Topic: Arguments

Learning Outcomes

• Discern between an inductive argument and a deductive argument

• Evaluate deductive arguments
• Analyze arguments with Venn diagrams and truth tables
• Use logical inference to infer whether a statement is true
• Identify logical fallacies in common language including appeal to ignorance, appeal to
authority, appeal to consequence, false dilemma, circular reasoning, post hoc, correlation
implies causation, and straw man arguments

Argument
A logical argument is a claim that a set of premises support a conclusion. There are two general
types of arguments: inductive and deductive arguments.

Argument types

An inductive argument uses a collection of specific examples as its premises and uses them to
propose a general conclusion.

A deductive argument uses a collection of general statements as its premises and uses them
to propose a specific situation as the conclusion.

Example

The argument “when I went to the store last week I forgot my purse, and when I went today I
forgot my purse. I always forget my purse when I go the store” is an inductive argument.

The premises are:

I forgot my purse last week

I forgot my purse today

The conclusion is:

I always forget my purse

Notice that the premises are specific situations, while the conclusion is a general statement. In
this case, this is a fairly weak argument, since it is based on only two instances.
Example

The argument “every day for the past year, a plane flies over my house at 2pm. A plane will fly
over my house every day at 2pm” is a stronger inductive argument, since it is based on a larger
set of evidence.

Evaluating inductive arguments

An inductive argument is never able to prove the conclusion true, but it can provide either weak
or strong evidence to suggest it may be true.

Many scientific theories, such as the big bang theory, can never be proven. Instead, they are
inductive arguments supported by a wide variety of evidence. Usually in science, an idea is
considered a hypothesis until it has been well tested, at which point it graduates to being
considered a theory. The commonly known scientific theories, like Newton’s theory of gravity,
have all stood up to years of testing and evidence, though sometimes they need to be adjusted
based on new evidence. For gravity, this happened when Einstein proposed the theory of general
relativity.

A deductive argument is more clearly valid or not, which makes them easier to evaluate.

Evaluating deductive arguments

A deductive argument is considered valid if all the premises are true, and the conclusion follows
logically from those premises. In other words, the premises are true, and the conclusion follows
necessarily from those premises.

Example

The argument “All cats are mammals and a tiger is a cat, so a tiger is a mammal” is a valid
deductive argument.

The premises are:

All cats are mammals

A tiger is a cat

The conclusion is:

A tiger is a mammal

Both the premises are true. To see that the premises must logically lead to the conclusion, one
approach would be use a Venn diagram. From the first premise, we can conclude that the set of
cats is a subset of the set of mammals. From the second premise, we are told that a tiger lies
within the set of cats. From that, we can see in the Venn diagram that the tiger also lies inside the

set of mammals, so the conclusion is valid.

Analyzing Arguments with Venn/Euler diagrams

To analyze an argument with a Venn/ Euler diagram

1. Draw a Venn/ Euler diagram based on the premises of the argument

2. If the premises are insufficient to determine what determine the location of an element,
indicate that.
3. The argument is valid if it is clear that the conclusion must be true

Example

Premise: All firefighters know CPR

Premise: Jill knows CPR
Conclusion: Jill is a firefighter

From the first premise, we know that firefighters all lie inside the set of those who know CPR.
From the second premise, we know that Jill is a member of that larger set, but we do not have
enough information to know if she also is a member of the smaller subset that is firefighters.
Since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, this is an invalid argument,
regardless of whether Jill actually is a firefighter.

It is important to note that whether or not Jill is actually a firefighter is not important in
evaluating the validity of the argument; we are only concerned with whether the premises are
enough to prove the conclusion.

In addition to these categorical style premises of the form “all ___,” “some ____,” and “no
____,” it is also common to see premises that are implications.

Analyzing arguments using truth tables

To analyze an argument with a truth table:

1. Represent each of the premises symbolically

2. Create a conditional statement, joining all the premises with and to form the antecedent,
and using the conclusion as the consequent.
3. Create a truth table for that statement. If it is always true, then the argument is valid.

Example

Premise: If I go to the mall, then I’ll buy new jeans.

Premise: If I buy new jeans, I’ll buy a shirt to go with it.
Conclusion: If I got to the mall, I’ll buy a shirt.

Let M = I go to the mall, J = I buy jeans, and S = I buy a shirt.

The premises and conclusion can be stated as:

Premise: M→J

Premise: J→S

Conclusion: M→S

We can construct a truth table for [(M→J)∧(J→S)]→(M→S)

M
J
S
M→J
 J→S
(M→J)∧(J→S)
M→S
[(M→J)∧(J→S)]→(M→S)

TTTTTTTT
TTFTFFFT
TFTFTFTT
TFFFTFFT
FTTTTTTT
FTFTFFTT
FFTTTTTT
FFFTTTTT

From the truth table, we can see this is a valid argument.

The previous problem is an example of a syllogism.

Syllogism

A syllogism is an implication derived from two others, where the consequence of one is the
antecedent to the other. The general form of a syllogism is:

Premise: p→q

q→
Premise:
r

Conclusion: p→r

This is sometime called the transitive property for implication.

Example

Premise: If I work hard, I’ll get a raise.

Premise: If I get a raise, I’ll buy a boat.
Conclusion: If I don’t buy a boat, I must not have worked hard.
Show Solution
If we let W = working hard, R = getting a raise, and B = buying a boat, then we can represent our
argument symbolically:

Premise: H→R

Premise:
R→
B

Conclusion: ∼B→∼H

We could construct a truth table for this argument, but instead, we will use the notation of the
contrapositive we learned earlier to note that the implication ∼B→∼H

is equivalent to the implication H→B. Rewritten, we can see that this conclusion is indeed a
logical syllogism derived from the premises.

Logical Inference
Suppose we know that a statement of form P→Q

is true. This tells us that whenever P is true, Q will also be true. By itself, P→Q being true does not tell
us that either P or Q is true (they could both be false, or P could be false and Q true). However if in
addition we happen to know that P is true then it must be that Q is true. This is called a
logical inference: Given two true statements we can infer that a third statement is true. In this instance
true statements P→Q and P are “added together” to get Q. This is described below with P→Q stacked
one atop the other with a line separating them from Q. The intended meaning is that P→Q

combined with P produces Q.

P→QP–––––––Q

P→Q∼Q–––––––––∼P

P∨Q∼P–––––––––Q
Two other logical inferences are listed above. In each case you should convince yourself (based
on your knowledge of the relevant truth tables) that the truth of the statements above the line
forces the statement below the line to be true.

Following are some additional useful logical inferences. The first expresses the obvious fact that
if P and Q are both true then the statement P∧Q

will be true. On the other hand, P∧Q being true forces P (also Q) to be true. Finally, if P is true, then
P∨Q

must be true, no matter what statement Q is.

PQ–––––P∧Q

P∧Q––––––P

P––––––P∨Q

The first two statements in each case are called “premises” and the final statement is the “conclusion.”
We combine premises with ∧

(“and”). The premises together imply the conclusion. Thus, the first argument would have
((P→Q)∧P)→Q