Lecture Six and Seven

 Learning outcomes:
 By the end of this part, you will be able to:
 (1) Explain why you need to learn critical

thinking.
 What is critical thinking?
 Critical thinking is to make sure that you

have good reasons for your beliefs.


 Example 1: Suppose Susan and Anne are
invited to a Birthday Dinner this Saturday.
 Susan said, “Milly won’t be coming to the

Birthday Dinner.”
 Anne asked, “Why?”
 Susan said, “I wish she won’t come. If she

comes she will joke on my hair style.”

 Example 2: Susan said, “Milly won’t be coming
to the Birthday Dinner.”
 Ann asked, “Why?”
 Susan said, “She doesn’t like crowded
environments.”

 Example 3: Susan said, “Milly won’t be coming

to the Birthday Dinner. ”
 Anne asked, “Why?”
 Susan said, “Because this Saturday is Jack’s
birthday too. She needs to celebrate with Jack.
 Good reasons make it more reasonable for
people to believe in your assertion.
 Bad reasons make it unreasonable for people
to believe your assertion.

 We want to make sure that when we assert

something, or when we convince people of
something, we have good reasons to support
our assertions.
 We also expect other people to do the same.
 Critical thinking provides you with the skills to
achieve this.
 Think logically.
 Be able to clarify concepts.
 Not to accept people’s views blindly.
 Not to let emotions cloud your judgments.
 Learning outcomes:
 By the end of this part, you will be able to:
 1. Distinguish between deductive

arguments and inductive arguments.

 2. apply the concept of validity and

soundness to the analysis of deductive

arguments.
 What is an argument ( 論証 )?
 An argument is made of premises( 前題 ) and

the conclusion( 結論 ).
 Premises are the reasons.
 The conclusion is the belief that you want

(others) to believe.
 Example:
 Premise 1: This Saturday is Jack’s birthday
too. Milly needs to celebrate with Jack.

 Conclusion: Milly won’t be coming to the

Birthday Dinner this Saturday.

 A good argument is an argument in which the

premises support the conclusion.
 A bad argument is an argument in which the
premises don’t support the conclusion.
 Arguments can be divided into two kinds:
Deductive arguments ( 演繹論証 ) and
inductive arguments ( 歸納論証 ).
 Here is a deductive argument:
 Premise 1: All human beings will die.
 Premise 2: Danny Leung is a human being.
 Conclusion: Danny Leung will die.

A deductive argument is one in which the

proposer of the argument has the intention
that if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true.
 Here is an inductive argument:
 Premise 1: 80% of Smokers die of cancer.
 Premise 2: Jack is a smoker.
 Conclusion: Jack will die of cancer.

 An inductive argument is one in which the

proposer of this argument has the intention
that if the premises are true, the conclusion
is likely to be true.
 To sum up,
 A deductive argument is an argument in

which when you propose it, you suppose

that if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.

 An inductive argument is an argument in

which when you propose it, you suppose
that if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is likely to be true.
 However, what you suppose ≠ facts.

 I suppose it is raining in Shatin right now.

But in fact it’s not.

 I suppose I can get an A grade in CARDS but

it turns out I get an A+.
 Deductive arguments are either valid ( 對確 )
or invalid ( 不對確 ).
 A valid deductive argument is a deductive

argument in which if the premises are true,

then the conclusion must be true.
 So, what the proposer of the deductive

argument supposes turns out to be true.

 Note that “valid” (adj) or “validity" ( 對確性 )(n)
is a technical term in logic ( 邏輯 ). It refers to
the relationship between the premises
and the conclusion of an argument.
 Pay attention to “if” and “must be”.
 Validity does not care about whether the

premises in an argument are in fact true or

not. It only requires that if the premises are
true, then the conclusion must be true.
 For example,
 Premise 1(P1): Gem was

born in Hong Kong.

