Philosophy 110

Introduction to Logic and Reasoning

Nicolas Fillion
Associate Professor

Simon Fraser University

Lecture 3
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

The basic terminology we’ve examined

We’ve rigourously examined basic terminology that we need to do

logic:
Argument
Inference
Statement
Proposition
Premise
Conclusion
Today, our job is to better understand how to use this
terminology.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Premises indicator

In order to become really good at writing and analyzing

arguments with clarity, we want some tricks.

With this in mind, we will examine the logical functions of some

words in English:
1 Premise indicators
2 Inference indicators (aka conclusion indicators)
They are essential to writing clear arguments.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Premises indicator

Premise indicators are words signaling that a premise is

introduced.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Premises indicator

Premise indicators are words signaling that a premise is

introduced.

Some common premise indicators:

since
for
because
on account of
inasmuch as
for the reason that
Can you name others?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Inference indicators precede a conclusion, signaling that an

inference is made from premises.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Inference indicators precede a conclusion, signaling that an

inference is made from premises.

Some common inference indicators:

therefore
thus
it follows that
so
hence
consequently
as a result
in conclusion
Can you name others?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at an example!

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Jesus can walk on water. But I can walk on cucumbers.
And cucumbers are 96% water. Therefore, I’m 96% Jesus.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at an example!

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Jesus can walk on water. But I can walk on cucumbers.
And cucumbers are 96% water. Therefore, I’m 96% Je-
sus.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at an example!

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Jesus can walk on water. But I can walk on cucumbers.
And cucumbers are 96% water. Therefore, I’m 96% Je-
sus.
What is the conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at an example!

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Jesus can walk on water. But I can walk on cucumbers.
And cucumbers are 96% water. Therefore, I’m 96%
Jesus.
What is the conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at an example!

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Jesus can walk on water. But I can walk on cucumbers.
And cucumbers are 96% water. Therefore, I’m 96%
Jesus.
What is the conclusion?

In a complex argument, there must be at least as many

inferences as there are inference indicators.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false beliefs
clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soccer fans
do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence, soccer fans
lack judgment.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false beliefs
clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soccer fans
do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence, soccer fans
lack judgment.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false beliefs
clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soccer fans
do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence, soccer fans
lack judgment.
How many inferences are made in this argument?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false beliefs
clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soccer fans
do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence, soccer fans
lack judgment.
How many inferences are made in this argument?
What are the subconclusions and main conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false be-
liefs clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soccer
fans do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence, soc-
cer fans lack judgment.
How many inferences are made in this argument?
What are the subconclusions and main conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s look at another example.

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
Some people believe that soccer is as interesting as hockey.
But what makes a sport interesting is fast play, agility, and
the occasional goon activity. None of these are to be found
in a soccer game. So, soccer is clearly less interesting
than hockey. Moreover, people who entertain false be-
liefs clearly lack judgment, and we’ve shown that soc-
cer fans do entertain false beliefs. As a consequence,
soccer fans lack judgment.
How many inferences are made in this argument?
What are the subconclusions and main conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s do a last example:

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
It is important to do things that can help saving the planet
by adapting our daily habits. The biggest danger faced by
the planet is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere. Carbon dioxide increases because too many plants
are killed. Now, the leading killers of trees are beavers and
the leading killers of herbs are vegetarians. So, we should
change our daily habits of eating beef, pork, and chicken
meat and eat beavers and vegetarians instead.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s do a last example:

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
It is important to do things that can help saving the planet
by adapting our daily habits. The biggest danger faced by
the planet is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere. Carbon dioxide increases because too many plants
are killed. Now, the leading killers of trees are beavers and
the leading killers of herbs are vegetarians. So, we should
change our daily habits of eating beef, pork, and chicken
meat and eat beavers and vegetarians instead.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s do a last example:

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
It is important to do things that can help saving the planet
by adapting our daily habits. The biggest danger faced by
the planet is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere. Carbon dioxide increases because too many plants
are killed. Now, the leading killers of trees are beavers and
the leading killers of herbs are vegetarians. So, we should
change our daily habits of eating beef, pork, and chicken
meat and eat beavers and vegetarians instead.
How many inferences are drawn in this argument?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s do a last example:

