Logic is a language for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use when doing logical reasoning.

Human reasoning has been observed over centuries from at least the times of Greeks, and patterns appearing in reasoning have been extracted, abstracted, and streamlined. The foundation of the logic we are going to learn here was laid down by a British mathematician George Boole in the middle of the 19th century, and it was further developed and used in an attempt to derive all of mathematics by Gottlob Frege, a German mathematician, towards the end of the 19th century. A British philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell, found a flaw in basic assumptions in Frege's attempt but he, together with Alfred Whitehead, developed Frege's work further and repaired the damage. The logic we study today is more or less along this line. In logic we are interested in true or false of statements, and how the truth/falsehood of a statement can be determined from other statements. However, instead of dealing with individual specific statements, we are going to use symbols to represent arbitrary statements so that the results can be used in many similar but different cases. The formalization also promotes the clarity of thought and eliminates mistakes. There are various types of logic such as logic of sentences (propositional logic), logic of objects (predicate logic), logic involving uncertainties, logic dealing with fuzziness, temporal logic etc. Here we are going to be concerned with propositional logic and predicate logic, which are fundamental to all types of logic.

Types of Reasoning (Deductive vs. Inductive)

When you start building an argument, you need to decide whether you're going to use deductive or inductive reasoning to prove your point.

Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. (Source: Web Centre for Social Research Methods: Research Methods Knowledge Base: Deductive and Inductive Thinking )

Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" andnot "bottom s up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.(Source: Web Centre for Social Research Methods: Research Methods Knowledge Base: Deductive and Inductive Thinking ) What's the Difference?

"Inductive reasoning...is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning." "Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses."

Logical reasoning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inductive and deductive reasoning

Informally, two kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence and a rule or material conditional that implies the conclusion given theprecondition, one can explain that:

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: "When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet."Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. Example: "The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains." While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid, see theproblem of induction. Science is associated with this type of reasoning.

Abductive reasoning, aka inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and arule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is outside and nothing outside is dry, therefore: maybe it rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning
Disciplines > Argument > Types of Reasoning > Deductive Reasoning Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general case and deduces specific instances. Deduction starts with an assumed hypothesis or theory, which is why it has been called 'hypothetico-deduction'. This assumption may be well-accepted or it may be rather more shaky -- nevertheless, for the argument it is not questioned. Deduction is used by scientists who take a general scientific law and apply it to a certain case, as they assume that the law is true. Deduction can also be used to test an induction by applying it elsewhere, although in this case the initial theory is assumed to be true only temporarily.

Example
Say this Not this

Gravity makes things fall. The apple The apple hit my head. Gravity that hit my head was due to works! gravity. They are all like that -- just look at him! Look at him. They are all like that.

Toyota make wonderful cars. Let me These cars are all wonderful. They show you this one. are made by Toyota, it seems. There is a law against smoking. Stop it now. Stop smoking, please.

Discussion
Deductive reasoning assumes that the basic law from which you are arguing is applicable in all cases. This can let you take a rule and apply it perhaps where it was not really meant to be applied. Scientists will prove a general law for a particular case and then do many deductive experiments (and often get PhDs in the process) to demonstrate that the law holds true in many different circumstances. In set theory, a deduction is a subset of the rule that is taken as the start point. If the rule is true and deduction is a true subset (not a conjunction) then the deduction is almost certainly true. Using deductive reasoning usually is a credible and 'safe' form of reasoning, but is based on the assumed truth of the rule or law on which it is founded. Validity and soundness Deductive conclusions can be valid or invalid. Valid arguments obey the initial rule. For validity, the truth or falsehood of the initial rule is not considered. Thus valid conclusions need not be true, and invalid conclusions may not be false. When a conclusion is both valid and true, it is considered to be sound. When it is valid, but untrue, then it is considered to be unsound.

Inductive Reasoning
Disciplines > Argument > Types of Reasoning > Inductive Reasoning Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations. Inference can be done in four stages: 1. Observation: collect facts, without bias. 2. Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity. 3. Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts. 4. Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation. In an argument, you might: Derive a general rule in an accepted area and then apply the rule in the area where you want the person to behave. Give them lots of detail, then explain what it all means. Talk about the benefits of the parts and only get to the overall benefits later. Take what has happened and give a plausible explanation for why it has happened.