 Premise 2(P2): Everyone

born in Hong Kong is born

in Asia.
 Conclusion (C): Gem was

born in Asia.
 The argument is valid because if P1 and P2
are true, the conclusion must be true.
 It is not because P1 and P2 are in fact true or
not.
 To check whether an argument is valid, we
don’t need to care whether the premises are
in fact true or not. We just assume them to
be true, and then see under these
assumptions, whether the conclusion must
be true. If yes, then the argument is valid.
Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
 Look at this example.
 P1: Gem was born in Hong Kong.
 P2: Everyone born in Hong Kong has 3 ears.
 C: Therefore, Gem has 3 ears.

 Is this argument valid? Why?

 A valid deductive argument is a deductive
argument in which if the premises are true,
then the conclusion must be true.
 An invalid deductive argument is a

deductive argument in which if the

premises are true, the conclusion could be
false ( 有可能錯 ).
 That means what the proposer of the
deductive argument supposes cannot come
true.
 A valid deductive argument is better than

an invalid argument.
 A valid deductive argument is logical.
 An invalid deductive argument has logical

problems.
 Now we come to

Soundness
 Being valid is not good enough.
 Usually, a good argument should be a

sound argument.
 A sound argument is a valid argument with

true premises.
 Re-examine the last two arguments about

Gem, are they sound? Why or why not?

 How to judge whether an argument is
valid?
 Ans: For simple arguments, see whether

you can think of counter-examples.

 For example,
 P1: Librarians like TVB dramas.
 P2: Paul is not a librarian.
 C: Paul doesn’t like TVB dramas.
 If you assume the premises to be true, but
then you find that the conclusion could be
false, then this argument is invalid.
 For complicated arguments,
there are tools in logic, such as
the Venn Diagram and the Truth
Table, to help us decide whether
they are valid or not.

 How to know whether a premise

is true?
 Ans: If the premise is about the

empirical world, get more

empirical knowledge.
 Are the following arguments valid?


 Argument 1:
 P1: All men are mortal.
 P2: Donald Trump is a man.
 C: Donald Trump is mortal.

 Argument 2:
 P1: Some humans are lawyers.
 P2: Some humans are women.
 C: Some lawyers are women.
 Argument 3:
 P1: All lawyers are insects.
 P2: All birds are lawyers.
 C: All birds are insects.

 Argument 4:
 P1: If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
 P2: It is raining.
 C: The ground will be wet.
 P  Q (P must be the sufficient condition for Q)
 P
 Therefore, Q (valid)
 Modus Ponens (MP)

 PQ
 Q
 Therefore, P (valid)
 Modus Tollens (MT)
 Argument 5:
 P1: If you can cook rice, then you have

water.
 P2: You have no water.
 C: You cannot cook rice.

 Argument 6:
 P1: All policemen are good people.
 C: All good people are policemen.
 For revision, you can watch this video:
 1. “Critical Thinking – Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical
Thinking” by Geoff Pynn
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cum3k-Wglfw

 2. “Critical Thinking – Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments”

by Geoff Pynn
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=3jvQrpVQaYM&list=PLtKNX4SfKpzX_bhh4LOEWEGy3pkLm
FDmk&index=2

 3. “Critical Thinking – Fundamentals: Validity” by Paul Henne

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdJ6aGToDlo
 Learning outcomes:
 By the end of this part, you will be able to:
 1. Identify inductive arguments.
 2. Evaluate inductive arguments by using

the concepts of ‘strong’, ‘weak’, ‘cogent’

and ‘uncogent’.
 The proposer of an inductive argument has
the intention that if the premises are true,
the conclusion is likely to be true.


 For example,
 The sun rose in the east 2000 years ago.
 The sun rose in the east 1000 years ago.
 The sun rose in the east 500 years ago.
 The sun rose in the east last Saturday.
 The sun rose in the east yesterday.
 Therefore, the sun rises in the east (all the

time).

 Why is this argument inductive?

The sun rose in the east last Saturday.
The sun rose in the east yesterday.
Therefore, the sun rises in the east (all the

time).

When compared with the one in the last

slide, which one is more convincing?
 Strong inductive argument: if the premises
are true, the conclusion is very likely to be
true.
 Weak inductive argument: if the premises

are true, the conclusion is not very likely

to be true.