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
It is important to do things that can help saving the planet
by adapting our daily habits. The biggest danger faced by
the planet is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere. Carbon dioxide increases because too many plants
are killed. Now, the leading killers of trees are beavers and
the leading killers of herbs are vegetarians. So, we should
change our daily habits of eating beef, pork, and chicken
meat and eat beavers and vegetarians instead.
How many inferences are drawn in this argument?
What is the main conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Inference indicators

Let’s do a last example:

Example
Identify all the inference and premise indicators in this argument.
It is important to do things that can help saving the planet
by adapting our daily habits. The biggest danger faced by
the planet is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere. Carbon dioxide increases because too many plants
are killed. Now, the leading killers of trees are beavers
and the leading killers of herbs are vegetarians. So, we
should change our daily habits of eating beef, pork,
and chicken meat and eat beavers and vegetarians
instead.
How many inferences are drawn in this argument?
What is the main conclusion?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Just to make matters more complicated, sometimes the argument

is not explicitly written in its entirety.
There may be a missing premise or a missing conclusion; such
incomplete arguments are called enthymemes.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Just to make matters more complicated, sometimes the argument

is not explicitly written in its entirety.
There may be a missing premise or a missing conclusion; such
incomplete arguments are called enthymemes.

Example (Missing premise)

“Edward Snowden is an American citizen, so he is entitled to due
process.”
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Just to make matters more complicated, sometimes the argument

is not explicitly written in its entirety.
There may be a missing premise or a missing conclusion; such
incomplete arguments are called enthymemes.

Example (Missing premise)

“Edward Snowden is an American citizen, so he is entitled to due
process.”
There is a missing premise:
All American citizens are entitled to due process.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Do you know John Boehner,
former US Speaker of the
House?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Do you know John Boehner,
former US Speaker of the
House?
Have you heard of the White
House correspondents dinner?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Do you know John Boehner,
former US Speaker of the
House?
Have you heard of the White
House correspondents dinner?
Example (Obama’s enthymematic joke (2014))
“These days, House Republicans give John Boehner a
harder time than they give me,” Obama said.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Do you know John Boehner,
former US Speaker of the
House?
Have you heard of the White
House correspondents dinner?
Example (Obama’s enthymematic joke (2014))
“These days, House Republicans give John Boehner a
harder time than they give me,” Obama said. “Which
means orange really is the new black.”
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

Background for the next example:

Do you know the Netflix series
“Orange is the new black”?
Do you know John Boehner,
former US Speaker of the
House?
Have you heard of the White
House correspondents dinner?
Example (Obama’s enthymematic joke (2014))
“These days, House Republicans give John Boehner a
harder time than they give me,” Obama said. “Which
means orange really is the new black.”
Can you identify the conclusion and the premises?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

For simplicity, in this course, always assume

that all the premises and the conclusion
have been explicitly written, unless it’s a
question explicitly about enthymemes.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Enthymemes

For simplicity, in this course, always assume

that all the premises and the conclusion
have been explicitly written, unless it’s a
question explicitly about enthymemes.

A useful skill to have is to make argument diagrams.

Unfortunately, we don’t have time to cover it in class this semester.
I still encourage you to work through the argument diagram
problems in the textbook and the additional exercises (it won’t be
on the exam, but it’ll be in the first quiz).
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two aspects of arguments to assess

We now know how to identify inferences and arguments.

Let’s now turn to the main question we’ll address in this course:

How should we decide

whether an inference is any good?

In other words:

Does this inference give us

reasons to believe the conclusion is true?

What criterion should we use to answer the question? We already

intuitively gave the answer!
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Should we believe the conclusion of the inference is true?

Before answering, we need to do two things:

1 Check if the conclusion follows from the premises;
2 Check if the premises are true.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Should we believe the conclusion of the inference is true?

Before answering, we need to do two things:

1 Check if the conclusion follows from the premises;
2 Check if the premises are true.
Note that they correspond to the two different acts of our intellect:
reasoning vs judgement.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Should we believe the conclusion of the inference is true?

Before answering, we need to do two things:

1 Check if the conclusion follows from the premises;
2 Check if the premises are true.
Note that they correspond to the two different acts of our intellect:
reasoning vs judgement.

Here’s an argument that passes the first but not the second test:
If the moon is made of swiss cheese,
then it’s riddled with holes.
The moon is made of swiss cheese.
∴ The moon is riddled with holes.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Should we believe the conclusion of the inference is true?

