INTERNATIONAL

UNIVERSITY
CRITICAL THINKING

Group3:
1. Trn Th Tuyt Hoa
2. Nguyn Th Hng Dim
3. Mai Phng Thy
4. L Quc Tho
5. Nguyn Quang Pht

CHAPTER 3

BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

1) Deduction and Induction
2) How Can We Tell Whether an Argument is
Deductive or Inductive?
3) Common Patterns of Deductive
Reasonning

Deduction and Induction

Deduction and Induction

Deduction and Induction

Deductive arguments are arguments in which the

conclusion is claimed or intended to follow

necessarily from the premises.
( If premises are true, then the conclusion must be
true).
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably
from the premises.
( If premises are true, then the conclusion is false or
probably true).

Deduction and Induction

Arguments below
deductive or inductive?

Argument 1:
All Germany cars are high in maintenance cost
Mercedes is a Germany car
Therefore, Mercedes are high in maintenance cost
Answer: Deductive argument

Deduction and Induction

Argument 2:
Steven was Greek.
Most Greeks eat fish.
Steven ate fish.
Answer: Inductive argument

Deduction and Induction

Argument 3:
Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden.
If Bergen is in Norway, then Bergen is in
Scandinavia.
If Bergen is in Sweden, then Bergen is in
Scandinavia.
Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia.
Answer: Deductive argument

Deduction and Induction

Argument 4:
The members of the Williams family are Susan,
Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear
glasses.
Answer: Inductive argument

KEY DIFFERENCES Inductive arguments claim that

Deductive arguments claim that

If the premises are true, then the

conclusion must be true.
The conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises.
The premises provide conclusive
evidence for the truth of the
conclusion.
It is impossible for all the
premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
It is logically inconsistent to
assert the premises and deny the
conclusion, meaning that if you
accept the premises, you must
accept the conclusion.

If the premises are true, then the

conclusion is probably true.
The conclusion follows probably
from the premises.
The premises provide good (but
not conclusive) evidence for the
truth of the conclusion.
It is unlikely for the premises to
be true and the conclusion false.
Although it is logically consistent
to assert the premises and deny
the conclusion, the conclusion is
probably true if the premises are
true.

Exercises
Instruction: Solve the following mini-mysteries.

1. Either Bill was the murderer, or Peter was the

murderer.
If Peter was murderer, then traces of cyanide
should have been found on the body.
No traces of cyanide were found on the body.
Who is the murderer?
Answer: Bill was the murderer

Exercises
2. Lan, Huong, and Vu are college friends in Vietnam
who plan to spend a semester abroad. They can
study in the U.S., England, Singapore, Canada,
Japan, France. Lan is willing to go anywhere
except Asia. Huong doesnt care where they go, as
long as its not France. Vu prefers not to study in
America.
Which is the one country that satisfied all of these
various preferences?
Answer: England

How can we tell an argument is

deductive or inductive?

Four Tests
The indicator word test
The strict necessity test
The common pattern test
The principle of charity test

The indicator word test

Using indicator words to signal whether
deductive or inductive argument is being
offered.

Deduction indicatior words

Certainly
Definitely
Absolutely
Conclusively
necessarily

It logically follows that

It logical to coclude that
This logically implies that
This entails that
it must be the case that
this proves that.

For example: An is an IU student

All IU students can speak English
Certainly, An can speak English

Induction indicatior words

Probably

One would expect that

Likely
It is flausible to suppose

It is a good bet that

Chances are that

that
Odd are that
It is reasonable to assume
that
For example:

Trang is an IU student
Most IU students have their own Laptops
So, probaly Trang owns a Latop

The Strict Necesity Test

Looking at the conclusions follow from their

premises.
Looking for logic.
If conclusion does follows from the premises

with strict logical necessity deduction

The Strict Necesity Test

If conclusion does not follows from the

premises with strict logical necessity

induction
For example: Nobody can run faster than a motorbike
No motorbike can run faster than a car
Then, nobody can run faster than a car

The common pattern test

Using the characteristic patterns of

deductive or inductive reasoning to

determine whether an argument is deductive
or inductive

EXAMING ARGUMENT
If were in Ho Chi Minh City, then we are in

Vietnam.
We are in in Ho Chi Minh City.
Therefore, then we are in Vietnam.
If the 1st is true, then the 2nd is true

The 1st is true

Therefore, the 2nd is true

The common pattern test

Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent)
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B.
a very common pattern of
deductive reasoning

Examples
If shes in a classroom, then shes in a school.

Shes in a classroom.
Therefore, shes in a school.
If they live in London, then they live in
England.
They live in London.
Therefore, they live in England.

The principle of charity test

Determining whether an argument is deductive or

inductive.
Ex:

Lien: Gam told me her grandmother recently

broidered pillowlips for her brothers wedding.
Trinh: Well, Gam must be straining your eyes. Gam's
grandmother is over 80 years old and her eyesight is so
fragile.

 Unclear indications whether argument should be

regarded as deductive or inductive.

The principle of charity
The argument should be interpreted in whatever

way is most favorable to the argue.

2 goals:
Fostering goodwill & mutual understanding
Promoting to discover the truth

Exceptions to the Strict Necesity Test

Language or context that intended to give a a

logical argument but in fact, that is not logical.

The argument has pattern of reasoning that

charatically deductive and nothing indicates

clearly that argument mean to be inductive.

 Syllogism: a three-line argument.

Two premises
One conclusion

Hypothetical syllogism

At least 1 conditional premise

Example
If I want to keep my financial aid, Id better

study hard.
Conditional premise
I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, Id better study hard.

Example
If A then B.
A: antecedent of the conditional.
B: consequent of the conditional.

Five logical patterns:

Modus ponens
Chain argument

Logically reliable patterns of

deductive reasoning

Modus tollens
Denying the antecedent
Affirming the consequent

Not logically reliable

patterns of deductive
reasoning

Modus ponens
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B.
Example:
If you kiss me, I will give you a car .
You kiss me.
Therefore, I will give you a car

Chain argument
If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore , If A then C
Example:
If I have too much money, I have many beautiful girls.
If I have many beautiful girls , I will be very poor.
Therefore, If I have too much money, I will be very poor.

Modus tollens
If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

Example:
If Im in a bathtub, Im in a bathroom.
Im not in bathroom.
Therefore, Im not in a bathtub.

Denying the antecedent.

If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.
Example:
If Im in a bathtub, Im in a bathroom.
Im not a bathtub.
Therefore , Im not a bathroom.

Affirming the consequent

If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
Example:
If Im in a bathtub , Im in a bathroom.
Im in a bathroom.
Therefore , Im in a bathtub.

Affirming the
consequent
If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

Modus ponens
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

Denying the
antecedent.
If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

Chain argument
If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore , If A
then C

Modus tollens
If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not
A.

Exercise 3.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Modus tollens
Affirming consequent
Modus ponens
Chain argument
Modus tollens
Modus tollens
Denying antecedent
Affirming the consequent
Chain argument
Affirming the consequent