DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

created by Drew Schroeder, October 2005 (rev. 2007)

Any set of premises and a conclusion which is supposed to follow from them is called an argument. A deductive argument is
one where the premises are supposed to logically entail the conclusion. That is, it isn’t possible for the premises to be true but
the conclusion false. Here is Aristotle’s famous example of a good deductive argument:

1. All men are mortal.

1 2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.

Most of the arguments we use in everyday life are inductive. Inductive arguments are those whose premises make their
conclusion more reasonable to believe, though they don’t guarantee it. Here are two examples:

1. No baseball team has lost 150 games in a season. 1. Jones was murdered yesterday.
2 2. The Yankees are a baseball team.
3. The Yankees won’t lose 150 games this season.
3 2. Smith was the only one near Jones yesterday.
3. Smith murdered Jones.

Deductive arguments are much simpler to analyze. An argument is valid (or, deductively valid) when the conclusion really does
follow logically from the premises -- that is, when it isn’t possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Argument
1, above, is valid, as are these three arguments:

1. Either God exists or pigs fly. 1. Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. 1. All women are mortal.
4 2. Pigs don’t fly.
3. God exists.
5 2. Aaron Sorkin wrote The West Wing.
3. Fermat’s last theorem is true.
6 2. Some women are not mortal.
3. 2+2=5.

(Notice that argument 5 is valid because the conclusion is itself logically true -- the conclusion can’t be false, so it obviously can’t
be false at the same time the premises are true. Example 6 is valid because the premises can’t possibly all be true -- therefore they
can’t be true while the conclusion is false. We won’t worry much about cases like this.) Arguments are valid or invalid based on
their form, not their content. We can replace the components in arguments 1 and 4 with different parts, and we’ll still have valid
arguments:

1. All dogs are immortal. 1. Either Bush won the election or Kerry won the election.
7 2. Aristotle is a dog.
3. Aristotle is immortal.
8 2. Kerry didn’t win the election.
3. Bush won the election.

As you can see in arguments 4, 5, 6, and 7, being valid isn’t enough to make an argument good. An argument is sound if it is
valid and all its premises are true. Arguments 1 and 8 are sound. (Argument 5 is also sound, though for a non-standard reason.
What is it?) Arguments 6 and 7 are unsound, since their premises are not all true. Argument 4 is sound just in case God exists.

Since we’ve said that a valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, and since a
sound argument has true premises, the conclusion of a sound argument must be true. We’d ideally, then, like to find sound
arguments. When you’re looking to evaluate an argument, the easiest thing to do is to first check its validity. Oftentimes, the
argument will have an invalid form. You can test for this by trying to create an argument with the same form which is obviously
invalid -- that is, which has true premises, and a false conclusion:

1. If there was a high voter turnout, Bush won. 1. If Jane lives in NYC, she’s a NY resident. If Jane lives in Albany, then the
same
2. Bush won. 2. Jane is a NY resident. premises are true but the
conclusion false -- this form of
3. There was a high voter turnout. form 3. Jane lives in NYC. argument can’t be valid.
Even if the argument has a good form, it usually won’t be formally valid because the author will have supressed a premise or
three. Fill in the gaps as best (and as charitably as) you can to create a valid argument. If you’re able to create a valid argument,
all that’s left to do is evaluate the premises. If they’re true, so is the conclusion. If not, then you’re most of the way towards
articulating your objection.
“Failing to chop up the 1. Failing to chop up the healthy patient would ensure that five die. The most
healthy patient would lead 2. The five’s dying would result in less pleasure (more pain) than would promising spot
made
to five more deaths, so chopping up the patient. for objection
utilitarianism requires you to 3. Utilitarianism requires you to maximize pleasure (minimize pain). seems to be
valid
chop her up, no matter how premise #2.
squeamish you may feel.” 4. Utilitarianism requires you to chop up the healthy patient.