PHIL 102

12/29/2014 1:01:00 PM

Premise

A statement in an argument that is being used to provide support for a

conclusion
Conclusion

A statement that is supported by the premises

EXAMPLE
1) Some green things are colored things
2) Grass is green
3) Grass is a colored thing
In this instance, 2 and 3 (the premises) support 3 (the conclusion)
EXAMPLE
1) Either aliens exist or 2+1=20
2) 2+1 does not equal 20
3) Aliens exist
1 and 2 support 3
Premise indicator words

Because
Since
In that
Given that/as indicated by
May be inferred
Owing to

Conclusion indicator words

Therefore
Implies that
So
We may infer
Hence
Thus

Two components of an argument

At least one of the statements must claim to provide evidence or reason

There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies
something

The factual claim

Do the premises support the conclusion?

Are they true?

The inferential claim

Do the premises claim to present evidence?

Non-arguments

Warnings
Piece of advice
A statement of belief or opinion
Loosely associated statements
o Statement about the same general stuff

Explanation an expression that purports to shed light on an event

Conditional statements Ifthen
Deductive vs. Inductive
Deductive

100% guarantee to be true

o Key words
Absolutely
Certainly

Inductive

Likely to be true
o Key words
Probably
Plausible

Reasonable

Syllogism

A logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a

conclusion
o All men are mortal.
o Socrates is a man.
o Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Hypothetical syllogism
o Conditional statement for one or both of its premises

If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work.

If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid.
Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid.

Examples

Because triangle A is congruent with triangle B, and triangle A is isosceles, it

follows that triangle B is isosceles
o Deductive

The rainfall in Seattle has been more than 15 inches every year for the past
thirty years. Therefore, the rainfall next year will probably be more than 15
inches.
o Inductive

No e-mail messages are eloquent creations. Some love letters are eloquent
creations. Therefore, some love letters are not e-mail messages.
o Deductive

Amoco, Exxon, and Texaco are all listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It
must be the case that all major American oil companies are listed on the New
York Stock Exchange.
o Inductive

Paying off terrorists in exchange for hostages is not a wise policy, since such
action will only lead them to take more hostages in the future.
o Inductive

The Matterhorn is higher than Mount Whitney, and Mount Whitney is higher
than Mount Rainer. The obvious conclusion is that the Matterhorn is higher
than Mount Rainier.
o Deductive

In order for an argument to valid, the premises do not have to necessarily be true
In addition to valid, a deductive argument can also be sound
An argument is sound if, and only if, the argument s both valid and has true premises
FALLACIES
Fallacies of relevance

Argument may or may not be logically valid but fails to address the issue in
question

Appeal to force

An argument where force/coercion is given as a justification

Appeal to pity

A person tries to win an argument by exploiting pity out of someone

Appeal to the people

Someone evokes the desire to be accepted, loved, cared for, in order to get
someone else to accept a conclusion

i.e. peer pressure

Argument against the person (ad hominem)

Attacking the person giving the argument, as opposed to the argument itself

Fallacy of accident

Occurs when a general rule is applied to cases it was not meant to cover

Straw man

First mischaracterizing an argument in such a way that it is easy to refute.

Then refuting the argument. Then concluding that the mischaracterized
argument is refuted.

Missing the point

All the premises are logical and makes sense, but then the conclusion is
wrong.

You were so close!!!

Red herring

Occurs when someone diverts the attention of the reader or listener by

changing the subject to a different, but sometimes subtly related, one.

Fallacies of weak induction (when premises are not strong enough to support
conclusion)

Appeal to unqualified authority

o Authority is not an expert in area of knowledge

Appeal to ignorance
o Asserts proposition is true because it has not been proven false

Hasty generalization
o When a person draws a conclusion based on a sample that is not large
enough
My grandpa smoked cigarettes everyday since age 14 and lived
until 69. Therefore, smoking cigarettes cant be that bad for you.

False cause
o Event A happened.
Event B happened after A.
Therefore, A caused B.
I snap my fingers and an ice cream truck appears
Therefore, every time I snap my fingers an ice cream will
appear.

Slippery slope
o Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

o Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

Fallacies of presumption (the premises assume conclusion is true)

Begging the question

o Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of
the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
o Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."

Bill: "Because the Bible says so."

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
o Reasoning in a circle, leaving out a crucial false premise, restating a
possible false premise as the conclusion

Complex question (when two or more questions are asked in the guise of a
single question)
o What did you use to wipe your fingerprints from the gun?
e) How long had you contemplated this robbery before you carried it
out?

False dichotomy
o When the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options,
when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to
show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his
preferred conclusion must be embraced.
Fallacies of ambiguity

Equivocation
o When the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word
of phrase is used in two different senses of the word

Amphiboly
Fallacies of grammatical analogy

Fallacy of composition
o when one implies that something is true of the whole from the fact that
it is true of some part of the whole

If someone stands up out of his seat at a baseball game, he can

see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up they can all see
better.
Every part of a home is smaller than the home itself. So the
home is smaller than the home itself.

Fallacy of composition vs. hasty generalization

o In the fallacy of composition, we have the collective notion in. we
fallaciously go from the parts to the whole.

Fallacy of division
o My car weights 2,000 pounds. So, each of its parts weights 2,000
pounds.

o 45% of students at UIUC are female. So 45% of Bill, who goes to

UIUC, is a female.
LOGIC 4.1
Components of categorical propositions

four kinds of categorical propositions

o those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the
predicate class
Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the

predicate class ALL A ARE B

Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from

the predicate class ALL A ARE NOT B

Those that assert that part of the subject class is included in the

predicate class SOME A ARE B

Those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from

the predicate class SOME A ARE NOT B

o The words all, some, and no are the quantifiers. They tell you how
much of the subject class (All, some, none) is in, or not in, the
predicate class
o The letters A and B stand for the subject and predicate classes
o The words are and are not are copulas. A copula is just a word that
links the subject with a predicate
Some penguins are not reptiles.
Quantifier: some
Predicate term: reptiles
Copula: are not
Subject term: penguins
o The quality of a categorical proposition is either AFFIRMATIVE or
NEGATIVE, depending on whether it affirms or denies class
membership
Categorical proposition

A proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one
category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate term)

All S are P. (A form)

No S are P. (E form)
Some S are P. (I form)
Some S are not P. (O form)

Quantifier

How much of subject class is in the predicate class

All, no, some

Copula

A verb that joins the subject of a sentence to a predicate

Are and are not

Quality

Either affirmative or negative

The quality of a categorical proposition is determined by whether the asserted
class relation is one of exclusion or inclusion (i.e., affirmative or negative).

Quantity

The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by whether or not it

refers to all members of its subject class (i.e., universal or particular). The
question "How many?" is asking for quantity.

Either universal or particular

Distribution

A distributed term is a term of a categorical proposition that is used with

reference to every member of a class. If the proposition is not being used to
refer to each and every member of the class, it is said to be undistributed.

What is the point of a counterexample?

To prove that the argument is valid

Premises must be true, conclusion must be false in order to show the form is
invalid

DEFINE THE FOLLOWING TERMS

Conversion

o the inference in which the subject and predicate are interchanged.

In traditional logic, the process of going from All S are P to its
converse All P are S is called conversion

Conversion consists in switching the subject term with the

predicate term

Obversion
o the operation of immediate inference that gives the obverse
o requires 2 steps:
change quality without changing quantity
replace predicate with its term complement

"All S are P" and "No S are non-P"

Term complement
o Everything that is not that term
Add non- to the term to get term complement
Dog
Non-dog

Contraposition
o conversion of a proposition from all A is B to all not-B is not-A.
o switch subject and predicate term
o replace subject and predicate terms with their term complements
o all A are B
all B are A
all non-B are non-A

4.5
Contradictory
Opposite truth value
Contrary
At least one is false (not both true)
Subcontrary
At least one is true (not both false)
Subalternation

5.1

Truth flows downward, falsity flows upward

Standard form, mood and figure

Suppose we are given the form of an argument. Suppose that form is OAO-3.
So we have the mood and figure. Can we now, on this basis, put together the
argument? YES.

5.2
Venn Diagrams

Tips on using Venn diagrams when it comes to syllogisms

o Marks (shading of placing an X) are entered only for the PREMISES.
No marks are made for the conclusion.
o If the argument contains one universal premise, this premise should be
entered first in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either
one can be done first.

Symbols and Translation

Look at propositions as a whole

Not looking at inner structure
Logical operators and our basic notion will be propositions. The logic we are
now concerned with is PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC.
Simple statement

A statement that does not contain any other statement

o Noel teaches philosophy
o Illinois is in the Midwest
o The cat is black.
o The Chicago Bulls lost to the Cleveland Cavaliers last night.
Compound statement

11/14/14

A statement that contain some other statement

o Noel teaches philosophy and Noel likes basketball.
o Either Illinois is in the Midwest or Illinois is in the Northeast
o It is not the case that the cat is black.
o If the Chicago Bulls lost to the Cleveland Cavaliers, then the Cavaliers
are a better team than the Bulls.
o 2+1=3 and only if 5+4=9.

Tautology
o A rule of inference that eliminates redundancy in conjunctions and
disjunctions
o True no matter what, regardless of the truth value of its components

Self-contradictory
o A statement that is necessarily false, a logically false statement
o False no matter what the truth values (opposite of tautology)
o Every single line is false in truth table under main operator

Contingent
o A statement that is neither necessarily true or necessarily false

Logically equivalent
o Statements that necessarily have the same truth value, statements
having the same truth value on each line under their main operators

Contradictory
o Statements that necessarily have opposite truth values on each line
under their main operators

Consistent
o Statements for which there is at least one line on their truth tables in
which all of them are true (there is at least one line on which both, or
all, of them are true

Inconsistent
o Statements such that there is no line on their truth tables in which all of
them are true
o There is no line on which both (or all) of them are true

Valid
o An argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false
given that the premises are true

8/27/2014 11:09:00 AM

8/27/2014 11:09:00 AM