PRESENTATION OF

LOGIC

PRESENTED TO:
MADAM FOZIA
VALIDITY
 The term validity as it occurs in logic refers
generally to a property of deductive
arguments, although many logic texts apply
the term to statements as well (a statement is
a sentence that “has a truth value,” i.e., that
is either true or false).
VALIDITY
 Itcan also be defined as the best available
approximation to the truth of a given
proposition, inference, or conclusion
SUBDIVISION OF VALIDITY
We subdivide validity into four types. Each type addresses a specific
methodological question. In order to understand the types of validity,
you have to know something about how we investigate a research
question.
ARGUMENT
 An argument may be defined as follows:
 An argument is a set of statements, one of which is the
conclusion and the rest of which are premises. The
premises are reasons intended to show that the
conclusion is, or is probably, true.
 When an argument is set forth to show that its
conclusion is true (as opposed to probably true), then the
argument is intended to be deductive. An argument set
forth to show that its conclusion is probably true may be
regarded as inductive. To say that an argument is valid
is to say that the conclusion really does follow from the
premises.
ARGUMENT
 An argument is deductively valid if it cannot possibly
have all true premises and a false conclusion.
 An argument that is not valid is said to be ‘’invalid’’.
 The following is a famous example of a deductively
valid argument:
 All men are mortal
 Socrates is a man
 Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
ARGUMENT
A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the
argument’s logical form. Many techniques are employed by logicians to
represent an argument’s logical form. A simple example, applied to the above
two illustrations, is the following: Let the letters ‘P’, ‘Q’, and ‘s’ stand,
respectively, for the set of men, the set of mortals, and Socrates. Using these
symbols, the first argument may be abbreviated as:
All P are Q
s is a P

Therefore, s is a Q
Similarly, the second argument becomes:

All P are Q
s is a Q
Therefore, s is a P.
These abbreviations make plain the logical form of each respective argument.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from
premises to conclusion is perfect. Here are two equivalent ways
of stating that standard:

 If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion

must also be true.
 It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false
while its premises are true.

(Considering the premises as a set of propositions, we will say

that the premises are true only on those occasions when each
and every one of those propositions is true.) Any deductive
argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its
conclusion to be false while its premises are true, so even if the
premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either true
or false.
VALIDITY OF INFERENCE OF
A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
Notice that the validity of the inference of a deductive
argument is independent of the truth of its premises; both
conditions must be met in order to be sure of the truth of the
conclusion. Of the eight distinct possible combinations of truth
and validity, only one is ruled out completely
Premises Inference Conclusion

True
Valid
XXXX
True
True
Invalid
False

True
Valid
False
False
True
Invalid
False
SOUND ARGUMENT
The only thing that cannot happen is for a deductive argument
to have true premises and a valid inference but a false
conclusion.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises
and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of
reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with
every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at
least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid,
or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either
true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain
new information.
END OF PRESENTATION
THANKYOU