Basic LOGICAL CONCEPTS What Logic Is Propositions Arguments Deductive and Inductive Arguments Validity and Truth P1.1 What Logic Is 4 ogicis the study of the methods and principles used'to distinguish correct from Incorrect reasoning “All our lives," as Edith Watson Schipper wrote, “we are giving and accepting easons, Reasons are the coin we pay for the belicfs we hold." Yes; but reasons Pgiven are not always good reasons. With reasoning we) produce arguments— Fsome good, some bad—that can be formulated in writing or speech, Every sument confronted raises this question; Does the conclusion reached fol- Jou from the premises used or assumed? ‘There are objective criteria with Which that question can be answered; in the study of logic we seek 10 discover B and apply those criteria. In this book, we examine arguments of many varieties, in many spheres— srguments in science and religion, ethics and law, politics and medicine, com- Dinerce and sports, and arguments arising in. everyday life! Whatever the subject or content of an argument; the logician is interested in its form and its quatity NDoes the argument do what it purports to do? Ifasserting the premi BE. W. Schipper, A Fist Course it Moder Logic, 1959, This we do a that if truth is to be sought in every division of philoso- phy we must, be- fore all eis, possess trustworthy principles and ‘methods for the discernment of truth. The logical branch is that Which includes the theory of eriteria «and of proofs; so. itis with this that we ought to make ‘our beginnings. Sextus Empirieus2 Proposition Introduction to Logie argument to be true does warrant asserting the conclusion also to be true—then the rea soning is corréct; otherwise it is incorrect. ¢ Reasoning is an art as well as a science; it.is something we do as well as understanc Giving reasons may come naturally, but our skill in the art of building arguments, and ‘ng them, canbe strengthened with practice, One who has developed this skills more lik ly to reason correctly than one who has never thought about the principles involved Opportunities for practice are provided abundantly in this book, Reasoning is not the only way in which we:support the assertions we make or accept Habits often dominate. Appeals to emotion, or to authority, are sometimes more persuas than logical arguments, and in some contexts such appeals may be appropriate, But wher ‘jiudgments tbat must be relied upon are to be made, thelr most solid foundation will be co: ect reasoning, With the methods and techniques of logic we can distinguish reliably tween sound and faulty reasoning. These methods and techniques are the subject matter this book, 1.2. Propositions Propositions are the material of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that something is (or not) the case; any proposition may be affirmed or denied. The truth. (or falsity): of somt propositions—for example, the proposition, “There is life on some other, planet in out galaxy’—may not be known, But that proposition, like every proposition, must be either trui or false, Propositions thus differ from questions (which can be asked), and from command (which can be given), and from exclamations (which can be uttered). None of these can asserted or denied. Truth and falsity apply always to propositions, but do not apply to que: tions, or commands, or exclamations. Propositions must be distinguished also from the sentences by means of which they ar asserted, Two different sentences, consisting of different words differently arranged, maj have the same meaning and be used to assert the same proposition. For example, “Indi won the 1983 cricket World Cup” and "The 1983 cricket World Gup was won by India” plainly two different sentences that make the same assertion, Proposition is the term we use to refer to what itis that declarative sentence! ‘Anassertion that are typically used to assert. something is (oris Sentences are parts of some language, but propositions are not tied to any rot) the case; all Fropouicreare, given language, The four sentences either true or false itis raining, (English) Statement The meaning of a Barsaat ho rahi hai. (Hinaiy Mazha peyyunnu, (Malayalam) Bishti porchhe. (Bengali) are in different Janguages, but they have a single meaning; all four, using ver declaative sentence "different words, may be uttered to assert:the very same proposition, or the s atapartcula time; statement. The term statement is not an exact synonym. of proposition, buv if matenent’ ksome- used in logic in much the same sense. Some logietans prefer statement to. propos “statement” is some: times used instead of tion, although the latter has been more common in the history of logic. In thi *proposton.” book, we use both teiPI. Basic Logical Con The same sentence can be used to make different statements changes. For example, the sentence iat aed ‘The largest country in the world is the third most populous country in the world, ‘was once a true statement (or proposition) about the Soviet Union, but it is now a false statement about Russia. Those very same words assert different propositions at different times. The propositions thus far given as illustrations have been simple, but many _Slmple propositions are compound, containing other propositions within themselves, pesca i Consider the following passage from an account of the Kooris in Australia: criyone aoe By the 1830s the white men were the dominant race in the Hunter Valley. Most of the prime land along the main river frontages had been taken up for crops and Compound cattle and settlers were moving into the back country: north and west of the {'ropestion Hunter After 1830 most resistance by. the Kooris was passive, although