Critical Thinking and Logic

GED0073
 Module 3
Propositions and Arguments
Module 3 Subtopic 2
Arguments
Content

Arguments
1. Definition
2. Recognizing Arguments
3. Diagramming Arguments
4. Basic Kinds
5. Evaluating Arguments
1. Definition

❑ An argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which

one is claimed to follow from the others.
❑ But an argument is not merely a collection of propositions; it is a
cluster with a structure that captures or exhibits some inference.
❑ To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
❑ Therefore, an argument is a set of premises together with a
conclusion.

I need a larger pair of shoes because my feet hurt.

My feet hurt, therefore, I need a larger pair of shoes.

1. Definition

• A proposition which gives reasons, grounds,

or evidence for accepting some other
Premise proposition, called the conclusion.
• Propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed)
as providing support for the conclusion.

• A proposition, which is purported to be

established on the basis of other propositions.
Conclusion • The proposition that is affirmed on the basis
of the other propositions of the argument.
2. Recognizing Arguments

❑ In general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove or justify

something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument.
❑ Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something

Factual Claim Inferential Claim

• At least one of the statements must • The passage expresses a certain kind
claim to present evidence or of reasoning process – that
reasons. something supports or implies
something or that something
follows from something else.
• Either explicit or implicit
2. Recognizing Arguments

Explicit Inferential Claims Implicit Inferential Claims

• Usually asserted by premise or • Exists if there is an inferential
conclusion indicator words (thus, relationship between the
since, because, hence, therefore, statements in a passage, but the
etc.). passage contains no indicator
• Example: Mad cow disease is words.
spread by feeding parts of infected • Example: The genetic modification
animals to cows, and this practice of food is risky business. Genetic
has yet to be completely eradicated. engineering can introduce
Thus, mad cow disease continues to unintended changes into the DNA of
pose a threat to people who eat the food-producing organism, and
beef. these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.
2. Recognizing Arguments

Premise Indicators Conclusion Indicators

2. Recognizing Arguments

❑ Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:

1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

2. Look for premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
3. Look for argument in context.
4. Bear in mind that premises and conclusions are not
always stated in declarative form.
5. Watch out for unstated propositions.
6. Recognize the typical kinds of nonarguments.
2. Recognizing Arguments

Non-
Expository
inferential Illustrations
passages
passages

Conditional
Explanations
statements
2. Recognizing Arguments

❑ Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:

1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

2. Look for premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
3. Look for argument in context.
4. Bear in mind that premises and conclusions are not
always stated in declarative form.
5. Watch out for unstated propositions.
6. Recognize the typical kinds of nonarguments.
3. Diagramming Arguments

❑ Diagrams are useful for analyzing an argument.

Basic symbols used:

1. Arrow ( ): represents a single step in reasoning, i.e. the
relationship between a premise and a conclusion.
2. Plus sign (+): used to join premises which lead to the
conclusion.
3. Bracket ( ): neither premise supports the conclusion
independently; the premises conjointly support the
conclusion.
3. Diagramming Arguments

If gun ownership leads to Politics depends on morality.

violence then gun control Morality depends on religion.
should be implemented. Therefore, politics depends on religion.

1. People have a right to life.

2. People have a right to defend their
lives.
3. Gun control violates the right of self-
defense.
4. The government should not restrict gun
ownership.
3. Diagramming Arguments
3. Diagramming Arguments
❑ General guide to diagramming arguments:

1. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or

complex, the all-important first step is to find the conclusion.
2. The conclusion can occur anywhere in the paragraph, especially if
the passage has not been revised for clarity.
3. Premise indicators often indicate the presence of reasons.
Conclusion indicators often indicate the statement which logically
follows from the reasons given. Equal status indicators (and, but,
yet, however, moreover, in addition, nevertheless, not only, a
semicolon) often indicate that two or more premises or two or
more conclusions carry equal status in an argument.
4. Basic Kinds

❑There are two types of basic arguments: deductive arguments and

inductive arguments.
❑These types are based on how well their premises support their
conclusions.
❑The simplest way to differentiate the two is: 1) if the premises of an
argument prove the conclusion, it is deductive; 2) if the premise of
an argument does not prove but merely supports the conclusion, it
is inductive.
4. Basic Kinds

A detective investigating a murder notices that

nothing was taken from the victim’s wallet. He might
reason as follows:
If robbery was the motive, the money would have been
taken, but the money was not taken. So robbery was
not the motive.
4. Basic Kinds

A scientist investigating an outbreak of disease

examines a random sample of the victims. She argues
that:
All of them had recently eaten strawberries from
California and, as far as I can tell, the people in the
sample had nothing else in common. I therefore
conclude that something in the strawberries was
causing the disease in all the victims.
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑Deductive arguments are evaluated based on validity, truth, and

soundness.
❑Inductive arguments are evaluated based on strength and cogency.
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑“Valid” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is

completely different from how we commonly understand the word
“valid”.
❑Validity in this context is concerned with how logical is the
construction of a deductive argument argument.
❑Its structure must follow this logic: the truth of the premises
logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. It wants to see
whether the provided conclusion is the logical next step following
the premises.
5. Evaluating Arguments

Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.

