UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

CRITICAL THINKING
For 2nd year Student

2018
 Chapter 3
Basic Logical Concepts
Deductive or Inductive?
 3.1 Deduction and Induction
Deductive arguments
- try to prove their conclusions with rigorous,
inescapable logic
- attempt to show that their conclusions must
be true given the premises asserted
All humans are mortal.
 Socrates is human.
 Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 If the president lives in the White House, then
he lives in Washington, D.C.
 The president does live in the White House.
 So, the president lives in Washington, D.C.
Thomas Jefferson: Nhân Sư Mỹ
“Nếu Jefferson đã sai, nước Mỹ đang sai.
Nếu nước Mỹ đang đúng, Jefferson đã đúng.”
James Parton (1874)
Eating fast food can cause obesity
Obesity leads to cancer
So eating fast food can lead to cancer
 if I live in Danang city, I live in central of
Vietnam
I live in Danang city
 so, I live in central of Vietnam
Inductive arguments
- try to show that their conclusions are
plausible or likely given the premise(s)
- simply claim that their conclusions are likely
or probable given the premises offered
 Polls show that 75 percent of Republicans
favor a school prayer amendment.
 Joe is a Republican.
 Therefore, Joe likely favors a school prayer
amendment.
 Every ruby so far discovered has been red.
 So, probably all rubies are red.
According to a recent report, 90 percent of first
year student majoring in English have difficulty
in expressing their ideas in English.
Trang is a first year student majoring in English.
Therefore, Trang probably have difficulty in
expressing her ideas in English.
Nowadays, about 70 percent adults want to learn
Japanese.
A is adult
So, A probably want to learn Japanese.
The bank safe was robbed last night.
 Whoever robbed the safe knew the safe’s
combination.
 Only two people know the safe’s combination:
Lefty and Bugsy.
 Bugsy needed money to pay his gambling debts.
 Bugsy was seen sneaking around outside the
bank last night.
 It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that
Bugsy robbed the safe.
Jane was poisoned last night.
The person who killed Jane must hate her.
Only two people stayed in the same room with
her last night: Alice and Linda.
Linda is jealous because Jane won the beauty
queen competition
Last night Linda left a strange bottle in the
fridge
We can assume that Linda is the killer
Deductive argument that moves from particular premises to
a general conclusion
Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865. (particular
premise)
 So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were
born in the nineteenth century. (general conclusion)
Inductive argument that moves from general premises to a
particular conclusion:
 All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good.
(general premise)
 Therefore, Stephen King’s next novel will probably be
good. (particular conclusion)
Deductive arguments Inductive arguments
 If the premises are true,  If the premises are
then the conclusion must true, then the conclusion
be true. is probably true.
 The conclusion follows  The conclusion
necessarily from the follows probably from
premises. the premises.
 impossible for all the  unlikely for all the
premises to be true and premises to be true and
the conclusion false. the conclusion false.
 logically inconsistent to  logically consistent
assert premises and deny to assert the premises
the conclusion; accept and deny the conclusion,
the premises, must conclusion is probably
accept the conclusion. true if premises are true.
3.2. Recognizing deductive argument and
inductive argument
ARGUMENT: DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

Four tests
 the indicator word test
 the strict necessity test
 the common pattern test
 the principle of charity test
3.2.1. The Indicator Word Test
to signal the assertion of premises or
conclusions, we use indicator words to signal
when our arguments are deductive or
inductive
 deduction indicator words:

- certainly = it logically follows that …

- definitely = it is logical to conclude that …
- absolutely = this logically implies that …
- conclusively this entails that …
 Common induction indicator words:
- probably = one would expect that …
- likely = it is a good bet that …
- it is plausible to suppose that = chances are that …
- it is reasonable to assume that = odds are that …
 arguments contain no deduction or induction
indicator words:
- If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it
have? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t
make it a leg. (Attributed to Abe Lincoln)
- Pleasure is not the same thing as happiness. The
occasional self-destructive behavior of the rich and
famous confirms this far too vividly. (Tom Morris)
3.2.2. The Strict Necessity Test
- An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict
logical necessity from its premises or it does not.
- If the argument’s conclusion does follow with
strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should always be treated as deductive.
- If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with
strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as inductive.
E.g. Alan is a father. Therefore, Alan is a male.
E.g. Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot
run a mile in one minute flat.
3.2.3. The Common Pattern Test
Modus ponens
- If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.
- We are in Paris.
- Therefore, we are in France.
 If [ the first statement ] is true, then [ the
second statement ] is true.
 [ The first statement ] is true.
 Therefore, [ the second statement ] is true.
If A then B
A
 Therefore, B
3.2.4. The Principle of Charity Test
- fosters goodwill and mutual understanding in
argument by demanding that:
we treat the arguments of others with the same
generous and respectful spirit that we would like
others to treat our own arguments.
- promotes the discovery of truth by insisting that we
confront arguments that we ourselves admit to be the
strongest and most plausible versions of those
arguments.
- interprets a doubtful argument in the way most
favorable to the arguer
E.g.
Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant
yesterday. But Maxine’s was completely
destroyed by fire less than a month ago. It is
certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or
mistaken.
- Meant deductive but not conclusive
- the most charitable way to interpret the
argument is to interpret it as inductive, i.e. the
conclusion is probably true & do not assert that
the speaker is lying or mistaken.
Note:
Don’t reinterpret bad arguments as good ones
 Exceptions to the Strict Necessity Test
An argument should nonetheless be treated as
deductive though the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises if either
1. the language or context makes clear that the
arguer intended to offer a logically
conclusive argument, but the argument, in
fact, is not logically conclusive, E.g.
Magellan’s ships sailed around the world. It
necessarily follows, therefore, that the earth is
a sphere.
2. the argument has a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically deductive, and nothing
else about the argument indicates clearly that
the argument is meant to be inductive,
E.g.
- If I’m Bill Gates, then I’m mortal.
- I’m not Bill Gates.
- Therefore, I’m not mortal.
 How to Distinguish Deductive from
Inductive Arguments
1. If the conclusion follows necessarily from
the premises, the argument should always be
treated as deductive.
2. If the conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises, the argument should be
treated as inductive unless
(a) the language or context of the argument
makes clear that the argument is deductive or
(b) the argument has a pattern of reasoning that
is characteristically deductive.
3. If the argument has a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically deductive, the
argument should be treated as deductive unless
there is clear evidence that the argument is
intended to be inductive.
4. If the argument has a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically inductive, the argument
should be treated as inductive unless there is
clear evidence that the argument is intended to
be deductive.
5. Arguments often contain indicator words—
probably, necessarily, and certainly — that
provide clues in determining whether an
argument is deductive or inductive. (used
loosely or improperly)
6. If there is significant doubt about whether an
argument is deductive or inductive, always
interpret the argument in the way most
favorable to the arguer.
3.3. Common patterns of deductive
reasoning

 Hypothetical syllogism
 Categorical syllogism
 Argument by elimination
 Argument based on mathematics
 Argument from definition
3.3.1. Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism:
a three-line argument
consists of exactly 2 premises and 1 conclusion

A hypothetical syllogism:
contains at least one hypothetical or conditional
(i.e., if-then ) premise & a conclusion
E.g. Modus Ponens
- If the Tigers beat the Yankees, then the
Tigers will make the playoffs.
- The Tigers will beat the Yankees.
- So, the Tigers will make the playoffs.
- If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d better
study hard.
- I do want to keep my financial aid.
- Therefore, I’d better study hard.

logical pattern or form:

 If A then B (conditional premise)
A (asserted antecedent)
 Therefore, B (asserted consequent)
If you want to be a famous singer, you must
have a beautiful voice
Taylor swift has a beautiful voice
Therefore, she is a famous singer
If i want to be rich, i’d have to a good job
I do want to be rich
Therefore, I’d have a good job.
Kinds of hypothetical syllogisms
 Modus ponens
Chain argument
 Modus tollens (denying the consequent)
 Denying the antecedent
 Affirming the consequent
Modus ponens
If A then B.
 A.
 Therefore, B.

- If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.

- We are in Paris.
- Therefore, we are in France.
Chain arguments
If A then B.
 If B then C.
 Therefore, if A then C.

- If we don’t stop for gas soon, then we’ll

run out of gas.
- If we run out of gas, then we’ll be late for
the wedding.
- Therefore, if we don’t stop for gas soon,
we’ll be late for the wedding.
-if i am on my diet,then i
If i am on my diet,then I will lose weight.
If I lose weight,then I will be more beautiful.
Therefore,if I am on my diet,I will be more
beautiful.
Modus tollens (denying the consequent)
 If A then B.
 Not B.
Therefore, not A.

- If we’re in Sacramento, then we’re in

California.
- We’re not in California.
Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento.
Inclusion Rule: A  B
Phủ định 1 cái chung kéo theo phủ định 1
cái riêng
If I live in Wales, then I live in UK.
I don’t live in UK.
So, I don’t live in Wales.
If Linda is as beautiful as Angelina Jolie, she
will be my crush
Linda is not my crush
Therefore, she is not as beautiful as Angelina
Jolie
Denying the antecedent arguments
 If A then B.
 Not A.
 Therefore, not B.

- If Shakespeare wrote War and Peace,

then he’s a great writer.
- Shakespeare didn’t write War and Peace.
- Therefore, Shakespeare is not a great
writer.
Logical reliability: ?
Why Denying the antecedent arguments is
generally deductive?
Affirming the consequent
If A then B.
 B.
 Therefore, A.

- If we’re on Neptune, then we’re in the

solar system.
- We are in the solar system.
- Therefore, we’re on Neptune.
 Logical reliability: ?
 Inclusion Rule: A  B
Khẳng định 1 cái chung không kéo theo
khẳng định 1 cái riêng
3.3.2. Categorical Syllogism
a three-line argument
All, Some/No …
All, Some/No …
So/Therefore, …

- All oaks are trees.

- All trees are plants.
- So, all oaks are plants.
- Some Democrats are elected officials.
- All elected officials are politicians.
- Therefore, some Democrats are politicians.
 Inclusion Rule: A  B  C
3.3.3. Argument by elimination
logically rule out/exclude various possibilities until
only a single possibility remains.
- Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
- But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
- Therefore, Joe walked to the library.
- Either Dutch committed the murder, or Jack
committed the murder, or Celia committed murder.
- If Dutch or Jack committed the murder, then the
weapon was a rope.
- The weapon was not a rope.
- So, neither Dutch nor Jack committed murder.
- Therefore, Celia committed the murder.
Either I ate noodles or egg
I didn’t eat egg
Therefore, I ate noodles
3.3.4. Argument Based on Mathematics
Prove their conclusions on the basis of precise
mathematical concepts and reasoning
Conclusion: depend largely or entirely on
mathematical calculation or measurement
- Eight is greater than four.
- Four is greater than two.
- Therefore, eight is greater than two.
- Light travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per second.
- The sun is more than 93 million miles distant from
the earth.
- Therefore, it takes more than eight minutes for the
sun’s light to reach the earth.
3.3.5. Argument from Definition
Conclusion: “true by definition,” in language
Follow simply by definition from key word or
phrase used in the argument
- Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore,
Janelle is a doctor.
- Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a
woman.
Common patterns of deductive reasoning
Arguments by elimination and arguments from
definition should always be treated as
deductive.
Logically reliable hypothetical syllogisms,
categorical syllogisms, and arguments based
on mathematics should always be treated as
deductive.
Logically unreliable hypothetical syllogisms,
categorical syllogisms, and arguments based
on mathematics should be treated as deductive
unless there is clear evidence that they are
intended to be inductive.
3.4. Common patterns of inductive
reasoning
 inductive generalization
 predictive argument
 argument from authority
 causal argument
 statistical argument
 argument from analogy
3.4.1. Inductive Generalization
Generalization
a statement that attributes some characteristic to
all or most members of a given class
 All wild grizzly bears in the United States live
west of the Mississippi River.
 Most college students work at least part-time.
 Men are so unromantic!
 inductive generalization

an argument in which a generalization is claimed

to be probably true based on information about
some members of a particular class.
 All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been
more than sixty-five million years old.
 Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more
than sixty-five million years old.
 Six months ago I met a farmer from Iowa, and he
was friendly.
 Four months ago I met an insurance salesman
from Iowa, and he was friendly.
 Two months ago I met a dentist from Iowa, and
she was friendly.
 I guess most people from Iowa are friendly.

All inductive generalizations claim that their

conclusions are probable rather than certain
3.4.2. Predictive Argument
Prediction
 a statement about what may or will happen in
the future
defended with reasons

E.g.
 It has rained in Vancouver every February
since weather records have been kept.
 Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver
next February.
 Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president
will be tall.
Predictions can be argued for deductively
 If Amy comes to the party, Ted will come to
the party.
 Amy will come to the party.
 Therefore, Ted will come to the party.

Why prediction?
Why deductive?
Indicator?
Conclusion must be true if the premises are
true
3.4.3. Argument from Authority
An argument from authority
asserts a claim
then supports that claim by citing some
presumed authority or witness who has said
that the claim is true
E.g.
More Americans die of skin cancer each year
than die in car accidents. How do I know? My
doctor told me.
E.g.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that parts
of Virginia are farther west than Detroit.
In general, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a
highly reliable source of information.
Therefore, it’s probably true that parts of
Virginia are farther west than Detroit.
 There are bears in these woods. My neighbor
Frank said he saw one last week.
How do we know arguments from authority are
inductive?
presumed authority or witness:

accurate or reliable?
Arguments from authority are sometimes
deductive
Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
 The Bible teaches that we should love our
neighbors.
 Therefore, we should love our neighbors.
Why deductive?
Whatever X: true
X[X’]
X’: true
3.4.4. Causal Argument
A causal argument
asserts or denies that something is the
cause of something else
E.g.
I can’t log on. The network must be down.
 Rashid isn’t allergic to peanuts. I saw him eat a
bag of peanuts on the flight from Dallas.
 Medical care: the number-one cause of sudden
rapid aging among middle-aged people.
 “Ralph was feeling fine, no problems at all, and
then he went in for a routine physical checkup,
and the next thing we heard he was in critical
condition with the majority of his internal
organs sitting in a freezer in an entirely
different building.”
 Why causal argument: inductive?

A causes B: not absolutely certain

Some causal arguments clearly deductive:
E.g.
 Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it
rusts.
 This iron pipe has been exposed to
oxygen.
 Therefore, it will rust.

Why deductive?
Indicator?
Write the formulation with X, A, B
3.4.5. Statistical Argument
A statistical argument
rests on statistical evidence
i.e. evidence that some percentage of some
group or class has some particular
characteristic
E.g.
 Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s
students are Episcopalian.
 Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
 So, Beatrice is probably Episcopalian.
 Doctor to patient:
Studies show that condoms have an annual
failure rate of 2 to 3 percent, even if they are
used consistently and correctly. So, you
should not assume that condoms will provide
complete protection from the risk of
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

Why Statistical Argument inductive?

