LOGIC HỌC

LÊ QUANG MINH
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science,
that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-
to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear
them on television, and formulate them when communicating with
friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of
methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the
arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our
own. Among the benefits to be expected from the study of logic is an
increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the
arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• An argument, in its simplest form, is a group of statements, one or
more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or
reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). Every
argument may be placed in either of two basic groups: those in which
the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they
do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be
good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments.
The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus
to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good
arguments from bad.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific
meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might
have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this
definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements. A
statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a
declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative
sentence. The followingsentences are statements:
• Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories.
• Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.
• Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
• No wives ever cheat on their husbands.
• Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two
statements, both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values
of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the first two statements is true, the truth value of the
second two is false, and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its
components, is true.
• Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Questions,
proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclamations usually cannot, and so are not usually
classified as statements. The following sentences are not statements:
• Where is Khartoum? (question)
• Let’s go to a movie tonight. (proposal)
• I suggest you get contact lenses. (suggestion)
• Turn off the TV right now. (command)
• Fantastic! (exclamation)
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises
and exactly one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the
reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is
claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that
is claimed to follow from the premises. Here is an example of an argument:
• All film stars are celebrities.
• Halle Berry is a film star.
• Therefore, Halle Berry is a celebrity.
• The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim
that the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word
“therefore.”)
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• In this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and
so the argument is a good one. But consider this argument:
• Some film stars are men.
• Cameron Diaz is a film star.
• Therefore, Cameron Diaz is a man.
• In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even
though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to
distinguish premises from conclusions. If what is thought to be a conclusion is
really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be
correct. Many arguments contain indicator words that provide clues in
identifying premises and conclusion. Some typical conclusion indicators are
• therefore accordingly entails that
• wherefore we may conclude hence
• thus it must be that it follows that
• Consequently for this reason implies that
• we may infer so as a result
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually
be identified as the conclusion. By process of elimination the other
statements in the argument are the premises. Example:
Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain.
Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of interrogation.
• The conclusion of this argument is “Torture is not a reliable method of
interrogation,” and the premise is “Tortured prisoners will say
anything just to relieve the pain.”
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise
indicator. Some typical premise indicators are
since in that seeing that
as indicated by may be inferred from for the reason that
because as inasmuch as
for given that owing to
• Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a
premise.
• Example:
• Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these
drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• The premise of this argument is “The use of these drugs can jeopardize the
development of the fetus,” and the conclusion is “Expectant mothers should
never use recreational drugs.” In reviewing the list of indicators, note that “for
this reason” is a conclusion indicator, whereas “for the reason that” is a premise
indicator. “For this reason” (except when followed by a colon) means for the
reason (premise) that was just given, so what follows is the conclusion. On the
other hand, “for the reason that” announces that a premise is about to be stated.
• Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise.
Consider the following argument:
• It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides
essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural
retreat from the stress of daily life.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• The premise indicator “for” goes with both “Wilderness provides essential habitat
for wildlife, including endangered species,” and “It is a natural retreat from the
stress of daily life.” These are the premises. By method of elimination, “It is vitally
important that wilderness areas be preserved” is the conclusion.
• Some arguments contain no indicators. With these, the reader/listener must ask
such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the
others? What is the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage?
The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion. Example:
• We must get serious about modernizing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
Many of our bridges are practically falling down, and our transit system is in dire
need of repair. Furthermore, making these improvements would create jobs for
millions of workers.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• The conclusion of this argument is the first statement, and all of the other statements are
premises. The argument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that lack
indicator words: The intended conclusion is stated first, and the remaining statements are
then offered in support of this first statement. When the argument is restructured
according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always listed after the premises:
• P1: Many of our bridges are practically falling down.
• P2: Our transit system is in dire need of repair.
• P3: Making these improvements would create jobs for millions of workers.
• C: We must get serious about modernizing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
• When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible to the
original version, while at the same time attending to the requirement that premises and
conclusion be complete sentences that are meaningful in the order in which they are
listed.
 Arguments, Premises,
and Conclusions
• An inference, in the narrow sense of the term, is the reasoning
process expressed by an argument. In the broad sense of the term,
“inference” is used interchangeably with “argument.” Analogously, a
proposition, in the narrow sense, is the meaning or information
content of a statement. For the purposes of this book, however,
“proposition” and “statement” are used interchangeably.
