9/24/2020

BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

Critical Thinking - Chapter 3

1
 9/24/2020

Forms of reasoning

1. Deduction – deductive arguments

2. Induction – inductive arguments

Deduction = suy diễn; Induction = quy nạp

Deduction vs. Induction

Deductive Arguments try to prove their

conclusions with rigorous, inescapable
logic.
Example:
1. In order to fly, birds need to be aerodynamic.
2. Bush-turkeys aren’t aerodynamic.
3. Therefore, bush-turkeys can’t fly.

rigorous = nghiêm ngặt, chặt chẽ; inescapable = không chối cãi

4
được

2
 9/24/2020

Deduction vs. Induction

Inductive Arguments try to show that their

conclusion are plausible (likely or probable),
given their premises:
1. So far, every class, the professor has worn a tie.

2. Therefore, next class, the professor will wear a tie.

Plausible (adj) = hợp lý, đáng tin cậy

5

Avoid a Misconception

Misconception:
 Deductive arguments go from the general to the
specific/particular.
 Inductive argument go from the specific/
particular to the general.
Examples of deductive arguments:
 All Males are mortal. (general) I am Male.Therefore I am
mortal. (particular)
 Lincoln was president from 1861-1865 (particular); therefore
everyone born while he was president was born in the 1800’s.
(general)

3
 9/24/2020

Avoid a Misconception

Examples of inductive arguments :

 The last two winter days were cold. (particular)
Therefore, all winter days are cold. (general)
 I have got A’s in all my classes so far (general). Therefore,
I will get an A in this class (particular).

Deductive Inductive

 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.
8
 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.

4
 9/24/2020

HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN ARGUMENT

IS DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?

There are four tests that can be used to determine

whether an argument is deductive or inductive:

The Indicator Word Test

The Strict Necessity Test
The Common Pattern Test
The Principle of Charity Test

The Indicator Word Test

 The indicator word test asks whether there are any

indicator words that provide clues whether a
deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
 Common deduction indicator words include words
or phrases like necessarily, logically, conclusively,
certainly, definitely it must be the case that, and this
proves that., this entails that…
 Common induction indicator words include words or phrases
like probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to
think that, and it's a good bet that, probably, likely, one would
expect, reasonable to assume…

10

5
 9/24/2020

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

 Like before, indicators are not perfect. They are not

always present, and they can sometimes be
misleading.
 The speaker may say “it certainly follows” but be
exaggerating, knowing that it only “probably
follows.”)

11

The Strict Necessity Test

The burglar is tall and thin.

Duncan is short and fat.
Obviously, therefore, Duncan isn’t the burglar.

 The strict necessity test asks whether the

conclusion follows from the premises with strict
logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is
deductive.
 In this example, the conclusion does follow from
the premises with strict logical necessity.

12

6
 9/24/2020

The Common Pattern Test

The common pattern test asks whether the

argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive.

If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning

that is characteristically deductive, then the
argument is probably deductive.

Pattern (n) = nguyên mẫu, hình mẫu, kiểu mẫu

13

Common patterns of deductive reasoning

The are five common patterns of deductive

reasoning:
1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Argument by elimination
4. Argument based on mathematics
5. Argument from definition

14

7
 9/24/2020

1. Hypothetical syllogism

A syllogism is simply a three – line argument,

exactly two premises and a conclusion.
Hypothetical syllogism contains at least one
hypothetical or conditional (i.e, if – then)
premise
A typical form:
If A then B.
A
Therefore, B.

Syllogism (n) = tam đoạn luận

15

1. Hypothetical syllogism

Valid versions:
 Modus Ponens:
 If A then B.
 A.
 Therefore B.
 Examples:
 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.

A: Antecedent – sự việc có trước, tiền lệ, tiền đề

B: Consequent – hậu quả 1
6

16

8
 9/24/2020

1. Hypothetical syllogism

Valid versions:
 Modus Tollens:
 If A then B.
 Not B.
 Therefore not A.
 Example:

 If we’re in Sacramento, then we’re in California.

 We’re not in California.
 Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento.

1
7

17

1. Hypothetical syllogism

Invalid versions (that are still deductive):

 Denying the antecedent:
 If A then B.
 Not A.
 Therefore not B.

 Example:
 If I am female then I am human.
I am not female.
 Therefore I am not human.

1
8

18

9
 9/24/2020

1. Hypothetical syllogism

Invalid versions (that are still deductive):

 Affirming the consequent:
 If A then B.
 B.
 Therefore A.

 Example:
 If we’re on Neptune then we are in the solar system.
 We are in the solar system.
 Therefore, we’re on Neptune.
1
9

19

2. Categorical syllogism

A categorical syllogism may be defined as

a three line argument in which each
statement begins with the word all, some,
or no.
Example
 All bats are mammals.

 All mammals are warm-blooded.

 So, all bats are warm-blooded.