Inductive arguments can include: Part-to-whole: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger). Extrapolations: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area. Predictions: where the future is assumed to be like the past.

Example
Say this Look at how those people are behaving. They must be mad. All of your friends are good. You can be good, too. Not this

Those people are all mad.

Be good.

The base costs is XXX. The extras It will cost YYY. This includes XXX are XXX, plus tax at XXX. Overall, it for base costs, XXX for extras and is great deal at YYY. XXX for tax. Heating was XXX, lighting was YYY, parts were ZZZ, which adds up to NNN. Yet revenue was RRR. This means we must cut costs!

We need to cut costs, as our expenditure is greater than our revenue.

Discussion
Early proponents of induction, such as Francis Bacon, saw it as a way of understanding nature in an unbiased way, as it derives laws from neutral observation. In argument, starting with the detail anchors your persuasion in reality, starting from immediate sensory data of what can be seen and touched and then going to the big picture of ideas, principles and general rules. Starting from the small and building up to the big can be less threatening than starting with the big stuff. Scientists create scientific laws by observing a number of phenomena, finding similarities and deriving a law which explains all things. A good scientific law is highly generalized and may be applied in many situations to explain other phenomena. For example the law of gravity was used to predict the movement of the planets. Of course when you find a law, you have to spend ages proving it and convincing others that it is true. Inductive arguments are always open to question as, by definition, the conclusion is a bigger bag than the evidence on which it is based. In set theory, an inductively created rule is a superset of the members that are taken as the start point. The only way to prove the rule is to identify all members of the set. This is often impractical. It may, however, be possible to calculate the probability that the rule is true. In this way, inductive arguments can be made to be more valid and probable by adding evidence, although if this evidence is selectively chosen, it may falsely hide contrary evidence. Inductive reasoning thus needs trust and demonstration of integrity more than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is also called Generalizing as it takes specific instances and creates a general rule.

What are the Different Types of Reasoning?

Posted on November 17, 2012by M. Rodriguez

So I did a post series a while back on Reasoning as it applies to Faith, Religion, Christianity, Philosophy, and Atheism. It is a high level overview of all the different types of methods of reasoning and how they apply theologically. It is a 9-part series with a Table of Contents Page. Now in this personal study, I found that there were different types of Reasoning and different types of Logic. Lets Start with What is Reasoning? Reasoning is the capacity for a person to make sense of things to establish & verify facts, To rationaly work through data, information, facts, and beliefs. It is the process of forming conclusions and judgments from facts or premises. To put it plain and simple; it is the ability to coherently think from perceived premise to a logical conclusion.

What are the Main Types of Reasoning? There are two main types of reasoning: Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning. However there are several other types of reasoning. Which are all related to each other. Deductive Reasoning- Deductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which a conclusion follows logically and coherently from the factual premises and proposition. These deductive arguments are based upon the concept of sound and consistent reasoning. If the premises are true, than the systematic reasoning with a constructed syllogism is considered valid in a deductive argument in making its conclusion certain with a degree of logical certainty. Plainly speaking. deductive reasoning is the rationality of reasoning from pure logic. It is considered sound and pure logic. Inductive Reasoning- Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that uses analogies, examples, observations, and experiences to form conclusive propositions. Inductive logic also uses experiences to formulate statements based on general observations of recurring patterns in nature, science, and everyday occurrences pulling from such things as samples cases, experiments, and natural eye observations. It is used mostly to explain properties and relations to objects or types based on previous observations. It must be understood that inductive arguments do not try to establish their conclusions through absolute certainty, but through observable and predictive certainty.

In addition, Analogical Reasoning & Matrix Reasoning are both sub-methods of inductive reasoning that correlates information that compares the similarities between new & understood thoughts. And then uses the similarities to gain understanding of new concepts. These two forms of reasoning are considered both inductive reasoning because it strives to provide understanding of what is perceived to be true, rather than deductively proving something as fact.

