CHAPTER 3

BASIC LOGICAL
CONCEPTS
By
Dr. Zeeshan Ahmad
 Introduce some basic logical concepts needed
to distinguish good arguments from bad ones.

DEDUCTION ANDINDUCTION
Chapter
Learning How Can We Tell Whether an Argument Is
Deductive or Inductive?
Objective
s Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning

 • In evaluating argument, one should
What We ask:
Are • Are the premises true?
• Do the premises provide good reasons
Concerne to accept the conclusion?

d With: • We will look at the latter question in

this chapter.
 • 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

Example:
provide good reason to accept the conclusion.
• Because, if they were true, the conclusion would
have to be true.
• (i.e. If a green cheese moon really did ensure
that you ace the next exam, and it really was
green cheese, then you really would ace the
next exam.
• So, you will never be able to show that premises
don’t “provide good reason” for a conclusion by
pointing out that they are false.
• We’ll see “truth evaluation” in chapter 8.
Deduction vs. Induction
• Deductive Arguments - inescapable logic:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates (‫ )سقراط‬is 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.
• OR
1. The bank safe was robbed last night.
2. Whoever robbed the safe knew the safe’s combination.
3. Only two people know the safe’s combination: Zia and Ali
5
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
HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN
ARGUMENT
IS DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

There are four tests that greatly simplify the task of

determining whether an argument should be regarded as
deductive or inductive:
• the indicator word test
• the strict necessity test
• the common pattern test
• the principle of charity test
The • common deduction indicator
words :
• These are some common
induction indicator words:
Indicator • certainly it logically follows
that
• probably one would
expect that
Word Test • definitely it is logical to • likely it is a good bet that
conclude that • it is plausible to suppose
• absolutely this logically that chances are that
implies that • it is reasonable to assume
• conclusively this entails that that odds are that

Limitations:
1. First, many arguments contain no deduction or induction indicator words.
2. Second, arguers often use indicator words loosely or improperly.
 The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:

An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict

The Strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not.

Necessity If the argument’s conclusion does follow with

Test strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should always be treated as deductive.

If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with

strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as inductive.
 • Because deductive and inductive arguments
often occur in characteristic, telltale patterns of
The reasoning, we can apply the common pattern test
to determine which kind of reasoning we are
Common dealing with.

Pattern • Consider this argument:

• If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.
Test • We are in Paris.
• Therefore, we are in France.
 • The principle of charity serves two important
goals in critical thinking.
The • It fosters goodwill and mutual understanding
Principle • Promotes the discovery of truth
• Example:
of Charity Ahmad told me that he ate at Almaida Restaurant
Test yesterday. But Almaida was completely destroyed
by fire less than a month ago. It is certain,
therefore, that Ahmad is either lying or mistaken.
 1. Hypothetical Syllogism
Common 2. Categorical Syllogism
Patterns 3. Argument by Elimination
of 4. Argument Based on Mathematics.
Deductive 5. Argument from Definition

Reasoning
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
1 Hypothetical Syllogism:
• If A then B. A. Therefore B. (Modus Ponens)
• Example:
• If the Tigers beat the Yankees, then the Tigers will make the playoffs.
• The Tigers will beat the Yankees.
• So, the Tigers will make the playoffs.

• If A then B. if B then C. Therefore if A then C. (chain argument)

Example:
If we don’t stop for gas soon, then we’ll run out of gas.
If we run out of gas, then we’ll be late for the wedding.
Therefore, if we don’t stop for gas soon, we’ll be late for the wedding.

• If only A then B. Not B. Therefore not A. (Modus Tollens)

Example:
If we’re in Rahim Yar Khan, then we’re in Punjab.
We’re not in Punjab.
Therefore, we’re not in Rahim Yar Khan.
• 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 .
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.
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.

• Example:
• Either James walked to the library or he drove.
• But James didn’t drive to the library.
• Therefore, James walked to the library.
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.
Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasoning
5 Argument from definition: the conclusion is true in virtue of the
definition of some keyword or phrase.
• Example:
• Qasim is a bachelor. Therefore Qasim is unmarried.
• Jamila is a cardiologist. Therefore, Jamila is a doctor.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
• I can’t log on. The network must be down.
• Rashid isn’t allergic to peanuts. I saw him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight
• from Karachi.
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
5 Statistical Argument:
• Example:
1. 83% of Queen Marry college students are Catholic.
2. Bushra is a Queen Marry college student.
3. Therefore Bushra is probably Catholic.
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
6 Arguing from Analogy:
Example:
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.
Example:
Bill is a graduate of Central University, and he is bright, energetic, and
dependable.
Mary is a graduate of Central University, and she is bright, energetic, and
dependable.
Paula is a graduate of Central University.
Therefore, most likely, Paula is bright, energetic, and dependable, too.
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.
• false premises and a false conclusion. For example:
• All squares are circles.
• All circles are triangles.
• Therefore, all squares are triangles.
• false premises and a true conclusion. For example:
• All fruits are vegetables.
• Spinach is a fruit.
• Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.
• true premises and a true conclusion. For example:
• If you’re reading this, you are alive.
• You are reading this.
• Therefore, you are alive.
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.