Toronto Metropolitan University

Department of Philosophy
Fall 2023

PHL 110: Philosophy of Religion I

Lecture 2: Argument Classification

and Evaluation

Professor K. J. Kraay
 If you just enrolled in PHL110 (or missed last week), you should:

(1) Log in to D2L and read the Course Outline for PHL110 carefully.

(2) Write down the relevant due-dates in your agenda/calendar.

(3) Review the powerpoint slides that I have posted on D2L.

(4) Get notes from a classmate for the classes that you missed.

(5) Memorize the definitions for all key terms covered so far, and practice using them
correctly.
Argument Classification and Evaluation

• An _____ is a set of statements one of which (the _______) is taken

to be supported by the remaining statements (the _______).

Here’s another way of saying this:

• An argument is a group of statements in which some (the _____) are

intended to support another (the __________).

• The conclusion is what the speaker wants you to _____or _____.

• The premises state the ______ or ______for accepting/believing the

conclusion.

( For contrast, check out this classic Monty Python Skit: “The
Argument Clinic”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k )
• Arguments are all around us!

• Arguments in philosophy of religion.

Recall our provisional definition:

“Philosophy of Religion is the ______________into

the _______________ of the ___________ of religions.”

And recall our definition of as involving:

NOT all texts (or passages) contain arguments.

(1) Some passages/texts are merely ________. (Ex: a narrative of events, a

description of a thing.) These are not arguments.

(2) Some passages/texts merely offer the author’s _______, without trying to
provide to accept it. These are arguments.

(3) An “if-then” statement, _______ , is not an argument.

“If it is raining, then the party will be cancelled.”

This sentence does not claim that , nor that the

party, . Nor are there any reasons
given for it, nor is it offered as a reason for believing something
else.

It could be an argument …
How to Recognize Arguments:

• Look for a conclusion (a statement that is ), and look for

premises (statements that are ).

In other words, ask: is the author/speaker trying to get me to believe

something by giving me reasons in support of it?

• If Yes: it is _________________.
• If No: it is _________________.

Compare:

• “Work is underway to build a bridge over the river. It is hoped that this
bridge will solve our traffic problems.”

• “We ought to build a bridge across the river. And we should limit the cars
that go on it. And let’s fix the park while we are at it.”

• “We ought to build a bridge across the river, because doing that is the best
way to solve the traffic problems.”

Hint: go slowly with this!

Look for indicator words.

Conclusion-Indicators Premise-Indicators
 Two Crucial Points about Indicators:

(1) They may .

(2) In arguments, premises do not always come

conclusions; conclusions do not always come premises

“_____ priority versus _______priority”

“Religious beliefs cannot be proven. If something is a

matter of faith, it cannot be proven, and religious
beliefs are obviously a matter of faith.”

Advice: Try to find the conclusion first!

How to identify the premises and conclusion in an argument.

(1) Cross out material that is redundant, or not part of the argument.

(2)Identify all of the assertions in the argument.

(3)Ask: what is the author trying to get to me believe?

(4)Look for indicator words.

(5)Use your own judgment, following the .

 “If God knows everything we’re going to do before
we do it, then we are not free. God does, in fact,
know everything we’re going to do before we do it.
Thus, we’re not really free.”

1.

2.

Therefore,
3.
 “Why am I an atheist? I’ll tell you. If there
really were a God, then God would not let
terrible things happen to people who believe in
him. But terrible things happen to religious
believers all the time. I rest my case.”

1.

2.

Therefore,
3.
Truth and Logical Strength

• An argument is a set of assertions, one of which (the conclusion) is taken

to be supported by the remaining statements (the premises).

• Premises and conclusions may be ____ , or they may be ____ .

• Evaluating the _________ of premises and conclusions is distinct from

evaluating the _________ of arguments.

Consider:

(1) TMU is located in Guelph, ON.

(2) Kerr Hall is located on the campus of TMU
______________________________
Therefore,
(3)
Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument intends to provide ____________

support for the conclusion.

Deductive Validity

An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is ...

i.e., if all the premises were true, the

conclusion would _____ be true too.

i.e., the conclusion ________ from the premises.

i.e., in a world where the premises are true, the conclusion

is _______ to be true as well.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

A valid argument:

(1) All bachelors are unmarried.

(2) Ivan is a bachelor.
____________________________
Therefore,
(3)

Note: This is a special use of the word ‘valid’.

In logic, the word ____ applies to _______ ; not to premises or

conclusions. Be sure to use this term correctly!
An invalid argument:

(1) Some politicians are crooks.

(2) Professor Kraay is a politician.
Therefore,
(3)

• Why is this an invalid argument?

• How do we test whether an argument is valid nor not?

The Logical Strength Test

Imagine/suppose that the premises are all true. Assuming this, do

the premises ________that the conclusion is true? If “yes”, then
the argument is _____ . Otherwise, it is ______.
Remember, a valid argument doesn’t have to have true
premises, and it doesn’t have to have true conclusions either:
what’s important is the logical relationship between the
premise(s) and conclusion(s).

(1) All Olympic athletes are ten feet tall.

(2) Prof. Kraay is an Olympic athlete.
Therefore,
(3)

This argument has two false premises and a false conclusion

… but, nevertheless, it’s what we call ____.

Why?
 Some More Valid Arguments

False Premises, False Conclusion

In each case, the point is
(1) All human beings can fly. not whether the
(2) All things which can fly are red. premises/conclusions
.: (3) are actually true or false,
it’s whether, supposing
False Premises, True Conclusion that the premises were
true, they would
(1) All dogs are reptiles. guarantee that the
(2) All reptiles are mammals. conclusion is true too. If
they would, the
.: (3)
argument is valid.

True Premises, True Conclusion

(1) If you’re taller than 10 feet, you’re taller than 5 feet.

(2) If you’re taller than 5 feet, you’re taller than 2 feet.
.: (3)
 In fact, we don’t even need to _____ the truth-value of the
premises and conclusions in order to know that an argument
is ____ . Consider:

(1) Either Jones or Smith committed the murder.

(2) Jones didn’t commit the murder.
.: (3)

• Inspection of the ___________ of this argument, by itself,

tells us that it is valid.
Are these arguments valid or invalid?

(1) If you’re beautiful, you’re always happy.

(2) If you’re always happy, everyone will like you.
.: (3) If you’re beautiful, everyone will like you.

(1) If you have a university degree, you’ll get a job.

(2) Suzie has a job
.: (3) Suzie has a university degree.

• Valid arguments are said to be ________ , because if the

premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well.
Inductive Arguments

Recall: a deductive argument aims to provide logically conclusive support

for the conclusion.

But not all arguments are deductive: in some cases, premises are
intended to give ______, not _________, support for the
conclusion. These are inductive arguments.

Cogency

An argument is ______if and only if it is not valid, but the

premises of the argument are ________ for the conclusion.

Another way to put this:

An argument is _____ if and only if it is not valid, but if all the

premises are true, the conclusion is _______true.

Otherwise, the argument is non-cogent.

Cogent Argument

1. Quitting smoking tends to improve one’s health.

2. Mary has quit smoking.
Therefore, probably,
3.

• Is this argument valid? Why or why not?

• Is it cogent? Why or why not?

Non-Cogent Argument

1. A few police officers are corrupt.

2. Jim is a police officer.
Therefore, probably,
3.

• Is this argument valid? Why or why not?

• Is it cogent? Why or why not?
Remember, a cogent argument __________ true premises, and it
_________ true conclusions either: what’s important is the
logical relationship between the premise(s) and conclusion(s).

1. Most chairs have ten legs.

2. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a chair.
Therefore, probably,
.: 3.

This argument has two false premises and a false conclusion … but,
nevertheless, it’s what we call _____.

Why?
The Cogency Test:

Imagine/suppose that the premises are ________. Assuming this, is the

conclusion _____ ___to be true as well?

If the answer is “yes”, then the argument is cogent.

If the answer is “no”, then the argument is non-cogent.

[Compare this to the validity test.]

