EC – III Introduction to Module – 2 Argument Analysis

Logical Reasoning and Dr. Charmy Thakkar

Critical Thinking
Module Outline
How to identify arguments
What makes an argument sound as opposed to unsound or merely valid
The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning
How to map arguments to reveal their structure
How to turn phrases in ordinary language into well-formed formulas
Draw truth-tables for formulas
Evaluate arguments using those truth-tables
 What is an argument?
“ARGUMENT” IS A WORD THAT HAS MULTIPLE DISTINCT MEANINGS, SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR
FROM THE START ABOUT THE SENSE OF THE WORD THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE STUDY OF LOGIC. IN ONE
SENSE OF THE WORD, AN ARGUMENT IS A HEATED EXCHANGE OF DIFFERING VIEWS AS IN THE
FOLLOWING:
BOB:
SHAILY: Abortion is not morally wrong and those who
Abortion is morally wrong and those think so are right-wing bigots who are seeking to
who think otherwise are seeking to impose their narrow-minded views on all the
justify murder! rest of us!
They are having an argument in this exchange.

That is, they are each expressing conflicting views in

a heated manner. However, that is not the sense of
“argument” with which logic is concerned.

Logic concerns a different sense of the word

“argument.” An argument, in this sense, is a reason
for thinking that a statement, claim or idea is true
A crucial part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
In logic and critical thinking, an argument has two parts:
THE P REMIS E (As s umptio n) AND THE CONCLUS ION
To give an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion. To give an argument is
not necessarily to attack or criticize someone. Arguments can also be used to support other people's viewpoints.
Here is an example of an argument:
If you want to find a good job, you should work hard. You do want to find a good job. So, you should work hard.
The first two sentences here are the premises of the argument, and the last sentence is the conclusion. To give this
argument is to offer the premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion.
 SHAILY:
Abortion is morally wrong because it is wrong to take the life
of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human
being.

In this example SHAILY has given an argument against the moral permissibility of abortion.

That is, she has given us a reason for thinking that abortion is morally wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is the first four words, “abortion is morally wrong.”

But whereas in the first example Shaily was simply asserting that abortion is wrong (and then trying to put down those who
support it), in this example she is offering a reason for why abortion is wrong.
So, we have two parts of an argument:

THE PREMISE
AND
THE CONCLUSION
Typically, a conclusion will be supported by two or more premises. Both premises and conclusions are
statements. A statement is a type of sentence that can be true or false and corresponds to the
grammatical category of a “declarative sentence.”
It is a statement. Why? Because it makes sense to
The Nile is a river in northeastern
inquire whether it is true or false. (In this case, it
Africa happens to be true.)

is still a statement; it is just a false statement

The Yangtze is a river in Japan (the Yangtze River is in China).
In contrast, none of the following sentences are statements:
• Please help yourself to more ice-cream
• Don’t tell your mother about the surprise
• Do you like Shahrukh khan?
The reason that none of these sentences are statements is that it doesn’t make sense to ask
whether those sentences are true or false (rather, they are requests or commands, and
questions, respectively).
Which of the following sentences are statements and which
are not?
1. No one understands me but you. Statement

2. Alligators are on average larger than crocodiles. Statement

3. Is an alligator a reptile or a mammal? Not a Statement (question)

4. An alligator is either a reptile or a mammal. Statement

5. Don’t let any reptiles into the house. Not a Statement (command)

6. You may kill any reptile you see in the house. Not a Statement (command/request)

7. East Africans are not the best distance runners. Statement

Which of the following sentences are statements and which
are not?
8. Obama is not a Democrat. Statement
9. Some humans have wings. Statement
10. Some things with wings cannot fly. Statement
11. Was Obama born in Kenya or Hawaii? Not a Statement (question)
12. Oh no! A grizzly bear! Not a Statement (exclamation)
13. Meet me in St. Louis. Not a Statement (command)
14. We met in St. Louis yesterday. Statement
15. I do not want to meet a grizzly bear in the wild. Statement
How do we identify arguments in real life?

There are no easy mechanical rules, and we usually have to rely on the context in order to
determine which are the premises and the conclusions. But sometimes the job can be made easier
by the presence of certain premise or conclusion indicators.

