You are on page 1of 18

Basic Logical Concepts

Deduction & Induction

Categorical Syllogism
Composed of categorical statements
Begins with the words all, some or no
Some Democrats are elected officials.
All elected officials are politicians.
Therefore, some Democrats are politicians.
No painters are sculptors.
Some sculptors are artists.
Therefore, some artists are not painters.

Categorical Syllogism...
All lions are animals.
Some animals are not felines.
So, Some lions are not felines.

Argument by Elimination
Logically arrives at a single possibility by ruling out
others
Either A or B Either A or B
Not A Not B
So, B So, A
Either Pablo Picasso painted Woman with a Guitar or Georges
Braque painted it.
Pablo Picasso did not paint Woman with a Guitar .
So, Georges Braque painted Woman with a Guitar .
Either experimentation on live animals should be banned or
experimentation on humans should be permitted (e.g., the
terminally ill).
Experimentation on humans should not be permitted.
So, Experimentation on live animals should be banned.

Argument based on
Mathematics
Conclusion depends on mathematical
calculation or measurement
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 suns light to reach the
earth.

Argument based on Mathematics


(Exception)
My blind uncle told me that there
were 8 men, 6 women, and 12 kids
at the party.
By simple addition, therefore, it
follows that there were 26 people at
the party.

Argument from Definition


Conclusion is true by definition
John is an atheist.
It necessarily follows that he doesn't
believe in God

Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
Inductive Generalization
Probably true based on information about some
members of a particular class
Six months 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.

Predictive Argument
Reasons are provided to defend a
prediction
Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
Therefore, probably the next U.S.
president will be tall.

Argument from Authority


An authority or witness is cited to support the
claim
In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Anthony Flew
defines logicism as the view that mathematics,
in particular arithmetic, is part of logic. So, that
is what logicism is.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that parts of
Virginia are farther west than Detroit. In general,
the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a highly reliable
source of information. Therefore, its probably true
that parts of Virginia are farther west than Detroit.

Causal Argument
A cause of something is asserted or
denied
Rashid isnt allergic to peanuts. I saw
him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight
from Dallas.

Exception because of deductive


pattern
Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it
rusts.
This iron pipe has been exposed to
oxygen. Therefore, it will rust.

Statistical Argument
Statistical evidence is used to
support a statistical argument
Ninety-five percent of women over 30
years of age cannot run the mile in
under 5 minutes. Rebecca is a woman
over 30 years of age. Hence, its highly
likely that Rebecca cannot run the mile
in under 5 minutes.
The vast majority of violent criminals are
unhappy. Jones is a violent criminal. So,
Jones is unhappy.

Statistical Argument
(Exception)
If 65 percent of likely voters polled
support Senator Beltway, then
Senator Beltway will win in a
landslide.
Sixty-five percent of likely voters
polled do support Senator Beltway.
Therefore, Senator Beltway will win in
a landslide.

Argument from Analogy


Conclusion is supported by making an analogy
between things claimed to be similar in some way
1. A is similar to B.
2. B has property P.
So, 3. A has property P.
The Tempest and A Midsummer Nights Dream are both
plays written by William Shakespeare. These two plays are
very similar in length. Hud was able to read A Midsummer
Nights Dream in the space of an evening. So, Hud will be
able to read The Tempest in the space of an evening.

Argument from Analogy...


Parrots and humans can both talk. Humans can think
rationally. Therefore, parrots can think rationally.
The prohibition of so-called hard drugs such as cocaine
and heroin is similar to the prohibition of alcohol. The
prohibition of alcohol was well intentioned and based
on legitimate concerns about the dangers of alcohol
consumption. The prohibition of alcohol also led to a
highly profitable black market ruled by organized
crime and marked by violence. Now, we may all agree
that the prohibition of alcohol was, in the last analysis,
a mistake. Therefore, the prohibition of hard drugs is
also a mistakehard drugs should be legalized.

Argument from Analogy...


1. Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each
year and produce noxious and offensive fumes.
2. Smoking causes thousands of deaths each
year and produces noxious and offensive fumes.
3. Thus, if smoking is heavily regulated,
automobiles should also be heavily regulated.
4. But automobiles shouldnt be heavily
regulated.
5. Therefore, smoking shouldnt be heavily
regulated, either.

Question
Mr. Green, Mr. Red, and Mr. Blue were at the
Cafeteria eating lunch. One of the men was
wearing a red suit; one man was wearing a
green suit; and the other was wearing a blue
suit. "Have you noticed," said the man
wearing the blue suit, "that although our suits
have colours corresponding to our names, not
one of us is wearing a suit that matches our
own names?" Mr. Red looked at the other two
and said, "Youre absolutely correct." What
colour suit is each man wearing?

Answer

The problem can be solved with a series of disjunctive syllogisms.


Either A or B.
Not B (or Not A)
Therefore A (or B)
The man wearing the blue suit must be either Mr. Green or Mr. Red.
since Mr. Red responds to the statement of the man wearing the blue
suit, it cant be Mr. Red who makes the statement.
Therefore, Mr. Green must be wearing the blue suit.
Mr. Red is wearing either a blue suit or a green suit.
Since we have established that Mr. Green is wearing blue.
Therefore Mr. Red must be wearing a green suit.
Mr. Blue is wearing either a red suit or a green suit.
Since we have established that Mr. Red is wearing the green suit.
Mr. Blue must be wearing a red suit.