Logic and Critical Thinking

Basic Logical Concepts

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 1
What is Logic
 Logic
The study of the methods and principles used to
distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.
 Proposition
A statement; what is typically asserted using
a declarative sentence, and hence always either
true or false—although its truth or falsity may be
unknown.
Aristotle

 Of all the great philosophers and logicians, ancient and modern, none is
greater than Aristotle (384–322BCE) whose works and influence largely ruled
the world of intellect for two millennia.
 Aristotle-one of the Trio, with Plato and Socrates, who largely founded
western philosophy-had truly encyclopedic mind.
 He investigated, contributed to wrote about, and taught virtually all subjects
on which some knowledge has been accumulated at his time: the natural
sciences; the art; government and politics; psychology and education;
economics; ethics; metaphysics-and of course logic, later combined into one
great work entitled The Organon (the instrument) , constitute the earliest
formal study of our subject.
 In the logic Aristotle grasped the overriding necessity of determine the rules
of correct reasoning. He explained validity and characterized the four
fundamental types of categorical propositions and their relations. In the prior
analytics one of the six books the organon he developed a sophisticated
theoretical account of categorical syllogism an account that long dominated
the realm of deductive logic and that remains today an effective tool of
sound reasoning.
 It is said of Aristotle that he Was probably the person to know everything
there was to be known in his own time.
Statement

A proposition; what is typically asserted

by a declarative sentence, but not the
sentence itself. Every statement must be
either true or false, although the truth or
falsity of a given statement may be
unknown.
Argument

 Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow

from the others, which are regarded as providing support or
grounds for the truth of that one.
EXAMPLE
1. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
—The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 2
SOLUTION
Premise: A well-regulated militia is necessary for the
security of a free state.
Conclusion: The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
Conclusion

 In any argument, the proposition to

which the
other propositions in the argument are
claimed to give support, or for which they
are given as reasons.
Premises

 Inan argument, the propositions upon

which inference is based; the
propositions that are claimed to provide
grounds or reasons for the conclusion.
Conclusion Indicators and Premise
Indicators

 Conclusion indicator
A word or phrase (such as “therefore” or
“thus”) appearing in an arguments and
usually indicating that what follows it is the
conclusion of that argument.
 Premise indicator
In an argument, a word or phrase (like
“because” and “since”) that normally signals
that what follows it are statements serving
as premises.
Premises or Conclusions Not in
Declarative Form
 Rhetorical question
An utterance used to make a statement,
but which, because it is in interrogative
form and is therefore neither true nor
false, does not literally assert anything.
Deductive and Inductive
Arguments
 Deductive argument
One of the two major types of argument traditionally
distinguished, the other being the inductive argument. A
deductive argument claims to provide conclusive grounds
for its conclusion. If it does provide such grounds, it is valid;
if it does not, it is invalid.
Inductive argument
One of the two major types of argument traditionally
distinguished, the other being the deductive argument. An
inductive argument claims that its premises give only some
degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.
What We Are Concerned With:

 In evaluating argument, one should ask:

 Are the premises true?
 Do the premises provide good reasons to

accept the conclusion?

 We will look at the latter question in this
chapter.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 11
Example:
 Take this argument:
1. Premise 1: If the moon is made of green cheese
then you will score perfectly on the next exam.
2. Premise 2: The moon is made of green cheese.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, you will score perfectly on
the next exam.
 Even though premises 1 & 2 are false, they
still provide good reason to accept the
conclusion.
 We’ll see “truth evaluation” in chapter 8.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 12
Deduction vs. Induction
 Deductive Arguments - inescapable logic:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is a human.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 Inductive Arguments conclusion is plausible
(likely or probable), given the premises:
1. So far, for every class, the professor has worn a
tie.
2. Therefore, next class, the professor will wear a
tie.
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill
Higher Education 13
Telling the difference between
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
 Indicator Words:
 Deductive: certainly, definitely, this entails
that, conclusively
 Inductive: probably, likely, one would

expect, odds are, reasonable to assume

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 14
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
1. Hypothetical Syllogism
2. Categorical Syllogism
3. Argument by Elimination
4. Argument Based on Mathematics.
5. Argument from Definition

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 15
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
1 Hypothetical Syllogism:
 If A then B. A. Therefore B. (Modus Ponens)
 If P then Q. if Q then R. Therefore if P then R. (chain
argument)
 If only A then B. Not B. Therefore not A. (Modus Tollens)
 Deductive but invalid versions:
 If A then B. Not A. Therefore not B. (denying the
antecedent)
 If I am female then I am a person. I am not female.
Therefore I am not a person.
 If A then B. B. Therefore A. (affirming the
consequent).
 If we’re on Krypton then we are in the solar system. We
are in the solar system. Therefore, we’re on Krypton .
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill
Higher Education 16
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
2 Categorical Syllogism:
 Example Forms:
 All a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, all a’s
are c’s.
 Example:
 All oaks are trees
 All trees are plants.
 So all oaks are plants.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 17
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
3 Argument by Elimination: rule out various
possibilities until only a single
possibility remains.
 Example forms:
 A or B. Not B. Therefore A.
 P or Q. if A then not P. A. Therefore Q.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 18
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
4 Argument based on Mathematics:
 Example forms:
 There are four a’s and two b’s. Therefore
there are six things all together.
 Example:
1. Eight is greater than four.
2. Four is greater than two.
3. Therefore, eight is greater than two.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 19
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
5 Argument from definition: the conclusion
is true in virtue of the definition of some
keyword or phrase.
 Example:
 Quah is a bachelor. Therefore Quah is
unmarried.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 20
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Augment from authority
4. Causal Argument
5. Statistical Argument
6. Argument from Analogy

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 21
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
1 Inductive generalization: drawing a
generalization as a likely conclusion
from observations.
 Example:
1. All dinosaur bones found so far have been
over 65 million years old.
2. Therefore all dinosaur bones found will be
over 65 million years old.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 22
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
2 Predictive argument:
 Prediction: a statement about what will
happen in the future.
 Predictive argument: an argument that has,

as a conclusion, a prediction.
 Example:
 Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
 Therefore, the next president will be tall.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 23
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
3 Augment from authority: citing some
presumed authority or witness.
 Example:
 The Encyclopedia says that bats eat bugs;
therefore it is likely that bats eat bugs.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 24
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
4 Causal Argument: asserts something is
the cause of something else.
 Example:
 There are some dinosaur footprints. A
dinosaur must have been here.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 25
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
5 Statistical Argument:
 Example:
1. 83% of Notre Dame students are Catholic.
2. Bob is a Notre Dame student.
3. Therefore Bob is probably Catholic.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 26
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
6 Arguing from Analogy:
1. Victoria Park is a great amusement park and
it has a great roller coaster.
2. Beckham Park is a great amusement park.
3. Beckham Park probably has a great roller
coaster.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 27
Deductive Validity

A valid deductive argument is an

argument in which it is impossible for all
the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 28
Deductive Validity

 Valid arguments: The validity of an

argument has nothing to do with the truth
of its premises. If the premises would
guarantee the conclusion if the premises
were true, then the argument is valid.
 Valid argument:
1. All squares are circles.
2. All circles are triangles.
3. Therefore, all squares are triangles.
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill
Higher Education 29
Deductive Invalidity

 Invalid deductive arguments: deductive

arguments whose premises do not
guarantee their conclusion. (i.e., they
have bad deductive form.)
1. All dogs are animals.
2. Snoopy is an animal.
3. Therefore, Snoopy is a dog.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 30
Tutorial

 Marked questions only

 Exercises 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
 3.5 (any 10)

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill

Higher Education 31