# Types of

Reasoning

From truths that we already know
there is a way or process by which
we can know (derive, infer, or
generate) new truths.

“All carabaos are mammals”
and “All mammals have mammary
glands”
are both true
= All carabaos have mammary glands

The table is brown. imperatives. an argument can only consist of • • statements (or beliefs) Expressions functioning as questions.Reasoning or inference • Whose end result is called an argument • Since arguments concern truth. . The sky is blue. however. and exclamations cannot be part of an argument A mere collection of statements. will not form an argument.

Premise and Conclusion .

.Premise – provides a justification for the conclusion. Conclusion – is what follows from or is proven by the premise.

Standard form All carabaos are mammals All mammals have mammary glands Therefore. all carabaos have mammary glands .

Certain(necessary) – we are sure about its truth for there is no possibility that it is false Merely probable – it is likely to be true but there is a possibility that it is false .

Inductive and deductive reasoning .

• Either be valid or invalid • It should be noted that the validity and the invalidity of deductive argument are solely determined by their form of structure. .Deductive argument • The truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the truth of the conclusion is certain.

Sound and Unsound Deductive Argument .

Then the German shepherd are animals Therefore German shepherds are animals .Sound deductive argument • Is a deductive argument that is valid and that contains premises that are all true. Example: If the German shepherds are dogs.

Unsound deductive argument • Is a deductive argument that is valid and that contains at least one premise that is false Example: If elephants are birds. Then. elephants can fly. Elephant are birds. Then. . elephants can fly.

all A’s are C’s If P. P. then Q. Therefore. Q. If P.   All A’s are B’s. Therefore. then Q. Therefore.   If P. P. not Q. Not Q. Q. Therefore. Therefore. All B’s are C’s. then Q. not P. then Q. All A’s are B’s All C’s are B’s Therefore all A’s are C’s .Common Deductive Argument Forms Some Valid Form Some Invalid Form   If P. Not-P.

Q. P. the ground is wet. The rain falls.Valid Form If P. Therefore. “If the rain falls. then the ground is wet. Therefore.” . then Q.

Therefore. The rain falls.invalid Form If P. then Q. “If the rain falls. Q. P. then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore.” .

Inductive argument • The truth of the premise is supposed to prove that the truth of the conclusion is probable .

Strong or Weak .

Strong – if the truth of the premises really proves that the truth of its conclusion is probable Weak – if it does not do so .

Cogent – all of its premises happen to be true. Example: Most Filipino boys like to play basketbal Mario is a Filipino boy. Therefore. Mario likes to play basketball .

Therefore. Justin Bieber likes to play baske .Uncogent – if even just one of its premises happens to be false. Most Filipino boys likes to play basketball. Justin Bieber is a Filipino boy.

Fallacies (errors in reasoning) are actually cases of weak inductive reasoning. .

.• Fallacy of hasty generalization (converse accident) . It occurs when we make a general conclusion from an insufficient number of cases.is the most typical case.

• Fallacy of hasty
generalization
(converse accident)
Example:
Former President Joseph Estrada is a movie actor.
Former President Joseph Estrada is a politician.
Therefore, all or most movie actors are politicians

• Fallacy of weak analogy
Committed when we conclude that two
things have a certain similarity because
they have other similarities but which
are either insufficient number of
irrelevant to the conclusion.

• Fallacy of weak analogy
Example:
Paper plates and diamond are both made up of atoms.
Diamonds are very expensive.
Therefore, paper plates are very expensive.

Some common Fallacies .

2 Types of fallacies •FORMAL FALLACIES •INFORMAL FALLACIES .

.Formal Fallacies •Are errors in reasoning due solely to an incorrect form or structure of an argument.

Informal Fallacies •Also known as material fallacies. are errors in reasoning due solely to an anomaly or defect in the content (or in the meaning of the words or sentences) of an argument. .

Informal Fallacies are group into three •Fallacies of Ambiguity •Fallacies of Relevance •Fallacies of Presumption .