For example, if a person makes a statement, and then adds "this is because...", then it is quite
likely that the first statement is presented as a conclusion, supported by the statements that come
afterwards.
 Indicators
Premise indicators Conclusion indicators
since Therefore, so
because entails, implies
Firstly, secondly hence, consequently
As, for, after all thus
given that implies that
seeing that, assuming that, in view of the fact that suggests / proves / demonstrates that
for the reason that it follows that
is shown by the fact that we may conclude that
Of course, whether such words are used to indicate premises or not depends on the context. For example, "since" has a Here too, context is very important
very different function in a statement like "I have been here since noon", unlike "X is an even number since X is divisible
by 4". I have been running competitively since 1999. I am so happy to have finally finished that class
Do these passages contain arguments? If so, what are their
conclusions?
Cutting the interest rate will have no effect on the stock market this time round as people have been expecting a rate cut all along. This
factor has already been reflected in the market. Yes. The conclusion is that this time, cutting interest rate will have no effect on the stock market

So, it is raining heavily, and this building might collapse. But I don't really care.
Not an argument. Although the first statement starts with “so” it does not indicate a conclusion.

Bill will pay the ransom. After all, he loves his wife and children and would do everything to save them.
The first statement is the conclusion.
HOW TO IDENTIFY AN ARGUMENT
The best way to identify whether an argument is present is to ask whether there is a statement that
someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement.
If so, then there is an argument present.
If not, then there isn’t.
Another thing that can help in identifying arguments is knowing certain key words or phrases that
are premise indicators or conclusion indicators.
I know that the student plagiarized since I found the exact same sentences
on a website and the website was published more than a year before the
student wrote the paper.

In this example, the word “since” is a premise indicator because what

follows it is a statement that is clearly intended to be a reason for thinking
that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in these two cases,
the premise indicators “because” and “since” are interchangeable
In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators. Conclusion
indicators mark that what follows is the conclusion of an argument.

For example, Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, so Bob-the-arsonist didn’t set
the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.

In this example, the word “so” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a
statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion).
Here is another example of a conclusion indicator:

A poll administered by Gallup showed candidate X to be substantially behind candidate Y with only a week
left before the vote, therefore candidate X will probably not win the election.

In this example, the word “therefore” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that
someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion).

As before, in both of these cases the conclusion indicators “so” and “therefore” are interchangeable.
 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ARGUMENTS? IF IT IS AN ARGUMENT,
IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT.
1. The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn’t have a long nose
Argument. Conclusion: The woman in the hat is not a witch.
2. I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes.
Not an argument
3. Albert is angry with me so he probably won’t be willing to help me wash the dishes.
Argument. Conclusion: Albert won’t be willing to help me wash the dishes.
4. First I washed the dishes and then I dried them.
Not an argument
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ARGUMENTS? IF IT IS AN ARGUMENT,
IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT.
5. Albert isn’t a fireman and he isn’t a fisherman either.
Not an argument
6. Are you seeing that rhinoceros over there? It is huge!
Not an argument
7. The fact that obesity has become a problem in the U.S. is shown by the fact that obesity rates have risen significantly
over the past four decades. Argument. Conclusion: Obesity has become a problem in the U.S.
8. Bob showed me a graph with the rising obesity rates and I was very surprised to see how much they’ve risen.
Not an argument
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ARGUMENTS? IF IT IS AN ARGUMENT,
IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT.
9. Albert isn’t a fireman because Albert is a Greyhound, which is a kind of dog, and dogs can’t
be firemen. Argument. Conclusion: Albert isn’t a fireman.
10. Charlie and Violet are dogs and since dogs don’t sweat, it is obvious that Charlie and Violet
don’t sweat. Argument. Conclusion: Charlie and Violet don’t sweat.
11. The reason I forgot to lock the door is that I was distracted by the clown riding a unicycle
down our street while singing Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Simple Man.”
Argument (explanation). Conclusion: I forgot to lock the door.
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ARGUMENTS? IF IT IS AN ARGUMENT,
IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT.
12. What Bob told you is not the real reason that he missed his plane to Denver.
Not an argument

13. Samsung stole some of Apple’s patents for their smartphones, so Apple stole some of Samsung’s
patents back in retaliation. Argument (explanation). Conclusion: Apple stole some of Samsung’s patents.