• Not all passages contain arguments. Because logic deals with
arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish passages that
contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a passage
contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not
do so, it does not contain an argument.
 Recognizing Arguments
• In deciding whether a passage contains an argument, the claim that the alleged reasons or
evidence supports or implies something is usually the more important of the two. Such a claim
can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion
indicator words (“thus,” “since,” “because,” “hence,” “therefore,” and so on). Example:
The Ebola virus has yet to be eradicated, and it kills on average 50 percent of those it infects.
Thus, Ebola remains a threat to human health.
• The word “thus” expresses the claim that something is being inferred, so the passage is an
argument.
• An implicit claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a
passage, but the passage contains no indicator words. Example:
The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can introduce
unintended changes into the DNA of the food-producing organism, and these changes can be
toxic to the consumer.
 Recognizing Arguments
• The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an
implicit claim that evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage
an argument. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the premises.
• In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, keep
an eye out for (1) premise and conclusion indicator words and (2) the presence of an
inferential relationship between the statements. In connection with these points,
however, a word of caution is in order. First, the mere occurrence of an indicator word by
no means guarantees the presence of an argument. For example, consider the following
passages:
• Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological innovations.
• Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological
innovation.
 Recognizing Arguments
• In the first passage the word “since” is used in a temporal sense. It means “from the
time that.” Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage “since” is
used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an argument.
• The second cautionary point is that it is not always easy to detect the occurrence of an
inferential relationship between the statements in a passage, and one may have to
review a passage several times before making a decision. In reaching such a decision,
one may find it helpful to mentally insert the word “therefore” before the various
statements to see whether it makes sense to interpret one of them as following from
the others. Even with this mental aid, however, the decision whether a passage
contains an inferential relationship (as well as the decision about indicator words) often
involves a heavy dose of interpretation. As a result, not everyone will agree about
every passage. Sometimes the only answer possible is a conditional one: “If this
passage contains an argument, then these are the premises and that is the conclusion.”
 Recognizing Arguments
• Simple noninferential passages are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that
anything is being proved. Such passages contain statements that could be
premises or conclusions (or both), but what is missing is a claim that any potential
premise supports a conclusion or that any potential conclusion is supported by
premises. Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of
belief or opinion, loosely associated statements, and reports.
• A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard
against a dangerous or detrimental situation. Examples:
Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.
Whatever you do, never confide personal secrets to Blabbermouth Bob.
• If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then there is no
argument.
 Recognizing Arguments
• A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about
some future decision or course of conduct. Examples:
• You should keep a few things in mind before buying a used car. Test drive the
car at varying speeds and conditions, examine the oil in the crankcase, ask to
see service records, and, if possible, have the engine and power train checked
by a mechanic.
• Before accepting a job after class hours, I would suggest that you give careful
consideration to your course load. Will you have sufficient time to prepare for
classes and tests, and will the job produce an excessive drain on your energies?
• As with warnings, if there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything,
then there is no argument.
 Recognizing Arguments
• A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to
believe or think about something. Examples:
• We believe that our company must develop and produce outstanding products that
will perform a great service or fulfill a need for our customers. We believe that our
business must be run at an adequate profit and that the services and products we
offer must be better than those offered by competitors.
• When I can read the latte menu through the hole in my server’s earlobe, something is
seriously out of whack. What happened to an earring, maybe two, in each lobe? Now
any surface is game. Brow, lip, tongue, cheek, nose. I’ve adjusted to untied shoelaces
and pants that make mooning irrelevant. But when it comes to piercings, I just can’t
budge.
• Because neither of these statements asserts any claim that a belief or opinion is
supported by evidence, or that it supports some conclusion, there is no argument.
 Recognizing Arguments
• Loosely associated statements may be about the same general
subject, but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the
others. Example:
• Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not
to value goods that are hard to come by will keep them from theft;
not to display what is desirable will keep them from being unsettled
of mind.
• Because there is no claim that any of these statements provides
evidence or reasons for believing another, there is no argument.
