly, but easier to prove
it indirectly.

example, suppose you want to know whether it

is overcast or sunny, but you can't see the sky
through your window. You usually can tell,
indirectly, by the quality of light that
you can see. Without formalizing the process,
you make use of something like the following:
If it is sunny I will be able to see areas of bright
light and areas of shadow in the garden; I don't,
so it must be (at least partially) overcast.
INDIRECT PROOF 25

 There are two methods of indirect proof:

proof of the contrapositive and proof by
contradiction. They are closely related,
even interchangeable in some
circumstances, though proof by
contradiction is more powerful. What
unites them is that they both start
by assuming the denial of the
conclusion.
1. PROOF BY
CONTRAPOSITIVE

• It is based on the fact that an implication is equivalent to its

contrapositive. Therefore, instead of proving p⇒q, we may prove
its contrapositive¬Q⇒¬P
• Assume ¬Q is true (hence, assume Q is false).
• Show that ¬P is true(that is, show that P is false)

• Proof: We want to prove the contrapositive of the stated result.

• Assume q is false
• Therefore p is false.
EXAMPLE 27
EXAMPLE 28
 2. PROOF BY
CONTRADICTION
• To prove that p⇒q we proceed as follows:
• Suppose p⇒q is false; that is, assume that p is true and q is false
• Argue until we obtain a contradiction, which could be any result that we know
is false.

• How does this prove that p⇒q. Assuming that the logic used in every step in
the argument is correct, yet we still end up with a contradiction, then the only
possible flaw must come from the supposition that p ⇒q is false.
Consequently, p⇒q must be true.
• This is what a typical proof by contradiction may look like:
• Proof: Suppose p⇒q is false. Then p is true and q is false. Then
which is a contradiction. Therefore, p⇒q must be true.

• There is a more general form for proving a statement r which needs

not be an implication. To prove the proposition r by contradiction, we
follow these steps:

Suppose r is false.
Argue until we obtain a contradiction.

Proof: Suppose r is false. Then which is a contradiction.

Therefore, r must be true.
RECAP
o We can use indirect proofs to prove an implication.
o There are two kinds of indirect proofs: proof by contrapositive and proof by
contradiction.
o In a proof by contrapositive, we actually use a direct proof to prove the
contrapositive of the original implication.
o In a proof by contradiction, we start with the supposition that the
implication is false, and use this assumption to derive a contradiction. This
would prove that the implication must be true.
o A proof by contradiction can also be used to prove a statement that is not of
the form of an implication. We start with the supposition that the statement
is false, and use this assumption to derive a contradiction. This would prove
that the statement must be true.
 RULES
OF
INFERENCE
Prepared by:
Arnel Jr. A. Macutay
 Rules of inference 34

In philosophy of logic and logic, a rule of inference,

inference rule or transformation rule is a logical form
consisting of a function which takes premises,
analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion.
Wikipedia
Mathematical logic is often used for logical
proofs. These proofs are valid arguments
that determine the truth values of
mathematical statements.
 Rule of Inference Name
P Addition
Therefore, p ∨ q

EXAMPLE:
Anna is a human resource management major.
Therefore, Anna is either a human resource
management major or a computer applications
major.
 Rule of Inference Name
p∧q Simplification
Therefore, p.

EXAMPLE
Ben is a game designer and also a game
developer.
Therefore, Ben is a game designer.
 Rule of Inference Name
p Conjunction
q
Therefore, p ∧ q.

Example:
Let p be “ it snows.” Let q be “ I will study discrete math.” Let r be “I
will get an A.”
“If it snows, then I will study discrete math.”
“If I study discrete math, I will get an A.”
Therefore, If it snows, I will get an A
 Rule of Inference Name
p q Modus ponens
Therefore, q.

EXAMPLE:
If it is rainy, then the oval will be closed. It is
rainy.
Therefore, the oval is closed.
Rule of Inference Name
¬q Modus tollens
p q
Therefore, ¬p

EXAMPLE:
If it rains today, the college will close.
The college is not closed today.
Therefore, it did not rain today.
 Rule of Inference Name
p q Hypothetical syllogism
q r
Therefore, p r.

EXAMPLE:
If I go swimming , then I will stay in the sun too
long. If I stay in the sun too long, then I will get
burned. Therefore, if I go swimming, then I will get
burned.
 Rule of Inference Name
p∨q Disjunctive syllogism
¬p
Therefore, q.

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”
“I will study discrete math or I will study English literature.”
“I will not study discrete math.” “
Therefore , I will study English literature.”
An argument constructed using rules of inference
is said to be valid. When all the propositions used
in a valid argument are true, it leads to a correct
conclusion. Otherwise, it can lead to an incorrect
conclusion.

 Fallacies are incorrect reasoning resembling

rules of inference but are based on
contingencies rather than tautologies.
Three types of fallacies
 Fallacy of affirming the conclusion is based on the
compound proposition [( p q) ∧ q] p.
Example: If you do every problem in a math book, then you will learn
mathematics. You learned mathematics. Therefore, you did every
problem in the book.
Solution: Let p be “You did every problem in the book.” and q be “
You learned mathematics.” Then, we can write the argument as [( p
q) ∧ q] p. This is an invalid argument which uses the fallacy of
affirming the conclusion since it is possible for you to learn
mathematics in some other way other than by doing every problem in
the book.
Three types of fallacies
 Fallacy of denying the hypothesis is based on the
compound proposition [( p q) ∧ ¬p ] ¬q.
Example: If you do every problem in a math book, then you
will learn mathematics. You did not do every problem in the
book. Therefore, you did not learn mathematics.
Solution: Let p be “ You did every problem in the book.” and q be
“You learned mathematics.” Then we can write the argument as [( p
q) ∧ ¬p ] ¬q. This is an invalid argument which uses the fallacy of
denying the hypothesis since it is possible that you learned
mathematics even if you did not do every problem in the book.
Three types of fallacies
 Begging the question or circular reasoning occurs when one
or more steps of a proof are based on the truth of the
statement being proved.
Example: “If n² is even, then n is even,” is the following
argument valid? Suppose that n² is even. Then n² = 2k for
some integer k. Let n = 2l for some integer l. This shows that n
is even.
Solution:
The part “ Let n = 2l for some integer l.” is circular
reasoning because the statement is equivalent to the statement
being proved.
THANK YOU!
 47

Prepared by:

Trixie Garcia
Glenda Y. Ritarita
Arnel Macutay Jr.
Ren Charles Gorospe
Rona Joy Labbao