14. No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it, therefore no one
ever will. Argument. Conclusion: No one who gets frostbite while on K2 will ever survive.
 THE STANDARD FORMAT OF AN
ARGUMENT
When it comes to the analysis and evaluation of an argument, it is
often useful to label the premises and the conclusion, and display
them on separate lines with the conclusion at the bottom:
• If you want to find a good job, you should work hard. You do
want to find a good job. So, you should work hard.
(Premise 1) If you want to find a good job, you should work hard.
(Premise 2) You do want to find a good job.
(Conclusion) So you should work hard.
THE STANDARD FORMAT OF AN ARGUMENT
(Premise 1) - We should not inflict unnecessary pain on
1. We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows and
any animal with consciousness.
pigs. After all, we should not inflict unnecessary pain on (Premise 2) - Cows and pigs are animals with consciousness.
any animal with consciousness, and cows and pigs are
animals with consciousness. (Conclusion) - We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows
and pigs.
(Premise 1) - If the liquid is acidic, the litmus paper
2. If this liquid is acidic, the litmus paper would have would have turned red.
turned red. But it hasn't, so the liquid is not acidic. (Premise 2) - The litmus paper has not turned red.
(Conclusion) - The liquid is not acidic.
• When presenting an argument in the standard format the premises and the conclusion are clearly identified.
• Sometimes we also rewrite some of the sentences to make their meaning clearer, as in the second premise of the second example.
• Notice also that a conclusion need not always come at the end of a passage containing an argument, as in the first example.
• In fact, sometimes the conclusion of an argument might not be explicitly written out. For example, it might be expressed by a
rhetorical question:
How can you believe that corruption is acceptable? It is
neither fair nor legal!

(Premise)
When presenting an argument in the (Conclusion)
standard format, we have to rewrite the Corruption is not fair and it is not
argument more explicitly as follows: legal. Corruption is not acceptable.
VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS
So far, we have discussed what arguments are and how to determine their structure, including how to
reconstruct arguments in standard form.
But we have not yet discussed what makes an argument good or bad.
The central concept that you will learn in logic is the concept of validity.
Validity relates to how well the premises support the conclusion, and it is the golden standard that every
argument should aim for.
A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion cannot possibly be false, assuming that the premises
are true. Another way of putting this is as a conditional statement:
A valid argument is an argument in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
 P1 – ALL CA
STUDENTS ARE
HARDWORKING IF THE PREMISES
C – RAJ IS WERE TRUE,
HARDWORKING CONCLUSION
COULD NOT BE
P2 – RAJ IS
A CA FALSE
STUDENT
 P1 – ALL CA
STUDENTS ARE
HARDWORKING IF THE PREMISES
C – RAJ IS CA WERE TRUE,
STUDENT CONCLUSION
COULD STILL BE
P2 – RAJ IS FALSE
HARDWORKING
1. VIOLET IS A DOG
2. THEREFORE, VIOLET IS A MAMMAL (FROM 1)
You might wonder whether it is true that Violet is a dog (maybe she’s a lizard
or a buffalo—we have no way of knowing from the information given).
But, for the purposes of validity, it doesn’t matter whether premise 1 is
actually true or false.
All that matters for VALIDITY is whether the conclusion follows from the
premise.
And we can see that the conclusion, Violet is a mammal, does seem to follow
from the premise, Violet is a dog. That is, given the truth of the premise, the
conclusion has to be true.
This argument is clearly valid since if we assume that “Violet is a dog” is true,
then, since all dogs are mammals, it follows that “Violet is a mammal” must
also be true.
Whether or not an argument is valid has nothing to do with whether the
premises of the argument are actually true or not.
LET US ILLUSTRATE THIS WITH ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHERE THE
PREMISES ARE CLEARLY FALSE:
1. Everyone born in France can speak French
2. Barack Obama was born in France
C. Therefore, Barak Obama can speak French (from 1-2)

Now, this is a valid argument. Why?

Because when we assume the truth of the premises (everyone born in France can speak French, Barack Obama was born in France) the conclusion (Barack
Obama can speak French) must be true.

Notice that this is so even though none of these statements is actually true. Not everyone born in France can speak French (think about people who were born
there but then moved somewhere else where they didn’t speak French and never learned it) and Obama was not born in France, but it is also false that Obama
can speak French.
Understanding Validity with an Invalid Argument Example
Validity describes the relationship between the premises and conclusion, and it means that the premises imply the conclusion, whether or not that conclusion is true. In
order to better understand the concept of validity, let’s look at an example of an invalid argument:

Premise: George was President of the United States

Conclusion: George was elected President of the United States (from 1)

This argument is invalid because it is possible for the premise to be true and yet the conclusion false. Here is a counterexample to the argument. Gerald Ford was
President of the United States but he was never elected president, since Ford Replaced Richard Nixon when Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal. So it
doesn’t follow that just because someone is President of the United States that they were elected President of the United States. In other words, it is possible for the
premise of the argument to be true and yet the conclusion false. And this means that the argument is invalid.
informal test of validity

Imagine a world where premises are true but the conclusion is false

- If possible, the argument is invalid

Applying the Test: Example 1
- Premise: Joana jumped out of an airplane without a parachute

- Conclusion: Joana fell to her death

- Possible scenario: The airplane was on the ground

- Conclusion: Argument is invalid

 - Premise: Joana jumped out of a flying airplane
Modifying the Test: without a parachute
Example 2 - Conclusion: Joana fell to her death
- Possible scenarios:
- Caught by another person with parachute
- Landed in a safety net
- Survived the fall
- Conclusion: Argument is invalid
Exercise - Test Argument Validity Using Informal Test: Valid
or Invalid with Counterexamples
1. Katie is a human being. Therefore, Katie is smarter than a chimpanzee. Invalid

2. Bob is a fireman. Therefore, Bob has put out fires. Invalid

3. Gerald is a mathematics professor. Therefore, Gerald knows how to teach mathematics. Invalid

4. Monica is a French teacher. Therefore, Monica knows how to teach French. Invalid

5. Bob is taller than Susan. Susan is taller than Frankie. Therefore, Bob is taller than Frankie. Valid
IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE BUT THE PREMISE DOES NOT IMPLY THE CONCLUSION – THEN THE ARGUMENT IS INVALID

BUT

IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE AND THE CONCLUSION IS ALSO TRUE AND THE PREMISE IMPLIES THE CONCLUSION – THEN
THE ARGUMENT IS VALID

ALSO IF

THE PREMISES ARE FALSE AND THE CONCLUSION IS ALSO FALSE-BUT PREMISE IMPLY THE CONCLUSION – THEN THE
ARGUMENT IS VALID
Definition of Validity
• An argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation where all the
premises are true and the conclusion is false at the same time.
• Validity explains the logical relationship between premises and conclusion.
Example:
Argument 1: Barbie is more than 90 years old. So, Barbie is more than 20 years old. Valid
Argument 2: Barbie is more than 20 years old. So, Barbie is more than 90 years old. Invalid
Validity and Truth
• Validity is about logical connection, not actual truth.
• An argument can be valid even if premises and conclusion are false.
Example:
Argument: All pigs can fly. Anything that can fly can swim. So, all pigs can swim.

THE PREMISES AND THE CONCLUSION OF A VALID ARGUMENT CAN ALL BE FALSE.
Showing Invalidity

Argument: Adam loves Beth. Beth loves Cathy. So Adam loves Cathy. Invalid

An argument can be invalid even if the conclusion and the premises are all actually true.

Another point to remember is that it is possible for a valid argument to have a true conclusion even
when all its premises are false.

Argument: All pigs are purple in color. Anything that is purple is an animal. So, all pigs are animals.
Verify Understanding of Claims with Examples
1.The premises and the conclusion of an invalid argument can all be true.
2.A valid argument should not be defined as an argument with true premises and a true
conclusion.
3.The premises and the conclusion of a valid argument can all be false.
4.A valid argument with false premises can still have a true conclusion.
 ARGUMENTS

VALID INVALID

SOUND UNSOUND
soundness
• If an argument is valid, and all the premises are true, then it is called a sound argument.
• A sound argument is a valid argument that has all true premises.
• An argument that is not sound is an unsound argument. If an argument is unsound, it might
be that it is invalid, or maybe it has at least one false premise, or both.
 TRUE PREMISES FALSE PREMISES TRUE PREMISES FALSE PREMISES
TRUE CONCLUSION TRUE CONCLUSION FALSE CONCLUSION FALSE CONCLUSION
No, If the premises are true
No, If the premises are
No If The Premise Is False, and the argument is valid,
VALID AND SOUND YES
The Argument Is Not Sound the conclusion must also be
false, the argument is not
sound.
true.
No, If the premises are true
VALID AND No. If the premises are true
and the argument is valid,
and the argument is valid, YES YES
UNSOUND the argument is sound.
the conclusion must also be
true.

INVALID AND No. By definition a sound No. By definition a sound No. By definition a sound No. By definition a sound
SOUND argument has to be valid argument has to be valid argument has to be valid. argument has to be valid.

INVALID AND Yes! E.g.. The Earth is Yes. eg. The Earth is not Yes. eg. The Earth is round. Yes. eg. The Earth is not
round. So the sun is larger round. So the sun is larger So the moon is larger than round. So the moon is
UNSOUND than the moon. than the moon. the sun. larger than the sun
 With valid arguments, it is impossible to have
a false conclusion if the premises are all true.

