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.

1|Page
 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.

2|Page
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.

Pvq P Q Pvq ~p

~p T T T F

∴q 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 P⊃q
p T T T
∴q T F F
F T T
F F T

3|Page
 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 p⊃q ~q ~p
P⊃q
~q T T T F F
∴ ~p T F F T F
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.

4|Page
Hypothetical Syllogism
 A valid argument containing only conditional propositions.

p Q r P⊃q q⊃r P⊃r

T T T T T T
P⊃q
T T F T F F
q⊃r
T F T F T T
∴ P⊃r
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.

5|Page
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

Valid vs Invalid Arguments

An argument must satisfy the Logic Condition in order for it to qualify as a good argument. But
there are two importantly different ways in which an argument can satisfy the Logic Condition.
One way is if the argument is valid. Another way is if the argument is strong. "Validity" and
"strength" are technical terms that logicians and philosophers use to describe the logical "glue"
that binds premises and conclusions together. Valid arguments have the strongest logical glue
possible.

6|Page
Valid vs Invalid
1. All actors are robots.
2. Tom Cruise is an actor.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.
This is an example of a valid argument.
Here's the standard definition of a valid argument:
An argument is VALID if it has the following hypothetical or conditional property:
IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion CANNOT be false. In this case we know that in
fact the first premise is false (not all actors are robots) but the argument is still valid because IF
the premises were true it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false. In other words,
in a hypothetical world where all actors are robots, and Tom Cruise also happens to be an actor,
then it's logically impossible for Tom Cruise NOT to be a robot. THAT is the distinctive
property of this argument that we're pointing to when we call it “valid” — that it's logically
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Or to put it another way, the truth
of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. These are all different ways of saying the
same thing. Validity is the strongest possible logical glue you can have between premises and
conclusion.

Here's an example of an INVALID argument:

1. All actors are robots.
2. Tom Cruise is a robot.
Therefore, Tom Cruise is an actor.
The first premise is the same, "All actors are robots". But the second premise is different. Instead
of assuming that Tom Cruise is an actor, we're assuming that Tom Cruise is a robot.
Now, if these premises are both true, does it follow that Tom Cruise HAS to be an actor? No, it
does not follow. It would follow if we said that ONLY actors are robots, but the first premise
doesn't say that.
All we can assume is that in this hypothetical world, anyone in the acting profession is a robot,
but robots might be doing lots of different jobs besides acting. They might be mechanics or
teachers or politicians or whatever. So in this hypothetical world the fact that Tom Cruise is a

7|Page
robot doesn't guarantee that he's also an actor. And THAT is what makes this an invalid
argument. An argument is INVALID just in case it's NOT VALID.
What this means is that even if all the premises are true, it's still possible for the conclusion to be
false. The truth of the premises doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
That's ALL it means to call an argument "invalid". In particular, it doesn't imply that the
argument is bad. As we'll see in the next lecture, invalid arguments can still be good arguments.
Even if they don't guarantee the conclusion they can still give us good reasons to believe the
conclusion, so they can still satisfy the Logic Condition. But like I said, we'll talk more about
this later.

We're using the terms "valid" and "invalid" in a very specific technical sense that is commonly
used in logic and philosophy but not so common outside of these fields.
As we all know in ordinary language the word "valid" is used in a bunch of different ways. Like
when we say "that contract is valid", meaning something like the contract is “legally legitimate”
or that it's “executed with proper legal authority”.
Or when we say "You make a valid point", we mean that the point is “relevant” or “appropriate”,
or it has some justification behind it.
These are perfectly acceptable uses of the term "valid". But I just want to emphasize that this
isn't how we're using the term in logic when we're doing argument analysis. It's important to
keep the various meanings of "valid" and "invalid" distinct so there's no confusion.
Note for example that when we use the terms valid and invalid in logic we're talking about
properties of whole arguments, not of individual claims.
If we're using the terms in the way we've defined them in this tutorial then it makes NO SENSE
to say that an individual premise or claim is valid or invalid.
Validity is a property that describes the logical relationship between premises and conclusions.
It's a feature of arguments taken as a whole. Still, it's very common for students who are new to
logic to confuse the various senses of valid and invalid, and make the mistake of describing a
premise as invalid when what they mean is simply that it's false or dubious.

8|Page
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

9|Page