Indicator: which words/expressions should be
underlined?
Statistical evidence can be used in deductive
reasoning.
E.g.
If 65 percent of likely voters polled support
Senator Beltway, then Senator Beltway will
win in a landslide.
 Sixty-five percent of likely voters polled do
support Senator Beltway.
 Therefore, Senator Beltway will win in a
landslide.
3.4.6. Argument from Analogy
An analogy
a comparison of two or more things that are
claimed to be alike in some relevant respect
conclusion is claimed to depend on an analogy
(i.e., a comparison or similarity)
E.g.
Habits are like a cable. We weave a strand of it
every day and soon it cannot be broken. (Horace
Mann)
 As man casts off worn-out garments and puts
on others that are new, similarly the embodied
soul, casting off worn-out bodies, enters into
others, which are new. (Bhagavad-Gita)
E.g.
 Hershey Park has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.
 Dorney Park, like Hershey Park, is a great
amusement park.
 Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a
thrilling roller-coaster ride.
 Bill is a graduate of Central University, and he
is bright, energetic, and dependable.
 Mary is a graduate of Central University, and
she is bright, energetic, and dependable.
 Paula is a graduate of Central University.
 Therefore, most likely, Paula is bright,
energetic, and dependable, too.
Basic logical pattern of these arguments:
 These things are similar in such-and-such
ways.
 Therefore, they’re probably similar in some
further way.
Why inductive?
 Some analogical arguments are inductive
1. Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each
year and produce noxious and offensive fumes.
2. Smoking causes thousands of deaths each
year and produces noxious and offensive fumes.
3. Thus, if smoking is heavily regulated,
automobiles should also be heavily regulated.
4. But automobiles shouldn’t be heavily
regulated.
5. Therefore, smoking shouldn’t be heavily
regulated, either.
Why deductive?
Truth of premises and conclusion: Asserted
Summary of common patterns of inductive
reasoning
Inductive generalizations, by definition, are
always inductive.
 Predictive arguments, arguments from
authority, causal arguments, statistical arguments,
and arguments from analogy are generally, but not
always, inductive.
Valid deductive argument
an argument in which it is impossible for all
the premises to be true and the conclusion
false
Conditions apply:
 If the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true.
 The conclusion follows necessarily from
the premises.
 The premises provide logically conclusive
grounds for the truth of the conclusion.
 It is logically inconsistent to assert all the
premises as true and deny the conclusion.
valid arguments with obviously false
premises and a false conclusion
E.g.
 All squares are circles.
 All circles are triangles.
 Therefore, all squares are triangles.
Why valid
valid arguments with false premises and a
true conclusion. For example:
 All fruits are vegetables.
 Spinach is a fruit.
 Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.
Valid arguments with true premises and a
true conclusion
 If you’re reading this, you are alive.
 You are reading this.
 Therefore, you are alive.

Invalid deductive argument

conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises
 All dogs are animals.
 Lassie is an animal.
 Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
Inclusion Rule: A  B, + B  A?
E.g.
If I’m a monkey’s uncle, then I’m a primate.
 I’m not a monkey’s uncle.
So, I’m not a primate.

Inclusion Rule: A  B, - A  - B?
 All pears are vegetables.
 All fruits are vegetables.
 Therefore, all pears are fruits.

 All dogs are cats.

 All cats are whales.
 Therefore, all whales are dogs.
Test of deductive validity
If the argument’s premises were true, would the
conclusion also have to be true?
I.e. If you accept the premises, you cannot
escape the acceptance of the conclusion
E.g.
 The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
 Paris is in France.
 Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.
 All pigs are sheep.
 All sheep are goats.
 Therefore, all pigs are goats.
Inclusion Rule: A  B, B   C, A  C
E.g.
Some people like spinach.
 Some people like anchovies.
 Therefore, some people who like spinach
also like anchovies.
Some people  Some people
 No dogs are cats.
 Some dogs are not housebroken.
 Therefore, some things that are
housebroken are not cats.
A Venn diagram is a diagram that shows all
possible logical relations between a finite
collection of different sets. These diagrams
depict elements as points in the plane, and sets
as regions inside closed curves. A Venn
diagram consists of multiple overlapping closed
curves, usually circles, each representing a set.
Not every valid argument is a good
argument.
E.g.
All heavenly bodies are made of green
cheese.
 The moon is a heavenly body.
 Therefore, the moon is made of green
cheese.
A good argument has true premises.
Sound deductive arguments have both valid
and have all true premises
False premise, false conclusion
All books are written by women.
So the author of this book is a woman.

