Logic: Basic Concepts I. What is logic?

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Logic is the study of argument. In particular, Logic is the study of (i) criteria for distinguishing successful from unsuccessful argument, (ii) methods for applying those criteria, and (iii) related properties of statements such as implication, equivalence, logical truth consistency, etc. There are objective criteria with which correct reasoning may be defined. If these criteria are not known, then they cannot be used. The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments, and to sort good arguments from bad ones. II. Propositions and Sentences Arguments, Premises and Conclusion An argument is a (finite) set of statements, some of whichthe premises are supposed to support, or give reasons for, the remaining statementthe conclusion. It is 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. Premises are those statements or propositions in an argument that are intended to provide the support or evidence. The other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support or reasons for accepting the conclusion. The conclusion is that statement or proposition for which the premises are intended to provide support. It is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument.

A statement is a declarative sentence; a sentence which attempts to state a factas opposed to a question, a command, an exclamation. A proposition is what is meant by a statement. It is something that may be asserted or denied and are the building blocks with which arguments are made. (The idea or notion it expresses) (This might be the same for different sentences) Examples of statements: It is raining. I am hungry. Leslie won the election. On the other hand the following are examples of sentences that are not statements: Are you hungry? Shut the door, please #$%@!!!

(In short, it is the point the argument is trying to make.) (Important note: premises are always intended to provide support or evidence for the conclusion, but they don't always succeed. Its still an argument either way.) We often transcribe arguments into what is called standard formwe list the premises, draw a line, then write the conclusion: Premise 1 Premise 2 ... Premise n Conclusion Example: Socrates is mortal, for all humans are mortal, and Socrates is human III. Recognizing Arguments There are four main ways of judging the presence of an

It is raining Esta lloviendo ll pleut Es regnet

Sentences in a particular language, yet they have a single meaning or the same proposition

argument: 1. Conclusion-and Premise- Indicators

The author uses argument indicators signifying the presence of an argument. Despite the variability of statement order when not expressed in standard form, a

good writer usually makes clear which sentences are premises and which is the conclusion. This is usually done through contextual clues, including the indicator words/phrases. Below are two brief lists of conclusion and premise indicators: Premise Indicators: as, since, for, because, given that, for the reason that, inasmuch as Conclusion Indicators: therefore, hence, thus, so, we may infer, consequently, it follows that Example: (1) Since the solution turned red when the indicator was added, (2) I conclude it is acidic, inasmuch as acidic substances react with this indicator to form a red color. 2. Arguments in Context IV. Deduction and Induction Deduction and Validity Deductive criteria, roughly speaking, require that the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. There are two questions we want to ask when applying deductive criteria. One, the question of validity, has to do with the connection between the premises and conclusion. The other, the question of soundness, has to do with the truth values of the premises. First, validity: Truth Value The truth value of a statement is just its truth or falsehood. We make the Example: (1) The types of sentences you use are quite varied. (2) I've noticed that your essays are quite sophisticated. (3) You have been learning much more about sentence structure. [The conclusion is statement (3)].

The author or writer explicitly states or explicitly lists the reasons, evidence, justification, rationale, or proof of an argument. Example: Whether or not to smoke is a conscious decision, made in light of an abundance of information on the lethal effects of tobacco. Surely those who choose unwisely should bear the cost of any resulting ill health. 3. Premises Not in Declarative Form

assumption that every statement is either true (has the truth value true) or false (has the truth value

false) but not both. The truth value of a given statement is fixed whether or value is. not we know what that truth

The use of a genuinely rhetorical question as a premise by suggesting the desired answer and leading readers to provide the answers for themselves. Example: If a right to euthanasia is grounded in self-determination, it cannot be reasonably be limited to the terminally ill. If people have a right to die, why must they wait until they are actually dying before they are permitted to exercise the right? 4. Unstated Propositions

Deductive Validity, Invalidity: An argument (form) is deductively valid if and only if it is NOT possible for ALL the premises to be true AND the conclusion false. An argument (form) is deductively invalid if and only if it is not valid. I.e., an argument is valid if and only if the assumed truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusionif you mull it over youll see that these say basically the same thing; though the statement above is our official definition of validity. Note also that the definition of validity applies both to individual arguments and to argument forms. This will be made clear in what follows. In typical contexts we want more than just validity from our arguments. For, even if they are valid, this means nothing about the truth of the

The passage under question implicitly provides an answer to the sometimes irreverent question of "What are you trying to prove?" The presence of an argument cannot be always known with certainty. A charitable, conventional interpretation of the content and context of the passage is assumed.

conclusion, unless the premises are true as well i.e., unless the argument is sound.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Soundness: An argument is sound if and only if it is deductively valid AND all its premises are true. Here are some points to remember about deductive validity. Validity is a question of truth preservation, and this is a question of form, so the actual truth values of the premises and conclusion are irrelevant. All true premises and true conclusion, do not make a valid argument! If an argument is valid and all its premises are true, then it is sound. Soundness does have to do with the actual truth value of the premises. Thus, it is not a matter of form. We can see that a particular argument, and all arguments of the same form, are invalid either by consistently imagining that all the premises are true and the conclusion false, or by finding a Induction and Probability Traditionally, deductive reasoning was said to be that which proceeds from the general to the particular, while inductive reasoning was said to move from the particular to the general. But this is incorrect. Some deductively successful arguments have particular premises and particular conclusions. Moreover, some inductively successful arguments invoke general premises and/or arrive at particular conclusions. I, therefore, dispense with this traditional way of making the distinction. I will distinguish inductive from deductive criteria in terms of the sort of support the premises are required to give the conclusion. Again, there are two questions we want Examples: to ask when applying inductive criteria. One, the question of strength, has to do with the connection between the premise and conclusion. The other, the question of cogency, has to do with the truth values of the premises. First, strength: Inductive Strength: An argument is inductively strong to the degree to which the premises provide evidence to make the truth of the conclusion plausible or probable. If an argument is not strong, it is weak. Note the contrast with deductive validity, which requires that premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Here, inductive strength is a matter of the degree of plausibility or probability. Also in contrast to the definition of validity, the definition of strength does not apply to argument forms, but only to individual instances. As we shall soon see, this is because strength is not at all a matter of form.

counterexample (an instance which actually does have all true premises and a false conclusion)

Cogency: An argument is cogent if and only if it is inductively strong AND all the premises are true. With respect to strength, cogency plays a role analogous to that which soundness plays with respect to validity. In both cases we have a question about the connection between premises and conclusion (validity or strength), and then a question about the truth value of the premises. Here are some points to remember: Unlike deductive validity, inductive strength is a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing, on/off switch. Unlike deductive validity, inductive strength is not a matter of form. Background knowledge and additional information is relevant to the assessment of nstrength. For enumerations and analogies: The larger the sample size or comparison base group, the stronger the argument. The narrower or more conservative the conclusion, the stronger the argument. The greater the number of (relevant) similarities, the stronger the argument. The fewer the number of (relevant) dissimilarities, the stronger the argument.

Example: Most corporation lawyers are conservatives. Angela Palmieri is a corporate lawyer. Therefore Angela Palmieri is probably a conservative. If we add new premises Angela Palmieri is an officer of The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Most of the officers of the ACLU are not conservatives. The new premises might weaken or strengthen the original argument. In this case it weakened the original argument. Evaluating Inductive Arguments