Philosophy homework

f­
z
w
‘.:2
🙂
0
a:
<( a: (/) 0 ui LL >–

(/) <( e::z f- <( 17. Today I met someone in an Internet chat room. But there is no chance that we could have a suc­ cessful long-term relationship, for no people who meet in internet chat rooms can have successful long-term relationships. *18. Some Texans are tall. Billy Bob is a Texan. Therefore, Billy Bob is tall. 19. No sharks are friendly. Hammerheads are sharks. Therefore, no hammerheads are friendly. *20. Columbus was either Spanish or Italian. He was not Spanish. Therefore, he was Italian. 21. Lady Gaga has no problems. She is a famous singer, and no famous singer has problems. 22. All famous politicians are celebrities. Some governors are famous politicians; therefore, some gover­ nors are celebrities. *23. Some comedians are Canadians. Mike Meyers is a comedian. So Mike Meyers is probably a Canadian. 24. Lake Michigan most likely carries commercial shipping, since it's one of the Great Lakes, and the other Great Lakes carry commercial shipping. *25. No hip-hop artist is a fan of harmonica music. Since Zoltan is a fan of harmonica music, it follows that he is not a hip-hop artist. VIII. All the arguments below have missing premises and may be counted as either deductive or inductive, depending on what missing premises are put in. For each argument, provide the missing premise that would make it (a) deductive, or (b) inductive. Some flexibility in wording is allowed! 1. People waste a huge amount of time surfing the web. It follows that the web is not such a great invention. SAMPLE ANSWER: 1 a: No invention that allows people to waste a huge amount of time is great. 1 b: Many inventions that allow people to waste a huge amount of time are not great. 2. Ellen is a sophisticated artist, hence she listens to jazz. 3. Digsby was fired. After all, he had been spending all day surfing the web. 4. Latino purchasing power is approaching billions of dollars in the United States. Therefore, there will be better employment opportunities for talented Latinos. 5. Air Canada is an airline. Therefore, Air Canada charges a baggage fee to passengers who check bags. 6. The British red squirrel is a rodent. Consequently, the British red squirrel is an endangered species. 7. The galaxies are flying outward. This suggests that the Milky Way Galaxy will spin apart. 8. Mount Everest is a tall mountain. Therefore, Mount Everest is difficult to climb. 9. President Calvin Coolidge was a fiscal conservative. So he was not a gambler. 10. The NAFTA treaty regulates North American commercial relations. Therefore, the NAFTA treaty is unpopular with opponents of free trade. IX. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. Consider the claim 'Ray has at least one sibling.' Write two arguments for it, one deductive (i.e., pro­ viding conclusive reasons) and the other inductive (i.e., providing nonconclusive reasons). 2. Write an argument with a missing premise, and then identify that premise. 3. Consider the claim 'There is life after death.' Write an argument for it and another one against it. Discuss whether these arguments are conclusive or nonconclusive. 4.5 Norm and Argument What Is a Normative Argument? We've seen that all arguments fall into either one of the other of two classes: they're either deductive or inductive. From a different perspective, both deductive and inductive arguments could be classified as being either normative or non-normative. The examples we've discussed in this book up to now have nearly all been made up entirely of statements that assert or deny some facts (or putative facts) about the world, such as 'Toronto is the largest city in Ontario,' 'Mercury is heavier than water,' and 'Jerry Seinfeld is a comedian.' Statements of this sort fall under the category of non-normative. But some other expressions go beyond facts to assess in­ dividuals, actions, and things, or to say what an individual ought to do (or ought not to do) or how things should be (or not be). For example, 'You ought to keep your promises,' 'Reggae music is cool,' 'Hitler was evil,' and 'Elena deserves credit for her hard work.' Expressions of this latter type are used to make normative judgments, which figure in a sort of reasoning that we'll call normative reasoning. When we make a normative judgment and offer reasons intended to support it, the result is a normative argument. These are arguments for the conclusion that something has a certain value, such as being good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, beautiful or ugly, and the like. Also, arguments for the conclusion that something is permissible (may be done), obligatory (ought to be done), or forbidden (should not �e done) may be classified as being normative arguments. Consider 14 1. One ought to obey one's parents. 2. My parents told me not to go to the party on Friday night. 3. I ought not to go the party on Friday night. The conclusion of (14) is a normative judgment, since it represents a certain action (going to the party on Friday night) as being forbidden. By doing so, it directs or guides the arguer's be­ havior in a certain way-namely, away from the Friday-night party. That the conclusion is a normative judgment here is sufficient to make argument (14) normative. In addition, (14)'s premise 1 belongs to the category of general normative judgments, sometimes also called 'principles,' because they state rules that are supposed to apply not just to one person, but to anyone. We may distinguish between normative judgments that express a generalization or rule and those-like (14)'s conclusion-that are particular sentences used to make claims about individual persons, things, events, and so on. The distinctions we have in mind here are summarized in Box 6. 1-­ z w :'? ::J (9 a: <( 0 z <( :'? a: 0 z "'. '3" ml 1- z w � :::, (.') a: <( a: Cf) 0 in LL >–

_j
Cf) <( � z I- <( BOX 6 ■ NORMATIVE JUDGMENTS NORMATIVE JUDGEMENTS OF OBLIGATION OF VALUE GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL PARTICULAR Judgments of obligation involve concepts such as right and wrong, and duty (what we're obligated to do or forbear from doing, what we're permitted to do or forbidden to do). For example, 15 You ought not to deceive your friends. 16 Spreading that malicious rumor about Anderson was wrong. Judgments of value, or simply evaluative judgments, are about the value of actions or things (whether they are good or bad, just or unjust, etc.). For example, 17 Honest people make good co-workers. 18 The desert of southern Utah is beautiful. (15) and (17) are general: they purport to apply to a set of individuals or things. (16) and (18) are particular: they purport to apply to a single individual or thing. Of concern here are certain general and particular normative judgments about matters of taste, the law, prudence, and morality. We'll classify them accordingly as aesthetic, legal, prudential, or moral judgments. Whenever any such normative judgment is the conclusion of an argument, we'll say that the argument itself is aesthetic, legal, prudential, or moral, as the case may be. A normative judgment is aesthetic just in case it expresses an evaluation or norm involving a matter of taste such as that some piece of art is beautiful or ugly, a dish is tasty or inedible, or that we ought to admire good music. Aesthetic judgments could be either particu­ lar ('Beyonce's recordings are superior art,' 'Frank Lloyd Wright's designs are overrated,' 'The Parliament buildings in Ottawa are a majestic sight') or general ('White socks don't go well with black shoes,' 'You ought to watch Law and Order'). The conclusion of a legal argument features a normative judgment involving a legal mat­ ter: something that's said to be a duty or obligation according to the law, or to be permitted to do or forbidden to do by statute-for example, that drivers ought not to tear up a parking ticket or are permitted to turn right on red (except in New York City!) and that adults have a duty to file an income tax return. Legal normative judgments could have a conditional form, as in 'If a person is called for jury service, that person must show up,' and 'When a person is sworn as a witness in court, that person is obligated to tell the truth.' The conclusion of a prudential argument makes a claim about what it would be in your own self-interest to do, such as 'You ought to be especially nice to your rich Aunt Gertrude,' 'It's not in your interest to antagonize your boss,' 'People should look out for themselves first!' and 'Don't cheat your business associates if you don't want them to cheat you.' The conclusion of a moral argument is a moral judgment. Judgments of this sort make a claim about what is good or bad, just or unjust, and what ought (or ought not) to be done, not because it's sanctioned by the law, but because, as the case may be, it deserves praise or blame- for example, 'Lying is wrong,' 'You ought to help the earthquake survivors,' 'Matthew's behavior was dishonest,' and 'The firefighters showed great courage on 9/11.' The upshot, then, is that when normative judgments of any of these four types occur in the conclusion of an argument, the argument is itself normative. And it's by paying attention to the type of normative judgment in the conclusion that we tell which type of normative argument it is: aesthetic, legal, prudential, or moral. Missing Normative Premises Earlier in this chapter, we saw that when arguments are presented in everyday language, they sometimes have missing premises that need to be restored if the argument is to be reconstructed in a way that respects the principles of faithfulness and charity. One especially common way in which important premises may be left out is a pattern that sometimes occurs in normative arguments. In fact, such arguments often have normative judgments, not only in their conclusions, but also in at least one premise, and it's that premise that is sometimes left out. What we shall call normative general premises, such as 'Keeping promises is right,' 'Slavery is unjust,' or 'One ought to obey the law,' are judgments that may seem to the arguer too obvi­ ous to need repeating, and so they may get left out. Here are some examples of normative ar­ guments in which the normative general premises are in place. As you read them, try imagin­ ing what they'd sound like with that crucial premise left out. 19 Legal argument: 1. Driving faster than 55 miles per hour on the Taconic Parkway is forbidden by law. � NORMATIVE GENERAL PREMISE 2. Yesterday I drove faster than 55 miles per hour on the Taconic Parkway. 3. Yesterday I did what I ought not to do, according to the law. 20 Aesthetic argument: 1. Music that consists of only a random collection of honks, bleats, and screeches is worthless noise. � NORMATIVE GENERAL PREMISE 2. Professor Murgatroyd's 'Second Symphony' consists of only a random collection of honks, bleats, and screeches. 3. Professor Murgatroyd's 'Second Symphony' is worthless noise. r­ z w 2 ::J (9 a: < 0 z < 2 a: 0 z "'. s;- DIii 1- z w 2 ::) CJ a: –

…J
(./)
0
a::
<( a:: (/) 0 U) LL :'.:j (/) <( 0. z i= <( 5. Mendoza & Co. are honest brokers. After all, their dealings with me have always been fair. *6. On the R train, it would take you twenty minutes to travel the same distance that now takes you forty minutes on the local bus. Thus you are better off taking the R train. 7. That witness is committing perjury. Therefore, he should be prosecuted. 8. Cookies are full of sugar. As a result, they are not good for you. *9. Sandy deals poorly with her financial problems. Thus she ought to get married. 10. Having a college degree will improve your earning potential, so you should finish your degree. 11. Spreading false rumors about one's competitors is a form of lying; therefore, spreading false rumors about one's competitors is wrong. *12. Celine Dion's songs are the best. After all, her songs are always hits. 13. Since the ocean is rough today, swimming is not a smart idea. 14. SUVs pollute the atmosphere worse than cars, so they are bad for the health of Americans. *15. Jason ought to report for active duty in Afghanistan. After all, Jason is a member of the Army Reserve, and his commanding officer ordered all the soldiers in his unit to report for active duty in Afghanistan. 16. Since The Jerry Gordon Show is watched by millions, it follows that it's great television. 17. Everybody knows that Frank betrayed his friends, so Frank is a reprehensible character. *18. Capital punishment is the appropriate punishment for murder. Therefore, capital punishment is ethically justified. 19. A former president is a big fan of Raymond Chandler's novels. So Raymond Chandler's novels are great literature. *20. You ought to pay that traffic ticket right away. After all, that's the law. XIV. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. Write an argument with a missing normative premise, and then identify the type of normative sentence that it exemplifies. 2. Suppose you're in the checkout line at the supermarket. The cashier asks you, "Paper or plastic?" What sort of normative reasons could be relevant in answering this question? Discuss. 3. Oskar Schindler was a German industrialist in the 1940s and a member of the Nazi Party, but he helped many Jews escape the death camps. Now, clearly Schindler was disloyal to his superiors. But do we want to say he behaved badly? We don't want to say that! Can you see what the problem is here? What kind of word is 'disloyal'? Write a short paper in which you discuss this. ■ Writing Project Consider the claim 'Killing another human being is always wrong.' Write a short essay (about three pages, double-spaced) offering at least one argument for the claim and one against it. Then discuss which judgments in your arguments are normative. ■ Chapter Summary Principle of faithfulness: At all times, try to reconstruct an argument in a way that cap­ tures the arguer's intentions-that is, premises and conclusion should say just what the arguer intends them to say. Principle of charity: At all times, make the argument as strong as possible-maximize the truth of premises and conclusion, and the strength of the relation between them. Rule for balancing faithfulness and charity: When there is a conflict between these two, faithfulness takes priority. Missing premise: Implicit premise that must be made explicit in reconstructing an argument. Extended argument: An argument with more than one conclusion. Deductive argument: Its premises are offered as guaranteeing the conclusion. Inductive argument: Its premises are offered as providing some support for its conclu­ sion. Normative judgment: Judgment to the effect that something has a certain value, or is permissible, obligatory, or forbidden. Normative argument: An argument with a normative judgment as its conclusion. It could be aesthetic, legal, moral, or prudential. Aesthetic judgment: It concerns evaluations or norms involving matters of taste. Legal judgment: It concerns evaluations or norms involving what's permitted or obliga­ tory or forbidden by law. Moral judgment: It concerns evaluations or norms about what is ultimately good or bad, right or wrong-not because it's sanctioned by the law, but because it deserves praise or blame. Prudential judgment: It concerns evaluations or norms about what is in one's own self­ interest. ■ Key Words Principle of charity Principle of faithfulness Missing premise Extended argument Inductive argument Deductive argument Normative argument Prudential judgment Aesthetic judgment Moral judgment Legal judgment (/) 0 a: 0 � >­
w
�

CHAPTER

Evaluating Deductive
Arguments

In this chapter, you’ll look more closely at deductive reasoning, focusing first on the
concept of validity and then on related topics, including

The difference between valid and invalid arguments.

Some alternative ways of talking about validity.

The relation between validity and argument form.

How to represent propositional and categorical argument forms.

Soundness as an evaluative standard.

Deductive cogency as an evaluative standard.

The practical implications (or ‘cash value’) of validity, soundness, and cogency.

94

5.1 Validity

Sometimes people use ‘valid’ to mean ‘true’ or ‘reasonable’ and ‘invalid’ to mean ‘false’ or
‘unreasonable.’ But these are not what ‘valid’ and ‘invalid’ mean in logical thinking. A deductive
argument is valid if and only if its premises necessitate or entail its conclusion, where ‘entail­
ment’ is defined as in Box 1.

As we’ve seen, a deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is supposed to follow neces­
sarily from the premises-so that if the premises were all true, the conclusion would be, too.
Since a valid argument’s premises, if true, determine that the conclusion is true, valid arguments
can also be said to be truth-preserving. Any argument that fails to be truth-preserving would be
one whose premises could be true and its conclusion false at once. Such an argument is, by defi­
nition, invalid: its premises do not entail its conclusion. Note that we’re introducing here some
different expressions that all mean the same thing. To say that an argument is valid is equivalent
to saying that its premises entail its conclusion. And both of these are equivalent to saying that
the argument is truth-preserving, and that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premise or
premises. The upshot of all this is:

In a valid argument, it makes no logical sense to accept the premises and reject
the conclusion.

Once you accept a valid argument’s premises, were you to reject its conclusion (i.e., think that it
is false), that would be contradictory or nonsensical. Contradictory statements cannot have the
same truth value: if one is true, the other must be false. Consider this valid argument:

1 If the Ohio River is in North America, then it is not in Europe. The Ohio River is in
North America; therefore it is not in Europe.

You cannot accept both that if the Ohio River is in North America, then it is not in Europe and also
that it is in North America and at the same time reject that the Ohio River is not in Europe. That
would be contradictory, thus making no logical sense.

Validity is one of the standards used to evaluate deductive arguments. Whether an argu­
ment is valid or not is never a matter of degree, but instead one of all or nothing. An argument
cannot be ‘sort of valid.’ It’s either valid or it’s not. Furthermore, there is a simple test to deter­
mine the validity of an argument. As you read it, ask yourself, ‘Could the conclusion be false
with all the premises true at once?’ If so, the argument flunks the test: it’s invalid. But if not,

then you may accept it as valid. Let’s consider some examples. Suppose we ventured to predict
what next summer in Baltimore will be like. We might say,

BOX 1 ■ ENTAILMENT

There is entailment in an argument if and only if the truth of the argument’s premises guarantees
the truth of its conclusion-in the sense that, if the premises are all true, the conclusion cannot be
false. Such an argument is valid and truth-preserving.

l[)

w
>
�
0
::)
0
w

0

C) (j)

z f­_ z
f- w
<{ ::? ::) ::) _J C) ;; a: w <{ 2 Next summer there will be some hot days in Baltimore. After all, according to Baltimore's records for the last 100 years, nearly all summers have included some hot days. Or imagine that we want to decide what to expect on our European vacation. We might reason, 3 Yves is a Parisian and speaks French. The same is true of Odette, Mathilde, Marie, Maurice, Gilles, Pierre, Jacques, and Jean-Louis. So, all Parisians speak French. Now clearly in both arguments the conclusion could be false and the premises true. Although the likelihood of that may seem exceedingly remote, it is possible. Both arguments are therefore invalid. In claiming that false conclusions are 'possible,' we have in mind logical possibility. Whether (2) and (3) would be likely to have true premises and false conclusion in our actual world, with things being as they are, is beside the point. Rather, if there is some scenario, 'possible' in the sense that it implies no internal contradiction, in which these arguments' premises could be true and their conclusions false at once, then the arguments are invalid. At the same time, notice another thing: whether an argument is valid or not is entirely a matter of whether its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. The actual truth or falsity of premises and conclusion in isolation is mostly irrelevant to an argument's validity. What matters is whether the premises could be true and the conclusion false at once, because that would determine the invalidity of the argument. Thus, a valid argument could have one or more false premises and a true conclusion, as in 4 1. All dogs are fish. 2. All fish are mammals. 3. All dogs are mammals. Or it could be made up entirely of false statements, as in 5 1. All Democrats are vegetarians. 2. All vegetarians are Republicans. 3. All Democrats are Republicans. Validity is best thought of as a kind of relation between premises and conclusion in an argument, where the actual truth or falsity of the component statements is largely irrele­ vant. What matters is: do the premises necessitate the conclusion? If so, it's valid. If not, it's invalid. BOX 2 ■ VALID VS. INVALID ARGUMENTS 1. Arguments may be divided into two groups: those that are valid and those that are invalid. 2. Only valid arguments are truth-preserving: If their premises are true, then it is not possible for their conclusion to be false. 3. Only in a valid argument do the premises entail the conclusion. 4. A logical thinker who accepts the premises of a valid argument cannot reject its conclusion without contradiction. But this doesn't happen in the case of an invalid argument. Valid Arguments and Argument Form An argument form is the type of logical mold or pattern that each argument exemplifies. Often the same argument form is the underlying pattern of many actual arguments. To show the form of an argument, it is customary to replace some words in it by "place holders" or symbols such as capital letters, keeping only the words that have a logical function. For example, in (4) we could replace 'dogs' by 'A,' 'fish' by 'B,' and 'mammals' by 'C,' representing its argument form as: 4' 1. All A are B 2. All B are C 3. All A are C (4') is a valid argument form, because any argument with this underlying form would be valid: if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true. Argument (s) above also exem­ plifies this form-as does 6 1. All laptops are computers. 2. All computers are electronic devices. 3. All laptops are electronic devices. Since (4) above likewise exemplifies argument form (4'), which is valid, therefore (4) is valid­ . quite independent of the fact that its premises are false. For an argument to be valid, it is of no importance whether it has all false premises, as in the case of (4), or a false conclusion with at least one false premises as in (7) or even all false statements as in (5). 7 1. All professional soccer players are athletes. 2. All athletes are college students. 3. All professional soccer players are college students. Since these arguments exemplify a valid argument form, they are valid. Their form is such that any argument with true premises exemplifying it must have a true conclusion. Validity and Argument Form In any argument exemplifying a valid form, there is a relationship of entailment between premises and conclusion. If the argument's premises are true, its conclusion cannot be false. Validity consists in this relationship, and nothing more. The fact that an argument might have one or more false premises is of no importance for its validity, which is entirely a matter of argument form. Invalidity is also a matter of argument form: an argument form is invalid if and only if an argument with that form could have true premises and a false conclusion. But 'could' here means 'logically possible,' which leaves open the possibility that a given invalid argument may have true premises and a true conclusion. For instance, >­
I-

0

…J
<{ >

I.()

mlll

w >
l­o :::,
0 w 0
0 (/)
z 1-_ z I- w
­
f–

0

__J

<( >

Lt)

w
>

j:::
0
::::l
0
w
0

0 (f)

� �
f— w
<( � ::::l ::::l _J 0 � a: w <( - SAMPLE ANSWER: Valid 2. New York, Toronto, Denver, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Montreal, and Detroit are all big cities in North America, and all of these cities have snow in winter. We may infer that all big North American cities have snow in winter. 3. Since Mr. and Mrs. Gunderson are Republicans, their son Mark must be a Republican, too. *4. All squares are polygons; for all squares are rectangles, and all rectangles are polygons. 5. All whales are fish, and some whales are members of the Conservative Party. Thus some fish are members of the Conservative Party. 6. Isaac Newton wrote a book called Principia Mathematica. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell wrote a book called Principia Mathematica. Hence, Russell, Whitehead, and Newton were co-authors. *7. No people who wear wool sweaters are cold. So Uncle Thorvald is never cold, because he always wears a wool sweater. 8. Since beavers are nocturnal, we may infer that badgers, weasels, and wolverines are, too, for all of these animals are small, fur-bearing mammals found in the upper Midwest. 9. Seven-year-old Jason has contracted chicken pox. This occurred only a week after his three younger sisters, Gwendolyn, Samantha, and Hermione, were stricken with chicken pox. Consequently, Jason caught the chicken pox from his sisters. *10. Bart Simpson cannot run for governor of California because Bart Simpson is a cartoon character, and no cartoon characters are citizens of California. Only citizens of California are eligible to run for governor of California. 11. For as long as records have been kept, every winter there has been some rain in Vancouver. Therefore, next winter there will be some rain in Vancouver. 12. Since Venus Williams and Serena Williams are star tennis players, and Venus and Serena are sisters , we may infer that at least two members of the Williams family are athletes; for all tennis stars are athletes. *13. Since this is a freshman-level course, it is an easy course, for all freshman-level courses are easy. 14. It is unlikely that Joe will be a senator. Most senators are people who win public debates, and so far Joe has lost every one. 15. If my computer keeps crashing, then it must have picked up a virus somehow. Therefore, it must have a virus, because it keeps crashing! *16. The Washington Redskins is a football team that has thousands of enthusiastic fans. The same is true of the Denver Broncos, the New York Jets, the Minnesota Vikings, and the Dallas Cowboys. It follows that all American professional football teams have thousands of fans. 17. Since no health-conscious people are sedentary couch potatoes, no marathon runners are seden­ tary couch potatoes, for all marathon runners are health-conscious people. 18. The value of stocks is now falling every day. Whenever this happens, stocks are not a good invest­ ment. Thus stocks are not a good investment now. *19. For us, the options tonight are either to watch a movie at home or go out for dinner. We won't watch a movie at home. Thus we' ll go out for dinner. 20. Sally is always happy, because she is a singer, and many singers are always happy. 21. Nat is not a spy. All spies have espionage training, and he has never had such training. *22. JJ's won't get the support of the Chamber of Commerce, for the Chamber of Commerce usually supports only local firms, and JJ's is from out of state. 23. The Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa is a center of African culture. All cities that are centers of African culture are large cities. Hence, Addis Ababa is a large city. 24. Either Syria will stop supporting Lebanon or it wants a war with Israel. But clearly Syria does not want a war with Israel, so Syria will stop supporting Lebanon. *25. Many undergraduates in the United States receive some form of financial aid. Since Jane is a college undergraduate, she has financial aid. 26. An inspector at a Sony computer factory found that, out of the many computers she inspected, none had defects. She concluded: 'At this factory, no computer is defective.' 27. Since it's a Friday, Atkins will not be home until late tonight. Most Fridays, Atkins makes a stop at Miller's Bar and Grill on the way home for a beer or two and never leaves Miller's before 11 :00 p.m. *28. Simon Peterson is a cardinal. Since no cardinals are Protestants, Peterson is not a Protestant. 29. Most people who have a tooth extracted without an anesthetic are in pain. I' ll have one extracted without an anesthetic later today. Therefore, I' ll be in pain. 30. Mr. Abernathy must be at least sixty-five years old, since no one can be receiving Social Security payments unless he is sixty-five years old or older, and Mr. Abernathy gets a Social Security check in the mail every month. Ill. For each of the above arguments that are valid, construct an argument of your own that follows the same pattern. In this exercise, premises need not be true. IV. Determine whether the following types of argument are logically possible or impossible. For each that's logically possible, give an example. 1. A valid argument whose premises are true and conclusion false. SAMPLE ANSWER: Logically impossible. 2. An invalid argument whose premises are true and conclusion false. *3. An invalid argument whose premises are true and conclusion true. 4. An invalid argument form that cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. *5. A valid argument whose premises are false and conclusion false. 6. A valid argument whose premises are false and conclusion true. 7. An invalid argument whose premises are false and conclusion false. *8. An argument that is more or less valid. >–
1-

0

_J

<( >

l!)

ml

w
>
i==
0
�
0
w
0

0 (/)
z 1-_ z I- w
<:( :::?: �� _J 0 ;; er: w <:( V. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB Consider each of the following claims as a conclusion, and construct two arguments to support it, one valid, the other invalid. (For the purposes of this exercise, premises need not be true.) 1. Joan is married. 2. Oranges are nutritious. 3. The Dodgers play well. 4. Laptops are not easy to break. 5. Sharks have gills. 6. Derek Jeter is wealthy. 7. Pelicans fly. 8. Iron expands when heated. Propositional Argument Forms As we have seen, another way to refer to valid arguments is as arguments that are truth­ preserving. This is the same as saying that if their premises are true, then their conclusions must also be true-or, equivalently, that the truth of their premises guarantees the truth of their conclusions. Being truth-preserving is a characteristic a valid argument has in virtue of the form or pattern it exemplifies. Some arguments have the characteristic of being truth­ preserving because the statements that constitute their premises and conclusion are connected in certain ways, forming distinctive patterns of relationship that transfer the truth of the premises (if they are true) to the arguments' conclusions. Other arguments have it because within the statements that constitute their premises and conclusions there are some expressions, usually called terms, that bear certain relationships to each other that make the arguments' conclusions true if the premises are true. Arguments of the former type are propositional, those of the latter categorical. We'll examine each type in more detail later, but before we go on, it's important to be clear about what we mean by 'proposition.' Recall that a proposition is the content of a belief or state­ ment, which has a truth value: it is either true or false. Let's now consider some propositional arguments-that is, those for which being truth-preserving hinges on relations between the propositions that constitute their premises and conclusions. For example, 1 0 1. If my cell phone is ringing, then someone is trying to call me. 2. My cell phone is ringing. 3. Someone is trying to call me. (10) is a valid argument because of the relation among the propositions that make it up. Its premise 1 features two simple propositions connected by 'if . . . then . . . ,' and its premise 2 asserts the first of those two simple propositions. After replacing each simple proposition in this argument with capital letters used as symbols, keeping the logical connection, if . . . then . . . , (1o)'s argument form becomes apparent. It is 1 O' 1. If M, then C 2. M 3. C In (10'), M stands for 'My cell phone is ringing' and C for 'Someone is trying to call me.' (10') is not an argument but an argument form showing a certain relation between premises and con­ clusion that is known as modus ponens. Any argument with this form exemplifies a modus po­ nens. For example, 11 1. If thought requires a brain, then brainless creatures cannot think. 2. Thought requires a brain. 3. Brainless creatures cannot think. Let's now consider other propositional argument forms. This argument has the logical form modus tollens: 12 1. If there is growth, then the economy is recovering. 2. But the economy is not recovering. 3. There is no growth This is revealed by symbolizing it as 12' 1. If G, then E 2. Not E 3. Not G Box 4 offers a short list of some valid propositional argument forms, which we'll revisit in Chapter 12. For now, let's illustrate the other forms in Box 4. 13 1. If inland temperatures increase, then crops are damaged. 2. If crops are damaged, then we all suffer. 3. If inland temperatures increase, then we all suffer. BOX 4 ■ SOME VALID PROPOSITIONAL ARGUMENT FORMS Modus Ponens If P, then Q p Q. Hypothetical Syllogism If P, then Q If Q, then R If P, then R Contraposition If P, then Q If not Q, then not P Modus Tollens If P, then Q NotQ NotP Disjunctive Syllogism (1) Either P or Q NotP Q. Disjunctive Syllogism (2) Either Par Q NotQ p >–
1-

0

:::::i
<( >

w
>
i’.=
0
:::)
0 w
0
0 (fJ
z 1-­_ z
I- w
<� :::) :::) _J 0 ;; a: w< (13) is an instance of a hypothetical syllogism, for it has the form 13' 1. If I, then C 2. If C, then A 3. If I, then A And, as you can prove for yourself, (14) and (15) below illustrate the two versions of disjunctive syllogism in Box 4, while (16) illustrates contraposition: 14 1. Either American Dennis Tito or South African Mark Shuttleworth was the first space tourist. 2. South African Mark Shuttleworth was not the first space tourist. 3. American Dennis Tito was the first space tourist. 15 1. Either American Dennis Tito or South African Mark Shuttleworth was the first space tourist. 2. American Dennis Tito was not the first space tourist. 3. South African Mark Shuttleworth was the first space tourist. 16 1. If Persia was a mighty kingdom, then Lydia was a mighty kingdom. 2. If Lydia was not a mighty kingdom, then Persia was not a mighty kingdom. All these arguments are substitution instances (or simply, instances) of one or another of the argument forms in Box 4, which are all valid. This means that in any argument that is an instance of one of these forms, there is entailment, no matter what actual statements the symbols stand for. That is, no actual arguments of the forms listed in Box 4 above could have true premises and a false conclusion. There are many such forms, but again, we'll examine this topic at greater length in Chapter 12. SUGGESTION: In this section, there are a number of valid argument forms. For quick reference and to gain familiarity, construct a card with these forms. Write down on one side those where validity hinges on relations among propositions, and on the other side those where validity hinges on relations among terms. Categorical Argument Forms Many arguments are clearly valid, even though they don't fit into any form of propositional logic. Consider 17 1. All dentists have clean teeth. 2. Dr. Chang is a dentist. 3. Dr. Chang has clean teeth. (17) is plainly valid, for if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. Now suppose we replace its parts by letter symbols, treating the argument as if it were an instance of an ar­ gument form in propositional logic. We would then get this form: 17' 1. D 2. C 3. E But (17') is an invalid form, since there are counterexamples to it: that is, arguments of the same form with true premises and a false conclusion. Here is one, 18 1. Whales are mammals. 2. California is the most populous state in the United States. 3. The Earth is flat So to take (17), a valid argument, to have an invalid argument form such as (17') would be in­ correct. What's needed is a different system, one where letter symbols do not stand for propo­ sitions. In other words, (17') is too coarse-grained to serve as the correct argument form of (17), where the entailment hinges on relations among certain expressions within the propositions that make up that argument, rather than on relations among the propositions themselves that constitute premises and conclusion. In (17) the entailment depends on relations among terms such as 'all,' 'Dr. Chang,' 'dentist' and 'clean teeth.' A more fine-grained representation is needed for arguments such as (17). We shall repre­ sent their forms by adopting the following conventions: 1. Use 'to be' in present tense as the main verb in each premise and conclusion. 2. Make explicit any logical expressions, such as 'all,' 'some,' and 'no.' 3. Replace expressions such as 'dentist' and 'clean teeth' with capital letters. 4. Replace expressions for specific things or individuals, such as 'Dr. Chang,' 'Fido,' 'I,' and 'that chair' with lowercase letters. In this language, the logical form of (17) is similar to that of 19 1. All soda companies are businesses that prosper. 2. Pepsi is a soda company. 3. Pepsi is a business that prospers. (19)'s argument form is 19' 1. All A are B. 2. c is an A. 3. cis a B In (19'), 'A' stand for the term 'soda companies,' 'B' for 'businesses that prosper,' and 'c' for 'Pepsi.' We can also represent in this language arguments such as 20 1. All ophthalmologists are doctors. 2. Some ophthalmologists are short. 3. Some doctors are short. >­
I-

0

…..J

<{ >

w
>

f-
0
🙂
0
w
0
CJ (j)
z f­
_ z
f- w
<( � :) :) _J CJ :; a: w <( - (20) is a plainly valid argument: it is a substitution instance of a valid categorical argument form. Another instance of the same form is 21 1. All red squirrels are rodents. 2. Some red squirrels are wild animals. 3. Some rodents are wild animals. The argument form of both (20) and (21) is, 20' 1. All A are B 2. Some A are C 3. Some B are C Here 'A' stand for 'red squirrels' (or 'ophthalmologists'), 'B' for 'rodents' (or 'doctors'), and 'C' for 'wild animals' ( or 'short'). Let's now recall a point made at the beginning of this section: that another way to under­ stand validity is to say that whether an argument is valid or not is simply a matter of whether it has a valid form. Consider 22 1. No Peloponnesians are Euboeans. 2. All Spartans are Peloponnesians. 3. No Spartans are Euboeans. Even someone who knew nothing at all about Greek geography could nevertheless see that the argument is valid, because it is an instance of the valid form number 3 in Box 5. No argument with this form could have true premises and a false conclusion. Similarly, the following argu­ ment is valid even though its premises are false. Why? Simply because it has valid form num­ ber 3 in Box 5. BOX 5 ■ SOME VALID CATEGORICAL ARGUMENT FORMS 1 2 All A are B Some A are B No Bare C All A are C No Care A Some Care B 3 4 NoAareB All A are B All Care A All Care A No Care B All Care B 5 6 All A are B All A are B All Bare C Some A are not C All A are C Some B are not C 23 1. All apples are oranges. 2. All bananas are apples. 3. All bananas are oranges. Validity, then, is entirely a matter of argument form. The same could be said for the other ex­ amples above. This brings us to another important point: for each form that is valid, all of the arguments that have it will be valid. Similarly, for each invalid form, all of the arguments that have it will be invalid. Propositional or Categorical? ■ When you see certain connections between propositions, such as 'Either . . . or . . . ' and 'If ... then . . . ,' the argument is probably better reconstructed as propositional. ■ On the other hand, when you see in the premises certain words indicating quantity, such as 'All,' 'No,' and 'Some,' the argument is probably better reconstructed as categorical. The Cash Value of Validity Logical thinking has goals, such as learning, understanding, and solving problems. Each of these requires argument analysis and sometimes refutation, the process by which a given argument is shown to fail. But, far from being among logical thinking's primary goals, refuta­ tion is a result of argument analysis unavoidable in some cases. Achieving logical thinking's primary goals greatly depends on charitable and faithful reconstruction of arguments. For those that are deductive, charity recommends making them as strong as possible, maximizing the truth of their premises and conclusion and the validity of their forms-while faithfulness recommends trying to capture the arguer's intentions. In all of this, logical thinkers strive to capture the form of an argument correctly, adding missing premises when needed. Once they have properly reconstructed an argument, they then move on to evaluate it, keeping in mind rules such as ■ Do not criticize/accept an argument by focusing solely on its conclusion. ■ Direct each objection to the argument form, or to a clearly identifiable premise. ■ Use the evaluative criteria offered here. ■ Do not make unsubstantial criticisms, such as 'that is a matter of opinion.' Any challenge to validity is a challenge to the argument form. If the premises of an argument with a certain form could be true and its conclusion false, then the argument is invalid because it has an invalid form. Yet finding an argument invalid is not a conclusive reason to reject it, since it could still be a good inductive argument (more on this in Chapter 6). Once an argu­ ment is found valid, logical thinkers should then check whether its premises are true, a topic we'll take up later in this chapter. >­
r–

0

_J

<( >

ma

UJ

r-
0
🙂
0
UJ
0
(.’J (/)
z r­_ z
r- UJ
­
f-

0
::i

L!)

w
>
j::
0
:::i
0
w
0
CJ (/)
z 1-
_ z
I- w
<{ � :::i :::i _J CJ ;; a: w <{ *2. Alaska is a large state in the United States. No large state in the United States is densely populated. Thus, Alaska is not densely populated. (a, L, D) 3. All rattlesnakes are snakes. No snakes are friendly pets. Therefore, no rattlesnakes are friendly pets. (R, S, P) 4. Some mathematicians are logicians. No logicians are space travelers. Thus some mathematicians are not space travelers. (M, L, 1) *5. All Afghans are peace-loving people. Some peace-loving people are French. Therefore, some Afghans are French. (A, P, F) 6. All residents of the Vatican are religious believers. No religious believer is an atheist. Therefore, no resident of the Vatican is an atheist. 0/, B, A) 7. Kate is not a tourist. All Niagara Falls visitors are tourists. It follows that Kate is not a Niagara Falls visitor. (k, T, \/'i *8. No Marine Corps drill instructors are sympathetic friends. So Sergeant Osberg is not a sympathetic friend, since he is a Marine Corps drill instructor. (I, F, o) IX. For each of the following arguments, determine whether it is propositional or categorical. 1. All living creatures need liquid water. My cat is a living creature. Thus my cat needs liquid water. SAMPLE ANSWER: Categorical argument 2. There is no extraterrestrial intelligence. After all, if there were extraterrestrial intelligence, we should have evidence of it by now. But we don't have it. *3. No desert is humid. The Atacama is a desert. Therefore, the Atacama is not humid. 4. Doctors are exposed to agents that cause ailments. Jane is a doctor. Hence, she is exposed to agents that cause ailments. *5. If the Orinoco crocodile is a rodent, then the Chinese alligator is a rodent. But the Chinese alligator is not a rodent. Therefore, the Orinoco crocodile is not a rodent. 6. Euripides enjoyed tragedy. After all, all fifth-century Greeks enjoyed tragedy, and Euripides was a fifth-century Greek. *7. All hibernating mammals slow their breathing in the winter. Since all black bears are hibernating mammals, therefore all black bears slow their breathing in the winter. 8. If one has poor health, one goes to the doctor. If one goes to the doctor, one spends money. Thus, if one has poor health, one spends money. *9. Chris will take summer courses this year, because either he takes them or he'll wait until next fall for graduation, and he won't wait that long. 1 O. All diesel engines produce exhaust gases. All school buses have diesel engines. Thus all school buses produce exhaust gases. *11. The universe can act as a magnifying lens, since if relativity theory is correct, the universe can act as a magnifying lens. And relativity theory is correct. 12. All people who drink a glass of warm milk before bedtime are sound sleepers. Given that Beth always drinks a glass of warm milk before bedtime, she is a sound sleeper. *13. All chameleons are lizards that change their color. All lizards that change their color are scary crea­ tures. So all chameleons are scary creatures. 14. If crocodiles wallow in mud holes, then they are rarely killed by predators. Crocodiles do wallow in mud holes. Thus they are rarely killed by predators. *15. No Ohio farmer grows papayas, for no northern farmer grows papayas, and Ohio farmers are north­ ern farmers. X. The arguments below are either propositional or categorical. Indicate which is which and give the argument form. 1. If the defendant's car was used in the robbery, then the car was at the scene of the crime. But it was not at the scene of the crime. Thus the defendant's car was not used in the robbery. (D, C) SAMPLE ANSWER: Propositional If D, then C NQ1_Q Not D 2. If these snakes are cobras, then they're poisonous. Therefore, if these snakes are not poisonous, then they are not cobras. (C, P) 3. If offenses against the innocent are punished, then we have a fair system of justice. If we have a fair system of justice, then the guilty are treated as they deseNe. So if offenses against the innocent are punished, then the guilty are treated as they deseNe. (0, J, G) *4. Since all computers are mechanical devices, no computers are things that can think, for no things that can think are mechanical devices. (C, D, T) 5. Archie doesn't eat chicken, for Archie is a vegan, and if he is a vegan, then he doesn't eat chicken. (A, C) *6. If Mississippi does allow gay marriage, then its laws governing marriage are liberal. In fact, its laws governing marriage are not liberal. So, Mississippi does not allow gay marriage. (M, L) 7. Either doctors favor the new health program or the uninsured suffer. But doctors do not favor the new health program. Hence the uninsured suffer. (N, U) 8. All accountants are good at math. Greg is not an accountant. Therefore, he is not good at math. (A, M, g) *9. If a flower is an orchid, then it is a tropical flower. Therefore, if it is not a tropical flower, then it is not an orchid. (0, F) 10. Since no tropical country has blizzards and Venezuela is a tropical country, Venezuela doesn't have blizzards. (C, B, v) >­
f–

0

__J

–

w
>
l­
o
🙂
0
w
0

(‘.) (/)
��
I- w
<( � :) :) _J ('.) :; a: w <( 11111B *11. All babies are infants. Some babies are good at crawling. Therefore, some infants are good at crawl­ ing. (B, I, C) 12. All carrots are vegetables full of vitamin A All vegetables full of vitamin A are foods good for your eye­ sight. So carrots are foods good for your eyesight. (C, V, F) *13. No schoolchildren are college graduates. All college graduates have a college diploma. Therefore, no schoolchildren have a college diploma. (S, G, D) 14. If penguins are birds, then they are likely to have feathers. Since it is the case that penguins are birds, we must conclude that they are likely to have feathers. (B, F) *15. No planet is a star. Hence, Venus is not a star, since Venus is a planet. (P, S, v) 16. Anne is Mario's wife. Thus Mario is not a bachelor. For if Anne is his wife, then he is not a bachelor. (A, B) 17. No professional gambler is good at saving money. Since Nathan is a professional gambler, we may infer that he is not good at saving money. (G, M, n) *18. If oxygen is the lightest element, then oxygen is lighter than hydrogen. But oxygen is not lighter than hydrogen. Therefore, oxygen is not the lightest element. (0, H) 19. If Winston Churchill was English, then he was not Brazilian. But if he was not Brazilian, then he was not South American. Thus if Winston Churchill was English, then he was not South American. (E, B, S) *20. Melissa will either pledge Gamma Phi or she will not join a sorority at all this year. Accordingly, she will not join a sorority at all, since she will not pledge Gamma Phi. (M, J) XI. For each of the above arguments that is propositional, give the name of its form (answers to 3, 6, 9, 18, and 20 in the back of the book). SAMPLE ANSWER: 1. Modus to/lens XII. Indicate whether the following statements are true or false. 1. A valid argument cannot have a false conclusion. SAMPLE ANSWER: False 2. A valid argument cannot have a false premise. *3. A valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. 4. Invalid arguments always have true premises and false conclusions. *5. A valid argument could have a counterexample. 6. All valid argument forms are truth-preserving. *7. An invalid argument could never have a true conclusion. 8. An invalid argument could never have true premises. *9. If there is entailment in an argument, then that argument is truth-preserving. 10. An invalid argument could have no counterexample. XIII.The following categorical arguments are invalid. After symbolizing their forms accordingly, show invalidity in each case with a counterexample. (Tip: Use the same counterexample for arguments exemplifying the same invalid form. When the given argument plainly has true premises and a false conclusion, you can simply point that out in lieu of counterexample.) 1. All female college students are students. Some students are smokers. Therefore, some female col­ lege students are smokers. SAMPLE ANSWER: All Fare D Some o are M Some Fare M. Counterexample: F, D, and M stand for 'fish,' 'animal,' and 'mammal.' [All fish are animals. Some animals are mammals. Thus some fish are mammals.] 2. All giraffes are mute. That animal is mute. Thus that animal is a giraffe. *3. Most American citizens are permitted to vote in the United States. Michael is not permitted to vote in the United States. So, Michael is not an American citizen. 4. Roses are flowers. Some flowers are daffodils. Thus roses are daffodils. *5. No SUVs are easy to park. Some SUVs are speedy vehicles. Hence, no speedy vehicles are easy to park. 6. Some days are rainy days. Some days are sunny days. Therefore, some rainy days are sunny days. *7. Fido is a dog. Some dogs bark. Therefore, Fido barks. 8. Most Mexicans speak Spanish. Some non-Mexicans speak Spanish. Therefore, some non-Mexicans are Mexicans. 9. All intellectuals support stem-cell research. Barbra Streisand supports stem-cell research. Therefore, Barbra Streisand is an intellectual. 10. No desktop computer is light. My computer is not light. Hence, my computer is not a desktop. XIV. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. Explain in your own words the relation between 'invalidity' and 'counterexample.' 2. Explain in your own words the claim that validity is a matter of argument form. 3. Give two arguments of your own for each of the following valid argument forms: modus ponens, modus to/lens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, and contraposition. 4. Give a counterexample to the following argument: Horses are domestic animals. Dobbin is a domes­ tic animal. Therefore, Dobbin is a horse. 5. For each of the following argument forms, construct an argument with true premises on a topic of your choice that illustrates that form: 1. All A are B AIIB areC AIIA areC >–
1-

0

__J

<( >

,ti

111111

w

:J
0
w
0

C) Cf)
zr-_z
f- w
<� :J :J _J 0 ;; a: w< 11111 2. All A are B Some A are not C Some B are not C 3. No As are Bs All Care A No Care B 4. All A are B Some A are C Some B are C 5. AIIA areB c is not a B c is not an A 6. AIIA areB c is an A c is a B 6. For each of the following argument forms, construct an argument with true premises on a topic of your choice that illustrates that form: modus ponens, modus to/lens, contraposition, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism. 5.2 Soundness Must we then always accept the conclusions of valid arguments? No, for there may still be something wrong with them (as is clear in some of the examples above). To evaluate an argu­ ment, validity is the first criterion we use, but not the only one. After we have decided that an argument is valid, we must also determine whether it is sound, bearing in mind that An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all of its premises are true. Thus consider some arguments given earlier: 22 1. No Peloponnesians are Euboeans. 2. All Spartans are Peloponnesians. 3. No Spartans are Euboeans. 4 1. All dogs are fish. 2. All fish are mammals. 3. All dogs are mammals. 5 1. All Democrats are vegetarians. 2. All vegetarians are Republicans. 3. All Democrats are Republicans. BOX 7 ■ SOUND ARGUMENT 1. An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all of its premises are true. 2. An argument is unsound if it lacks either validity or true premises, or both. 3. Unsoundness is a reason to reject an argument even if it's valid. 4. The conclusion of a sound argument is true. 5. Given (4), a sound argument's conclusion cannot be rejected without saying something false. Argument (22) is sound. But (4) and (5) are unsound. This is because if an argument lacks either validity or true premises (or both), then it is unsound. The problem with (4) and (s) is that their premises are false, thus rendering the arguments unsound, even though, as we have seen, both are valid. Important things to remember are, first, that if even one of an argument's premises is false, then the argument is unsound, whether it's valid or not. Second, a premise counts as true only if there is no controversy about whether it's true. Third, since validity is a necessary condition of soundness, an argument can also be unsound because its form is invalid. For example, 26 1. Any city that is the capital of a country is a center of political power. 2. Chicago is a center of political power. 3. Chicago is the capital of a country. Here both premises are true, yet the argument is unsound because it is invalid. Validity and true premises, then, are the necessary conditions for soundness. The ques­ tion of whether an argument's premises are in fact true or false is another matter entirely (which cannot be answered by logic alone). Most such answers belong rather to the sciences, or to the investigations of historians, geographers, and other fact finders. To be sure, a good logical thinker will want to get her facts straight! But this is where she must head for the library or the laboratory and consider the evidence for the premises of arguments that purport to be sound. BOX 8 ■ SOUNDNESS DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT SoUND UNSOUND Valid with all true premises Invalid At least one false premises Invalid and at least one false premises (/) (/) w z 0 z ::J 0 (/) N l() w >

f-
0
::J
0
w
0

CD CJ)

z f­
_ z
f- w
<:� ::J ::J _J CD ;; er: w <: The Cash Value of Soundness Why, then, is soundness so important? Why is soundness a desirable characteristic in argu­ ments? Because if one is aware of an argument's soundness, then not only is one fully justified in accepting its conclusion, one has to accept it! As defined above, all valid arguments are truth-preserving-if their premises are true, their conclusions must be true. If an argument is valid and also actual!}, has true premises, it is sound; and that means that the truth of the prem­ ises transfers to the conclusion. Thus there is no denying the conclusion of any such argument without saying somethingfalse. Soundness has a practical impact or worth because whenever a given deductive argument meets this standard, its conclusion is guaranteed to be true. In fact, the cash value of sound­ ness is twofold: When an argument is sound, then ■ Given its validity, you can't assert its premises and deny its conclusion without saying something contradictory. ■ Given its validity and its true premises, you can't deny its conclusion without saying something false. What about unsoundness? What is its cash value for logical thinkers? An unsound argument fails to guarantee the truth of its conclusion. If an argument is valid but unsound, that means that it has at least one false premise. The realization of this is sufficient reason to reject that argument. If an argument is unsound but has all true premises, that means that its argument form is invalid: as we'll see in Chapter 6, some such arguments are better considered inductive and evaluated according to standards other than soundness. 5.3 Cogency Validity and soundness are not the only standards used to evaluate deductive arguments. There is also deductive cogency or persuasiveness, a standard that is met when a proposed argument has BOX 9 ■ THREE CONDITIONS FOR COGENCY 1. Recognizable validity. 2. Acceptable premises. 3. Premises that are more clearly acceptable than the conclusion. Given 1, the validity of a cogent argument should be clear to the logical thinker evaluating the argument. Given 2 and 3, the premises of a cogent argument should provide the logical thinker with good reasons to accept its conclusion. Note that this falls short of requiring that the cogent argument be sound: that is, an unsound argument could be cogent, provided that the thinker recognizes its validity and takes the premises to provide good reasons for its con­ clusion, even when, unknown to the thinker, at least one of its premises happens to be false. Consider a thinker who seems to have seen Ingrid at the library and reasons as follows: 27 1. Ingrid is at the library. 2. If Ingrid is at the library, then she is not at the cafeteria. 3. Ingrid is not at the cafeteria. Since he just saw Ingrid at the library, he seems to have evidence that premise 1 is true. 2 is also true, since nobody could be in two different places at the same time. From 1 and 2 together, conclusion 3 follows validly by modus ponens. So the argument is deductively cogent: it is recognizably valid and has acceptable premises that support the conclusion. But suppose that in fact, unknown to the thinker, it wasn't Ingrid at all he saw in the library but her identical twin, Greta. In this situation, the argument is unsound-but still perfectly cogent! On the other hand, there can sometimes be sound arguments that are non-cogent. For having recognizable validity and true premises might not be enough for an argument to be persuasive. Consider: 28 1. The Earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe. 2. The Earth is not the center of the universe (28) is plainly valid, since if its premise is true, its conclusion cannot be false. Moreover, since its premise is in fact true, the argument is also sound. But anyone who reasonably doubted (28)'s conclusion would not be persuaded to accept it. (28) fails to meet condition 3 above: namely, hav­ ing a premise that is more clearly acceptable than the conclusion. Imagine this argument being offered in the Middle Ages, when all available evidence pointed to the falsity of its conclusion. Even though people at that time would have rejected premise 1, unknown to them that premise was true-and the argument sound. Thus even sound arguments can fail to be cogent when their premises fail to be more acceptable than the conclusion they are offered to support. BOX 10 ■ SECTION SUMMARY A deductive argument meeting the three conditions of cogency in Box 9 is one whose premises give the logical thinker good reasons to accept its conclusion. The Cash Value of Cogency Anyone who recognizes the validity of an argument and finds its premises to provide good reasons for its conclusion cannot rationally reject the argument. Such an argument may be said to be 'rationally compelling' (or simply 'compelling'). If the thinker were to reject the argument, that would be irrational: it would make no logical sense. Since argument (28) cannot persuade thinkers to accept its conclusion on the basis of its premises, the argument is not co­ gent (i.e., not rationally compelling). Logical thinkers should be on guard for such arguments and strive to avoid them altogether. In Chapter 8 we'll discuss a pattern of mistake in arguing that affects the cogency of some valid, and even sound, arguments. >–
0
z w
CJ
0
0

f–
0
🙂
0
l1J
0

CJ (/)
��
f– l1J
<( � :) :) __J CJ ;;: a: l1J <( Exercises 1 . What does it mean to say that a deductively cogent argument is rationally compelling? 2. Explain the difference between soundness and cogency. 3. Given a certain standard for deductive arguments, it is contradictory to assert the premises of an argument that satisfies it and yet at the same time deny the conclusion. What standard is that? 4. What's the effect of denying the conclusion of sound argument? 5. What's the effect of denying the conclusion of an argument that one recognizes as cogent? 6. Must the conclusion of an invalid argument always be rejected? Explain your answer. XVI. Which of the following statements are true, and which are false? 1 . An unsound argument could have a valid form SAMPLE ANSWER: True •2. A sound argument could have all false premises. 3. A sound argument could have one false premise. *4. A sound argument could be invalid. 5. An unsound argument could have a true conclusion. *6. A sound argument could have a false conclusion. 7. A sound argument could have true premises and true conclusion. *8. A sound argument could have a true conclusion. XVII. What's the matter with the following arguments? Explain. 1. An argument whose premises entail its conclusion is valid. Hence, one should accept the conclusion of any valid argument. SAMPLE ANSWER: Such an argument could be non-cogent, or have false premises and thus be unsound. •2. Only sound arguments guarantee the truth of their conclusions. Thus entailment and therefore valid­ ity are of no importance. 3. Logic books make too much fuss about soundness. After all, unsound arguments may also have true conclusions. *4. Validity doesn't matter in science, for science values truth, and there is no relation between validity and truth. XVIII. Indicate whether the following scenarios are logically possible or impossible: 1. An unsound argument where there is entailment SAMPLE ANSWER: Logically possible (a valid argument with at least one false premise) 2. An unsound argument with a false conclusion 3. A valid argument where there is no entailment *4. A sound argument that is not truth-preserving 5. An argument that is an instance of a valid form *6. An invalid argument with true premises and a false conclusion 7. A sound argument with false premises and a true conclusion *8. An unsound argument with false premises and a false conclusion 9. A sound argument where there is no entailment *10. A cogent argument that is not rationally persuasive 11 . A cogent argument that is invalid *12. A cogent argument that is unsound XIX. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. For any possible arguments in the previous exercise, provide an example of your own. 2. Give two examples of your own to illustrate the following: modus ponens, contraposition, and dis­ junctive syllogism. 3. Explain why your examples above are valid. 4. Explain each of the following claims: A. Denying the conclusion of a cogent argument is irrational. B. Asserting the premises while denying the conclusion of a valid argument is contradictory. C. Some valid arguments might not be cogent. D. Some unsound arguments might not be cogent. E. Some unsound arguments might be cogent. F. A deductively valid argument might yet be clearly unsound. 5. Illustrate each of the statements above with an example, supplying the context when needed. ■ Writing Project Find two arguments on the issue of immigration policy, one supporting tighter restrictions on undocumented aliens, the other opposing them. The sources, which should be identified in your work, may be biogs or articles from a website, a newspaper, or a magazine. First, recon­ struct the arguments as deductive, and then discuss whether they are sound. The simpler the argument, the easier it is to determine whether it is sound. A length of 700 words should be adequate. f-- 0 w ---, 0 a: 0... (9 z t:: a: w >

i=
0
::J
0
w
0
CJ (j)

z 1-_ z
I- w
<( � ::J ::J -;j_ CJ > a:
w <( IEI ■ Chapter Summary Propositional argument: the relation of inference hinges on relations among the propo­ sitions expressed by its premises and conclusion. Categorical argument: the relation of inference hinges on relations among the terms within its premises and conclusion. Argument form: the symbolic pattern of the logical relations in an argument. Counterexample to an argument: another argument of the same form with clearly true premises and a false conclusion. It proves that the original argument has an invalid form. Substitution instance of an argument form: an actual argument exemplifying that form. Some valid forms of propositional arguments: modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, and contraposition. Validity, soundness, and cogency: standards for evaluating deductive arguments. VALIDITY Definition An argument is valid if and on!}> if it has entailment (its premises necessitate its conclusion).

Cash Value

■ It is not possible that the argument’s premises are true and its conclusion false.
■ The conclusion could be false, if at least one of the premises is false.
■ It is contradictory to accept a valid argument’s premises and reject its conclusion.

SOUNDNESS

Definition

An argument is sound if and on!)> if it is valid and all its premises are true.

Cash Value

■ The argument’s conclusion is true: to deny it is to say something false.
■ A logical thinker who recognizes an argument as sound must accept its conclusion.

COGENCY

Definition

An argument is cogent if and on!)> if it is recognizab!J valid and has acceptable premises which
are more acceptable than the conclusion they attempt to support.

Cash Value

■ Any argument that satisfies these conditions is rationally compelling, in the sense that
it would move the thinker to accept its conclusion (provided she accepts its premises
and works out the entailment).

■ It would be irrational for the thinker to reject the conclusion of that argument.

■ Key Words

Validity

Entailment

Truth-preserving argument

Argument form

Propositional argument

Categorical argument

Soundness

Counterexample

Substitution instance

Cogency

­
w

::<'.'. CHAPTER Analyzing Inductive Arguments This chapter looks more closely at inductive reasoning. Among its topics are: The nature of inductive arguments. Universal and non-universal generalizations. Identifying types of inductive argument: enumerative induction, statistical syllogism, ■ causal argument, and analogy. Two standards for evaluating inductive arguments: reliability and strength. Mill's methods for establishing causal connections between events: agreement and difference, and concomitant variation. 122 6.1 Reconstructing Inductive Arguments Since we have already dwelt at some length on deductive arguments, in this chapter we turn to inductive ones, which are crucial to ordinary and scientific reasoning. As we have seen, an argument is either deductive or inductive, depending whether the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. If they do, the argument is deductive; if not, it's inductive. There are a number of related tests that may help in recognizing an inductive argument. First, in the case of any such argument, ask yourself Could the premises of the argument be asserted and the conclusion denied without logical contradiction? ■ If yes, the argument is inductive. ■ If no, the argument is deductive. Let's consider some examples-first, a simple deductive argument: 1 Pam is energetic and athletic. Therefore, Pam is athletic. The first test recommends trying to see what happens when (1)'s premises are asserted and its conclusion denied. The test yields 2 Pam is energetic and athletic. But Pam is not athletic. (2) is contradictory: there is no logically possible scenario in which the statements that make up (2) could all be true or all false at once. In light of such a result, argument (1) above is deductive. By contrast, consider 3 1. Pam is athletic. 2. Most of those who are athletic don't eat junk food. 3. Pam doesn't eat junk food. Argument (3)'s premises could all be asserted and its conclusion denied without contradiction. After all, there are possible scenarios in which these premises are true and the conclusion false­ for example, a scenario in which Pam is athletic, and most athletic people do not eat junk food, but Pam does eat junk food. Thus (3) is inductive. Similarly, (4) and (s) are inductive, given that their premise could be asserted and their conclusion denied without contradiction: 4 1. Many horses are friendly. 2. Mr. Ed is a horse. 3. Mr. Ed is friendly. 5 Housing prices will continue to go down, for we are having a recession and usually housing prices go down in recessions. w >
l­
o
:J
0

z
(‘)
z
l­
o
:J
a:
1–
(j) (j)

z 1-

oz
0W wz
a: :J

� a:
co <( Ell (/) f­ z w � =>
(‘) a:
<( w >

i=
0 => 0
z
(‘)
z
N
�
<( z <( lllfD Compare (4) with (6), 6 1. All horses are friendly. 2. Mr. Ed is a horse. 3. Mr. Ed is friendly. (6) is deductive, since it is not possible to assert its premises and deny its conclusion without contradiction. If we try to do so, we would be saying something contradictory, namely, 7 All horses are friendly. Mr. Ed is a horse. But Mr. Ed is not friendly. There is no possible scenario where all three statements could be true at once. For if it is true that all horses are friendly and that Mr. Ed is a horse, it must be false that he is not friendly. Notice that in a deductive argument, its conclusion doesn't add any information that was not already in the premises. By contrast, an inductive argument always involves an inferential leap, for its conclusion invariably conveys information that was not given in the premises. Thus its conclusion is not strictly contained in its premises. But this feature makes inductive arguments ideally suited for scientific reasoning in fields such as physics and biology, where scientists often make causal connections or reach general conclusions on the basis of only a sample of observed cases. The observation that a great number of metals expand under heat plays a role in the scientists' conclusion that all metals do so-as does research on the habits of people with lung disease in their concluding that smoking increases the risk of contracting such ailments. But both conclusions add something that was not among the scientists' premises. Another distinctive feature of inductive arguments is that newly acquired evidence could always make a difference in the degree of support for their conclusions, strengthening it in some cases, weakening it in others. Consider 8 1. 98% of State College students are involved in politics. 2. Heather is a State College student. 3. Heather is involved in politics. Argument (8) is inductive. Its premises, if true, would provide some support for its conclusion. New evidence to the effect that Heather is indifferent to politics, however, could undermine that support. Once that evidence is added, the argument then is 9 1. 98% of State College students are involved in politics. 2. Heather is a State College student. 3. Heather never votes. 4. Heather is involved in politics. A quick comparison of (8) and (9) shows that in the latter, support for the claim that Heather is involved in politics has been undermined by the addition of premise 3. The features of inductive arguments so far reviewed suggest that there is no entailment in them: their premises, even in cases where they succeed in supporting their conclusions, could never necessitate them. That is, no inductive argument is truth-preserving. Although an inductive argument may in fact have true premises and a true conclusion, what makes the argument inductive is that an argument of the same form could have true premises and a false conclusion-which, again, is the same as saying that the premises of an inductive argument do not entail its conclusion. Yet, as we shall see in this chapter, the lack of entailment in inductive arguments does not mean that they cannot offer support for their conclusions. In fact, they often make their conclusions probably true, or reasonable to believe, by providing evidence for them, even though their premises always fall short of necessitating their conclusions. This is why it is common to refer to the premises of inductive arguments as 'evidence.' At the same time, since the conclusions of such arguments may be supported but are never completely proved true by the premises, they have the status of conjectures and are often called 'hypotheses.' Given these features, inductive arguments are plausibility arguments. That is, although the evidence that any such argument may provide for its hypothesis never entails that hypothesis, when successful, they can make it plausible. To say that a claim is plausible is to say that it is likely to be true, probably true, or at least reasonable to accept. We shall look closely at the standard for successful induction once we have examined some common types of inductive argument. Before leaving this section, however, it is important that you know the answers to the questions in Box 1. BOX 1 ■ INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS What sort of argument counts as inductive? ■ Any argument whose premises may provide evidence for its conclusion or hypothesis but do not guarantee it. How does one determine whether an argument is inductive or not? By checking ■ whether it would be possible for an argument with the same form to have true premises and a false conclusion. ■ whether one can assert its premises and deny its conclusion without contradiction. ■ whether the conclusion adds information not contained in the premises. If in any case the answer is Yes, then the argument is inductive. 6.2 Some Types of Inductive Argument Enumerative Induction Of the four types of inductive argument discussed in this chapter, we'll begin with enumerative induction. An enumerative induction always has a universal conclusion to the effect that all things of a certain kind have (or lack) a certain feature. This conclusion is drawn from evidence that some things of that kind have (or lack) that feature. The conclusion of any such argument, often called an 'inductive generalization,' is a universal generalization: UJ >
I­
()
::,
0
z

u.
0
(/)
UJ
ll.
>-

I- 1-
UJ z

� UJ
0�
(/) ::,
(\J CJ . a:
co <( Cf) r z w � :::, (.'J er <( w >
r
0
:::,
0
z
(.’J
z
N
�
<( z <( A universal generalization Consider ■ is a statement asserting that all of the members of a certain class have (or don't have) a certain feature. ■ may be expressed by a great number of different patterns of sentence. Some standard patterns are 'All ... are ... ,' 'Every ... is ... ,' 'No ... is ... .' 1 0 Roses blossom in the summer. Unless more information is provided here, (10) should be read as saying 'All roses blossom in the summer,' which illustrates the pattern 'All A are B.' To support (10) with an enumerative induction, we may adopt one or the other of two equiv­ alent strategies. First, offer a single premise to the effect that, for example, many roses have been observed to blossom in the summer. That would be a non-universal generalization: A non-universal generalization ■ is a statement asserting that some, perhaps many, of the members of a class have (don 't have) a certain feature. ■ may be expressed by a great number of different patterns of sentence. Some standard patterns are 'Most ... are ... ,' 'A few ... are ... ,' 'Many ... are ... ,' 'n percent of .. . are ... '(where n percent is less than 100 percent), 'Some ... are ... ,' and 'Some .. . are not. .. .' According to this strategy, the argument would run: 11 1. Many roses have been observed to blossom in the summer. 2. All roses blossom in the summer. Why is conclusion 2 a universal generalization? Because it asserts that all things of a certain kind (roses) have a certain feature (blossoming in the summer). Here are other such general­ izations common in science and everyday life: 12 Every metal expands when heated. 13 Any potato has vitamin C. 14 Each body falls with constant acceleration. 15 All bodies attract each other in proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. 16 No emeralds are blue. 17 No seawater quenches thirst. 18 No mules are fertile. Following the above strategy, we could attempt to support these generalizations by enumerative induction. Clearly, scientists could not have observed all metals in order to conclude (12), so the premise for (12) must be a non-universal generalization saying, for example, that many metals so far observed expand when heated. Similar enumerative inductions support the other universal generalizations in our list. Each such enumerative induction would have a premise that would be a non-universal generalization to the effect that things of the relevant kind have (12 through 15) or do not have (16 through 18) a certain feature. An alternative, yet equivalent, strategy to support these universal generalizations by enumerative induction would have specific statements as premises. A specific statement is a statement about an individual thing or person. For example: 'Benjamin Franklin founded the University of Pennsylvania,' 'That oak is infested,' 'Mary's cap is waterproof,' and 'The UN is in session.' If we wish to use this strategy to support the conclusion that roses blossom in the summer, our argument may run: 19 1. Rose 1 has been observed to blossom in the summer. 2. Rose 2 has been observed to blossom in the summer. 3. Rose 3 has been observed to blossom in the summer ... 4. Rose number n, has been observed to blossom in the summer. 5. All roses blossom in the summer. When n is a large number (say, billions) of individual roses, the universal generalization in con­ clusion 5 would be supported by the argument's premises, each of which is a specific statement about individual roses found to blossom in the summer. This strategy is equivalent to the one used in (n) above, given that (19)'s premises spell out what (n)'s premise summarizes. Similar to (n) is 20 1. Every raven so far observed has been black. 2. Ravens are black. Argument (2o)'s conclusion is a universal generalization ascribing a certain feature (blackness) to all ravens. Like other inductive arguments, this makes an inferential leap: from a number of ravens having a certain feature, it draws the conclusion that all ravens have that feature. Its premise, if true, supports the claim that a great number of ravens have that feature, but it does not guarantee that all ravens do. After all, nobody can observe all past, present, and future ravens! Argument (2o)'s conclusion, then, goes beyond the information given in its premise. Inductions of this sort run along the lines of (21). 21 1. A number, n, of A have been observed to be B 2. All A are B Clearly, any argument with this form could have a true premise and a false conclusion, since it is always possible that some unobserved A lacks the feature of being a B. This could happen even in cases where n turns out to be a very large number. Note that if n were taken to involve all cases, the argument would be deductive. w >
i=
0
🙂
0
z
LL
0
(/) w
(]._

f- f­w z
2W
02
(/) 🙂

N CJ . 0::

(.’)
a:

l­
o
::)
0

z

(.’)
z

N

i==
0
🙂
0
z
LL
0
–
I- 1-w z
�w
0�
(/) 🙂

NC) . 0:
co
�
0
:::,
0
z

0
z

N

<( z <( Causal Argument It is a matter of well-documented observation that whenever a flame comes in contact with combustible substances, this is invariably followed by a fire. Given that evidence, we may safely conclude that Jim lighting a match this morning near the gas caused the fire that erupted immediately after. Here we reason from an observed effect (the fire) to a possible cause that we may, or may not, have observed (Jim lighting a match this morning near the gas). Parallel causal reasoning is at work when only the effects of an event have been observed and we infer from them their likely cause-as is not uncommon in crime investi­ gations. Other times, facts have been observed pertaining to the cause of an event and these are then used in causal reasoning to predict possible effects, as in recent medical research that has revealed certain genes likely to be responsible for a type of mental illness mani­ festing as a social pathology. Here the genes appear to be a likely cause, in the sense that their presence is necessary (though not sufficient) for developing the social pathology. After all, not everyone with the genes will develop the illness: other factors, including environ­ mental ones, would also be needed. In the explosion case, Jim's lighting of a match this morning near the gas was sufficient but not necessary for the explosion to occur: in the described circumstances, an action of that sort would invariably cause an explosion, but other types of action could also cause an explosion. Knowledge of the causal relations between events is instrumentally valuable for us, because the control of nature is essential for human survival and flourishing. From a prudential point of view, we wish to promote those causes that have good effects while preventing those that have bad effects. Knowing that droughts were causally related to failed crops spurred the early development of irrigation systems by engineers, and farmers in antiquity. Similarly, our prospect of learning about causal connections between certain micro­ organisms and illnesses has triggered medical research that has resulted in our being able to prevent or contain infections and deadly diseases such as malaria and polio. So it is not an exaggeration to say that much of our everyday lives and scientific progress depend greatly on our being able to make causal connections between things and events. We take some phenomena (things and occurrences of things) to be the effects or results of other phenomena, which are their causes, and reason accordingly, ascribing causal relationships to new phenomena that we encounter. Reasoning about how certain events stand in cause/effect relations with other events takes the form of causal arguments: A causal argument makes the claim that two or more things or events are causally related in any of these ways: 1. Y results from Z. 2. Y causes Z. 3. Y and Z are the cause or the effect of another thing X The reasoning underwriting causal arguments is fundamental to both commonsense and scientific knowledge. It is at work when, if presented with some empirical evidence of state of affairs E, we set out to discover how E came to be. This requires determining which state of affairs C is linked to E-as its sufficient cause, its necessary cause, or its necessary and sufficient cause- for the word 'cause' can be used to mean a number of different relationships. When used to talk about a phenomenon that is always enough to bring about a certain outcome all by itself, it means sufficient cause, as illustrated by this causal argument: 32 1. There was a power blackout in my neighborhood yesterday. 2. My computer malfunctioned yesterday. 3. Yesterday's blackout was responsible for the malfunctioning of my computer. In (32), yesterday's blackout is taken to be the sufficient cause of the malfunctioning of the computer-just as overcooking one's dinner is sufficient for spoiling it. But the blackout isn't a necessary cause of the computer malfunctioning, because in the absence of a power blackout, the computer could still malfunction because of some other condition, such as rough handling, obstructed ventilation, and defective parts. Other times, an event C is the necessary cause of another event E, which is to say that E cannot occur in the absence of C. Since AIDS cannot occur in the absence of HN, this is the sense of 'cause' at work in the claim that 33 HN causes AIDS. There is also a sense of 'cause' that denotes a condition that is both necessary and sufficient to bring about a certain effect: that would be the case of a cause that's enough all by itself to cause something to happen and also necessary, in the sense that the effect could not have happened without it-as when we say that 34 Having the genome of a cat causes Fluffy the kitten to grow up to be a cat. Here, having a certain genetic code is both a necessary cause for the animal to be a cat (rather than, say, a monkey) and a sufficient cause, since it will always produce the same result. Note, however, that causal claims could be a generalization such as (33), or a particular statement such as (34) and the conclusion of (32). But when arguers make particular causal claims, their claims often rest on implicit generalizations. In the case of (32), it's a missing premise that could be reconstructed as being either a universal or a non-universal generalization. If the former, the argument would be deductive; if the latter, inductive. As an inductive argument, it could run this way: 32' 1. Power blackouts are often the cause of computer malfunctions. 2. There was a power blackout in my neighborhood yesterday. 3. My computer malfunctioned yesterday. 4. Yesterday's blackout was responsible for my computer's malfunction. (32')'s conclusion has the status of a hypothesis, which would be well supported, provided its premises are true. Because, as reconstructed here, (32' )'s premises don't guarantee its conclusion, the argument is inductive. w >
l­
o
:::J
0
z

LL

0
(/)
w
(l_

I- 1-
w z
::;;;w
0::;;;
(/) :::J

CJ NCI:
co

f–
0
:::J
0
z

(!J
z

N

<( z <( BOX 3 ■ THREE MEANINGS OF 'CAUSE' 1. Sufficient cause: C is a sufficient cause of E if and only if C always produces E. 2. Necessary cause: C is a necessary cause of E if and only if E cannot occur in the absence of C. 3. Necessary and sufficient cause: C is a necessary and sufficient cause of E if and only if C always is the sole cause of E. The methods of agreement and difference, and of concomitant variation. In his System of Logic (1843), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) made use of ordinary intuitions in an attempt to establish generalizations about cause-and-effect relations. According to those intuitions, whenever something occurs, it is often possible to narrow the range of acceptable hypotheses about its likely cause-or about its effect-by eliminating plainly irrelevant factors until at last we find the hypothesis most likely to be the actual cause (or effect) of the occurrence. Of the five methods to establish generalizations about causal relationships proposed by Mill, we'll here consider two: the so-called method of agreement and difference and the method of concomitant variation. The method of agreement and difference The method of agreement and difference rests on the following basic principles: 1. Agreement: What different occurrences of a certain phenomenon have in common is probably its cause. 2. Difference: Factors that are present only when some observed phenomenon occurs are probably its cause. Suppose a coach wants to find out why Mick, Jim, and Ted, three of his best players, often perform poorly on Friday afternoons. After collecting some data about what each player does before the game, the coach reasons along these lines: 35 1. Mick,Jim, and Ted have been performing poorly on Friday afternoons. 2. Going to late parties on Thursday is the one and only thing that all three do when and only when they perform poorly. 3. Going to late parties on Thursday likely causes their poor game performance. The coach's reasoning here illustrates 'agreement,' since it runs roughly alone these lines: 36 1. X has occurred several times. 2. Y is the one and only other thing that precedes all occurrences of X. 3. Y causes X. But to make a more precise cause-effect claim, the coach should also use the method of difference: first, he should compare the players' performance when they've been going to late parties and when they haven't, and then, if they perform poorly only in the former cases, he should conclude that that difference also points to late-evening party-going as the likely cause of their poor performance. In fact, although the methods of agreement and difference are independent, they are usually employed jointly for the sake of greater precision. The method of concomitant variation The method of concomitant variation rests on the following principles: 1. When variations of one sort are highly correlated with variations of another, one is likely to be the cause of the other, or they may both be caused by something else. 2. When variations in one phenomenon are highly correlated with variations in another phenomenon, one of the two is likely to be the cause of the other, or they may both be caused by some third factor. Suppose now someone asks the coach why being fit matters for the members of a team. He may safely invoke empirical evidence to argue that there is a causal relationship between a player's being fit and his or her performance: 37 1. The more fit the players are, the better their performance. 2. Probably, being fit causes their better performance, or their better performance causes their being fit, or something else causes both their better performance and their being fit. The underlying reasoning is roughly 38 1. X varies in a certain way if and only if Yvaries in a certain way. 2. Y causes X, or X causes Y, or some Z causes both X and Y. Analogy Analogy is a type of inductive argument whereby a certain conclusion about individuals, qualities, or classes is drawn on the basis of some similarities with other individuals, qualities, or classes. Here is an example of an analogy whose conclusion about a certain vehicle rests on this vehicle having some things in common with other similar vehicles: 39 1. Mary's vehicle, a 2007 SUV, is expensive to run. 2. Jane's vehicle is a 2007 SUV and is expensive to run. 3. Simon's vehicle is a 2007 SUV and is expensive to run. 4. Peter's vehicle is a 2007 SUV. 5. Peter's vehicle is expensive to run. In (39), the arguer attempts to make her conclusion reasonable by analogy: Peter's vehicle shares two features with Mary's, Jane's, and Simon's: being a 2007 model and an SUV. This provides some reason to think that it may also have in common a third feature, that of being expensive to run. Let 'm,' 'j,' 's,' and 'p' stand, respectively, for Mary's vehicle, Jane's vehicle, Simon's vehicle, and Peter's vehicle; and A, B, and C for the ascribed features: being a 2007 model, being an SUV, and being expensive to run. Then (39)'s pattern is w f-- 0 :) 0 z LL 0 (j) w Q._ f- f­ w z 2W 02 (j) :) CJ (\J a:

l­
o
:::J
0
z
C)
z
N

<{ z <{ 39' 1. m is A, B, and C 2. j is A, B, and C 3. s is A, B, and C 4. pis A and B 5. p is C Any argument along these lines would fall short of being deductive (i.e., of entailing its conclusion). Yet if its premises are true, they might provide good evidence for it. Analogies can make their conclusions plausible, provided that they meet the standards for good inductive arguments discussed below. Among the specific factors that matter for the success of analogies are those presented in Box 4. Now consider 40 Extensive research on polar bears and hippos has shown that they have a great number of relevant features in common with large animals that live in the wild. These animals are also listed as endangered species. So polar bears and hippos might disappear. The pattern of reasoning underlying this analogy is 1. Polar bears and hippos have a number of relevant things in common with species x, y, and z. 2. Species x, y. and z also have feature f (being an endangered species). 3. Polar bears and hippos probably have feature f. If polar bears and hippos do in fact share a number of features with threatened species, and such features are truly relevant to the conclusion of this argument, then (40) can be said to succeed in rendering its conclusion plausible. BOX 4 ■ ANALOGY Whether an analogy succeeds or not depends on 1. The number of things and the number of features held to be analogous. ■ Greater numbers here would make an analogy stronger. 2. The degree of similarities and dissimilarities among those things. ■ More of the former and less of the latter would make an analogy stronger. 3. The relevance of ascribed features to the hypothesis. ■ Greater relevance would make an analogy stronger. 4. The boldness of the hypothesis with respect to the evidence. ■ Modesty in the hypothesis would make an analogy stronger. Exercises 1 . Discuss three features of inductive argument that distinguish them from deductive arguments. 2. What's the problem with asserting the premises of an inductive argument while denying its conclusion? 3. Why are the premises and conclusion of an inductive argument called 'evidence' and 'hypothesis' , respectively? 4. What does it mean to say that a hypothesis is 'plausible'? 5. What is an enumerative induction? 6. What's the difference between universal and non-universal generalizations? How can a universal generalization be proved false? 7. Describe the structure of a statistical syllogism. 8. Describe the structure of a causal argument. 9. Why is the word 'cause' ambiguous? 1 0. Describe the structure of an analogy. II. Determine whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive. 1. Many whales observed in this region are white mammals. Therefore, any whale in this region is a white mammal. SAMPLE ANSWER: Inductive argument 2. Triangles have exactly three internal angles. Rectangles have exactly four internal angles. Therefore, rectangles are not triangles. *3. If all magnolias have a scent, then the magnolias in the vase have a scent. But they don't. It follows that it isn't true that all magnolias have a scent. 4. Buying a house is a good investment. After all, that's exactly what statistics have shown for the last ten years. 5. All samples of river water so far tested have been polluted. Thus all river water is polluted. *6. The Crusades were bloody, for most medieval wars were bloody, and the Crusades were medieval wars. 7. Surely the Earth is not flat. If it were flat, then Magellan could not have circumnavigated it. But he did! 8. Jane is a dentist and has clean teeth. Bruce is a dentist and has clean teeth. Therefore, all dentists have clean teeth. *9. Cars are mechanical devices. No mechanical devices are easy to fix. Thus no car is easy to fix. 10. Many medical doctors care about their patients. Tom is a medical doctor. Thus he cares about his patients. 11. Mary doesn't like being denied a salary increase, for she is a state worker, and no state worker likes that. *12. To be an ophthalmologist is to be an eye specialist MD. My new neighbors are eye specialist MDs, so they are ophthalmologists. w >
l­
o
:::>
0
z
u..
0
(f)
w
0..
>-
1- 1-
w z
::’2′ w
0 ::’2′
(fJ :::>

(‘) N a:
(0 <1'. (f) � z w 2 :::>
(.’J
a:

e-

0
:::>
0
z

(.’J
z

N

r-
0
::)
0

z
0
z

��
::) z
….J w
;;�
w::)

C’) (9 . a::
co <( IEilll (j) 1-­z w � ::J (_'; a: � w >
l­
o
::J
0

z
(_’;
z
N
�
� z
�

11111m

When an inductive argument is reliable, it has a form that makes its conclusion plausible

provided that its premises are true. Consider

41 1. 99 percent of guitar players also play other musical instruments.
2. Phong is a guitar player.
3. Phong also plays other musical instruments.

This inductive argument seems pretty reliable: its form is such that, if its premises were true,
its conclusion would be plausible. Compare (42), which is itself less reliable than (41) but more
reliable than (43):

42 1. 59 percent of guitar players also play other musical instruments.
2. Phong is a guitar player.
3. Phong also plays other musical instruments.

43 1. 39 percent of guitar players also play other musical instruments.
2. Phong is a guitar player.
3. Phong also plays other musical instruments.

Inductive reliability is, then, a matter of degree. An inductive argument of (44)’s form is more
reliable than (45):

44 1. 59 percent of A are B
2. p is an A
3. p is a B

45 1. 39 percent of A are B
2. p is an A

3. p is a B

The cash value of inductive reliability for logical thinkers can be better appreciated by comparing
it to the cash value of deductive validity. Each of these concerns argument form, as well as the sup­
port an argument’s premises may give its conclusion, provided they are true. In the case of a valid
argument, if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true. In that of a reliable argument, if its
premises are true, its conclusion is likely to be true. As we saw in Chapter 5, a valid deductive
argument is truth-preserving. By contrast, a reliable inductive argument is not. Even so, inductive
reliability is one of the two desirable features that ordinary and scientific arguments should have.

Inductive Strength

Strength is another desirable feature for inductive arguments; thus we may use it to
evaluate such arguments. An inductive argument is strong just in case it meets the
conditions listed in Box 5.

BOX 5 ■ STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

An inductive argument is strong if and only if

1. It is reliable.
2. It has all true premises.

When an inductive argument is strong, it is reasonable to accept its conclusion. That is, it
is reasonable to think that the conclusion is true. We may think of this standard in terms of
competition: given the structure of an inductive argument, rival conclusions are always
logically possible. Imagine a case where a professor in Biology 100 has just received an email
from one of her new students, whose name is Robin Mackenzie. She is trying to decide
whether she should begin her reply, ‘Dear Mr. Mackenzie’ or ‘Dear Ms. Mackenzie.’ Let’s
assume that it is true that 80 percent of the students in Biology 100 are women and reason
through the steps of this inductive argument:

46 1. 80 percent of the students in Biology 100 are women.
2. Robin is a student in Biology 100.

3. Robin is a woman.

Since (46) is an inductive argument, the conclusion, statement 3, may in fact fail to be true,
even if both premises are true. After all, a person named ‘Robin’ could be a man. Even so, given
the evidence provided by the premises, it seems that conclusion 3 is more plausible than the
other competing hypothesis (i.e., that Robin is a man). But imagine a different scenario:
suppose that we knew that 80 percent of the students in Biology 100 were men. Then, among
then the competing hypotheses, the conclusion that is most likely to be true on the basis of
that information is that Robin is a man. The argument now is

47 1. 80 percent of the students in Biology 100 are men.
2. Robin is a student in Biology 100.

3. Robin is a man.

We may alternatively define inductive strength in this way:

An inductive argument is strong if and only if its hypothesis is the one that has the greatest
probability of being true on the basis of the evidence.

In the same way that inductive reliability can be contrasted with deductive validity,
inductive strength can be contrasted with deductive soundness. For one thing, the latter does
not come in degrees, since it depends on validity and truth, neither of which is itself a matter
of degree (there’s no such thing as a ‘sort of true’ premise or a ‘sort of valid’ argument). Hence,
just as any given deductive argument is either valid or invalid, so, too, it’s either sound or
unsound. On the other hand, inductive strength does come in degrees, for it depends in part
on reliability, which is a matter of degree. What about the cash value of these standards? When
an argument is deductively sound, its conclusion is true-and must be accepted by any logical
thinker who recognizes the argument’s soundness. But the conclusion of any inductively
strong argument can be, at most, probably true-and thus reasonable to accept by a logical

w
>

l­
o
:J
0
z

(9
z

i= en
<( 1-:J z _J w ;; 2 w :J C') (9 . a: co <( IIDII (f) 1- z w � :::J (') a: <( w >
i==
0
:::J
0

z
(‘)
z
N

<( z <( 111m thinker who recognizes the argument's strength. For each of the two criteria by which we assess inductive arguments, then, we may summarize its cash value as follows: Inductive Reliability's Cash Value ■ If an argument has a good share of reliability, then it would be reasonable to accept its conclusion, provided that its premises are true. Inductive Strength's Cash Value ■ If an argument has a good share of inductive strength, then it's reasonable to accept its conclusion, since it has a reliable form and its premises are true. What, then, of inductive arguments that fail by one or the other of these two criteria? No such argument could provide good reasons for their conclusions. Exercises 1. What are the two standards for evaluating an inductive argument? Define each. 2. Does inductive reliability depend on the form of an argument? What about strength? 3. What question should we ask to determine whether an inductive argument is reliable? 4. Assuming that an inductive argument is reliable, when would it be strong? 5. Does the cash value of deductive validity differ from that of inductive reliability? Explain. 6. What factors are relevant to determining whether an enumerative induction is reliable? 7. What factors are relevant to determining whether an enumerative induction is strong or weak? 8. What factors are relevant to determining whether an analogy is reliable? VII. Identify whether the arguments below are enumerative inductions, analogies, causal arguments, or statistical syllogisms, and determine which are reliable and which are not. For any argument whose reliability cannot be determined, explain why not. 1. There is consensus among experts that heavy drinking is linked to liver disease. Therefore, heavy drinking leads to liver disease. SAMPLE ANSWER: Causal argument, reliable 2. Millions of fish so far observed have all been cold-blooded animals. Thus all fish are cold-blooded animals. *3. Most South American coffee beans are dark. Brazilian coffee beans are South American coffee beans. Hence, Brazilian coffee beans are dark. 4. Nancy lives downtown and pays a high rent. Bob lives downtown and pays a high rent. Pam pays a high rent. Thus Pam probably lives downtown. 5. 40 percent of college students sleep less than eight hours a day. Peter is a college student. Therefore, Peter sleeps less than eight hours a day. *6. Every pizza eater I have met liked mozzarella. Thus pizza eaters like mozzarella. 7. Betty's pet is carnivorous, and so are Lois's, Brenda's, and John's. It follows that all pets are carnivorous. 8. Senegal is an African nation and has a forest. Nigeria is an African nation and has a forest. Since Egypt is also an African nation, it probably has a forest. *9. Caffeine is related to poor memory. All recent studies have shown that people can improve their memory by reducing their daily consumption of caffeinated drinks. 10. Among families that have lived in Spring Valley for more than ten years, nearly 90 percent say they like it there. My family will soon move to Spring Valley. So my family will like it there, too. 11. Since their discovery, microorganisms have been observed to be present in all infections. Thus microorganisms are responsible for infections. *12. Mike sells junk food, for he owns a fast-food restaurant, and that's what most fast-food restaurants sell. 13. Frank Sinatra sang in a 1950s movie wearing a tuxedo. Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop were all in tuxedos in that movie with Frank, and they made up 90 percent of the male actors cast in it. Since Dean Martin also sang in the same movie, he must have worn a tuxedo. 14. From 1951 to 2001, Sir Richard Doll documented the mortality rate of British male doctors born between 1900 and 1930. 81 percent of nonsmokers lived to at least age seventy, but only 58 percent of smokers lived to that age. Cigarette smoking stood out in Doll's findings as the only major factor distinguishing these two groups of doctors. Thus the shorter survival rate in the second group was a result of smoking. *15. Chase is a bank and makes home-finance loans. Citibank is a bank and makes home-finance loans. Wells Fargo is a bank and also makes home-finance loans. This suggests that all U.S. banks make home finance loans. 16. After an extensive study involving major research universities, scientists discovered that poison ivy grew there at 2.5 times its normal rate when they pumped carbon dioxide through pipes into a pine forest. Their work suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at least partially responsible for the higher growth rate of poison ivy. 17. I' ll be accepted. Let's not forget that 98 percent of applicants with my qualifications get accepted. *18. Given that T ina Turner is a famous singer and has an insurance policy on her legs, Queen Latifah probably has one, too. After all, she is also a famous singer. 19. 92 percent of computer owners cannot get through a typical day without using their computers. John is a computer owner; thus he probably cannot get through a typical day without using his computer. 20. It'll cool off soon, for these winds from the northeast are bringing a cool front. *21. Wood can be made to rot by breaking down lignin, the compound that holds plant tissue together. This is in fact what fungus does to lignin. It has been proved that the molecular structure of lignin and construction glues is similar. Therefore, fungus can be used to break construction glues. w >
l­
o

::i
0
z

(‘.)
z

��
::i z
_J w
;; �
w ::i

(“) (‘.) . a:
co <( (/) f­ z w :;;; :::, (.') er

f-
0
:::,
0
z

(.’)
z

N

­
a:
<( � � :) (/) a: w f­ Q_ <( I 0 (J) f­ z w � :::::, C) 0::
�
0
:::::,
0
z

C)
z

N

�
–

CJ
a:
<( z <( (/) >–
<( _.J 3� W LL �z 0 <( (/) 0 111111 7 .3 When Inductive Arguments Go Wrong In this chapter, we consider five informal fallacies associated with the misuse of inductive reasoning, grouped as follows: BOX 2 ■ FALLACIES OF FAILED INDUCTION FALLACIES OF FAILED INDUCTION I I I j APPEAL TO APPEAL TO HASTY WEAK FALSE UNQUALIFIED GENERALIZATION ANALOGY CAUSE IGNORANCE AUTHORITY I POST Hoc ERGO 11 NON CAUSA 0vERSIMPLIFIED I PROPTER Hoc PRO CAUSA CAUSE Hasty Generalization The fallacy of hasty generalization may affect enumerative induction. Earlier we saw that an enumerative induction typically starts out with premises asserting that certain things have (or lack) some feature, and then draws a general conclusion about all things of that kind, to the effect that they have (or lack) that feature. The conclusion of the argument is a universal gener­ alization, such as 'All leopards are carnivorous' and 'No leopard is carnivorous'. Thus an enumerative induction might go like this: 1 1. All leopards so far observed have been carnivorous 2. All leopards are carnivorous When a representative sample of leopards has been observed to be carnivorous, the conclusion of this inductive argument is well supported. Similarly, if we've observed a representative sample of leopards and found them all to be wild animals, we would be justified in drawing the general conclusion that leopards are wild animals on the basis of those observations. Our inductive argument would be, 2 1. Every leopard observed so far has been a wild animal 2. All leopards are wild animals But for any such inductive conclusion to be justified, the conditions listed in Box 3 must be met. If either of those two conditions, or both, is unfulfilled, then the argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization and therefore fails. Hasty generalization is the mistake of trying to draw a conclusion about all things of a certain kind having a certain feature on the basis of having observed too small a sample of the things that allegedly have it, or a sample that is neither comprehensive nor randomly selected. Suppose a team of naturalists were to observe 500,000 leopards, which all turn out to be wild animals. Yet they were all observed in India, during the first week of August, at a time when these animals were about to eat. The sample seems large enough, and the observers might therefore draw the conclusion that 3 All leopards are wild animals. But they would be committing a hasty generalization, since leopards are also found in other parts of the world. And they are found at other times of the year, and in other situations. Clearly, the sample lacks comprehensiveness and randomness. In this case, argument (2) would fail to provide a good reason for its conclusion. On the other hand, suppose the naturalists directly observed patterns of wild behavior among leopards in all parts of the world where such animals are found, at different times of the year, and in many different situations. Yet the sample now consists of only thirty-seven leopards. Do the naturalists have better grounds for concluding (3) above? No, because although the comprehensiveness and randomness criteria are now met, the sample is too small. The charge of hasty generalization would similarly apply in this scenario. It is, however, not only naturalists and other scientists who will need to beware of this sort of blunder. Logical thinkers will want to be on guard for hasty generalization in many everyday situations. Among these is the familiar mistake of stereotyping people. Suppose someone from the Midwest visits California for the first time. He becomes acquainted with three native Californians, and it happens that all three practice yoga. Imagine that, on his return home after his vacation, he tells his friends, 4 All Californians practice yoga. If challenged, he would offer this argument: 5 1. I met Margaret Evans, who is Californian and practices yoga. 2. I met Alisa Mendoza, who is Californian and practices yoga. 3. I met Michael Yoshikawa, who is Californian and practices yoga. 4. All Californians practice yoga. The reasoning in (s) is again an instance of hasty generalization. Furthermore, it stereotypes Californians: on the basis of the sample described by the premises, the conclusion is simply unwarranted. Now imagine a different scenario: suppose that an anthropologist visited California with the intention of studying the folkways of modern Californians. Suppose she went to southern California, northern California, the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, all regions of the state, and met Californians from all walks of life, all social groups, all religions, all ethnic groups-from cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. Suppose she talked to thousands, and suppose she discovered that all of these people practiced yoga! (This is unlikely, but suppose it happened.) Then it would not be a fallacy to draw conclusion 4: assuming the thoroughness and breadth of the study, this conclusion would be a reasonable outcome of a strong enumerative induction. 0 (!) (f) 1-z w � :::i (!) a:
l­

o
:::i
0

z
z w (!)

I z

s: 0
C’) a:
….: s:

1-­
z
LU
2
:::i
CJ
a:
–

f–
0
::)
0
z

z w (‘)
I z

s: 0
C’) a:
r-..: s:

IHN

t­
z
UJ

�
:J
CJ
a:
<{ z <{ (/) >–
<{ ...J 3� UJ LL �z 0 <{ (/) 0 infer that she caught the chicken pox from her sisters. Given what we know about how infectious diseases are transmitted, this inductive conclusion seems supported. But not all causal arguments are strong. When either of the two types of error listed in Box s occurs, a fallacy of false cause has been committed. False cause is the mistake of arguing that there is a significant causal connection between two phenomena, when in fact the connection is either minimal or nonexistent. BOX 5 ■ HOW TO AVOID THE FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE Causal arguments can fail in two basic ways: ■ The argument concludes that there is a cause-effect connection between two phenomena where there is none at all. ■ The argument mistakenly identifies some phenomenon as a sufficient (or determining) cause, when in fact it's only a contributory cause (i.e., one among many) of some observed effect. Let's consider three different ways the fallacy of false cause may occur. One is: Post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this'): The fallacy of concluding that some earlier event is the cause of some later event, when the two are in fact not causally related. The inclination to commit this fallacy in everyday life rests on the fact that, when we see two events constantly conjoined-so that they are always observed to occur together, first the one, then the other-it may eventually seem natural to assume that the earlier is the cause of the latter. But it is not difficult to imagine cases of precisely this sort where an imputation of causal connec­ tion would be absurd. Suppose we saw a bus passing the courthouse in the square just before the clock in the tower struck 9:00 a.m., and we then continued to see the exact same sequence of events day after day. Do we at last want to say that it's the bus's passing the courthouse that causes the clock to strike 9:00 a.m.? Of course not! And yet, in our experience, the two events have been constantly conjoined: the clock's striking has always been preceded by the bus's passing. Clearly it would be preposterous to argue, in that case, that, from the evidence of constant conjunction between the bus's passing and the clock's striking 9:00, it follows that the former causes the latter. But equally absurd arguments are in fact sometimes heard in everyday life. Suppose that Hector and Barbara are not getting along, and one of their friends ventures to explain the source of the problem: 8 1. Hector was born under the sign of Capricorn. 2. Barbara was born under Pisces. 3. Capricorns and Pisces are not compatible. 4. Their recent difficulties are owing to their having incompatible zodiac signs. Argument (8) fails to support its conclusion, since it claims a causal connection for which the argument gives no good evidence-nor, in this case, should we expect good evidence to be forthcoming. After all, there's no good reason to think that configurations of stars and other celestial events really do affect the courses of our lives, and whatever the cause of this couple's troubles may be, it's probably traceable to something else. Argument (8) is a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, a form of false cause, for it assumes a cause-effect relation between being born on a day when celestial bodies have a certain configuration (which determines a certain zodiac sign) and subsequently growing up to develop certain personality traits. But there is no reason to think that these two sequential events are in fact causally related. Another way false cause may occur is Non causa pro causa (roughly, what is not the cause is mistaken for the cause): A fallacy in which the error is not an imputation of causality in a temporal sequence of events (as in post hoc ergo propter hoc, where an earlier event is wrongly thought to be the cause of a later one), but rather the simple mistake of misidentifying some event contemporaneous with another as its cause, when in reality it's not. One form of this error occurs when cause and effect are confused. An early nineteenth-century study of British agriculture noted that, of farmers surveyed, all the hard-working and industri­ ous ones owned at least one cow, while all the lazy ones owned no cows. This led the researchers to conclude that productivity could be improved overall and habits of industry encouraged in the lazy farmers by simply giving them each of those farmers a cow! Now, plainly there is something wrong in this reasoning. But what? It seems to rest on an extended argument along these lines: 9 1. All of the observed industrious farmers are cow owners. 2. None of the observed lazy farmers is a cow owner. 3. All and only cow-owning farmers are industrious. 4. There is a positive correlation between cow-owning and industriousness. 5. It's cow-owning that causes industrious farmers to be industrious. If we grant, for the sake of discussion, that the sample of British farmers in the study was large enough, and that it was also comprehensive and randomly selected, then premises 1 and 2 support conclusion 3, and its restatement, conclusion 4. But s's claim about cause and effect fails to be supported! It's industriousness that is probably the cause of cow-owning, and not the other way around. By confusing cause with effect, (9) commits non causa pro causa. Finally, there is a version of false cause in which the source of the mistake is something rather different from what we've seen so far: Oversimplified cause: The fallacy of overstating the causal connection between two events that do have some causal link. 0 (.') (/) f­ z w � :::, (.') 0: –
<( __J � <( LlJ u.. �z 0 <( (/) 0 Suppose a vice president, campaigning for reelection, says, 10 1. At the beginning of this administration's term, the national economy was sluggish. 2. At the end of this administration's term, the national economy is booming. 3. White House economic policies do have an effect on the nation's economy. 4. The improvement in the economy is due to this administration's policies. (10) fails to support its conclusion. Let's assume that the premises are true. Even then, the causal relation asserted in premise 3 is merely one of contributory cause-in effect, one causal factor among others-which amounts to a rather weak sense of 'cause.' But 4 grandly asserts as the conclusion something much more than that: namely, that the actions taken by the incum­ bent administration are a sufficient cause of the improvement in the economy. Now, surely this is an exaggeration. The campaigning vice president commits a fallacy of oversimplified cause by taking full credit for the nation's economic turnaround, thereby overstating the sense in which his administration's policies 'caused' it. Of course, many politicians are quite prepared to take credit for anything good that happens while they're in office. But proving that it was due entirely to their efforts is something else again. The logical thinker should be on guard for this and any of the other versions of false cause as representing different ways in which a causal argument may fail. BOX 6 ■ THREE TYPES OF CAUSAL FALLACY Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Appeal to Ignorance FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE Non Causa Pro Causa Oversimplified Cause Another fallacy of failed induction is the appeal to ignorance (or ad ignorantiam): an argu­ ment that commits this fallacy concludes either that some statement is true because it has never been proved false, or that it is false because it has never been proved true. More generally, The fallacy of appeal to ignorance is committed by any argument in which the conclusion that something is (or isn't) the case is supposedly supported by appeal to the lack of evidence to the contrary. Suppose someone reasons, 11 1. It has never been proved that God doesn't exist. 2. We can confidently assert that God exists. (11) commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, but so does (12): 12 1. It has never been proved that God exists. 2. We can confidently assert that God doesn't exist. Similarly, a believer in 'extrasensory perception' might argue, 13 1. No one has ever been able to prove that ESP doesn't exist. 2. It's reasonable to believe that there is ESP. Clearly, the only reason offered by (13) to support its conclusion is the absence of contrary evi­ dence. But from that premise, all that can be supported is that we don't know what to say about ESP! The conclusion given-that "it's reasonable to believe that there is ESP"-is far too strong to be supported by such a flimsy premise. Reasoning along similar lines could also be used to demonstrate the failure of (11) and (12). BOX 7 ■ HOW TO AVOID THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO IGNORANCE ■ An argument whose premises merely invoke the lack of evidence against a certain conclusion commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Such premises are bad reasons for the conclusion they attempt to support, and the argument therefore fails. ■ Why? Because the mere lack of negative evidence does not in itself constitute positive evidence for anything! It justifies nothing more than an attitude of non belief (i.e., neutrality) toward the conclusion. We must, however, add a note of caution. Suppose that the attempt to prove some claim has occasioned rigorous scientific investigation, and that these efforts have repeatedly turned up no evidence in support of the claim. Furthermore, suppose that the claim doesn't serve the purpose of explaining anything. In that case, it is not a fallacy to reject that claim out of hand. Here we have to proceed case by case. Consider the claim, 14 There are witches. Although there is of course a long history of claims that witches exist, all efforts to prove those claims have so far failed for lack of evidence. Furthermore, the concept of a witch has no serious explanatory function in any scientific theory: the existence of witches doesn't explain anything that happens in the natural world. These considerations suggest that it is not a fallacy to conclude, 15 Probably there are no witches. Inductive conclusions of this sort are rendered plausible by the absence of reliable empirical evidence after thorough investigation, and must not be confused with the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. 0 C)

f-
0
:::i
0
z

z
w CJ

Iz
s: 0
(“) rr:

r–: s:

f­
z
L!J
2
🙂
0
a:

l­
o
::J
0
z

w (.9

I z
3: 0 (“) er:
,-..: 3:

1-
z
w

�
:::J
(!)
er:

<( z <( (f) >–
<( _J � ;j: W LL �z 0 <( (f) () Argument (19) appeals to the view of experts on the topic of the conclusion, which is supported-provided that the premise is true. Since an appeal to authority is often needed for the justification of many claims, it is crucial that we distinguish between legitimate authorities who have expertise relevant to the claim being made and those who don't. The rule is: In evaluating an argument of the form, A says P, therefore P, check whether A is a genuine authority expressing a view on P that is well represented among the experts on P. If A is not, then the argument fails to support its conclusion and must be rejected. For example, beliefs about history are more reasonable when based on the writings of reputable professional historians than when proposed by amateur ones. If we want to have well-founded beliefs about the French Revolution, the Ming Dynasty, or the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, we should look to writers whose books are not "self-published" or published by vanity presses (where the authors pay to get their books into print). We should look for historians who are held in high regard by peers in their fields and whose work has been favorably reviewed. Although none of these criteria guarantee expertise, they make it vastly more likely. Similarly, for beliefs about nature, it goes without saying that respected journals in the natural sciences are generally dependable sources of information, unlike supermarket tabloids that describe miracle cures for cancer and 'evidence' of mental telepathy. For scientists, too, being the author of respected, mainstream scholarship and having the favorable regard of fellow scholars are usually the marks of credibility as genuine experts. For logical thinkers, then, an important competence is the ability to tell the difference between real experts and bogus ones, since it is often on that distinction that the difference between legitimate appeals to authority and the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority turns. BOX 9 ■ HOW TO AVOID FALLACIOUS APPEALS TO AUTHORITY To avoid fallacious appeal to authority, keep in mind the way it differs from appeals to authority that aren't fallacious. The difference hinges on whether the authority cited in support of a claim ■ does indeed have sufficient expertise in the relevant field; and ■ is expressing a view well represented (perhaps the prevailing one) among experts on the topic. Exercises 1 . What is a fallacy? 2. What's the point of studying fallacies, as far as logical thinking is concerned? 3. What is the fallacy of hasty generalization? 4. Are all generalizations to be avoided? 5. What is stereotyping? And how is this related to hasty generalization? 6. What is the fallacy of weak analogy? 7. The fallacy of false cause has at least three different forms. Identify the kind of mistake each makes, and explain why they are all mistakes in causal reasoning. 8. What is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance? 9. When a fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority is committed, who commits it? Is it the arguer or the bogus authority? 1 o. What is the difference between the legitimate use of appeal to authority and the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority? II. Each of the following arguments commits one of the fallacies of failed induction discussed in this chapter. Identify the fallacy. 1. I'm an Aquarius, so I love doing lots of projects at once. SAMPLE ANSWER: False cause 2. Some people can cure heart disease by meditation. I know because the coach of my son's soccer team told me. *3. Wage and price controls will not work as a means of controlling the rate of inflation. After all, no econ­ omist has ever been able to give conclusive proof that such controls are effective against inflation. 4. Most HIV patients are young. Thus youth causes HIV. 5. Yogi Berra, an Italian American, was one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Other all-time greats of baseball include Joe DiMaggio, Mike Piazza, and Roy Campanella. So, no doubt about it, Italian Americans are great baseball players. *6. Last week, when Notre Dame won the game, the coach was wearing his green tie. So their victory must have been due to the coach's choice of necktie, since this nearly always happens when he wears that tie. *7. Foreign wars are good for a nation, just as exercise is good for the body. In the same way that exercise keeps the body fit, foreign wars keep a nation fit as a society. 8. According to recent polls of registered voters, the state of Massachusetts has a large percentage of voters who are political liberals. This suggests that all states have a large percentage of voters who are political liberals. *9. The chances for stability in the Middle East will continue to improve. Popular singer Britney Spears has recently said that that is what she expects to happen. 10. Dallas and Houston are North American cities, and one can drive from the one to the other in only a few hours. Montreal and Los Angeles are also North American cities. Thus one can drive from Montreal to Los Angeles in only a few hours. 11. Some years ago, after not having seen my best friend from Duckwood High School for several years, we met for lunch and were surprised to find that our clothes and hairstyles were the same! The only possible explanation for this is that we both went to Duckwood High. *12. Some regular churchgoers believe that taxpayers' dollars should not be used to fund laboratories that carry out tests on animals for medical research. Hence, it is wrong to go on spending taxpayers' dollars for that purpose. f- z w w f- z z w 0 I z so C') a: r--: s 1- z w � :::i ('J a: –

f-
0
:::J
0
z

w C)

Iz
so
C’) a:

r–: s

111111

1-
z
w

2
::i
CJ
a:
<( z <( C/) >–
<( .J � <( W LL 2 z 0 <( C/) 0 - *5. The Secretary of Defense sees signs of growth in our economy. Thus our economy is recovering. 6. The universe can act as a magnifying lens. One of the best current physical theories, Einstein's, says so. *7. It is simply false that cell-phone use creates the risk of developing a brain tumor. Five well-established cell-phone companies surveyed this issue extensively, all reaching the same conclusion: no such risk exists. More details on this are available at the companies' web pages. 8. There is nothing wrong with drinking coffee. Many U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, are known to have been coffee drinkers. *9. Although much can be said against diets low in carbohydrates, one thing is decisive: calories from carbohydrates enhance cognitive tasks. After all, that's the shared view among leading nutritionists. 10. Kids should avoid riding in school buses. This conclusion is supported by the remarks of the treasurer of the Parents' Association at the last meeting at Emerson School, who noted that the exhaust gases produced by diesel vehicles harm the children's respiratory systems. VI. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB For each the following arguments, first identify the fallacy that it might commit, and then provide premises or a scenario where it does not commit that fallacy. *1. Every tiger so far observed has been fearless. Therefore, all tigers are fearless. 2. My mother and her circle of friends think that species have evolved. Therefore, species have evolved. *3. Nobody has ever observed a centaur. Therefore, centaurs do not exist. 4. Ellen and Jose are both college students who vote. Both are also pre-law majors. Jose is also interested in golf. Therefore, Ellen is interested in golf. ■ Writing Project The language of the media makes frequent use of analogy. Go to the web and Google three articles containing analogies on topics such as 'Saddam and Hitler,' 'Vietnam and Afghanistan,' and 'Recession and the Great Depression' or another analogy of your choice (be sure to check with your instructor on that). Select and summarize the arguments in three of the articles. Use your summaries to write a short essay (about two double-spaced pages) discussing whether the analogies in each are strong or weak analogies. If weak, explain why the analogy fails. Otherwise, explain why you think it should be allowed to stand. ■ Chapter Summary Fallacy: in the case of argument, a pattern of failed relation between premises and conclusion. It could be: 1. A formal fallacy, which is a type of mistake made by arguments that may appear to be instances of a valid argument form but are in fact invalid in virtue of their form. 2. An informal fallacy, which is a pattern of failed relation between the premises and conclusion of an argument owing to some defect in expression or content. BOX 10 ■ INFORMAL FALLACIES I INFORMAL I FALLACIES I I I I Fallacies of Failed Fallacies of Fallacies of Fallacies of Induction Presumption Unclear Language Relevance Hasty generalization: Committed by any enumerative induction whose conclusion rests on a sample that is either too small or lacking in comprehensiveness and randomness, or both. Stereotyping people is one form of hasty generalization. Weak analogy: Committed by any analogy in which the things alleged to be alike are in fact not very much alike in relevant ways. Not all arguments from analogy are fallacious. False cause: The mistake of concluding that there is a significant causal connection between two events, when in fact there is either a minimal causal connection or none at all. Not all causal arguments are fallacious. Appeal to ignorance: Committed by any argument whose conclusion rests on noth­ ing more than the absence of evidence to the contrary. Appeal to unqualified authority: Committed by any argument in which the conclu­ sion is supposedly supported by the say-so of some "authority" who is not really an expert in the relevant field or whose position is at odds with the prevailing consensus of expert opinion. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. ■ Key Words Fallacy Informal fallacy Weak analogy False cause Appeal to ignorance Appeal to unqualified authority Post hoc ergo propter hoc Oversimplified cause Non causa pro causa Hasty generalization (f) 0 a: 0 3: >­
w
�

ID

CHAPTER

Avoiding Ungrounded
Assumptions

In this chapter you’ll learn about the fallacies of presumption and some related
logical and philosophical issues. The topics include

■ Circular reasoning: When is it vicious? When is it benign?

■ The fallacies of begging the question and begging the question against.

The concept of burden of proof.

■ The fallacy of complex question.

■ The fallacy of false alternatives.

■ The fallacy of accident.

166

8.1 Fallacies of Presumption

Now we’re ready to look at some fallacies that can be grouped together because arguments

committing them take for granted something that is in fact debatable. Such arguments rest on
presumptions, which are strong assumptions or background beliefs taken for granted.

Generally, there is nothing wrong with presumptions: arguments commonly rest on implicit

beliefs that create no fallacy of presumption at all. But when an argument takes for granted a

belief that is in fact debatable, it commits a fallacy of presumption. The unsupported belief at

work in such fallacious arguments may at first seem innocent or even acceptable, though in

reality it is neither. The patterns of mistake illustrated by arguments that rest on debatable
presumptions include the five types of fallacy listed in Box 1.

BOX 1 ■ SOME FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

I FALLACIES OF I PRESUMPTION

BEGGING THE BEGGING THE

I
COMPLEX

I
FALSE I ACCIDENT I QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION ALTERNATIVES

AGAINST

8.2 Begging the Question

In Chapter s we saw that the premises of valid arguments could be true yet fall short of count­

ing as persuasive reasons for their conclusion. That would be the case with any sound argument

that failed to be cogent. As a result, no such argument can move a rational thinker to accept its

conclusion, even when the validity of the argument may be obvious to the thinker. Why?

Imagine that we intend to convince you rationally to accept a certain claim-say, that

1 We care about logical thinking.

We offer you this reason as a premise:

2 It is not the case that we don’t care about logical thinking.

The argument is

3 1. It is not the case that we don’t care about logical thinking.
2. We care about logical thinking.

(3) is valid, and we may assume that it has a true premise. Yet it lacks cogency, since it doesn’t

offer reasons that could persuade a logical thinker of the truth of its conclusion if that thinker

is skeptical about that very conclusion. Philosophers call this ‘circular reasoning.’ (3) is affected

by a degree of circularity that may be considered ‘vicious,’ since it would make any argument

that has it fail-by contrast with ‘benign circularity,’ which, as we’ll see, is the tolerable degree

of circularity that affects many deductive arguments.

z

0

f­
(f)
w
::J

a

w
I
f-

C)
z

C)

C)
w
m

N

00

0 LU
0
z

::,
0
a:
0 (J)
zz

::, 0

0 1-
z 0…
– �
e ::i
0 (J)
> (J)
(j)
<( <( - As just noted, any valid argument has some degree of circularity, due either to its form, the concepts involved, or both. The following two arguments are affected by circularity hinging on argument form: 8 1. Today it's cloudy and breezy. 2. Today it's breezy. 9 1. The Pope is in Rome. 2. The Pope is in Rome. Clearly, the circularity afflicting these arguments hinges on their forms-which are 8 1. C and B 2. B 9 1. E 2. E Any argument with either of these forms is valid, for if its premise is true, then its conclusion must also be. But in each case the premise is not more acceptable than the conclusion it attempts to support. As a result, no one could come to accept the conclusion on the basis of having worked out the validity of the argument and found the premise acceptable. Yet circularity may also be conceptual, hinging on the meaning or concepts involved. Consider 10 1. If Kobe Bryant is a basketball player, then he plays basketball. 2. Kobe Bryant is a basketball player. 3. Kobe Bryant plays basketball. 11 1. Marianne was once abducted by alien beings from outer space. 2. There are alien beings from outer space. In each argument, the premises presuppose the conclusion they are supposed to support, given the concepts involved. In (10), no logical thinker who doubts that Kobe Bryant plays basketball could come to accept that on the basis of the argument's premises. In (11), no logical thinker who doubts the existence of alien beings from outer space could be persuaded that there are such beings by the argument's premise. Each argument begs the question, thereby failing to be cogent. As in (8) and (9) above, these arguments too are affected by circularity that renders them fallacious. Whether formal or conceptual, circularity comes in degrees: too much of it causes an argument to beg the question. Benign Circularity But circularity does not always make an argument question-begging. Compare 1 2 1. If the mind is the brain, then the mind is organic matter. 2. If the mind is organic matter, then it perishes with the body. 3. If the mind is the brain, then it perishes with the body. BOX 3 ■ FORMAL AND CONCEPTUAL CIRCULARITY Two TYPES OF CIRCULARITY Here the argument form is 12' 1. If M, then 0 2. If 0, then B 3. If M, then B Formal It hinges on argument form Conceptual It hinges on concepts involved In an argument with this form, there is some formal circularity, since the propositions represented as M and B appear not only in the conclusion, but also in the premises. Yet (12) does not beg the question, because finding its premises acceptable and recognizing the argument's validity could provide reasons to move logical thinkers to accept its conclusion. Anyone who accepts the argument's premises and works out the entailment thereby possesses a compelling reason to accept its conclusion. By contrast with viciously circular arguments, coming to accept (12)'s conclusion on the basis of its premises amounts to a cognitive achievement. Let's now compare some conceptually circular arguments such as 13 1. Salsa is music for dancers. 2. Salsa is music for those who dance. 14 1. Andrew is a bachelor. 2. Andrew is unmarried. 15 1. She has drawn an isosceles triangle. 2. She has drawn a triangle. All three of these arguments are valid: if their premises are true, their conclusions must be true, as well. Yet under ordinary circumstances, each begs the question, for in each case acceptance of its premise requires a previous acceptance of the conclusion. No logical thinker who disputed the conclusion could be compelled to accept it on the basis of the argument's premise and recognition of the argument's validity. But consider 16 1. The Moon orbits the Earth. 2. The Moon is a large celestial body. 3. Any large celestial body that orbits a planet is a satellite. 4. The Moon is a satellite. z 0 1- (/) w :::J a w I 1- (') z (') (') w OJ N 00 0 IJj 0 z ::::) 0 a: CJ (/) zz ::::) 0 CJ i= z 0.. - � e ::::i 0 (/) > (/)
<( <( Although in (16) there is some conceptual circularity between the concepts 'satellite' and 'large celestial body that orbits a planet,' this does not make the argument question-begging. For a logical thinker who lacked some basic astronomical knowledge and initially doubted claim 4 could be persuaded to accept it on the basis of deducing it from 1, 2, and 3, provided that she were led to recognize the acceptability of those premises and the validity of the argument. An important point to keep in mind is that Logical circularity, whether formal or conceptual, comes in degrees. Some valid arguments have more circularity than others. The more logically circular an argument is, the more its conclusion follows trivially from its premises and is likely to beg the question. The Burden of Proof It is not uncommon to find the expression 'burden of proof' in dialectical contexts, which are situations involving deliberation among two or more parties, such as a debate, controversy, or deliberation on a disputed question between opposing sides defending incompatible claims. 'Burden of proof' refers to the obligation to take a turn in offering reasons, which, at any given stage of the deliberation, is on one side or the other (except for the paradoxical situations discussed below). A deliberation commonly follows this pattern: one party, C, makes a claim. The other party, 0, replies by raising some objections to it. If these objections are adequate, the burden of proof is now on C, who must get rid of (or 'discharge') it by offering reasons for her claim. If she comes up with a sound or strong argument that outweighs O's argument, the burden of proof then switches to 0, who must try to discharge it by offering the appropriate arguments. It may happen, however, that the reasons on both sides appear equally strong. As a result, there would then be a dialectical impasse, or standoff in the deliberation. No progress can be made until new reasons are offered to resolve the conflict. Except for these situations, however, we may expect that the burden of proof will, at any given stage of a deliberation, be on either the one side or the other. As the deliberation progresses, it will likely switch from the one side to the other more than once, always falling on the participant whose claim is more in need of support. BOX 4 ■ WHERE IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF? In the following debate,® shows the burden of proof andQan impasse. 1. A rejects a claim made by!!, which is a commonly held belie£®A 2. A defends her rejection with an argument that begs the question against!!-® A 3. A recasts her argument so that it now seems cogent.®!! 4. !! offers an argument that turns out to be clearly invalid.®!! 5. !!'s argument is modified and now seems as cogent as A's.Q 6. A provides further strong evidence in support of her view.®!! 7. !! replies by offering weak evidence for his view.®!! 8. !! offers further evidence which is equally strong as A's.Q Commonsense beliefs, which are ordinary beliefs based on observation, memory, and inference, enjoy a privileged standing with respect to the burden of proof. Whoever challenges them has, at least initially, the burden of proof. For example, the belief that the Earth has existed for more than five minutes belongs to common sense. If someone challenges it, the burden of proof is on the challenger, who must now offer adequate reasons against that commonsense belief. But that advantage can be overridden by a strong argument if available. Knowing where the burden of proof is at any given stage of a debate has this cash value: ■ If you know that the burden of proof is on you, you know you must discharge it by offering an adequate argument in support of your claim. ■ If you know that the burden of proof is on the other side, you can rest until a sound objection to your view has been offered. ■ If you know that you are defending a claim that is part of common sense, then you also know that the burden of proof is on any challenger. Finally, note that some deliberation goes on 'internally'-for example, when a person reflects upon which of two opposite theories is correct. If, in the course of inner delibera­ tion, a thinker is fair-minded, then the burden of proof will tend to shift from one position she is considering to an opposite view, following the same general considerations outlined above. BOX 5 ■ RATIONAL DELIBERATION EITHER ON ONE SIDE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, OR 8.3 Begging the Question Against THERE IS AN IMPASSE A common mistake that undermines argument is committed by failing to discharge the burden of proof. Suppose that we assert 'Not P' (i.e., that Pis false), but someone else, Melinda, has just offered us some good reason for thinking that P is true. BOX 6 ■ HOW TO AVOID BEGGING THE QUESTION AGAINST Don't include any controversial statement among your premises without first offering adequate reasons for it. I­ (/) z <( (') <( z 0 I­ (/) LiJ =i a LiJ I I- (') z (') (') LiJ (l] "'. co 11111 0 UJ 0 z :::) 0 0: 0 (f) zz :::) 0 0 f'.= z a. -� e ::::i 0 (f) > (f) <( <( The burden of proof is now on us, and we must discharge it by offering an adequate argument against P. The failure to do so-by assuming that P is false, without offering a reason for this-commits the fallacy of begging the question against Melinda. For it amounts to implicitly reasoning in either of these viciously circular forms: 17 1. P is false 2. P is false Or similarly, 18 1. NotP 2. Not P The fallacy of begging the question against (your opponent) is often committed in everyday arguments on controversial topics. For example, when someone maintains 19 1. In abortion, the fetus is intentionally killed. 2. A fetus is an innocent person. 3. Intentionally killing an innocent person is always murder. 4. Abortion is always murder. Although 1 seems unobjectionable, 2 and 3 are controversial premises that cannot be employed unless good reasons have already been offered to back them up. Premise 2 begs the question against the view that a fetus is not a person-a view that can be supported in a number of ways (as most parties to the current popular debate over the morality of abortion now recognize). Begging the question against can be difficult to detect, for it involves presupposing the truth of premises that, although controversial, are sometimes inadvertently taken for granted. To avoid this fallacy, always abide by the rule in Box 6 above. BOX 7 ■ SECTION SUMMARY 1. When an argument begs the question, at least one premise assumes the conclusion being argued for. 2. When an argument begs the question against, at least one premise assumes something that is in need of support. Exercises 1 . What do all fallacies of presumption have in common? 2. What does it mean for an argument to be 'circular'? Is all circularity bad? 2. Define non-cogency in relation to begging the question. 3. What's wrong with a question begging argument? 4. What is the fallacy of begging the question against? How does it differ from begging the question? 5. Against whom is the question begged in any argument that begs the question against? 6. Could the conclusion of a question-begging argument be true? Explain. 7. What is meant by burden of proof? How do commonsense beliefs matter to it? 8. Where is the burden of proof at each stage of a deliberation? II. Each of the following arguments begs the question. Explain why. 1. Dylan is a brother. Therefore, Dylan has a sibling. SAMPLE ANSWER: The logical thinker who rejects the conclusion would reject that Dylan is a brother. 2. Capital punishment is cruel, for it is cruel and unusual punishment. And it's demeaning to the society that inflicts it. *3. The mind is different from the body. Hence, the mind and the body are not the same. 4. Mount Aconcagua and Mount Whitney are both tall mountains. But Mount Aconcagua is taller than Mount Whitney. Consequently, Mount Whitney is shorter than Mount Aconcagua. *5. Demons are supernatural beings. Supernatural beings are only fictional. Therefore, demons do not exist. 6. Dorothy is a historian. For, she is a historian and art collector. *7. Since Aaron is a hunter, he is someone who hunts. 8. The U.S. president and the British prime minister both oppose the treaty. Hence, it's false that both leaders do not oppose the treaty. *9. If a plane figure is a circle, then it is not a rectangle. Therefore, if the figure is a rectangle, then it is not a circle. 10. The first witness is not trustworthy, since he is not reliable. Ill. [Note: This exercise is somewhat more challenging.] For each of the above arguments, determine whether the circularity is formal, conceptual, or both. IV. For each of the following arguments, determine whether it would, under normal circumstances, beg the question, beg the question against, or do both. 1. Whoever is less productive should have lower wages. Women are less productive than men. Hence, women should have lower wages. SAMPLE ANSWER: Begs the question against 2. Euthanasia is murder and is wrong. So, euthanasia is wrong. *3. Fido is a puppy. Therefore, Fido is a young dog. 4. A woman has an absolute right to control her own body. And if a woman has an absolute right to control her own body, then abortion is morally permissible. Therefore, abortion is morally permissible. *5. Since the Democrats won the '08 presidential election, it is simply false that they didn't win. 6. Derek Jeter has an insurance policy on his cars, for it is not the case that his cars lack such a policy. *7. The fetus is an unborn baby. Therefore, it is not the case that the fetus is not an unborn baby. 8. Anyone who is an idealist is also a loser. Thus idealists are losers. 9. Vladimir is a bachelor. Therefore, Vladimir is unmarried. f--­ (/) z <( CJ
0
a:
CJ (/)

zz
:::> 0
CJ 1-
z 0…
-�
9 :::>
0 (/)
> (/)
<( <( 11&1 *10. Infanticide is always morally wrong. So, infanticide is never morally right. 11. If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then life on Earth is not unique. But life on Earth is unique. Hence, there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. 12. The right to life is God's will. Therefore, the right to life is the will of Divine Providence. *13. Given atheism, God doesn't exist. But it is not the case that He doesn't exist, so atheism is mistaken. 14. Priscilla got a B on her philosophy paper this semester. Therefore, she turned in a philosophy paper this semester. 15. There is life after death. Therefore, there is an afterlife. *16. Since no person should be denied freedom, and Bruno is a person, it follows that Bruno is entitled to freedom. 17. Magdalene is a sister. Therefore, she is a female. 18. Since capital punishment is murder, capital punishment is wrongful killing. *19. Northfield is not far from Minneapolis. Thus Northfield is close to Minneapolis. 20. Socialism is an unjust system of government. Unjust systems of government must be abolished. Therefore, socialism must be abolished. V. Determine whether the following arguments are possible or impossible. 1. An argument that is cogent for a logical thinker but not rationally compelling. SAMPLE ANSWER: Impossible 2. A valid argument that is non-cogent. 3. A sound argument that is non-cogent. *4. A question-begging argument that is not circular. 5. A circular argument that is not fallacious. *6. A cogent argument that begs the question against. 7. A sound argument that is cogent. *8. A question-begging argument that is sound. 9. A question-begging argument that is rationally compelling. *1 0. The burden of proof being on the side that has offered the most cogent argument. VI. In the deliberation described below, determine where the burden of proof lies at each stage: if on Carolyn, write 'C'; if on Karl, write 'K'; and if there is a dialectical impasse, write 'I.' 1. C rejects a commonsense belief held by K. SAMPLE ANSWER: C 2. C defends her rejection with an argument that begs the question against K. 3. C recasts her argument in a way that makes it clearly unsound. *4. C offers a new argument that turns out be invalid. 5. C's argument undergoes another recast that makes it cogent. *6. K advances a valid yet question-begging argument against C. 7. K offers a non-question-begging argument with clearly false premises. *8. K recasts his argument so that it is now as cogent as C's. VII. In the following deliberation, either Sor O has the burden of proof. Identify which has it at any given stage in the deliberation, and mark dialectical impasses. Explain your choice. 1. S makes a claim that challenges a commonly held belief. SAMPLE ANSWER: Burden of proof on S. When commonsense beliefs are at issue, the burden of proof is on the challenger. 2. S attempts to support her claim by offering an inductively weak argument. *3. S recasts her argument so that it is now clearly valid but unsound. 4. S recasts her argument again so that it is now sound but question-begging. *5. S's argument undergoes another recast that makes it deductively cogent. 6. 0 responds with a valid argument that begs the question against S. *7. 0 recasts her argument so that it is now non-question-begging but plainly unsound. 8. 0 recasts her argument once more so that it is now as cogent as S's argument. VIII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB *1. Consider the following argument: "Marriage can be only between two persons of different sexes. Therefore, gay couples cannot be married." What's the matter with this argument? 2. Provide an argument that both begs the question and begs the question against. 3. Provide an argument that begs the question without begging the question against. 4. Provide an argument that begs the question against without begging the question. *5. Discuss the conditions an argument must meet to be deductively cogent. *6. An argument that is invalid always falls short of being rationally compelling, but could such an argument be cogent? Must its conclusion be rejected? Explain your answers. 7. Imagine a debate in which two rival claims are equally well supported by observational data. Of the two, one agrees with common sense, the other doesn't. Does this make a difference? Where is the burden of proof? Explain. 8. Discuss what's wrong with an argument that begs the question. 9. Discuss what's wrong with an argument that begs the question against. I­ (/) z <( 0 (/)
<( <( - *10. Suppose you are engaged in a rational debate. Your opponent has just offered a seemingly adequate argument for a claim that you wish to reject. Where is the burden of proof? What does 'burden of proof' mean? 8.4 Complex Question Another fallacy of presumption is complex question, which is a pattern of mistake in asking a question that can be answered only by yes or no, but which assumes either 1. that there is only one question when there are in fact two or more, each with its own answer, or 2. that some claim is true when in fact it is either false or, at the very least, doubtful. Whenever this fallacy is committed, the question being asked is unfair because it has an unjustified assumption embedded within it, in one or the other of these two ways. An example of 1 would be a question one can imagine being asked of a presidential candidate: 20 If elected, would you continue the best traditions of your party and promote wasteful spending on welfare programs that only encourage laziness? Yes or no? Clearly, this is not one question but two. The candidate may indeed want to continue the best traditions of his party but also have no intention of promoting "wasteful spending on welfare programs that only encourage laziness." But the interlocutor is demanding a yes or no on the whole query at once and not allowing him to divide the question. An example of 2 would be a question that is implicitly critical of the person being queried. A classic case of this is that of a man who's asked, 21 Have you stopped beating your wife? Here a 'yes' is just as bad as a 'no,' because it seems to follow from this question that the addressee was engaged in wife beating. Questions of this sort are unfair, since the person queried will convict himself with either answer. (Note, however, that context does matter. If a man is actually known to be a wife beater, then posing (21) to him would not commit a fallacy.) Consider another example: 'Tyler is a high school student who plays in a punk-rock band. He has multiple piercings and tattoos but has never used drugs of any kind. One evening he has a date with Dahlia to go to the movies. But when he arrives to pick her up, he meets her father, who regards him with suspicion and says, 22 Before you take my daughter to the movies, I must ask you this: do you intend to conceal from me your history of marijuana use? Now, what is the correct answer to this? Obviously, 'Tyler doesn't want to answer 'yes.' But if he answers 'no,' then that is equally to admit to marijuana use (something he's innocent of). Either answer will convict him. Notice, however, that that is only because the question itself is unfair. It assumes-without any supporting evidence-that the young man has used marijuana! It's not difficult to see the mistake here. But how is this an argument? First, the question asks whether or not Tyler intends to conceal his history of marijuana use. If he does, then he has a history of marijuana use. And if he doesn't, then he also has a history of marijuana use. Assuming that he either does or doesn't, it follows that he has a history of marijuana use. But there is a problem with these premises, since they rest on an assumption that is false­ namely, that the person queried ('Tyler) does have a history of marijuana use. Yet not all arguments that commit the complex-question fallacy are intended specifically to trap an individual. Some consist simply in questions phrased so that any answer a respondent gives to them must necessarily endorse an unsupported assumption built into the question itself. Suppose that a politician, in a speech, asks, 23 Does my opponent agree with the president's disastrous economic policy which is now leading our nation to ruin? Because the question assumes (without anything in the context making it plausible) that the president's economic policy is 'disastrous,' and that it is 'leading our nation to ruin,' anyone who responds to (23), either in the affirmative or in the negative, will be implicitly endorsing those views! Again, a fallacy of complex question has been committed, in this case by the politician. To a complex question, it seems, any answer is a wrong answer. But that is only because there is something wrong with the question itself. It is phrased so that it assumes something not yet supported. BOX 8 ■ HOW TO AVOID COMPLEX QUESTION Beware of any yes/no question presupposing that, if the answer is yes, a questionable proposition P (for which no argument has been offered) follows, and if you answer is no, P also follows. 8.5 False Alternatives False alternatives is a defect in reasoning that might affect an argument containing a disjunction as premise. A disjunction is a compound proposition with two members or 'disjuncts.' An exclusive disjunction has the form 24 Either P or Q.(but not both). Here P and Q represent propositions standing as exclusive alternatives, because if one is true, the other is false and vice versa. For example, 25 Either the groundhog hibernates during the winter or it continues in a state of animation. This is an exclusive disjunction, since it presupposes that exactly one of the alternatives is true. By contrast, consider the inclusive disjunction 26 Apples that are either too small or too ripe are discarded. (j) w >

I­
<( z a: w <( w (j) .....J it LO co 0 w 0 z ::) 0 a: 0 (/) zz ::) 0 0 i= z D... -� g ::) 0 (/) > (/)
(/)
(f)
<{ <{ El XI. The following arguments are instances of begging the question, begging the question against, complex question, false alternatives, or accident. Determine which is which. (Note that in some cases an argument could both beg the question and beg the question against.) 1. Jane has to come to work. She may be sick, as she says, but she is needed in the office. Whenever an employee is needed in the office, she must show up. SAMPLE ANSWER: Accident 2. Women should not be deployed for military service, because no woman should serve in the military. 3. We've had record hot weather for two weeks. In a heat wave as bad as this, there are only two options: either one spends all day complaining about it, or one shuts up and goes about one's work. So we'll have to go on with our work, since complaining is not an option for us. *4. Is MacKenzie still forcing his employees to use obsolete technology in his office? 5. Everyone should get some strenuous physical exercise every day, like running a mile before breakfast. So, my Uncle Olaf, who is ninety-seven years old, ought to run a mile every day before breakfast. *6. To be wealthy, you have to be either a Wall Street financier or a drug dealer. You are wealthy, but you are not a Wall Street financier. It follows that you are a drug dealer. 7. Have they given up yet on casting a short blond actor, Daniel Craig, as James Bond? 8. Sarah had better marry Dombrowsky. For either she marries him or ends up single. *9. In general, any average person's statistical chance of suffering a gunshot wound is minimal. So I'm not worried about my friend Al, who just joined the police force. 10. Did Melissa manage to get along with Justin? 11. Was he able to stay out of trouble during his last visit? *12. Murderers don't have a right to life. Since Joe is a murderer, he doesn't have a right to life. 13. Certainly there is life after death, since there are people who have lived previous lives and have memories of those earlier selves long ago. 14. The law clearly states that if citizens fail to pay their taxes, they'll be prosecuted. So my four-year-old cousin Egbert should be prosecuted! After all, I happen to know that he paid no taxes last year. *15. Do you support Senator Krank's ridiculous school appropriations bill, which would bankrupt our state government? 16. Martial arts are either taekwondo or jujitsu. Yoshizuki is trained in the martial arts, but he doesn't practice taekwondo. Therefore, he practices jujitsu. *17. It will surely be in the interest of the United States to abolish tariffs on commerce with nations south of the Rio Grande, for free trade with Latin America can only be in the interest of the United States. 18. Do you really want to pass up your chance of a lifetime to invest in Swampwood Estates, Florida's most exclusive and luxurious new residential neighborhood? 19. Were you sober last weekend? *20. I can say whatever I want about my neighbor, O'Connor. Whether it's true or not, I can say it, and no one can stop me! After all, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech in the United States. 21. If there is no substantial economic growth in our country this year, then either there will be disruptive social upheaval or the military will overthrow the government. We're at a point now where there could only be minimal economic growth. Therefore, we can expect a military overthrow of the government to happen soon. *22. Lakeesha's donation of her prize money to AIDS research was selfless. It follows that her action was not selfish. 23. Either the United States invades Mexico or drugs cartels continue to destabilize Mexican society. Since the United States won't intervene, it follows that drugs cartels continue to destabilize Mexican society. 24. Since media literacy is a proven tool against crime, it could be used to reform convicted murderers. *25. Abigail has been reporting intractable insomnia since 1999. A warm glass of milk before going to bed should end the problem for her. After all, it helps others to sleep well. XII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB *1. 'If a principle has proved to be generally true or reliable, it's probably true all of the time.' Should we agree with this rule? Explain your answer. 2. Suppose I find in an argument some premise that itself can be accepted only if the conclusion has already been accepted. What's wrong with the argument? Explain the fallacy it commits. 3. Provide two circular arguments, one that begs the question and one that doesn't. What's wrong with those arguments? *4. Ask a complex question and explain why it is a fallacy. ■ Writing Project The principle that we should be tolerant of the beliefs and actions of others is highly regarded in our culture. Find at least three examples of current beliefs or actions that you think fall beyond the reach of that principle and write a short essay entitled "Beyond Tolerance." In each case, first construct an argument where that principle is used to contend that some episode (of hate speech, Holocaust denial, terrorism, etc.) should be tolerated. Then explain why the argument fails by showing that it commits the fallacy of accident. ■ Chapter Summary Fallacies of Presumption: They make an argument fail in virtue of some unwarranted assumption built into its premises. The argument seems OK only when the assumption is made. They include: 1. Begging the Question. The argument features at least one premise that itself depends on the conclusion's being true, so that it can be accepted only if one has already accepted the conclusion. 2. Begging the Question Against. The argument features at least one controversial premise that is assumed to be true but not argued for. Note: when a claim is controversial, an argument that commits this fallacy is no help in discharging the burden of proof. >­
a:
<( � � :::, (J) a: w l­ o.. <( I 0 0 UJ 0 z :::, 0 a: CJ (j) zz :::, 0 CJ f­ z 0.. -� �:::, 0 (j) > (j)
< < - 3. Complex Question. The question either has an unsupported assumption built into it or is a conflation of two or more different questions. 4. False Alternatives. The argument features a premise with a disjunction, mistakenly taking it to be either exclusive, when in fact both disjuncts could be true, or exhaustive, when in fact there is a third alternative. 5. Accident. The argument assumes that some principle generally applicable is applicable also in the anomalous case, when in fact it isn't. ■ Key Words Presumption Begging the question Begging the question against Burden of proof Commonsense belief Vicious circularity Formal circularity Conceptual circularity Complex question False alternatives Accident Benign circularity CHAPTER From Unclear Language to Unclear Reasoning This chapter considers some common forms of unclarity in language, and the ways in which they lead to unclarity in reasoning. Its topics will include Three types of linguistic unclarity that may lead to fallacies: vagueness, ambiguity, and confused predication. ■ The heap paradox. ■ The fallacy of slippery slope. The fallacy of equivocation. ■ The fallacy of amphiboly. ■ The fallacy of composition. The fallacy of division. 187 w 00 �z 0z zo <( (fJ _J <( a: w <( a: w a: _J <( Ow z _J :::> 0
LZ
0 :::> a: 0 u.. f-

laP.P.I
….

9.1 Unclear Language and Argument Failure

Vagueness, ambiguity, and confused predication are three different sources of unclear
language. Each may lead to argument failure, and we shall find, rooted in these defects, several
types of informal fallacy as well as a type of puzzling argument. When an expression is vague
to a significant degree, it is unclear whether it applies to certain things. For instance, it’s
unclear whether ‘rich’ applies to Betty, who has $900,000 in her bank account. She’s certainly
doing well, but she’s not even a millionaire, much less a billionaire! The problem is that ‘rich’ is
a vague word: for some cases, it’s not clear what (or who) counts as being ‘rich.’ By contrast,
when an expression is ambiguous to a significant degree, it has more than one meaning and
reference, and it is unclear which one is intended by its user. For example, it is unclear whether
“challenging arguments” means either the act of disputing some arguments or complex
arguments that are difficult to follow. Roughly, the reference of an expression is what the
expression applies to, while its meaning is its content. Consider

1 The sum of 1+1

2 The smallest even number.

Both (1) and (2) may be used to refer to the same thing, since they both apply to the same
number-namely, the number 2. Yet (1) and (2) don’t have the same content, which is equivalent
to saying that they don’t have the same meaning, for

MEANING = CONTENT

Since reference and meaning belong to the semantic dimension of a language, vagueness and
ambiguity are two different forms of semantic unclarity. Each may undermine an argument by
affecting some of the terms or concepts that make up its premises and conclusion.

Confused predication, on the other hand, also amounts to semantic unclarity, but it can
arise only at the level of relations between statements in an argument. That is, confused predi­
cation is a fallacy involving a certain error committed in using some predicate, or expression
that attributes some feature or quality to a thing- for example, ‘occupying 60 percent of the
surface of the Earth’ in the conclusion of this argument:

3 Since oceans occupy 60 percent of the surface of the Earth and the Mediterranean is
an ocean, therefore the Mediterranean occupies 60 percent of the surface of the
Earth.

While ‘occupying 60 percent of the surface of the Earth’ might be truly predicated of all oceans
taken collectively, it obviously fails to be true of the Mediterranean Sea. The confusion in (3) is
a common type of mistake that stems from an erroneous inference involving a predicate (we’ll
have more to say about predicates later in this chapter).

Linguistic unclarity rooted in any of these phenomena (confused predication, vagueness,
or ambiguity) can render an argument fallacious. Yet before we examine common ways
in which this may happen, we must ask why such mistakes matter to logical thinking at all.

BOX 1 ■ SOME FALLACIES OF UNCLEAR LANGUAGE AND

A PARADOX

I
Heap

I paradox
Vagueness

Slippery

Slope

Equivocation
UNCLEAR

Ambiguity
LANGUAGE

Amphiboly

Composition
Confused

Predication
Division

Two millennia ago, Greek philosophers pointed out that unclarity in language is a sign of
unclarity in reasoning. Today we’d say much the same. Assuming that speakers are sincere,

what they say is what they believe. And since beliefs are the building blocks of their reasoning,
it is then quite likely that any unclarity in what they say results from unclarity in how they rea­

son (for more on this topic, see Chapters 2. and 3).

