Logic

Arguments must be consistent and not

contradict one another.
You cannot make logical sense and be
inconsistent

 Logic - The study of the methods and

principals of correct reasoning we must
learn to distinguish valid from invalid
reasoning
Valid reasoning the conclusion follows
from the evidence by logical necessity.

Law of Contradiction
Also called Principle of Consistency
Nothing can be said both to be and not to
be

Law of Contradiction
For Example, we cannot say:
The sky is blue, but the sky is not blue.
To be inconsistent is to speak nonsense.

 In a good deductive argument, the

premises entail the conclusion. That is, if
the premises are all true, then the
conclusion has to be true.
In a good inductive argument, the
premises probabilize the conclusion. That
is, if the premises are all true, then the
conclusion probably is true

Validity and soundness (of

deductive arguments)

An argument is valid if its form or logical

structure guarantees that if the premises
are all true then the conclusion is also
true.
An argument is sound if both (1) it is
valid in form, and (2) all of its premises
are in fact true.

Validity
An argument form is valid if there is no
substitution instance which renders the
premises true and the conclusion false.
An argument is valid if its form is valid.
An argument is sound if
1. it is valid, and
2. all its premises are true.

Valid and Invalid Arguments:

We have a way of deciding how strong an
argument is: i.e. whether or not we are
warranted in making the inference from the
premises to the conclusion and accepting the
conclusion as true. We say that a Valid, or
strong argument is one which, if the premises
are true, then so is the conclusion.
If the premises of a deductive argument can be
true and the conclusion false at the same time,
we call it an invalid, or weak argument. Our goal
is to make valid - strong arguments.

 In a valid deductive argument, the

conclusion has to be true if the premises
are true.
(a) All men are mortal
(b) Socrates is a man
__________________
(c) Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Valid but not sound

(a) If the South won the Civil War, then the slaves were freed
(b) The South won the Civil War
__________________________________
(c) Therefore, the slaves were freed.
This argument is Valid because is (a) and (b) were true, then (c) would
also have to be true.
This argument is unsound because the premises (a) and (b) are both
false.

(a) If it is raining, then the sky is cloudy

(b) The sky is cloudy.
________________________
(c) Therefore, is it raining.
This arguments is invalid, because if its
premises were both true, its conclusion
would not necessarily be true.

How can you find out if a

categorical syllogism is valid?
One method, follow these steps.
(1) Find the form of the syllogism by replacing its
terms with letters
(2) See if you can find an example of another
syllogism that has the same form but in which
the conclusion in false even though the
premises are true.
(3) If it is not possible, then a syllogism with that
form must be valid.

Lets see how this method works:

All unmarried mothers are on welfare
Some people on welfare are cheats
_____________________________
Therefore, some unmarried mothers are cheats
This syllogism has the form
All U are W.
Some W are C
____________________
Therefore, some U are C

Consider this argument which has

the same form:
All men are human.
Some humans are women.
__________________________
Therefore, some men are women.
This argument has the same form, the
premises are true, but the conclusion
false. Therefore, it is invalid.

Invalid argument
All unmarried mothers are on welfare
Some people on welfare are cheats
_____________________________
Therefore, some unmarried mothers are cheats

Another Example
All cows are mammals
All cows have horns
___________________
Therefore, some mammals have horns
This argument has the following form:
All C are M
All C have H
_______________
Therefore, some M are H
This syllogism is valid and any syllogism with the same
form is valid.

Four Rules to determine Validity in

categorical syllogisms
(1) The middle term ( the term that is present in
both premises but absent from the conclusion)
must refer to all members of the class in at
least one premise.
(2) If either term in the conclusion refers to all
members of the class, it must also refer to all
members of the class in the premises.
(3) Both premises must not be negative.
(4) If one of the premises is negative, then the
conclusion must be negative

Example which breaks rule 1

Some X are Y
Some X are Z
____________________
Therefore, some Y are Z.

 Example which breaks rule 1

Some mammals are apes
Some mammals are whales
_______________________
Therefore, some apes are whales

Hypothetical Syllogisms
Valid Forms
If P, then Q.
P.
__________
Therefore, Q.

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
__________
Therefore, not P.

Hypothetical Syllogisms
(a) If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
(b) Its raining.
_______________
(c) Therefore, the ground is wet.
If P, then Q
P.
-----------------Therefore Q.

Hypothetical Syllogisms
(a) If its raining, then the ground is wet.
(b) The ground is not wet
________________________
(c) Therefore, its not raining.

What about this one?

(a) If interest rates rise, then the price of
stocks will decline.
(b) Interest rates are not rising
________________________
(c) Therefore, the price of stocks will not
decline.

Invalid forms of hypothetical

Syllogisms
If P, then Q.
Not P
__________
Therefore, not Q.