there “ontaining wo were spasmodic outbreaks of violence. Nevertheless, the two races could not live or more simple completely apart and growing contact was inevitable? propositions Several propositions contained in this paragraph are compound, “settlers were moving into the back country north and west of the Hunter,” for example, is the Conjunction of two propositions: “settlers were moving into the back country north of the Hunter,” and ‘settlers were moving into the back country west of the Hunter” And that conjunctive proposition is itself one component of a arger conjunction, that "Most of the prime land along the main river frontages had been taken up for crops and cattle and settlers were moving into the back country north and west of the Hunter.” In this passage every proposition is as- serted; that is, each onc is held to be true, Asserting a conjunctive proposition is equivalent to asserting each of the component propositions separately. Disjunctive Some kinds of compound propositions, however, do not assert the truth of (or Alternative) their components, For example, in digunctive (or alternative) propositions, such 38 ype of compound roposition; If true) The upper houses of patiaments ae effective, or they are not effective. leat one ofthe ‘component proposi neither fhe two component in asserted only the compound duction, ek. Sema ae theror,” is asserted. If this disjunctive proposition is true, either of its compo-_Hypothetle nents could be false 3 re es [Sebati Some compound propositions are hypothetical (or conditional), such as the" Riype of com famous remark of the cighteenth-century freethinker Francois Voltaire: propositions Hes false only'whien the IF God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, ee . is alse. in which, again, neither of the components is asserted. The proposition that “God does not exist” is not asserted here; nor is the proposition that “itis nec, essary to invent him.” Only the “ifthen” proposition is asserted by the hypo James Mille, Koort A Will t9 Win, (London: Angus & Robertson Pablishers, 1985, pis)4 ‘basis of one or more ‘other propositions Introduction to Logic {Smoking in public p ‘cancer in: non-smokt Even whien premis ment may come fi thetical or conditional statement, and that conditional statement might be true even! though both of its components were false. ‘The internal structure of many kinds of propositions, both simple and compound, will be analyzed in this book. You can't separate 1,3. Arguments dom.* Propositions are the building blocks of which arguments are made, When we reach or affirm fe ‘one proposition on the basis of other propositions, we say that an inference has been drawn, fmmMost arguments are ii Inference is a process that may tie a cluster of propositions together. Some infer- Apocte d inking’ ences are warranted or correct thers are not To determine whether an ifercneelamEbnple or complex, ¢0 propositions by. is comrect, the logician, examines the propositions with which the process begins amine others are the pren affirming one and ends, and the relations between those propositions. This cluster of proposi- me. Since an argument Propestion on the tions constitutes an argument, Arguments are the ehief concern of logic. if, be an argument ‘As logicians use the word an argumentis any group of propositions of which jmmtne following hypothet one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing sup- : ‘e at Iflife evolved on Ma port or grounds for the truth of that one. The word argument is often used in Tele evotied on ti Atuctred group other senses also, of course, but in logic it has sticly the sense just explained, ee ce ofpropostions, For every possible inference there is a corresponding argument. reflecting an Ieis lear dat an argument snot a mere collection of propositions; a puisage IMENeither the first comp esi ay contain several elated propositions and yet contain no argument at all, Foran Mviod in its history wher argument to be present, there must be some stricture within the cluster of propo: Mona component vic sions, a structure that captures or exhibits some inference. Ths structure we de Mibetieve exist in Our gl aeise scribe using the terms premise and conclusion, The conclusion of an argument she Mis the latten'and bo Apropesion used propesition thats afirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument. MiB ynetusion is chavaea Inanargumentto ‘Those other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support Mitton concider Support ame ote for the conclusion, are the premises of the argument. ee ae Re The simplest kind of argument consists of one premise and a conclusion It is likely that life e Conchosio that is claimed to follow from it. Each may be stated in a separate sentence, as in sgalany, because lfe Tis erepeabiry this argument that appears on a sticker affixed to biology textbooks in the State had an atmosphere { inan argument of Alabama in the Uni tes of An eal f Alabama in the United States of America: nade al Bropesitons, the No one was present when life fist appeared on earth, Therefore any statement Mars during an carly p, ee about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact, that “life likely evolve ipremise and to be true (Cobo the preiite and the conclusion may be stated in the same ventence, atin the fol, MPa cca fear penal fs argument: Although every an Since it turns out that all humans are descended from a small number of African ancestors in jm slustcr-of propositions ‘our recent evolutionary past, believing in profound differences between the races is as ridicu- ™ pius Leonardg da Vine Jous as believing in a flat earth. The statement of the argument’s conclusion may precede the statement of its single premise. Here is an example: “Malcolm X, *Prospects of Malcolm X Speaks, Chapter Richard Zare, “Big News ‘David Hayden, “Thy Neighbor, Thy Self," The New York Times, 9 May 2000.Chapter 1 Basic Logical Concepts |, Smoking in public places should be banined immediately. Afterall, passive smoking can cause ‘eanéer in non-smokers. {Even when premise and conclusion are united in one sentence, the conclusion of the iment may come first, For example ‘You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has free- dom.' (off arguments are more complicated than these; some arguments contain compound copositions with their several components related intricately. But every argument, whether imple or complex, consists of a group of propositions, of which ones the conclusion and he others are the premises offered to support it, ince an argument is made up of group of propositions, no single proposition can, by jselfy be an argument, But some compound propositions resemble arguments, Consider he following hypothetical propositio Iffe evolved on Mars during an early period in its history when it had an atmosphere and cli- tate similar to Earths, then its likely that life evolved on countless other planets that scientists ‘NOW believe to exist in our galaxy. INeither the first component of this proposition—ife evolved on Mars during an carly pe- riod in its history when it had an atmosphere and climate similar to Earth’s"—nor the sec- iond component—“it is likely that life evolved on countless other planets that scientists now believe exist in our galaxy’—is asserted. The proposition asserts only that the former im- lies the latter, and both could very well be false. No inference is drawn in this passage, no {conclusion is claimed to be true. This is a hypothetical proposition, not an argument. But Inow consider a passage that is similar to that one in some respects It is likely that life evolved on countless other planets that scientists.now believe exist in our galaxy, because life very probably evolved on Mars during an early period in its history when it hhad an atmosphere and climate similar to Earth’s.* in this ease we do have an argiiment. The proposition that ‘life very probably evolved on fars during an early period in its history” is here asserted as a premise, and the proposition at ‘life likely evolved on countless other planets” is here claimed to follow from that remise and to be true. A hypothetical proposition may /ook much like an argument, butit ever can be an argument, and the two should not be confused. Although every argument is a structured cluster of propositions, not every structured sitions is gn argument. Consider this account of the fifteenth-century ge- alco X, ‘Prospects of Freedom in 1965," Speech, 7 January 1965, New York Cig, (Published Ja fakotm X Speaks, Chapter 12, 1968 (wnwalricawitin.com/malcolmx/ quotes htm) ichard Zare, “Big News for Earthlings,” The Now York Times, 8 August 1996.lerstood, described, and illustrated the my, Physics and astronomy. He invented the helicopter, He painted lke an angel and despite being phobie about dition, according to Vasari, he was drop-dead gorgeous, There is no argument here’ Once a cluster of propositions is recognized as constituting an argument, it remains tg determine whether it is a good argument. Some arguments, such 4¢ his one, ; oe me Creating a scientific theory is rooted in aesthetics just as much as creating a work of artis b cause the facts at hand are abvays insufficient to point decisvely toward a single conclusion, ari Cimp)y dreadful. Recognizing, analyaing, and evalua arguments até topics discussed atlength in the following chapter 2 EXERCISES Identify the premises and conclusions in t the following passages, each of which contains only one argument.’ : i EXAMPLE: ie 1. “Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The ¢ fe forcement of any disability arising out of *Untouchability” shall be an offen punishable in accordance with law. ~The Constitution of India, Axticle V7 i Solutions Preist:" Untouchabilty” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden, ‘Coneuusion: The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchabilty” shall be an ‘offence punishable in accordance with lav. 2, The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (Brahman. to be such and such); hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about it. —Kena Upanisad I, 8, Vol. 10 ight Upanisads, Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1954 | Plotiand Gites, “Leonardo: The Eye, the Hand, the Mind,* The Ne Yor Tins, [Fig Feesone, “Bench Warmer,” The NewYork Times, 20 February 2001 Seip ce the starred exercises may be found atthe back ofthe book, 24 January 2003,Chapter 1 »#20. Unquestionably, no more important goal exists in medical researchitoday than the development of an AIDS vaccine. Last year (1998) AIDS, caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) was the infectious disease that killed the most people around the world, and the epidemic is not abating, —Davidl Baltimore, President of the California Institite of Technology, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 28 May 1999 Deductive and Inductive Arguments Y argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the uth ofits conclu- j that claim is the mark of an argument. But there are two very different ways in which a \cJusion may be supported by its premises, and thus there are two great classes peductive HPanguments: the deductive and the inductive, Understanding this distinction is e* Argument tial in the study of logic. Claims to support ‘A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by _ its conclusion }premises conclusively An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make convey one h a claim. Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclu- Srqument ness is being made, we treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that a claim is not being made, we treat it as inductive, Since every argument ci inductive sr makes this claim of conclusiveness (explicitly or implicitly) or does not | Argument cit, every argument is either deductive or inductive: Gains to weapons | When the claim is made that the premises of an argument (iftrue) provide Somedeguecet Peontrovertible grounds for the truth of its conclusion, that cl either probabily; one of ect or not correct. If itis correct, that argument is valid. If itis not correct the two classes of {that is, if the premises when true fail to establish the conclusion irrefutably al. ®9ument. ugh claiming to do so), that argument is invalids il ace For logicians the term vatidityis applicable only to deductive arguments. To fal the premises that a deductive argument is valid is to say that it is not possible for its con- are true, the con sion io be false if ts premises are tre, Thus we define valid as follows: A. luon must be, ductive argument is vaidwhen, if its premises are true, its conclusion mustbe {fic es on 2 In everyday speech, of course, the term valid is used much more loosely. Although every deductive argument makes the claim that its premises ua"~ aid Argument inte the truth of its conclusion, not all deductive arguments live up to that The conclusions Ehaim, of course. Deductive arguments that fail o do so are invalid. not necessatly Since every deductive argument either succeeds or does not suecéed in tue, even fall the hicving its objective, every deductive argument is either valid or invalid. This Promses ar ue int is important: Ifa deductive argument is not valid, it must be invalid if itis eauetive arguments. id, it must be valid The central task of deductive logic (treated at length in Part I of this book) Classteal Logle to discriminate valid arguments from invalid ones. Over centuries logickans Tradkonal tech- fave devised powerful techniques to do this—but the traditional techniques for eee determining validity differ from those used by most modern logicians. The for” forthe anayses 1, called classical logie and rooted in the analytical works of Aristotle, are’ex- deductive arguments10 Introduction to Logie Modern plained in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this book, The techniques of modern symbol Symbolic Logie logic are presented in detail in Chapters 6, 7, and 8; Logicians of the two school tymostmoden differ in their methods and in thei interpretations of some arguments, but a logicians to analyze cients and moderns agree that the fundamental task of deductive logic is to ded dechctve arguments, velop the tools that enable us to distinguish arguments that are valid from thos that are not, In an inductive argument no claim of conclusiveness is made. Even if thd premises of an inductive argument are true, they do not support its conclusioi with certainty, Inductive arguments therefore make the weaker (but no less in Probability portant) claim that their premises support their conclusions with probabiti The likelihood that which always falls short of certainty. The terms validity and invalidity, therefor some concision. do not apply to inductive arguments, We can evaluate such arguments, eran ent) tue, ) course, and the appraisal ofinductive arguments isa leading task of scientist if every sphere. The higher the level of probability conferred on its conclusion by premises of an inductive argument, the greater the merit of that argument. We that inductive arguments may be “better” or “worse,” “weaker” or “stronger,” and so on, Bul ‘even when the premiscs are all true and provide very strong support for the conclusion, th: onelision is not established with certainty. The theory of induction, techniques of inducti reasoning, methods for appraising inductive arguments, and methods for quantifying and c: culating probabilities are presented at length in Part Ill of this book. The deep difference between inductive and deductive arguments has many ramific tions. Because an inductive argument ean yield no more than some degree of probabil forits conclusion, itis always possible that additional information will strengthen or weakel it. Newly discovered facts may cause us to change our estimate of the probabilities, and th may lead us to judge the argument to be better (or worse) than we had previously thoug itwas, In the world of inductive argument—even when the conclusion is judged to be very highly probable—all the evidence is never in. New discoveries may eventually disconfir what was earlier believed, and therefore we never assert that an inductive conclusion is al solutely certain, Deductive arguments, on.the other hand, cannot become better or worse. They cithe} succeed or they do not succeed in exhibiting a compelling relation between premises a conclusion. If a deductive argument is valid, no additional premises could. possibly add tf the strength of that argument. For example, if all, humans are mortal and Socrate will fllow fiom those premises no matter what else may be true in. the world, and no matter what oth information may be discovered or added. If we come to learn, that Socrates is ugly, or that i mortality is a burden, or that cows give milk, none of those findings nor any other findinj ‘can have any impact on the validity of the original argument. The conclusion that folly with certainty from the premises of a deductive argument follows from any enlarged set of premises with the same