 Recognizing Arguments
• A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or
event. Example:
• The period of 1648–1789 was one of competition among the primary monarchs of
Europe. Wars among the great powers were frequent but limited. France made major
efforts to become paramount, but the balance of power operated to block French
expansion.
• These statements could serve as the premises of an argument, but because the author
makes no claim that they support or imply anything, there is no argument. Another type
of report is the news report:
• Witnesses said they heard a loud crack before a balcony gave way at a popular nightspot,
dropping dozens of screaming people fourteen feet. At least eighty people were injured
at the Diamond Horseshoe casino when they fell onto broken glass and splintered wood.
Investigators are waiting for an engineer’s report on the deck’s occupancy load.
 Recognizing Arguments
• An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed
by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the objective is not to prove
the topic sentence but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument.
• Examples
• There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects ordinarily
maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite
volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas maintains
neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is in.
• There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the sports, especially in baseball.
Each player develops a style of his own—the swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique
windup a pitcher has, the clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness
and grace of infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done.
 Recognizing Arguments
• In each passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences
merely develop and flesh out this topic sentence. These passages are not
arguments, because they lack an inferential claim. However, expository passages
differ from simple noninferential passages (such as warnings and pieces of
advice) in that many of them can also be taken as arguments. If the purpose of
the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out the topic
sentence but also to prove it, then the passage is an argument. Example:
• Skin and the mucous membrane lining the respiratory and digestive tracts serve
as mechanical barriers to entry by microbes. Oil-gland secretions contain
chemicals that weaken or kill bacteria on skin. The respiratory tract is lined by
cells that sweep mucus and trapped particles up into the throat, where they can
be swallowed. The stomach has an acidic pH, which inhibits the growth of many
types of bacteria.
 Recognizing Arguments
• In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the purpose of the remaining sentences is not
only to show how the skin and mucous membranes serve as barriers to microbes but also to prove
that they do this. Thus, the passage can be taken as both an expository passage and an argument.
• In deciding whether an expository passage should be interpreted as an argument, try to determine
whether the purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is merely to develop the topic
sentence or also to prove that it is true. In borderline cases, ask yourself whether the topic sentence
makes a claim that everyone accepts or agrees with. If it does, the passage is probably not an
argument. In real-life situations authors rarely try to prove something is true when everyone already
accepts it. However, if the topic sentence makes a claim that many people do not accept or have
never thought about, then the purpose of the remaining sentences may be both to prove the topic
sentence is true as well as to develop it. If this is so, the passage is an argument.
• Finally, if even this procedure yields no definite answer, the only alternative may be to say that if the
passage is taken as an argument, then the first statement is the conclusion and the others are the
premises.
 Illustration
• An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to
show what something means or how it is done. Illustrations are often confused with
arguments because many illustrations contain indicator words such as “thus.”
Examples:
• Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas.
Thus, oxygen is represented by “O2,” water by “H2O,” and sodium chloride by “NaCl.”
• A deciduous tree is any tree that loses its leaves during the winter. For example,
maples are deciduous. And so are elms, poplars, hawthorns, and alders.
• These selections are not arguments, because they make no claim that anything is
being proved. In the first selection, the word “thus” indicates how something is done
—namely, how chemical elements and compounds can be represented by formulas.
In the second, the examples cited are intended to illustrate the meaning of the word
“deciduous.” It pins down the meaning by providing concrete instances.
 Illustration
• However, as with expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such
arguments are often called arguments from example. Here is an instance of one:
• Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life
threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can
produce disfigurement, but it almost never results in death.
• In this passage the example given is intended to prove the truth of “Not all cancers are life
threatening.” Thus, the passage is best interpreted as an argument. In deciding whether an
illustration should be interpreted as an argument, determine whether the passage merely
shows how something is done or what something means, or whether it also purports to
prove something. In borderline cases it helps to note whether the claim being illustrated is
one that practically everyone accepts or agrees with. If it is, the passage is probably not an
argument. As already noted, in real-life situations authors rarely attempt to prove what
everyone already accepts. But if the claim being illustrated is one that many people do not
accept or have never thought about, then the passage may be interpreted as an argument.
 Explanations
• One of the most important kinds of nonargument is the explanation. An explanation is an
expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon. The event or
phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact. Examples:
• The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are scattered by
particles in the atmosphere.