If P, then Q
Q.
___________
Therefore, P.

Disjunctive Syllogisms
There are 4 forms of disjunctive syllogisms.
Two are valid and two are invalid.
VALID
Either P or Q.
P or Q.
Not P.
Not Q.
____________
_________
Therefore, Q.
Therefore, P.

Disjunctive Syllogisms
Either it is raining or the sprinklers are on.
It is not raining.
__________________
Therefore, the sprinklers must be on.
Either I will study or watch tv
I am not watching tv
___________________
Therefore I will study.

Disjunctive Syllogisms
Two invalid forms:
Either P or Q.
Either P or Q.
P.
Q.
____________
_____________
Therefore, not Q.
Therefore, not P.
These forms are invalid because Disjunctive
Syllogisms leave open the possibility that both
disjuncts are true. Consequently, even though
one is true, the other also might be true.

FALLACIES
Fallacy a piece of reasoning in which the
conclusion does not logically follow the
evidence given as support, an argument
that tries to persuade psychologically but
not logically; a false notion.

FALLACIES
Logic also discusses the incorrect ways of
reasoning. A set of statements that
appears to be an argument but is not is a
fallacy. There are formal fallacies, which
break specific rules of logic, and there are
informal fallacies which usually are
phrased to appear as an argument but the
statements purporting to be premises to do
not support the conclusion.

Informal Logical Fallacies

The Fallacy of Begging the Question

Involves assuming the point that needs to be proven.
One ends up arguing in a vicious circle.
Phil: Did you here that Charlie talks to angels?
Dave: No Kidding! How do you know that hes telling the
truth.
Phil: Come on! A guy who talks to angels wouldnt lie!
The problem is that the only evidence Phil offers to prove
his assertions is his original statement about Charlie
talking to angels.

The Fallacy of Ignoring the

Question
Consists in proving something other than the
point to be established. Consists in evading the
original issue.
Reporter: Minister, do you agree that your sale
of the 407 to a private company failed to protect
consumers?
Minister: The opposition is merely trying to
score political points by bringing up this issue.
Our government has been very fiscally
responsible in all actions.

The Fallacy of False Cause

In assuming that when one event
precedes another, it is the cause of the
succeeding event.
Since 1840 every president elected in a
zero year has either died in office of
natural causes or been assassinated.
Obviously, if you want to live through your
term in office, dont run in a zero year.

The Fallacy of accident

Consists in treating what is accidental to a
subject as something essential to that
subject.
Now that Charlie has gone bald, hes no
longer the man that I knew and loved! Its
over!
Charlies hair is accidental to who he is as
a person, meaning it is not essential to
who he is.

The Fallacy of Part and Whole

Attributing to a whole what belongs only to its
parts. (The fallacy of generalization).
All who wear turbans and have beards are
terrorists.
All teens who hand in late assignments have
really bad grades.
Or the fallacy occurs when a person attributes to
the part what belongs only to the whole.
Since America is a prosperous nation, all of its
citizens must be well off.

The Fallacy of Misplaced Authority

It consists in concluding that something is
true because somebody of authority said
it. Yet the kind of authority he or she has
and the issue at hand are simply
incongruent.
Mr. Dr., assured me that Fords are the
best cars. Therefore, Im going to buy a
Ford/ After all he is a doctor.

The Fallacy of Ad Hominem

Directed to the individual.
This involves the criticism of some
persons position or belief by criticizing the
person rather than the position itself.
Look at the way he stutters when he
talks. He must not know what hes talking
about, so Im not going to vote for him.

The Fallacy of the Double Standard

Applying one standard for one group of
individuals and another standard for an
opposing group or individual.
Tina and Tom both have untucked shirts
Tina gets 3 days suspension. Tom gets 5.

Appeal to the People

Occurs when a speaker attempts to get some
group to agree to a particular position by
appealing solely to their bigotry, biases,
prejudices or in some cases merely to their
desire to hear what they already believe.
Hitler says Jews are lower than rats and theyre
the scum of the earth and theyre taking German
jobs, etc
Plays on the fears of the people.

The Fallacy of False Analogy

Occurs when a person argues a position
merely by drawing an analogy without
justifying the use of the analogy.
Going to church is like belonging to a
team. If you want to play in the big game
you have to go to practice.
Analogies only illustrate a point, they do
not prove a point.

The Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance

Occurs whenever someone argues that a
statement is false because it has not been
proven true or it is true because it has not
been proven false.
Elephants have red eyes so that they can
hide in cherry trees. Have you ever seen
an elephant in a cherry tree? That proves
my point!

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Occurs when a word or expression is used
with more than one meaning in an
argument.
The conservative candidate supports sex
before marriage. Thats not a conservative
position.

Sophistry
An instance of ignoring the question.
A flawed but deceptive method of
argument used commonly by early
philosophers.