9.2 Semantic Unclarity

Vagueness and ambiguity are forms of semantic unclarity that may affect linguistic expressions
of different kinds, as well as the logical relations between them. When an expression is vague, it
is unclear whether or not certain cases fall within its reference. When an expression is ambiguous,

it is unclear which of its possible meanings is the one intended by the speaker. Suppose some­

one says

4 She got the cup.

Furthermore, this is said in a room where there are several women, without pointing to any­
one in particular. In this context, it is unclear to whom the word ‘she’ applies. At the same time,
the term ‘cup’ is ambiguous, since it may equally mean and refer to either ‘bowl-shaped drink­

ing vessel’ or ‘sports trophy.’ Furthermore, if we assume that it is used to refer to a drinking
vessel, it is unclear just how wide the range of its application may be. Does it apply, for exam­

ple, to coffee mugs? What about beer tankards? These seem borderline cases about which ‘cup’
neither definitely applies nor definitely fails to apply. Hence, ‘cup’ is not only ambiguous, but
also to some degree vague.

a:

_J

u
z
::J

u

f-

z
0
zZ
0 ::>
a: 0
u.. I-

BOX 2 ■ VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY

■ When an expression is vague, there are borderline cases where it is unclear whether the
expression applies.

■ When an expression is ambiguous, it has more than one meaning and sometimes more than
one reference.

Vagueness and ambiguity are, however, also found at a higher level in the statements that

make up arguments. Here the worst-case scenario is one where a defect of either type renders

an argument misleading. In any such argument, although its conclusion might at first appear

acceptable on the basis of the argument’s premises, a closer look could show that in fact it’s

not. The premises actually provide no support for it.

Logical thinkers should be alert for misleading arguments and try, through careful, case­

by-case scrutiny, to unmask fallacies lurking behind vague or ambiguous language.

These two forms of semantic unclarity are unavoidable features of many everyday

arguments. Such arguments are, after all, cast in a natural language, which, unlike a formal

language, is rich in semantic connotations. For example, suppose that a college instructor, on

the day of an examination, receives this phone message on her answering machine:

5 This is Mary. I was at the bank during the test, so I’d like to take the makeup.

Unable to recognize the voice, and aware of several financial institutions as well as a river

nearby, the instructor cannot make much of (5). For one thing, of the several students

named ‘Mary’ who missed the exam, it is unclear who the caller in (s) is. Furthermore, of the

two meanings of ‘bank’ possible in (5), either ‘financial institution’ or ‘side of a river,’ it is

unclear which one is intended. Suppose the student who left the message later sends a note

from the local Citibank branch attesting that, on the date of the exam, she, Mary McDonald,

had to go there to refinance her mortgage. Putting two and two together, the instructor

reasons that

6 Mary McDonald was the student who reported her absence. She can prove she was at

the local Citibank branch the day of the exam. Thus she qualifies for the makeup.

No ambiguity remains now: a look at contextual information has eliminated the semantic

unclarity in (s) above.

Yet sometimes semantic unclarity bearing on the soundness or strength of an argument

persists even after we have engaged in a charitable and faithful reconstruction of the argu­

ment. In that case, we must reject the argument on the ground that its premises provide no

support for its conclusion, even though they might at first appear to support it. As we shall

presently see in detail, each of these two types of semantic unclarity can render an argument

misleading.

BOX 3 ■ HOW TO AVOID AMBIGUITY AND VAGUENESS

Ambiguity and vagueness are a matter of degree. Although they affect most expressions in
natural languages (which is in part why symbolic logic has developed formal languages to study
logical relations such as inference), the fog they raise can often be thinned by looking at the context

that is, other linguistic expressions surrounding the affected ones, and factors in the arguer’s
environment. When we are engaged in argument reconstruction, the principles of charity and
faithfulness recommend that we check the context, when available, to gain semantic clarity.

9.3 Vagueness

Vagueness is at the root of some philosophically interesting puzzling arguments and also of
many fallacious ones. Later in this section, we’ll examine some cases of each. But first, let’s
consider a shortcoming common to all arguments affected by vagueness: indeterminacy.

When either the premise or conclusion of an argument is significantly vague, that

statement is indeterminate: neither determinately true nor determinately false. Such

indeterminacy undermines the argument as a whole.

This is because, as you may recall, to be deductively sound or inductively strong, an argu­
ment must have premises that are determinately true. Without that, it counts as neither.
Consider this argument:

7 1. Tall buildings in Chicago are in danger of terrorist attacks.
2. The 30-story Nussbaum Building in Chicago is a tall building.
3. The 30-story Nussbaum Building in Chicago is in danger of terrorist attacks.

This argument seems valid, since if its premises are true, its conclusion cannot be false. At the
same time, it also seems unsound, for soundness requires determinately true premises, and
premise 2 suffers from a significant degree of vagueness: putting aside the problem that tall­
ness is relative, although a 100-story building is clearly tall (even by Chicago standards) and a

2-story building clearly not tall, it is unclear whether a 30-story building is tall in Chicago. No
contextual information is available to reduce the vagueness of premise 2, which results from
the two facts described in Box 4. The problem is that there is no determinate point or cutoff
between tall Chicago buildings and Chicago buildings that are not tall.

BOX 4 ■ WHAT’S WRONG WITH ARGUMENT 7?

1. It uses the expression ‘tall,’ which has no clear cutoff point between the cases to which it
determinately applies and those to which it determinately does not apply.

2. The 30-story Nussbaum Building is among the borderline cases of things about which it is
indeterminate whether that word applies or not. It is neither determinately tall nor
determinately not tall.

(/)
(/)
w
z
w
::J
0
<( >

(‘)

0)

w

(.’) (.’) <( z :J - CJ z zo <( (j) _J <( a: w <( a: w a: _J <( Ow z _J :J 0 �z 0 :J a: 0 LL f- When a statement has a vague term applied to a borderline case, that statement is neither determinately true nor determinately false. Try this yourself: run another series with, for example, 'cold,' beginning with the determinately true statement, 'A temperature of zero degrees Fahrenheit is cold,' and continuing to a point where you 'cannot draw the line.' Is it 47 degrees? 48 degrees? 50? Again, any cutoff point in the series would be rather arbitrary. Keep in mind, however, that vague terms may have non-vague occurrences. Compare 8 The 30-story Nussbaum Building is tall. 9 The 100-story John Hancock Building is tall. 10 The one-story Exxon Station on Route 10 is tall. While (8) is indeterminate, (9) seems determinately true and (10) determinately false. BOX 5 ■ SUMMARY OF VAGUENESS When a term is vague, ■ It is indeterminate whether it applies or not to certain borderline cases. ■ There is no cutoff between the cases to which it determinately applies and those to which it determinately does not. When a statement is vague, it is neither determinately true nor determinately false. The Heap Paradox Every bit as puzzling to us today as it was to the philosophers of ancient Greece who discov­ ered it is the heap paradox, also called 'argument from the heap' or 'sorites' (from the Greek, soros, 'a heap'). The argument begins with obviously true premises, but, because they contain a vague term, ends with an obviously false conclusion: 11 1. One grain of sand is not a heap. 2. If 1 grain of sand is not a heap, then 2 grains of sand are not a heap. 3. If 2 grains of sand are not a heap, then 3 grains of sand are not a heap. 4. If 3 grains of sand are not a heap, then 4 grains of sand are not a heap. 5. If 4 grains of sand are not a heap, then ... 6. A large number (say, a million) grains of sand are not a heap. Given (u), no matter how many grains of sand there are, they never make up a heap. Something has gone wrong in (u), but since it is difficult to tell what, (11) is a puzzle or para­ dox. After all, it seems that, A. The argument is valid. B. Its premises are true. C. Its conclusion is false. D. But a valid argument can't have true premises and a false conclusion. Like other heap arguments, (11) then creates a paradox, for D is true by definition of 'valid argument.' Therefore, A, B, and C cannot all be true, but it is difficult to say which of them is false. A paradox is a puzzle without apparent solution involving claims that cannot all be true at once, even though each seems independently true. Standardly, a paradox may be dealt with in one or the other of two ways: it may be solved or it may be dissolved. To solve a paradox, at least one of its claims must be shown false. To dissolve it, it has to be shown that the claims are not really inconsistent. Until we do either the one or the other, the paradox remains. Since antiquity, the heap paradox has resisted many attempts of both kinds, all of which have turned out to be flawed in one way or another. Let's now use another vague word, 'child,' to run a simplified heap paradox. 12 1. A 3-year-old is a child. 2. If a 3-year-old is a child, then a 4-year-old is a child. 3. If a 4-year-old is a child, then ... 4. A 90-year-old is a child. Again, the argument seems valid, its premises true, and its conclusion false. Premise 2 suggest a chain of premises such as 13 If a 4-year-old is a child, then a 5-year-old is a child. 14 If a 5-year-old is a child, then a 6-year-old is a child. The series eventually reaches borderline cases such as a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old, about whom to the term 'child' neither clearly applies nor doesn't apply. There is no cutoff point between these and the previous cases, to which the word clearly applies. Or between these and the following case, to which the word clearly doesn't apply: 15 A no-year-old person is a child. The unclarity affecting (12), then, is owing to the vagueness of the word 'child.' More needs to be said about what goes wrong in the heap argument, but on the basis of its puzzling aspects, it has all the marks of a paradox. The above arguments run into the heap paradox because they feature words such as 'heap' and 'child,' which are affected by vagueness. (/) (/) w z w :J 0 <( C? Ol ml w C) C) <{ z ::J - C) z zo <{ (/) ....J <{ a: w <{ a: w a: ....J <{ Ow z ....J ::J 0 �z 0 ::J a: 0 lJ.. I- IDI The Slippery-Slope Fallacy By contrast with the heap paradox, we can tell what has gone wrong in arguments that commit the fallacy of concern here: A slippery-slope argument proceeds from a premise about a harmless scenario to one or more premises about apparently similar scenarios that are taken to have unwelcome consequences, either flouting well-accepted rules or leading to disaster. The argument would commit a fallacy just in case there is no good reason to think ■ That the scenarios in question are analogous in the way assumed in the argument, or ■ That the chain of events envisioned will in fact happen as assumed in the argument. Thus arguments that commit this fallacy begin with a premise that seems clearly true and move through a continuum of cases to a conclusion that appears to be the unavoidable result of sound reasoning. Yet close scrutiny often shows that it isn't sound. Imagine two arguments on opposite sides of a City Council debate on whether to enact legislation requiring registration of handguns. 16 Council Member Robinson argues, "If we pass a law requiring registration of handguns, that will lead inevitably to other laws requiring registration of all firearms, including hunting weapons. And that will then mean that the government will have a list of all the gun owners. But if the government has such a list, the next inevitable step is the confiscation of all weapons by the government. From this, it is but a small step to dictatorship and the end of freedom." 16' Council Member Richardson replies, "If we fail to pass a law requiring the registra­ tion of handguns, these guns will become easier and easier to obtain. And this will mean that criminals and psychopaths of every description will have their pick of dangerous firearms, including assault weapons. If that happens, crime will increase exponentially and our cities will become lawless battlefields. Ultimately, all social order will break down. Armed thugs will run roughshod over the rights of citizens as our nation descends into anarchy." The thing to notice in this debate is that both of these arguments commit the slippery-slope fallacy. They both begin by issuing a warning about an apparently innocent first step and then predict a succession of worsening conditions, leading ultimately to disaster, if the initial step is taken (Robinson) or not taken (Richardson). But is there really any good reason to think that the hopeless slide to catastrophe envisioned in either of these two very different arguments really would happen? Of course, such things could happen. But we're not justified in believing it would on the basis of the "reasons" presented here. Both of these council members are offering arguments that are little more that speculative fearmongering and hype. They plainly commit slippery slope. In a different variant of the slippery-slope argument, an argument may fail because there is no good reason to think that an assumed similarity between premises actually obtains. Suppose you arrive five minutes late to a wedding without making much of it. The conven­ tional rule is that arriving, say, sixty minutes late to a wedding is a serious breach of etiquette and therefore not acceptable. Someone thinks that your five-minute delay is not acceptable, because allowing it is not significantly different from allowing a sixty-minute delay, which would in effect overthrow that rule altogether. This example of slippery-slope fallacy runs, 17 Whatever justifies arriving five minutes late to a wedding would justify arriving six minutes late, seven minutes late, ... and even sixty minutes late! Thus accepting a justification for arriving five minutes late would amount to overthrowing an important social convention. Clearly there is a kind of reasoning by analogy here, since consistency requires that we treat like cases alike, ascribing the same qualities to each pair of relevantly similar cases in the series (six minutes late is not much different from seven minutes late, which is itself not much different from eight minutes late, etc.). But the background assumption seems to be that a sequence of small differences can never amount to a substantial difference between any two points in the sequence. And that's plainly false. Small differences can sometimes add up to a big difference in the end. Furthermore, even in the comparison of two similar cases, it may turn out that some predicates are true of one without being true of the other. For example, on some highways the law stipulates a speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Now, there is no significant difference in speed between 70 miles per hour and 71 miles per hour; but because of the law, driving at 70 miles per hour on those highways is legal, while driving at 71 is technically illegal. So the predicate 'legal' truly applies in one case but not in the other, even though they are otherwise not substantially different. We may conclude that any argument committing the slippery-slope fallacy rests on this false principle: What is true of A is also true of Z, provided there is a series of cases B, C, ... , Y between A and Z that differ from each other only minimally. BOX 6 ■ HOW TO AVOID THE SLIPPERY-SLOPE FALLACY Reject the principle fueling a slippery-slope argument, for that something is true of some given case doesn't guarantee that it's likewise true of any other similar case. Although it is reasonable that similar cases share many predicates, small differences in a series of cases can add up to a big difference between the initial case and the one featured in the slippery-slope argument's conclusion. The slippery-slope arguer fails to take this into account. 9.4 Ambiguity Vagueness must be distinguished from ambiguity. As we have seen, a word or phrase is vague if its reference is indeterminate, so that it is unclear whether or not it applies to a certain case. But ambiguity is a different kind of semantic unclarity that is also apt to cause havoc in argu­ ments, and therefore is equally likely to mislead. A word is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning and a given context makes unclear which meaning is intended. >­
I-

::)
C)

CD

::’?
<( w 0 0 _
­
I-

::J
CJ

ai
�
<{ ma w ('J ('J ­
a:

w
_J

w
a:
a:

0 U)
��
g�
ow
> a:
<( 0.. MU• 10.1 Fallacies of Relevance Another source of error in reasoning that can cause an argument to be misleading is the failure of premises to be relevant to the conclusion they are offered to support. Even if a premise is plainly true, if it is also irrelevant to the conclusion it is supposedly backing up, then it cannot count as a reason for it, and the argument fails. Arguments that are fallacious by virtue of having irrelevant premises often rely on distractions that draw attention away from what truly matters for the conclusions at hand, and thus are sometimes employed as rhetorical tricks by artful persuaders who aim to influence us by psychologically effective but logically defective means. There are several types of informal fallacy that manifest this form of error, often known as 'fallacies of relevance.' We'll consider six of them here. BOX 1 ■ FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE I FALLACIES OF I . RELEVANCE . APPEAL TO APPEAL TO PITY FORCE .----� _-_--._-_-_-_-_,-' AD HOMINEM BESIDE THE jsTRA� MANI POINT . 10.2 Appeal to Pity One type of fallacy of relevance is the appeal to pity (also called ad misericordiam). An argument commits the fallacy of appeal to pity if and only if its premises attempt to arouse feelings of sympathy as a means of supporting its conclusion. Consider, for example, an argument that was once made on behalf of clemency for Rudolf Hess, a close associate of Hitler arrested in Britain during World War II and later sentenced to life imprisonment for war crimes. In 1982, when Hess was old and in poor health, some people argued that he should be freed from prison. The argument went this way: 1 1. Hess has already spent more than forty years in prison. 2. He is in his eighties now and his health is failing. 3. This elderly man should be permitted to spend his last years with his family. 4. Hess should be granted clemency. But Hess's age and failing health were irrelevant to the real issue: his guilt as one of the founders of a regime that had terrorized Europe. Many Russians, whose country had suffered millions of deaths at the hands of the German invaders, recognized this argument as an appeal to pity and objected vigorously. As a result, Hess's sentence was never commuted and he died in prison. A similar argument was offered recently by the mother of a sea pirate, who begged the president of the United States for leniency in her son's case on the grounds that he was "lured into piracy by older friends." According to a report in the Associated Press, the pirate himself expressed contrition. "I am very, very sorry about what we did," he said through an interpreter. "All of this was about the problems in Somalia." But even if we do feel sorry for him, in view of his wretched existence in a war-torn, lawless land, that is hardly enough to justify the murder of innocent merchant seamen on foreign-flag ships. The argument is plainly an appeal to pity. It's worth noting, however, that it's not only on behalf of scoundrels and criminals that people resort to the appeal to pity. We find it in everyday life in many guises, including some uses we may (wrongly) think free of this fallacy-for example, when a student argues, 2 You gave me a B in this course, but . . . can't you give me an A? If I don't have an A, then it'll mean that my grade average will fall, and I won't be able to get into law school! And I've been working hard all semester. The argument in fact is: 2' 1. I've been working hard in this course. 2. Any grade below an A would adversely affect my chances for law school. 3. I should get an A in this course. This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to pity. But not because of premise 1: plainly, how hard the student has been working is not relevant to its conclusion, but that is the fallacy known as 'beside the point' (more on this later). What's making the argument count as an appeal to pity is premise 2: that premise shows that the argument attempts to support its conclusion by making the professor feel sorry for the student. It might succeed in doing that, but it fails to make its conclusion rationally acceptable. More generally, an appeal to pity is a fallacious argument trading on the fact that feeling sorry for someone is often psychologically motivating. Yet that is not a good reason for the argument's conclusion. Logical thinkers would want to be able to recognize and avoid this fallacy. For some tips on this, see Box 2. , BOX 2 ■ HOW TO AVOID APPEAL TO PITY 1. An argument whose premises attempt to provoke feelings of sympathy that might move an audience to accept its conclusion commits the fallacy of appeal to pity. 2. Any such argument should be rejected, since it provides no reason relevant to its conclusion­ that is, it provides no rational support for it. 10.3 Appeal to Force Another informal fallacy trading on feelings, though in an entirely different way, is the appeal to force (sometimes called ad baculum, literally, 'to the stick'). w 0 a: 0 LL 0 f­ __J <{ w 0.. 0.. <{ (') 0 1- z w
_J w
er:
a:
” Cf)

z
w

– Cf)

��
ow
> a: a:
<( a.. llml Sometimes reasoning that commits the fallacy of appeal to emotion rests on a clever use of images that provoke a strong emotional response. When President Lyndon Johnson was running for reelection in 1964, his campaign sought to capitalize on prevalent voter fears about the alleged recklessness of his opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater. In a charged, Cold War era, some feared that Goldwater might be too quick to resort to nuclear weapons, and Johnson's campaigners wanted to exploit this uneasiness. So the Democratic Party ran a television commercial that opened with a view a of sunny meadow and a little girl picking flowers, then cut to a dark screen with the fiery mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion billowing up into the night sky. Across a black screen the message then flashed: 'VOTE FOR PRESIDENT JOHNSON.' One of the most notorious examples of emotively charged images in the history of political advertising, the commercial was widely denounced as tasteless, prompting Democrats to withdraw it. BOX 4 ■ HOW TO AVOID APPEAL TO EMOTION 1. Be on guard for arguments that attempt, through the use of emotively charged words or images, to elicit a strong psychological response conducive to the acceptance of its conclusion. 2. Any such argument commits the fallacy of appeal to emotion and should be rejected. Why? Because its premises offer only "reasons" that are irrelevant, in the way suggested in (1), to the argument's conclusion. No such argument can provide rational support for its conclusion. The Bandwagon Appeal Some forms of emotional appeal are intended to take advantage of common feelings that seem to be part of human nature, such as the desire not to miss out on the latest trends-for example, when books are marketed as 'best sellers' or a film is touted as 'the Number One Hit Movie of the Summer!' This so-called bandwagon appeal exploits our desire to join in with the common experiences of others and not be left out. But the reasons offered for buying the book or seeing the movie merely note their popular appeal, not their quality. A best seller might be only a shallow entertainment, a hit movie little more than a television sitcom. That they're widely sought does nothing to support the claim that they're worth seeking. Appeal to Vanity Appeal to vanity (sometimes called 'snob appeal') is another of the varieties of ad populum­ this time trying to exploit people's unspoken fears about self-esteem. When a car is advertised as in (7), the advertiser attempts to persuade prospective buyers to buy the car by making an appeal to their vanity. 7 Not for everyone-this is the car that tells the world who you are! In another example of this argumentation tactic, Virgin Atlantic Airways has decided to attract customers to its premium-class service by calling it, not 'first class,' but 'Upper Class.' Can you see what is going on here? 10.5 Ad Hominem Another way arguments can fail because of irrelevant premises is the very common fallacy of ad hominem (literally, 'to the man'), which has less to do with emotion than with personal attack. It is sometimes called 'argument against the person,' but we'll call it by its Latin name, since that has now come to be familiar in everyday usage. An argument commits the fallacy of ad hominem if and only if it attempts to discredit someone's-or some group's-argument, point of view, or achievement by means of personal attack. That is, the fallacious ad hominem rests on some personal consideration strictly irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is intended to undermine someone's credibility, as a means of indirectly attacking the person's position or argument. The problem with such an ad hominem, of course, is that in this way the question of the real merit of that person's position is evaded. Instead, the ad hominem offers only a cheap shot aimed at the person herself. Before turning to some specific arguments of this sort, notice that they all fail to support their conclusions-yet they can be recognized easily and avoided in the way suggested in Box 5. Examples of ad hominem are, unfortunately, easy to find-sometimes committed by people you'd not expect to be committing fallacies. Planned Parenthood recently ran a series of advertisements on buses and subways that featured a photo of several grumpy-looking men in suits. Across the photo was mounted the ad copy, which read, "79% of abortion opponents are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant." We may smile at this rhetorically clever juxtaposition of image and slogan, but, make no mistake, this is an ad hominem against male opponents of abortion. Instead of focusing on what those men's objections to abortion may be, the effect of the ad is simply to dismiss the objections as men's views. But the views of men­ on abortion or any other topic-cannot be legitimately rejected solely on the basis of their provenance (that they are "men's views"). Rather, the question is: Are these views well supported? It's not whose views they are that matters, but do the proponents have good or bad arguments for their claims? Suppose a new political scandal erupts in Washington. Senator Dunster has been caught using public funds to pay for expensive luxury vacations for himself and his family, and another legislator, Senator Brewster, has taken to the Senate floor to denounce this impropriety. But Dunster is a Harvard man and cannot resist pointing out that Brewster's college days were spent at Yale. In a speech, Dunster loudly responds, 8 These charges are all false! And these unfounded accusations are coming from exactly the place we would expect. Apparently Senator Brewster, like all Yalies, cannot resist the temptation to besmirch the reputation of a Harvard man! Here Senator Dunster's argument is an ad hominem that attempts to discredit Brewster's statements, not by speaking to their content (the accusations of impropriety), but by pointing to Brewster's personal background-the fact that he is a Yale graduate. Its clear assumptions are that all Yalies are naturally prejudiced against Harvard graduates, and that that is why Brewster is saying these things! But Dunster's argument simply engages in personal attack: � w z � 0 I 0 <( "'. 0 r­ z <( > w
_j

w
a:
a:
CJ (/)
��
e�
ow
> a:
<( 0.. it introduces an irrelevant consideration that has no power to actually discredit the opponent's claim (though it may appear to do so). The thing to keep in mind, again, is that it's not who says it that makes a claim well supported or not, but rather whether there are in fact good reasons to back it up. Those reasons should be judged on their own merits: either they provide some support for the claim, or they don't. In our example, we would of course need to hear Senator Brewster 's argument­ presumably citing facts in support of the conclusion that Dunster had behaved inappropriately-in order to determine this. BOX 5 ■ HOW TO AVOID A FALLACIOUS AD HOMINEM 1. Beware of any argument that appeals to some personal facts (or alleged facts) that are irrelevant to its conclusion. 2. Any such argument commits the fallacy of ad hominem and should be rejected, for its premises are irrelevant to its conclusion-that is, they are offered as a means of attempting to discredit an argument or point of view by discrediting the person who presents it. The Abusive Ad Hominem Sometimes ad hominem arguments attack a person's character. Suppose a moviegoer announces, 9 I have no desire to see Woody Allen's latest movie. I'm sure it's worthless, and I wouldn't waste my money on it-not after what I know about him now! He betrayed Mia Farrow and broke her heart when he became romantically involved with Mia's adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. So his movies are without artistic merit, as far as I'm concerned. Now, (9) plainly commits the fallacy of ad hominem, since it seeks to discredit Woody Allen as a film director not by invoking evidence that his movies are artistically questionable, but by a personal attack that refers to his relationship to Soon-Yi Previn (whom he later married). But this ad hominem is of a more abusive sort, since it attacks Allen's character-he is denounced on moral grounds as a 'betrayer,' which is, of course, a term of contempt. But, whatever we may think of Allen's personal qualities, does any of that prove that his films are bad? Isn't all of that simply irrelevant to an assessment of his art? Tu Quoque Finally, the fallacy of ad hominem is also committed when one tries to refute someone's point of view by calling attention to the person's hypocrisy regarding that very point of view. This is sometimes called 'tu quoque' (literally, 'you also'). For example, consider how Thomas Jefferson's writings must have sounded to the British in his day. Jefferson famously wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." But one can easily imagine how this must have been received in conservative circles in Britain in 1776. Tories certainly regarded this lofty language as risible political rhetoric, since they knew very well that Jefferson was himself a prominent slave holder. In London, Dr. Samuel Johnson scoffed, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for 'liberty' among the drivers of Negroes?" Johnson's remark could be expanded into an extended argument that looks like this: 10 1. Jefferson claims that all men are created equal and have rights to liberty. 2. But Jefferson himself is a slave owner. 3. He preaches lofty principles for others that he does not practice himself. 4. Jefferson's claims about liberty and equality are false. Yet if any did actually offer such an argument, it would have committed the fallacy of tu quoque, a form of ad hominem. The imagined argument, after all, tries to bring a personal matter-Jefferson's real-life hypocrisy about race and human nature-into the discussion to cast doubt on his assertions about human equality and rights. Now, it is of course true that the Sage of Monticello did not permit his own black slaves to enjoy the very liberty and equality he so forcefully advocated for himself and his fellow white men. But did that personal failure go any way at all toward showing that Jefferson's claims about liberty and equality were false? Naturally, we all think that people should not be hypocrites. People should practice what they preach. Yet if someone fails to heed this moral maxim, and we point out his hypocrisy, we have not thereby proved that what he preaches is false. In fact, we are only indulging in a form of ad hominem, a tu quoque. Nonfallacious Ad Hominem Before we leave the discussion of ad hominem, there remains one important clarification that should be added. Some uses of argument against the person are not fallacious, for there are contexts in which such an argument may be in order. In public life, for instance, the moral character of a politician may be a highly relevant issue to raise during a campaign, since we do very reasonably expect our elected leaders to be trustworthy. In the second example given above, Senator Brewster's speech calling Senator Dunster's personal rectitude into question amounts to a kind of personal attack, but it commits no fallacy (as does Dunster's reply), since conduct that is unethical (or illegal!) would not be irrelevant to an assessment of a person's fitness to serve as a senator. Brewster's remarks, then, could justifiably be seen as an ad hominem argument but not a fallacious one, for they commit no fallacy of irrelevant premises. Similarly, in the Anglo-American system of justice, which employs an adversarial model in court-with attorneys on opposing sides each presenting an argument for their client's case and trying to undermine their opponent's position-some of what happens in the courtroom may appear to be ad hominem. Here, after all, attorneys might try to discredit a witness by presenting evidence about his personal life. But in fact this does not amount to a fallacious ad hominem at all, since in the courtroom, the reliability of a witness is not irrelevant. Given that the purpose of a witness just is to give testimony, it is highly relevant to know whether the person can be believed or not. Thus an attorney does not commit a fallacy of ad hominem when she appeals to relevant personal matters in an attempt to discredit the claims made by a witness. An attorney's job is to defend her client's interest by aggressively pressing his case, and part of that may include presenting facts about a witness's background and personal life in an effort to undermine his credibility. This is a kind of personal attack, but it commits no fallacy. � w z � 0 I 0
w

….)

w
0:
0:

C) (fJ
��
e�
ow
> 0:
<( Q. WU• Logical thinkers must bear in mind that courtroom procedure is a specialized subject in the law, and that we're not attempting here to venture into its complexities. When one is called to serve on a jury, one should follow the instructions of the judge. The important thing to notice now, however, is simply that there can be some uses of ad hominem that are not fallacious, and that it is the context that determines when this is so. 10.6 Beside the Point An argument might commit a fallacy of relevance by offering premises that simply have little or nothing to do with its conclusion. Maybe they support some conclusion, but they don't support the one given by the argument. When this happens, the argument commits a beside­ the-point fallacy (also known as ignoratio elenchi). An argument commits the fallacy of beside the point if and only if its premises fail to support its conclusion by failing to be logically related to its conclusion, though they may support some other conclusion. Faced with an argument of this sort, we may at first find ourselves unable to identify the source of the confusion. For example, imagine that opponents of cruelty to animals introduce legislation to ban the mistreatment of chickens, pigs, and cows in certain 'factory farms.' But suppose the corporations who own the farms respond, 11 These farms are not cruel to animals. After all, the farms provide the food that most consumers want, and they do so in a manner that is cost-effective; moreover, these poultry, pork, and beef products are nourishing and contribute to the overall health of American families. The odd thing about (11) is that nothing in its premises contributes toward providing support for the conclusion, 'These farms are not cruel to animals.' Perhaps the premises support some conclusion. But they don't support that one, since they offer no reason to think that the factory farms in question are not cruel. As a result, (11) commits the beside the point fallacy. Here's another example that does so as well. Early in Barack Obama's administration, a state dinner at the White House was attended by a local couple who had not been invited and had no authorization to enter the White House. They were, in effect, party crashers. Threatened with prosecution under federal law for having breached White House security, they responded that they should not be prosecuted because they had "made a sacrifice in time BOX 6 ■ HOW TO AVOID THE BESIDE-THE-POINT FALLACY Logical thinkers should be on guard for 1. Arguments whose premises are simply irrelevant to proving the conclusion. 2. Any such argument is defective, even if nothing else is wrong with it; it commits a beside-the-point fallacy and should be rejected. and money to get ready for the party." Now, let us suppose that it's true that they had made such a sacrifice. Even so, how is that relevant to their claim that they do not deserve prosecution for breaking the law? The proposed "reason" why they should not be prosecuted (namely, the alleged "sacrifice in time and money") is not a reason that supports the conclusion. This argument is plainly an instance of the beside-the-point fallacy. Yet another example of this type of mistake was inadvertently provided by a radio listener who responded to a BBC program predicting a crisis of overpopulation in the United Kingdom by 2051. "We can meet this challenge," the listener confidently asserted, "because we all stood together as one people when we were fighting the Nazis." But there is more than one problem in this argument, not least of them the fact that none of the Britons who fought the Germans in World War II are likely to be alive in 2051. So, whatever the coping skills of those who prevailed in Britain's Finest Hour, their application in the envisaged crisis to come at mid­ century seems unlikely. Moreover, it is not at all clear how a nation's possessing the military skills necessary to defeat Hitler proves anything at all about their ability to overcome an entirely different sort of problem in the foreseen population crisis. Thus the argument is only a beside-the-point fallacy. Its premise, though manifestly true, provides no support for the conclusion. 12 1. We all stood together as one people when we were fighting the Nazis. 2. We can meet the coming challenge of overpopulation. 10. 7 Straw Man Finally, let us consider a type of informal fallacy committed by any argument where the view of an opponent is misrepresented so that it becomes vulnerable to certain objections. The distorted view may consist of a statement or a group of related statements (i.e., a position or a theory). Typically ignored in such distortions are charity and faithfulness, the principles of argument reconstruction discussed in Chapter 4. Given the principle of charity, interpreting someone else's view requires that we maximize the truth of each of its parts (in the case of an argument, premises and conclusion) and the strength of the logical relation between them. Given the principle of faithfulness, such interpretation requires that we strive for maximum fidelity to the author's intentions. It is precisely the lack of charity, faithfulness, or both, in the interpretation of the views of others with whom the arguer disagrees that results in straw man. An argument commits the fallacy of straw man if and only if its premises attempt to undermine some view through misrepresenting what that view actually is. Situations where this type of informal fallacy often occurs include deliberations, such as de­ bates and controversies. Straw man is (regrettably) a common tactic in public life, often heard in the rhetoric of political campaigns. Typically, the straw-man argument ascribes to an oppo­ nent some views that are in fact a distortion of his actual views. These misrepresentations may be extreme, irresponsible, or even silly views that are easy to defeat. The opponent's position, then, becomes a 'straw figure' that can be easily blown away. But to refute that position is of z
LU
_J
LU
a:
a:
(.’) (/)
��
o­-2
0 LU

> a:

I- Q
(/) 0
– <( co _J • _J 0 <( � LI.. 1- z <( >
w
….I
w
er
er

0 (/)
��
o­-�
ow
> er
<( 0.. Will would be inappropriate, even crazy, to be too rational. Think of falling in love, for instance, or expressing affection toward one's parents, or toward one's children. Sentiments and desires are essential to any life that is recognizably human, and logical thinkers commit no fallacy when they are moved in appropriate ways by emotion. Exercises 1. What does it mean to say that an argument's premises are 'irrelevant' to its conclusion? 2. How is the fallacy of appeal to pity a fallacy of 'irrelevant premises'? 3. What is the fallacy of appeal to force? 4. What is the fallacy of appeal to emotion? 5. What is the bandwagon appeal? How does it differ from an appeal to vanity? 6. What is an ad hominem argument? 7. Do all ad hominems involve an attack on someone's character? 8. Are all ad hominem arguments fallacious? What is a tu quoque argument? 9. What is the beside-the-point fallacy? 10. What is a straw-man argument? And how does it amount to a fallacy? II. For each of the following arguments, identify the fallacy of relevance it commits. 1. CBS News is trying to make people believe that there are unsafe working conditions in this factory. But I tell you this: anyone who plans to continue working for me should not talk to reporters. SAMPLE ANSWER: Appeal to force *2. I deserve the highest grade, Professor Arroyo, because I studied harder than anyone else. 3. You cannot say that divorce is immoral. After all, you yourself are divorced. *4. A Princeton student found guilty of plagiarism admitted that the work was not her own but argued that the university ought not to penalize her for this infraction, since she had been 'under enormous pressure at the time, having to meet a deadline for her senior thesis with only one day left to write the paper.' -The New York Times, May 7, 1982 5. If Einstein's theory is right, then everything is relative. But 9-11 really happened, and that's a fact. So not everything is relative. Therefore Einstein's theory is wrong. 6. We needn't take seriously what the Reverend Brimstone says when he tells us that people should always be honest in their dealings with others. Just yesterday the Billy Brimstone Evangelistic Association was found guilty of soliciting funds for missionary work and then using them to buy the Reverend Brimstone a new Cadillac. *7. Everywhere, people are increasingly getting rid of their iPods and instead listening to music on their cell phones. That's the way to listen to music on the move! So, if you're up-to-date and in touch with the latest things, you'll get rid of your iPod and use the phone to listen to music. 8. I know you're the coach of this baseball team, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm the owner of this ball club, and you work for me. If you really want Scooter Wilensky to play third base, you can put him there. Of course, I can always find another coach. 9. Everybody visits the Art Institute of Chicago. Therefore, you should, too. *10. It's true that Knut Hamsun, the early twentieth-century Norwegian novelist, won the Nobel Prize for Literature, but as far as I am concerned his works are worthless. Anyone who collaborated with the Nazis, as Hamsun did during World War II, was not capable of producing works with literary merit. 11. A protestor demonstrating against the new president said, 'A recount of the ballots is needed in this presidential election. If not, we will blockade airports and highways, we' ll take over embassies, and we' ll bring traffic to a halt all over the country.' 12. People often point out that Richard Wagner, the nineteenth-century German composer of operas, wrote some of the most beautiful and powerful music ever written . But I say all of his music is worthless junk and should never be performed! It's well known that Wagner was a raving anti-Semite. And decades after his death, his biggest fan turned out to be Hitler. *13. In Britain, the president of the Royal Society has suggested that scientific research on how to protect the environment should be supported by 'carbon taxes,' levied on countries producing the most air and water pollution. But this is nonsense, for his own country would be near the top of the list, and he himself drives a pollution-producing car! 14. The governor shouldn' t be blamed for his staff members lying under oath to the grand jury. After all, he was under tremendous pressure at the time. 15. Humans are capable of creativity. Therefore, creativity is a value. *16. Many contemporary physicists accept Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, which implies that everything is indeterminate. But this cannot possibly be correct, as shown by the fact that mathematical truths are determinate. 17. Professor Nathan's history of the Catholic Church is a classic. But she is a Protestant, so we cannot expect her treatment of Catholicism to be fair. 18. In his dialogue Meno, Plato describes an exchange between Socrates and Anytus, a powerful and influential Athenian politician. Socrates suggests that the reason why the sons of prominent Athenian families often turn out badly is that their parents do not know how to educate them. To this, Anytus replies, 'Socrates, I think that you are too ready to speak evil of men; and, if you will take my advice, I would advise you to be careful. Perhaps there is no city in which it is not easier to do men harm than to do them good, and this is certainly the case at Athens, as I believe you know.' *19. Over two million people die in the United States every year. Therefore, the United States is a dangerous place to visit, and we should take our vacation elsewhere. 20. Reverend Armstrong urges us not to support the war, saying that violence is barbaric in all forms and only breeds more violence in return. But his view should be rejected, since it amounts to arguing that our nation's enemies are not bad guys at all, and that we should just surrender to them. 21. Paul Robeson's accomplishments as an actor and singer are overrated. Really, he was not good at either. After all, he was well known to be pro-Communist and an admirer of Stalin. *22. Global war is inevitable, for the cultures of East and West are radically different. 23. My opponent, Senator Snort, endorses the Supreme Court's view that prayer in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment. But I say to you, what is this but an endorsement of atheism? Senator Snort clearly thinks that people of faith have no place in today's America. 24. I know I've failed to pay my rent for the past three months, but if you evict me I'll have no place to go. How can you throw me, an eighty-year-old grandmother, out onto the street? (/) >­
<( <( z 0 l­ o � UJ 0 1- _J <( UJ [l_ [l_ <( ('-• UJ (/) I:::>
I- Q
(/) 0
– <( � ::J 0 <( � LL 1- z w _j w a: a: (.') Cf) z w - Cf) �� ow > a:
a:

0 a..
�
0
0

11.1 Argument as a Relation between Propositions

In this chapter and the next, we’ll return to a topic briefly addressed in Chapter 5: propositional
arguments. Here we’ll have a close look at propositions, the building blocks of propositional
arguments. Consider

1 1. If the Earth is a planet, then it moves.
2. If the Earth does not move, then it is not a planet.

(1) is a propositional argument because it consists entirely in the relation between the proposi­
tions that make it up. Its premise and conclusion are compound propositions, which result
from logical connections established between two simple propositions: ‘The Earth is a planet’
and ‘The Earth moves.’ The connections ‘if … then … ‘ and ‘not’ are among the five types of
truth-functional connectives (or simply ‘connectives’) that we’ll study here-namely,

Truth-Functional Connectives

negation*
conjunction
disjunction
conditional
biconditional

Standard English Expression

notP
PandQ
either Por Q
if P,then Q
P if and only if Q

* As we’ll see, negation is called a ‘connective’ by courtesy.

Here we are using capital letters such as ‘P,’ •�• and ‘R’ as symbols or “dummies” for any propo­
sition. We’ll use other capital letters from ‘A’ to ‘O’ to translate propositions in English into
symbols, reserving P through W to represent non-specific propositions. Whenever possible,
we’ll pick the first letter of a word inside the proposition that we are to represent in symbols,
preferably a noun if available. For example, ‘If the Earth is a planet, then it moves’ may be
represented as ‘If E, then M’-where

E

M

The Earth is a planet
The Earth moves

We’ll resort to the same chosen symbol every time the proposition it symbolizes occurs again.
And if we have already used a certain letter to stand for a different proposition, then a letter of
another word, preferably a noun, in the proposition in question will serve. The argument form
of example (1) may now be represented by replacing each proposition occurring in its premise
and conclusion with a propositional symbol in this way, while momentarily retaining the con­
nective ‘if … then … ‘ in English. The resulting translation is

1 ‘ 1. If E, then M
2. If not M, then not E

Let’s now consider the following arguments with an eye toward translating their propositions
into symbols:

2 1. Ottawa is the capital of Canada.
2. It is not the case that Ottawa is not the capital of Canada.

3 1. Either Fido is in the house or he’s at the vet.
2. Fido is not in the house.
3. Fido is at the vet.

4 1. Jane works at the post office and Bob at the supermarket.
2. Bob works at the supermarket.

5 1. TV is amusing if and only if it features good comedies.
2. TV does not feature good comedies.
3. TV is not amusing.

Once we have translated the propositions into symbols, we obtain

2′ 1. 0

2. It is not the case that not 0

3′ 1. Either For E

2. NotF

3. E

4′ 1. J and B
2. B

5′ 1. A if and only if C
2. Not C
3. NotA

Although (2 1 ) through (s’) feature connectives, not all propositional argument forms do:
(6) doesn’t.

6 1. p

2. p

In ( 6), the propositional symbol ‘P’ stands for exactly the same proposition in the premise and in the

conclusion. Known as ‘identity,’ any argument with this form would of course be valid, since if its

premise were true, its conclusion could not be false. But this is not our present concern. Rather, in

this section we’ve considered propositional arguments and discovered that their premises and
conclusions often feature truth-functional connectives. So let’s now look more closely at these.

11.2 Simple and Compound Propositions

Any proposition that has at least one truth-functional connective is compound; otherwise, it is
simple. Consider

z

0
n.