certainty, regardless of the nature of the premises added. If an gument is valid, nothing in the world can make it more valid; if a;conclusion is validly i ferred from some set of premises, nothing can be added to that set. to make that conclusiog follow more strictly, or more validly But this is not true of inductive arguments, in which the relationship claimed betweed premises and conclusion is much less strict and very different in kind, Consider the follo ing inductive argument:Most actors are celebrities. Ds -Aruna Das is an actor. ‘Therefore Aruna Das is a celebrity his is a fairly good inductive argument; its first premise is true, and if its second premise is true, its conclusion is more likely to be true than false, But in this case (ini Contrast to argument about Socrates’ mortality), new premises added to the original pair might (en or (depending on the content of those new premises) strengthen the original argu- t, Suppose we also learn that ‘Aruna Das isa theatre actor. nd suppose we add the (true) premise that Most theatre actors are not celebrities. jow the conclusion (that Aruna Das is a celebrity) no longer seems very probable; the orig, inductive argument has been greatly weakened by the presence of this additional ation about Aruna Das. Indeed, if the final premise were to be transformed into the iversal proposition No theatre actors are celebrities. ‘The opposite of the original conclusion would then follow deductively—that is, valid- from the full set of premises affirmed. On the other hand, suppose we enlarge the original set of premises by adding the fol ing additional premise: ‘Aruna Das is a cabinet minister. ¢ original conclusion (that she is a celebrity) would be supported by this‘enlarged set of smises with even greater likelihood than it was by the original set. Inductive arguments do not’always acknowledge explicitly that their conclusions are pported only with some degree of probability. But on the'other hand the mere presence of the word “probability” within an argument gives no assurance that the argument is Buctive. There are some’ strictly deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in Which the probability of a certain combination of events is deduced from the probabilities of other events. In’sum, the distinction between induction and deduction rests on the nature of the Plaims made by the two types of arguments about the relations between their premises and their clusions. Thus we characterize the two types of arguments as follows: A deductive argument ‘one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity, this essity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on whatever else may f for example, we learn that the probability of three successive heads in three tosses of a coin is 1/8, we iy infer dediucdvely that the probability of getting atléast one tall in three tosses ofa coin is 7/8. Other flustrations of such arguments will be found in Chapter 15,12 Truth Introduction to Logic ‘be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is, one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree dependent upon what else may be the case. 5. Validity and Truth ‘ Adeductive argumentis valid when itis successful, Its validity refers to the relation between it propositions—between the set of propositions that serve as the premises and the, one propo sition that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If the conclusion follows with logical net cessity from the premises, we say that the argument is valid. Therefore validity can never ap t0.any single proposition by itself, since the needed relation cannot possibly be found within an} ‘one proposition 4 Truth and falsity, on the other hand, are attributes of individual propositions. A singlé statement that serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the statement that serves a its conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have been validly inferred; but to say tha any conclusion (or any single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense. ‘Truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts ‘what really is the’ cas ‘An attribute of a” When TI assert that Arunachal Pradesh is the largest of the eight north-casterm propos asserts what really is the case MPat rays States of India, assert what really is the case, what is true. IfThiad claimed’ thal ‘Nagaland is the largest of the eight north-eastern States of India my assertion would not be in accord with the real world; therefore it would be false. T! contrast. between validity and truth is important; truth and falsity are attributes of individ ual propositions or statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single propositions, the concept of tru cannot apply to arguments, Of the several propositions in an argument, some (or all) magf be true and some (or all) may be false. But the argument asa whole is neither true nor fals Propositions, which are statements about the world, may be true or false; deductive arg ments, which consist of inferences from one set of propositions to other propositions, may be valid or invalid The relations between true (or false), propositions and valid (or invalid) arguments arg critical and complicated. Those relations lie at the heart of deductive logic. Part of thig books devoted to the examination of those complex relations, therefore a preliminary di cussion of the relation between validity and truth is in order here. ‘We begin by emphasizing that an argument may be valid even if one or more of its prem: €s is not true. Every argument makes a claim about the relation between its premises the conclusion drawn from them; that relation may hold even if the premises tum out to b false or the truth of the premises is in dlispute. This point was made dramatically by Abrah: Lincoln in 1858 in one of his debates with Stephen Douglas. Lincoln was attacking the Dred Scott decision.of the Supreme Gout, which had held that slaves who had. escaped intol Northern states must be returned to thein ownersin the South, Lincoln said: { think it follows [from the Dred Scott decision] and submit to the consideration of men capable! 