 The more evidence you have as premises,

the stronger your inductive argument.
 Example of a strong inductive argument
 P1: 80% of HKU SPACE students are

vegetarians.
 P2: Milly is a HKU SPACE student.
 C: Milly is a vegetarian.

 Example of a weak inductive argument

 P1: 30% of HKU SPACE students are credit

card holders.
 P2: Jack is a HKU SPACE student.
 C: Jack is a credit card holder.
 Cogent inductive argument: (1) a strong
inductive argument and (2) all its premises
are true.

 Uncogent inductive argument: If either (1)

or (2) cannot be satisfied, then the
argument is uncogent. (If both (1) and (2)
cannot be satisfied, then the argument is
uncogent too.)
 Examples
 P1: The whole building is on a huge fire.
 P2: Milly has been trapped there for 2 hours.
 C: Milly probably died.

 P1: 90% of CARDS students got an A grade

last year.
 P2: You are a CARDS student this year and

you are diligent.

 C: You are likely to get an A grade.
 Arguments

Inductive Deductive
arguments arguments

Weak
Strong
(also Invalid
uncogent) (also
Valid
Cogent Uncogent unsound)

Sound Unsound
 “True” and “false” are adjectives to
describe a statement, such as a premise or
a conclusion.
 E.g. “Danny Leung is a man” is true.
 “Danny Leung is Japanese” is false.

 “Valid” and “invalid” are adjectives to

describe a deductive argument.
 E.g. This deductive argument is

valid/invalid.
 Bill
is a farmer, and Bill’s only
brother is Bob. Therefore, it
necessarily follows that Bob’s
brother is a farmer.
 Relatively few freshmen came to the
party. Therefore, since Suzie came to
the party, it is likely that she is not a
freshman.
 Jack has lost every poker hand during
the last two hours. Therefore, it is
plausible that he will win the next one.
 Argument form 1 (Modus Ponens):
 P ⊃ Q
 P

-----------
Q

“P”, “Q” are statements, e.g. “Danny Leung is a

man”
“⊃” means “If…then” in English.
But in “P ⊃ Q”, P must be the sufficient condition
for Q.
 Example:
 If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
 It is raining.
 Therefore, the ground will be wet.

 Note that raining is the sufficient condition

for the ground to be wet.
 However, in conditional sentence we use in
everyday life, the antecedent ( 前項 )(the “if …”
part) need not be the sufficient condition of
the consequent ( 後項 ) (the “then …” part).
 Example:
 (1) If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
 (2) If you have10 dollars or more, then you
can buy a Mark-Six lottery ticket.
 Here, “you have 10 dollars or more” is
necessary for “you can buy a Mark-Six lottery
( 六合彩 ) ticket”, but not sufficient.
 To express (2) in “P ⊃ Q”, you need to
rewrite it.
 If you can buy a Mark-Six lottery ticket, then

you have 10 dollars or more.

 “you can buy a Mark-Six lottery ticket” is a

sufficient condition for “you have 10 dollars

or more”.
 Argument form 2 (Modus Tollens):
 P ⊃ Q
 ∿Q
 ------------
 ∿P

 “∿” is negation ( 否定 ). Suppose “P” is

“Danny Leung is a man”, then “∿P” is
“Danny Leung is not a man”.
 Example:
 If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
 The ground is not wet.
 Therefore, it has not rained.
 P⊃Q
 ∿P
 ------------
 ∿Q

 P⊃Q
 Q
 ------------
 P
 Now, use Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens
to create your own arguments.
 Argument form 3 (Hypothetical Syllogism):
 P⊃Q
 Q⊃R
 ------------
 P⊃R

 Example:
 If you are a human, then you are a mammal.
 If you are a mammal, then you have a back-
bone.
 Therefore, if you are a human, then you have a
back-bone.
 Now, use the argument form of Hypothetical
Syllogism to create your own argument.
 Argument form 4:
 All X are Y.
 W is an X
 Therefore, W is a Y.
 (X, Y and W are things, not a statement)

 Example:
 All HK policemen have a gun.
 David is a HK policeman.
 Therefore, David has a gun.
 Be careful!
 Some dancers are musicians.
 Joe is a dancer.
 Therefore, Joe is a musician.