Before answering, we need to do two things:

1 Check if the conclusion follows from the premises;
2 Check if the premises are true.
Note that they correspond to the two different acts of our intellect:
reasoning vs judgement.

Here’s an argument that passes the first but not the second test:
If the moon is made of swiss cheese,
then it’s riddled with holes.
The moon is made of swiss cheese.
∴ The moon is riddled with holes.
This inference gives no reason to believe the conclusion is true.
Why is that?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Let’s introduce a technical term for arguments that satisfy both

conditions:

Soundness
An argument is sound if and only if its conclusion follows from
the premises and all its premises are true. Otherwise, it is
unsound.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Let’s introduce a technical term for arguments that satisfy both

conditions:

Soundness
An argument is sound if and only if its conclusion follows from
the premises and all its premises are true. Otherwise, it is
unsound.

An argument that is sound is much better than one that is not.

Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Two ways of assessing arguments

Let’s introduce a technical term for arguments that satisfy both

conditions:

Soundness
An argument is sound if and only if its conclusion follows from
the premises and all its premises are true. Otherwise, it is
unsound.

An argument that is sound is much better than one that is not.

In this course, we essentially just investigate reasoning (vs

judgement). Therefore we’ll mostly focus on the first test. . .
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

We already have an intuitive feel for what it means for a

conclusion to follow from the premises,

at least in simple cases. But this isn’t precise enough for

rigorous logical analysis!

Our next job is to clarify what it means to “follow from”.

Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

We already have an intuitive feel for what it means for a

conclusion to follow from the premises,

at least in simple cases. But this isn’t precise enough for

rigorous logical analysis!

Our next job is to clarify what it means to “follow from”.

A standard way to make “follow from” precise is to ask:

is the inference truth-preserving?
Let’s see what this means. . .
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

The core idea of truth preservation is this:

⇒ We want inferences such that, if the premises are true, then
the conclusion will also be true.
After all, we don’t want an inference that leads us from truth to
falsity!
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

The core idea of truth preservation is this:

⇒ We want inferences such that, if the premises are true, then
the conclusion will also be true.
After all, we don’t want an inference that leads us from truth to
falsity! Notice that this is a conditional (if-then) criterion.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

The core idea of truth preservation is this:

⇒ We want inferences such that, if the premises are true, then
the conclusion will also be true.
After all, we don’t want an inference that leads us from truth to
falsity! Notice that this is a conditional (if-then) criterion.

An inference can preserve truth to different degrees. The

preservation can be
1 necessary, or guaranteed;
2 not necessary, or not guaranteed (but can still be
overwhelmingly likely).
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Following from understood as truth-preservation

The core idea of truth preservation is this:

⇒ We want inferences such that, if the premises are true, then
the conclusion will also be true.
After all, we don’t want an inference that leads us from truth to
falsity! Notice that this is a conditional (if-then) criterion.

An inference can preserve truth to different degrees. The

preservation can be
1 necessary, or guaranteed;
2 not necessary, or not guaranteed (but can still be
overwhelmingly likely).
Inferences of the first kind are said to be deductive, and those of
the latter kind are said to be inductive.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Probable truth-preservation

Inductive inferences are very common in everyday life. They

include statistical generalizations, analogies, and simple
inductions. They can be good, but can also be very bad.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Probable truth-preservation

Inductive inferences are very common in everyday life. They

include statistical generalizations, analogies, and simple
inductions. They can be good, but can also be very bad.

Example (Inductive argument)

1 95% of SFU students find logic truly exciting.
Minnie is an SFU student.
Therefore, Minnie finds logic truly exciting.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Probable truth-preservation

Inductive inferences are very common in everyday life. They

include statistical generalizations, analogies, and simple
inductions. They can be good, but can also be very bad.

Example (Inductive argument)

1 95% of SFU students find logic truly exciting.
Minnie is an SFU student.
Therefore, Minnie finds logic truly exciting.
2 Most European countries have condemned Russia over the
annexation of Crimea.
Therefore, Norway has condemned Russia for that.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Probable truth-preservation

Inductive inferences are very common in everyday life. They

include statistical generalizations, analogies, and simple
inductions. They can be good, but can also be very bad.

Example (Inductive argument)

1 95% of SFU students find logic truly exciting.
Minnie is an SFU student.
Therefore, Minnie finds logic truly exciting.
2 Most European countries have condemned Russia over the
annexation of Crimea.
Therefore, Norway has condemned Russia for that.