John does not live in Luzon.
Therefore, he does not live in Metro Manila.
Valid
Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.
John lives in Luzon.
Therefore, he lives in Metro Manila.
Invalid
❑An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to
each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then
the conclusion would have to be true as well. -IEP
5. Evaluating Arguments

John owns either a PS4 or a Nintendo Switch.

John does not own a PS4.
Therefore, John owns a Nintendo Switch.
Valid

❑An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to

each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then
the conclusion would have to be true as well. -IEP
5. Evaluating Arguments

All crows are black. Only crows are black.

John is black. John is black.
Therefore, John is a crow. Therefore, John is a crow.
Invalid Valid

❑An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to

each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then
the conclusion would have to be true as well. -IEP
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑“Truth” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is refers to

truth values.
❑After checking the validity of a deductive argument, it is now
important to check whether the premises are actually true or false.
❑When checking for validity, we assume that the premises are true to
be able to see if there is a logical flow from premise to conclusion.
❑But when we check for truth after establishing validity, we take away
the assumption and verify the actual truth of the premises.
5. Evaluating Arguments

Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.

John does not live in Luzon.
Therefore, he does not live in Metro Manila.
This argument has truth.
Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.
John lives in Luzon.
Therefore, he lives in Metro Manila.
This argument has falsity.

❑When we check for truth, we look at the actual truth value of the
premises and conclusion.
5. Evaluating Arguments

All crows are black. Only crows are black.

John is black. John is black.
Therefore, John is a crow. Therefore, John is a crow.
This argument has falsity. This argument has truth.

❑When we check for truth, we do not look for truth value.

❑We only want to see if there is a smooth flow of logic from premise
to conclusion.
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑“Sound” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is

completely different from how we commonly understand the word
“sound”.
❑Soundness in this context is concerned with a deductive argument
having a valid structure and true truth value.
❑The best kind of deductive argument is one that achieves
soundness.

Sound = Valid + True

5. Evaluating Arguments

Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.

John does not live in Luzon.
Therefore, he does not live in Metro Manila.
This argument is sound.
Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.
John lives in Luzon.
Therefore, he lives in Metro Manila.
This argument is unsound.
❑A sound argument must have a valid structure (the premises and
conclusion must relate to each other in the right way).
❑But the premises in the argument must all be actually true in terms
of their truth value.
5. Evaluating Arguments

All crows are black. Only crows are black.

John is black. John is black.
Therefore, John is a crow. Therefore, John is a crow.
This argument is unsound. This argument is unsound.

❑A sound argument must have a valid structure (the premises and

conclusion must relate to each other in the right way).
❑But the premises in the argument must all be actually true in terms
of their truth value.
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑“Strong” in the context of evaluating inductive arguments is

completely different from how we commonly understand the word
“strong”.
❑Strength in this context is concerned with how the premises make a
conclusion more likely in an inductive argument.
5. Evaluating Arguments

Around 90% of humans are right-handed.

John is a human.
Therefore, John is right-handed.
This argument is strong.
Roughly 51.9% of people all over the world are male.
Person A is one of the world’s people.
Therefore, Person A is male.
This argument is weak.
❑A strong inductive argument uses premises that make its conclusion
more likely.
5. Evaluating Arguments

❑“Cogent” in the context of evaluating inductive arguments is

completely different from how we commonly understand the word
“cogent”.
❑Cogency in this context is concerned with how the premises are
actually true in terms of truth value. Its concern with the actual
truth value of premises is similar with that of the truth concept in
deductive arguments.
❑But cogency is also concerned about how inductive arguments must
also be strong.

Cogent = Strong + True

5. Evaluating Arguments

Around 90% of humans are right-handed.

John is a human.
Therefore, John is right-handed.
This argument is cogent.
Roughly 51.9% of people all over the world are male.
Person A is one of the world’s people.
Therefore, Person A is male.
This argument is not cogent.
❑A cogent inductive argument needs to have premises that are all
true in terms of truth value.
❑It also needs to be a strong argument.
References
• Acuña, Andresito E. Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques for Critical Thinking. Sixth Edition. UP Department of
Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004).
• Bauzon, Priscillano T. A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy with Islamic and Islamic Values, National
Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011).
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of Education for the LET.
• Bauzon, Prisicllano. Logic for Filipinos, National Book Store, Mandaluyong City (2013).
• Copi, Irving and Cohen, Carl, and McMahon, Kenneth. Introduction to Logic. 14th edition. USA (2011)
• Dy, Manuel. Contemporary Social Philosophy Kaths Publishing, Makati City (2012)
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one origin and
meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• Espartinez-Santiago, Alma (2014). Logic: Art of Reasoning. 7th edition. C&E Publishing, Inc.
• Hurley, Patrick, Introduction to Logic, Cengage Learning, Singapore (2011)
• Maboloc, Christopher Ryan B. Elements of Logic, An Integrative Approach, Rex Book Store, Manila (2012)
• https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html#
• https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nature_log.html
• http://thelogiccafe.net/logic/ref1.htm
• https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/#:~:text=If%20the%20arguer%20believes%20that,then%20the%20argument%20is%20inductive.
• http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pine/logicweb/Phil110/Phil110/validsup.htm