Brief Introduction to Logic

The study of the methods and principles used to

distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect)
reasoning
 Does it mean only the student of logic can reason
well or correctly?
 Running well does not require studying the
physics and physiology involved in that activity
The Runner VS The Physicist?
 But given the native intelligence, a person who
has studied logic is more likely to reason
correctly than one who has never thought about
the general principles involved in that activity.
Several Reasons Why
1. The proper study of logic will approach it as an
art as well as science, and the student will do
exercises in all parts of the theory being learned
Practice will help to make perfect
2. A traditional part of the study of logic has been
the examination and analysis of fallacies, which
are common and often quite natural mistakes
in reasoning.
Gives increased insight into the principles of
reasoning and an acquaintance with these
pitfalls helps to keep us from stumbling into
them
3. The study of logic will give students techniques
and methods for testing the correctness of
many different kinds of reasoning, including
their own, and when errors are easily detected,
they are less likely to be allowed to stand.
 The appeal to emotion is sometimes effective
But the appeal to reason is more effective in the
long run, and can be tested and appraised by
criteria that define correct argument.
 If the criteria is not known, then they cannot be
employed
The study of logic aims to discover and make
available those criteria that can be used to test
arguments for correctness.
Other Common Definition of Logic
1. Logic as the science of the laws of thought

2. Logic as the science of reasoning

Logic: Science of Thought
This definition gives a clue to the nature of
logic, but it is not accurate
Thinking(thought) is also studied by psychology
Logic cannot be the science that studies the laws
of thought because psychology is also a science
that deals with the laws of thoughts (among
other things)
 Another thing, if thought refers to any process
that occurs in peoples minds, not all thought is
an object of study for the logician.
All reasoning is thinking, but not all thinking is
reasoning.
Logic: Science of Reasoning
This is much better definition, but it will not also
do so.
Reasoning is a special kind of thinking in which
problems are solved, in which inference takes
place, that is, in which conclusions are drawn
from premises.
It is still kind of thinking and therefore still part
of the psychologists subject matter.
 As psychologists examine the reasoning process,
they find it to be extremely complex, highly
emotional, consisting of awkward trial-and-error
procedures illuminated by sudden flashes of
insight
 The logician is concerned primarily with the
correctness of the completed process of
reasoning.
Does the problem get solved?
Does the conclusion reached follow from the
premises used or assumed?
Do the premises provide good reasons for
accepting the conlusion?
The Elements of an Argument
 Argument the methodical process of logical
reasoning

Premises and Conclusion are the elements of an

argument.
 Premise give reasons for accepting the
conclusion
Conclusion the thing argued for
 Identical twins often have different IQ test
scores. Yet such twins inherit the same genes. So
environment must play some part in
determining IQ.
 The argument consists of three statements.
1. Identical twins often have different IQ test
scores.
2. Identical twins inherit the same genes
3. So environment must play some part in
determining IQ
 Which of the statements are the premises?

Which of the statements is the conclusion?

 Do you do this in your everyday life?
Cues for Premises
Because
Since
For
It has been observed that
In support of this
The relevant data
Cues for Conclusion
Therefore
Hence
Thus
So
Consequently
The point of all this is
The implication is
The result is
 Since its wrong to kill human being, it follows
that abortion is wrong, because abortion takes
the life of a human being.
1. Its wrong to kill human being
2. Abortion takes the life of (kills) a human being
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
 Not just any group of sentences makes an
argument
The sentences in an argument must express
statements that is either true or false
 Many sentences are used for other purposes
To ask questions (interrogative)
To issue commands (imperative)
To give vent emotions (exclamatory)
 In ordinary contexts, none of the following
express statements:
Open the door.
Whos the boss here?
Thank goodness!
 Sometimes nondeclarative sentences are indeed
used to make statements
Whos the boss here?
 Even if every sentence in a group of sentences
expresses a statement, the result is not
necessarily an argument.
The statements must be related in the
appropriate way.
Something must be argued for and there must be
reasons for accepting the conclusion.
 Thus, mere bald assertions are not arguments,
anecdotes generally are not arguments, nor are
most other forms of exposition and explanation.
 Passages that are explanatory or expository
gives us no reason to accept the facts in it other
than the authority of the writer or speaker,

Passages that are argumentative give reasons for

some of their claims and call a different sort of
evaluation than merely an evaluation of the
authority of the writer.
 I believe in God because that is how I was raised.
Well get a tax break if we marry before the end
of the year. Therefore, I think we should move
our wedding date up and wait until January.
Biff was obviously afraid of making a
commitment to a long-term relationship.
Therefore, Susie was not surprised when they
eventually broke up.
 At the present rate of consumption, the oil will
be used up in 20 t0 25 years. And were sure not
going to reduce consumption in the near future.
So wed better start developing solar power,
windmills, and other alternative energy
sources pretty soon.
 The abortion issue is blown all out of proportion.
How come we dont hear nearly as much about
the evils of birth control pills? After all, a lot
more potential people are killed by the pill
than the abortion.
 Ive often wondered how they make lead pencils.
Of course, they dont use lead, they use graphite.
But I mean, how do they get the graphite into the
wood? Thats my problem. The only thing I can
think of is maybe they cut the lead into long
round strips and then cut holes in the wood and
slip the lead in.
 Punishment, when speedy and specific, may
suppress undesirable behaviour, but it cannot
teach or encourage desirable alternatives. It is
crucial, then, to use positive techniques to model
and reinforce appropriate behaviour that the
person can use in place of unacceptable response
that has to be suppressed.
 There was no European language that Ruth
could not speak at least a little bit. She passed
the time in the concentration camp, waiting for
death, by getting other prisoners to teach her
languages she did not know. Thus, she become
fluent in Romany, the tongue of the gypsies.
 The death of my brother was another instance in
which I realized the inadequacy of the
superstition of progress in regard to life. A good,
intelligent, serious man, he was still young when
he fell ill. He suffered for over a year and died an
agonizing death without ever understanding why
he lived and understanding even less why he was
dying. No theories could provide any answers to
these questions, either for him or for me, during
his slow and painful death.
 The electoral college should be abolished.
Everyones vote should count the same. Thats
how Bush won the election, even though Gore
got more votes. So I think we should do away
with it.
Types of an Argument
 Argument a series of sentences, one of which
(conclusion) is claimed to be supported by the
others (premises)
 Every argument involves a claim that its
premises provide some grounds for the truth of
its conclusion.

What then is the difference between inductive

arguments and deductive arguments?
Deduction
A type of argument in which its premises
provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion.
When the reasoning in a deductive argument is
correct, we call that valid.
When the reasoning in a deductive argument is
incorrect, we call that invalid.
When do we say that the reasoning in
deductive argument is correct or not?
When the argument is correct, we call it valid;
when it is not, we call it invalid.
What is validity?
Validity is a concept applied when evaluating
arguments according to the deductive standards.
a deductive argument is valid when its premises,
if true, do provide conclusive grounds for the
truth of its conclusion
If all its premises are true, then its conclusion
must be true.
 The fundamental logical property of a
deductively valid argument is this: If all its
premises are true, then its conclusion must be
true.
In other words, an argument is valid just in
case it is impossible for all its premises to be true
and yet its conclusion be false.
 To determine whether or not an argument is
valid, one must ask whether there are any
possible circumstances under which the
premises could all be true and yet the conclusion
is false. If not, the argument is valid.
If it is possible the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, the argument is invalid.
 The truth of the premises of a valid argument
guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
In the deductive argument (but not in the inductive
argument), premises and conclusion are so related
that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be
true unless the conclusion is true also.
In every deductive argument, either the premises
succeed in providing conclusive grounds for the
truth of the conclusion, or they do not succeed.
In other words, every deductive argument is either
valid or invalid.
Examples:

1. All wars are started by miscalculation

2. The Iraq conflict was a war
3. Therefore, the Iraq conflict was started by
miscalculation
1. If Bonny has had her appendix taken out, then
she doesnt have to worry about getting
appendicitis
2. She has her appendix taken out.
3. Therefore, she doesnt have to worry about
getting appendicitis.
 Shakespeare wrote Othello, and Chaucer wrote
The Canterbury Tales.
Therefore, Shakespeare wrote Othello
Induction
In inductive arguments, it is not the case that the
premises provide conclusive grounds for the
truth of its conclusion; only that the premises
provide some support for that conclusion.
That is why inductive arguments cannot be
valid and invalid in the sense which these are
applied in deductive arguments.
 However, inductive arguments may be evaluated
as better or worse, according to the degree of
support given to their conclusion by the
premises.
The greater the likelihood/probability, which the
premises confer to their conclusion, the greater
the merit of an inductive argument.
But that probability/likelihood, even when all
the premises are true, still fall short to certainty.
Example

1. The day before yesterday, the sun had risen

from the east.
2. Yesterday, the sun had risen from the east.
3. This morning, the sun had risen from the east.
4. Therefore, tomorrow, the sun will (probably)
rise from the east.
1. All the movies produced in recent years by
George Lucas have been successful.
2. The latest film produced by Lucas will be
successful.
 How to distinguish deductive
arguments from inductive arguments
Traditionally, the distinction between deductive
and inductive arguments is sometimes drawn in
a different way focusing upon the relative
generality of the premises and the conclusion.
Deductive arguments general to particular
Inductive arguments particular to general
This way of distinction proved to be problematic
upon analysis.
 Deductive argument classic example:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Inductive argument example:
Socrates is human and mortal
Plato is human and mortal
Aristotle is human and mortal
Therefore, (probably) all humans are mortal.
 From this classical examples, it is true that:
1. In the deductive argument, the conclusion is
particular inferred from two premises by which
the first is a general or universal proposition.
2. In the inductive argument, a general/universal
conclusion is inferred from a group of premises
which are particular.
 This method of distinguishing between
deductive and inductive arguments do not
always work. Like:
A valid deductive argument may have universal
propositions for its conclusions as well as for its
premises.
All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals
Therefore, all humans are mortals.
A valid deductive argument may have particular
premises as well as for its conclusion.
If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
An inductive argument need not rely only upon
particular premises, but may have universal
(general) propositions for its premises as well as
for its conclusion.
All cows are mammals and have lungs
All whales are mammals and have lungs
All humans are mammals and have lungs
Therefore, (probably) all mammals have lungs.
Inductive arguments may also have particular
proposition as its conclusion.
Hitlet was a dictator and was ruthless
Stalin was a dictator and was ruthless
Castro was a dictator
Therefore, Castro is probably ruthless
 The counterexamples show that it is not enough
to characterize deductive arguments as those in
which particular conclusions are inferred from
general premises;
Nor it is satisfactory to characterize inductive
arguments as those in which general conclusions
are inferred from particular premises.
 The fundamental difference between these two
kinds of arguments lies in the claims that are
made about the relations between the premises
and the conclusion.
 Deductive arguments very strict and close
relationship is claimed to hold between the premises
and conclusions.
If the deductive argument is valid, then given the truth
of the premises, its conclusion must be true no matter
what else may be the case.
Example:
If it is true that all humans are mortal, and if it is true
that Socrates is human, then it must also be true that
Socrates is mortal.
other information wont affect the validity of the
argument. No more argument can make it more
valid or less valid
 Inductive argument the relation between the
premises and the conclusions, even in the best
kind of inductive argument, is much less strict
and very different in kind.
Most corporation lawyers are conservatives
Barbara Shane is a corporation lawyer
Therefore, Barbara Shane is (probably)
conservative.
 This is a good inductive argument, the first premise is
true, and if the second premise is true, then most likely,
the conclusion would be true also
But in this case, if we add new premises or
information, the resulting argument may be
weakened or strengthened.
Barbara Shane is also an officer of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU)
Most officers of the ACLU are not conservative

Now the conclusion that Barbara Shane is probably

conservative no longer seem to be probable.
 The strength of the claim about the relation
between the premises and the conclusion is the
nub of the difference between the deductive and
inductive arguments
Deductive argument one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from its premises with
absolute necessity, this necessity is not a matter
of degree and not depending on any way upon
whatever else may be the case.
 Inductive argument one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from its premises only with
probability, this probability being a matter of
degree and dependent upon what else may be
the case.
NB. It will not always the case that in the
inductive arguments, the word probably is
explicitly displayed.
Exercises

1. All dolphins are fish

2. No fish are mammals
3. Therefore, no dolphins are mammals
1. All politicians are dirty rotten liars
2. All dirty rotten liars are dangerous
3. So, all politicians are dangerous.
1. My math teacher is skinny
2. My last math teacher was skinny
3. Therefore, all math teachers are skinny

1. All even numbers are divisible by 2

2. 28 is divisible by 2
3. Therefore, 28 is an even number.

http://www.thatquiz.org/tq/previewtest?Y/Z/L/T/1484132949819
1
1. My daddy has curly hair
2. My brother has curly hair
3. Therefore, everyone I am related to has curly
hair

1. An apple a day keeps the doctor away

2. Juan de la Cruz eats an apple every day,
3. Dr. Jones stayed away
http://www.thatquiz.org/tq/previewtest?Y/Z/L/T/1484132949819
1
1. My soda has a cockroach in it.
2. All soda has cockroaches in it.

1. All speeders will be slapped

2. Jimmy sped
3. Therefore, Jimmy got slapped

http://www.thatquiz.org/tq/previewtest?Y/Z/L/T/1484132949819
1
1. Two episodes of the Bubble Gang made me
laugh and laugh LOLOLOL
2. Therefore, Bubble Gang is always funny

May named her 1st kid June.

She named her 2nd kid July
I assume, she will name her 3rd kid August.

http://www.thatquiz.org/tq/previewtest?Y/Z/L/T/1484132949819
1
 Consider the following argument

1. Berto is a Kankanaey, or he is an Ibaloi.

2. Berto is not a Kankanaey
3. Therefore, Berto is an Ibaloi.
 It is clear that when the premises are true, then
the conclusion must be true.
We know this because of the form of the
argument and not because of its content;
Its form makes this argument a valid argument.
 Any argument having the same, is valid:

________ or __________
Its not the case that _______
____________
 If Berto is a Kankanaey, then he belongs to the
ethnic group.
Berto is a Kankanaey
Therefore, he belongs to the ethnic group
http://thepiratebay.se/user/ScorpioPirate/

Logic is concerned primarily with argument

forms, and only secondarily with the arguments
because all arguments that have a valid
argument forms are valid.
 The form, not the content, of the preceding
arguments makes it impossible for them to have
all true premises and a false conclusion.

Thus, the principal task of deductive logic is to

provide a method for distinguishing valid
argument forms from invalid argument forms.
 The form, not the content, of the preceding
arguments makes it impossible for them to have
all true premises and a false conclusion.

Thus, the principal task of deductive logic is to

provide a method for distinguishing valid
argument forms from invalid argument forms.
 The truth or falsehood may be predicated in the
propositions, but not of the arguments
The validity or invalidity can belong only to
deductive arguments, but not to propositions.
There is a connection between the validity and
invalidity of the an argument and the truth and
falsehood of the propositions.
 An argument may be valid while one or more of
its premises are untrue.
All turtles are mammals
All mammals have lungs
Therefore, all turtles have lungs
An invalid argument can have both true
premises and a true conclusion.
All atoms are tiny
The smallest particle of hydrogen gas is tiny
Therefore, the smallest particle of hydrogen gas is
atom.
 Indeed, every combination of validity-invalidity
and truth-falsehood can occur except one:
A valid argument with true premises cannot
have false conclusion.
Examples: Valid Arguments

True premises and true conclusion

All whales are mammals

All mammals have lungs
Therefore, all whales have lungs.
Examples: Valid Arguments
True premises and false conclusion (it cannot
occur: an argument with true premises a false
conclusion is invalid)
Examples: Valid Arguments
False premises and true conclusion

Bill Clinton is a politician and he once won the

gold medal in Olympics for the 200-meter
hurdles.
Therefore, Bill Clinton is a politician.
Examples: Valid Arguments
False premises and False conclusion

All spiders have ten legs

All ten-legged creatures have wings
Therefore, all spiders have wings
Examples: Invalid Arguments
True premises and True Conclusion

Africa is a continent
George Washington crossed the Delaware
Therefore, Broccolli is a vegetable

No one can be fooled by this argument (we can

even ask whether this is an argument at all)
Examples: Invalid Arguments
True premises and true conclusion

If you are reading this book, then you are not

asleep.
You are not asleep.
Therefore, you are reading this book.
Examples: Invalid Arguments
True premises and False Conclusion

If Rhode Island is a small island in the pacific,

then it is smaller than Texas
Rhode Island is smaller than Texas
Therefore, Rhode Island is a small island in the
pacific.
Examples: Invalid Arguments
False Premises and True Conclusion

If the duckbill platypus is a mammal, then the

duckbill platypus does not lay eggs.
The duckbill platypus does not lay eggs.
Therefore, the duckbill platypus is a mammal.
Examples: invalid arguments
False premises and false conclusion

Either Coco Martin is a Congressman

representing the province of Isabela, or Manny
Pacquiao is a governor of Saranggani.
Manny Pacquiao is a governor of Saranggani
Therefore, Coco Martin is a congressman
representing the province of Isabela.
 From the examples, it is clear that there are
valid arguments that have false conclusions and
invalid arguments that have true conclusions.
Thus, it is clear that the truth or falsity of an
argument s conclusion does not itself determine
the validity or invalidity of that argument.
And the fact that an argument is valid does not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
 The only combination of truth and falsity it is
impossible to produce is an argument that is
valid and has all true premises and a false
conclusion.
 SOUNDNESS
An argument is sound when if its valid and all
its premises is true.
In evaluating argument, we must not ask only
whether it is valid, but also whether all its
premises are true.
Example
1. Either a majority voted for Bush in 2000, or he
received more votes than any other candidate.
2. Its not the case that a majority voted for Bush
in 2000.
3. Therefore, Bush received more votes than any
other candidate.
 If grapefruits are fruits, then grapefruits grow on
trees
Its not the case that the grapefruits grow on
trees.
Therefore, its not the case that grapefruits are
fruits.
 COGENCY
The best arguments are cogent
An argument is cogent if and only if it meets
three conditions:
Valid or inductively strong
Evidences we have make it highly probable that all
the premises are true (certain that it is true)
All available (obtainable), relevant information
has been taken into account in its premises and
nothing is overlooked.
 Barcalow, Emmett. Open Questions: An Introduction to
Philosophy, 3rd ed. Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning,
2001.

Copi, Irving M. & Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic, 8th

ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.

Hausman, Alan et. Al. Logic and Philosophy: A Modern

Introduction. Boston: Wadsworth, CENCAGE Learning, 2010.

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy: A Text with

Integrated Readings, 8th ed. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005.