A Cogent Argument Can Have:

- all true premises, true conclusion

- all true premises, false conclusion
- one or more false premises, true conclusion
- one or more false premises, false conclusion

(Come up with your own examples of each kind!)

• When testing for cogency, the issue is ____ whether the premises and
conclusion are _______________; it’s whether the premises, if all
true, would make the conclusion ___________.

• This means that we do ____ need to know whether the premises and
conclusions are _____________ in order to figure out whether the
argument is cogent.
Argument Classification (so far):

Arguments

Arguments that are invalid and not cogent are called

ill-formed, since the premises do not guarantee that the
conclusion is true or even probable.
An Important Contrast:

• Validity ______________: an argument is either valid or invalid,

period.

• But cogency ___________: one argument can be or

cogent than another. (The more cogent it is, the more probable the
conclusion is, given the premises – and vice-versa.)
Deductive Strength

• An argument is deductively strong (for a person at a time)

if and only if it is

(a) _____, and

(b) rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe that
____ of the argument’s premises are _____, based on the
available
evidence.

• What does this definition tell us about the conclusion of a deductively

strong argument?

(1) Toronto is located within Ontario.

(2) Ontario is located within Canada.
.: (3)

• If an argument is not strong, it is weak.

• A deductive argument can be weak (for a person at a time) in three ways:

(a) ________;
(b) _____________________ for the person to believe
one or more of the argument’s premises based on the available
evidence;
(c) both a + b.

• Can a valid argument be strong? weak?

• Can a strong argument be valid? invalid?

Valid but Weak

(1) If you’re a musician, you must be talented.

(2) If you’re talented, you’re never modest.
.: (3)

• Why is it valid?
• Why is it weak?
Additional Comments on Deductive Strength

• An argument can be deductively strong ___________but not for

another. Why?

• An argument can be deductively strong for a given person ________ but

not at . Why?

• If it is rational/justified/reasonable to believe that all the premises of a

____ argument are ____ , then it is rational/justified/reasonable to
believe that the _______ is _____ as well.

• Rationality/justification/reasonableness comes in _______, so the more

r/j/r it is to believe that the premises of a valid argument are ____ , the
more reasonable it is to believe that the conclusion is _____ too.

(It’s unreasonable to ___believe or ____________ about the

conclusion of a deductively strong argument.)
• The stronger the available evidence for the premises, the more
rational/justified/reasonable it is to believe them.

• If the premises of a valid argument are ______ to be true (by a person at a

time) then, if that person understands that the argument is valid, the
conclusion is also ______ by that person at that time.

• Two ways in which it can fail to be rational/justified/reasonable (for a

person, at a time) to believe that a premise is true:

- the available evidence makes it r/j/r to believe that it’s _____.

- the available evidence makes it r/j/r to _______________.

• In certain cases, it can be rational/justified/reasonable to believe a false

claim. So, an argument can be deductively strong (for a person at a time)
even though the conclusion is false.
Inductive Strength

• An argument is inductively strong (for a person at a time)

if and only if it is

(a) ______ , and

(b) rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe that
___ of the argument’s premises are _____ , based on the
available
evidence, and
(c) the argument is not _________ by the person’s total evidence.

• What do (a) and (b) alone in this definition tell us about the conclusion
of a strong inductive argument? (We’ll get to (c) in a bit.)

(1) Most TMU students are younger than 30.

(2) Abdul is a TMU student.
Therefore, probably
(3) Abdul is younger than 30.
• An inductive argument can be weak (for a person at a time) in 4 ways:

(a) _____________ ;
(b) ____ rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe
one or more of the argument’s premises, based on the available
evidence;
(c) the argument is __________ by some other piece of evidence.
(d) any combination of the above.

• Can a cogent argument be strong? weak?

• Can an inductively strong argument be cogent? not-cogent?

Cogent but Weak

(1) Most professors are one-legged.

(2) Kraay is a professor.
Therefore, probably,
.: (3)

• Why is it cogent? Why is it weak?

Points about Deductive Strength that also apply to Inductive Strength:

• An argument can be inductively strong for one person but not for another. Why?

• An argument can be inductively strong for a given person at one time but not at
another time. Why?

• The stronger the available evidence for the premises, the more
rational/justified/reasonable it is to believe them.

• Two ways in which it can fail to be rational/justified/reasonable (for a person, at a

time) to believe that a premise is true:

- the available evidence makes it r/j/r to believe that it’s false.

- the available evidence makes it r/j/r to suspend judgment.

• It can be rational/justified/reasonable to believe a false claim. So, an argument

can be inductively strong (for a person at a time) even though the conclusion is
false.
Something Different about Inductive Arguments: Defeat

• An inductive argument is ________ (for a person at a time) if and only if it is

reasonable for that person to believe some other claim that gives good reason to
think that the conclusion is false or that you should suspend judgment about it.

Consider:

(1) Most TMU students are younger than 30.

(2) Abdul is a TMU student.
Therefore, probably
(3) Abdul is younger than 30.

• If you have good reason to believe that (1) and (2) are true, this gives you reason to
believe (3), since it’s a cogent argument. But: you might have ____________
against (3).

• Note: when an argument is defeated, this does not mean that it’s not cogent, nor
that the premises are false or not r/j/r to believe.
A Few More Points about Inductive Strength

• If it is rational/justified/reasonable to believe that all the premises of a

______ argument are ____ , AND it is not ________, then it is
rational/justified/reasonable to believe that the ______ is ___ as well.

• Rationality/justification/reasonableness comes in _____ , so the more

r/j/r it is to believe that the premises of a _____ argument are ____, the
more reasonable it is to believe that the conclusion is _____too
(provided it is not defeated).

• ______ also comes in degrees, so the more cogent an argument is, the
more reasonable it is to believe its conclusion (provided that the premises
are r/j/r and the conclusion is not ______).

• It’s unreasonable to disbelieve or about the conclusion of

an inductively ______ argument.)
Argument Classification

Arguments
The Components of Standard Form:

• numbered premises and conclusions

• only one premise/conclusion per line
• a solid line below the premises, before the conclusion
• the word “therefore” before each conclusion
• The word “probably” to mark inductive arguments.

Why Use Standard Form?

• Helps to show whether an argument is deductive or

inductive.
• Helps “break down” the steps of the argument; this is
necessary in order to evaluate the argument.
 Missing/Implicit/Unstated/Suppressed Premises

Arguments with Missing Premises:

“If tuition fees continue to rise, I won’t be able to afford to go to

school. I’m telling you: school will soon be unaffordable.”

“Aziz regularly eats at McDonalds, so Aziz is likely to gain a

few pounds.”

Argument with a Missing Conclusion

“If atheism were true, there would be no such thing as objective

right and wrong. But morality is objective.”

Missing Premise and Conclusion:

“Murder Clyde? I was in jail when he was killed!”

** It’s OK to add what you think are the missing claims when
standardizing, but always follow the Principle of Charity.
Principle of Charity

• In simple terms:

- DON’T: twist other people’s words (either for the better or for the worse)!
- DO: be fair when you express somebody’s position.

• Slightly more technically:

When reconstructing an argument, try to formulate a

reconstruction that is well-formed, has premises that are
reasonable/justified/rational, for the author/speaker, and (in the
case of inductive arguments) that is undefeated.

In other words, make the argument as strong as possible …

… consistent with what you, upon careful and fair-minded reflection,

take to be the author or speaker’s intention.
Optional Questions for Further/Deeper Reflection

W. K. Clifford (1845-1879) was an English mathematician and philosopher. In a

famous short essay, he argued that we don’t only have a rational duty to
base our beliefs on the evidence, we have a moral duty as well.

His essay, called “The Ethics of Belief”, is here: http://people.brandeis.edu/~

teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf.
(Pages 1-6 are the key part of his argument.)

• Do you think that Clifford is right that we have a moral duty to base our
beliefs on the evidence alone? Why or why not?

• Clifford’s main conclusion is very bold: “To sum up: it is [morally] wrong
always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient
evidence.” (p.6) Can you think of any plausible exceptions to Clifford’s
rule? If so, what are they, and why are they legitimate exceptions? If not,
why not?