0

0

z
(/)

<( z �Q n. I­ � in wO n. NO ....: a: � n. &ill (j) z 0 1- (j) 0 0.. 0 a: 0.. 0 z :) 0 0.. � 0 0 IIIEm 7 Celine Dion is a singer and Russell Crowe is an actor. This is a compound proposition, made up of the conjunction of two simple propositions, 8 Celine Dion is a singer. 9 Russell Crowe is an actor. Conjunction is one of the five truth-functional connectives that we'll consider here-together with negation, disjunction, material conditional, and material biconditional. For each connec­ tive, we'll introduce a symbol and provide a truth-value rule that will be used to determine the truth value of whatever compound proposition is created by applying that connective. Since the truth-value rule associated with each connective defines the connective, each of them is a 'truth-functional connective.' But for the most part, we'll refer to them simply as 'connectives.' Here is the picture that will emerge: BOX 1 ■ TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVES Connective In English In Symbols Symbol's Name negation notP ~P tilde conjunction PandQ P•Q dot disjunction PorQ PvQ wedge conditional if Pthen Q P:J Q horseshoe bi conditional P if and only if Q P=Q triple bar Before turning to each of these connectives, notice that there is always one connective governing a compound proposition, called 'main connective.' By identifying the main connec­ tive, we determine what kind of compound proposition a given proposition is: a conjunction, a negation, a disjunction, etc. Obviously, in cases where a compound proposition contains more than one connective, it is crucial to be able to determine which connective is the main one. Negation Negation is a truth-functional connective standardly expressed in English by 'not,' and symbolized by'-', the tilde. Negation can affect one proposition by itself. Even so, we'll refer to it as a 'connective' by courtesy. In ordinary English, the expression for a negation may occur in any part of a statement. When a negation is added to a simple proposition, that proposition becomes compound. (10), which may be represented as (10') exemplifies this: 1 0 Russell Crowe is not an actor. 10' ~C Here the simple proposition that has become compound by adding a negation is 'Russell Crow is an actor.' In (10'), we've used the tilde to represent negation, and C for the simple proposition affected by it. When possible, we'll use the first letter of an important word occurring in the proposition we wish to represent in symbolic notation. Propositions affected by negation could also be themselves compound. For example, 11 It is false that both Mars and Jupiter have water. 12 It is not the case that Mary is not at the library. To represent propositions that are negations, the symbol for negation always precedes what is negated. (12) is the negation of 'Mary is not at the library,' which is already a negation. So we have a double negation: the negation of a proposition that's itself a negation, which we can represent by the propositional formula 12'~ ~ L Since the two negations cancel each other out, (12') is logically the same as 12" L Any proposition or propositional formula affected by a negation is a compound proposition. The 'truth-value rule' that defines negation, and can be used to determine the truth value of a proposition (or propositional formula) that's affected by that connective, is: A negation is true whenever the negated proposition is false. A negation is false whenever the negated proposition is true. When a proposition is the logical negation of another, the two could not both have the same truth value: where 'P' is true,'~ P' is false; where 'P' is false,'~ P' is true. For example, (11) above, which is true, is the negation of 'both Mars and Jupiter have water,' which is false. But (14) below is not the negation of (13), since both propositions are false. 13 All orthodontists are tall. 14 No orthodontists are tall. Now consider these: 15 Some orthodontists are not tall. 16 Some orthodontists are tall. (15) is the negation of (13), and (16) is the negation of (14), for those pairs could not have the same truth value. But propositions that are logically the same would have the same truth value. For example, if (17) is true, (18) is also true. 17 Lincoln was assassinated. 18 It is not the case that Lincoln was not assassinated. (18) is a case of double negation: it is the negation of 'Lincoln was not assassinated.' Notice that propositions featuring expressions such as 'it is not true that,' 'it is false that,' 'it never happened that' are commonly negations-as are some propositions containing prefixes such as 'in-,' 'un-,' and 'non-.' For example, 0 z :::::, 0 0. � 0 0 0 z (/) <( z �Q 0. I­ � in in 2i'. NO ,..: a: � 0. (/) z 0 f­ [/) 0 0.. 0 er: 0.. 0 z :J 0 0.. ::;;; 0 0 19 My right to vote is inalienable. Here 'inalienable' means 'not alienable.' (19) is logically the same as 19' My right to vote is not alienable. Similarly, since 'unmarried' means 'not married,' (20) and (20') are also logically the same: 20 Condoleezza Rice is unmarried. 20' It is not the case that Condoleezza Rice is married. But (21) is not a negation: 21 Unmarried couples are also eligible for the prize. Here 'unmarried' is not being used to deny the whole proposition. It affects only the word 'couples.' Finally, notice that although verbs such as 'miss,' 'violate,' 'fail,' and the like have a negative meaning, they need not be taken to express negations. Conjunction Conjunction is a compound proposition created by a truth-functional connective standardly expressed in English by 'and,' and in symbols by '• ', the dot. The connective for conjunction is always placed between two propositions, each of which called a 'conjunct.' Conjuncts may themselves be simple or compound propositions. Let's consider the conjunctions of some simple propositions: 22 Mount Everest is in Tibet and Mont Blanc is in France. 23 Mars and Jupiter have water. In symbols, these are 22' E • B 23' M •J Recall (11) above: 11 It is false that both Mars and Jupiter have water. The formula that represents this proposition is (11'), which has parentheses to indicate that both M and J are under the scope of the negation. 11 '-(M • J) We'll have more to say on the use of parentheses and other punctuation signs later. Now let's consider why conjunction is a truth-functional connective: because it determines the truth value of the compound proposition affected by it, given the values of its members and this truth-value rule: A conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are both true. Otherwise, a conjunction is false. (22) is true since both its conjuncts are in fact true. But if one conjunct is false and the other true, or both are false, then a conjunction is false. Thus (23) is false, since for all we know, both of its conjuncts are false. The following are also false: 24 Mount Everest is in Tibet and Mont Blanc is not in France. 25 Mount Everest is not in Tibet and Mont Blanc is not in France. Since Mont Blanc is in France, the second disjunct in (24) is false, which makes the conjunction false. In a conjunction, then, falsity is like an infection: if there's any at all, it corrupts the whole compound. (Logical thinkers who are contemplating a career in politics should keep this in mind!) In (25)1 both conjuncts are false, since each is the negation of a true proposition. In symbols: 24'E•-B 25'-E •-B Note also that, like (23), many conjunctions in ordinary language are abbreviated. For instance, 26 Rottweilers and Dobermans are fierce dogs. This is just a shortened way of saying 27 Rottweilers are fierce dogs and Dobermans are fierce dogs. Yet (28) is not short for a conjunction of two simple propositions, but is rather a single propo­ sition about a certain relation between some such dogs. 28 Some Rottweilers and Dobermans are barking at each other. Another thing to notice is that conjunction, as a truth-functional connective, is commutative­ that is, the order of the conjuncts doesn't affect the truth value of the compound. Assuming that (26) is true, the facts that make it true are exactly the same as those that make 'Dobermans are fierce dogs and Rottweilers are fierce dogs' true, which are also the same that make (27) true. However, we must be careful about this, since sometimes order matters. When it does, the conjunction is not a truth-functional connective: for example, 29 He took off his shoes and got into bed. The facts that make (29) true do not seem to be the same as those that make (30) true: 30 He got into bed and took off his shoes. The order of events, and therefore of the conjuncts, does matter in these non-truth-functional conjunctions-as it also does in (31) and (32). 0 z :::i 0 Q. 2 0 0 0 z (/) <( z �Q Q. 1- 2 U) -o (/) Q. (\J 0 ,...: a: � Q. (/) z 0 C- U) 0 0.. 0 a: 0.. 0 z :::, 0 0.. � 0 0 El 31 He saw her and said 'hello.' 32 He said 'hello' and saw her. Finally, note that besides 'and,' there are a number of English expressions for conjunction, including 'but,' 'however,' 'also', 'moreover,' 'yet,' 'while,' 'nevertheless,' 'even though,' and 'although.' Disjunction Disjunction, also a commutative connective, is a type of compound proposition created by the truth-functional connective standardly expressed in English by 'or,' and in symbols by 'v', the wedge. In representing a disjunction, the connective is placed between two propositions called 'disjuncts,' which may themselves be simple or compound propositions. Here are two disjunc­ tions, first in English and then in symbols: 33 Rome is in Italy or Rome is in Finland. 33' I v F 34 Rome is not in Italy or Paris is not in France. 34'-I v-F (33) and (34) are disjunctions and thus compound propositions. Disjunction is a truth­ functional connective because it determines the truth value of the compound proposition it creates on the basis of the values of its members and this truth-value rule: A disjunction is false if and only if its disjuncts are both false. Otherwise, a disjunction is true. Given the above rule, at least one of the disjuncts must be true for the disjunction to be true. So (33) is true, but (34) is false. (35) is also false, for both its disjuncts, both of them compound propositions, are false: 35 Either snow tires are useful in the tropics and air conditioners are popular in Iceland, or it is not the case that Penguins thrive in cold temperatures. 35' (S • A) v ~ P Clearly, the conjunction (S • A) is false because both conjuncts are false, and - P is false because it is the negation of P, which is true. Since both disjuncts in (35) are false, given the truth-value rule for disjunction, (35) is false. In addition to 'or,' disjunction can be expressed by 'either ... or ... ' and 'unless,' and other locutions of our language. It is also sometimes found embedded in a negation in 'neither ... nor ... '(where negation is the main connective). Thus these are also disjunctions: 36 She is the director of the project, unless the catalog is wrong. 36' Either she is the director of the project, or the catalog is wrong. (37) is a shortened version of (37'): 37 Neither the CIA nor the FBI tolerates terrorists. 37' Neither the CIA tolerates terrorists nor the FBI tolerates terrorists. Since 'neither ... nor ... ' is a common way to express the negation of a disjunction, (37) is log­ ically the same as (or equivalent to) 38 It is false that either the CIA tolerates terrorists or the FBI tolerates terrorists. Thus both (37) and (38) may be symbolized as the negation of a disjunction: 38'-(CvF ) Note that here the main connective is negation, not disjunction. Furthermore, (37) and (38) are logically equivalent to (39), which may be symbolized as 39 The CIA doesn't tolerate terrorists and the FBI doesn't tolerate terrorists. 39'- C • -F Finally, a truth-functional disjunction may be inclusive, when both disjuncts could be true ('either P or Qor both'), or exclusive, when only one could be ('either P or Qbut not both'). This book focuses on inclusive disjunction, whose truth-value rule is given above. Material Conditional Material conditional, a type of compound proposition also called 'material implication' or simply 'conditional,' is created by a truth-functional logical connective, standardly expressed in English by 'if ... then ... ,' and in symbols by '::)', the horseshoe. For example, 40 If Maria is a practicing attorney, then she has passed the bar exam. A conditional has two members: the proposition standardly preceded by 'if' is its antecedent, and the one that follows 'then,' its consequent. The conditional is a truth-functional connective because the value of the compound proposition it creates is determined by the truth value of the antecedent and consequent, together with this truth-value rule: A material conditional is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. Otherwise, it is true. Thus any conditional with a true consequent is true, and any conditional with a false antecedent is true. The two propositions in a conditional, which may themselves be either simple or compound, stand in a hypothetical relationship, where neither antecedent nor consequent is being asserted independently. Does (40) assert that Maria is a practicing attorney? No. Does it 0 z ::::, 0 a. L 0 0 0 z (/) <( z ::j Q a. I­ L in -o (/) a. NO � er: � a.. (/) z 0 1- if) 0 Q. 0 a: Q. 0 z ::J 0 Q. � 0 0 claim that she has passed the bar exam? No. Rather, in any conditional, 'If P, then �• P and Q stand in a hypothetical relationship such that P's being true implies that Qis also true. To chal­ lenge a conditional, one has to show that its antecedent is true and its consequent false at once. Notice that sometimes the 'then' that often introduces the consequent of a conditional sen­ tence may be left out. Moreover, besides 'if ... then ... ,' many other linguistic expressions can be used in English to introduce one or the other part of a conditional sentence. Such expressions may precede that sentence's consequent, its antecedent, or both-as shown in the examples below, where double underlines mark the antecedent and single underlines the consequent: Maria has passed the bar exam, provided she is a practicing attorney. Supposing that Maria is a practicing attorney. she has passed the bar exam. On the assumption that Maria is a practicing attorney. she has passed the bar exam. Maria is a practicing attorney only if she has passed the bar exam. That Maria is a practicing attorney implies that she has passed the bar exam. We'll now translate these conditional sentences into our symbolic language, using 'M' to stand for 'Maria is a practicing attorney' and 'E' for 'Maria has passed the bar exam.' Our formula rep­ resenting any of these propositions has 'M' for the antecedent and 'E' for the consequent. It lists 'M' first, then the horseshoe symbol, and 'E' last: 40' M :J E Here the rule is: To translate a conditional sentence into the symbolic language, we must list its antecedent first and its consequent last, whether or not these two parts occur in the English sentence in that order. Let's now translate the conditionals below into the symbolic language using this glossary: N = The United States is a superpower I = China is a superpower C = China has agents operating in other countries 0 = The United States has agents operating in other countries 41 If China is a superpower, then China and the United States have agents operating in other countries. 41' I :J (C • 0) 42 It is not the case that if the United States has agents operating in other countries, then it is a superpower. 42' - (0 ::J N) 43 China has agents operating in other countries provided that the United States and China are superpowers. 43'(N • I) ::JC 44 If the United States doesn't have agents operating in other countries, then it is not a superpower. 44'- 0::J-N 45 That China has agents operating in other countries implies that either it is a super­ power or the United States is not a superpower. 45' C ::J (Iv -N) 46 If either the United States or China has agents operating in other countries, then neither the United States nor China is a superpower. 46' (0 v C) ::J -(Nv I) 47 If the United States is not a superpower, then it either has or doesn't have agents operating in other countries. 47' - N ::J (0 v -0) Note that 'P unless Q'. could also be translated as 'if not P, then Q' Thus 'China is a member of the UN unless it rejects the UN Charter' is equivalent to 'If China is not a member of the UN, then it rejects the UN Charter.' Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. In any material conditional, the antecedent expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent, and the consequent a necessary condition for the antecedent. Thus another way of saying 'If P, then Q'. is to say that P is sufficient for � and Q is necessary for P. A necessary condition of some proposition P's being true is some state of affairs without which P could not be true, but which is not enough all by itself to make P true. In (40), Maria's having passed the bar exam is a necessary condition of her being a practicing attorney (she could not be a practicing attorney if she had not passed it, though merely having passed doesn't guarantee that she's practicing). A sufficient condition of some proposition Q'.s being true is some state of affairs that is enough all by itself to make Q true, but which may not be the only way to make Q true. In (40 ), Maria's being a practicing attorney is sufficient for her having passed the bar exam (in the sense that the former guarantees the latter). In a material conditional ■ Its consequent is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the truth of its antecedent. ■ Its antecedent is a sufficient (though not a necessary) condition for the truth of its consequent. 0 z :) 0 CL � 0 () 0 z (/) <{ z �Q CL I­ � in -o (/) CL NO ,..: a: � CL fl€■ (/) z 0 t: (/) 0 Q_ 0 a: 0 z :::) 0 Q_ � 0 0 Material Biconditional A material biconditional is a type of compound proposition, also called 'material equiva­ lence,' or simply 'biconditional,' created by the truth-functional connective standardly expressed in English by 'if and only if,' and in symbols by '!!!!', the triple bar. Some other English expressions for the biconditional connective are 'just in case,' 'is equivalent to,' 'when and only when,' and the abbreviation 'iff.' Each of the two members of a biconditional could be either simple or compound. Here is a biconditional, in both English and symbols, made up of simple propositions: 48 Dr. Baxter is the college's president if and only if she is the college's chief executive officer. 48' B= 0 The truth value of the compound proposition the biconditional creates is determined by the truth value of its members, together with this truth-value rule: A material biconditional is true whenever its members have the same truth value­ that is, they are either both true or both false. Otherwise, a biconditional is false. Given this rule, for a biconditional proposition to be true, the propositions making it up must have the same truth value-that is, be both true or both false. When a biconditional's members have different truth values, the biconditional is false. (49) through (51) are false, for each features propositions with different truth values. 49 The Himalayas are a chain of mountains if and only if the Pope is the leader of the Anglican Church. 50 London is in England just in case Boston is in Bosnia. 51 Parrots are mammals if and only if cats are mammals. By contrast, the following biconditionals are all true because in each case its members have the same truth value: 52 Lincoln was assassinated if and only if Kennedy was assassinated. 53 Beijing is the capital of France just in case Bill Gates is poor. 54 That oaks are trees and tigers are felines are logically equivalent. In any biconditional, each member is both a necessary and a sufficient condition of the other. Thus in (48), Baxter's being the college's CEO is both a necessary and sufficient condition for her being the college's president, and her being the college's president is both a necessary and sufficient condition for her being the college's CEO. So a biconditional can be understood as a conjunction of two conditionals. Thus we can represent (52) in either of these ways: 52' L=K 52" (L :::l K) • (K :::l L) (5211 ) is the conjunction of two conditionals whose antecedent and consequent imply each other. That is why the material equivalence relation is called a 'biconditional,' and, obviously, this connective is commutative. BOX 2 ■ SUMMARY: COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS ■ Any proposition that is affected by a truth-functional connective is compound. Otherwise, it is simple. ■ The truth value of a compound proposition is determined by factoring in: (1) the truth values of its members, and (2) the truth-value rules associated with each connective affecting that proposition. ■ Negation is the only connective that can affect a single proposition. Exercises 1 . What is a compound proposition? 2. What are the five logical connectives? And what does it mean to say that they are truth-functional? 3. Besides 'and,' what are some other words used to express a conjunction? 4. Besides 'either ... or ... ,' what are some other words used to express a disjunction? 5. Besides 'if ... then ... ,' what are some other words used to express a conditional? 6. Besides 'if and only if,' what are some other words used to express a biconditional? 7. In a material conditional, which part is understood to present a necessary condition of the other? Which part is understood to present a sufficient condition of the other? 8. How could the biconditional be rephrased using other truth-functional connectives? II. For each of the following propositions, determine whether or not its main connective is a negation. Indicate double negation whenever appropriate. 1. Either London's air pollution is not at dangerous levels or San Francisco's isn't. SAMPLE ANSWER: Not a negation 2. It is false that London's air pollution is at dangerous levels. *3. San Francisco's air pollution is unhealthy. 4. It is not the case that Mexico City's air pollution is not harmful. 5. Non-dangerous levels of air pollution are rare in big cities. 6. Dangerous levels of air pollution are illegal. *7. Dangerous levels of air pollution violate the Kyoto Protocol. 8. It is not the case that dangerous levels of air pollution violate the Kyoto Protocol. 9. Dangerous levels of air pollution are not illegal. *10. Cleveland's air quality now reaches non-dangerous levels of pollution. 0 z ::) 0 Cl. � 0 0 z Cf) <( z ::J Q Cl. I­ � U) U) � NO .,..:. a: �o.. mll Cf) z 0 0 0.. 0 a: 0.. 0 z :J 0 0.. � 0 0 111m Ill. For each of the following propositions, determine whether or not its main connective is a conjunction. 1. Mexico City's air pollution is not harmful, but Houston's is. SAMPLE ANSWER: Conjunction 2. Dangerous levels of air pollution are illegal and unhealthy. 3. Chicago's air is polluted; however, Washington's is worse. *4. Rome's air is as unpolluted as Cleveland's. 5. In Toronto, air pollution is a fact of life; moreover, people are resigned to it in the summer. 6. New York's polluted air is often blown out to sea by westerly winds. *7. The Kyoto Protocol mandates steps to reduce air pollution, but the United States has not complied. 8. London's air pollution is not at dangerous levels; however, that's not the case in San Francisco. *9. Either Vancouver has low levels of air pollution or Montreal has dangerous levels of air pollution. 10. It is not the case that Canada is not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol. IV. For each of the following propositions, determine whether or not its main connective is a disjunction. 1. Neither China nor North Korea is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol. SAMPLE ANSWER: Not a disjunction *2. China and North Korea are not signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. 3. Either the United States complies with the Kyoto Protocol or it doesn't. 4. It is not the case that Mexico City's air pollution is either harmful or unhealthy. 5. Mexico City's air pollution is neither harmful nor unhealthy. *6. New York's polluted air blows either out to sea or north to Canada. 7. Dangerous levels of air pollution violate health laws as well as the Kyoto Protocol. *8. Dangerous levels of air pollution violate either the Kyoto Protocol or internal regulations. *9. San Francisco's air pollution is at dangerous levels unless there is fresh air blowing from the sea. 10. It is false that neither China nor North Korea is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol. V. For each of the following propositions, determine whether or not its main connective is a material conditional. 1. If the United States and China sign the Kyoto Protocol, then the biggest polluters agree to comply. SAMPLE ANSWER: Conditional 2. That London's air pollution is not at dangerous levels implies that London is complying with the Kyoto Protocol. *3. Either Montreal has dangerous levels of air pollution or Rome does. 4. Mexico City's air is not harmful provided that Houston's air is healthy. *5. Chicago's air is unhealthy only if it has dangerous levels of pollutants . 6. Washington's air pollution is not a fact of life unless people are resigned to it. 7. That Canada has signed the Kyoto Protocol implies that Canada is willing to comply. *8. It is not the case that if London has dangerous levels of air pollution, the United Kingdom has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. 9. Either Mexico City has air pollution or if Houston has it, so does Vancouver. *10. That China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol implies that neither Canada nor the United Kingdom has signed it. VI. For each proposition in Exercise V that is a conditional, mark its antecedent with double underline and its consequent with single underline (*4, *7, and *10). 1. SAMPLE ANSWER: If The USA and China sign the Kyoto Protocol, then the biggest polluters agree to � VII. For each of the following propositions, determine whether or not its main connective is a material biconditional. 1. Only if Chicago has dangerous levels of air pollutants is its air unhealthy. SAMPLE ANSWER: Not a biconditional *2. China has signed the Kyoto Protocol if and only if North Korea has. 3. Washington's air pollution is a fact of life just in case people are resigned to it. 4. If London's air pollution is not at dangerous levels, the United Kingdom has signed the Kyoto Protocol. *5. Montreal has dangerous levels of air pollution if Rome does. *6. London's air pollution is at dangerous levels if and only if its air is unhealthy. 7. It is false both that Houston's air is harmful and that it is unhealthy when and only when it reaches dangerous levels of pollution. *8. Chicago's air is unhealthy just in case it has pollutants that are either dangerous or otherwise unhealthy. 9. Dangerous levels of air pollution violate the Kyoto Protocol if and only if they violate UN environmen­ tal regulations. 10. New York's air does not reach dangerous levels of pollution only if it is either blown out to sea by westerly winds or dispersed by thunderstorms . VIII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB In each of the following, a proposition is taken either to be or not to be a condition that's necessary, sufficient , or both for the truth of another proposition. Provide the correct representation of each using the propositional symbols in parentheses and connectives as needed. 0 z :::, 0 0.. � 0 0 0 z rJ) <( z :'.:j Q 0.. f­ � U) -o (f) 0.. NO ...: a: � 0.. (/) z 0 1- (/) 0 0.. 0 a: 0.. 0 z ::J 0 0.. L 0 0 11111m 1. 'The potato has nutrients' (0) is necessary and sufficient for 'The potato is nutritious' (N). SAMPLE ANSWER: (0 ::> N) · (N ::J 0) or 0 = N

2. ‘John hunts’ (J) is necessary for ‘John is a hunter’ (H).

*3. ‘This figure is an isosceles triangle’ (I) is a sufficient for ‘This figure is a triangle’ (F).

4. ‘Fluffy is a cat’ (C) is not a sufficient condition for ‘Fluffy is a feline’ (F).

5. ‘Mary is a sister’ (A) is necessary and sufficient for ‘Mary is a female sibling’ (F).

*6. ‘Laurence is not British’ (B) is not necessary for ‘Laurence is not European’ (E).

11.3 Propositional Formulas for
Compound Propositions

Punctuation Signs

As we have seen in some examples above, parentheses, brackets, and braces can be used to remove
ambiguity in formulas by indicating the scope of their logical connectives. When a compound
proposition is joined to a simple proposition or to another compound proposition by a logical
connective, parentheses are the first recourse for determining the scope of occurring connectives
if necessary. When the compound proposition is more complex, brackets may be needed, and for
even more complex compound propositions, braces. Thus parentheses are introduced first, then
brackets, and finally braces. For examples illustrating their correct use, see Box 3.

The compound proposition (P • Q} :::> R is a conditional, while P • (Q:::> R) is a conjunction.
Without brackets, the proposition (P • Q} :::> R v ~ S is ambiguous, since it is unclear which con­
nective is its main connective: it admits of two different interpretations, one as a conditional,
the other as a disjunction. Finally, the main connective in ~ {[(P • Q} :::> R] v ~ S} is the negation
in the far left of this formula, which affects the whole formula. Compare ~ [(P • Q} :::> R] v ~ S.

Now, without braces, the scope of that negation is the conditional marked by brackets, and the
whole formula is not a negation but a disjunction.

Well-Formed Formulas

A formula representing a proposition, whether simple or compound, is well formed when it is
acceptable within the symbolic notation that we are now using. To determine whether a com­
pound formula is well formed, the scope (or range) of its truth-functional connectives matters.

BOX 3 ■ PUNCTUATION SIGNS

parentheses ‘()’as in: (P • Q) :::> R

brackets ‘[]’as in [(P • Q) ::) R] v ~ S

braces ‘{}’as in: ~ {[(P • Q) ::) R] v ~ S}

Within the scope of negation falls the simple or compound proposition that follows it.
Negation is the only connective that has a single formula, simple or compound, within its
scope. For the other connectives, each has two formulas (simple or compound) within its
scope. Well-formed formulas (WFFs) often require punctuation signs to mark the scope of
their connectives.

Recall (52 11

) above, (L :::J .K) • (K:::, L), which is a well-formed formula with two conditionals
set inside parentheses to eliminate ambiguity: parentheses are needed here to indicate that
the compound proposition is a conjunction of two conditionals.

A different arrangement of punctuation signs could yield a different proposition even
when all propositional symbols remain the same, as shown by L :::, [K • (K :::, L)]. This is a
conditional featuring a simple proposition as antecedent and a compound consequent
that’s a conjunction of a simple proposition with another conditional (one made up of
simple propositions). If that conditional is false, we can say that by introducing negation
and braces in this way: – {L :::J [K • (K :::J L)]}. These are all WFFs, but the formulas in Box 4
are not.

BOX 4 ■ SOME FORMULAS NOT WELL FORMED

P-Q

P­

PvQ•P

Symbolizing Compound Propositions

We’ll now have a closer look at some compound propositions. But first, consider

55 Fox News is on television.

Since there is no connective here, (55) is a simple proposition that we may symbolize as

55′ F

By contrast, (56), symbolized below as (561), has a negation and is therefore compound.

56 CBS News is not on television.

56′-C

Now consider (57), an abbreviated version of the longer proposition (57′):

57 Fox News is on television but CBS News is not.

57’ Fox News is on television but CBS News is not on television.

Either way, we have a compound proposition featuring two connectives: conjunction and
negation. The main connective, however, is the conjunction, whose scope is the entire
compound proposition. The scope of negation is only the second proposition. The underlying
principle for determining this is

a:
0
LL

(/)
(M v – F)]

T T F \;

y ��
VT

T

F

Exercises

1 . Why are punctuation signs part of the symbolic notation for propositions?

2. What’s the scope of a negation?

3. When Pis false and Q is true, what’s the value of P :::i Q?

4. Define P”” Q using only material conditional and conjunction.

a:
0
LL

(j”)

f-
0
UJ
z

z

0
0

(‘.J
z

z

w:
UJ (/) 0 UJ

«t:�
� <( � f- EDI (/) z 0 i== in 0 n. 0 a: n. 0 z :::i 0 n. � 0 0 IED of the rule given in Box s to each row in the column on the left yields the results, recorded in the column inside the box on the truth table's right-hand side. They are as follows: First row: -Pis false when Pis true Second row: -Pis true when Pis false Other Truth-Functional Connectives. To define the other truth-functional connectives, first we keep in mind that they involve two propositions, each of which could be T (true) or F (false). This determines the number of Ts and Fs that we'll write on the column on the left-hand side of the truth table. To calculate the total number of Ts and Fs in each column, we use the for­ mula 2° , where 2 stands for the two truth values a proposition may have (true or false) and n for the number of propositions of different types that occur in the formula to which we'd apply the procedure. In the definition of negation, there is only one proposition, so n is 1 and the for­ mula 2 ° produces two truth values: one T and one F. But, for conjunction, disjunction, condi­ tional, and biconditional, each definition features two propositions, represented by P and Q. So the formula is 2 2 and yields four places for the truth values of occurring propositions: two Ts and two Fs. In the first column on the left, we assign half Ts followed by half Fs: that is, two Ts, and two Fs (see truth tables below). In the other column on the same side of the truth table, we assign four values in this way: T, F, T, F. On the top right-hand side of the table, have the for­ mula whose truth value we wish to determine, and below it, the truth value resulting from the application of the corresponding truth-value rule to each row of assigned values on the left. The final result is marked by putting it inside a box and is obtained by applying the truth value rule of each occurring connective to the values on the left-hand side of the truth table. Let's now construct truth tables for each of the remaining types of compound propositions. Conjunction. To define this connective with a truth table, keep in mind that BOX 6 ■ TRUTH-VALUE RULE FOR CONJUNCTION A conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are both true. Otherwise, a conjunction is false. The truth table has two columns on the left, each of which assigns four truth values, two Ts and two Fs, to each of its conjuncts. Its four horizontal rows are obtained by calculating the possi­ ble combinations of those values while applying the rule in Box 6. The result, in a box on the right, shows that a conjunction is true just in case the two conjuncts are true. PQ TT T F FT F F Disjunction. To define this connective with a truth table, keep in mind that A disjunction is true if and only if at least one disjunct is true. Otherwise, a disjunction is false. The truth table for disjunction has two columns on the left, each assigning four truth values, two Ts and two Fs, to each of the disjuncts. Its four horizontal rows are the result of reading the possible combinations of those values while applying the rule in Box 7. The final result, inside the box in the right-hand column, amounts to a definition of disjunction: it shows that a disjunction is true just in case at least one of its disjuncts is true. Equivalently, it defines disjunction as a compound proposition that is false just in case both of its disjuncts are false. p TT T F FT F F PvQ Material Conditional. To define this connective with a truth table, keep in mind that BOX 8 ■ TRUTH-VALUE RULE FOR MATERIAL CONDITIONAL A material conditional is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. Otherwise, a conditional is true. As before, it has two columns on the left, each assigning four truth values, two Ts and two Fs, to its antecedent and its consequent. Its four horizontal rows are obtained by calculating the possible combinations of those values and applying the rule in Box 8. The result, inside the box on the right-hand side, amounts to a definition of the material conditional. It shows that it is true in all cases except when its antecedent is true and its consequent false. p TT T F FT F F Material Biconditional. To define this connective with a truth table, keep in mind that BOX 9 ■ TRUTH-VALUE RULE FOR MATERIAL BICONDITIONAL A material biconditional is true if and only if both members have the same truth value. Otherwise, a biconditional is false. I 1- :::J a: I I- � (/) UJ >
i=
0
UJ
z
z
0
0

0
z
z
u..
UJ (/) 0 UJ

� a3
� <( � I- Cf) z 0 1- u.i 0 Q.. 0 a: Q.. 0 z ::i 0 Q.. � 0 0 11111 This truth table has two columns on the left, each assigning four truth values (two Ts and two Fs) to each simple proposition in the formula. Its four horizontal rows are obtained by calculating the possible combinations of those values and applying the rule in Box 9. The truth table's result appears inside the box on the right, and the truth table amounts to a definition of the material biconditional. It shows that it is true just in case its two members have exactly the same truth value: that is, they are either both true or both false. PQ TT T F FT FF P=Q The five truth tables we've now constructed provide truth-functional definitions for each of the five logical connectives. We can now use a similar procedure to determine the truth values of other compound propositions. 11.5 Truth Tables for Compound Propositions The truth value of compound propositions can be determined with truth tables. To construct a truth table for a compound proposition, first identify the simple propositions in the formula whose value you wish to check. Once you have written them down on the top of the left-hand side of the truth table in the order that they appear in the formula, assign Ts and Fs in the way outlined above, using 2n to calculate the total number of rows. For example, the truth table for F • - C is: 62 F C --+----- T T T F FT F F � F T F T The formula on the right-hand side of this truth table is a conjunction of F, whose values we read in the first column on the left, and - C, whose values we need to determine first. We do this by applying the truth-value rule for negation to each row in the second column on the left. Once we determine - C's values, we enter them under the tilde on the right. We then determine the truth value of the conjunction by applying the truth-value rule for conjunction to F's values (available on the left-hand side of the truth table) and- C's values (under the tilde). We enter the values thus obtained under the dot, marking the resulting column with a box. This column under the main connective is the most important one, because it provides infor­ mation about the truth values of the compound proposition F • - C. It tells us that this com­ pound proposition is true only when 'F' and '- C' are true (as shown in the second horizontal row). On all other assignments of values, that proposition is false. Now let's construct a truth table for 58' (H • M) ::) - B The truth table for (58') is: 63 HMB (H • M) ::J -B TTT T F F TT F T T T TFT F T F TFF F T T PTT F T F FT F F T T FFT F T F FF F F T T On its left-hand side, this truth table shows all possible combinations of truth values for the three members of the compound proposition represented by the formula on its right-hand side. That formula, whose truth value we want to determine, has three different simple propositions symbolized by H, M, and B. As before, to calculate the number of rows needed, we use the algorithm 2n, here 23, which reveals that eight rows are needed. Accordingly, we assign Ts and Fs to the three columns on the left-beginning with the one farthest to the left (the one under H), which has the top half Ts and the bottom half Fs-and continue to divide that pattern in half as we move across to each of the two other columns to the right (under M and B). This convention guarantees that we do get all possible combinations of truth values. On the top line, it's all Ts, on the bottom line, it's all Fs, and in between are all other possible arrangements. Once we have entered these values, we look at the compound proposition formula on the top right. It is a conditional, so the main connective is ':::>‘, under which we place the final

result (inside the box). But we can determine the possible truth values of the conditional only
after we first find the possible truth values of the antecedent, H • M, and the consequent, – B.

Those truth values make up the column under’•’ and the column under’-‘. The final step con­

sists in applying the rule for the truth value of the conditional to those two columns.

BOX 10 ■ TRUTH TABLES FOR COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS

As we’ve seen, in a truth table, the number of truth values assigned to each simple proposition on
the left-hand side depends on how many different propositions occur in the formula at the top of
the right-hand side, whose truth value we wish to determine. For any simple proposition there are
only two possible truth values (true and false); therefore, for a compound proposition such as – P,
only two rows are needed. But with more propositions, the number of truth values would increase
according to the formula 2n : with two, it’s four lines; with three, it’s eight lines; with four, it’s
sixteen lines; and so on. In the case of (62), then, we need four lines. And, just to make sure that
we get all possible combinations of truth values, we’ll adopt this convention: in the column under
whatever letter symbol is farthest to the left, we put T in the top half of the rows and F in the
bottom half; and in the column under the other letter symbol to the right of that, we put a
sequence of alternating Ts and Fs.

0

z
🙂

0
Q.

�
0
0

a:
0
LL

(/J
w
_J
(l)
<( (/J rz IO �E a: (/) rO Q. l{) 0 ,..: a: � Q. (j) z 0 E 0 Q_ 0 a: Q_ 0 z :::, 0 Q_ � 0 0 - 11.6 Logically Necessary and Logically Contingent Propositions Contingencies What, then, have we learned about the truth values of the compound propositions on the right-hand side of truth tables (62) and (63)? Just this: that each is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false, but instead sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on the truth values of the component simple propositions and the logical connectives. Propositions that yield such truth values are contingencies. A compound proposition is a contingency if its truth table displays at least one T and at least one F in the column under the main connective. In (63), there is at least one T and at least one F under the ':::i'-and in (62), under the'•'. In light of those results, each of these compound propositions is a contingency. Contradictions Contradictions are compound propositions that are always false, simply by virtue of their form (and regardless of the actual truth values of their component simple propositions). In a truth table for a contradiction, the column under the main connective symbol is all Fs. Consider 64 B =-B Since (64) contains no proposition other than B, which occurs twice, the algorithm 21 yields two places for truth values, one for T and the other for F. Accordingly, the truth table runs: 65 B B = -B ---+---- T F f"FlF l!_JT This truth table reveals (64) to be a contradiction. Tautologies Some propositions are tautologies: they are always true, simply by virtue of their form (and regardless of the actual truth values of their component propositions). The truth table of a tautology would have all Ts under the formula's main connective. The negation of (64) above is a tautology, which reads, 66 -(B = - B) The truth table for this proposition shows all Ts under the formula's main connective: 67 B -(B = - B) --+-=---- ; w F F FT (67) gives the truth value of (66), thus confirming that it is a tautology. Among well-known tautologies in logic are the so-called principles of excluded middle, P v - P, and non-contradiction, -(P • -P). For further practice, check that these are tautologies by constructing a truth table for each. Keep in mind that BOX 11 ■ CONTRADICTIONS, TAUTOLOGIES, AND NEGATION The negation of a contradiction is a tautology, and the negation of a tautology is a contradiction. Exercises 1 . How are truth tables used to define the five propositional connectives? 2. In a truth table for a compound proposition, how do we know how many horizontal rows are required? What is the rationale for this? 3. In a truth table for a compound proposition, which column is the most important? And what does that column tell us? 4. What is a tautology? 5. What is a contradiction? 6. What is a contingency? XX. For each of the following formulas, construct a truth table to determine whether it is a contingency, tautology, or contradiction. 1. W:J-K SAMPLE ANSWER: Contingency WK W :J -K TT TF FT FF �F T F T 2. (L v N) vA *3. B :J (M :J B) 4. -J • (G vN) *5. - [(A • B) :J (B • A)) 6. D v (-M :J -0) 7. -[-(A • B) =(-Av -B)] *8. (-A v-B) :J (B •A) 9. (F :J -N) • -(F :J -N) *10. - A""+ K v -H) 11. (0 v M) :J (M V 0) *12. -[(-A • H) v -(H :J -1)] 13. (E • -G) :J G 14.A "'-A 15. - (A = B) "' -L *16. - {� • (8 • C)] = [(A • B) • Cl} 17. - {[(A • B) v (-B :J A)) :J B} *18. (A • B)..,, (B • A) 19. (-B :J A)"" [(B v -0) :J CJ *20. (A= B) = [(A :J B) • (B :J A)] (/) z 0 l- o ui zo – 0
a: a:
0

*2. Earth is not the center of the universe or our planet is special. (E, 0)

3. Either our planet is special or it isn’t. (0)

*4. Earth is not the center of the universe just in case there is something special about our planet. (E, 0)

5. There is something special about our planet: however, Earth is not the center of the universe. (0, E)

6. It is false that either our planet is special or it isn’t. (0)

•7. If Earth is the center of the universe and there is something special about our planet, then there is

something special about our planet. (E, 0)

8. It is not the case that human life has value if and only if human life has value. (H)

9. Human life has a purpose, but it is not the case that it has value. (L, H)

10. Human life has value only if it has a purpose. (H, L)

*11. Human life has value and a purpose if and only if it is not false that human life does have value and a

purpose. (H, L)

*12. It is not the case that both Earth is the center of the universe and there is something special about

our planet just in case it is false that human life has value and a purpose. (E, 0, H, L)

13. Neither is Earth the center of the universe nor is there something special about our planet. (E, 0)

*14. Neither is Earth the center of the universe nor is there something special about our planet if and only

if both Earth is not the center of the universe and it is not the case that there is something special

about our planet. (E, 0)

15. Either human life has both value and a purpose or if it is false that there is something special about

our planet, then Earth is the center of the universe. (H, L, 0, E)

XXII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB

Write down ordinary English sentences for each of the formulas below following this glossary: ‘F’ = Fred

is at the library; ‘M’ = Mary is at the library; ‘L’ = The library is open; ‘I’ = I have Internet access; ‘E’ =

The essay is due on Thursday.

SAMPLE ANSWER: 1. Mary is at the library but the library is not open.

2. F .. (L • M)

*3. F ss (L v – M)

4. (L • I) :::, (F v M)

*5. E”” (L:::, I)

■ Writing Project

6. (E • L) :::, (M v F)

*7. – [- F:::, (- L v M)]

8. (M • F) “” (E • L)

Find five compound propositions in English where the words used to translate the logical con­
nectives don’t accord with the truth-value rules for those connectives. Write a short piece
arguing that the connectives in your examples are not truth-functional. Suggestions: look for

conjunctions that are not commutative, or ‘if … then … ‘ sentences where the consequent
appears not to be a necessary condition of the antecedent (e.g., ‘If I have money for bus fare
then I’ll take the bus’).

BOX 12 ■ SYMBOLIC NOTATION FOR PROPOSITIONS

Propositional Letters

From A to O for specific
propositions

From P to W for
unspecific ones

■ Chapter Summary

Connectives

~ negation
• conjuction
v disjunction
:::, Conditional
“‘ Biconditional

Punctuation Signs

( ) parentheses
I ] square brackets
{ } braces

Propositions: the building blocks of propositional arguments. Each proposition is either true

or false, and either simple or compound.

Compound proposition: any proposition whose truth value is in part determined by the

truth-value rule of one of the truth-functional connectives. It falls into one or another of

these categories:

1. Tautology. Always true, by virtue of its form. Its truth table shows only Ts under the main
connective.

2. Contradiction. Always false, by virtue of its form. Its truth table shows only Fs under the
main connective.

3. Contingency. Neither always true nor always false. Its truth table shows at least one T and

one F under the main connective.

Five Connectives and their truth-value rules:

1. Negation. True if and only if the proposition denied is false.

2. Conjunction. True if and only if its conjuncts are both true.

>­
a:
<( � � :) CJ) a: w f- 0.. <( I () Cl) z 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 3. Disjunction. True if and only if at least one disjunct is true. 4. Conditional. False if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. 5. Biconditional. True if and only if both members have the same truth value. Truth Tables for the Connectives Negation ; I� Conjunction Disjunction p Q p . Q PQ TT � TT TF TF FT FT F F FF ■ Key Words Compound proposition Negation Conjunction Disjunction Material conditional Antecedent P vQ � Conditional Biconditional p Q TT T F FT F F p :) Q PQ PaaaQ � TT T F FT F F Consequent Material biconditional Tautology Contradiction Contingency � CHAPTER Checking the Validity of Propositional Arguments In this chapter you'll learn some ways to determine whether propositional arguments are valid or invalid. The topics will include ■ The use of truth tables in checking argument forms for validity. ■ Some standard valid argument forms in propositional logic: modus ponens, modus to/lens, contraposition, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism. ■ The formal fallacies of affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and affirming a disjunct. ■ An introduction to proofs of validity. 261 Cf) LL f­ Q Z >– �
t:: :::i
g CJ
__J a:
<( <( > __J
w <( IZ f- 0 CJ � z­ - Cf) � 0 0 0... WO I a: 0 0... 12.1 Checking Validity with Truth Tables As we have seen, truth tables provide a procedure for determining whether a compound proposition is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency. Moreover, they generate that outcome in a mechanical way, applying certain rules that yield a result in a finite number of steps. But they have another use that we'll explore at length here: they allow us to determine mechanically whether an argument is valid or not. Consider, for example, this argument: 1 1. Either buffalo are prairie animals or coyotes are. 2. Buffalo are prairie animals. 3. Coyotes are not prairie animals. To determine whether (1) is valid or not requires that we first obtain its argument form. We translate (1)'s premises and conclusion into our standard symbolic notation and obtain: 1' 1.B vC 2.B 3. -C Our next step is to transform this vertical listing of premises and conclusion into a horizontal one, using commas to separate premises and writing the symbol ':. ', which reads 'therefore,' in front of the conclusion. This gives us 1' B v C, B ... -C We can now test this argument form for validity with a truth table. We enter the formula at the top of the truth table on its right-hand side, and each different simple proposition that occurs in that formula on the left-hand side. Next, we assign truth values to those simple propositions, following the algorithm 2 n , which for the formula under consideration is 2 2 (since the simple propositions occurring in it are two, B and C). Once this is done, we focus on the smaller formulas that represent the argument's premises and conclusion, calculating their truth values one at a time. These calculations are performed in the standard way described in Chapter 11. In the final step, we check (in a way we'll presently explain) to see whether the argument is valid or not. Our truth table for checking the validity of (1) above looks like this: 2 B C TT T F FT FF B v C, B :. -C In (2), a value has been calculated for each formula representing the argument's premises and conclusion. How? By reasoning as follows: the first premise is a disjunction, so its truth value is calculated by applying the truth-value rule for disjunction to B and C, whose values have been assigned on the left-hand side. The first column on the right, placed under the wedge, shows the result of this calculation. Since the second premise, B, is a simple proposition, we cannot calculate its values by using any of the truth-value rules for connectives. So we assign to B the same values that we have assigned it in the first column on the left-hand side of the table. That is, we simply transfer those values to the second column on the right-hand side of the table (this step can be omitted, since B's values are readily available in the first column on the left, and could be read di­ rectly from there). We then proceed to calculate the truth value of -C by applying the truth-value rule for negation to the values of C, which are displayed in the second column on the left. We write down the results of this calculation under the tilde, as shown by the truth table's third col­ umn on the right. We're ready now to check whether the formula on its top right-hand side is a valid argument form. To determine this, we scan horizontally each row displaying the values of B v C, B, and - C (ignoring all vertical columns). We are looking for a row where the premises B v C and B are both true and the conclusion - C false. And we do find precisely that in the first row. This shows the argument represented by the formula to be invalid, since If a truth table devised to test the validity of an argument displays at least one row where premises are all true and conclusion false, that proves the invalidity of the argument form tested. BOX 1 ■ WHAT DO TRUTH TABLES HAVE TO DO WITH VALIDITY? The relation between validity and truth tables is simply this: 1. If it is possible for an argument to have all of its premises true and its conclusion false at once-that is, if this occurs on one or more horizontal rows in its truth table-then the form is invalid (as is any argument with that form). 2. But if this is not possible-that is, if its truth table shows no such row-then the form is valid. (Recall that if an argument's form is such that it is possible for all of its premises to be true and its conclusion false at once, then its premises do not entail its conclusion.) The first row (indicated by an arrow) in the above truth table demonstrates the invalidity of the form being tested (see rationale in Box 1). In this way we show that (1) is invalid. Similar truth tables could be constructed to demonstrate the invalidity of any argument of the same form. For example, 3 Either the media foster public awareness, or public opinion leads to public policy. Since the media foster public awareness, it is not the case that public opinion leads to public policy. Since this argument has the same form as (1) above, the results of any correct truth table for checking its validity would be exactly the same as those displayed in (2). (You should construct such a truth table for your own practice.) Let's now use a truth table to check the validity of another argument: 4 1. If Sally voted in the presidential election, then she is a citizen. 2. Sally is not a citizen. 3. Sally did not vote in the presidential election. I I- >–
1-
0
_J
�
(9 (/)
� w
� _J
0 Ul
w <( I 1- 0 I � ::J "" a: � I- EDI (/) LL 1- 0 Z w >– 2
‘= ::)
0(9
::i a:
<( <( > _J
w <( Iz I- 0 0 i== z­- (/) �o 0 0... WO I a: 0 0... 111m This has the form 4' M :J C,-C :. -M First, notice that there are only two different simple propositions in this argument form, M and C, each of which occurs twice. Thus we need only four assignments of values (two Ts and two Fs) on the left-hand side of the truth table, and four horizontal rows. The next step is to calculate the truth value of (4')'s premises and conclusion. Each of these is a compound propo­ sition, for which we'll write the truth value in the column under its connective symbol: in the first premise, under'::>‘, and in the second premise and conclusion under’-‘. In this argument

there are no simple propositions; to test for validity, therefore, we scan only the rows in

columns under the connectives: in the premises, these are the columns under the horseshoe

‘:::,’ and the tilde’-‘, and in the conclusion, it’s the column under the tilde’-‘. We’re looking for
a row in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false, which would indicate inva­

lidity. But the scan shows that there is no such row in this truth table.

5 MC

T T

T F

F T

F F

The absence of such a row means that (4′), and therefore also (4), is valid. This test proves

validity because the truth table gives an exhaustive list of all possible combinations of truth

values of the premises and conclusion, and no horizontal row shows that the former can be

true and the latter false at once. Thus in all arguments with (4′)’s form, the premises entail the

conclusion. Consider these arguments:

6 If Professor Tina Hare is at the University of Liverpool, then she works in England.

Professor Tina Hare doesn’t work in England. Thus Professor Tina Hare is not at the

University of Liverpool.

7 If the Earth is not a planet, then Mars is not a planet. But Mars is a planet. Hence, the

Earth is a planet.

For your own practice, construct a truth table for these arguments to check their validity. You’ll

see that their final result will be exactly like that in (s) above.

Let’s try one more argument, this time more complex.

8 Since France is not a member of the union, it follows that Britain is not. For if France

is not a member, then either the Netherlands is or Britain is.

We can reconstruct (8) as

8’ 1. France is not a member of the union.

2. If France is not a member of the union, then either the Netherlands is a member

of the union or Britain is a member of the union.

3. Britain is not a member of the union.

which has the form

8″ -F, -F :J (N v B) :. -B

To test (8″) for validity, we first note that since three different simple propositions occur in it,
the truth table will need eight horizontal lines. Once we write down all possible combinations
of truth values for these simple propositions on the left-hand side of the truth table, we then
calculate the truth values of premises and conclusion and enter the results under each
connective symbol on the right-hand side. Here is the truth table, with the rows showing the
argument’s invalidity indicated by an arrow:

9 F NB -F, -F 🙂 (N v B) :. -B
TTT F F T T F
TTF F F T T T
TFT F F T T F
T FF F F T F T
FTT T T T T F +-

FT F T T T T T
FF T T T T T F
F F F I T F F I

The more complex formula on (9)’s right-hand side is the one representing the argument’s
second premise: it’s got three connectives in it. How do we determine which is the most
important? We do this by reading carefully and looking at the parentheses: they tell us that it is
the horseshoe placed between – F and (N v B). But in order to determine the truth values in the
column under the horseshoe, we first have to know the possible truth values of its antecedent, -F,
and its consequent, (N v B). Once we have the value of – F, which can be obtained by applying
the rule for the truth value of negation to F on the left-hand side of the truth table, we enter
those values under – F, the first premise of the argument (so they don’t need to be written twice
if desired). The value of (N v B) can be obtained by applying to the values of N and B the rule for
the truth value of the disjunction on the left-hand side of the truth table. To calculate the value
of – B, we proceed in a manner similar to that in which we calculated the values of – F. Once
this is done, then, ignoring all the other columns, we scan each horizontal row showing the
truth value for each premise and conclusion on the right-hand side of the truth table. We ask
ourselves: is there any horizontal row in which both premises are true and the conclusion false?
And the answer is Yes! It happens twice: on rows 5 and 7. Thus the argument form (8″) has been
proved invalid, and so any argument that has that argument form, such as (8) above, is invalid.

BOX 2 ■ HOW TO CHECK VALIDITY WITH TRUTH TABLES

■ When we use a truth table to check an argument’s validity, we first write the formula captur­
ing the argument’s form at the top on the right.

■ Each different type of proposition that occurs in that formula goes at the top on the left.

■ The rows under the formula itself offer an exhaustive list of possible combinations of truth
values for premises and conclusion.

■ To decide whether an argument form is valid or not, we scan each row under the formula.

■ Any row showing that there is a configuration of truth values in which premises are true and
the conclusion false proves that the argument form is invalid.

■ If there is no such row, then the argument form is valid.

:r:
�

s
>­
‘:::
0

_J

:;

(!) (/)
� UJ
:,t:: _J
o en
UJ <( I� o:r: � � ::J <'i a: �� (j) LL f­ Q Z UJ >– ::?:
I::: :::) 0 (9
::i a::
<( <( > _J

UJ <( IZ f- 0 0 � z­- (j) ::.:: 0 0 0.. wo I a:: 0 0.. IIIEI Exercises 1 . How do we construct a truth table to check the validity of a propositional argument? 2. How do we tell by a truth table whether an argument is valid or not? 3. Why is the truth-table technique a mechanical procedure for checking the validity of an argument? 4. If at least one row of a truth table for an argument shows all false premises and a true conclusion, is that relevant to determining the argument's validity? II. Use truth tables to determine whether each of these formulas represents a valid or an invalid argument. 1. H :::i -K , -K :. H SAMPLE ANSWER: Invalid HK H :::i -K, -K :. H TT F F F T F T T T FT T F F F F T T .I. 2. L v N, -N:.L 3. R :J (M :J R) :. M v R *4. J, J v N :. -N 5. -(B,., A) :J -L :. L :J (B ""A) 6. D v (-M :J -D) :. M :J D 7. -(G • E), -G :. E • -G *8. -C v -B, -(B • A) :. A v C 9. (F :J -N) • -(F :J -N) :. -N *10. -B, -(-K"" -H) :. K :J -H 11. (D v M) :::l (M v D) :. M v D 12. - [(-A• H) v (H :J -B)] :. -A• -H *13. K •(-Ev 0), -E :J -K :. 0 *14. E :J A, --A :. -Ev -A 15. A :J B :. -(-B :J -A) 16. -M v 0, M :. 0 17. A• B :. -A 18.C:JD:.D:JC 19. C :J D :. -C v D 20. C :J D, -C :. -D 21. A"" B :. (A :J B) • (B :J A) *22. H • (-1 v J), J :J -H :.J *23. - 0, A :::i B :. -0 • B 24. C :J D, D :. C 25. C :. C v D Ill. Translate each of the following arguments into symbolic notation. Then construct a truth table to determine whether it is valid or invalid. 1. Henry's running for mayor implies that Bart will not move to Cleveland, for if Henry runs for mayor then Jill will resign, and Jill's resigning implies that Bart will not move to Cleveland. (H, J, B) SAMPLE ANSWER: Valid HJ 8 H :::> J, J :::> -8 :. H :::> -8

TTT ,= FF FF

TTF T TT TT

TFT F T F F F

T FF F TT TT

FTT T F F TF

FTF T TT TT

FF T T T F TF

F F F .I .I T ..I T

2. If Quebec is a part of Canada, then some Canadians are voters. If Ontario is a part of Canada, then some

Canadians are voters. Hence, if Quebec is a part of Canada, then Ontario is a part of Canada. (8, C, 0)

*3. Algeria will not intervene politically if and only if Britain will not send economic aid. Thus Algeria will in­

tervene politically unless France will not veto the treaty, for Britain will not send economic aid only if

France will veto the treaty. (A, B, F)

4. Neither Detroit nor Ann Arbor has cold weather in February. If Michigan sometimes has snow in

winter, then either Detroit or Ann Arbor has cold weather in February. Therefore, it is not the case that

Michigan sometimes has snow in winter. (D, A, M)

5. Either the examinations in this course are too easy or the students are extremely bright. In fact, the

students are extremely bright. From this it follows that the examinations in this course are not too

easy. (E, B)

*6. If John is a member of the Elks lodge, then either Sam used to work in Texas or Timothy is a police

officer. But it is not the case that Sam used to work in Texas, and Timothy is not a police officer.

Therefore, John is not a member of the Elks lodge. (J, A. I)

*7. Both antelopes and Rotarians are found in North America. But Rotarians are found in North America

if and only if French police rarely drink gin. It follows that if it is not the case that French police rarely

drink gin, then antelopes are not found in North America. (A, 0, F)

8. Dogs are not always loyal. For rattlesnakes are always to be avoided unless either dogs are always

loyal or cats sometimes behave strangely. (D, A. C)

9. If either Romans are not fast drivers or Nigeria does have a large population, then it is not the case that

both Nigeria does have a large population and Argentineans are coffee drinkers. Hence, Romans are

fast drivers, for Argentineans are coffee drinkers only if Nigeria does not have a large population. (F, N, A)

*10. We may infer that mandolins are easy to play but French horns are difficult instruments. For man­

dolins are easy to play if and only if either didgeridoos are played only by men or French horns are

difficult instruments. But if French horns being difficult instruments implies that didgeridoos are not

played only by men, then it is not the case that mandolins are easy to play. (M, F, D)

11. If both Ellen is good at math and Mary is good at writing, then Cecil is a pest. It follows that Mary is

good at writing. For either Cecil is not a pest unless Mary is not good at writing, or both Ellen is not

good at math and Cecil is a pest. But Cecil is a pest if and only if Ellen is good at math. (E, M, C)

I
I-

>­
I-
0

:::i

C) (/)
� UJ
� ….I
O CO
UJ <( I 1- 0 I � ::J N a: � I- Cf) LL 1--­ Q Z w >– 2
!= ::) Oc,
:::::i a:
-1
w
0 a:
<( (J) 02 z a: �o (J) l.l.. LU 1- 2 Z 0 LU (J)2 :::::, (\J (9 Na: � <( (/) u..r- 0 di >– �
‘= :J
0 CJ
:J a:
<( <( > ..J w <( IZ r- 0 CJ i== z­- (/) -::t: 0 0 a.. wo I a: 0 a.. - (14)'s form mirrors that of contraposition, since it is 14' 1. p ::J Q 2. -Q ::J -P (14') helps us to see that (14) is a valid argument given that it has a valid argument form. Why is that form valid? For similar reasons modus tollens is: since in the premise Q is the consequent of a material conditional, it is a necessary condition for the truth of the conditional's antecedent P. Thus if Q is false, then P must be false, too. The validity of contraposition is shown by this truth table: 15 P Q TT T F FT FF p :::> Q :. -Q :::>-P

�

F

�

F
T FF
F TT

T TT

Hypothetical Syllogism

Hypothetical syllogism is labeled this way because it has two premises (that’s the ‘syllogism’ part) and
because its premises (as well as its conclusion) are hypothetical or conditional statements. Consider

16 1. If Elaine is a newspaper reporter, then she is a journalist.

2. If Elaine is a journalist, then she knows how to write.

3. If Elaine is a newspaper reporter, then she knows how to write.

This argument has the form

16 1

1. p ::J Q

2. Q ::JR

3. p ::J R

(161) allows us to see that (16) mirrors hypothetical syllogism, which is a valid argument form.
A closer look at this form reveals that premise i’s consequent is premise 2’s antecedent, and

premise i’s antecedent together with premise 2’s consequent are, respectively, the antecedent and
consequent of the conclusion. Obviously, since the antecedent of a conditional expresses a sufficient
condition for the truth of its consequent, when P is a sufficient condition for Q, and Q a sufficient
condition for R, it follows that P is a sufficient condition for R (16) is a substitution instance of this
form and is therefore valid. The following truth table shows the validity of hypothetical syllogism:

17 p Q R P::JQ Q::JR :. p ::J R

TTT T T T

TTF T F F

TFT F T T

T FF F T F

FTT T T T

FT F T F T

FF T T T T

F F F .I I I.

Disjunctive Syllogism
Finally, in our sample of valid argument forms, there is one that does not use conditionals at
all: disjunctive syllogism. The form is labeled this way because it has two premises (that’s the
‘syllogism’ part) and because one of its premises is a disjunction. Here, one premise presents a
disjunction, and the other denies one of the two disjuncts, from which the affirmation of the
other disjunct then follows as the conclusion. For example,

18 1. Either my car was towed away by the police or it was stolen.

2. My car was not towed away by the police.

3. My car was stolen.

(18) is a substitution instance of disjunctive syllogism, and as such may be correctly represented
in one of the two possible arrangements for the premises of that argument form, depending on
which disjunct is denied:

18a 1. p V Q
2.-P

3.Q

18b 1. p V Q
2.-Q
3. p

In the case of (18), since the negation affects the first disjunct of the disjunctive premise, the correct
representation is (18a). But the principle underlying either version of disjunctive syllogism is: given
the truth-functional definition of inclusive disjunction, if a premise that is an inclusive disjunction
is true but one of its disjuncts false, it follows that the other disjunct must be true. Thus any
argument mirroring (18a) or (18b) is valid-as demonstrated by this truth table:

19 P Q PvQ, -P :. Q

TT T F T

T F T F F

FT T T T

F F F T F

More Complex Instances of Valid Forms

When we set about trying to analyze propositional arguments, it’s immensely helpful to be
able to recognize these five basic valid argument forms, because any time you find an
argument that has one, you thereby know that it’s valid! No further procedure is required. For
the argument to be valid, it is enough that the general form of the argument’s premises and
conclusion mirror that of a valid form. This means that the premises and conclusion of a valid
argument could feature connectives other than those featured in the valid form mirrored by
that argument. That’s fine, provided that main connectives are exactly the same. Let’s make a
list including this and other considerations to keep in mind when deciding about the form of
propositional arguments:

#1. The order of the premises does not matter for an argument to have the form of a
modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, or disjunctive syllogism.

#2. The English expression for a connective may be other than the standard one.

0
_…J
<( >
0
a:
<( (/) 0� z a: �o (/) LL w f­ � z ow (/) � :J N ('.) C'i a: � <( (/) LL 1- Q Z >– ‘.2
I:: 🙂
9 (.’J
…J a:
…J
w B

2. B :::> J

3. E :::> J

Now consider the following arguments, together with their correct representations:

24 1. Costa Rica is a peaceful country and doesn’t have an army.

2. Costa Rica is a peaceful country and doesn’t have an army only if it doesn’t have
public unrest.

3. Costa Rica doesn’t have public unrest.

24′ 1. C • -A

2. (C • -A) :::> -N

3. -N

25 1. Joey was either tried in Europe or extradited to the United States.

2. That Joey was either tried in Europe or extradited to the United States implies that
his defense failed and he is not free.

3. Joey’s defense failed and he is not free.

25′ 1. J v E

2. (J v E) :::> (D • -F)
3. D • -F

If we focus strictly on the main connective in premises and conclusions, then it’s clear that
both arguments turn out to be substitution instances of modus ponens. This is so because each
consists of a conditional premise (which happens to come second) and another premise that
asserts the antecedent of that conditional (which happens to come first). Neither the order of
these premises nor the fact that they themselves are compound propositions made up of several
connectives affects the status of the arguments as instances of modus ponens.

Exercises

1 . Explain the validity of modus ponens by reference to the necessary and sufficient conditions in a

material conditional.

0

…J

0
a:
– �
I::::::>
Q0
_J er:
<( <( > _J w <( IZ I- 0 0 � z­- (/) � 0 0 Cl. WO I er: 0 Cl. Mil• 2. Which sense of disjunction is required for disjunctive syllogism to be valid? Which of the valid forms employs disjunction? 3. Suppose the order of the premises in a valid propositional argument is changed. Does that affect the validity of the argument? 4. When you have established that an argument is a formal fallacy, what have you discovered about that argument? V. The following formulas are instances of modus ponens, modus to/lens, contra­ position, hypothetical syllogism, or disjunctive syllogism. Say which is which. 1. A:) -B A -B SAMPLE ANSWER: Modus ponens 2. (KvN)vA -A KvN *3. L:) -M B:) L B:) -M 4. -(F • H) A:) (F • H) -A *5. -E:) -D -E -D *6. (A v LP (B • C) -(B • C) :) -(A v L) 7. -C v -A A -C *8. (A • -F) :) -G G -(A• -F) 9. J:) A A:) -C J:) -C 10. -H :) -(Ev A) (Ev A):) H 11. -B = C ( -B ""C):) -A -A *12.A v(G vF) -(G VF) A 13. A :J 0 -0:J-A 14. C vO :£_ 0 15. (G v F) :J A (A :J 0):J (G v F) (A :J 0) :J A VI. The following arguments are instances of the valid forms discussed above. Symbolize each and identify its form. 1 . Wynton Marsalis is an authority on music, for he is a famous jazz trumpeter who is equally well known as a performer of classical music. But if he is a famous jazz trumpeter who is equally well known as a performer of classical music, then Wynton Marsalis is an authority on music. (F, A) SAMPLE ANSWER: F :J A, F .. A Modus ponens 2. Ernie is a liar or Ronald is not a liar. It is not the case that Ronald is not a liar. Therefore, Ernie is a liar. (E, L) *3. If Staten Islanders are not Mets fans, then Manhattan's being full of fast talkers implies that Queens is not the home of sober taxpayers. Thus if it is not the case that Manhattan's being full of fast talk­ ers implies that Queens is not the home of sober taxpayers, then it is not the case that Staten Islanders are not Mets fans. (I, M, H) 4. Penelope is not a registered Democrat. For Penelope is a registered Democrat only if she is eligible to vote in the United States. But she is not eligible to vote in the United States. (D, E) *5. If Democrats are always compassionate, then Republicans are always honest. For if Democrats are always compassionate, then they sometimes vote for candidates who are moderates. But if they sometimes vote for candidates who are moderates, then Republicans are always honest. (D, M, H) *6. If Emma is a true pacifist, then she is not a supporter of war. Emma is a true pacifist. It follows that she is not a supporter of war. (E, A) 7. If this cheese was not made in Switzerland, then it's not real Emmentaler. Therefore, if it is real Emmentaler, then it was made in Switzerland. (C, E) *8. Either gulls sometimes fly inland or hyenas are not dangerous. But hyenas are dangerous. So, gulls sometimes fly inland. (G, H) 9. If both Enriquez enters the race and Warshawsky resigns, then Bosworth will win the election. But if Bosworth will win the election, then Mendes will not win the election. Thus if both Enriquez enters the race and Warshawsky resigns, then Mendes will not win the election. (E, A, B, M) *10. Microbes are not creating chronic diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and even schizo­ phrenia. Hospitals need to improve their cleaning practices only if it is the case that microbes are 0 _J 0 a: <( U) 0 � z a: �o U) LL w f­ � z ow U) � ::J N (') N a: � <( (/) LL t­ Q Z >– ‘.2
t: :::)
0 (.’)
:::::i a:
<( <( > …J
w <( IZ t- 0 (.') j:: z­_(/) �o 0 0.. WO I a: 0 0.. creating many chronic diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and even schizophrenia. It follows that hospitals need not improve their cleaning practices. (M, H) 11 . California farmers grow either vegetables that thrive in warm weather or citrus fruits and bananas. Since they don't grow citrus fruits and bananas, they must grow vegetables that thrive in warm weather. (A, C, B) 12. Steve's attacker was not a great white shark. An attack of the sort he suffered last week must be by either a great white shark or by a shark of another type that felt threatened in the presence of a swimmer unknowingly wading into its feeding area. Therefore, Steve was attacked by a shark of another type that felt threatened in the presence of a swimmer unknowingly wading into its feeding area. (G, A) 13. Calcium is good for healthy bones. Either vitamin D is good for healthy bones or calcium is not good. Therefore, vitamin D is good for healthy bones. (C, D) 14. If herons wade either in mud holes or lagoons, then they catch bacterial infections. But they don't catch bacterial infections. Thus herons wade in neither mud holes nor lagoons. (H, L, I) 15. If she has a tune stuck in her head, she is either happy or annoyed. Therefore, if she is neither happy nor annoyed, then she doesn't have a tune stuck in her head. (H, A, N) VII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. Construct an argument of your own for each of the argument forms listed in exercise M- 2. Construct truth tables for each of the argument forms listed in exercise (VI). 12.3 Some Standard Invalid Argument Forms Already we have seen that arguments may have defects of various kinds that cause them to fail. Types of defects that undermine arguments constitute the so-called fallacies, among which, as we have already seen at some length, the informal fallacies figure prominently. Now we must consider their analogues in propositional logic, which include some of the formal fallacies. All formal fallacies have in common that they occur in an argument that has a superficial similarity to some valid form but departs from that form in some specifiable way. They are there­ fore instances of failed deductive arguments. Recall that an argument is invalid if it is possible that an argument with the same form could have true premises and a false conclusion. To prove the invalidity of an argument, then, it is enough to find a single case of an argument with exactly the same logical form whose premises are true and conclusion false. Consider the following argument: 26 1. If the messenger came, then the bell rang about noon. 2. The bell rang about noon. 3. The messenger came. This argument is invalid because it is possible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false. Even if the premises and conclusion all happen to be true in a certain case, there are other scenarios in which arguments with an identical form could have true premises and BOX 3 ■ INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS ['-___ s_o_M_ E_ F_O_R_ M_A _L_F _A_L_LA_C_I_E _s ___ ] Either P orQ p AFFIRMING A DISJUCT Either P or Q Q Therefore not Q Therefore not P AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT if P, then Q Q Therefor P DENYING THE ANTECEDENT if P, then Q Not P Therefore not Q a false conclusion. Suppose that the messenger didn't come, but the bell did ring about noon, though it was a neighbor who rang it. In this scenario, (26)'s premises are true and its conclusion false. Thus the scenario amounts to a counterexample that shows the invalidity of (26). It is often possible to find real-life counterexamples that prove the invalidity of certain arguments. Yet we could do without such counterexamples, since to show that an argument is invalid, it is sufficient to describe a 'possible world' (which may or may not be the actual world-it's simply a scenario involving no internal contradiction) where an argument with the same form would have true premises and a false conclusion. Thus the invalidity of an argument can be proved in the way just shown: one tries to describe a scenario where the premises of the argument in question are true and its conclusion is false. If such a scenario is not forthcoming, we may first extract the argument form-which, in the case of (26), is 26' 1. p:) Q 2.Q 3. p Then we try to find an example of an argument with the same form that in some possible scenario would have true premises and a false conclusion. For example, 27 1. If Barack Obama is a Republican, then he is a member of a political party. 2. Barack Obama is a member of a political party. 3. Barack Obama is a Republican. (27) shows that, in a scenario where the possible world is the actual world, an argument with the same form as (27) has true premises and a false conclusion. By the definition of inva­ lidity, (27) is invalid. At the same time, it amounts to a counterexample to any argument with the same form. 0 __J
z

0

a:
– �
t:::::)
Q0
_J a:
_J

UJ – 2
I::: :::J
0 (‘J

::i a:
<( <( > _J
w <( IZ f- 0 ('J i= z­_(f) ::,::: 0 0 CL wo I a: 0 CL IElil Affirming a Disjunct Another formal fallacy is affirming a disjunct: Affirming a disjunct is the fallacy committed by any argument featuring a premise that is an inclusive disjunction, another premise affirming one of the disjuncts, and a conclusion denying the other disjunct. Affirming a disjunct is an invalid form because, as we saw earlier in our discussion of the truth-functional connectives, 'or' is to be understood in the inclusive sense (i.e., either P or Q or both)-not the exclusive sense (i.e., either P or Q but not both). The inclusive disjunction is true in all cases except where both disjuncts are false. Thus assuming that a certain inclusive disjunction is true, denying one disjunct (which amounts to saying that it is false) entails that the other disjunct must be true. But affirming one of its disjuncts (which amounts to saying that it is true) does not entail the denial of the other-that is, does not entail that the other is false. (In the case of an exclusive disjunction, what we are calling 'affirming a disjunct' would not be a fallacy.) Consider the following example: 32 1. Either my car was towed away by the police or was stolen. 2. My car was in fact towed away by the police. 3. My car was not stolen. Is there any way this conclusion could be false if both premises were true? Yes! A possible scenario is that thieves came in the night and broke into my car, then drove it to an illegal park­ ing space, from which the police towed it! If that were the case, then both of (32)'s premises would be true and its conclusion false at once. Thus the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises-it is not entailed by them. So the argument is invalid. But the thing to notice is that (32) instantiates version (a) of the invalid form affirming a disjunct. This fallacy is committed by any argument of one of these forms: 32' a l. p V Q 2.P 3. -Q b 1.PvQ 2. Q 3. -P Since, here, the 'either ... or ... ' connective in (32) is inclusive, to affirm one of the two alternatives does not entail a denial of the other. In any case where the disjunction is inclusive, an argument with either of (32')'s forms is invalid. The invalidity of affirming a disjunct is clearly shown by this truth table: 33 P Q PvQ, p :. -Q TT T T F T F T T T FT T F F F F F F T We have identified three invalid argument forms that correspond to three types of formal fallacy. Whenever you find an argument that has one, a truth table is not required. All you need to do to prove invalidity is simply to show that the argument has one of these forms: affirming the con­ sequent, denying the antecedent, or affirming a disjunct. If you can keep separate in your mind these three invalid forms and the five valid forms discussed earlier, you should find it much easier to distinguish valid and invalid propositional arguments. BOX 6 ■ HOW TO AVOID AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT Note that in a disjunctive syllogism, a premise denies one of the disjuncts of the other premise, and the conclusion asserts the other. ■ Thus, watch out for any argument that appears to be a disjunctive syllogism but it is not, since one of its premises asserts a disjunct of the other premise, while its conclusion denies the other. Exercises YIII Review Ouestjons 1 . How does the type of disjunction at work in disjunctive syllogism bear on the fallacy of affirming a disjunct? 2. How does affirming a disjunct differ from disjunctive syllogism? 3. How does affirming the consequent differ from modus ponens? 4. How does denying the antecedent differ from modus to/lens? 5. What's the cash value of recognizing that an argument commits a formal fallacy? IX. Some of the following arguments commit formal fallacies, and some don't. Indicate which do and which don't, identifying formal fallacies and valid argument forms by name. 1. If the defendant's 2007 Toyota sedan was used as the getaway car in the robbery, then it was not in the mechanic's garage with a cracked engine block on the date of the crime. But it was in the me­ chanic's garage with a cracked engine block on that date! From this it follows that the defendant's 2007 Toyota sedan was not used as the getaway car in the robbery. SAMPLE ANSWER: Modus to/lens. Valid. 2. If this car has faulty brakes, then it's dangerous to drive. But this car does not have faulty brakes. Therefore it's not dangerous to drive. *3. If our public officials take bribes, then there is corruption in our government. But if the mayor and several City Council members were paid to support the appropriations bill, then our public officials take bribes. So, if the mayor and several City Council members were paid to support the appropria­ tions bill, then there is corruption in our government. 4. Barry is a union member, for he will not cross the picket line. And if he were a union member, then he would not cross the picket line. *5. Ireland does not allow abortion. Either Ireland allows abortion or Ireland is a conservative country. Hence, Ireland is a conservative country. 0 _J 0 a: <( (/) 0� z a: �o (/) LL w 1- � z 0W (/)� :::>
(‘) 0
N cc
� <( (/) LL 1- Q Z >– :”!:
f:: ::J
0 (‘)
:J a:
_J
w – 2:
t:::: ::)
9 (‘)
…J a:
<( <( > …J
w <( IZ I- 0 (') i= z-- (J) � 0 0 a. UJ 0 I a: 0 a. ED 3. For each of the propositional arguments below, give its form and standard name (if any), use a truth table to decide whether it is valid or not, and propose an argument of your own with exactly the same form. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. If the cold front is here, then we don't go to the beach. Thus if we go the beach, then the cold front is not here. Either the small apples or the ripe ones are on sale. The ripe apples are on sale. Therefore, the small apples are not on sale. She is at Lalo's if her class is over. She is at Lalo's. Therefore, her class is over. I don't see my glasses there. If I don't see them there, then they are not there. Hence, they are not there. If Ptolemy was right, then the Sun and planets orbit the Earth. But it is not the case that the Sun and planets orbit the Earth. Therefore, Ptolemy was not right. The ring is made of either gold or silver. In fact, it is not made of silver. Therefore, it is made of gold. If the pool doesn't have chlorine, then it is not safe to swim in it. Since it is not safe to swim in it, it follows that the pool doesn't have chlorine. Irving is either a bachelor or he is a Dodgers fan. He is not a Dodgers fan. Therefore, he is a bachelor. If magnets cure rheumatism, then there is a market for them. But since it is not the case that magnets cure rheumatism, there isn't a market for them. There is a storm outside. If there is a storm outside, I'd better stay indoors. So, I'd better stay indoors. If Mary knows Juan, then she knows Jennifer. She knows Jennifer. Therefore she knows Juan. Tokyo is the capital of either Japan or Bangladesh. Tokyo is not the capital of Japan. So Tokyo is the capital of Bangladesh. Customer Services handles complaints about merchandise that is either damaged or imperfect. Customer Services handles complaints about merchandise that is damaged. Therefore, Customer Services doesn't handle complaints about merchandise that is imperfect. N. If the 'Big Bang' theory is not wrong, then the universe is expanding. The 'Big Bang' theory is not wrong. Therefore the universe is expanding. 0. Either students who got As or those who have missed no class are eligible for the prize. Students who have missed no class are eligible for the prize. So students who got As are not eligible for the prize. 12.4 A Simplified Approach to Proofs of Validity Some valid argument forms such as those discussed above are often used as basic rules of inference in the so-called proofs of validity. This is a procedure designed to show the steps by which the conclusion of a valid propositional argument follows from its premises. In constructing a proof for an argument, we assume that it is in fact valid, and we try to show that it is. Before we can proceed to construct some such proofs, we'll add other basic valid argument forms and rules of replacement to our list so that we can have enough rules of inference to prove the conclusions of a great number of valid propositional arguments. The Basic Rules In constructing our proofs of validity, then, we'll need some valid argument forms and some logical equivalences between compound propositions. The former will serve as rules of inference, which will permit us to draw a conclusion from a premise or premises. The latter will serve as rules of replacement, which will permit us to substitute one expression for another that is logically equivalent to it. Our list of rules includes the following: Basic Rules of Inference 1. Modus Ponens (MP) 2. Modus Tollens (MT) 3. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) 4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) 5. Simplification (Simp) 6. Conjunction (Conj) 7. Addition (Add) Basic Rules of Replacement 8. Contraposition (Contr) 9. Double Negation (DN) 10. De Morgan's Theorem (DeM) 11. Commutation (Com) 12. Definition of Material Conditional (Cond) 13. Definitions of Material Biconditional (Bicond) What Is a Proof of Validity? p :::> Q,P :. Q

p :::> Q, -Q :. -P

P :::> Q, Q :::> R :. P :J R

P V Q,-P :. Q

p. Q … p

P, Q :. p • Q

p ;. p V Q

(P :::> Q)=(-Q :::> -P)

P=–P

-(P • Q)=(-P v -Q)
-(P v Q) = (-P • -Q)

(P V Q) “”(Q VP)
(P • Q)=(Q • P)

(P :::> Q) = (-P v Q)

(P “” Q) = [(P :::> Q) • (Q :::> P)]
(P”” Q) = [(P • Q) v (-P • -Q)]

Proofs of validity may be formal or informal. In a formal proof, the relation of entailment is taken
to obtain strictly between certain well-formed formulas of a system of logic that need have no
interpretation in a natural language (such as English, Portuguese, Mandarin). Furthermore, the
basic rules of inference and replacement used in formal proofs are such that they could be used
to prove the conclusion of any valid propositional argument from its premises. On the other
hand, in the informal proofs proposed here, entailment is taken to be a relation that obtains
between certain propositions that are expressible in a natural language. When a proof is offered
as involving only formulas, it is assumed in the informal approach that these have an
interpretation in a natural language. Moreover, the basic rules offered in our informal approach
fall short of allowing proofs of validity for any valid propositional argument.

I
0
<( a: >­
Q_ r­
Q_ –
<( 9 ....J 0 <( � >
U.. LL
:::::i 0
Q_ (/)
::2′ LL
-o
(/) 0
<( a: '– �
‘= ::J
0 <.'J ::i er: <( <( > …J
w <( IZ I- 0 <.'J � z­- (/) :,C:Q 0 Q.. wo I CI: 0 D.. - We'll construct proofs to check the validity of certain arguments and assume that those arguments have an interpretation in English-even though for convenience's sake they may be offered only in the symbolic notation. For valid arguments that are expressed in English, we'll first translate them into the symbolic notation. Then we'll proceed to prove their valid­ ity by using the rules listed above in a way that we'll explain shortly. These rules can be used to demonstrate the validity of many propositional arguments, and we'll next see just how this is done. Whether in a formal or informal approach, all proofs of validity require that we assume that, for any valid argument, it must in principle be possible to show its validity by the proof procedure, which shows that a valid argument's conclusion follows from its premises once we apply to those premises one or more basic rules of inference and/or replacement. Such rules are 'basic' in the sense of being accepted without a proof. (Since any proof at all within this system would assume at least some of them, there are basic rules that cannot be proved within the system.) How to Construct a Proof of Validity Let's now put our basic rules to work and demonstrate the validity of the following argument: 34 Both Alice and Caroline will graduate next year. But if Caroline will graduate next year, then Giselle will win a scholarship if and only if Alice will graduate next year. So, either Giselle will win a scholarship if and only if Alice will graduate next year, or Helen will be valedictorian. First, we translate the argument into the symbolic notation as follows: 34' A• C, C:::) (G = A):.(G = A) v H We can now prove that this argument's conclusion, (G = A) v H, follows from its premises. How? By showing that such a conclusion can be deduced from (34')'s premises by applying to them only basic rules of inference and replacement. Our proof, whose four steps (numbered 3 1 4 1 5, and 6) aim at deducing the intended conclusion from (34')'s premises, runs 3411 1.A•C 2. C:::) (G =A) 3. C • A 4.C 5. G=A 6.( G=A) v H :.( G=A) vH from 1 by Com from 3 by Simp from 2 and 4 by MP from 5 by Add In line 3 1 we deduce C•A by applying commutation (see Com in the rules above) to premise 1. Any time we deduce a formula, we justify what we've done on the right-hand side of the proof. In this example, the justification includes expressions such as 'from,' 'and,' and 'by' that we'll later omit ('from') or replace by punctuation marks ('and' and 'by'). Note that a proof 's justification requires two things: (a) that we state the premise number to which a certain rule was applied (if more than one, we write down the premises' numbers in the order in which the rule was applied to them), and (b) that we state the name of the rule applied. After justify­ ing how a formula was deduced from the premise/s of an argument, that formula can be counted as a new premise listed with its own line number. Since C • A in line 3 has been deduced from the argument's premises, it is now a premise that can be used in further steps of the proof. In fact, it is used in line 4 to deduce C in the way indicated on the right-hand side of that line. Premises 2 and 4 allow us to deduce G = A in line 5, which follows from them by modus ponens (MP). In line 6, addition (Add) allows us to deduce the formula that proves (34)'s validity: namely, the conclusion of that argument. We have thus shown that its conclusion follows from its premises, and we have done so by showing that it can be obtained by applying only basic rules of inference and replacement to those premises. Thus (34) has been proved valid. Proofs vs. Truth Tables As we've seen, in the case of truth tables, the truth values of an argument's premises and conclusion are assigned according to rules associated with the truth-functional connectives involved in that argument. Although here we've defined only five such connectives, their total number is in fact sixteen. This is a fixed number. By contrast, the actual number of valid argument forms and logically equivalent expressions that could be used to construct proofs of validity may vary from one deductive system to another. Furthermore, the proof procedure allows for no fixed number of steps to correctly deduce an argument's conclusion from its premises: it often depends on which premises and basic rules we decide to use. Since in these respects proofs permit a certain degree of flexibility, it is sometimes possible, within a single system of basic rules, to construct more than one correct proof to demonstrate the validity of a certain argument. That is, unlike a truth table, a proof is not a mechanical procedure that always yields a result in the same way in a fixed number of steps. Moreover, it might happen that, in constructing a proof for a certain valid argument, we err in our assessment of its validity. We might simply "fail to see" at the moment that certain rules can be put at the service of deducing that argument's conclusion from its premises and mistakenly conclude that the argument is invalid. That's why we say that, for any valid argument, one could 'in principle' construct a proof of its validity. It must be admitted, however, that proofs do have one big advantage over truth tables: namely, that the latter tend to be very long and unwieldy when an argument features propositions of many different types. Proofs face no such problem. Exercises 1 . In what does the method of proof consist? 2. Do proofs offer any advantage over truth tables? 3. What is a rule of inference? 4. How are rules of inference used in a proof? 5. What are rules of replacement? 6. In this section, a distinction has been drawn between a formal and an informal approach to proofs. What is that distinction? I 0 <( a: >–
0… 1-

� e
0 <( �>
LL LL
:::i 0
0… (/)
� LL
U) 0

<( � """ 0... C'.io � I- E1iill (J) LL f­ Q Z >– �
!:: ::::>
gc,
_J a:
_J

w B
2. -B

3. -A
4. -B v C
5. -A • ( -B v C)

2. 1. -D ::, -E
2. Ev~(/::, D)

3.1::, D
4. –(I::, D)

5.E
6. –E
7. –D
8.D

9. E • D

*3. 1. -D • C

2. F::, -C

3. -F::, (Ev D)

4. – -C::, -F

5. C ::, -F

6. C::, (Ev D)
7. C • -D
8.C

9. Ev D

10. D v E

4. 1. – A • (Av E)

2. -A

3. (Av E) • -A

4.AvE

5.E

6. Ev -E

*5. 1. (G ::, D) ::, -F

2. D ::, F

3. D • C
4. – F::, -D

5. (G ::, D) ::, -D

6.D
7. –D

8. -(G::, D)

6. 1. A ::, -(B ::, -D)

2. -(B ::, -D) ::, -D

/:.-A. ( -B V C)

1, 2 MT

2 Add

3, 4 Conj

/:.E • D

I:. D v E

I:. Ev -E

SAMPLE ANSWER

I:. -(G :J D)

3.D !:. ~A

4.A:::> ~D

5. –D

6.-A

•7. 1 . (D ::, C) v -(A v B)

2.A /;. -D V C
I

3. -(Av B) v (D ::, C)

4.AvB
a: >-

5. ~~(Av B) 0… I-
0… –

6. D::, C

LL LL
8. 1. (~D • C) • H I:. ~H v -D ::::i 0

0… (f)
2. ~D • C � LL

3. ~D
i7.i 0
C) :::> ~(A• B)

2. – D :::>(A• B) !:. D v ~(D::, C)

3. ~(A• B) :::, -~D

4. (D :::> C) :::> –D

5. (D :::> C) :::> D

6. ~(D :::> C) v D

7. D v ~(D :::> C)

*11. 1. (~H v L) :::> ~(I • G)

2.G • I /:. -L • H

3.1 • G

4. –(I• G)

5. ~(~H v L)

6. ~~H • -L

7. H • ~L

8. ~L • H

12. 1. ( B :::> C) v ~A

2. -( B:::, C) vA I:. A= ( B::, C)

3. ( B:::, C):::, A

4. ~Av ( B:::, Cl

5. A:::, ( B :::> C)

6. [A :::, ( B :::, C)] • [( B :::, C) :::, A]

7.A=(B:::>C)

(/)
LL f-
0 dj
>- 2
I:: :::,
g C)
_J a:
<( <( > _J
w <( IZ f- 0 C) � z­- (/) � 0 0 [l_ wo I a: 0 [l_ MIH 13. 1. ~A :J ( I v -0) 2. ~A• ~I 3. -A 4.1 v ~D 5. ~I• -A 6. ~I 7. -D 14. 1. E • [~I• (~D v I)] 2. [ ~I • (~D v I)] • E 3. ~I • (~D v I) 4. ~I 5. (-0 v I) • ~I 6. -D v I 7. ~D 8. -D v F 15. 1. E 2. Ev D 3. (Ev D) v C 4. C v (Ev D) /:. ~D I:. -D VF !:. C v (Ev D) XIV. Translate each of the following arguments into symbolic notation using the propositional symbols within parentheses and construct a correct proof of validity for it. 1. The Bensons and the Nelsons will be at the party. But if the Nelsons are at the party, then the Finnegans will not be there. The Finnegans will be at the party only if the Bensons will not be there. It follows that the Finnegans will not be at the party. (B, N, F) SAMPLE ANSWER: 1. B • N 2. N :J -F 3. F :J -B 4. N • B 5.N 6. -F !:. ~F 1 Com 4Simp 2, 5 MP 2. If elephants are mammals, then they are not warm-blooded creatures. It is not the case that elephants are not warm-blooded creatures. From this we may infer that either elephants are not mammals or they are not warm-blooded creatures. (E, C) 3. Either municipal bonds will not continue to be a good investment or stocks will be a wise choice for the small investor at the present time. Municipal bonds will continue to be a good investment. Therefore, stocks will be a wise choice for the small investor at the present time. (M, C) *4. If Romania establishes a democracy, then Bulgaria will, too. Either Mongolia will not remain inde­ pendent or Romania will not establish a democracy. Bulgaria will not establish a democracy, but Romania will. Thus Mongolia will not remain independent. (D, B, M) 5. Zoe will not resign next week. For Keith will serve on the committee, and either Zoe will not resign next week or Oliver will. But if Zoe does resign next week, then Keith will not serve on the committee. (K, E, 0) *6. Honduras will support the treaty, but it is clear that either Russia will not support it or Japan will support it. Japan supporting the treaty implies that Honduras will not support it. Therefore, Japan will not support the treaty. (H, I, J) 7. If Macedonians and the Danes were polytheists, then most ancient Europeans also were. The Romans' not being polytheists implies that both the Macedonians and the Danes were polytheists. It follows that if most ancient Europeans were not polytheists, then the Romans were polytheists. (M, D, E, 0) *8. Railroads are safe investments, but oil companies are not. It follows that oil companies are not safe investments but public utilities are, because railroads are safe investments only if public utilities are, too. (I, C, B) 9. Dramatists are not opinionated or historians are not disputatious. For if dramatists are opinionated, then musicians are not good at math. But musicians are good at math. (D, M, H) *10. Sicily is an island. Besides, if Italy is the home of famous soccer players, then Egypt is not the birthplace of Caesar. In addition, if Italy is not the home of famous soccer players, then Norway being full of tourists implies that Egypt is not the birthplace of Caesar. It follows that Sicily is an island, and Egypt's being the birthplace of Caesar implies that if Norway is full of tourists, then Egypt is not the birthplace of Caesar. (I, H, E, N) ■ Writing Project Provide a hypothetical syllogism for the conclusion that if globalization is promoted, products will be cheaper. Then offer a modus ponens for the conclusion that globalization entails fewer American jobs. Compare the relative strength of these two arguments by discussing the support for their premises. At the end of this discussion, reconstruct both arguments, marking in each case premises and conclusion. ■ Chapter Summary Procedures for determining whether an argument is valid: 1. Truth Tables: a mechanical technique that shows an argument form to be invalid if there is a row where all premises are true and the conclusion false. Otherwise, it is valid. 2. Proofs: a nonmechanical technique that shows an argument to be valid if its conclusion can be deduced by applying only valid rules of inference and replacement to the argument's premises. Some valid forms. When an argument has any of these forms, it is valid: 1. Modus ponens 2. Modus tollens 3. Hypothetical Syllogism 4. Disjunctive Syllogism 5. Contraposition p :J Q,P :. Q p :J Q, -Q :. -P P :J Q, Q :J R :. P :J R P vQ,-P :. Q p :J Q :. -Q :J -P -Q :J -P :. p :J Q >­
a:
�

�

�
::)

Cf)

a:
w
f–
0..

�
I

0

(/)

LL 1-
0 Z

>- �
t:: :::>
g (‘.)
_J er:
<( <( > _J
w <( IZ I- 0 ('.) i= z­- (/) ::.:'. 0 0 0... WO I er: 0 0... Some invalid forms. When an argument has any of these forms, it commits a formal fallacy and is invalid: 1. Affirming the Consequent 2. Denying the Antecedent 3. Affirming a Disjunct ■ Key Words Truth table for arguments Modus ponens Modus tollens Contraposition Hypothetical syllogism Disjunctive syllogism p:) Q 'Q :. p p :) Q '-P :. -Q p V Q 'p ,', -Q Formal fallacy Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent Affirming a disjunct Counterexample Proof of validity CHAPTER Categorical Propositions and Immediate Inferences In this chapter you'll read about logical relations between categorical propositions, which are the building blocks of syllogistic arguments. The topics include Standard categorical propositions and the class relationships they represent. Non-standard categorical propositions and their translation into standard categorical propositions. How to represent categorical propositions in Venn diagrams and in traditional logic. The Square of Opposition, both traditional and modern versions. The problem of existential import. Other immediate inferences from categorical propositions. 293 (f) (f) Zw Qo f- z if) w 0 a: 0... w Q LL a: � 0... w _J f­ <( ::i: 00 -w a: 2 0 ""' 0 == w f- 0 <( z 0 <( 11&1 13.1 What Is a Categorical Proposition? Categorical Propositions Categorical propositions are propositions that represent relations of inclusion or exclusion between classes of things, such as 1 All philosophers are wise persons. 2 No philosophers are wise persons. Or between partial classes, such as 3 Some philosophers are wise persons. Or between partial classes and whole classes, such as 4 Some philosophers are not wise persons. The relationships between classes that matter for categorical propositions are, then, these four: ■ Whole inclusion of one class inside another ■ Mutual, total exclusion between two classes ■ Partial inclusion, whereby part of one class is included inside another. ■ Partial exclusion, whereby part of one class is wholly excluded from another In the above examples of categorical propositions, 'philosophers' is the subject term and 'wise persons' the predicate term. These terms are the logical, rather than syntactical, subject and pred­ icate of a categorical proposition. Each of them denotes a class of entities: that made up by all and only the entities to which the term applies. Thus 'philosophers' denotes the class of philoso­ phers and 'wise persons' the class of persons who are wise. Categorical propositions (1) through (4) illustrate four ways in which the class of philosophers and the class of wise persons can stand in relationships of inclusion or exclusion. Each of these relationships may be represented in one of the following ways: 1 ' All philosophers are wise persons. 2' No philosophers are wise persons. 3' Some philosophers are wise persons. 4' Some philosophers are not wise persons. Philosophers X In traditional logic, first developed in antiquity by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the standard notation to represent the logical form of categorical propositions is to use 'S' as a symbol for any subject term, and 'P' for any predicate term. In that notation, then, the logical form of the above categorical propositions is, respectively, 1. All Sare P 2. No Sare P 3. Some S are P 4. Some S are not P In traditional logic, only statements that can be shown to have these logical forms qualify as expressing a categorical proposition. Any such proposition always represents one of the four relationships between classes mentioned above, which can now be described by using the symbols 'S' and 'P,' which stand for the classes denoted by the proposition's subject and predicate. Those relationships are as in Box 1. But we can also represent them by circle diagrams, in which case we'd have _J < 0 er: 0 0 w � 0 < C'-· f?
NO
C’i a:
� Q.

(/) (/) z UJ
Qo
f- z
– UJ
(/) a: 0 UJ
Q. LL
Oz
a: –
Q. UJ

_j �
4: –
00 – UJ
a: � 0�
CJ –
�o
4: z
0 4:

The Venn diagram representing (10) consists of two intersecting circles, one for the subject

term (‘U.S. citizens’) and the other for the predicate (‘voters’).

p

Since, according to (10), all members of the class denoted by its subject term are members of the

class denoted by its predicate term, the crescent-shaped part of S that has no members (i.e., that

representing U.S. citizens who are not voters) has been shaded out in the diagram. With the

Venn-diagram technique, shading a space means that that space is empty. Thus, in the above

diagram, S non-P is shaded out, to represent that there is nothing that is S that is non-P. This is

consistent with reading (10) as saying that the subclass of U.S. citizens who are not voters is an

empty subclass-or, equivalently, that there are no U.S. citizens who are not voters.

On the previous page, (1o)’s translation is provided, first, in the algebraic notation

introduced by the English mathematician George Boole (1815-1864), which reads, ‘S non-P

equals o,’ and then in the notation of traditional logic, reading ‘All S are P.’ What both say is

captured by the Venn diagram in the box: namely, that the subclass of S non-P (represented by

the shaded portion of the diagram) is empty.

Now let’s look at (11), an instance of the universal negative.

11 No U.S. citizens are voters.

p

Boolean Notation:

SP=o

E Proposition:

No Sare P

Since (11) is a universal proposition, its Venn diagram shows an empty subclass that has been

shaded out: the football-shaped center area, the intersection of’ S’ and ‘P,’ which represents the

U.S. citizens who are voters. The diagram thus captures that (11) denies that there are any such

voters: in other words, asserting (11) amounts to saying that the class of voting U.S. citizens has

no members. To the left of the diagram, (n)’s Boolean notation ‘S P = o’ tells us that the sub­

class ‘S P’ is empty. Immediately below, we find (n)’s notation and type in traditional logic.

Keep in mind that, for any universal categorical proposition (whether affirmative or negative),

there will be a part of the circles shaded out, to indicate that that part has no members.

Next, consider the particular affirmative

12 Some U.S. citizens are voters.

Boolean Notation:

SP=#=o

I Proposition:

Some Sare P

p

This time, no universal claim is being made, but rather a particular one: a claim about part of a

class. As a result, the diagram shows no shading at all, but an ‘x’ instead, in the area where there

are some members. Since ‘some’ logically amounts to ‘at least one,’ (12) is equivalent to

12′ There is at least one U.S. citizen who is a voter.

Putting an ‘x’ in the football-shaped center space indicates that that space, ‘SP,’ is not empty­

in effect, that it has some members (at least one). To the left of the diagram, we find (12)’s

Boolean translation’ SP=#= o,’ which tells us that the subclass ‘SP’ (i.e., the football-shaped area

in the center) is not empty-together with its type and notation in traditional logic.

