Basic Logical Concepts

Deduction and Induction

Deductive & Inductive Arguments
• Deductive
• Rigorous, inescapable logic (guarantees the conclusion)
• All philosophers like logic. Ned is a philosopher. So, Ned likes logic.
• Inductive
• Plausible conclusion (without guaranteeing it)
• Every ruby so far discovered has been red. So probably all rubies are red.
Deductive Arguments?
• All biologists are scientists. John is not a scientist. So, John is not a
biologist.
• All bats are mammals. All mammals are warm-blooded. So, all bats
are warm-blooded.

• If Alice stole the diamonds, then she is a thief. And Alice did steal the
diamonds. Hence, Alice is a thief.
• Either Bill has a poor memory or he is lying. Bill does not have a poor
memory. Therefore, Bill is lying.
How to differentiate Deductive from
Inductive Arguments?
• The indicator word test
• asks whether there are any indicator words that provide clues whether
a deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
• Certainly, absolutely, conclusively
Vs.
• Probably, likely, chances are that

• Kristin is a law student.

Most law students own laptops.
So, probably Kristin owns a laptop.

• Pleasure is not the same thing as happiness. The occasional self-

destructive behaviour of the rich and famous confirms this far too
vividly.
How to differentiate Deductive from
Inductive Arguments?...
• The strict necessity test
• asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical
necessity. If it does, then the argument is deductive.

• All philosophers like logic.

Ted is a philosopher.
So, Ted likes logic.
How to differentiate Deductive from
Inductive Arguments?...
• The common pattern test
• asks whether the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive.

• If we are in Lahore, then we are in Pakistan

We are in Lahore
Therefore, we are in Pakistan
How to differentiate Deductive from
Inductive Arguments?...
• The principle of charity test
• When there are no clear indicators about whether an argument is deductive
or inductive, we fall back on this principle.

• Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant yesterday.

But Maxine’s was completely destroyed by fire less than a month ago.
It is certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or mistaken.
Exercise
• Ali: Are there any good Italian restaurants in town?

Salman: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni,
their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think you
can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes.
• Is this argument deductive or inductive? How can you tell?
Exercise...
• I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my Critical Thinking textbook as
well as my Brand Management and history textbooks. Let's see, I have
Rs.200. My BM textbook costs Rs.65 and my history textbook costs
Rs.52. My Critical Thinking textbook costs Rs.60. With taxes, that
should come to about Rs.190. Yep, I have enough.
Exercise...
• Mother: Don't give Billy that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I think
Billy is allergic to walnuts. Last week he ate some oatmeal cookies
with walnuts, and he broke out in a severe rash.

Father: Billy isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember he ate

some walnut fudge ice cream at Melissa's birthday party last spring?
He didn't have any allergic reaction then.
Exercise...
• John is an atheist.
It necessarily follows that he doesn't believe in God

• Is this argument deductive or inductive? How can you tell?

Exceptions to Strict Necessity Test
• Even if by strict necessity, the conclusion does not necessarily follow,
we’ll take the argument as deductive if:
• The arguer clearly intended, through language or context, to offer a logically
conclusive argument
• The pattern of reasoning is typically deductive and nothing else indicates that
it is inductive

• Magellan’s ships sailed around the world. It necessarily follows,

therefore, that the earth is a sphere.
Exceptions to Strict Necessity Test...
• If I’m Bill Gates, then I’m mortal.
I’m not Bill Gates.
Therefore, I’m not mortal.
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
• Hypothetical Syllogism
• If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d better study hard.
I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, I’d better study hard.
• If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.
(also called Modus Ponens)
Hypothetical Syllogisms: Chain Arguments
• If A, then B.
If B, then C.
So, If A, then C.

• If tuition continues to increase, then only the wealthy will be able to afford a
college education.
If only the wealthy will be able to afford a college education, then class
divisions will be strengthened.
If tuition continues to increase, then class divisions will be strengthened.
Hypothetical Syllogisms: Modus Tollens
• If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, Not A.

If we are in Karachi, then we are in Sindh

We are not in Sindh
Therefore, we are not in Karachi
Hypothetical Syllogisms: Denying the
Antecedent (Unreliable)
• If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore, Not B.

• If Ghalib wrote Javed-Nama, then he is a great poet

Ghalib did not write Javed-Nama
Therefore Ghalib is not a great poet
Hypothetical Syllogisms: Affirming the
Consequent (Unreliable)
• If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

• If we’re on Neptune, then we’re in the solar system.

We are in the solar system.
Therefore, we’re on Neptune.
Hypothetical Syllogisms: Affirming the
Consequent...
• If lemons are red, then lemons have a colour.
Lemons have a colour.
So, Lemons are red.
Stylistic Variants of Conditionals
• Given that it is raining, the ground is wet.
• Assuming that it is raining, the ground is wet.
• The ground is wet if it is raining.
• The ground is wet given that it is raining.
• The ground is wet assuming that it is raining.
Summary
Affirming the Antecedent or Modus If A then B.
Ponens A.
Therefore B.

Denying the Consequent or Modus Tollens If A, then B.

Not B.
Therefore, Not A.

Affirming the Consequent If A then B.

B.
Therefore, A.

Denying the Antecedent If A then B.

Not A.
Therefore, Not B.
Summary...
Affirming the Antecedent (AA)
If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d
better study hard.
I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, I’d better study hard.
 Affirming the Consequent (AC)
If we’re on Neptune, then we’re in the
solar system.
We are in the solar system.
Therefore, we’re on Neptune.
Denying the Antecedent (DA)
If Ghalib wrote Javed-Nama, then he is a
great poet Ghalib did not write Javed-
Nama
Therefore Ghalib is not a great poet
 Denying the Consequent (DC)
If we are in Karachi, then we are in Sindh
We are not in Sindh
Therefore, we are not in Karachi
Categorical Syllogism
• Composed of categorical statements
• Each statement 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 or Disjunctive
Syllogism
• Logically arrives at a single possibility by ruling out others
• Either A or BEither 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 sun’s light to reach the
earth.
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.

• If Amy comes to the party, Ted will come to the party.

Amy will come to the party.
Therefore, Ted will come to the party.
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, it’s probably true that parts of Virginia are farther west than
Detroit.

• Whatever the Bible teaches is true.

The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbors.
Therefore, we should love our neighbors.
Causal Argument
• A cause of something is asserted or denied
• Rashid isn’t allergic to peanuts. I saw him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight
from Karachi.
• Exception
• 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, it’s 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 Night’s Dream are both plays written by William
Shakespeare. These two plays are very similar in length. Hud was able to read A
Midsummer Night’s 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.