C.

ARGUMENT FORMS AND REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY

Refutation by Logical Analogy
Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another argument with the same
form whose premises are known to a true and whose conclusion is known to be
false.
To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another argument that:
Has exactly the same form as the first
Has true premises and a false conclusion
This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal characteristics
of arguments, which is to say that any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both
valid or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which they are concerned.
What is important to remember is that true premises and a false conclusion can never occur in a
valid argument. If we can construct an analogy with true premises and a false conclusion, then
the given argument is invalid. And in determining whether any given argument is valid, we must
look into the specific form of the argument in the question.
Steps in composing a logical analogy of an invalid argument:
1. Identify the conclusion. You may invent classes so that the conclusion is clearly false.
Some dogs are not animals.
2. Identify the minor and major terms.
Some dogs are not animals.
3. Identify the major premise.
Some dogs are not animals.
4. Identify the minor premise.
Some dogs are not animals.
5. Label the middle term. Choose a middle premise/ term which will make the premise
clearly true. Such as, No dogs are cats.
6. Complete the labeling of the syllogism in standard form or order.
Some animals are cats.
No dogs are cats.
Some dogs are not animals.

15 | P a g e
 Therefore the arguments suggest that Some dogs are not animals because some animals
are cats and no dogs are cats. Since we cannot refute a valid argument by means of devising a
logical analogy, we need methods to determine whether a logical analogy can be constructed
such as the Venn diagram technique and the Rules of validity for Standard Form Categorical
Syllogism and others.
Statement Variable
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be substituted.
Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an argument, it contains
statement variables, but no statement
Substitution Instance of an Argument Form
Any argument that results from the consistent substitution of statements for
statement variables in an argument form.
Specific Form of an Argument
The argument form from which the given argument results when a different
simple statement is substituted for each different statement variable.

The Precise Meaning of Invalid and Valid

Invalid Argument Form
An argument form that has at least one substitution instance with true premises
and false conclusion.
Valid Argument Form
An argument form that has no substitution instances with true premises and a false
conclusion.

Testing Argument validity on Truth Tables

Truth Table
An array on which the validity of an argument form may be tested, through the
display of all possible combinations of the truth values of the statement variables
contained in that form.

16 | P a g e
Some Common Argument Form
Disjunctive Syllogism
A valid argument form in which one premise is a disjunction, another premise is
the denial of one of the two disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
disjunct.

P Q Pvq ~p
T T T F
T F T F
F T T T
F F F T

To illustrate:
1. Either p is true or q is true; p is not true; therefore q is true.
2. Either p is true or q is false; p is not true; therefore q is true.
3. Either p is false or q is true; p is not false; therefore q is true.
4. Either p is false or q is false; p is not false; therefore q is false.
A v statement is true whenever either (or both) of its component statements is true; it is
false only when both of them are false. While the "~" signifies logical negation; it simply
reverses the truth value of any statement (simple or compound) in front of which it appears: if
the original is true, the ~ statement is false, and if the original is false, the ~ statement is true.

Modus Ponens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premises, and in which another
premise affirms the antecedent of that conditional, and the conclusion affirms its
consequent.

P Q P q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

17 | P a g e
 To illustrate:
1. If p is true then q is true; p is true; therefore q is true.
2. If p is true then q is false; p is true; therefore q is false.
3. If p is false then q is true; p is false; therefore q is true.
4. If p is false then q is false; p is false; therefore q is true.
In a compound statement formed with this connective is true unless the component on
the left (the antecedent) is true and the component on the right (the consequent) is false.

Modus Tollens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and in which another
premise denies the consequent of that conditional, and the conclusion denies its
antecedent.
P Q pq ~q ~p
P q
~q T T T F F
T F F T F
~p
F T T F T
F F T T T

To illustrate:
1. If p is true then q is true; q is not true; therefore p is true.
2. If p is true then q is false; q is not false; therefore p is false.
3. If p is false then q is true; q is not true; therefore p is true.
4. If p is false then q is false; q is not false; therefore p is true.
In a compound statement formed with this connective is true unless the component on
the left (the antecedent) is true and the component on the right (the consequent) is false. While
the "~" signifies logical negation; it simply reverses the truth value of any statement (simple or
compound) in front of which it appears: if the original is true, the ~ statement is false, and if the
original is false, the ~ statement is true.

18 | P a g e
Hypothetical Syllogism
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions.

p Q r P q q r P r

T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

To illustrate:
1. If p is true then q is true; if q is true then r is true; therefore if p is true then r is true.
2. If p is true then q true; if q is true then r is false; therefore if p is true then r is false.
3. If p is true then q is false; if q is false then r is true; therefore if p is true then r is true.
4. If p is true then q is false; if q is false then r is false; therefore if p is true then r is false.
5. If p is false then q is true; if q is true then r is true; therefore if p is false then r is true.
6. If p is false then q true; if q is true the r is false; therefore if p is false then r is true.
7. If p is false then q is false; if q is false then r is true; therefore if p is false then r true.
8. If p is false the q is false; if q is false then r is false; therefore if p is false then r is true.
In a compound statement formed with this connective is true unless the component on
the left (the antecedent) is true and the component on the right (the consequent) is false.

19 | P a g e
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

A formal fallacy in which the 2nd premise of an argument affirms the consequent
of a conditional premise and the conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent.
To be read as: If p then q; q; therefore p.
Ex: If p is true then q is true; q is true; therefore p is true.

P q
q
P

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

A formal fallacy in which the 2nd premise of an argument denies the antecedent of
a conditional premise and the conclusion of the argument denies its consequent.
To be read as: If p then q; not p; therefore not q.
Ex: If p is true then q is true; p is not true; therefore q is not true.

P q
~p
~q

20 | P a g e
SOURCES:

1. 8.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2017,
fromihttp://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/5909/6050951/MyLogicLab_ebook/ML
L_Copi_13e_Ch08/0136141390_Ch08_04.pdf
2. Basic Argument Forms. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2017, from
http://www.math.colostate.edu/~hulpke/lectures/m192/proofmodes.pdf
3. Kemerling, G. (n.d.). Logical Symbols. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10a.html
4. Refutation by Means of Devising a Logical Analogy. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2017,
from http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_analogy.html

21 | P a g e