Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This argument is valid. The fact that the first premise and conclusion are false doesnt
mean the argument form is logically invalid. This same argument form can be used to
make good arguments. The argument form is If A, then B. A. Therefore, B. A good
argument with this argument form is the following:
How can we prove the argument is valid? We can show that its impossible to form a
formal counterexample. We can assume the argument is invalid and prove that such an
assumption is impossible because it will lead to self-contradiction.
The easiest way to realize that this argument form is valid is to realize what it means to
say If A, then B. This statement means If A is true, then B is true or B is true
whenever A is true). That also implies that if B is false, then A must be false.
We can prove the argument form is valid using the following reasoning:
Example 2
Although the premises and conclusion are true, the argument form is invalid. The
argument form is the following:
1. If A, then B.
2. B.
3. Therefore, A.
We can then replace the variables to create a counterexample that uses this argument
form with true premises and a false conclusion. The variables will be replaced with the
following statements:
A: All dogs are reptiles.
B: All dogs are mammals.
Both premises are true, but the conclusion is false. Therefore, the argument form must
be invalid.
Example 3
1. Either its wrong to indiscriminately kill people, or its not wrong to kill
someone just because she has red hair.
2. Its wrong to kill someone just because she has red hair.
3. Therefore, its wrong to indiscriminately kill people.
This time the premises are true, the conclusion is true, and the argument form is valid.
The argument form is the following:
Lets try to prove this argument is valid by proving its impossible to provide a
counterexample. We can assume its invalid only to find out that such an assumption
will lead to a contradiction.
Example 4
This argument is invalid, and its already a counterexample because the premises are
true and the conclusion is false. The argument form is the following:
1. Either A or not-B.
2. C
3. Therefore, B.
Example 5
This argument is logically valid, even though the premises seem to lack relevance.
Logical validity doesnt guarantee relevance.
1. A.
2. If A, then B.
3. Therefore, B.
This is basically the same argument form as the first example, so no further proof of
validity is required.
Example 6
1. The death penalty sometimes leads leads to the death of innocent people.
2. Therefore, the death penalty sometimes leads to the death of innocent
people.
This argument is circular, but its still logically valid. The argument structure is the
following:
1. A.
2. Therefore, A.
We can prove the argument is valid by proving that its impossible to have a
counterexample. Such an argument looks like the following:
Example 7
The premises contradict each other, but the argument is still valid because its
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time.
We can tell that both premises cant be true at the same time, so its impossible to make
a counterexample because that would require both premises to be true. The argument
form looks like the following:
1. A.
2. Not-A
3. Therefore, B.
Example 8
1. Its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant
criteria.
2. Therefore, its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to
the color of her skin.
This argument might sound like its valid, but its technically invalid with the following
argument form:
1. A.
2. Therefore, B.
The reason why the argument might sound valid is because we have an assumption
that the color of an applicants skin is irrelevant criteria. We could then make the
argument valid using the following reasoning:
1. Its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria.
2. If its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria,
then its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color of
her skin (because skin color is irrelevant criteria).
3. Therefore, its wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color
of her skin.
1. A.
2. If A, then B.
3. Therefore, B.
This argument form is the same as was used in example 1 and has already been
proven to be valid.
Example 9
This argument has a premise that seems irrelevant to the conclusion, but its still
logically valid because the conclusion will be true no matter what. It cant be invalid
because a counterexample requires the conclusion to be false. The argument form
looks like the following:
1. A.
2. Therefore, B or not-B.
We can prove this argument is valid by proving that we cant have a counterexample
using the following reasoning:
Example 10
This argument is invalid despite the fact that it might look valid. The statement All cats
are mammals is equivalent to if something is a cat, then its a mammal and the
statement some cats are mammals is equivalent to there is at least one cat and its a
mammal. We can then reveal the logical structure as the following:
The problem here is that its the existential fallacywe cant assume that something
exists in a conclusion when no premise claims something to exist. In this case we cant
assume a cat exists just because all cats are mammals. A counterexample could be the
following:
1. If you are found guilty for killing everyone on Earth in a court of law, then you will
go to prison.
2. Therefore, someone was found guilty for killing everyone on Earth in a court of
law, and that person went to prison.
The main difference between these two arguments is that we know that cats exist.
Thats the hidden premise that can be used to fix the argument: