Chapter 1- Basic Logical Concepts

A. Logic- The study of the methods and principles used to

distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.
B. On propositions and arguments
Proposition- A statement; what is typically asserted using
a declarative sentence, and hence always either
true or falsealthough its truth or falsity may be unknown. They
are the building block of an
argument.
Kinds:
1. disjunctive (or alternative) propositions- no one of the
components is asserted
2. conjunctive proposition- asserts each of its component
propositions separately
3. hypothetical (or conditional) propositions- compound
propositions that do not assert their components
Arguments- Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to
follow from the others, which are regarded
as providing
support or grounds for the truth of that one.
Inference- A process by which one proposition is arrived at and
affirmed on the basis of some other proposition or propositions.

Conclusion indicator- A word or phrase (such as therefore or

thus) appearing in an argument and usually indicating that
what follows it is the conclusion of that argument.
Here is a partial list of conclusion indicators:
Therefore, for these reasons, hence it follows that, so, I conclude
that, accordingly, which shows that,
in consequence, which means that, consequently, which entails
that, proves that, which implies that,
as a result, which allows us to infer that, for this reason, which
points to the conclusion that, thus we may infer.
Premise indicator- In an argument, a word or phrase (like
because and since) that normally signals that what follows it
are statements serving as premises.
Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an
argument and hence are called premise indicators. Usually, but
not always, what follows any one of these will be the premise of
some argument. Here is a partial list of premise indicators:
Since, as indicated by, because, the reason is that, for, for the
reason that, as may be inferred from
follows from, may be derived from, as shown by, may be deduced
from, inasmuch as in view of the fact that

Conclusion- In any argument, the proposition to which the other

propositions in the argument are claimed to give support, or for B. Arguments in context
which they are given as reasons.
The words and phrases we have listed may help to indicate the
Premises- In an argument, the propositions upon which
presence of an argument or identify its premises or conclusion,
inference is based; the propositions that are claimed to provide
but such indicators do not necessarily appear. Sometimes it is just
grounds or reasons for the conclusion.
the meaning of the passage, or its setting, that indicates the
presence of an argument.
C. Premises or Conclusions Not in Declarative Form
C. Recognizing Arguments
It is not uncommon for the premises of an argument to be
Before we can evaluate an argument, we must recognize it. We
presented in the form of questions. However, if questions assert
must be able to distinguish argumentative passages in writing or
nothing, and do not express propositions, how is this possible? On
speech.
the surface they make no assertions; beneath the surface an
interrogative sentence can serve as a premise when its question
A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators
is rhetoricalthat is, when it suggests or assumes an answer that

is made to serve as the premise of an argument. The sentence

may be interrogative even though its meaning is declarative.

Deductive argument- claims to provide conclusive grounds for

its conclusion. If it does provide such grounds, it is valid,
otherwise, it is not.
Inductive argument- claims that its premises give only some
degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.
Validity- A characteristic of any deductive argument whose
premises, if they were all true, would provide conclusive grounds
for the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument is said to be
valid. Validity is a formal characteristic; it applies only to
arguments, as distinguished from truth, which applies to
propositions. It is only applicable to deductive arguments.

Rhetorical question- An utterance used to make a statement,

but which, because it is in interrogative form and is therefore
neither true nor false, does not literally assert anything.
D. Unstated Propositions
Arguments are sometimes obscure because one (or more) of their
constituent propositions is not stated but is assumed to be
understood.
Enthymeme- An argument that is stated incompletely, the
unstated part of it being taken for granted.
D. 4 Arguments and Explanations
Passages that appear to be arguments are sometimes not
arguments but explanations. The appearance of words that are
common indicatorssuch as because, for, since, and
thereforecannot settle the matter, because those words are
used both in explanations and in arguments (although since
can sometimes refer to temporal succession). We need to know
the intention of the author.
E.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide
grounds for the truth of its conclusion; that claim is the mark of
an argument. However, there are two very different ways in
which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus
there are two great classes of arguments: the deductive and the
inductive. Understanding this distinction is essential in the study
of logic.
A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is
supported by its premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in
contrast, does not make such a claim. Therefore, if we judge that
in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being made, we
treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that such a claim is
not being made, we treat it as inductive. Because every
argument either makes this claim of conclusiveness (explicitly or
implicitly) or does not make it, every argument is either
deductive or inductive.

F.