6f arguing, whether a | stat iin logit form te argument has anyfaultin Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any, State can destroy a right disinty and expressly] affirmed in the Constitution of the United States, The right of prop United states, refore, that | ‘| reasoning in the ar Ail primates have | All humans are p | Therefore all hui © Some valid angug ssdusion: All bipeds have hy All snakes are bij “ Thertore al nal This argument is be true also—eve ‘of this argument Some invalids | and their conclyThe right of property in a slave isidistinctly and expressly affirmed in the United States. Theefore; nothing inthe Constitution or las of any Sttalahlaesdb) He nN reper ina slave. believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the truth of the premis 1, the conclusion, so far as | have capacity, at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in itas| think, but the fault is notin the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the [premises. | believe that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks itis. | believe that the Supreme Court and the ad- ‘vocates of that decision [the Dred Scott decision} may search in Vain for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in.a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. | say, D therefore, that | think one of the premises is not true in fact. in the argument that Lincoln recapitulatesvand attacks is notfaultybut its sec- @ipremise (that “the right of property in aslaveis.. The conclusion has therefore not been established. Lin, Bpsnportant: An ergumnent muy be vali ever hedaman mel one or ore of x of an argument, we emphasize once again, depends only upon relation ofthe premises to the conclusion, There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in valid and invalid arguments, Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced tthe statement of the combination (of truth and validity) that it represents. With these i rations (whose content is deliberately trivial) before tis, We will be in a'position to for- late some important principles concerning the relations between truth and validity. Some valid arguments éontain only true propositions —irue premises and a true con: lusion: All primates have hearts. All humans are primates. Therefore all humans have hearts Some valid arguments contain only false propositions —false premises and a false con- clusion: All bipeds have hors. Al snakes are bipeds, Therefore all snakes have horns. This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its Conclusion would have to be true also—even though we know that in fact both the prémises and the conclusion of this argument are false. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are true, and their conclusions are true as well: “From The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 8, Roy P. Basler, editor, Rutgers ‘Univer Press, 1988,14 Introduction to Logic If howned all the currency in the Reserve Bank of India, then’! would! be wealthy. {ido not own all the currency in the Reserve Bank of India, Therefore | am not wealthy. The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. Thi will be seen more'clearly when the:immediately following illustration is'consideted Sonic invlltd arguinents contain only tre premises anid have a fle conclusion: This isi Tustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (I11) in form, changed only ‘enough to make the conclusion Fale 1 Mjay Mallya owned all the currency in the Reserve Bank of india, then Vijay Mallya would be wealthy. Vijay Mallya does not own all the currency in the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore Mjay Mallya is not wealthy, The premise¥ of this argument are true, buit its Conlusion is false, Such an aiguine cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid argument to b true and its Coricluston to be false, Some valid arguments have false premises and a trie conclusion: Allinsects are primates, All humans are insects. Therefore all humans are primates, The conclusion of this angument is true, a we know; moreover it may be validly {i ferred from these two premises, both of which are wildly false. must have ath hen an argumen) Vi. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion: > ea re Al primates have horns. All humans have horns. Therefore all humans are primates. pen a From examples'V and VI taken together, itis clear that we cannot tell from thie fa a peuiaee that an argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or i O test the truth Or, valid deal with any i th Or falsehoods relations bet B or incorrectness of a All primates have hors, fin is interested it All humans have horns. ioe not eae Therefore all primates are humans. ineeoneael ‘These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusio pcre Example I), as well as invalid arguments with trae conelusions (Examples III and VI) Hence itis lear thatthe truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by itself de termine the validity or invalidity of that argument. Morcover, the fact that an argument valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion (Example 11) Some irvalid arguments, of course, contain all ase propositions —false premises and a conclusion: