1

FORMS AND VALIDITY

I. ARGUMENT FORMS

Consider the following argument:

Argument 1

1. If Sarah is a Western student, then Sarah is smart.
2. Sarah is a Western student.
3. So, Sarah is smart.

Notice three things about it.

First, line 1 is constructed from two statements:
Sarah is a Western student.
Sarah is smart.
What connects them into a larger statement is if., then...

Second, line 2 repeats the if-clause of line 1: Sarah is a Western student.

Third, line 3 repeats the then-clause of line 1: Sarah is smart.

Suppose we let W stand for Sarah is a Western student and S stand for Sarah is
smart. Then we can represent Argument 1 as follows:

1. If W, then S.
2. W.
3. So, S.

Consider another argument:

Argument 2

1. If Dennis is a human, then Dennis is an animal.
2. Dennis is a human.
3. So, Dennis is an animal.

We can do something similar to Argument 2. Let H stand for Dennis is a human
and let A stand for Dennis is an animal. Then we have:
2

1. If H, then A.
2. H.
3. So, A.

Notice that our representations of the two arguments are similar:

Argument 1 Argument 2

1. If W, then S. 1. If H, then A
2. W. 2. H.
3. So, S. 3. So, A.

The first premise is an if-then statement. The second premise is the if-clause. The
conclusion is the then-clause. What we have here is the same pattern of reasoning.

Def. An argument form is a pattern of reasoning.

This particular form of argument is so common that it has its own name:

Modus ponens

1. If A, then B.
2. A.
3. So, B.

Here A and B are variables. They stand in for any statement you please. If you
substitute Sarah is a Western student for A and Sarah is smart for B, youll get

Argument 1
1. If [A] Sarah is a Western student, then [B] Sarah is smart.
2. [A] Sarah is a Western student.
3. So, [B] Sarah is smart.

And if you substitute Dennis is a human for A and Dennis is an animal for B,
youll get

Argument 2
1. If [A] Dennis is a human, then [B] Dennis is an animal.
2. [A] Dennis is a human.
3. So, [B] Dennis is an animal.
3

Arguments 1 and 2 have the same form: modus ponens. They are substitution
instances of modus ponens. In general,

Def. A substitution instance of an argument form is an argument that
results from uniformly replacing letters in that argument form with
statements (or terms, but we wont be concerned with them in Phil 102)

II. VALIDITY IN VIRTUE OF FORM

Many valid arguments are valid in virtue of their form. They are formally valid.

Def. A formally valid argument is one that is valid in virtue of its form.

An argument that is valid in virtue of its form is a substitution instance of a valid
argument form. Thats not surprising since

Def. A valid argument form is one in which every substitution instance is a
valid argument.

Arguments 1 and 2 are formally valid because they are substitution instances of
modus ponens, which is a valid argument form. No matter what you substitute in
place of A and B in modus ponens, youll get a valid argument.

This suggests a method for detecting the validity of an argument. If we can discern
its form and that the form is valid, we can infer that the argument is valid.

Moral: If an argument is a substitution instance of a valid form, then the
argument is valid.

There are several famous valid forms, e.g. modus ponens. Well learn some and
develop an informal method for assessing the validity of arguments with them.

Note: Many arguments are valid in virtue of their formbut not all. Consider:

1. I exist.
2. So, bachelors are unmarried.

The conclusion is a necessary truth, i.e. it cannot be false. So, it is impossible for
all the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. So, it is valid. But its
4
validity has nothing to do with its form and everything to do with the content of the
conclusion.

Transition: Many famous valid forms involve conditional statements. We need to
understand conditional statements better to understand those forms.

III. CONDITIONALS

Def. A conditional statement is an if-then statement, often simply called a
conditional.

Three things to remember about conditionals

1. The components of conditionals

E.g. If there is a fire in the room, then there is air in the room.

Def. The if-clause of a conditional is its antecedent.
Def. The then-clause of a conditional is its consequent.

There is a fire in the room is the antecedent; there is air in the room is the
consequent.

2. Conditionals are hypotheticals: To assert if A, then B is not to assert A or B.

a. A conditional can be true even if its antecedent is false.

E.g. If there is a fire in Fraser Hall, then there is air in Fraser Hall.

b. A conditional can be true even if its consequent is false.

E.g. If Bellingham is in Spain, then Bellingham is in Europe.

3. Stylistic variants on ifthen are abundant. For example:

Given that A, B. Given there is fire in the room, there is air in the room.

Assuming A, B. Assuming there is fire in the room, there is air in the room.

B if A. There is air in the room if there is fire in the room.
5

B given that A. There is air in the room given that there is fire in the room.

B assuming A. There is air in the room assuming there is fire in the room.

A only if B. There is fire in the room only if there is air in the room.

Note: When you state the form of an argument that has one of these stylistic
variants, convert it intoif, then.

Note: A only if B is a very common variant on If A, then B; it emphasizes that B is
a necessary condition (or requirement) for A, e.g. theres fire in the room only if
theres air in the room.

Note: B if A is a very common variant on If A, then B; it emphasizes that A is a
sufficient condition (or enough) for B, e.g. theres air in the room if theres fire in
the room.

IV. FAMOUS VALID FORMS

1. Modus Ponens (valid)

If A, then B.
A.
So, B.

1. If theres fire, then theres air.
2. Theres fire.
3. So, theres air.

Note: the order of the premises does not matter for the purposes of logic.

A.
If A, then B.
So, B.

1. Theres fire.
2. If theres fire, then theres air.
3. So, theres air.

6
Note: Modus ponens can have complex antecedents and consequents. E.g.

1. If either you or your friends will go to the NCAA Regional Finals, and
either you or they will sit in the student section, then if Fred is there, he
will sit in the student section too.
2. Either you or your friends will go to the NCAA Regional Finals, and
either you or they will sit in the student section.
3. So, if Fred is there, he will sit in the student section too.

[Note: the last two notes apply to the other argument forms as well.]

2. Modus Tollens (valid)

If A, then B.
Not-B.
So, not-A.

1. If theres fire, then theres air.
2. Theres no air.
3. So, theres no fire.

3. Hypothetical Syllogism (valid)

If A, then B.
If B, then C.
So, if A, then C.

1. If dogs are mammals, then dogs are chordata.
2. If dogs are chordata, then dogs are animals.
3. So, if dogs are mammals, then dogs are animals.

4. Disjunctive Syllogism (valid)

Either A or B.
Not-A.
So, B.

1. Either the Vikings lost or Coach Jackson is happy.
2. Its false that the Vikings lost.
3. So, Coach Jackson is happy.

7
Note: sometimes the word Either is absent. It makes no difference.

1. We have souls or we are unfree.
2. We dont have souls.
3. So, we are unfree.

Note: an alternative version of Disjunctive Syllogism:

Either A or B.
Not-B.
So, A.

Parenthetical discussion of inclusive and exclusive disjunction

Question: is the following argument valid or invalid?

1. Either shes in love with Joe or shes in love with Mike.
2. Shes in love with Joe.
3. So, shes not in love with Mike.

Form:

Either A or B.
A
So, not B.

This form is invalid. Why? Because the premises dont rule out the possibility that
both A and B are the case.

Another Form

Either A or B, but not both.
A
So, not B.

1. Either shes in love with Joe or shes in love with Mike, but not both.
2. Shes in love with Joe.
3. So, shes not in love with Mike.

This form is valid but it is not Disjunctive Syllogism.

8
Inclusive disjunction: Either A or B (or both)
Exclusive disjunction: Either A or B, but not both

Note: Logicians treat statements of the form Either A or B as inclusive disjunctions.
They then define exclusive disjunction as a conjunction of two claims, like this:

Either A or B, and not both A and B.

We will follow suit.

5. Constructive Dilemma (valid)

Either A or B.
If A, then C.
If B, then D.
So, C or D.

1. Either our actions are determined or they are due to chance.
2. If our actions are determined, then they are coerced.
3. If they are due to chance, then they are not up to us.
4. So, either our actions are coerced or they are not up to us.

1. Either Peter stole the chocolate or William stole the chocolate.
2. If Peter stole the chocolate, then theres chocolate on his pillowcase.
3. If William stole the chocolate, then theres chocolate on the curtains.
4. So, either theres chocolate on Peters pillowcase or chocolate on the
curtains.

V. THE FAMOUS FORMS METHOD

Step 1. Identify the component statements in the argument, uniformly
labeling each with a capital letter.

Step 2. Rewrite the argument using capital letters instead of English
statements and eliminate any stylistic variants.

Step 3. Check to see whether the pattern of reasoning is taken from our list
of famous forms. If it is, then the argument is valid.

VI. EXERCISE 1.2