Logic: Language and Information 1

§2-1-1 Validity of Arguments

Jen Davoren
 About arguments

Arguments connect a collection of premises to a conclusion.

There are good arguments and not so good arguments.

As logicians, we want to know what makes the difference.

 Validity of arguments

An argument is valid if and only if

whenever the premises are all true, the conclusion is also
true.
 Validity of arguments

An argument is valid if and only if

whenever the premises are all true, the conclusion is also
true.

For an argument with premises A1 , A2 , . . . , An and conclusion

B, we write A1 , A2 , . . . An |= B when the argument from
A1 , A2 , . . . , An to conclusion B is valid.
 Validity of arguments

An argument is valid if and only if

whenever the premises are all true, the conclusion is also
true.

For an argument with premises A1 , A2 , . . . , An and conclusion

B, we write A1 , A2 , . . . An |= B when the argument from
A1 , A2 , . . . , An to conclusion B is valid.
When Σ is a collection or set of premises, we also write Σ |= B
when the argument from premises Σ to conclusion B is valid.
 Validity of arguments

Validity A1 , A2 , . . . An |= B requires truth-transfer from the

collection of premises A1 , A2 , . . . , An to the conclusion B.
 Validity of arguments

Validity A1 , A2 , . . . An |= B requires truth-transfer from the

collection of premises A1 , A2 , . . . , An to the conclusion B.
Equivalently, an argument is valid if and only if it is
impossible for the premises A1 , A2 , . . . , An to be all true while at
the same time the conclusion B is false.
Validity and the material conditional

From the relationship between logical consequence and

tautologies, we can also derive a corresponding relationship
between argument validity and tautologies.
Deduction Theorem (semantic form):
A1 , A2 , . . . , An |= B
if and only if
(A1 & A2 & . . . & An ) ⊃ B is a tautology
if and only if
(A1 & A2 & . . . & An ) |= B.
 Example: validity of arguments

Test whether or not (p & ∼q) ⊃ r, ∼r |= p ⊃ q.

p q r (p & ∼q) ⊃ r ∼r p⊃q

0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0 1
 Example Solution: validity of arguments

Truth table shows YES: (p & ∼q) ⊃ r, ∼r |= p ⊃ q.

p q r (p & ∼q) ⊃ r ∼r p⊃q

0 0 0 1 1 1 ✓
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 1 1 ✓
0 1 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 1 1 1 ✓
1 1 1 1 0 1
 Exercise: validity of arguments
Test whether or not ∼p ⊃ q, p ⊃ ∼r |= q ⊃ r
YES or NO
p q r ∼p ⊃ q p ⊃ ∼r q⊃r
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 0 1
 Exercise Solution: validity of arguments

NO: ∼p ⊃ q, p ⊃ ∼r ̸|= q ⊃ r
p q r ∼p ⊃ q p ⊃ ∼r q⊃r
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 0 ×
0 1 1 1 1 1 ✓
1 0 0 1 1 1 ✓
1 0 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 1 0 ×
1 1 1 1 0 1
Next Up: Argument Forms, Instances, and Soundness