• Golf balls have a dimpled surface because the dimples reduce air drag, causing the ball to travel
farther.
• Navel oranges are called by that name because they have a growth that resembles a human navel
on the end opposite the stem.
• Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining. In the first
example, the explanandum is the statement “The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface” and
the explanans is “Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.”
 Explanations
• Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the
indicator word “because.” Yet explanations are not arguments, because in an
explanation the purpose of the explanans is to shed light on, or to make sense of, the
explanandum event—not to prove that it occurred. In other words, the purpose of the
explanans is to show why something is the case, whereas in an argument, the purpose
of the premises is to prove that something is the case.
• In the first example given, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent to everyone.
The statement that light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere
is not intended to prove that the sky is blue, but rather to show why it is blue. In the
second example, practically everyone knows that golf balls have a dimpled surface. The
purpose of the passage is to explain why they have a dimpled surface—not to prove
that they do. Similarly, in the third example, it is obvious that naval oranges are called
naval oranges. The purpose of the passage is to shed light on why they have this name.
 Explanations
• Thus, to distinguish explanations from arguments, identify the statement that is either the
explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that precedes the word
“because”). If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the remaining
statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is an explanation. This
method usually works to distinguish arguments from explanations. However, some passages
can be interpreted as both explanations and arguments. Examples:
• Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men
metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women do not.
• The purpose of these passages could be to prove the first statement to those who do not
accept it as fact, and to shed light on that fact to those who do accept it. Alternately, the
passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a person who accepts its truth on
blind faith or incomplete experience, and simultaneously to shed light on this truth. Thus,
these passages can be correctly interpreted as both an explanation and an argument.
 Conditional Statements
• A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement; for example:
• If professional football games incite violence in the home, then the widespread approval given to
this sport should be reconsidered.
• If Roger Federer has played in more Grand Slam finals than any other contender, then he
rightfully deserves the title of world’s greatest tennis player.
• Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component
statement immediately following the “if ” is called the antecedent, and the one following the
“then” is called the consequent. (Occasionally, the word “then” is left out, and occasionally the
order of antecedent and consequent is reversed.) In the first example, the antecedent is
“Professional football games incite violence in the home,” and the consequent is “The
widespread approval given to this sport should be reconsidered.” In both of these examples,
there is a meaningful relationship between antecedent and consequent. However, such a
relationship need not exist for a statement to count as conditional. The statement “If Taylor Swift
is a singer, then Denver is in Colorado” is just as much a conditional statement as those about
professional football and Roger Federer
 Conditional Statements
• Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the criteria given
earlier. In an argument, at least one statement must claim to present evidence, and
there must be a claim that this evidence implies something. In a conditional statement,
there is no claim that either the antecedent or the consequent presents evidence. In
other words, there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true.
Rather, there is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true, then so is the
consequent. Of course, a conditional statement as a whole may present evidence
because it asserts a relationship between statements. Yet when conditional statements
are taken in this sense, there is still no argument, because there is then no separate
claim that this evidence implies anything. Some conditional statements are similar to
arguments, however, in that they express the outcome of a reasoning process. As such,
they may be said to have a certain inferential content. Consider the following:
• If sugary drinks cause heart disease and diabetes, then sugary drinks should be
regulated.
 Conditional Statements
• The link between the antecedent and consequent resembles the inferential link
between the premises and conclusion of an argument. Yet there is a difference because
the premises of an argument are claimed to be true, whereas no such claim is made for
the antecedent of a conditional statement. Accordingly, conditional statements are not
arguments.* Yet their inferential content may be reexpressed to form arguments:
• Sugary drinks cause heart disease and diabetes. Therefore, sugary drinks should be
regulated.
• Finally, while no single conditional statement is an argument, a conditional statement
may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an argument, as the
following examples illustrate:
• If North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, then North Korea is a threat to world
peace. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, North Korea is a threat to
world peace.
 Conditional Statements
• The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be summarized
as follows:
• 1. A single conditional statement is not an argument.
• 2. A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both)
of an argument.
• 3. The inferential content of a conditional statement may be reexpressed to form an
argument.
• The first two rules are especially pertinent to the recognition of arguments. According to
the first rule, if a passage consists of a single conditional statement, it is not an
argument. But if it consists of a conditional statement together with some other
statement, then, by the second rule, it may be an argument, depending on such factors
as the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between the
statements.
 Conditional Statements
• Conditional statements are especially important in logic (and many other fields) because
they express the relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions. A is said to be a
sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B. For example, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On
the other hand, B is said to be a necessary condition for A whenever A cannot occur
without the occurrence of B. Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog.
The difference between sufficient and necessary conditions is a bit tricky. So, to clarify the
idea further, suppose you are given a large, closed cardboard box. Also, suppose you are
told there is a dog in the box. Then you know for sure there is an animal in the box. No
additional information is needed to draw this conclusion. This means that being a dog is
sufficient for being an animal. However, being a dog is not necessary for being an animal,
because if you are told that the box contains a cat, you can conclude with equal certainty
that it contains an animal. In other words, it is not necessary for the box to contain a dog for
it to contain an animal. It might equally well contain a cat, a mouse, a squirrel, or any other
animal.
 Conditional Statements
• On the other hand, suppose you are told that whatever might be in the box, it is not an animal.
Then you know for certain there is no dog in the box. The reason you can draw this conclusion is
that being an animal is necessary for being a dog. If there is no animal, there is no dog. However,
being an animal is not sufficient for being a dog, because if you are told that the box contains an
animal, you cannot, from this information alone, conclude that it contains a dog. It might
contain a cat, a mouse, a squirrel, and so on. These ideas are expressed in the following
conditional statements:
• If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
• If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
• The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal, and the
second that being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog. However, a little reflection
reveals that these two statements say exactly the same thing. Thus, each expresses in one way a
necessary condition and in another way a sufficient condition. The terminology of sufficient and
necessary conditions will be used in later chapters to express definitions and causal connections.
 Deduction and Induction
• The idea that arguments come in two forms, deductive and inductive,
was first asserted by Aristotle. In the intervening centuries, deduction
and induction have become a settled fixture not only in logic but in
our intellectual culture. Countless books, both fiction and nonfiction,
have referred to it. Einstein wrote a paper on it. And a huge number
of textbooks ranging from philosophy to education, business to
psychology, and chemistry to anthropology explore the subject. So
what is the difference between a deductive and an inductive
argument? Briefly we can say that deductive arguments are those
that rest on necessary reasoning, while inductive arguments are those
that rest on probabilistic reasoning.
 Deduction and Induction
• Stated more precisely, a deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an
argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are
true. Two examples:
• The meerkat is closely related to the suricat.
The suricat thrives on beetle larvae.
Therefore, probably the meerkat thrives on beetle larvae.
• The meerkat is a member of the mongoose family.
All members of the mongoose family are carnivores.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that the meerkat is a carnivore.
• The first of these arguments is inductive, the second deductive. In deciding whether an argument is inductive or
deductive, we look to certain objective features of the argument. These features include (1) the occurrence of
special indicator words, (2) the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion, and (3)
the form or style of argumentation. However, we must acknowledge at the outset that many arguments in
ordinary language are incomplete, and because of this, deciding whether the argument should best be
interpreted as deductive or inductive may be impossible.
 Deduction and Induction
• The occurrence of special indicator words is illustrated in the examples we just considered.
The word “probably” in the conclusion of the first argument suggests that the argument
should be taken as inductive, and the word “necessarily” in the conclusion of the second
suggests that the second argument be taken as deductive. Additional inductive indicators are
“improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,” “unlikely,” and “reasonable to conclude.”
Additional deductive indicators are “certainly,” “absolutely,” and “definitely.” (Note that the
phrase “it must be the case that” is simply a conclusion indicator that can occur in either
deductive or inductive argments.)
• Inductive and deductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. However, if
they conflict with one of the other criteria (discussed shortly), we should probably ignore
them. Arguers often use phrases such as “it certainly follows that” for rhetorical purposes to
add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the argument be taken as deductive.
Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the distinction between inductive and deductive, will
claim to “deduce” a conclusion when their argument is more correctly interpreted as
inductive.