20

10
 9/24/2020

2. Categorical syllogism

Typical Forms:
 All a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s.
Therefore, all a’s are c’s.
 Some a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s.
Therefore some a’s are c’s.
Example:
1. All oaks are trees
2. All trees are plants.
3. So all oaks are plants.

2
1

21

3. Argument by elimination

 Argument by Elimination: seeks to

logically rule out various possibilities
until only a single possibility remains.
 Typical forms:
 A or B. Not B. Therefore A.
 Example:
1. Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
2. But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
3. Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

2
2

22

11
 9/24/2020

4. Argument based on mathematics

 Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-

step reasoning. In an argument based on
mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to
depend largely or entirely on some
mathematical calculation or measurement.
 Example:
 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.

23

5. Argument from definition

 In Argument from definition, the conclusion is

presented as being “true by definition”, that is,
as following simply by definition some key
word or phrase used in the argument.
 Example
 Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a
doctor.
 Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a women.

24

12
 9/24/2020

5. Argument from definition

 In Argument from definition, the conclusion is

presented as being “true by definition”, that is,
as following simply by definition some key
word or phrase used in the argument.
 Example
 Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a
doctor.
 Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a women.

25

Common patterns of Inductive reasoning

The are six common patterns of inductive

reasoning:
1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from authority
4. Causal argument
5. Statiscal argument
6. Argument from analogy

26

13
 9/24/2020

Inductive generalization

A generalization is a statement that attribute

some characteristic to all or most members of
a given class.
An inductive generalization is an argument in
which a generalization is claimed to be
probably true based on information about
some members of a particular class.

27

Inductive generalization

 Common Form:
 So far, the b’s I have seen have had the property p.
Therefore, all b’s must have the property p.
 Example:
 Six montshs 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
2
8

28

14
 9/24/2020

Predictive argument

 A prediction is a statement about what may

or will happen in the future.
 In a Predictive argument, a prediction is
defended with reasons.
 Example
 Ithas rained in Vancouver every February since
weather records have been kept.
 Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next
February

29

Argument from Authority

 Argument from authority: asserts a claim and

supports that claim by citing some presumed
authority or witness.
 Common form:
 P said that A was true, therefore A is true.
 Example:

More Americans die of skin cancer each year

than die in car accidents. How do
I know? My doctor told me.

Since sources are not 100% reliable, conclusions of

such arguments are not guaranteed and thus such
arguments are inductive.

30

15
 9/24/2020

Argument from Authority

Arguments from authority are sometimes

deductive, however.
Example:
 Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
 The Bible teaches that we should love our
neighbors.

 Therefore, we should love our neighbors.

Bible is 100% reliable source.

31

Causal argument

 Causal Argument: asserts or denies

that something is the cause of
something else.
 Common form:
X is true. The likely cause of X being true is Y

being true. Therefore, Y must be true.
Example
 I can’t log-in. The network must be down.

3
2

32

16
 9/24/2020

Causal argument

 Not all causal arguments are inductive, if

there are true evidences, they are deductive:
 Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it
eventually rusts.
 This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen.
 Therefore, it will eventually rust.

33

Statistical argument

 A Statistical argument rests on statistical

evidence, that is, evidence that some percentage
of some group or class has some particular
characteristic:
 Common form: xx% of b’s have property p and x
is a b, therefore x probably has property p.
 Example
 Eighty-three percent of Trinity’s students are Anglican.
 Beatrice is a Trinity’s student

 So, Beatrice is probably Anglican.

34

17
 9/24/2020

Argument from analogy

An analogy is a comparison of two or more

things that are claimed to be alike in some
relevant respect.
In an Argument from analogy, the
conclusion is claimed to depend on an
analogy between two or more things
Common form:
 These things are similar is such-and-such ways.
 Therefore, they are similar in some further way.

35

Common Patterns of Inductive

Reasoning

 Examples:
1. Hershey Park is a great amusement park and it has a
great roller coaster.

2. Dorney Park is a great amusement park.

3. Dorney Park probably has a great roller coaster.

36

18
 9/24/2020

Common Patterns of Inductive

Reasoning

 Since, being similar in one way does not

guarantee being similar in another, most
analogies are inductive.
 However, some analogies are deductive:
1. Cars and cigarettes both cause thousands of deaths.
2. Thus, if cigarettes are regulated, so too should cars.
3. But cars should not be regulated.
4. Therefore cigarettes should not be regulated either.

37

The Principle of Charity Test

The Principle of Charity Test. If it is unclear

what kind of argument it is then…
 If it would make a bad deductive argument
assume it is not a deductive argument.

 If it’s a choice between “bad deductive” and “good

inductive,” go with the latter—it’s nicer and more
likely what the person had in mind.

38

19
 9/24/2020

The Principle of Charity Test

Example:
 Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s yesterday, but it
burned down a month ago. It is certain that he was
lying or mistaken.
Since it is possible that Maxine’s was rebuilt
quickly, this argument is deductively invalid.
Assume that the author intended it to be
inductive.

39

20