False premise, true conclusion

All books are written by women.
So the author of this book is a human
being.
Every student at this school has paid
tuition.
Suzy is a student at this school.
So Suzy has paid tuition.
Dick is a bachelor.
So Dick was never married.
Good teachers give fair exams, and Dr. E
gives fair exams.
So Dr. E is a good teacher.
Maria's hair is naturally black. Today
Maria's hair is red. So Maria dyed her hair.
INDUCTIVE STRENGTH
A strong inductive argument
a well-reasoned inductive argument
the conclusion of which follows probably from
the premises
 If the premises are true, the conclusion is
probably true.
 The premises provide probable, but not
logically conclusive, grounds for the truth of the
conclusion.
 The premises, if true, make the conclusion
likely.
Most college students own MP3 players.
 Andy is a college student.
 So, Andy probably owns an MP3 player.
 All recent U.S. presidents have been college
graduates.
 Thus, it is likely that the next U.S. president
will be a college graduate.
Weak inductive argument
the conclusion does not follow probably from
the premises.
the premises, even if they are assumed to be
true, do not make the conclusion probable.
E.g.
 All previous popes have been men.
 Therefore, probably the next pope will be a
woman.
Fifty-five percent of students at East Laredo
State University are Hispanic.
 Li Fang Wang, owner of Wang’s Chinese
Restaurant, is a student at East Laredo State
University.
 Therefore, Li Fang Wang is probably Hispanic.
 false premises and a probably false conclusion
 All previous U.S. vice presidents have been
women.
 Therefore, it is likely that the next U.S. vice
president will be a woman.
false premises and a probably true conclusion.
E.g.
 Every previous U.S. president has been clean-
shaven.
 So, the next U.S. president probably will be
clean-shaven.
true premises and a probably true conclusion.
E.g.
 No previous U.S. president has been a native
Alaskan.
 So, the next U.S. president probably will not be
a native Alaskan.
Every student at this school has paid tuition.
Suzy is a student at this school.
So Suzy has paid tuition.
Dick is a bachelor.
So Dick was never married.
Good teachers give fair exams, and Dr. E
gives fair exams.
So Dr. E is a good teacher.
Maria's hair is naturally black. Today Maria's
hair is red. So Maria dyed her hair.
 no strong inductive argument can have true

premises and a probably false conclusion.

Weak inductive arguments with a combination of
truth or falsity in the premises and conclusion.
Most U.S. presidents have been married.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be a man.
 Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years
old.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be single.
no strong inductive argument can have true
premises and a probably false conclusion.
Most U.S. presidents have been women.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be married.
 Most U.S. presidents have been less than 5 feet
tall.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be single.
 Weak inductive arguments with a combination
of truth or falsity in the premises and
conclusion.
Most U.S. presidents have been married.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be a man.
 Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years
old.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be single.
If the argument’s premises were true, would the
conclusion probably be true?
 According to the National Weather Service,
there is a 60 percent chance of rain today.
 Therefore, probably it will rain today.
 According to the National Weather Service,
there is a 90 percent chance of rain today.
 Therefore, probably it will rain today.
 According to the National Weather Service,
there is a 40 percent chance of rain today.
 Therefore, probably it will rain today.
an inductive argument can be strong and yet still
be a bad argument.
E.g.
 All previous U.S. presidents have worn togas.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
wear a toga.
poor argument because the premise is obviously
false
A good inductive argument must both be strong
(i.e., inductively well reasoned) and have all true
premises.
a cogent argument (reasonable)
is inductively strong
has all true premises,

an uncogent argument
weak or
has at least one false premise
No U.S. president has been a U.S. skateboarding
champ.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
not be a U.S. skateboarding champ.
 All previous U.S. presidents have been
Democrats.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be a Democrat.
 All previous U.S. presidents have been
professional football players.
 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will
be an astronaut.