Valid Patterns of
Ensures true conclusions from true premises.
Argument
Uses symbols to describe valid patterns and
evaluate argument validity.
 Hypothetical
Modus Ponens Modus Tollens
Syllogism

Disjunctive
Dilemma
Syllogism

Valid patterns
 Modus Ponens
Modus ponens - If P then Q. P. Therefore, Q
Examples:
1.If this object is made of copper, it will conduct electricity. This object is made of copper, so it will conduct
electricity.
2.If there is no largest prime number, then 510511 is not the largest prime number. There is no largest
prime number. Therefore 510511 is not the largest prime number.
3. If Lam is a Buddhist, then he should not eat pork. Lam is a Buddhist. Therefore, he should not eat pork.
Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent - If P then Q. Q. Therefore, P.
Modus Tollens
Modus Tollens - If P then Q. Not-Q. Therefore, not-P.
Example:
•IfBetty is on the plane, she will be in the A1 seat. Betty is not in the A1 seat. So she is not on
the plane.
Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent - If P then Q. Not-P. Therefore, not-Q.
Hypothetical Syllogism
Hypothetical Syllogism - If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore, if P then R.
Example:
•If God created the universe then the universe will be perfect. If the universe is perfect then there
will be no evil. So if God created the universe there will be no evil.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism - P or Q. Not-P. Therefore, Q.
Example:
•Either the government brings about more sensible educational reforms, or the only good schools
left will be private ones for rich kids. The government is not going to carry out sensible educational
reforms. So the only good schools left will be private ones for rich kids.
Dilemma
Dilemma - P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Therefore, R or S.
Example:
•Eitherwe increase the tax rate or we don't. If we do, the people will be unhappy. If we don't, the
people will also be unhappy. So the people are going to be unhappy anyway.
 If Jesus loves me, then I love Jesus. I do not love Jesus. Therefore, Jesus does not love me.
Modus Tollens
Either Jimmy is walking the dog or Cathy is feeding the cat (or both). Cathy is feeding the cat.
Exercise - Consider Therefore Jimmy is not walking the dog. Invalid
Either Jimmy is walking the dog or Cathy is feeding the cat. Cathy is not feeding the cat.
the following Therefore Jimmy is walking the dog. Disjunctive Syllogism

arguments. If X is a man, then X is a human being. If X is a human being, then X is an animal. Therefore, if
X is a man, then X is an animal. Hypothetical Syllogism

Identify the forms If I do not have Yellow Tail sashimi, then I will have scallop sushi instead. Now, I am having
Yellow Tail sashimi. So I will not have scallop sushi. Invalid
of all valid If some sheep are black, then some ducks are pink. It is not true that some ducks are pink.
Therefore, it is not true that some sheep are black. Modus Tollens
arguments. Either she is right or she is wrong. If she is right, then he is wrong. If she is wrong, then he is
also wrong. Therefore, he is wrong either way. Dilemma
Either she is in Beijing or she is in Europe. If she is in Beijing, then she is eating lunch. If she is
in Europe, then she is sleeping. Hence, either she is eating lunch or she is sleeping. Dilemma
Deductive vs. Inductive arguments
• The concepts of validity and soundness that we have introduced apply only to the class of what
are called "deductive arguments".
• A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its
premises with absolute certainty, thus leaving no possibility that the conclusion doesn't follow
from the premises.
• Conclusion follows with absolute certainty from premises.
• If premises are true, the conclusion must be true
 Deductive vs. Inductive arguments
• An inductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with
a high level of probability, which means that although it is possible that the conclusion doesn't follow
from its premises, it is unlikely that this is the case.
• Conclusion follows with a high level of probability from premises.
• The conclusion is likely but not certain.
• Example: Premise 1: Tweety is a healthy, normally functioning bird.
Premise 2: Most healthy, normally functioning birds fly.
Conclusion: Tweety probably flies.
Strength of Inductive Arguments

Strong vs. Weak Inductive Arguments

Strong Inductive Argument: Premises provide a strong reason to accept the
conclusion.
Weak Inductive Argument: Premises do not provide a strong reason to
accept the conclusion.
 Defeasibility of
Inductive Arguments
Adding new premises can change the
strength of the conclusion.
Example:
• New Premise: Tweety is 6 ft tall and
can run 30 mph.
• Conclusion: Tweety is likely an ostrich
or emu, which do not fly.
Defeasibility vs. Validity
Inductive Arguments: Defeasible (can be overturned by new premises).
Deductive Arguments: Validity cannot be overturned by new premises.
Deductive Argument Example
Premise 1: Tweety is a healthy, normally functioning bird.
Premise 2: All healthy, normally functioning birds can fly.
Conclusion: Tweety can fly.
Explanation: Even if Tweety is 6 ft tall, the argument remains valid.
 A diagram that captures the logical structure of a
Argument maps •
simple or complex argument.
Simple Argument: A set of one or more
premises with a conclusion
Complex Argument: A set of arguments with
overlapping premises, conclusions, or both.
• Helps visualize how premises support conclusions.
 Simple Argument

• Single Premise Supporting a Single Conclusion

Example: Death is inevitable. So, life is meaningless.
Premise: Death is inevitable.
Conclusion: Life is meaningless.
• We can also use numbers to label the premises and conclusion.
[1] = Life is meaningless, [2] = Death is inevitable:
 Co-Premises in Arguments
• Multiple Premises Working Together
Example:
[1]Paris is in France.
[2] France is in Europe.
So obviously [3] Paris is in Europe.
Note: Premises 1 and 2 are co-premises and work
together.
 Independent Premises in
Arguments
• Multiple Independent Premises Supporting a Conclusion
Example:
[1] Smoking is unhealthy, since [2] it can cause cancer.
Furthermore, [3] it also increases the chance of heart
attacks and strokes.
Note: Premises 2 and 3 are independent and support the
conclusion individually.
Single Premise with Multiple
Conclusions
• One Premise Leading to Multiple Conclusions
Example:
[1] Gold is a metal. [2] So it conducts electricity.
[3] It also conducts heat.
1. Wanda arrived at work with her right pant
leg rolled up.
2. Cyclists often roll up their right pant leg.
3. Bob saw Wanda riding her bike towards work
at 7:45.
4. Therefore, Wanda rode her bike to work
today.
1. Po cannot come to the party.
2. Po's scooter is broken.
3. Dipsy cannot come to the party.
4. Dipsy has to pick up his new hat.
5. I did not invite the other teletubbies.
6. [Conclusion] No teletubby will come up to the
party.
LOGIC
• Logic is the study of the principles
of correct reasoning.
• Derived from the Greek word logos
(meaning sentence, discourse,
reason, rule, or ratio).
 Logic: Focuses on how we ought to
reason if we want to reason correctly.
Logic vs. Psychology
of Reasoning
Psychology of Reasoning: Empirical
science that studies how people actually
reason, including their mistakes.
 Principles of Logic
Main Focus: Validity of arguments.
Example:
If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.
Tom is a philosopher.
Therefore, Tom is poor.
Modus Ponens: If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
 Features of logic
Topic Neutrality - Principles of logic are universal and apply to diverse topics.
• [Logic is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the
sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts. — Alfred Tarski (1901-1983). From his
Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences, Dover, page xi.
• To discover truths is the task of all sciences; it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth. ... I assign to
logic the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.
- Gottlob Frege (1848-1925). From his 1956 paper "The Thought: A Logical Inquiry" in Mind Vol. 65.
Features of logic
Non-Contingent Principles - Necessity in Logic

Logic does not depend on any particular accidental features of the world.
• Example: "If P, then P" is always true regardless of the world's state.
 Formal vs. Informal Logic
Informal Logic:
Often equated with critical thinking.
Studies reasoning in everyday life.
Formal Logic:
Concerned with formal systems of logic (e.g.,
Sentential Logic, Predicate Logic).
Used in linguistics, AI research, and philosophy.
Formal Methods of Evaluation
Formal Logic provides a framework for objective, logical evaluations of conclusions. It helps make
valid inferences without relying on imagination or understanding of content.

Informal Test of Validity - Imagine if premises are true and the conclusion is false.
• It is not precise or objective; relies on individual imagination and understanding.
• Two people may disagree on whether an argument is valid based on their imagination.
 Need for Formal Methods
• Eliminate imprecision and lack of
Formal Methods of objectivity.
Evaluation • Formal methods evaluate arguments based
on structure, not content.
• Formal methods do not require
understanding the meaning of statements.
EXAMPLE
Suppose we state:
• It is sunny AND warm today.
This statement is a conjunction because it is a complex statement that is asserting two things:
It is sunny today.
It is warm today.
These two statements are conjoined with an “and.” So the conjunction is really two statements that are conjoined by the “and.”

Thus, if it is said that it is both sunny and warm today, it follows logically that it is sunny today. Here is that simple argument in
standard form:

It is sunny today and it is warm today.

Therefore, it is sunny today. (from 1)

This is a valid inference that passes the informal test of validity. But we can also see that the form of the inference is perfectly
general because it would work equally well for any conjunction, not just this one.

A and B
Therefore, A
Logical connectives - Negation
Definition: The negation of a statement α is a statement whose truth-value is necessarily opposite
to that of α.
Symbols: "not-α", "~α", "¬α“
Examples: Statement (α): It is raining
Negation (¬α): It is not the case that it is raining (i.e., It is not raining)
Key Points: A statement and its negation can never be true together.
They exhaust all logical possibilities.
Exercise - Negation
1. What is the negation of "God exists"?
"God does not exist." or "It is not the case that God exists.“
2. Is "I must not leave" the negation of "I must leave"?
No! It should be "It is not the case that I must leave." This includes the possibility that it does not matter
whether I should leave or not.
Logical connectives - Disjunction
Definition: A complex sentence typically expressed by "or".
Types:
Exclusive Disjunction: True when only one of P or Q is true, false when both are true or both
are false.
Inclusive Disjunction: False only when both P and Q are false, true in all other situations.
Examples: "Either we meet tonight, or we do not meet at all.“
Exclusive: You can have tea or coffee (but not both).
Inclusive: You can have tea or coffee (or both).
Logical relations- Consistency
Definition: A set S is consistent if all statements in S can be true simultaneously.
Examples:
Consistent: Peter is three years old. Jane is four years old.
Inconsistent: Peter is three years old. Peter is five years old.
Key Points: Statements that are inconsistent cannot all be true at the same time.
Every statement is inconsistent with its negation.
Inconsistency and Self-Defeating Statements
Definition: Difference between making self-defeating statements and inconsistent statements.
Examples:
Self-Defeating: "I cannot speak any English.“
Inconsistent: Peter is a completely white rabbit that is completely black.
Key Points: Self-defeating statements describe logically possible situations but cannot be truly
stated.
Logical relations- Truth
Quote: "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the
truth." — Marcus Aurelius.
Discussion: Grand claims about truth can often be self-defeating.
Examples: "Nothing is true" is self-defeating because if true, it must be false.
"Everything is relative" leads to contradictions
Logical relations- Entailment
Definition : X entails Y if Y logically follows from X.
Examples: X: "30 people have died in the riots."
Y: "More than 20 people died in the riots.“
Key Points:
If X entails Y and Y is false, X must be false.
A stronger claim is more likely to be wrong.
 Exercise - Entailment
1. Either it is raining or it is cloudy. It is not raining.
It is cloudy.
If Peter is upstairs, then someone is in the basement. Nobody is in the basement.

Peter is not upstairs.

Logical relations- Logical Equivalence
Definition : Two statements that entail each other are logically equivalent.
Examples: "Everyone is happy" "Nobody is not happy"
"The glass is half full" "The glass is half empty"
Key Points:
Logically equivalent statements always have the same truth value.
Exercise - Which of these statements are logically
equivalent?
1. There is no life on Mars.
2. It is rather unlikely that there is life on Mars.
3. It is not true that there is no life on Mars. Logically Equivalent
4. There may not be life on Mars.
5. There is life on Mars. Logically Equivalent
6. There may be life on Mars.
7. It is the case that there is life on Mars. Logically Equivalent
Turning Phrases Into Well Formed Formulas
Truth Functional Connectives
Name Meaning Symbol 1 Symbol 2
Conjunction and & •
Disjunction or v v
Negation not ~ ~
Conditional if/then → ⊃
Biconditional if and only if ≡
 Simple sentences are translated using TFC
First atomic proposition of the sentence is determined
The TFC are then used to form the compound sentences
Translating Simple
Bob will not go to class but play video games
Sentences Using Here the sentence is made of two components:
Truth Functional 1: Bob will not go to class - contains ‘not ‘so is not atomic
Connectives (TFC) 2: Bob will play video games Atomic
Since 1 is not atomic, we convert it into its non negated
atomic statement which is
C: Bob will go to class and its negation becomes ~C: Bob will
not go to class
G: Bob will play video games
The translation will be: ~C . G
Exercise: Translate following English sentences into Formal
language using Truth-functional connectives
Either Bob will mop or Tom will mop. (B = Bob will mop; T = Tom will mop)
It is not sunny today. (S = it is sunny today)
It is not the case that Bob is a burglar. (B = Bob is a burglar)
Harry is arriving either tonight or tomorrow night. (A = Harry is arriving tonight; B = Harry is arriving tomorrow night)
Gareth does not like his name. (G = Gareth likes his name)
Either it will not rain on Monday or it will not rain on Tuesday. (M = It will rain on Monday; T = It will rain on Tuesday)
Tom does not like cheesecake. (T = Tom likes cheesecake)
Bob would like to have both a large cat and a small dog as a pet. (C = Bob would like to have a large cat as a pet; D = Bob w ould like to have a small dog as a
pet)
Bob Saget is not actually very funny. (B = Bob Saget is very funny)
Albert Einstein did not believe in God. (A = Albert Einstein believed in God)
Answers
BvT
~S
~B
AvB
~G
~M v ~T
~T
C⋅D
~B
~A
Translating Complex Sentences with Parentheses
Simple vs. Complex Translation: Simple sentences may not need parentheses, but complex ones
often do.
Example: "Bob will not both go to class and play video games"
translates to ~(C ⋅ G).
Role of Parentheses: They group statements (e.g., C ⋅ G) to ensure the negation applies to the entire
conjunction.
Main Operator: In this case, negation is the main operator, influencing the entire sentence grouping.
 Translating Complex Sentences: NUPuR Example
Sentence: "Nupur will either feed the dogs or clean her room, but she will not do the dishes."
Atomic Propositions: (F): Feed the dogs
(C): Clean her room
(D) : Nupur will do the dishes ~D: Nupur will not do the dishes
Translation:
First part: F v C
Second part: ~D
Combined with "but" (conjunction): (F v C) ⋅ ~D
Steps for Translating English into Symbolic Logic
Identify atomic propositions.
Assign unique constants to each proposition.
Determine groupings and connecting operators for complex sentences.
Identify the main operator.
Review and adjust translation to ensure accuracy.
Translate the following English sentences into symbolic language using TFCs. After
translating the sentence, identify which TFC is the main operator of the sentence.
1. Bob does not know how to fly an airplane or pilot a ship, but he does know how to ride a
motorcycle. (A, S, M)
2. Tom does not know how to swim or how to ride a horse. (S, H)
3. Tina writes poems, not novels. (P, N)
4. Bob does not like Sally or Freni, but he does like Alina. (S, F, A)
5. Cricket is not widely played in the United States, but both football and baseball are. (C, F, B)
6. Tom and Lucy are friends, but Tom and Susan aren't - although Lucy and Susan are. (T, S, L)
Answers
(~A ⋅ ~S) ⋅ M (The main operator is the second dot).
~S ⋅ ~H (The main operator is the conjunction).
P ⋅ ~N (The main operator is the conjunction).
(~S ⋅ ~F) ⋅ A (The main operator is the second dot).
~C ⋅ (F ⋅ B) (The main operator is the first dot).
(T ⋅ ~S) ⋅ L (The main operator is the second dot).
TRUTH TABLE FOR NEGETATION (NOT)
The possible truth values of a negation p ~𝒑
are opposite to the possible truth values
of the statement it negates. If p is true, T F
then ∼p is false. If p is false, then ∼p
is true.
F T
TRUTH TABLE FOR CONJUNCTION (AND)
p q p•q
A conjunction p • q is true only
T T T
when both of its conjuncts are true. It T F F
is false in all other three cases. F T F

F F F
TRUTH TABLE FOR DISJUNCTION (OR)
p q p∨q
A disjunction p ∨ q is false only when
T T T
both of its disjuncts are false. In the T F T
other three cases, the disjunction is F T T

true. F F F
The Truth Table of Conditional (if/then)
A conditional is false only when its antecedent is true but
p q p⊃q
its consequent is false. This is so because p ⊃ q says that T T T
p is a sufficient condition of q. Now if p is true but q is T F F
false, then p cannot be a sufficient condition for q.
F T T
Consequently, the conditional p ⊃ q would be false.
F F T
The Truth Table of Biconditional (if and only if)
p q p≡q
A biconditional p ≡ q is true only when both p
T T T
and q share the same truth value. If p and q
T F F
have opposite truth values, then the
F T F
biconditional is false.
F F T
How to Use Truth Tables to Determine Validity
Symbolize the Argument: Represent statements with logical symbols.
Construct the Truth Table: List all possible truth values.
Determine Validity: Check if there is a row where premises are true and the conclusion is false.
Analysing Argument
• If young people don’t have good economic opportunities, there would be more gang violence.
Since there is more gang violence, young people don’t have good economic opportunities.
Symbolization:
• O: Young people have good economic opportunities.
• V: There is more gang violence.
• Argument Form: ∼ O ⊃ V, V, ∴ ∼O