Finally, what about a particular negative? Consider

13 Some U.S. citizens are not voters.

p

Boolean Notation:

SP=#=o

0 Proposition:

Some S are not P

__J
<( 0 a: 0 ('J w I­ <( 0 a: 0 LL r/) '.2 <( a: � r/) -z 00 �E: w r/) >0

CL
NO
cry a:
� CL

(/) (/)
Zw
Qo
I- z -w
(/) a:
Ow
0.. u…
Oz a: –
0.. w
_J �

The two intersecting circles represent the two classes of things related in a categorical
proposition-the one on the left, the class denoted by its subject, the one on the right, the
class denoted by its predicate. The circles also determine four subclasses that we may
identify with the spaces drawn. The space in the center, where they overlap, represents the
subclass of things that are both Sand P at once (i.e., the subclass of things that are simulta­
neously members of both classes), which is indicated by the notation ‘SP.’ The crescent­
shaped space on the left represents the subclass of things that are S but not P, where the

negation is indicated by a bar over the symbol ‘P.’ The crescent-shaped space on the right
represents the subclass of things that are P but not S, where the negation is indicated by a
bar over the symbol ‘S.’ The space outside the two interlocking circles represents the class

of things that are neither S nor P. As we have seen, with these spaces we can use the Venn­
diagram technique to represent the class inclusion and exclusion relationships described in
each of the four standard categorical propositions. To see how this works, let’s start with a

concrete example. Consider the four categorical propositions that may be constructed out
of ‘U.S. citizens’ as the subject term and ‘voters’ as the predicate term. All four relationships
of inclusion and exclusion between the class of U.S. citizens and the class of voters, as rep­

resented in those propositions, are captured in the Venn diagram in Box 3. There we may

BOX 3 ■ VENN DIAGRAMS FOR CATEGORICAL

PROPOSITIONS

U.S. citizens
(S)

Nonvoting
Non-U.S. citizens

identify the following subclasses: (1) U.S. citizens who are voters, (2) U.S. citizens who are
not voters, (3) voters who are not U.S. citizens (which would include, for instance, those who
vote in other countries), and (4) non-U.S. citizen who are non-voters (which would include,
for instance, not only current citizens of other countries who do not vote, but also Henry
VIII, Julius Caesar, and even things like the Eiffel Tower, the Magna Carta, and the Grand
Canyon-in fact everything we can think of belongs to one or the other of these four possi­
ble subclasses).

For each categorical proposition, then, there is a Venn diagram that shows the relation­
ship of inclusion or exclusion that it involves. The bottom line is:

■ The areas displayed by a Venn diagram relevant to representing a categorical proposition
are three: those inside each intersecting circle and their intersection itself.

■ A Venn diagram for an A or E proposition shows a shaded area where there are no
members. No ‘x’ occurs in this diagram.

■ A Venn diagram for an I or O proposition shows an ‘x’ in the area where there are
members. No area is shaded in this diagram.

Exercises

1. In the previous section, Venn diagrams were used to represent categorical propositions. Explain
how this technique works.

2. What do Venn diagrams for universal propositions have in common? What about those for particu­
lar propositions?

3. What does it mean when spaces are shaded out in Venn diagrams for categorical propositions?
And what’s the meaning of an ‘x’ placed in one of the circles?

4. What do the two circles stand for in a Venn diagram for a categorical proposition?

0

0..

C\I 0
C’) a:
� 0..

mlll

(f) (f) z LU
Qo
f- z
– LU
(f) 0:
Q LU
Q_ LL
Oz
0: –
Q LU

__J !;;: <( - (.) 0 - LU 0: 2 0 2 0_ LU f- 0 <( z 0 <( IX. Determine whether each Boolean notation for the diagram on the right is correct. If it isn't, provide the correct one. 1.SP=O SAMPLE ANSWER: Incorrect. It should be: p S P,¢.0 2. S P¢c 0 p *3. SP ¢c 0 s p 4. SP� 0 p X. For each categorical proposition below, first identify its letter name and traditional notation. Then select the correct Venn diagram and Boolean notation for it from the following menu: Venn Diagram 1 p 2 p 3 s p 4 p _J 0

0..
NO
(‘) a:
� 0..

(f) (f) Zw
Qo
1- Z
-w
(f) a:
Ow
a… lJ…

Oz
a: –
a… w
…..I ……
<( � 00 -w a: � 0 � (.'J - w ...... 0 <( z 0 <( (1) SP= 0 (2) SP= O Boolean Notation (3) SP :it: 0 (4) S P :it= 0 1. No Sumo wrestlers are men who wear small-size shirts. SAMPLE ANSWER: E proposition; no Sare P. Venn Diagram 2, Boolean notation 1. 2. Some sports cars are very expensive machines. *3. All llamas are bad-tempered animals. 4. Some grocers are not members of the Rotary Club. 5. All waterfalls are places people in kayaks should avoid. *6. No spiders are insects. 7. Some advertisers are artful deceivers. 8. Some cowboys are not rodeo riders. *9. No atheists are churchgoers. 10. All oranges are citrus fruits. 11 . Some rivers that do not flow northward are not South American rivers. *12. If a number is even, then it is not odd. 13. There are marathon runners who eat fried chicken. 14. Some accountants who are graduates of Ohio State are not owners of bicycles. *15. Not all oils are good for you. 16. Some reference works are books that are not in the library. 17. If an architect is well known, then that architect has good taste. *18. Nothing written by superstitious people is a reliable source. 19. Chiropractors who do not have a serious degree exist. *20. Some resorts that are not in the Caribbean are popular tourist destinations. 13.3 The Square of Opposition The Traditional Square of Opposition Categorical propositions of the above four types were traditionally thought to bear logi­ cal relations to each other that enable us to draw certain immediate inferences. These are single-premise arguments, to some of which we'll turn now. We'll first look at the imme­ diate inferences represented in the Traditional Square of Opposition, a figure that looks like this: BOX 4 11 TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION (All Sare P) (No Sare P) A CONTRARIETY E s s u u B B A A L L T T E E R R N N A A T T I I 0 0 N N SUBCONTRARIETY 0 (Some S are P) (Some S are not P) The relations represented in the Traditional Square of Opposition, which involve two categorical propositions at a time, are as follows: Relation Contradiction Contrariety Subcontrariety Subalternation Established Between A and O; E and I AandE I and 0 A and I; E and O Let's now take up each of these relations in turn. Name of Related Propositions Contradictories Contraries Sub contraries Superalterns: A and E Subalterns: I and 0 Contradiction. Propositions of the types in diagonally opposite corners of the Square are contradictories. Propositions that stand in the relation of contradiction cannot have the same truth value: if one is true, then the other is false, and vice versa. Thus A and O propositions will always have opposite truth values if their subjects and predicates are the same, as will proposi­ tions of types E and I. Thus if (1) is true, (4) is false: 1 All philosophers are wise persons. 4 Some philosophers are not wise persons. On the other hand, if (1) is false, then that's logically the same as saying that (4) is true. Similarly, if it's true that 3 Some philosophers are wise persons, (that is, there is at least one philosopher who is a wise person), then it is false that 2 No philosophers are wise persons. z 0 (j) 0 n.. n.. 0 LL 0 w 0: a (j) w f- (j) (j) Zw Qo f- z And conversely, if (3) is false, then (2) is true. When we infer the truth value of a proposition from that of its contradictory, as we've been doing here, we make a valid immediate inference: a single-premise argument whose conclusion must be true if its premise also is. But contra­ diction is only one sort of valid immediate inference according to traditional logicians; as we shall see next, there are others. BOX 5 ■ CONTRADICTION in� O w A and O ¢ <::i Contradictories n_ LL � � E and I ¢ <::i Contradictories n. w ....J f- < ::!'. 00 - w Contrariety, Subcontrariety, and Subalternation. The Traditional Square of Opposition also a: � g � includes the following logical relationships between propositions, which are valid given � o certain assumptions that we'll discuss presently: < z O< - A and E ¢ Contrariety I and 0 ¢ Subcontrariety A and I ¢ Subalternation Eand 0 ¢ Subalternation Contrary propositions cannot both be true at once, but can both be false. For instance, by con­ trariety, if (14) is true we can infer that (15) is false: 14 All bankers are cautious investors. 15 No bankers are cautious investors. That's because these categorical propositions cannot both be true. Yet they could both be false (as in fact they are). But contrariety differs from subcontrariety, and neither of these is the same as contradiction. Subcontrary propositions can both be true at once but cannot both be false. By subcontrariety, if (16) is false, then (17) is true: 16 Some students are vegetarians. 17 Some students are not vegetarians. These categorical propositions cannot both be false but could both be true (as in fact they are). Finally, there is the relationship of subalternation, which is a little more complex, since the correct inference of truth values varies depending on whether we go from the universal proposition to the corresponding particular, or the other way around. Logically speaking, to say that an A proposition and the corresponding I proposition are in the relation of subalternation is to say that if the A proposition is true, then the I proposition must be true, as well, but also that if the I proposition is false, then the A must be false. And similarly, for an E proposition and the corresponding 0, to say that they are in the relation of subalternation means that if the E proposition is true, then necessarily the O proposition is true, but also that if the O is false, then the E must be false as well. In either case, the universal proposition is called 'superaltern,' and the particular of the same quality 'subaltern.' So Subalternation is a logical relation between: A and I (A superaltern, I subaltern) E and O (E superaltern, 0 subaltern) In this relation: Truth transmits downward (from superaltern to subaltern) Falsity transmits upward (from subaltern to superaltern) Let's reason by subalternation as traditional logicians would. Suppose it's true that 18 All trombone players are musicians. Then it must also be true that 19 Some trombone players are musicians. This suggests that truth transmits downward. At the same time, since it is false that some trombone players are not musicians, it follows that it is also false that no trombone players are musicians-and this suggests that falsity transmits upward. But a false superaltern such as (14) clearly fails to entail a false subaltern, since that some bankers are cautious investors is true. 14 All bankers are cautious investors. And a true subaltern such as (17) fails to entail a true superaltern, since that no students are vegetarians is false. 17 Some students are not vegetarians. Truth-Value Rules and the Traditional Square of Opposition Let's now summarize all rela­ tionships represented in the Traditional Square of Opposition, together with the rules to be used for drawing immediate inferences from it: Contradiction: Contradictory propositions cannot have the same truth value (if one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa). Contrariety: Contrary propositions cannot both be true at once, but can both be false. Subcontrariety: Subcontrary propositions cannot both be false at once, but can both be true. Subalternationfrom the superaltern to subaltern (i.e., from the universal proposition to the particu­ lar proposition of the same quality): If the superaltern is true, then the subaltern must be true. If the superaltern is false, then the subaltern is undetermined Subalternationfrom the subaltern to superaltern (i.e., from the particular proposition to the universal proposition of the same quality): If the subaltern is true, then the superaltern is undetermined. If the subaltern is false, then the superaltern must be false. z 0 1- (j) 0 0... 0... 0 LI.. 0 w a:
a
(j)

w
I
I-

“.
(‘)

BIii

/J)
/J) Zw

Qo
f– z -w
/J) 0: Ow
Q._ LL
Oz
a: –
Q._ w

….J f-­
<( ::; 00 -w 0: ::?: 0 "<;: 0 � w f-- 0 <( z 0 <( Given the relationships of contradiction, contrariety, subcontrariety, and subalternation repre­ sented in the Traditional Square of Opposition, then assuming the truth values listed on the left, we can infer the values listed on the right. If A is true ¢ E is false, 0 is false, and I is true. If A is false ¢ E is undetermined, 0 is true, and I is undetermined. If Eis true ¢ A is false, I is false, and O is true. If Eis false ¢ A is undetermined, I is true, and O is undetermined. If I is true ¢ A is undetermined, E is false, and O is undetermined. If I is false ¢ A is false, E is true, and O is true. If O is true ¢ A is false, E is undetermined, and I is undetermined. If O is false ¢ A is true, E is false, and I is true. Existential Import Although inferences by contrariety, subcontrariety, and subalternation are all licensed as valid by the Traditional Square of Opposition, our ability to draw such inferences is undermined by a significant difference between universal propositions, on the one hand, and particular propositions, on the other: namely, that the latter (I and 0) have existential import while the former (A and E) do not. That is, I and O propositions implicitly assume the existence of the entities denoted by their subject terms. Since 'some' is logically the same as 'at least one,' therefore an I proposition such as (20) is logically equivalent to (20'): 20 Some cats are felines. 20' There is at least one cat that is a feline. Note that 'there is at least one cat ... ' amounts to 'cats exist.' Similarly, an O proposition such as (21) is logically the same as (21'), which likewise presupposes that some cats exist: 21 Some cats are not felines. 21 ' There is at least one cat that is not a feline. On the other hand, A and E propositions are logically the same as conditionals: (22) is equiva­ lent to (22') and (23) to (23'). 22 All cats are felines. 22' If anything is a cat, then it is a feline. 23 No cats are felines. 23' If anything is a cat, then it is not a feline. Understood in this way, a universal categorical proposition doesn't have existential import, since it is equivalent to a conditional, a compound proposition that is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent false. So (22') would be false if and only if there are cats but they are not felines, as would (23') if there are cats but they are felines. If cats did not exist, the antecedents of these conditionals would be false, and those conditionals true (independent of the truth value of their consequents). Thus the inference by contrariety is undermined: given this understanding of universal propositions, contrary propositions could both be true in cases where their subjects are empty (i.e., have no referents). Consider (24), which is equivalent to (241): 24 All unicorns are shy creatures. 24' If anything is a unicorn, then it is a shy creature. Since nothing is a unicorn, (24')'s antecedent is false, and the whole conditional therefore true. Now consider its contrary, (25), which is equivalent to (25'): 25 No unicorns are shy creatures. 25' If anything is a unicorn, then it is not a shy creature. Here again, since nothing is a unicorn, (25')'s antecedent is false, and the whole conditional therefore true. Clearly, then, (24) and (25) could both be true! It follows that, unless we assume that the subject term of a true universal proposition is non-empty, we cannot infer that its con­ trary is false. Now, what about subcontrariety? This involves I and O propositions-which, in the modern understanding, do have existential import. Although, given the Traditional Square of Opposition, subcontraries cannot both be false, in the modern understanding they can. Consider now 26 Some unicorns are shy creatures. This is equivalent to 26' There are unicorns and they are shy creatures. Thus understood, (26) is false, since there are no unicorns. Compare 27 Some unicorns are not shy creatures. This is equivalent to 27' There are unicorns and they are not shy creatures. Since there are no unicorns, (27) turns out to be false as well. Thus (26) and (27) could both be false at once. It follows that we cannot draw valid inferences by subcontrariety. Finally, consider subalternation. From what we have just seen, this relation also begins to look suspicious. How can one validly infer, for example, from an A proposition that has no existential import, an I proposition that does? Of course, I-from-A and O-from-E inferences might seem unproblematic at first, whenever the things denoted by their subject terms exist­ for example, trombone players, accountants, and tigers. But when we're talking about entities whose existence is questionable, inference by subalternation leads to absurdities, such as 28 1. All unicorns are shy creatures. 2. Some unicorns are shy creatures. Since the conclusion in (28) is equivalent to (26') above, the argument appears to have "proved" that unicorns exist! This attempt to draw a conclusion by subaltemation fails because it ignores the fact that the premise has no existential import, while the conclusion (its subaltern) does have it. z 0 r (J) 0 Cl. Cl. 0 LL 0 llJ a: <( :::, 0 (J) llJ I r C') C') (/) (/) z lJJ Qo I- z - lJJ (/) a: 0 lJJ Q_ u.. Oz a: - Q_ UJ _J I­ <{ � 00 - UJ a: � 0 � CJ - UJ I- 0 <{ z 0 <{ IIE1D The Modern Square of Opposition Some qualifications of the allowable valid inferences according to the Square of Opposition are needed to restrict the range of valid inferences involving categorical propositions. As shown in Box 6, the Modern Square modifies the traditional one so that it leaves out the relationships of subalternation, contrariety, and subcontrariety, retaining only contradiction as a relation sanctioning valid immediate inferences. Contradiction holds between A and O and between E and I propositions, which are in opposite corners of the Square, marked by the two diagonals, as shown in Box 6. From this Modern Square, we can see two things about a proposition and the negation of its contradictory. First, they are logically equivalent: if the proposition in one corner is true, then the negation of its contradictory must be true; and if the proposition in one corner is false, then the negation of its contradictory must be false. Second, they entail each other: any BOX 6 ■ MODERN SQUARE OF OPPOSITION (All Sare P) A (Some S are P) (No Sare P) E 0 (Some S are not P) inference from a proposition to the negation of its contradictory preserves truth value and is therefore valid. Here, then, is a complete list of the equivalences (and entailment relations) between a proposition of one of the four standard types and the negation of its contradictory sanctioned by the Modern Square of Opposition: 1. A= not 0 2. E= not I 3. I= not E 4. O= not A So, given (1), if 'All oranges are citrus fruits' is true, then 'It is not the case that some oranges are not citrus fruits' must be true; and vice versa. But given (4), if 'Some oranges are not citrus fruits' is true, then 'All oranges are citrus fruits' must be false while 'It is not the case that all oranges are citrus fruits' must be true. You should try, as an exercise, to run an example for each of these equivalences. The bottom line is that for the listed propositions, each pair have the same truth value: if one is true, the other must also be true; and if one is false, the other must likewise be false. The former yields validity, the two combined logical equivalence. Venn diagrams are consistent with the modern view of the Square of Opposition. After all, it is only for particular propositions that we're required to use an 'x' to indicate where there are members of the subject class (if they exist at all). Universal proposi­ tions never require us to indicate where there are members, but only where there aren't any (i.e., by shading). BOX 7 ■ LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE AND VALIDITY Logical Equivalence When two propositions are logically equivalent, if one is true, then the other is also true; and if one is false, then the other must be false as well. This is because the conditions under which they are true or false are the same. Thus logically equivalent propositions have the same truth values: they are either both true or both false. As a result, one of them could be substituted for the other while preserving the truth value of the larger expression in which they occur, provided that nei­ ther occurs in a special context that could not allow such substitutions. For example, a proposi­ tion 'P' is logically equivalent to 'It is not the case that not P'; therefore, one can be replaced by the other while preserving the truth value of the larger expression in which one of them occurs, pro­ vided that, for instance, the expression does not occur inside quotation marks. Validity When two propositions are logically equivalent, if one is true, the other is true as well. This satisfies the definition of entailment or valid argument: logically equivalent propositions entail each other. Any argument from one to the other is valid. Exercises 1 . What is an immediate inference? 2. Which immediate inferences are valid according to the Traditional Square of Opposition, and which according to the Modern Square of Opposition? Support your answer with examples. 3. Subalternation works differently depending on whether it is an inference from superaltern to sub­ altern or vice versa. Explain. 4. What does it mean to say that certain propositions have existential import? Which categorical propositions have it, according to the modern interpretation of the Square of Opposition? z 0 1- (/) 0 Q_ Q_ 0 LL 0 w a: <{ :::i 0 (/) w I 1- (") (") E1III (/) (/) z LlJ Qo I- z -w (/) a: 0 LlJ a. u.. Oz a: - a. LlJ .J I­ <( � 00 - LlJ a: � o""' 0:::: I- 0 <( z 0 <( XII. For each of the following, first name the type of the proposition related to it by contrariety or subcontrariety, as the case may be, and state that proposition. Then assume that the proposition given is true and determine the truth value of its contrary or subcontrary. 1. All Icelanders are believers in elves. SAMPLE ANSWER: E. Contrary. No Icelanders are believers in elves. False. 2. No epidemics are dangerous. *3. Some humans are not mortal. 4. No riverboat gamblers are honest men . *5. All labor unions are organizations dominated by politicians. 6. Some conservatory gardens are not places open to the public. *7. Some lions are harmless. 8. No used-car dealers are people who can be trusted. *9. Some bats are not nocturnal creatures. 10. Some historians are interested in the past. XIII. For each of the propositions above, assume that it is false and determine the truth value of its contrary or subcontrary. (*4, *6, *10) SAMPLE ANSWER: 1. E. Contrary. Undetermined. XIV. For each of the following, give the letter name of its contradictory and state that proposition. 1. All bankers are fiscal conservatives. SAMPLE ANSWER: 0. Some bankers are not fiscal conservatives. *2. No Democrats are opponents of legalized abortion. 3. Some SUVs are vehicles that get good gas mileage. *4. All professional athletes are highly paid sports heroes. 5. Some tropical parrots are not birds that are noisy and talkative. *6. Some chipmunks are shy rodents. 7. No captains of industry are cheerful taxpayers. *8. Some cartographers are amateur musicians. 9. All anarchists are opponents of civil authority. *10. Some airlines are not profitable corporations. XV. First suppose each categorical proposition listed in the previous exercise is true. What could you then know about the truth value of its contradictory? Second, suppose each proposition in the list is false. What could you then know about the truth value of its contradictory? XVI. For each of the following, first name the type of the proposition related to it by subalternation and state that proposition. Then assume that the proposition given is true and determine the truth value of its superaltern or subaltern. 1. Some westerns are not good movies. SAMPLE ANSWER: E. Superaltern. No westerns are good movies. Undetermined. 2. Some string quartets are works by modern composers. *3. No butterflies are vertebrates. 4. No parakeets are philosophy majors. *5. Some comets are not frequent celestial events. 6. All Internal Revenue agents are hard workers. *7. Some porcupines are not nocturnal animals. 8. Some Rotarians are pharmacists. *9. No extraterrestrials are Republicans. 10. All amoebas are primitive creatures. XVII. For each of the propositions above, assume that it is false and determine the truth value of its superaltern or subaltern. (*4, *8, *10) SAMPLE ANSWER: 1. E. Superaltern. False. XVIII. For each proposition below, first give the letter names of all propositions related to it according to the Traditional Square of Opposition, specify those relationships, and state those propositions. Then, assuming that each proposition listed below is true, what would be the truth values of the given propositions? (Tip for in-class correction: Move clockwise through the relations in the Square.) 1. All tables are pieces of furniture. SAMPLE ANSWER: E. Contrary. No tables are pieces of furniture. False. 0. Contradictory. Some tables are not pieces of furniture. False. I. Subaltern. Some tables are pieces of furniture. True. 2. Some griffins are mythological beasts. 3. No liars are reliable sources. *4. Some bassoonists are anarchists. 5. All trombone players are musicians. z 0 f­ (/) 0 a.. a.. 0 0 w a: <( ::, 0 (/) w I f- C") C") (/) (/) z LI.J Qo 1-- z (/) LI.J 0 a: 0.. LI.J 0 LL a: � 0.. LI.J ....J 1-­ <( ::; 00 - LI.J a: � 0� C)_ LI.J 1-- 0 <( z 0 <( 1111m *6. No Americans are people who care about global warming. 7. All white horses are horses. *8. All acts of cheating are acts that are wrong. 9. Some cyclists are not welcome in the Tour de France. *10. Some things are things that are observable with the naked eye. XIX. Assuming that the propositions listed in the previous exercise are false, what is the truth value of each proposition related to them by the Traditional Square of Opposition? (*3, *5, *7) SAMPLE ANSWER: E. Contrary. No tables are pieces of furniture. Undetermined. 0. Contradictory. Some tables are not pieces of furniture. True. I. Subaltern. Some tables are pieces of furniture. Undetermined. XX. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. Assuming that the propositions listed in (XVIII) above are true, use the Modern Square of Opposition to draw a valid inference from each of them. SAMPLE ANSWER: All tables are pieces of furniture. It is false that some tables are not pieces of furniture. 2. Consider propositions such as 'No centaur is a Freemason,' 'All hobbits live underground,' and 'Some Cyclops are nearsighted.' What's the matter with them according to modern logicians? Explain. *3. Determine which logical relation among those represented in the Traditional Square of Opposition holds between premise and conclusion in each of the following arguments. Is the argument valid according to the Modern Square of Opposition? Discuss. A. All automobiles that are purchased from used-car dealers are good investments. Therefore, some automobiles that are purchased from used-car dealers are good investments. SAMPLE ANSWER: Subalternation. Invalid by the Modern Square. B. Some residents of New York are dentists. Therefore, it is not true that no resident of New York is a dentist. *C. No boa constrictors are animals that are easy to carry on a bicycle. Therefore, it is false that boa constrictors are animals that are easy to carry on a bicycle. D. Some motorcycles that are made in Europe are not vehicles that are inexpensive to repair. Therefore, it is not the case that all motorcycles that are made in Europe are vehicles that are inex­ pensive to repair. *E. It is false that some restaurants located in bus stations are places where one is likely to be poisoned. Therefore, some restaurants located in bus stations are not places where one is likely to be poisoned. F. It is not the case that some politicians are not anarchists. Therefore, no politicians are anarchists. *G. No pacifists are war supporters. Therefore, it is not true that some pacifists are war supporters. 13.4 Other Immediate Inferences We'll now turn to three more types of immediate inference that can be validly drawn from categorical propositions: conversion, obversion, and contraposition. In some cases, conversion and contraposition allow an inference from a universal to a particular proposition, but the validity of those inferences requires the assumption that the subject terms in the universal premises do not refer to empty classes such as mermaids and square circles. Conversion Conversion allows us to infer, from a categorical proposition called the 'convertend,' another proposition called its 'converse' by switching the former's subject and predicate terms while retaining its original quantity and quality. Thus from an E proposition such as 29 No SUV is a sports car, we can infer by conversion 29' No sports car is an SUV. Here the convertend's subject and predicate terms have been switched, but its quantity and quality remain the same: universal negative. The inference from (29) to (29') is valid: if (29) is true, then (29') must be true as well (and vice versa). Similarly, by conversion, an I proposition yields an I converse when the subject and predicates terms of the convertend are switched. For example, the converse of (30) is (30'): 30 Some Republicans are journalists. 30' Some journalists are Republicans. If (30) is true, then (30') must also be true and vice versa-so the inference is valid and the two propositions are logically equivalent. For A propositions, however, an inference by conversion in this straightforward way would not be valid. For, clearly, (31 1 ) does not follow from (31): 31 All pigs are mammals. 31 ' All mammals are pigs. Rather, an A proposition can be validly converted only 'by limitation-for (311 ') does follow from (31) 31" Some mammals are pigs. In such a case of conversion by limitation, the convertend's quantity has been limited in the converse: the valid converse of an A proposition is an I proposition where the subject and predicate terms have been switched and the universal quantifier 'all' replaced by the non­ universal quantifier 'some.' Finally, note that in the case of O propositions, there is no valid conversion at all. If we tried to convert the true proposition (32), we'd get the false proposition (32'). 32 Some precious stones are not emeralds. 32 Some emeralds are not precious stones. (f) w 0 z w a: w u.. z w 0 w 2 2 a: w I l­ o Ellllll (j) (j) Zw Qo f- z -w (/) cc Ow Q.. LL Oz cc - a.. w _j � <( - 00 -w cc � 0� C) - w f- 0 <( z 0 <( This proves the invalidity of the inference from (32) to (32'). For any O proposition, an immediate inference by 'conversion' commits the fallacy of illicit conversion, and the same fallacy is com­ mitted when an A proposition is inferred by 'conversion' from another A proposition. To sum up, here are the rules for conversion: BOX 8 ■ CONVERSION Convertend Converse Inference A All Sare P Some Pare S (Valid by limitation only) E No Sare P No Pare S VALID I Some Sare P Some Pare S VALID 0 Some S are not P (No valid conversion) Obversion A categorical proposition's obverse is inferred by changing the proposition's quality (i.e., from affirmative to negative, or negative to affirmative) and adding to its predicate the prefix 'non.' The proposition deduced by obversion is called the 'obverse,' and that from which it was deduced, the 'obvertend.' The inference is valid across the board. Thus from the A proposition (33) it follows by obversion (33'): 33 All eagles are birds. 33' No eagles are non-birds. From the E proposition (34), obversion yields (341): 34 No cell phones are elephants. 34' All cell phones are non-elephants. The obverse of I proposition (35) is (35'): 35 Some Californians are surfers. 35' Some Californians are not non-surfers. The obverse of O proposition (36) is (36'): 36 Some epidemics are not catastrophes. 36' Some epidemics are non-catastrophes. In each of these, the obvertend's predicate has been replaced in the obverse proposition by the predicate for its class complement, which is the class made up of everything outside of the class in question. For instance, for the class of senators, the class complement is the class of non-senators, which includes mayors, doctors, bricklayers, airplanes, butterflies, planets, postage stamps, inert gases, and so forth .. . in fact, everything that is not a senator. The class complement of the class of horses is non-horses, a similarly vast and diverse class of things. For the class of diseases, the class complement is non-diseases. And so on. The expression that denotes any such complement is a term complement. BOX 9 ■ EQUIVALENCES AND NON-EQUIVALENCES BY CONVERSION All Sare P. All Pare S. s p NoSareP. NoPareS. p Some Sare P. Some PareS. p Some S are Some P are �� �£ p p p Unlike conversion, obversion is a valid immediate inference for all four types of categorical proposition. For each of the four pairs of categorical propositions listed below, an immediate inference from obvertend to obverse would be valid: if the obvertend is true, the obverse would be true too. The following table summarizes how to draw such inferences correctly: BOX 10 ■ OBVERSION Obvertend Obverse Inference A All Sare P No Sare non-P VALID E No Sare P All Sare non-P VALID I Some Sare P Some Sare not non-P VALID 0 Some S are not P Some Sare non-P VALID w 0 z w a: w LL � w 0 w � � a: w I r- 0 (") � - (J) (J) Zw Qo f- z U)W 0 a: Q_ w 0 LL a: � Q_ w _J f- <( � 00 -w a: 2 0 2 0_ w f- 0 <( z 0 <( BOX 11 ■ EQUIVALENCES BY OBVERSION All Sare P. No Sare non-P. s p No Sare P. All Sare non-P. p Some Sare P. Some Sare not non-P. p Some S are Some Sare not P. non-P. Contraposition s p p F Contraposition allows us to infer a conclusion, the contrapositive, from another proposition by preserving the latter's quality and quantity while switching its subject and predicate terms, each preceded by the prefix 'non.' Thus the contrapositive of (37) is (37'): 37 All croissants are pastries. 37' All non-pastries are non-croissants. Given contraposition, an A proposition of the form 'All S are P' is logically equivalent to another A proposition of the form 'All non-P are non-S.' Recall that whenever two propositions are logically equivalent, they have exactly the same truth value: if (37) is true, (37') is also true, and if (37) is false, (37') must be false. And, as noted in Box 7 in the previous section, whenever two propositions are logically equivalent, we may infer the one from the other: any such inference would be valid. To visualize this relationship between (37) and (37'), you may want to have a look at the corresponding Venn diagrams in Box 12 (think of' S' in the diagram as standing for 'croissants' and 'P' for 'pastries'). BOX 12 ■ A'S EQUIVALENT AND E'S NON-EQUIVALENT CONTRAPOSITIVES All Sare P. s No Sare P. p p All non-Pare non-S. No non-P are non-S. p The contrapositive of an I proposition is another proposition of exactly the same quality and quantity (that is, another I proposition), where the subject and predicate terms have been switched and prefixed by 'non.' The contrapositive of (38) is (38'): 38 Some croissants are pastries. 38' Some non-pastries are non-croissants. But (38) and (38') are not logically equivalent, as can be seen in the corresponding Venn diagram in Box 12. Thus any inference drawn from one to the other by contraposition would be invalid, an instance of the fallacy of illicit contraposition. With E propositions there is also a danger of committing the fallacy of illicit contraposition. But the fallacy can be avoided by limiting the quantity of the original E proposition in its contra­ positive. That is, an E proposition's valid contrapositive is an O proposition in which subject and predicate have been switched and pre-fixed by 'non.' Thus consider 39 No leopards are reptiles. The correct contrapositive, one that limits the quantity of (39) while preserving its quality, is (39'), which is also true. 39' Some non-reptiles are not non-leopards. (40) is inferred from (39) by contraposition without limitation, which makes the inference invalid. Cf) w 0 z w cc w LL z w 0 w 2 2 cc w I 1-- 0 ­
w
�

CHAPTER

Categorical
Syllogisms

Here you’ll read more about traditional logic. This chapter is entirely devoted to
syllogistic arguments. It first explains what categorical syllogisms are and then
examines two methods of checking them for validity. The topics include

Recognizing categorical syllogisms.

How to determine the form of a syllogism on the basis of its mood and figure.

Testing syllogism forms for validity using Venn diagrams.

Distribution of terms.

Testing syllogism forms for validity using traditional logic’s rules of validity.

Some patterns of failed syllogism.

330

14.1 What Is a Categorical Syllogism?

Beginning in antiquity with Aristotelian logic, and continuing for many centuries in other

schools of logic, a number of methods have been proposed for analyzing deductive arguments
of the sort we have broadly called ‘syllogistic.’ A syllogism is a deductive argument with two

premises. A categorical syllogism is a syllogism made up entirely of categorical propositions.

Thus there are several different kinds of syllogistic argument, some of which were considered

in Chapters s and 12. In this chapter, we’ll look closely at categorical syllogisms, which, for our

purposes here, we’ll refer to simply as ‘syllogisms.’ For example,

1 1. All rectangles are polygons.

2. All squares are rectangles.

3. All squares are polygons.

Argument (1) is a syllogism, since it has two premises and a conclusion, all of which are cate­

gorical propositions. A closer look at (1)’s premises and conclusion reveals that it has exactly

three terms in the position of subject or predicate: ‘rectangle,’ ‘polygon,’ and ‘square.’ Each of

these denotes a category (or class) of things, and these categories are related in such a way that

the argument’s conclusion follows validly from its premises. According to that conclusion, the

class of squares is wholly included in the class of polygons, which must be true provided that

(1)’s premises are true. This is a valid deductive argument: its conclusion is entailed by its

premises. But other syllogisms might be invalid. When a syllogism meets the deductive stan­

dard of validity, entailment hinges on relations among the terms of three different types that

occur as subject or predicate of the categorical propositions that make up the syllogism. Since

the validity of an argument depends on its having a valid form, several methods have been

proposed for determining when syllogisms have such forms. But before turning to these, more

needs to be said about the structure of standard syllogisms.

The Terms of a Syllogism

A standard syllogism consists of three categorical propositions, two of which function as

premises and one as a conclusion. Each of these has a subject term and a predicate term

denoting two classes of things, with the proposition as a whole representing a certain relation

of exclusion or inclusion among the classes denoted by its subject and predicate terms. Our

inspection of each of the categorical propositions making up (1) above showed that its

component propositions feature subject and predicate terms of three different types: namely,

‘polygon,’ ‘square,’ and ‘rectangle.’ In fact, this is something all standard syllogisms have in

common, since they all feature terms of three different types: the so-called major, minor, and

middle terms. The major term is the predicate of the conclusion. The minor term is the
subject of the conclusion, and the middle term is the term that occurs only in the premises.

Consider (1) again,

1 1. All rectangles are polygons.

2. All squares are rectangles.

3. All squares are polygons.

..J
–
� (f)

Cl)

�
Cl)

CJ
0
.J
.J
>­
Cl)

.J

<( a: 0 CJ LI.J I­ <( IED By looking at the predicate and subject of (1)'s conclusion, we can identify this syllogism's major and minor terms respectively: 'polygons' (the conclusion's predicate) and 'squares' (its subject). Notice that each of these terms occurs also in the premises, but that does not bear on their status as major and minor terms, which is determined solely by their functions as predicate and subject of the conclusion. But in (1), there is also the term 'rectangles,' which occurs in the subject and predicate positions in the premises. It is the 'middle term,' so called because its function is to mediate between the two premises-to connect them, so that they're both talking about the same thing. In any syllogism, the middle term occurs in both premises but not in the conclusion. Another thing to notice is this: that although each of the three terms of argument (1) is a single word, this is not so in all syllogisms-since sometimes phrases can function as subject and predicate of a categorical proposition. Let's now identify the major, minor, and middle terms in 2 1. No military officers are pacifists. 2.. All lieutenant colonels are military officers. 3. No lieutenant colonels are pacifists. By using the rule just suggested, we can determine that the major term here is 'pacifists,' the minor term 'lieutenant colonels,' and middle term 'military officers.' BOX 1 ■ A SYLLOGISM'S TERMS The important thing to keep in mind is that in order to identify the three words or phrases that are to count as the terms of a syllogism, we look first to the syllogism's conclusion. The major term is whatever word or phrase turns up in the predicate place (i.e., after the copula) in the conclusion. The minor term is whatever word or phrase turns up in the subject place (i.e., between the quantifier and the copula) in the conclusion. And the middle term is the term that does not occur in the conclusion at all but occurs in both premises-whether it be a single word, as in (1), or a more complex expression, as in (2.). The Premises of a Syllogism The conclusion of (1) above is the proposition I 3. All squares are polygons. In the notation of traditional logic, this is symbolized as 3'.AIISareP It is common practice to represent the minor and major terms of a syllogism as 'S' and 'P' respectively, and its middle term as 'M.' We'll adopt that practice and represent any syllogism by replacing its three terms by those symbols, keeping logical words such as quantifiers and negation. In the case of (1) above, we thus obtain 1 ' 1 All M are P 2 All Sare M 3 All Sare P In a standard syllogism, the minor and the major terms occur in different premises. That con­ taining the major term is the 'major premise.' Since (1)'s major term is 'polygons,' its major premise is 1 . All rectangles are polygons. In symbols this becomes 1'. All MareP The premise that contains the minor term is the minor premise. Since (1)'s minor term is 'squares,' its minor premise is 2. All squares are rectangles. In symbols this becomes 2'. All Sare M You may have noticed that, in both examples of syllogism considered thus far, each has been arranged with its major premise first, its minor premise second, and its conclusion last. This is standard order for a reconstructed syllogism. Although in ordinary speech and writing a syllogism's premises and conclusion might be jumbled in any order whatsoever, when we reconstruct it, its premises must be put into standard order (this will become especially important later). We can now determine which premise is which in (1) above: 1 ' 1. All M are P 2. All Sare M 3. All Sare P ¢:i MAJOR PREMISE ¢:i MINOR PREMISE Recognizing Syllogisms However jumbled they may be in their real-life occurrences, syllogisms can be recognized by first identifying their conclusions. Once we've identified the conclusion of a putative syllogism, we can check whether it is indeed a syllogism: the conclusion's predicate gives us the major term, its subject the minor term. Once we've identified these terms, we can then look at the argument's premises and ask: Which premise contains the major term? (That's the major premise.) Which contains the minor term? (That's the minor premise.) After listing these in the standard order, as premises 1 and 2 respectively, and replacing its relevant terms _J -< 0 a: 0 ('J LU 0 -< � ('• f- � < Cl) I- 3: g � _J -–
� w

(/)

:-:2′
(/)

0
0
….I
….I
>­

(/)

….I
(Listed first)
Minor premise ¢ (Listed second)

When the minor term, major term, and middle term are replaced by ‘S,’ ‘P,’ and ‘M,’ as before,
we find this pattern:

4″ 1. All P are M
2. No Sare M
3. No Sare P

This is one among the many possible patterns of syllogisms. Some such patterns are valid,

others invalid. Before we turn to some methods for determining which is which, let’s have a
closer look at argument patterns of this syllogistic sort.

14.2 Syllogistic Argument Forms

Traditionally, syllogisms are said to have forms, which are determined by their figures and
moods. We’ll consider these one at a time, beginning with figure.

Figure

Since a syllogism has three terms (major, minor, and middle), each of which occurs twice in
either subject or predicate position, there are the four possible “figures” or configurations of
these terms for any such argument:

1st Figure
MP

SM

SP

2nd Figure
PM

SM

SP

3rd Figure
MP

MS

SP

4th Figure
PM

MS

SP

(j)

�
a:
0
LL

1-

z
w

�
::i

<..'.J a: <( 0 1- (j) <..'.J 0 .....J .....J >­
(j)

N

st

If)

�
If)

CJ
0
_J
_J

>­
If)

_J
­
(/)

�
st

(j)

�
(j)

G
0
-‘
-‘
>­
(j)

-‘
<( 0 a: 0 G w 0 Let's try the whole process of finding a syllogism's form, starting at the beginning. Consider this argument: 8 No campus residence halls without wi-fi are good places to live. After all, some campus residence halls without wi-fi are old buildings, but some old buildings are not good places to live. Argument (8)'s conclusion is No campus residence halls without wi-fi are good places to live. How do we know? Because we have read the argument carefully and asked ourselves: What claim is being made? (In addition, the premises are introduced by an indicator, 'after all'). Having found the conclusion, we then look for its predicate and subject, which are the major and minor terms, respectively: P = 'good places to live' S = 'campus residence halls without wi-fi' We can now identify the syllogism's major and minor premises. Since the major premise must contain the major term, it must be Some old buildings are not good places to live. We can therefore put this as the first premise. Similarly, the minor premise must contain the minor term, so it must be Some campus residence halls without wi-fi are old buildings. That is the second premise. Thus the reconstructed syllogism is 9 1. Some old buildings are not good places to live. 2. Some campus residence halls without wi-fi are old buildings. 3. No campus residence halls without wi-fi are good places to live. Argument (9) illustrates a pattern that may be represented as 9' 1. Some M are not P 2. Some S are M 3. No Sare P Any syllogism illustrating this pattern would be of the form OIE-1. For example, 1 0 1. Some CIA operatives are not FBI agents. 2. Some women are CIA operatives. 3. No women are FBI agents. Now something has gone wrong with (10) and any other syllogism along the same pattern­ that of (9') above. Clearly, any such syllogism may have true premises and a false conclusion. Next we'll consider which syllogistic patterns are valid and which are not. Exercises 1. What is generally understood by 'syllogism' and 'categorical syllogism'? 2. How do we identify the major term, minor term, and middle term of a syllogism? 3. What is meant by 'major premise'? 4. What is meant by 'minor premise'? 5. When is a syllogism in standard order? 6. How do we identify the mood of a syllogism? 7. How do we identify the figure of a syllogism? 8. How do we determine the form of a syllogism? II. For each of the following arguments, determine whether it is a syllogism. If it isn't, indicate why, and move on to the next argument. If it is, put the syllogism into standard order, and replace its major, minor, and middle terms with the appropriate symbol 'P,' 'S,' or 'M.' 1. Some dinosaurs are not members of the reptile family. For no members of the reptile family are mammals and some dinosaurs are mammals. SAMPLE ANSWER: 1 . No members of the reptile family are mammals. 2 Some dinosaurs are mammals. 3 Some dinosaurs are not members of the reptile family. 1. NoPareM 2. Some Sare M 3. Some S are not P 2. Some Japanese car manufacturers make fuel-efficient cars, but no fuel-efficient cars are pickup trucks. Since all pickup trucks are expensive vehicles, therefore no Japanese car manufacturers make expensive vehicles. *3. All North American rivers are navigable. It follows that no North American rivers are non-navigable. 4. Some summer tourists are mountain climbers. For some risk takers are summer tourists and all mountain climbers are risk takers. *5. No Sinatra songs are popular with first graders, since all Sinatra songs are romantic songs and no romantic songs are popular with first graders. *6. Some men are Oscar winners but no Oscar winners are talk-show hosts. Thus some men are not talk-show hosts. 7. Some persons knowledgeable about heart disease are not members of the American Heart Association. For one thing, although some cardiologists are members of the American Heart Association, some aren't. In addition, all cardiologists are persons knowledgeable about heart disease. 8. No eye doctors are optometrists but some eye doctors are professionals with MD degrees. It follows that some professionals with MD degrees are not optometrists. (f) � 0:: 0 LL 1- z w � ::J (!) 0:: <( 0 1- (f) (!) 0 _J _J >­
(f)

N

7

(/)

�
(/)

(.!)
0
….J
….J
>­
(/)

….J
�
0

a:

0
(.!)
w

0

*9. All metals are substances that expand under heat. Therefore, it is not the case that some metals are

not substances that expand under heat.

10. No conservatives are supporters of gay marriage. Hence, some supporters of gay marriage are persons

who favor abortion rights, since no conservatives are persons who favor abortion rights.

*11. All computer scientists are programmers, and some programmers are pool players. It follows that

some computer scientists are pool players.

12. No movie reviewers are mathematicians. Since all mathematicians are experts in geometry and some

mathematicians are experts in geometry, it follows that no movie reviewers are experts in geometry.

Ill. For each of the following syllogistic forms, identify its mood and figure.

1. 1. Some M are P

2. Some M are S

3. Some S are not P

SAMPLE ANSWER: 110-3

2. 1. No Mare P

2. No Sare M

3. No Sare P

3. 1. Some Pare not M

2. Some S are not M

3. All Sare P

*4. 1. All Mare P

2. Some S are M

3.AII Sare P

5. 1. Some Pare M

2. Some S are M

3. Some S are P

*6. 1. No P are M

2.AIIMareS

3.AII Sare P

7. 1. Some Mare P

2.AIIMareS

3. No Sare P

*8. 1. Some Mare not P

2. Some S are not M

3. NoS are P

9. 1. Some Pare M

2. All Sare M

3. All Sare P

*10. 1. Some Mare not P

2. Some S are M

3. Some S are P

11. 1. Some P are not M

2. Some M are not S

3. Some S are P

•12. 1. No Mare P

2. No Mare S

3. All Sare P

IV. Reconstruct each of the following syllogisms and give its form:

1. Since all Italian sports cars are fast cars, it follows that no fast cars are inexpensive machines,

because no inexpensive machines are Italian sports cars.

SAMPLE ANSWER: EAE-4

1 . No inexpensive machines are Italian sports cars.

2. All Italian sports cars are fast cars.

3. No fast cars are inexpensive machines.

1. NoPareM

2. AIIMareS

3. NoS are P

2. Because no airlines that fly to Uzbekistan are airlines that offer discount fares, some airlines that offer

discount fares are carriers that are not known for their safety records. For some carriers that are not

known for their safety records are airlines that fly to Uzbekistan.

*3. Since some residents of California are people who are not Lawrence Welk fans, and all people who

listen to reggae music are people who are not Lawrence Welk fans, we may infer that some residents

of California are people who listen to reggae music.

4. No members of the Committee for Freedom are people who admire dictators. For all members of

the Committee for Freedom are libertarians, and no libertarians are people who admire dictators.

*5. All loyal Americans are people who are willing taxpayers. Hence, all people who are willing taxpayers

are supporters of the president in his desire to trim the federal budget, for all loyal Americans are sup­

porters of the president in his desire to trim the federal budget.

6. All Rottweilers that are easily annoyed are animals that are avoided by letter carriers; for some lap dogs

are not Rottweilers that are easily annoyed, but no animals that are avoided by letter carriers are lap dogs.

*7. No reptiles weighing over eighty pounds are animals that are convenient house pets. After all, all

animals that are convenient house pets are creatures your Aunt Sophie would like, but no creatures

your Aunt Sophie would like are reptiles weighing over eighty pounds.

8. Since some senators are people who will not take bribes, and all people who will not take bribes are

honest people, it follows that some senators are honest people.

*9. No explosives are safe things to carry in the trunk of your car. For some explosives are devices that

contain dynamite, and some devices that contain dynamite are not safe things to carry in the trunk of

your car.

10. No chiropractors are surgeons. Hence, some chiropractors are not persons who are licensed to perform

a coronary bypass, since some persons who are licensed to perform a coronary bypass are surgeons.

•11. No pacifists are persons who favor the use of military force. Hence, some persons who favor the use

of military force are not conscientious objectors, for some pacifists are not conscientious objectors.

12. Some rhinos are not dangerous animals, because all dangerous animals are creatures that are kept

in zoos, and some rhinos are not creatures that are kept in zoos.

