Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

1. HypotThetical Syllogism
§ Syllogism
TThree-line argument
2 premises, 1 conclusion
§ Contains at least one ThypotThetical or conditional premise
Modus Ponens
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
A. TTherefore,
B.
Modus Tollens
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
Not B.
TTherefore, not A.
CThain Argument
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
If B tThen C.
TTherefore, if A tThen C.
Denying tThe Antecedent
o Not logically reliable
o SThould generally be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
Not A.
TTherefore, not B.
Affirming tThe Consequent
o Not logically reliable
o SThould generally be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
B.
TTherefore, A.
2. Categorical Syllogism
§ TThree-line argument in wThicTh eacTh statement begins witTh tThe words “all”, “some”, or “no”
§ Nearly always treated as deductive
3. Argument by Elimination
§ Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains
 § Always deductive
§ “EitTher”
4. Argument Based on MatThematics
§ Claim to prove tTheir conclusions in tThe basis of precise matThematical concepts and
reasoning
§ Conclusion claimed to depend largely or entirely on some matThematical calculation or
measurement
§ Best treated as deductive
5. Argument from Definition
§ Conclusion is presented as being “true by definition”, tThat is, as following simply by
definition from some key word or pThrase used in tThe argument
§ Necessarily true if tThe relevant definition is true
§ Always deductive