In those cases, even if the premises are true, the truth of the
conclusion is only more or less probable, not guaranteed.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Probable truth-preservation

Inductive inferences are very common in everyday life. They

include statistical generalizations, analogies, and simple
inductions. They can be good, but can also be very bad.

Example (Inductive argument)

1 95% of SFU students find logic truly exciting.
Minnie is an SFU student.
Therefore, Minnie finds logic truly exciting.
2 Most European countries have condemned Russia over the
annexation of Crimea.
Therefore, Norway has condemned Russia for that.

In those cases, even if the premises are true, the truth of the
conclusion is only more or less probable, not guaranteed.
See PHIL 105 (Critical Thinking), for a discussion of such arguments!
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Compare the previous inductive cases with the following cases:

1 All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals.
∴ All humans are mortal.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Compare the previous inductive cases with the following cases:

1 All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals.
∴ All humans are mortal.
2 If Oprah runs for president in 2024, then she will win.
Oprah will run for president in 2024.
∴ Oprah will win.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Compare the previous inductive cases with the following cases:

1 All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals.
∴ All humans are mortal.
2 If Oprah runs for president in 2024, then she will win.
Oprah will run for president in 2024.
∴ Oprah will win.
In each case, if the premises are true, the truth of the conclusion is
not only probable, but guaranteed.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Compare the previous inductive cases with the following cases:

1 All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals.
∴ All humans are mortal.
2 If Oprah runs for president in 2024, then she will win.
Oprah will run for president in 2024.
∴ Oprah will win.
In each case, if the premises are true, the truth of the conclusion is
not only probable, but guaranteed.

We can say two equivalent things about each of those cases:

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
The inference is necessarily truth-preserving.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

So, as logicians, we care about necessary truth-preservation.

But now, one issue we have is this:

The word “necessary” can be

understood in many different senses!
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

So, as logicians, we care about necessary truth-preservation.

But now, one issue we have is this:

The word “necessary” can be

understood in many different senses!

Consider these examples:

No physical force is acting on the object.
∴ The object will not start moving.
This object has a mass greater than zero.
∴ The object is moving slower than the speed of light.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

So, as logicians, we care about necessary truth-preservation.

But now, one issue we have is this:

The word “necessary” can be

understood in many different senses!

Consider these examples:

No physical force is acting on the object.
∴ The object will not start moving.
This object has a mass greater than zero.
∴ The object is moving slower than the speed of light.
The truth of the conclusion is physically necessary given the
truth of the premises.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Physical necessity (i.e., necessity in virtue of the laws of physics)

is not the sense of “necessary” we’re interested in. Why?
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Physical necessity (i.e., necessity in virtue of the laws of physics)

is not the sense of “necessary” we’re interested in. Why?
We do not want the rules of logic to depend on particular
physical facts about the universe.
In an alternate universe with different physical laws, the rules
of logic should be the same.
Otherwise, logic would not be properly topic-neutral.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Necessary truth-preservation

Physical necessity (i.e., necessity in virtue of the laws of physics)

is not the sense of “necessary” we’re interested in. Why?
We do not want the rules of logic to depend on particular
physical facts about the universe.
In an alternate universe with different physical laws, the rules
of logic should be the same.
Otherwise, logic would not be properly topic-neutral.

What we’re after is necessary truth-preservation, where

necessity is understood in a linguistic sense.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

This linguistic sense of “necessity” is roughly this:

⇒ The relation is necessary, not in virtue of facts (not even
physically necessary facts), but only in virtue of knowing the
meaning of words and the context of utterance.
(It only requires one to be a competent user of the
language.)
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

This linguistic sense of “necessity” is roughly this:

⇒ The relation is necessary, not in virtue of facts (not even
physically necessary facts), but only in virtue of knowing the
meaning of words and the context of utterance.
(It only requires one to be a competent user of the
language.)
We’ll say more precise things about this next time.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

This linguistic sense of “necessity” is roughly this:

⇒ The relation is necessary, not in virtue of facts (not even
physically necessary facts), but only in virtue of knowing the
meaning of words and the context of utterance.
(It only requires one to be a competent user of the
language.)
We’ll say more precise things about this next time.

Since necessary truth-preservation (in the linguistic sense) will

be so important for us, we’ll give it a technical name:
Validity in the general sense
An argument is valid in the general sense if and only if its
conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, where ‘necessity’
is understood in a linguistic sense.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

As a result, an argument is valid (in the general sense) when

if we believe the premises are true, then we (linguistically

necessarily) should believe the conclusion is true.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

As a result, an argument is valid (in the general sense) when

if we believe the premises are true, then we (linguistically

necessarily) should believe the conclusion is true.

Crucial observation:
Validity does not ask whether the
conclusion is true.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

As a result, an argument is valid (in the general sense) when

if we believe the premises are true, then we (linguistically

necessarily) should believe the conclusion is true.

Crucial observation:
Validity does not ask whether the
conclusion is true. It does not even
ask whether the premises are true.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

As a result, an argument is valid (in the general sense) when

if we believe the premises are true, then we (linguistically

necessarily) should believe the conclusion is true.

Crucial observation:
Validity does not ask whether the
conclusion is true. It does not even
ask whether the premises are true.
It merely asks about the logical
relation between the premises and the
conclusion (it’s a hypothetical
question).
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

As a result, an argument is valid (in the general sense) when

if we believe the premises are true, then we (linguistically

necessarily) should believe the conclusion is true.

Another crucial observation:

Validity and soundness are properties
of inferences and arguments.
Truth and falsity are properties of
statements.
Never mix those up!
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

Observe that having all true premises and a true conclusion is not
sufficient to get validity. We need a necessary linguistic
connection between premises and conclusion.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

Observe that having all true premises and a true conclusion is not
sufficient to get validity. We need a necessary linguistic
connection between premises and conclusion.

Example (Invalid argument with all true statements)

In the following argument, the premises and conclusion are all true:
The West coast has more hippies than the East coast.
The climate is nicer on the West coast than on the East
coast.
So, there are no hippies in Antarctica.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

Observe that having all true premises and a true conclusion is not
sufficient to get validity. We need a necessary linguistic
connection between premises and conclusion.

Example (Invalid argument with all true statements)

In the following argument, the premises and conclusion are all true:
The West coast has more hippies than the East coast.
The climate is nicer on the West coast than on the East
coast.
So, there are no hippies in Antarctica.
But the argument is invalid as the premises do not support the
conclusion.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

In contrast, consider those arguments:

Example (Two valid arguments)
1 If there are no clouds in the sky, then it won’t rain.
There are no clouds in the sky.
∴ It won’t rain.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

In contrast, consider those arguments:

Example (Two valid arguments)
1 If there are no clouds in the sky, then it won’t rain.
There are no clouds in the sky.
∴ It won’t rain.
2 Dænerys is a just ruler.
No just ruler burns cities to the ground.
∴ Dænerys doesn’t burn cities to the ground.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

In contrast, consider those arguments:

Example (Two valid arguments)
1 If there are no clouds in the sky, then it won’t rain.
There are no clouds in the sky.
∴ It won’t rain.
2 Dænerys is a just ruler.
No just ruler burns cities to the ground.
∴ Dænerys doesn’t burn cities to the ground.
In each case, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
The first is unsound; I can’t tell you about the second not to spoil
the show.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

So, we have many way of characterizing arguments:

sound arguments
(true premise, true conclusion, valid)
valid but unsound arguments
(at least one false premise, conclusion may be true or false,
depending on the case)
invalid arguments
(any combination of true and false statements for the
premises and conclusion is possible)
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

So, we have many way of characterizing arguments:

sound arguments
(true premise, true conclusion, valid)
valid but unsound arguments
(at least one false premise, conclusion may be true or false,
depending on the case)
invalid arguments
(any combination of true and false statements for the
premises and conclusion is possible)

What we will never, ever see is:

a sound argument with a false conclusion
It’s ruled out by definition.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

A last remark for today.

The textbook defines validity in the general sense, not as I did
above, but as follows:

An inference is valid in the general sense if and only if

denying its conclusion is incompatible with
accepting all its premises.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Validity in the general sense

A last remark for today.

The textbook defines validity in the general sense, not as I did
above, but as follows:

An inference is valid in the general sense if and only if

denying its conclusion is incompatible with
accepting all its premises.

Next time, we will examine what I called ‘linguistic necessity’ a bit

more to understand why those are just two ways of saying
exactly the same thing.
Identifying Premises and Inferences Assessing arguments

Readings for the next lecture

Readings for the next lecture

An Introduction to Logic, chapter 2 (you can omit 2.3).