Validity and Truth

A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in linking, with
logical necessity, the conclusion to its premises. Its validity refers
to the relation between its propositions- between the set of
propositions that serve as the premises and the one proposition
that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If the conclusion
follows with logical necessity from the premises, we say that the
argument is valid. Therefore, validity can never apply to any
single proposition itself, because the needed relation cannot
possibly be found within any one proposition.
Chapter 2- Analyzing Arguments
Paraphrasing Arguments - The most common and the most
useful technique for analysis is paraphrase. We paraphrase an
argument by setting forth its propositions in clear language
and in logical order. This may require the reformulation of
sentences, and therefore great care must be taken to ensure
that the paraphrase put forward captures correctly and
completely the argument that was to be analyzed.
Diagramming Arguments - A second technique for the analysis
of arguments is diagramming. With a diagram we can
represent the structure of an argument graphically; the flow of
premises and conclusions is displayed in a two-dimensional
chart, or picture, on the page.
Single Argument - an argument with a single conclusion,
regardless of how many premises are adduced in its support.
Matrix Graphic display of alternatives
Retrograde Analysis Reasoning that seeks to explain how
things must have developed from what went before.

Chapter III-Language and Definitions

1- Language Functions
Language has 3 major functions:
1) Informative
When people reason, they typically do so using language,
manipulating propositions in a logical or informative spirit. But language is
used in a great variety of ways, only some of which are informative.
2) Expressive
Without the intention to inform, we may express ourselves using
language: Thats really great! we may say; and the poet, overcome by the
beauty of an ancient city, channels his emotions in writing these lines:

Because a given sentence, or passage, can serve several functions

that is, for example, it can express feelings while reporting facts the
clever use of language can be deceptive or manipulative, and the careless
use of language can lead to needless misunderstanding and dispute.
The words we use to convey beliefs may be neutral and exact, but they
may also have (by accident or by design) an impact on the attitudes of our
listeners.
The medical vocabulary dealing with human reproduction and
elimination is neutral and not offensive, but the four-letter words that are
vulgar synonyms of those medical terms are shocking to many because of
the attitudes they evoke.

Some expressive discourse also has informative content, and

may express attitudes as well as beliefs.

Emotionally colored language is appropriate in some contexts in

poetry for example but it is highly inappropriate in other contexts, for
example, in survey research. The responses to a survey will certainly
depend in good measure on the words used in asking the questions.
Whether we should avoid emotive language, or rely on it, depends on the
purpose language is intended to serve in the context. In logic, we generally
strive for language that is, so far as possible, free of the distortion that
emotive meanings introduce.

3) Directive with or without expressive or informative elements. It seeks to

guide or to command. Step on the scale, please, we may be told, or we
may receive this good advice:
Drive defensively. The cemetery is full of law-abiding citizens who
had the right of way.

When parties are in dispute, the differences between them that lead to
that dispute may be disagreements in beliefs about the facts, or
disagreements in attitude about facts that are actually agreed upon. This
uncertainty, and the confusion to which it can lead, may arise because the
words being used in the dispute have very6 different emotive meanings.

Match me such marvel, save in Eastern clime

A rose-red city half as old as time.

Less common types of use:

4) Ceremonial language (as when we say, How do you do? upon being
introduced to a stranger), in which words may combine expressive and
other functions; and
5) Performative language (as when we say, I apologize for my foolish
remark), in which words themselves serve, when spoken or written, to
perform the function they announce. Other examples are I congratulate
you. I accept your offer and I promise you that

2- Emotive Language, Neutral Language, and Disputes

When one seeks to resolve disputes that have both factual and
emotional aspects, it is important to determine what really is at issue
between the disputing parties.

3- Disputes and Ambiguity

Definition of terms:
Disputes are genuine, whether about beliefs or about attitude and some
are merely verbal, arising only as a result of linguistic misunderstanding
Ambiguous the terms used by disputing parties having more than one
meaning

Categories of Disputes
1. Obviously genuine dispute
about belief or attitude
-disagreement mainly in attitude

Example

-dispute about geographic facts

and can be settled by a good map
2. Merely verbal disputes the
conflict can be resolved by
coming to agreement about how
some word or phrase is to be
understood

If C believes that Miami is south

of Honolulu and D denies
F may hold that a tree falling in
the wilderness with no person to
hear it creates no sound, while
G insists that a sound is
produced by the falling tree. If
the sound is the outcome of
a human auditory sensation,
then F and G may agree that
there was none;
or if a
sound
simply
what
is
produced by vibrations in
the air, then they may agree
that a sound was indeed
produced.
Getting clear about what is
meant by sound will
resolve the disagreement.

3. Apparently verbal but really

genuine- misunderstanding has
been cleared up yet remains
disagreement that goes beyond
the meanings of the words.