.Fallacies of Ambiguity •Referring to fallacies in which the errors in reasoning is brought about by the occurrence of ambiguous terms whose meanings are confused in an argument.

.Fallacies of Relevance •Referring to fallacies in which the error in reasoning is brought about by the irrelevance of the premise or premises to the conclusion of an argument.

Fallacies of Presumption •Referring to fallacies in which the error in reasoning is brought about by the occurrence of complex or loaded expressions whose assumption are questionable or have not yet been proven to be true. .

Fallacies of Ambiguity •Fallacy of Equivocation •Fallacy of Composition •Fallacy of Division .

.Fallacy of Equivocation •Is committed when several meanings of a word or phrase become confused in the context of one argument.

Example •“All laws should be respected and obeyed. the law of gravity should be respected and obeyed. The law of the gravity is a law. Therefore.” .

Fallacy of composition •Is committed when one reasons from the qualities of the parts of a whole to the qualities of the whole itself. .

the whole machine is light in weight.” . Therefore.Example •“Every part of this machine is light in weight.

is committed when one reasons from the qualities of a whole to the qualities of the parts of the whole.Fallacy of Division •Which is the reverse of composition. .

Juan is a Filipino cultural minority. Juan is disappearing. Therefore.Example •“Filipino cultural minorities are disappearing.” .

Fallacies of Relevance • Argument from ignorance • Appeal to inappropriate authority • Appeal to the person • Appeal to pity • Appeal to popular will • Appeal to force .

.Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance •Is committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. or that it is false because it has not been proven true.

Example •“ Mental telepathy must be accepted as a fact . . for nobody has proven that it is impossible.

.Fallacy of Appeal to Inappropriate Authority •Is committed when one appeals to an authority whose fields of expertise does not include the nature of the conclusion being establish.

Example •“ We should vote this candidate for he is indorsed by our favorite basketball player.” .

.Fallacy of Appeal to the Person •Is committed when one evaluates an argument by means of citing something about the person who asserts the said argument.

for she comes from a broken family.Example •“ She cannot be a good president.” .

Fallacy of Appeal to Pity •Is committed when one appeals to pity to cause the acceptance of some conclusion. .

” .Example •“ This man certainly deserves a promotion. for he can hardly fed his starving family.

Fallacy of Appeal to Popular Will •Is committed when one appeals to general . common. . popular or stereotypical prejudices or beliefs to cause the acceptance of some conclusion.

” .Example •“ We should drink this brand of beer. for it is the regular drink of successful men after a hard day’s work.

Fallacy of Appeal to Force •Is committed when one appeals to force. . to cause the acceptance of a conclusion. often with subtlety.

” .Example •“ It is your duty to pledge allegiance to this constitution. for otherwise rebellion charges will be filled against you.

Fallacies of Presumption • Fallacy of complex question • Fallacy of false cause • Fallacy of begging the question • Fallacy of accident • Fallacy of hasty generalization .

.Fallacy of Complex when •Is committed Question one ask a question that contains unproved assumptions.

Example •“ A lawyer who wants to establish that person A is beating his child asks this question : ‘Have you stop beating your child ?’” .

Fallacy of False Cause •Is committed when one attributes a wrong cause to something. . which is often to a mere temporal succession of two events .

Example •“ Edgar Allan Poe’s literary genius must have been caused by drinking liquor.” .

.Fallacy of Begging the Question Is committed when • reasoning is circular in that the conclusion is already assumed in the premises.

for it never dies.” .Example •“ The soul is immortal.

because of their special or accidental nature . which.Fallacy of Accident •Is committed when one applies a general rule to individual cases. the general rule does not properly apply. .

running will be good for Pedro who is suffering from a heart disease.Example •“ Running is good for heart.” . Therefore.

or simply from insufficient number of cases.Fallacy of Hasty Generalization •(or converse accident0 is committed when one makes a generalization from a special or accidental case. .

Example •“ While running . Therefore. Mario had a heart attach . running is bad for heart .” .

End .