 Deduction and Induction
• The second factor that bears on our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is the actual strength of
the inferential link between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from
the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In such an argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false. On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity but does follow
probably, it is often best to consider the argument inductive. Examples:
• All entertainers are extroverts.
Stephen Colbert is an entertainer.
Therefore, Stephen Colbert is an extrovert.
• The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts.
Stephen Colbert is an entertainer.
Therefore, Stephen Colbert is an extrovert.
• In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If we assume that all entertainers
are extroverts and that Stephen Colbert is an entertainer, then it is impossible that Stephen Colbert not be an
extrovert. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the second example, the conclusion does not
follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree of probability. If we assume that
the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to
interpret the second argument as inductive.
 Deduction and Induction
• Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the premises
are supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five examples of such
forms or kinds of argumentation are arguments based on mathematics, arguments
from definition, and categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.
• An argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends
on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, a
shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a paper bag and then conclude
that the bag contains five pieces of fruit. Or a surveyor might measure a square piece
of land and, after determining that it is 100 feet on each side, conclude that it contains
10,000 square feet. Since all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can
usually consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well.
However, arguments that depend on statistics are a noteworthy exception. As we will
see shortly, such arguments are usually best interpreted as inductive.
 Deduction and Induction
• An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in
the premise or conclusion. For example, someone might argue that because
Claudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies, or that because a certain
paragraph is prolix, it follows that it is excessively wordy. These arguments
are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the
definitions of “mendacious” and “prolix.”
• A syllogism, in general, is an argument consisting of exactly two premises
and one conclusion. Categorical syllogisms will be treated in greater depth
in Chapter 5, but for now we will say that a categorical syllogism is a
syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words “all,” “no,”
or “some.”
 Deduction and Induction
• All ancient forests are sources of wonder.
Some ancient forests are targets of the timber industry.
Therefore, some sources of wonder are targets of the timber industry.
• Arguments such as these are nearly always best treated as deductive. A
hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional (“if . . . then”) statement
for one or both of its premises. Examples:
• If estate taxes are abolished, then wealth will accumulate disproportionately.
If wealth accumulates disproportionately, then democracy will be threatened.
Therefore, if estate taxes are abolished, then democracy will be threatened.
• If Fox News is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers.
Fox News is a propaganda machine.
Therefore, Fox News misleads its viewers.
 Deduction and Induction
• Later in this book, the first of these arguments will be given the more specific name of
pure hypothetical syllogism because it is composed exclusively of conditional
(hypothetical) statements. The second argument is called a mixed hypothetical
syllogism because only one of its component statements is a conditional. Later in this
book, the second argument will be given the more specific Latin name modus ponens.
• A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”)
statement. Example:
• Either global warming will be arrested, or hurricanes will become more intense.
Global warming will not be arrested.
Therefore, hurricanes will become more intense.
• As with hypothetical syllogisms, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.
Hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms will be treated in greater depth in Chapter 6.
 Inductive Argument Forms
• In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way
intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument
typically deal with some subject that is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves
beyond this to a subject that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument
may take any of several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive
generalizations, arguments from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to
name just a few.
• A prediction is an argument that proceeds from our knowledge of the past to a claim about the
future. For example, someone might argue that because certain meteorological phenomena
have been observed to develop over a certain region of central Missouri, a storm will occur
there in six hours. Or again, one might argue that because certain fluctuations occurred in the
prime interest rate on Friday, the value of the dollar will decrease against foreign currencies on
Monday. Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with certainty; thus,
whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future, one is usually justified in
considering the argument inductive.
 Inductive Argument Forms
• An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or
similarity, between two things or states of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy, a
certain condition that affects the better-known thing or situation is concluded to affect the
similar, lesser-known thing or situation. For example, someone might argue that because
Christina’s Porsche is a great-handling car, it follows that Angela’s Porsche must also be a great-
handling car. The argument depends on the existence of a similarity, or analogy, between the
two cars. The certitude attending such an inference is probabilistic at best.
• A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some
claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic,
it is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic. For example, one
might argue that because three oranges selected from a certain crate were especially tasty and
juicy, all the oranges from that crate are especially tasty and juicy. Or again, one might argue that
because six out of a total of nine members sampled from a certain labor union intend to vote for
Johnson for union president, two-thirds of the entire membership intend to vote for Johnson.
These examples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation.
 Inductive Argument Forms
• An argument from authority is an argument that concludes something is true because a
presumed expert or witness has said that it is. For example, a person might argue that
earnings for Hewlett-Packard Corporation will be up in the coming quarter because of a
statement to that effect by an investment counselor. Or a lawyer might argue that Mack
the Knife committed the murder because an eyewitness testified to that effect under oath.
Because the investment counselor and the eyewitness could be either mistaken or lying,
such arguments are essentially probabilistic.
• An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign
to a claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes. The word “sign,” as it is
used here, means any kind of message (usually visual) produced by an intelligent being.
For example, when driving on an unfamiliar highway one might see a sign indicating that
the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Based on this information, one might
argue that the road does indeed make several sharp turns one mile ahead. Because the
sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the conclusion is only probable.
 Inductive Argument Forms
• A causal inference is an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim
about an effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause.
For example, from the knowledge that a bottle of wine had been accidentally left in the
freezer overnight, someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect).
Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and finding it dry and tough, one might
conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause). Because specific instances of
cause and effect can never be known with absolute certainty, one may usually interpret
such arguments as inductive.
• It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are
not intended to be mutually exclusive. Overlaps can and do occur. For example, many
causal inferences that proceed from cause to effect also qualify as predictions. The
purpose of this survey is not to demarcate in precise terms the various forms of
induction but rather to provide guidelines for distinguishing induction from deduction.
 Deductive Arguments
• The previous section defined a deductive argument as one incorporating the
claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises
are true. If this claim is true, the argument is said to be valid. Thus, a valid
deductive argument is an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to
be false given that the premises are true. In these arguments the conclusion
follows with strict necessity from the premises. Conversely, an invalid deductive
argument is a deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are true. In these arguments the conclusion does
not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
An immediate consequence of these definitions is that there is no middle ground
between valid and invalid. There are no arguments that are “almost” valid and
“almost” invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises,
the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
 Deductive Arguments
• To test an argument for validity we begin by assuming that all the premises are true, and
then we determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to be
false. Here is an example:
• All television networks are media companies.
NBC is a television network.
Therefore, NBC is a media company.
• In this argument both premises are actually true, so it is easy to assume that they are true.
Next we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be
false. Clearly this is not possible. If NBC is included in the group of television networks
(second premise) and if the group of television networks is included in the group of media
companies (first premise), it necessarily follows that NBC is included in the group of media
companies (conclusion). In other words, assuming the premises to be true and the
conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Thus, the argument is valid.
 Deductive Arguments
• Here is another example:
• All automakers are computer manufacturers.
United Airlines is an automaker.
Therefore, United Airlines is a computer manufacturer.
• In this argument, both premises are actually false, but it is easy to assume that they are true. Every
automaker could have a corporate division that manufactures computers. Also, in addition to flying
airplanes, United Airlines could make cars. Next, in light of these assumptions, we determine if it is
possible for the conclusion to be false. Again, we see that this is not possible, by the same reasoning as
the previous example. Assuming the premises to be true and the conclusion false entails a
contradiction. Thus, the argument is valid.
• Another example:
• All banks are financial institutions.
Wells Fargo is a financial institution.
Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank.
 Deductive Arguments
• As in the first example, both premises of this argument are true, so it is easy to assume they are
true. Next we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be
false. In this case it is possible. If banks were included in one part of the group of financial
institutions and Wells Fargo were included in another part, then Wells Fargo would not be a
bank. In other words, assuming the premises to be true and the conclusion false does not
involve any contradiction, and so the argument is invalid.
• In addition to illustrating the basic idea of validity, these examples suggest an important point
about validity and truth. In general, validity is not something that is uniformly determined by the
actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Both the NBC example and the Wells Fargo
example have actually true premises and an actually true conclusion, yet one is valid and the
other invalid. The United Airlines example has actually false premises and an actually false
conclusion, yet the argument is valid. Rather, validity is something that is determined by the
relationship between premises and conclusion. The question is not whether the premises and
conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises support the conclusion. In the examples
of valid arguments the premises do support the conclusion, and in the invalid case they do not.