Deductive Reasoning

Are these arguments valid?

1. If Donald Trump is President of the USA, then

Melania Trump is First Lady.
2. If Lin is dead today, he died of cancer.
3. If the moon is made of green cheese, then
astronauts can eat moon rocks.

What, if any, can negate these arguments?

Are these arguments valid?
1. All emeralds are green.
The stone placed in the safe deposit box is an emerald.
So, the stone placed in the safe deposit box is green.

2. All emeralds are green.

The stone placed in the safe deposit box is green.
So, the stone placed in the safe deposit box is an emerald.
AGENDA

Deductive reasoning
Logical validity
Categorical logic and syllogism
Truth-functional logic
Deductive Argument

An argument in which the truth of the

premises is supposed to necessitate the
truth of the conclusion.
if all the premises are true, the
conclusion has to be true.
if all the premises are true, the
conclusion is proved.
Determining Validity of Deductive
Arguments

1) Assume all the premises are true, even if one or

more is clearly false.
2) Using only the information in the premises plus
common knowledge, ask: Does the conclusion
have to be true?
Yes: Valid Argument
No: Invalid Argument
Logical reasoning for validity

Categorical logic (Ch.8)

 Studies the relations among classes or categories of
things
 basic kinds of claims:
• Categorical claims
• Categorical operations
• Categorical syllogism

Truth-functional logic (Ch.9)

Categorical logic

Categorical logic is based on the relations of

exclusion and inclusion among classes.
Categorical logic gives us a set of rules for
making justified inferences about classes of
things.
Categorical claims
Standard form structures
A: All………………. are…………..
E: No………………. are………….
I: Some…………… are………….
O: Some…………… are not………….

A claim is categorical if it is about classes of things.

The subject term goes in the first blank
The predicate term goes in the second blank. It is
predicated of the subject term,

Illustrated by Venn Diagram

Quick guide to Venn diagram

Affirmative: All people

are ....
(no valid => no sound

The range of “some” in

categorical logic is from as few as
one to as many as most of the
things in the category.
Categorical Operations & Inference

Conversion:
• All pins are tops. Some tops are pins.
• No fish is whale. No whale is fish.
• Some boys are poets. Some poets are boys.
Obversion (between affirmative and negative):
• All birds are mammals. No birds are non-mammals.
• No poets are singers. All poets are non-singers.
• Some nurses are doctors. Some nurses are not non-doctors.
• Some politicians are not statesmen. Some politicians are non-
statesmen.
Contraposition: (link chap cấu trúc arguments)
• All birds are mammals. All non-mammals are non-birds.
• Some birds are mammals. Some non-mammals are non-birds.
Categorical Claims & Inference

Avoid the common mistake of converting

an A-claim! (chiều ngược lại chưa chắc đúng)
The fact that all X are Y does not imply that
all Y must be X.
E.g. all writers are human, but it is not true
that all humans are writers.
Categorical Syllogism
Syllogism: An argument composed of two
statements or premises (the major and minor
premises), followed by a conclusion.
For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is
guaranteed, the arguments is said to be valid.
If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one
instance in which the conclusion does not follow),
the argument is said to be invalid.
BE CAREFUL
• Do not confuse TRUTH with VALIDITY!
• Check twice when using ONLY, ALL, SOME,
NONE, IF…THEN…
Practice
Construct a Venn Diagram to determine the validity of the
given argument.

All smiling cats talk. (A)

The Cheshire Cat smiles. (I)
Therefore, the Cheshire Cat talks.

VALID OR INVALID???
Practice

No one who can afford health insurance is

unemployed. (E)
All politicians can afford health insurance. (A)
Therefore, no politician is unemployed.

VALID OR INVALID (1 case not true => invalid)?????

Critical thinking
Drawing inferences
Elaine Rivera inherited her family’s gun store, which
she has operated on her own for nine years.
Which inference stands?
A. She knows very well the difficulty in enforcing gun control
laws.
B. She knows very well which guns are most often bought for
criminal purposes.
C. She knows very well which guns often bought by amateurs.
D. She knows very well which guns in her shop are the easiest
for amateurs to use.
Practice
Automation, the trademark of a modern economy, is essential to
maximizing a country's economic production while minimizing its costs.
Health care executives want to increase revenues while reducing costs.
Consequently, they propose significantly greater automation of health
care. Yet, this should be rejected. Radical automation of health care would
cause patients to lose trust in the system as the health care they would
receive would lack the in-person care that studies show patients desire.
Which of the following expresses the main point of the argument?
A) Health care should not be heavily automated
B) Patients desire customized in-person care
C) Trends in the general economy do not apply to the health care industry
D) Health care executives are becoming too greedy
E) Due to economic forces, automation of health care is eventually
inevitable
Practice
During the past 20 years, computer scientists focused increasingly on
starting and running successful businesses. However, since businesses
must be profitable, computer scientists must focus on developing
products that generate profit. Consequently, computer science has lost
its creative aspect.
Which of the following assumptions is most necessary in order for the
conclusion above to be drawn from the argument above?
A) All computer programs must lack creativity in order to be well
received.
B) Some computer scientists entirely disregarded creativity and chose
instead to pursue profit.
C) A program cannot be both creative and profitable.
D) Computer scientists are obsessed with the profitability of their work.
E) Non-profit institutions use large amounts of software.
Truth table

Fig.1, p. 301
Negation
Conjunction
Disjunction
Conditional
Common Truth-Functional Argument
Patterns:
In depth p.320