Abductive Reasoning- In laymens terms abductive reasoning is an argument to the best explanation. It is a form of reasoning that concludes in an abductive argument of what is plausible or most possibly true. Abductive logic is also considered inference to the best explanation. It is choosing the most likely or best hypothesis or explanation based upon the (most) relevant evidence. Some people think that it is closer to inductive reasoning because it is not as sound logically as deducing an argument using pure logic as in deductive reasoning. Others think it is closer to deductive reasoning,

because using sound logic one eliminates the most unlikely argument to come to the most reasonable solution. I like to call it, the best compromise between an inductive and deductive argument. Reductive Reasoning- Reductive reasoning is a subset of argumentative reasoning which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false or absurd result/circumstance follows from its denial. It is proving a statement true by reducing to the opposite of it and showing the absurdity of the opposite result. It is logically reasoning to the absurd or reducing to the absurd; hence the name why reductive reasoning is also called Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: reduction to absurdity). Reductive Reasoning is also considered a mixture of deductive & inductive reasoning. Inductive, because it strives to prove understanding of what is likely to be true. And deductive because it does resemble traits of critically and rationally of deductively reducing down to a conclusive or non-conclusive argument. Fallacious Reasoning- Fallacious Reasoning is not real reasoning, it is the faulty premises for critical thinking and logic. One of the tall tell signs of fallacious reasoning is a logical fallacy. A fallacy is usually an error in reasoning and argumentation often due to a misconception, false premises, or presumptuous conclusions.

Circular Reasoning is actually considered more of a form of fallacious reasoning. It would not be considered valid nor useful in a live debate.

Argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the subject as it is studied in logic and philosophy. For other uses, see Argument (disambiguation). In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.[1][2] The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formallydefined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic and computer science. In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8] The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic.[9] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically-represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

The Writing Center

Home Make/Cancel an Appointment Submit a Draft Online Faculty Resources Handouts ESL About FAQs

Home Handouts Argument

Search this

Search

Argument
WHAT THIS HANDOUT IS ABOUT

This handout will define what an argument is and explain why you need one in most of your academic essays.
ARGUMENTS ARE EVERYWHERE

You may be surprised to hear that the word argument does not have to be written anywhere in your assignment for it to be an important part of your task. In fact, making an argumentexpressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with evidenceis often the aim of academic writing. Your instructors may assume that you know this and thus may not explain the importance of arguments in class. Most material you learn in college is or has been debated by someone, somewhere, at some time. Even when the material you read or hear is presented as simple fact, it may actually be one persons interpretation of a set of information. Instructors may call on you to examine that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new view of your own. In writing assignments, you will almost always need to do more than just summarize information that you have gathered or regurgitate facts that have been discussed in class. You will need to develop a point of view on or interpretation of that material and provide evidence for your position. If you think that fact, not argument, rules intelligent thinking, consider an example. For nearly 2000 years, educated people in many Western cultures believed that bloodletting deliberately causing a sick person to lose blood was the most effective treatment for a variety of illnesses. The fact that bloodletting is beneficial to human health wa s not widely questioned until the 1800s, and some physicians continued to recommend bloodletting as late as the 1920s. We have come to accept a different set of facts now because some people began to doubt the effectiveness of bloodletting; these people argued against it and provided convincing evidence. Human knowledge grows out of such differences of opinion, and scholars like your instructors spend their lives engaged in debate over what may be counted as true, real, or right in their fields. In their courses, they want you to engage in similar kinds of critical thinking and debate.

Argumentation is not just what your instructors do. We all use argumentation on a daily basis, and you probably already have some skill at crafting an argument. The more you improve your skills in this area, the better you will be at thinking critically, reasoning, making choices, and weighing evidence.
MAKING A CLAIM

What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a claim or thesis statement, backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority of college papers, you will need to make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a topic about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold. Claims can be as simple as Protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged, with evidence such as, In this experiment, protons and electrons acted in such and such a way. Claims can also be as complex as The end of th e South African system of apartheid was inevitable, using reasoning and evidence such as, Every successful revolution in the modern era has come about after the government in power has given and then removed small concessions to the uprising group. In either case, the rest of your paper will detail the reasoning and evidence that have led you to believe that your position is best. When beginning to write a paper, ask yourself, What is my point? For example, the point of this handout is to help you become a better writer, and we are arguing that an important step in the process of writing effective arguments is understanding the concept of argumentation. If your papers do not have a main point, they cannot be arguing for anything. Asking yourself what your point is can help you avoid a mere information dump. Consider this: your instructors probably know a lot more than you do about your subject matter. Why, then, would you want to provide them with material they already know? Instructors are usually looking for two things: 1. Proof that you understand the material, AND 2. A demonstration of your ability to use or apply the material in ways that go beyond what you have read or heard.