If A roots for Yankees, and B for

the Red Sox

Should a film in which explicit

sexual activity is depicted be
considered pornography? J
holds that its explicitness
makes it pornographic and
offensive; K holds that its
beauty and sensitivity make
it art and not pornography.
Plainly they disagree about
what
is
pornography
means-but after ambiguity
has been exposed, the
parties will still disagree in
their judgment of that film.
J & K differ in their uses of
the word, but for both of
them
the
emotional
meaning of the word is very
negative; and they also
differ about the criteria for
the application of that
negative word

Steps in confronting a dispute that arises in discourse:

1. Ask whether there is some ambiguity that can be eliminated by clarifying
the alternative meanings in play, if yes..
2. Ask whether clearing up that linguistic issue will resolve the matter. If it
does, the dispute was indeed merely verbal. If it does not, the dispute was
genuine, although it may have appeared merely verbal.

4- Definitions and their Uses

Definiendum is the symbol being defined.
Definiens is the symbol (or group of symbols) used to explain the meaning
of the definiendum.
The definiendum is the term to be defined and the definiens is the
definition of it.
Note: It would be a mistake to say that the definiens is the meaning of the
definiendumrather, it is another symbol (or group of symbols) that has
the same meaning as the definiendum.
Five kinds of Definitions (SLPTP)
(1) Stipulative,
(2) Lexical,
(3) Precising,
(4) Theoretical, and
(5) Persuasive
Stipulative definition
Definition that has a meaning that is deliberately assigned to some symbol.
Definitions of this sort are sometimes called nominal.
Alexical definition
A definition that reports the meaning that the definiendum already has. A
lexical definition can be true or false.
Precising definitions

A definition devised to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness by delineating a

concept more sharply. Those used to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness by
going beyond the report of normal usage with the
definition given.

Theoretical definition

A definition that encapsulates an understanding of the theory in which that

term is a key element.

Must not be too broad or too narrow

featherless biped used in defining a man
Not reliant on ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language
Anything reticulated or decussated at equal distances with interstices between the
intersections used in defining a net
Should not be negative when it can be affirmative
She is a beautiful woman instead of She is not an ugly woman when defining
a good-looking woman
Chapter 4- Fallacies
I. What is a Fallacy?

Persuasive definition
A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by influencing
attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive
language.

Fallacy A type of argument that seems to be correct, but

contains a mistake in reasoning.
In a very general sense, fallacy is any error in reasoning.

6- Definition by Genus and Difference

II. Classification of Fallacies

a. Fallacies of Relevance
In these fallacies, the premises of the argument are simply
not relevant to the conclusion. However, because they are made
to appear to be relevant, they may deceive. Fallacies of relevance
are the most numerous and the most frequently encountered.

One that is most widely applicable

Technique most commonly relied upon in defining terms
Also called analytical definitions (per genus et differentia)
Definition by Genus
Classes Subclasses
Triangle Right Triangle
Genus Species
Parent Offspring
Polygon Isosceles Triangle
Specific Difference
What differentiates the species with each other?
Steps on how to define by genus and difference
A type of relationship must be named (Class Subclass; Genus Species;etc)
The specific difference must be named
Limitations of Definition by Genus and Difference
Unanalyzable attributes cannot be defined by Genus and Difference
Not applicable to universal terms (universal class)
Being; existent; entity; object; etc.
Metaphysical categories
Substance; attribute; etc.
Construction of good definitions by Genus and Difference
Should state essential attributes
A definition should state the conventional intension of the term being defined
Must not be circular
A compulsive gambler is a person who gambles compulsively

b. Fallacies of Defective Induction

In these fallacies, which are also common, the mistake arises
from the fact that the premises of the argument, although
relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that
relying on them is a blunder.
c. Fallacies of Presumption
In these fallacies, too much is assumed in the premises. The
inference to the conclusion depends mistakenly on these
unwarranted assumptions.
d. Fallacies of Ambiguity
The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of ambiguity arises from
the equivocal use of words or phrases. Some word or phrase in
one part of the argument has a meaning different from that of the
same word or phrase in another part of the argument.
FALACIES OF RELEVANCE
Fallacies of relevance Fallacies of irrelevance,

A fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion

R1.
The appeal to the Populace (Argumentum ad
Populum)
An informal fallacy in which the support given for some
conclusion is an appeal to popular belief.

Also known as argument ad populum.

R2. Appeal to Emotion( Appeal to Pity( ed Misericordiam)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity , altruism or
mercy rather than on reason. Also known as argument ad
misericordiam.

R3. The Red Herring

A fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected away from

the issue under discussion.
R4. The Straw Man
A fallacy in which an opponents position is depicted as being
more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was
actually asserted.

R5. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the
person taking a position. The fallacy is also known argument ad
hominem.

a. Argumentum ad hominem, Abusive

b. Argumentum ad hominem, Circumstantial
Poisoning the well- A variety of abusive ad hominem argument in
which continued rational exchanged in undermined by attacking
the good faith or intellectual honest of the opponent.

R6. The appeal to force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

- A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled
threat of force. Also known as argument ad baculum.

R7. Missing the Point (Ignoration Elenchi)

Missing the point- a fallacy in which the premises support a
different conclusion from the one that is proposed. Also known as
irrelevant conclusion and ignoratio elenchi.

Fallacies of Defective Induction

A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to

warrant the conclusion.

Premises are relevant and yet are wholly inadequate

The
Argument
from
Ignorance
(Argumentum
ad
Ignorantiam)
An informal fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an
illegitimate appeal to ignorance, as when it is supposed that
something is likely to be true because we cannot prove that it is
false.
An argument that something is true because it has not been
proved false, or false because it has not been proved true.
Just because some proposition has not yet been proved false, we
are not entitled to conclude that it is true.
This argument is attractive to those who defend propositions that
are very doubtful, even far-fetched.
(for example, about telepathy, or about contact with the dead)
Pseudo-scientists who make unverifiable claims about psychic
phenomena may insist that the truth of their claims is supported
by the fact that their critics have been unable to prove their
falsehood.
In Criminal Law We adopt the principle of presumption of
innocence because we recognize that the error of convicting the
innocent is far more grave than that of acquitting the guiltyand
thus the defense in a criminal case may legitimately claim that if
the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
the only verdict possible is not guilty, such an appeal is indeed
an argument ad ignorantiam.
The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)
An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate,
either because the authority appealed to has no special claim to
expertise on the topic at issue, or, more generally, because no
authority is assured to be reliable.
A fallacy in which a conclusion is accepted as true simply because
an expert has said that it is true. This is a fallacy whether or not
the experts area of expertise is relevant to the conclusion. Also
known as argument ad verecundiam.
An argument that a proposition is true because an expert in a
given field has said that it is true.
The fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority arises when
the appeal is made to parties who have no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand.

Whenever the truth of some proposition is asserted on the basis

of the authority of one who has no special competence in that
sphere, the appeal to inappropriate authority is the fallacy
committed.
False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa)
An informal fallacy in which the mistake arises from accepting as
the cause of an event what is not really its cause.
A fallacy in which something that is not really the cause of
something else is treated as its cause. Also known as non causa
pro causa.
Any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of something or
event what is not really its cause must be seriously mistaken.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - A fallacy in which an event is
presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event.
Literally, After this; therefore, because of this.
Slippery slope - A fallacy in which change in a particular direction
is asserted to lead inevitably to further changes (usually
undesirable) in the same direction.
When one mistakenly argues against some proposal on the
ground that any change in a given direction is sure to lead to
further changes in the same directionand thus to grave
consequences. Taking this step, it may be said, will put us on a
slippery slope to disaster
Hasty Generalization
An informal fallacy in which a principle that is true of a particular
case is applied, carelessly or deliberately, to the great run of
cases.
A fallacy of defective induction in which one moves carelessly
from a single case, or a very few cases, to a largescale
generalization about all or most cases. Also known as converse
accident.
When we draw conclusions about all the persons or things in a
given class on the basis of our knowledge about only one (or only
a very few) of the members of that class.
(for example Eating deepfried foods tends to raise ones
cholesterol level)
A single instance in which it does not do so is hardly sufficient to
show that such foods are healthy. The owner of a fish and chips
shop in England fallaciously defended the healthfulness of his
deep-fried cookery with this argument:

Take my son, Martyn. Hes been eating fish and chips his whole
life, and he just had a cholesterol test, and his level is below the
national average. What better proof could there be than a fryers
son?
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
To assumed the truth of some unproved and unwarranted
proposition. When such dubious assumptions buried in the
argument are crucial for the support of the conclusion, the
argument is be very misleading.
In most fallacies there is a gap, an irrelevance between
premises and conclusion. But the fallacies of presumption
exhibit a special kind of mistake: a tacit supposition of what
has not been given support and may be insupportable. It is
usually sufficient to call attention to that smuggled
assumption, and to its doubtfulness or falsity.
COMPLEX QUESTION
Asking a question in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some conclusion buried in that question.
The complex question often is deceitful device; when used
deliberately in newspapers or magazines it is a mark of what is
called yellow journalism. In debate, a question is accompanied
by the aggressive demand that it be answered yes or no there
is reason to suspect that the question itself is loaded, unfairly
complex.
When a question is complex, and all of its presuppositions are to
be denied, they must be denied individually. The denial of one
presupposition may lead to the assumption of the truth of the
other.
Complex question can be tricky. The question may be posed and
the fallacious assumption drawn, while the answer to the
question remains unstated, only suggested or presumed.
A complex question may be combined with an appeal to
ignorance.
FALSE CAUSE
The nature of the connection between cause and effect, and how
we determine whether such a connection is present or absent,
are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method.

Presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really

exist is, in any event, a common mistake; in Latin the mistake is
called the fallacy of non causa pro causa; we call it simply the
fallacy of false cause.
It sometimes happens that we presume that one event is caused
by an other because it follows that other closely in time.

converse accident is the fallacy we commit when we move

carelessly or too quickly to a generalization.
Converse accident is a kind of fallacious reasoning whose error is
plain to everyone once that error has been exposed; yet it may
serve as convenient deception, on which many persons are
tempted to rely when they argue inattentively or with great
passion.

BEGGING THE QUESTION:PETITIO PRINCIPII

To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one
seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it.
The premises of the argument, in this case, are not irrelevant;
they certainly do prove that conclusion but they do so trivially. It
is always technically valid but always worthless, as well.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

The presumption buried in the premises may be obscured by

confusing or unrecognized synonyms, or by a chain of intervening
. petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has been
constructed may-if it is large or fuzzy-go quite undetected.
Inductive procedures by stabling the truth of what is called the
principle of induction
ACCIDENT AND CONERSE ACCIDENT

The policies of accident and converse accident arise as a result of

the careless, or deliberately deceptive, use of generalizations. A
generalization that is true by and large may not apply in a given
case, for good reasons having to do with the special
(accidental) circumstances of that case.
When we presume the applicability of a generalization to
individual cases that it does not properly govern, we commit the
fallacy of accident.
When we do the reverse, and carelessly or by design presume
that what is true of a particular case is true of the great run of

cases, we commit the fallacy of converse accident.

Experienced teaches us that generalizations, even those widely
applicable and useful, often have exceptions against which we
must be on guard. Almost every good rule has appropriate
exceptions; we are likely to argue fallaciously when we reason on
the supposition that some rule applies with universal force.

Accident is the fallacy we commit when we move carelessly or

too quickly from a generalization;

An informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the

meanings of words or phrases within an argument. Also known as
a sophism.
Equivocation
A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are
used, accidentally or deliberately, in different parts of an
argument.
An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same
word or phrase have been confused.
(For example, the word tall is a relative word)
A tall man and a tall building are in quite different categories. A
tall man is one who is taller than most men, a tall building is one
that is taller than most buildings.
Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can
be interpreted in more than one way; the argument contains a
premise based upon one interpretation, while the conclusion
relies on a different interpretation.
Occurs when one is arguing from premises whose formulations
are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction.
An informal fallacy arising from the loose, awkward, or mistaken
way in which words are combined, leading to alternative possible
meanings of a statement.
Accent
A fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when an argument contains a
premise that relies on one possible emphasis of certain words,

but the conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives those

same words a different meaning.
An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a
meaning in the conclusion of an argument different from its
meaning in one of the premises, the difference arising chiefly
from a change in emphasis given to the words used.
(For example Quoting out of context)
In the presidential election campaign of 1996 the Democratic
vicepresidential candidate, Al Gore, was quoted by a Republican
press aide as having said that there is no proven link between
smoking and lung cancer. Those were indeed Mr. Gores exact
words, uttered during a television interview in 1992. But they
were only part of a sentence. In that interview, Mr. Gores full
statement was that some tobacco company scientists will claim
with a straight face that there is no proven link between smoking
and lung cancer. . . . But the weight of the evidence accepted by
the overwhelming preponderance of scientists is, yes, smoking
does cause lung cancer.

Composition
A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously assigns
attributes to a whole (or to a collection) based on the fact that
parts of that whole (or members of that collection) have those
attributes.
An informal fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn
from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the
whole itself.
(For example : because every part of a certain machine is light in
weight, the machine as a whole is light in weight)

Division
A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously assigns
attributes to parts of a whole (or to members of a collection)
based on the fact that the whole (or the collection) has those
attributes.