This second part can be done in many ways: you can critique the material, apply it to something else, or even just explain it in a different way. In order to succeed at this second step, though, you must have a particular point to argue. Arguments in academic writing are usually complex and take time to develop. Your argument will need to be more than a simple or obvious statement such as Frank Lloyd Wright was a great architect. Such a statement might capture your initial impressions of Wright as you have studied him in class; however, you need to look deeper and express specifically what caused that greatness. Your instructor will probably expect something more complicated, such as Frank Lloyd Wrights architecture combines elements of European modernism, Asian aesthetic form, and locally found materials to create a unique new style, or There are many strong similarities between Wrights building designs and those of his mother, which suggests that he may have borrowed some of her ideas. To develop your argument, you would then define your terms and prove your claim with evidence from Wrights drawings and buildings and those of the other architects you mentioned.
EVIDENCE

Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your point with evidence. The strength of your evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument. You already have the natural inclination for this type of thinking, if not in an academic setting. Think about how you talked your parents into letting you borrow the family car. Did you present them with lots of instances of your past trustworthiness? Did you make them feel guilty because your friends parents all let them drive? Did you whine until they just wanted you to shut up? Did you look up statistics on teen driving and use them to show how you didnt fit the dangerous-driver profile? These are all types of argumentation, and they exist in academia in similar forms. Every field has slightly different requirements for acceptable evidence, so familiarize yourself with some arguments from within that field instead of just applying whatever evidence you like best. Pay attention to your textbooks and your instructors lectures. What types of argument and evidence are they using? The type of evidence that sways an English instructor may not work to convince a sociology instructor. Find out what counts as proof that something is true in that field. Is it statistics, a logical development of points, something from the object being discussed (art work, text, culture, or atom), the way something works, or some combination of more than one of these things?

Be consistent with your evidence. Unlike negotiating for the use of your parents car, a college paper is not the place for an all-out blitz of every type of argument. You can often use more than one type of evidence within a paper, but make sure that within each section you are providing the reader with evidence appropriate to each claim. So, if you start a paragraph or section with a statement like Putting the student seating area closer to the basketball court will raise player performance, do not follow with your evidence on how much more money the university could raise by letting more students go to games for free. Information about how fan support raises player morale, which then results in better play, would be a better follow-up. Your next section could offer clear reasons why undergraduates have as much or more right to attend an undergraduate event as wealthy alumni but this information would not go in the same section as the fan support stuff. You cannot convince a confused person, so keep things tidy and ordered.
COUNTERARGUMENT

One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. Recall our discussion of student seating in the Dean Dome. To make the most effective argument possible, you should consider not only what students would say about seating but also what alumni who have paid a lot to get good seats might say. You can generate counterarguments by asking yourself how someone who disagrees with you might respond to each of the points youve made or your position as a whole. If you cant immediately imagine another position, here are some strategies to try: Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could possibly disagree with the position you are arguing, but someone probably has. For example, some people argue that the American Civil War never ended. If you are making an argument concerning, for example, the outcomes of the Civil War, you might wish to see what some of these people have to say. Talk with a friend or with your teacher. Another person may be able to imagine counterarguments that havent occurred to you. Consider your conclusion or claim and the premises of your argument and imagine someone who denies each of them. For example, if you argued Cats make the best pets.

This is because they are clean and independent, you might imagine someone saying Cats do not make the best pets. They are dirty and needy. Once you have thought up some counterarguments, consider how you will respond to themwill you concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your audience should nonetheless accept your argument? Will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken? Either way, you will want to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger than opposing arguments. When you are summarizing opposing arguments, be charitable. Present each argument fairly and objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want to show that you have seriously considered the many sides of the issue and that you are not simply attacking or caricaturing your opponents. It is usually better to consider one or two serious counterarguments in some depth, rather than to give a long but superficial list of many different counterarguments and replies. Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original argument. If considering a counterargument changes your position, you will need to go back and revise your original argument accordingly.
AUDIENCE

Audience is a very important consideration in argument. A lifetime of dealing with your family members has helped you figure out which arguments work best to persuade each of them. Maybe whining works with one parent, but the other will only accept cold, hard statistics. Your kid brother may listen only to the sound of money in his palm. Its usually wise to think of your audience in an academic setting as someone who is perfectly smart but who doesnt necessarily agree with you. You are not just expressing your opin ion in an argument (Its true because I said so), and in most cases your audience will know something about the subject at handso you will need sturdy proof. At the same time, do not think of your audience as clairvoyant. You have to come out and state both your claim and your evidence clearly. Do not assume that because the instructor knows the material, he or she understands what part of it you are using, what you think about it, and why you have taken the position youve chosen.
CRITICAL READING

Critical reading is a big part of understanding argument. Although some of the material you read will be very persuasive, do not fall under the spell of the printed word as authority.

Very few of your instructors think of the texts they assign as the last word on the subject. Remember that the author of every text has an agenda, something that he or she wants you to believe. This is OKeverything is written from someones perspectivebut its a good thing to be aware of. (For more information on objectivity and bias, please read our handout on evaluating print sources). Take notes either in the margins of your source (if you are using a photocopy or your own book) or on a separate sheet as you read. Put away that highlighter! Simply highlighting a text is good for memorizing the main ideas in that textit does not encourage critical reading. Part of your goal as a reader should be to put the authors i deas in your own words. Then you can stop thinking of these ideas as facts and start thinking of them as arguments. When you read, ask yourself questions like What is the author trying to prove? and What is the author assuming I will agree with? Do you agree with the author? Does the author adequately defend her argument? What kind of proof does she use? Is there something she leaves out that you would put in? Does putting it in hurt her argument? As you get used to reading critically, you will start to see the sometimes hidden agendas of other writers, and you can use this skill to improve your own ability to craft effective arguments.

argument
noun \r-gy-mnt\

: a statement or series of statements for or against something : a discussion in which people express different opinions about something : an angry disagreement

T. Parent

An Overview of Arguments in Logic

An argument is a set of statements one of which (the conclusion) is taken to be supported by the remaining statements (the premises). [Note that a statement can either be a whole sentence, or an independent clause within a sentence.] Five types of Arguments: Inductive, Deductive, Abductive, Practical, and Other. An Inductive argument is an argument where the premises register the known cases of a certain phenomenon, and the conclusion suggests that unknown cases will be like the known cases. Examples : (P1) The sun rose today. (P1) Everyone in my family has been stung by a bee. (P2) The sun rose yesterday. (C) So, absolutely everyone has been stung by a bee. (P3) The sun rose the day before yesterday. (P4) The sun rose the day before the day before yesterday. [etc.] (C1) So, the sun will rise tomorrow. Of course, the premises in each argument do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Still, an argument can be a good inductive argument to the degree that the conclusion is likely given the premise(s). (In assessing its likelihood, sometimes people talk of the inductive strength of the argument.) A Deductive argument, on the other hand, is an argument where (roughly) the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Official Definition: An argument is deductive if and only if [abbreviation: iff] it is not possible for the premise(s) to be true and the conclusion false. Example of a deductive argument: (P1) Jim likes either Coke or Pepsi. (P2) Jim does not like Pepsi. (C) So, Jim likes Coke.

So with a deductive argument, if we get you to accept the premises, then you must accept the conclusion too. Why? Cause in a deductive argument theres no way for both the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Unfortunately, most of the time a deductive argument is called (misleadingly) a valid argument. The label is misleading, since you can have a valid argument which is nonetheless a bad argument, all things considered. Thats because the premises might be totally implausible. Yet the argument still counts as valid if it is the kind of argument where if you granted the premises, the conclusion would be guaranteed. So if you hear a logician call an argument valid, that does not mean that it is ultimately a good argument. Conversely, if an argument is invalid, that also does not mean it is ultimately a bad argument. Consider for instance that all inductive arguments are invalid, technically speaking, i.e., they are non-deductive. Still, as we saw, there can be good inductive arguments. Thus, if you say that an argument is invalid, youre saying that the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, though the premises may still make the conclusion very likely for all that. The term valid is also misleading in that validity concerns a relationship between premise(s) and conclusion. It is not directly concerned with whether the statements in the argument are actually true. This is contrary to how we use the word valid outside the logic classroom: Ordinarily, we sometimes say that someone has made a valid point or that someones perspective is valid when we mean that s/he made a true statement. But this is NOT how logicians use validthey only say that arguments are valid. (Consequently, logicians do not speak of a point or a perspective as valid, though they can say instead that someone has a good point or has a legitimate perspective, etc.) Of course, not every argument is deductive (= valid). Heres one example: (P1) Jim likes either Coke or Pepsi. (P2) Jim does not like Mountain Dew. (C) So, Jim likes Coke. In this, it is possible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion false. Thats not to say the premises are actually true or the conclusion is actually false. Rather, its just to say that this combination of truth and falsity is possible. N.B., A non-deductive (= invalid) argument is also sometimes called a non-sequiturit is an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s).

Some deductive arguments are also SOUND: An argument is sound iff it is deductive AND every premise is true. Thus, an argument is unsound iff it is some premise is false or is not deductive. So, to check that an argument is sound, you have to verify that the argument is deductive and that every premise is true. Example of a sound argument: (P1) If a thing is a rectangle, then its not a circle. (P2) This page is a rectangle. (C) So, this page is not a circle. This argument is sound, since it is deductive, and all of its premises are true. Example of an unsound argument: (P1) If Bill Gates is poor, then Im a monkeys uncle. (P2) Bill Gates is poor. (C) So Im a monkeys uncle. This argument is unsound: Although it is deductive, it is not true that Bill Gates is poor. NOTE: Truth and Falsity are NOT properties of arguments, but of statements. Thus, we do not say that a deductive argument is true; rather, we say that it is valid or sound. Or, if we want to talk of true and false, we can evaluate the statements in the argument as true or false. An Abductive argument is an argument that is neither deductive nor inductive, where the conclusion stands as an explanation of facts given in the premises. Examples: (P1) I cant get online from my computer. (P2) Theres nothing wrong with my hardware or shrinking software. (C) So, the University network must be down. (P1) I have a headache. (C) So, my head is

Note that in the first example, the conclusion does not explain (P2) in isolation. (The network being down wouldnt explain why theres nothing wrong with my hardware/software.) So the conclusion of anabductive argument is not one that

explains why each premise is true individually; rather, it explains why the premises are jointly true, true all at once. Consequently, in the first example, the conclusion is best seen NOT as an explanation of why I cant get online per se. (That would just be an explanation of the first premise.) Rather, its best seen as an explanation of why I cant get online despite my functioning hardware/software. Confusingly, some inductive and deductive arguments also have conclusions which (in some sense) explain the premise(s). The second example I gave of an inductive argument is one where the conclusion (in some sense) explains the premise. Moreover, the conclusion is explanatory in the following deductive argument: (P1) This figure is a triangle. (C) Hence, this figure is a closed, three-sided figure. After all, if the figure is a closed three-sided figure, that explains why it is a triangle. But still, the argument is deductive, because the truth of the premise would guarantee that the conclusion is true. Thus, in order to be certain that an argument is abductive, you must first show that the argument is neither deductive nor inductive. Like an inductive argument, however, an argument is a good abductive argument to the degree that the conclusion is likely given the premise(s). (Since abduction and induction are both evaluated by the probability of the conclusion, oftentimes logic books will call both types of argument induction.) N.B., If the conclusion of an abductive argument is the most likely explanation out of all the explanations available, then the abductive argument is sometimes called an inference to the best explanation. A Practical argument is an argument where the conclusion is a statement of what should or ought to be done, yet the argument is not deductive, not inductive, and not abductive. Examples: (P1) Stocks are low right now (P1) I need to make money. (P2) The economy will recover soon. (P2) Kidnapping children makes money. (C) So, I should buy stocks right now. (C) So, I should start kidnapping children.

As should be clear, these two arguments are not deductive. Re: the first argument, even if stocks are low and the economy is expected to recover, it is still possible that I should NOT buy stocks right now. After all, I might have barely enough money to feed my family. Still, the first example can be a good practical argument if were talking about someone who has expendable income. But even in that case, it remains possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false for different reasons. So the argument is still non-deductive. When is a practical argument a good practical argument? NOBODY KNOWS. That is still debated vigorously among ethicists. However, there is a sub-type of practical argument, called a decision-theoretic argument, and it is known what makes these arguments good or bad (under certain assumptions). Very briefly, you have a good decision-theoretic argument when the conclusion recommends an action that is expected to maximize profit among the available options. (No need to go into more detail at this point...) Note: Some arguments with a should or ought to conclusion are NOT practical arguments. Consider the following inductive and deductive arguments (respectively): (P1) I shouldnt have played the lottery today. (P1) Thou shalt not steal. (P2) I shouldnt have played the lottery yesterday. (C) I should not steal this ipod. (P3) I shouldnt have played the lottery the day before that. [etc.] (C) I shouldnt play the lottery tomorrow. (Arguably, there are also abductive arguments with should or ought to conclusions as well.) So remember that the term practical argument is reserved for an argument that is NOT any of the previous three types of argumentAND has a should or ought to conclusion. Other arguments exist besides the previous four types. Some arguments in the other category are mixtures of the previous types of arguments. Consider, for instance: (P1) My car is usually out of gas. (P2) My car currently isnt running. (C) So, my car is currently out of gas.

The conclusion here seems to be inductively and abductively inferred. Consider that if the argument just consisted of (P1) and (C), it would plausibly be inductive. But if the argument just consisted of (P2) and (C), then it would look abductive. Yet since youve got both premises, it looks like inductive and abductive reasoning is being used. A different kind of other argument is an enthymeme: In these arguments, too much is left unsaid for us to classify the reasoning more precisely. For instance, consider: (P1) The Democrats took control of the Congress and the White House. (C) So, predictably, the economy stopped its downward slide. How exactly is (C) supported by (P1) in this case? Are we making an induction based on past cases (which arent explicitly mentioned)? Or are we deducing the conclusion from a suppressed premise like whenever the Democrats are in control, the economy improves? Its impossible to say. So when an argument is enthymematic to this degree, we put it in the other category. Relatedly, some arguments cant be classified more precisely, simply because they are just plain awful. Consider: (P1) I have ten toes. (P2) Penguins live in Antarctica. (C) So, Obamas economic plan will fail. Observe that out of context, these three sentences would not seem to be an argument at all. But here, they indeed constitute an argument since one statement is marked as the conclusion, and other statements are marked as premises. So in this case, the three statements here are an argument; its just that its a really bad argument. Because of that, its not at all clear how the premises are meant to support the conclusion; hence, the argument goes in the other category. Finally, some arguments in the other category are arguments by analogy. Heres a famous example: (P1) A watch has a designer. (P2) The universe is like a watch. (C) So, the universe has a designer. Note that the truth of the premises would not guarantee the conclusion; hence, the argument is not deductive. Moreover, the conclusion is not meant to explain why the premises are jointly true. So it isntabductive either.

Some logic books, however, classify arguments by analogy a type of inductive argument. I myself think this is backwards: Inductive arguments are a type of argument by analogy, if induction assumes that the unknown cases will be like the known cases. But even ignoring that, it seems best not to classify arguments by analogy as inductive. Thats because normally when logicians speak of induction, they do not have analogical reasoning in mind. (And conversely, they are not normally thinking of induction when they talk of analogical reasoning.) Thus, Ive put arguments by analogy in the other category. But unlike the just -plainawful arguments, it is not obvious whether the watch-argument (for example) is a bad argument. Its worth would depend on how appropriate the analogy is in (P2)and specifically, whether the universe is similar in the right way to a watch. Ill let the theologians among you decide that one. But generally, an argument by analogy is a good argument to the extent that the analogy is a tight one (to put it roughly).