(/)

�
rr
0
LL

1-

z
UJ

�
🙂

(9
rr
­
(/)

EDI

(j)

�
(j)

Cl

0
_J
_J
>­
(j)

_J
<( 0 a: 0 Cl w I­ <( V. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1 . For each of the following syllogistic forms, provide a syllogism that is an instance of it: 1 AAA-1 2 AEE-2 3 OAO-3 4 EIO-4 5 All-3 6 EAE-1 7 EAE-2 8 AEE-4 9 IAl-3 10 IAl-4 2. All of the above syllogistic forms are valid. What do you now know about the conclusion of a syllogism that exemplifies any of them? And what would you know about any such syllogism if its premises were in fact true? 14.3 Testing for Validity with Venn Diagrams Syllogisms can have configurations that make up 256 different forms. Since some of these are valid and some are not, it is essential that there be some dependable way of determining, for any given syllogistic form, whether it is valid. In fact, there are several different ways of doing this, but we shall focus here on one very widely accepted technique, based on Venn diagrams, the rudiments of which we examined in Chapter 13. How to Diagram a Standard Syllogism In using Venn diagrams to check the validity of syllogisms, we adapt that system of two­ circle diagrams for categorical propositions to a larger diagram with three interlocking circles. M Figure 1 Here the circles represent the three distinct classes of things denoted by the three terms of a syllogism. The two bottom circles, labeled S and P, represent the classes denoted by the syllo­ gism's minor and major terms. BOX 5 ■ VALIDITY AND VENN DIAGRAMS Any syllogism could be tested for validity by means of a Venn diagram, which would begin with three intersecting circles as in Figure 1. Once the Venn diagram is completed, it shows whether the syllogism is valid or invalid. The top circle, labeled 'M,' represents the class denoted by the syllogism's middle term. Now notice another thing about this diagram: we can find within it subclass spaces of two important shapes that will be crucial to our diagrams. We've already encountered these in the two-circle diagrams discussed in the last chapter. They are the American football shape (Figure 2) and the crescent (Figure 3): 0 Figure 2 Figure 3 On the three-circle Venn diagram, the football shape can be found in three places. Can you see where? The crescent can be found in six places. Can you locate these? For the purpose of putting shading or xs on the three-circle Venn diagram, the only subclass spaces we'll be con­ cerned with are those in the shape of either a football or a crescent. If you try to shade or put an x in any other shape, you'll not be using the Venn system. Finally, notice that on the three-circle diagram, there are three different ways of grouping the circles together into pairs. CONCLUSION Figure 4 z z w >
I
1–

>-1–
0
_J

<( >
0:
0 u..
(!j
z
i= (/)
(/)� w <( 1-- 0: (') (!j .,i � �o mlll (j) � (j) CJ 0 _J _J >­
(j)

_J
<( 0 a: 0 CJ w 11111 These three groupings mark the areas where each of a syllogism's three propositions are represented: Mand Pare used to diagram its major premise, Mand Sits minor premise, and Sand Pits conclusion. Again, the purpose of drawing this sort of three-circle Venn diagram is to test the validity of a syllogism. But the test requires that we diagram propositions across two circles at a time, using what we have learned in Chapter 13 about Venn diagrams for each of the four types of categorical proposition. To do this, we take into account, one at a time, pairs of circles representing the major premise, minor premise, and the conclusion, in each case ignoring the circle that is irrelevant to the task at hand. To see how this works, let's test a syllogism. 11 1. No poets are cynics. 2. All police detectives are poets. 3. No police detectives are cynics. A quick look reveals that this syllogism is already in standard order, so the first step in argu­ ment analysis has been done. We can then see that the major term is 'cynics,' the minor term 'police detectives,' and the middle term 'poets' -so that the argument is an instance of the form EAE-1, which we could spell out in this standard way: 11 1 1. NoMareP 2. All Sare M 3. No Sare P Now, are syllogisms of this form valid or invalid? A Venn diagram can test this. The first rule to follow in implementing this test is: Diagram only the syllogism's premises. Do not try to diagram the conclusion. So we are concerned at this stage only with two sets of two circles each. One set will be used to represent the major premise (Figure s), the other to represent the minor premise (Figure 6): M M Figure 5 Figure 6 Now, which premise shall we diagram first? Here the rule, whose rationale will soon become apparent, is If one premise is universal and the other particular, you must diagram the universal premise first, whichever it is. But if both premises are universal, or both particular, it doesn't matter which is diagrammed first. In (n')'s case, both premises are universal, so it's a matter of indifference which one we choose to diagram first. Let's arbitrarily choose the major premise, an E proposition of the form 'No S are P' that we earlier learned to diagram this way: No Sare P Figure 7 When drawn directly on the pair of circles in the larger diagram, the diagram looks like this: M No Mare P Figure 8 So much for the major premise. Now what about the minor? In (111 ) the minor premise is an A proposition, and the two-circle Venn diagram that represents it, you'll recall, is All Sare P Figure 9 z z llJ >

I
f-

>­
f-
0
…J
<{ >

a:
0

0
z

;::: Cf)
Cf)�
llJ <{ f- a: C') 0 . <{ ­

Cf)

_J

I
f-

>­
f-
0

….J
<( >
a:
0
LJ…

CJ
z
;:: (/)
(/) � w <( f- a: (')0 �� �o Cf) � Cf) (') 0 ..J ..J >­
(/J

..J

I
f-

>­
f-

…J

a:
0
LJ..

CJ
z

i= (/)
(/)�
LU ­

(f)

_.J

<{ � a: 0 CJ LU - When we represent that premise in the three-circle diagram, we get this: M Figure 18 Why? Because in Figure 18, the crescent-shaped space where the 'x' goes in representing "Some M are not P" is itself divided by a line, and on neither side of it do we find shading. Had one or the other of these two portions of the crescent been shaded out, the 'x' would have gone in the other part. But here, there's no shading at all inside the crescent; therefore, if we are to put an 'x' inside it, we have no choice but to put the 'x' on the line dividing the crescent-to indicate that we're non-committal about precisely which side of the line it goes on. Given that the crescent, "M that are non-P," is divided by a line, it is simply not decidable on which side of it the 'x' goes. Now we're finished with the diagramming and ready to check for validity. We compare the conclusion of the argument with the part of the diagram that represents it. Do they match up? Clearly, in this case they do not. For the conclusion of the argument is the E proposition 'No S are P.' A correct Venn diagram for any such proposition shows the inter­ section between S and P shaded out (see Figure 7 above). But that is not what Figure 18 represents. So here's an instance where the process of diagramming the premises did not automatically produce in the bottom pair of circles a diagram that represents the conclusion as given. Thus the Venn diagram proves the form OIE-1 to be invalid. We conclude that argument (9) is invalid. BOX 7 ■ SECTION SUMMARY How to test the validity of a syllogism with a Venn diagram: ■ Draw three intersecting circles. ■ Diagram only the premises. ■ If one premise is universal and the other particular, you must diagram the universal premise first, whichever it is. ■ But if both premises are universal or both particular, then it doesn't matter which is diagrammed first. ■ Once you have diagrammed the premises, if the conclusion is already unequivocally diagrammed too, the argument is valid. Otherwise, the argument is invalid. Exercises 1. In using a Venn diagram to represent an argument form, what are the only two shapes in which shading or an 'x' can go? 2. In a three-circle Venn diagram, what is represented by each of the circles? 3. Which part of a Venn diagram represents the major premise of a syllogism? 4. Which part of a Venn diagram represents the minor premise of a syllogism? 5. In diagramming a syllogism with a Venn diagram, which premise is diagrammed first? 6. How do we tell, using a Venn diagram, whether a syllogism is valid or not? VII. Reconstruct each of the following syllogisms, identify its form, and test it for validity with a Venn diagram. 1. Since all logicians are philosophers, and some philosophers are not vegetarians, it follows that some logicians are not vegetarians. SAMPLE ANSWER: 1 Some philosophers are not vegetarians. 2 All logicians are philosophers. 3 Some logicians are not vegetarians. I. Some Jf are not P. 2. All Sare _\1, 3. Some .5' are not P. OAO-I INVALID 2. No dictators are humanitarians, because no tyrants are humanitarians, and some dictators are tyrants. 3. Some medical conditions that are not treatable by conventional means are causes of death. Hence, some causes of death are not things related to eating pizza, for no medical conditions that are not treatable by conventional means are things related to eating pizza. *4. Some taxi drivers are people who never run red lights, because all taxi drivers are people who are not elitists, and some people who never run red lights are people who are not elitists. 5. Some economists who are members of the faculty at the University of Chicago are not monetarists; therefore, no monetarists are White Sox fans, for all economists who are members of the faculty at the University of Chicago are White Sox fans. 6. Since all readers of poetry are benevolent people, it follows that no fanatics are benevolent people, for no fanatics are readers of poetry. *7. No armadillos are intelligent creatures, for all intelligent creatures are things that will stay out of the middle of the highway, but no armadillos are things that will stay out of the middle of the highway. 8. No newspaper columnists are motorcycle racers; however, some motorcycle racers are attorneys. Therefore, some attorneys are not newspaper columnists. z z w >

I
1-

3
>-
1-
0
_J

((
0
u..

(‘.J
z

� (/)
(/) �
w ­
(f)

_J
<( 0 a: 0 CJ w 111m 9. Some candidates for public office are not persons who are well known. After all, some citizens who are listed on the ballot are not persons who are well known, and all citizens who are listed on the ballot are candidates for public office. *10. Because some axolotls are creatures that are not often seen in the city, we may infer that some mud lizards that are found in the jungles of southern Mexico are creatures that are not often seen in the city, since all axolotls are mud lizards that are found in the jungles of southern Mexico. 11. Since some members of Congress are not senators, it follows that some members of Congress are not experienced politicians, for all senators are experienced politicians. 12. Some historical developments are not entirely explainable. After all, all historical developments are contingent things, and no contingent things are entirely explainable. *13. All orthodontists are dentists who have done extensive post-doctoral study, but no impoverished persons are dentists who have done extensive post-doctoral study. Thus no orthodontists are impoverished persons. 14. All people who ride bicycles in rush-hour traffic are courageous people, for some courageous people are professors who are not tenured members of the faculty, and no professors who are not tenured members of the faculty are people who ride bicycles in rush-hour traffic. 15. Some investment brokers are not Harvard graduates. So some financiers are not investment brokers, since some financiers are not Harvard graduates. *16. All philosophy majors are rational beings, but no parakeets are rational beings. Therefore, no parakeets are philosophy majors. 17. Since some wars are inevitable occurrences, and no inevitable occurrences are things that can be prevented, it follows that some wars are not things that can be prevented. 18. All factory workers are union members, for some union members are not persons who are easy to convince, and some factory workers are not persons who are easy to convince. *19. Since no hallucinations are optical illusions, we may infer that some misunderstandings that are not avoidable are optical illusions, for some misunderstandings that are not avoidable are hallucinations. 20. Some senators who are not opponents of foreign aid are friends of the president. But all friends of the president are influential people who are well informed about world events; hence, some senators who are not opponents of foreign aid are influential people who are well informed about world events. 21. Some fantastic creatures that are not found anywhere in nature are not dogfish. So we may infer that no dogfish are fish that bark, since some fantastic creatures that are not found anywhere in nature are fish that bark. *22. Some college presidents are not benevolent despots, for no benevolent despots are defenders of faculty autonomy, and no defenders of faculty autonomy are college presidents. 23. Since some elderly professors who are not bald are respected scholars, it follows that some classi­ cal philologists are respected scholars. For no elderly professors who are not bald are classical philologists. 24. Some people who have quit smoking are people who are not enthusiastic sports fans, but no soccer players are people who are not enthusiastic sports fans. So some people who have quit smoking are soccer players. *25. All philanderers are habitual prevaricators. Therefore, no preachers who are well-known television personalities are philanderers, because no habitual prevaricators are preachers who are well-known television personalities. 26. Some pinchpennies are not alumni who are immensely wealthy. For no pinchpennies are generous contributors to their alma mater, and some alumni who are immensely wealthy are generous contrib­ utors to their alma mater. 27. All persons employed by the state government are civil servants, for no persons employed by the state government are persons who are eligible to participate in the state lottery, and no civil servants are persons who are eligible to participate in the state lottery. *28. Since all great music is uplifting, it follows that some jazz is great music, for some jazz is uplifting. 29. No Muscovites are country bumpkins, but some Russians who are veterans of World War II are not Muscovites. Hence, some country bumpkins are not Russians who are veterans of World War II. *30. Some interest-bearing bank accounts are not an effective means of increasing one's wealth. After all, some investments that are insured by the federal government are not an effective means of increasing one's wealth, and all investments that are insured by the federal government are interest­ bearing bank accounts. VIII. YOUR OWN THINKING LAB 1. It is sometimes said that the conclusion of a valid syllogism is already contained in its premises. How could this be explained in connection with Venn diagrams for testing the validity of syllogisms? 2. For each form represented below, give two syllogisms of your own: M M M M z z w >
I
l-

s:
>­

‘:::
0
…..J

cc

0

C)
z

i= (j’J
(j’J �
w ­
if)

…J
<( (.) a: 0 (') w MHI 14.4 Distribution of Terms Although Venn Diagrams provide a reliable way of checking syllogistic forms for validity, they are not the only way of doing so. Another method relies on a short list of rules of validity that any indisputably valid syllogism must follow and a list of fallacies that any such syllogism nec­ essarily avoids. We'll devote the remainder of this chapter to a look at some details of this tech­ nique, which is based on one of the traditional parts of Aristotelian logic, To use this method, it's first necessary to understand the notion of distribution of terms. Earlier, we saw that one use of the word 'term' is to refer to the substantive parts of a cat­ egorical proposition: its subject and predicate are its terms. To describe a term as 'distributed' is to say that it's referring to an entire class. In a proposition that is universal affirmative, the pattern of distribution is: A proposition= subject distributed, predicate undistributed Thus in 13 All oranges are citrus fruits, the subject term, 'oranges,' is distributed, since, preceded by 'all,' it's plainly referring to the whole class of oranges. But its predicate term, 'citrus fruits,' is not distributed, since no univer­ sal claim of any kind is being made here about all members of the class of things to which it refers-namely, citrus fruits. In a proposition that is universal negative, the pattern of distribution is E proposition: subject distributed, predicate distributed. Consider 14 No apples are citrus fruits, which is true, and, as we saw in Chapter 13, logically equivalent to 14' No citrus fruits are apples. Either way, these propositions deny of the whole class of apples that it includes citrus fruits, and of the whole class of citrus fruits that it includes apples. Put a different way, (14) is asserting that there is total, mutual exclusion between the whole classes of apples and citrus fruits. So it's clear that in (14) both the subject term and the predicate term are distributed. Here something is being said about entire classes (namely, that they exclude each other). Let's now turn to the patterns of distribution for particular propositions, which include particular affirmatives such as 15 Some oranges are edible fruits, and particular negatives, such as 16 Some oranges are not edible fruits. The pattern of distribution for any particular affirmative proposition is / proposition: subject undistributed, predicate undistributed and for any particular negative proposition it is 0 proposition: subject undistributed, predicate distributed (15) amounts to the proposition that there is at least one orange that is an edible fruit. This proposition's subject is undistributed because this term doesn't refer to the whole class of oranges, but only to 'some' of them. Similarly, its predicate term, 'edible fruits,' is equally undistributed, since this term doesn't refer to the whole class of edible fruits but only to those edible fruits that are oranges. Finally, although the subject of (16) is not distributed for the reasons just provided for the subject of (15), its predicate term is. Why? Because it refers to the class of edible fruits as a whole, which becomes plain when (16) is recast as the proposition that there is at least one orange that is not in the class (taken as a whole) of edible fruits. (16) says that the entire class of edible fruits excludes at least one orange To sum up, the four patterns of distribution are as follows: A (universal affirmative) E (universal negative) I (particular affirmative) 0 (particular negative) All Sare P No Sare P Some Sare P Some S are not P Subject distributed, predicate not Both terms distributed Neither term distributed Predicate distributed, subject not Keeping in mind the pattern of distribution outlined here (and also below) will make it easier for you to use the rules of validity to determine whether syllogistic argument forms are valid or invalid. A and E: universal, subject distributed E and 0: negative, predicate distributed SUBJECT A DISTRIBUTED E -------, l PREDICATE I DISTRIBUTED 0 CJ) 2 er: w 1- u.. 0 z 0 1- ::J co I­ C/) 0 s:i: 'Sj" U) L U) (') 0 ...J ...J >­
U)

…J
<( 0 a: 0 (') w 0 - 14.5 Rules of Validity and Syllogistic Fallacies Here we'll consider six rules that can be put at the service of testing the validity of any given categorical syllogism. BOX 8 ■ DETERMINING VALIDITY WITH THE SIX RULES ■ Any syllogism that obeys all six rules is valid. ■ Any syllogism that breaks even one rule is invalid-though some syllogisms may break more than one . We'll also look at the fallacies that are committed when these rules are broken. First proposed in Aristotelian logic, rules along the lines we'll discuss here represent an alternative to Venn diagrams as a procedure for determining the validity of syllogisms. Let's consider each of these rules one at a time, together with its rationale. RULE 1: A syllogism must have exactly three terms. The conclusion of a syllogism is a categorical proposition where two terms are related in a certain way. But they could be so related only if there is a third term to which the subject and predicate of the conclusion are each independently related. That is, for a syllogism's con­ clusion to follow validly from its two premises, there must be precisely three terms, no more and no fewer, each occurring twice: the major term as the predicate of the conclusion and as either the subject or predicate of the major premise; the minor term as the subject of the con­ clusion and as either the subject or predicate of the minor premise; and the middle term once in each of the premises, where it may appear as either subject or predicate. Syllogisms sometimes flout this rule of validity by having some term used with two different meanings in its two occurrences, so that the argument equivocates (see Chapter 9). Any such argument is said to commit the fallacy of four terms (or Q_uaternio Terminorum). For example, consider 17 1. All the members of that committee are snakes. 2. All snakes are reptiles. 3. All members of that committee are reptiles. Here the term 'snakes' is plainly used with two different meanings. As a result, the syllogism commits the fallacy of four terms and is therefore invalid. RULE 2: The middle term must be distributed at least once. A syllogism's middle term, you'll recall, is the term that occurs in both premises (and only in the premises). It functions to connect the minor and major terms, so that the relation among these could be as presented in the syllogism's conclusion. But the middle term can do that only if it's referring to a whole class in at least one of the premises, for if it refers to one class or part of a class in the major premise and another in the minor, then the minor and major terms would be connected to things that have nothing in common. As a result, the relation among these terms would not be as presented in the syllogism's conclusion. Any such syllogism com­ mits the fallacy of undistributed middle and is invalid-as, for example, is this argument: 18 1. All feral pigeons are birds with feathers. 2. Some birds with feathers are animals that distract attackers. 3. Some animals that distract attackers are feral pigeons. RULE 3: If any term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed also in the premise in which it occurs. Recall that the mark of validity for an argument is that its conclusion must follow necessarily from its premises. But no argument can be valid in that sense if its conclusion says more than what is already said in the premises. Syllogisms, which are deductive arguments, fail to be valid when their conclusions go beyond what is supported by their premises. That is the case of a syllogism whose minor or major term is distributed in the conclusion (thus referring there to a whole class) but not in the premise in which it also occurs (referring there to only part of a class). Any such syllogism commits the fallacy of illicit process, which may involve either the minor or major term. Thus the fallacy has the following two versions: OFTIIE The major term is distributed in the conclusion � MAJORTERM ,___ but not in the major premise. IWCIT PROCESS - OFTIIE The minor term is distributed in the conclusion MINORTERM ,___ but not in the minor premise. Consider 1 9 1. All tigers are felines. 2. No lions are tigers. 3. No lions are felines. The term 'felines' in (19)'s conclusion involves the whole class of felines, which is said to be excluded from the whole class of lions. But premise 1 is not about the whole class of felines, since there the term 'felines' is not distributed. The fallacy committed by this argument is illicit process of the major term (for short, 'illicit major'). Now consider 20 1. All suicide bombers are persons willing to die. 2. All suicide bombers are opponents of the status quo. 3. All opponents of the status quo are persons willing to die. 0 I­ (/) (') 0 _J _J >­
(/)

0
z
< >­
I-

0
_J

;;;
LL

0

(/)
w (/)
_J w
:::> –

a: �
“: :::J
<:!"­
(J)

_J

<( 0 a: 0 CJ LU 0 MM:i The term 'opponents of the status quo' in (20)'s conclusion involves a whole class of people with a certain view, which is said to be included in the class denoted by the major term. But premise 2 is not about that whole class of people, since there the term 'opponents of the status quo' is the predicate of an A proposition and therefore not distributed. The fallacy committed by this argument is illicit process of the minor term (for short, ' illicit minor'). Finally, notice that it is also possible for an argument to commit both of these fallacies at once. One more thing: since there's no distribution in a type-I proposition, any syllogism with a type-I conclusion obeys rule 3 by default. But if the conclusion is an A, E, or O proposition, then it'll have some distributed term in it, and the logical thinker will want to make sure that any term distributed in the conclusion is also distributed in the appropriate premise. RULE 4: A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises. If a syllogism's major premise is negative, the classes denoted by its middle and major terms either wholly or partially exclude each other. And if its minor premise is also negative, the classes denoted by its middle and minor term also either wholly or partially exclude each other. From such premises no conclusion validly follows about the relation between the classes denoted by the minor and major terms. When this happens, the argument is said to commit the fallacy of exclusive premises-for example, 21 1. No ferns are trees. 2. Some elms are not ferns. 3. Some elms are not trees. The upshot of rule 4 is that certain combinations in the premises will always render a syllo­ gism invalid: EE, EO, OE, and 00. To avoid this fallacy, if one of the syllogism's premises is negative, the other must be affirmative. RULE 5: If there is a negative premise, the conclusion must be negative; and if there is a negative conclusion, there must be one negative premise. Recall that affirmative categorical propositions represent class inclusion, either whole inclu­ sion of one class in another (A proposition), or inclusion of part of a class within another class (I proposition). Thus the class inclusion represented in a syllogism's affirmative conclusion could be validly inferred only when both premises also represent class inclusion. On the other hand, a syllogism's negative conclusion, which would represent a relation of class exclusion, cannot follow validly from two affirmative premises (which assert only relations of inclusion). When rule 5 is violated, a syllogism commits either the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or that of drawing a negative conclusion from two affirmative premises. Either way, the syllogism is invalid. For example, 22 1. All humans are mammals. 2. Some lizards are not humans. 3. Some lizards are mammals. This commits the fallacy of drawing an affinnative conclusion.from a negative premise; while 23 1. All poets are creative writers. 2. All creative writers are authors. 3. No authors are poets. commits the fallacy of drawing a negative conclusion .from two affirmative premises. Syllogisms flouting rule 5 are so obviously invalid that it is rare to encounter them. Finally, note that any syllogism containing only affirmative propositions obeys rule s by default. RULE 6: If both premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal. As we saw in the previous chapter, of the four types of standard categorical propositions, only I and O carry existential import; that is, only these presuppose the existence of the entities denoted by their subject terms. Thus there is no valid syllogism with two universal premises and a particular conclusion. Any such syllogism draws a conclusion with existential import on the basis of premises having no such import. Syllogisms of this sort violate rule 6, committing the so-called existential fallacy. For example, 24 1. All beings that breathe are mortal. 2. All mermaids are beings that breathe. 3. Some mermaids are mortal. Here the conclusion is equivalent to "There is at least one mermaid that is mortal"-in effect endorsing the existence of mermaids. Finally, note that any syllogism in which one or more of its premises is particular (i.e., type I or 0) obeys rule 6 by default. Rules of Validity vs. Venn Diagrams Each of the six rules of validity stipulates a necessary condition of validity in categorical syllo­ gisms. Thus a syllogism that obeys any one of these rules meets a necessary condition of being valid. But that is of course not yet to meet a sufficient condition of validity. Only obeying all six rules together is a sufficient condition for the validity of a syllogism. This technique thus provides a method of checking for validity that is every bit as reliable as that of Venn diagrams. The rules could, then, be used together with the Venn diagrams, so that if we make a mistake in one method, the other method may catch it. Any syllogistic form that commits one or more of the above fallacies will show up as invalid on a Venn diagram, and any time the diagram shows a form to be invalid, it will be found to commit one or more fallacies. Likewise, any syllogistic form that obeys all six rules will be shown valid by a Venn diagram. In order to use the method of rules and fallacies to check syllogism forms for validity, you'll want to do two things: (1) keep clearly in mind which rules and fallacies go together, and (2) remember that the rules and fallacies are not two different ways of saying the same thing! The rules are prescriptions about what should be kept in mind in assessing the validity of a syllogism. The fallacies are errors in the reasoning underlying those syllogisms that break the rules. Each fallacy can be associated with the flouting of one of the rules. 0 1- (/) (') 0 _J _J >­
(/)

0
z

<( >–
1-

0

_J
<( >

LL

0

(/)
w (/)
_J w

::> –

a: :i
�j
s:t <( � LL Cf) � Cf) ('J 0 ...J ...J >­
Cf)

…J
<( 0 a: 0 ('J llJ 111m Again, the six rules collectively stipulate the necessary and sufficient conditions of validity for categorical syllogisms, but committing even one of the fallacies makes a syllogism invalid. Since it's valid syllogisms that preserve truth, the rules are to be obeyed and the fallacies to be avoided. Let's now summarize the eight fallacies and the six rules of validity that they violate. Fallacy Four terms Undistributed middle Illicit process of the major/minor term Exclusive premises Affirmative from a negative and Negative.from two affirmatives Existential fallacy Exercises 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rule Violated A syllogism must have exactly three terms. The middle term must be distributed at least once. If any term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in one of the premises. A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises. If there is a negative premise, the conclusion must be negative; and if there is a negative conclusion, one premise must be negative. If both premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal. 1. What does it mean to say that a term in a categorical proposition is 'distributed'? 2. What are the patterns of distribution in the four different types of categorical proposition? 3. What are the six rules of validity in categorical syllogisms? 4. Can you name, for each of the six rules of validity, the fallacy (or fallacies) committed when the rule is broken? 5. Can you explain what has gone wrong in each of the eight fallacies that amount to violations of the rules of validity? 6. If you've drawn a Venn diagram that appears to show a certain syllogistic form valid, but you've also discovered that the form appears to commit a fallacy in violation of one of the rules of validity, what should you conclude? X. The following categorical propositions are type A, E, I, or 0. For each of them, say which type it is and whether its subject and predicate are distributed. 1. All wombats are marsupials. SAMPLE ANSWER: A. Subject distributed; predicate undistributed 2. Some alligator wrestlers are not emergency-room patients. *3. Some rare coins are expensive things to insure. 4. No vampires are members of the Rotary Club. 5. Some citrus fruits are not things grown in Rhode Island. *6. All chess players are patient strategists. 7. No interstate highways are good places to travel by bicycle. 8. Some politicians are not persons who have been indicted by the courts. *9. Some motorcycles are collectors' items. 10. All movies starring Tom Hanks are films worth seeing. *11 . Some paintings by Rubens are not pictures in museums. 12. No Yorkshire terriers are guard dogs. 13. Some airlines are not transatlantic carriers. *14. All professional astrologers are charlatans. 15. Some Texans are stockbrokers. XI. Reconstruct each of the following syllogisms, identify its form, and determine whether it is valid or not by applying the rules of validity. For any syllogism that is invalid, name the fallacy (or fallacies) it commits. 1. Some astronauts are not musicians trained in classical music. So no members of the New York Philharmonic are astronauts, for all members of the New York Philharmonic are musicians trained in classical music. SAMPLE ANSWER: 1 Some astronauts are not musicians trained in classical music. 2 All members of the New York Philharmonic are musicians trained in classical music. 3 No members of the New York Philharmonic are astronauts. 1 Some P are not M. 2 All SareM. 3 NoS are P. OAE-2 INVALID Illicit Process of the Major Term 2. Since all generals who are veterans of the Vietnam War are experienced soldiers, and all experienced soldiers are persons who are practiced in the art of planning battle strategies, it follows that some persons who are practiced in the art of planning battle strategies are generals who are veterans of the Vietnam War. *3. Since no people who are truly objective are people who are likely to be mistaken, it follows that no people who ignore the facts are people who are truly objective, for all people who ignore the facts are people who are likely to be mistaken. 4. All submarines are warships, but some naval ships are not submarines. Hence, some naval ships are not warships. *5. Some people who bet on horse races are people who can afford to lose, since some people who bet on horse races are people who expect to win, and no people who expect to win are people who can afford to lose. 6. All persons with utopian ideals are fanatics, because some fanatics are political zealots, even though some political zealots are not persons with utopian ideals. 0 1- (f) CJ 0 ..J ..J >­
(/)
0
z
<( >­
I-

0
..J
<( >

l.!..
0
Cf)
w (/)
..J w
::) –
a: �
�j
<:t <( - l.!.. (/) � (/) Cl 0 _j _j >­
(/)

_j
­
a:
­
(/)

.J
<( a: 0 CJ UJ 11m 3. If one premise is universal and the other particular, then you must diagram the universal premise first, whichever it is. 4. But if both premises are universal or both particular, then it doesn't matter which is dia­ grammed first. 5. The major premise is diagrammed across the 'M' and 'P' circles, the minor premise across the 'M' and 'S' circles. 6. Once you have diagrammed the premises, if the conclusion is thereby already unequivo­ cally diagrammed across the 'S' and 'P' circles, then the argument is valid. Otherwise, the argument is invalid. Syllogisms that violate any of the following rules are invalid: RULE 1: A syllogism must have exactly three terms. An argument that violates this rule commits the fallacy of four terms. RULE 2: The middle term must be distributed at least once. An argument that violates this rule commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. RULE 3: If any term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed also in one of the premises. An argument that violates this rule commits either the fallacy of illicit process of the major term (where the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise) or that of illicit process of the minor term (where the minor term is distri­ buted in the conclusion but not in the minor premise). It is also possible for an argument to commit both of these fallacies at once. RULE 4: A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises. An argument that violates this rule commits the fallacy of exclusive premises. RULE 5: If there is a negative premise, the conclusion must be negative; and if there is a negative conclusion, there must be one negative premise. An argument that violates this rule commits either the fallacy of affirmative from a negative, or the fallacy of negative from two affirmatives. RULE 6: If both premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal. An argument that violates this rule commits the existential fallacy. ■ Key Words Categorical syllogism Syllogism form Rules of validity Venn diagram Fallacy of four terms Undistributed middle Illicit process of the major term Exclusive premises Affirmative from a negative Negative from two affirmatives Existential fallacy Illicit process of the minor term SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER l IV 3. premise 6. neither 8. neither 10. premise 13. conclusion V 3. Badgers are native to southern Wisconsin. (they are always spotted there). 6. (In the past, every
person who ever lived did eventually die.) [This suggests that] all human beings are mortal. 9. Online education is
! great option for working adults in general, regardless of their ethnic background. (there is a
large population of working adults who simply are not in a position to attend a traditional university). 12. (There
is evidence that galaxies are flying outward and apart from each other.) [So] the cosmos will grow darker and
colder. 15- Captain Binnacle will not desert his ship, even though it is about to go down, (only a cowardly
captain would desert a sinking ship), and (Captain Binnacle is no coward). 18. The University of California at
Berkeley is strong in math, (many instructors in its Math Department have published breakthrough papers
in the core areas of mathematics). 20. (No one who knowingly and needlessly endangers his or her life is
rational.) [Thus] college students who smoke are not rational, ( every college student who smokes is
knowingly and unnecessarily endangering his or her life. 25. (all Athenians are Greeks) and that
(Plato was an Athenian), [we may infer that] Plato was a Greek.

VII
4. no argument 10. argument 13. no argument 16. argument 18. no argument 20. argument

IX
4. argument 6. explanation 9. argument 10. explanation

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 2

II

3. rhetorical power s- evidential support 8. logical connectedness 10. linguistic merit and rhetorical power
11. rhetorical power 12. evidential support and logical connectedness 15. linguistic merit

III

2. rhetorical power 4. evidential support 6. logical connectedness 8. evidential support 10. logical connectedness
12. rhetorical power

IV
3. weak logical connectedness 6. strong logical connectedness 9. failed logical connectedness

V

3. impossible. This scenario is ruled out by the definition of rational acceptability. 6. possible. 8. impossible. This
scenario is ruled out by the definition of linguistic merit. 10. impossible. This scenario is ruled out by the
definition of rhetorical power. 13. possible 15. possible

VIII
3. expressive 5. directive 7. informative 10. expressive 12. directive 15. expressive 18. commissive 20.
commissive

IX
4. imperative 7. declarative 10. interrogative 13. declarative 16. exclamatory 19. declarative

X

3. interrogative; (b) asking a question (directive); (c) expressing annoyance at the hearer’s conduct toward
Harry (expressive) 5. exclamatory; (b) reporting that the dog bites (informative); (c) requesting that people refrain
from entering a place (directive) 7. interrogative; (b) asking a question (directive); (c). reporting that the person

365

may be pretending to be sleeping (informative) 10. declarative; (b) reporting a fact (informative); ((c). expressing
hope that things will go better in the future (expressive)

XI
3. (A) Those players are automata resembling humans. (B) Those players act mechanically.
6. (A) We are coming near to a mountain that is a volcano. (B) We are about to have a crisis.
9. (A) Jim wears two different hats. (B) Jim plays two different roles, or has two different official responsibilities.
12. (A) That city is populated by insects. (B) That city is crowded, with many people in the street.
15. (A) He is a piece of burnt bread. (B) He’s finished

XII
2. Indirect speech act. Recast: asserting that Abe is a person of no authority.
5- .Indirect speech act. Recast: requesting that we press criminal charges now.
7. Figurative language. Recast: For teenagers, flip-flops are fashionable items.

xv

3. small ekphant -df. ;l,;wnt that is smaller than most slsPbims
5- human bein,i -\!i, featherless biped
7. hw::i!: =d£ beast of burden with a flowing mane
XVI
3. contextual 5. reportive 7. contextual 9. ostensive

XVII
3, too broad and too narrow 5, too narrow 7, too broad and too narrow 9, too broad

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 3

II

3. nonbelief 5- belief 7. nonbelief 9. belief

III

4. The nonbelief about whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. 6. The belief that the Earth is a planet.
8. The non belief about whether galaxies are flying outward. 10. The belief that I am thinking.
12. The nonbelief about whether there is life after death. 14. The nonbelief about whether humans have
evolved or were created by God.

IV
1. Because under special circumstances (e.g., a threat) a person’s behavior may not express his actual beliefs.
The same could happen if he is insincere-that is, he intends to misrepresent his beliefs. 6. The options are
belief, disbelief, and nonbelief about whether there is life after death.

VI
3. inaccurate 5- vague statement: “tallness” doesn’t clearly apply or fail to apply to a person of that height.
7. evaluative statement: the statement uses ‘better than’ to evaluate two things. 10. accurate 13. accurate
15. evaluative statement: the statement evaluates something as being unjust.

VII
3. empirical statement 5- empirical statement 7. not an empirical statement 10. empirical statement
13. empirical statement 15- not an empirical statement.

VIII
2. Not true because that’s only likely, not certain. 4. Not true because there are no records to prove that they knew
they were in America. 5. Not true because it was a citizen of the U.S.S.R who did it. 7. Not true because the shape
of the country only resembles that of boot.

IX
3. inconsistent. The beliefs are contradictory. 5.consistent. In a possible world, both beliefs could be true.
7. inconsistent. The beliefs are contradictory. 9. inconsistent. The beliefs are contradictory. 11. consistent. These
beliefs are true in all possible worlds. 13. inconsistent. The beliefs are contradictory. 15- inconsistent. Both beliefs
are necessarily false.

X

3. Conceptual 5- Conceptual 7. Other. The content features “inhumane” and is therefore evaluative. 8. Empirical
11. Other. This content features “delicious” and is therefore evaluative. 13. Empirical 15. Empirical.

XI

3. nonconservative 5 .conservative 7. nonconservative 9. conservative 11. conservative 13. nonconservative
15. nonconservative

XII

3. irrational 5. irrational 7. rational 9. irrational

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 4

II

3. Anyone born in Germany is a European. 6. Whatever the Federal Reserve Board says banks will do is probably
what they will do. 9. She is not telling the truth. 12. Canadians are used to cold weather. 15. Jane is a cell-phone
user. 17 Religious theories should not be taught in biology courses in public schools. 20. Pelicans are birds.
24. Planets with dry lake beds might have had life at some time.

III
3. No real vegetarian eats meat. Alicia is a real vegetarian. Thus she doesn’t eat meat. Hence, there is no point in
taking her to Tony Roma’s Steak House. Extended argument. 5. If the ocean is rough here, then there will be no
swimming. If there is no swimming, tourists will go to another beach. Thus If the ocean is rough here, then tourists
will go to another beach. Simple argument. 7. No Democrat votes for Republicans. Since Keisha voted for
Republicans, she is not a Democrat. Thus she won’t be invited to Jamal’s party, for only Democrats are invited to his
party. Extended argument. 9. To understand most web pages, you have to read them. To read them requires a good
amount of time. Thus to understand web pages requires a good amount of time. Since I don’t have any time, I keep
away from the web and as a result, I miss some news. Extended argument. 11. Because Jerome is an atheist and
Cynthia’s mother does not like him, it follows that Jerome will not be invited to the family picnic next month. We may
also infer that Jerome will come to see Cynthia only when her mother is not around. Extended argument. 13.
Professor Veebelfetzer will surely be expelled from the Academy of Sciences. For he admits using false data in his
famous experiment on rat intelligence. As a result, his name will also be removed from the list of those invited to the
Academy’s annual banquet next fall. Extended argument. 15. Since books help to develop comprehension skills, web
pages do that, too. After all, in both cases one must read carefully to understand what is presented. Simple argument.

IV
4. extended, with more than two conclusions 7. extended, with more than two conclusions 10. extended, with at
most two conclusions

VII
3. inductive 6. inductive 8. deductive 10. deductive 12. inductive 15. inductive 18. inductive 20. deductive
23. inductive 25- deductive

XI

3. non-normative s, non-normative 7. normative 9. non-normative 11. normative 13. non-normative
15. non-normative 17. non-normative 19. non-normative

XII

4. aesthetic and moral 6. prudential and moral 9. legal 10. prudential 13. moral and prudential 15.aesthetic and
prudential 17. prudential 20. moral and prudential

XIII

3. Whatever is designed by Sir Norman Foster is beautiful. 6. Whatever takes you where you want to go faster is
better. 9. Married people deal better with financial problems. u. Hit songs are the best songs. 15- Soldiers ought
to do whatever their commanding officer orders them to do. 18. Whatever is the appropriate punishment for
murder is ethically justified. 20. You ought to obey the law.

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 5

II

4. valid 7. valid 10. valid 13. valid 16. invalid 19. valid 22. invalid 25. invalid 28. valid

IV
3. logically possible 5. logically possible 8. logically impossible

VII
3. Either M or B

NotM
B

s- Either C or S

Note
s

7. If M, then C
M

C

VIII
2. a is L

No LisD
a is notD

5-All A are P

Some Pare F
Some A are F

8. No Iis F
o is I
o is not F

IX

3. categorical argument s- propositional argument 7. categorical argument 9. propositional argument
11. propositional argument 13. categorical argument 15- categorical argument

X

4.All Care D
No Tare D
No Care T Categorical

6. If M, then L

NotL
NotM Propositional

9. If 0, then F
If not F, then not 0 Propositional

11.All Bare I
SomeB are C
Some I are C Categorical

13. No Sare G
AllGareD
No Sare D Categorical

15- No Pis S

v is P

v is not S Categorical
18. If 0, then H

NotH
NotO Propositional

20. Either M or not]
NotM
Not] Propositional

XI

3. hypothetical syllogism 6. modus tollens 9. contraposition 18. modus tollens

20. disjunctive syllogism

XII
3. true s- false 7. false 9. true

XIII
3. Most C are E

mis notE
mis notC

Counterexample: an argument in which C = American citizen, E = people permitted to vote
in the United States, and m = a two-year old American citizen.

5. NoA are E

Some A are H
No Hare E

Counterexample:
7.fis D

Some Dare B

fisB
Counterexample:

XVI

2.false 4.false 6.false 8.true

XVII

an argument in which A = fish , E = mammal, and H = aggressive animals.

an argument in which f = a certain mute dog, D = dog, and B = barking animal.

2. Entailment does matter, since an argument can’t be sound unless it has it. 4. There is a relationship
between validity and truth: in a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

XVIII

4. logically impossible 6. logically possible 8. logically possible 10. logically impossible 12. logically possible

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 6

II
3. deductive 6. inductive 9. deductive 12. deductive 15. inductive

IV

2. causal argument s- analogy 8. analogy 9. statistical syllogism 11. causal argument 14. enumerative induction

VII

3. statistical syllogism, reliable 6. enumerative induction, not reliable 9. causal argument, reliable 12. statistical
syllogism, reliable 15- enumerative induction, not reliable 18. analogy, not reliable 21. analogy, reliable
23. causal argument, undeterminable (the reliability of the argument depends on that of the cited source)
25. causal argument, reliable

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 7

II

3. appeal to ignorance 6. false cause 7. weak analogy 9. appeal to unqualified authority 12. appeal to
unqualified authority 15. hasty generalization 18. appeal to ignorance 19. appeal to unqualified authority

III
3. false cause/hasty generalization 5. false cause/appeal to unqualified authority 7. hasty generalization/false
cause 9. false cause 11. appeal to unqualified authority 12. appeal to ignorance 15- weak analogy/hasty
generalization

V

2. fallacy 4. not a fallacy 5. fallacy 7. fallacy 9. not a fallacy

VI

1. Hasty generalization. Not a fallacy when the sample of tigers so far observed is very large, comprehensive,
and randomly selected. 3. Appeal to ignorance. Not a fallacy when the experts agree that the concept of’centaur’
is empty and plays no role in explaining anything.

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 8

II

3. that the mind is different from the body 5. that supernatural beings are only fictional 7. that Aaron is a hunter
9. that if a plane figure is a circle, then it is not a rectangle

III

3. both s- conceptual 7. conceptual 9. both

IV

3. begs the question s- begs the question 7. both 10. both 13. begs the question against 16. begs the question
against 19. begging the question

V

4. impossible 6. impossible 8. possible 10. impossible

0
w
t­
o w
…..J
w
(/)
0
t-
(/) (/)
z LJ.J
0 (/)
i= c.3
:J a:
…..J LJ.J
Ox
(/) LJ.J

0
w
I­
(_)
w
….J

w
if)
0
I–
if) if)
Zw
0 if)
I- (_)
::i a:
….J w
Ox
(fJ w

VI
4.C 6.K 8.I

VII
3. BURDEN OF PROOF on S. Since the argument has at least one false premise, its conclusion could be false.
5- BURDEN OF PROOF on 0. S’s argument is now rationally compelling. 7. BURDEN OF PROOF on 0. The
conclusion of her argument could be false (it has at least one false premise).

VIII
1. The argument begs the question, because in order to accept its premises you have to accept its conclusion. And
it begs the question against those who argue that marriage is a union between two persons independent of their
genders. 5. To be deductively cogent, the argument must: (1) be valid, and (2) have premises that are not only
acceptable, but more clearly acceptable than its conclusion. 6. Such an argument could not be cogent, since it
wouldn’t be truth-preserving-and, as a result, its conclusion could be false (even with all premises true). But the
argument need not be rejected on that ground, since it could be inductively strong, thus making its conclusion
reasonable to believe. 10. The burden is on you. It means: it’s your turn. You must offer an argument or accept
defeat in the debate.

X

3. accident 6. false alternatives 9. complex question 12. false alternatives 13. accident 15. accident

XI

4. complex question 6. false alternatives 9. accident 12. begging the question against 15- complex question
17. begging the question / begging the question against 20. accident 22. begging the question 25- accident

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 9

II
3. not plainly vague 5, not plainly vague 7. plainly vague 9. not plainly vague 12. plainly vague 15- plainly vague

V

3. composition 7. division 10. slippery slope
13. composition 17. slippery slope 20. composition 24. division 27. division 30. amphiboly 33. amphiboly 37.
slippery slope 40 composition

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 10

II

2. beside the point (NOT appeal to pity) 4. appeal to pity 7. appeal to emotion (bandwagon) 10. ad hominem
13. ad hominem (tu quoque) 16. straw man 19. beside the point 22. beside the point 25- appeal to force 28. appeal
to emotion 30. straw man 33. appeal to pity 35- ad hominem 39. appeal to emotion (bandwagon)

III
2. fallacy of appeal to emotion 5. not a fallacy of appeal to emotion 9. not a fallacy of appeal to emotion
10. fallacy of appeal to emotion (bandwagon appeal)

SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 11

II

3. negation 7. not a negation 10, not a negation

III

4. not a conjunction 7, conjunction 8, not a conditional 9, not a conjunction

IV
2. not a disjunction 6. disjunction 8. disjunction 9. disjunction

V

3. not a conditional s- conditional 8. not a conditional 10. conditional

VI
4. Mexico City’s air is not harmful provided that Houston’s air pollution is healthy. 7. That Canada has signed
the Kyoto Protocol implies that Canada is willing to comply. 10.That China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol
implies that neither Canada nor the UK has signed it.

VII
2. biconditional s- not a Biconditional 6. biconditional 8. biconditional

VIII
3. I :J F 6. -(-E :J -B)

X

3. WFF 5. not a WFF 7. WFF 9. not a WFF

XI
3. compound; biconditional 6. simple 9. compound; conjunction 12. simple 15- compound; negation of
disjunction/conjunction of negations 18. simple

XII
3. E “” M 6. M 12. K 15- -( Ev I<) XIII 3. disjunction -F v (A • L) 6. disjunction. H v -H 9. conditional. C :J -(H v D) 12. negation. -[F"' (P • M)] 15. conditional. (C • -I) :J -(0"' M) XIV 3. biconditional 6. conjunction 8. negation XVI 3. true 6. true 9. false 12. true 15- false 18. false XVII 4. true 7. true 10. true 13. false 16. true 19. true 22. true 25. false xx 3. Tautology BM TT TF FT FF B:J M:JB 5. Contradiction AB - [(A • B):J (B • A)] �! �: ! � ! FT F F T F FF F F T F 8. Contingency AB TT TF FT FF (-Av - B):J (B • A) 10. Contingency AKH -A=-(-Kv-H) TTT F F TF FF TTF F T FF TT TFT F T FT TF TFF F T FT TT FTT T T TF FF FTF T F FF TT FFT T F FT TF FFF T F FT TT 0 w f- 0 w __J w (j) 0 f- 12. Contingency AHI -[(-A•H)v-(H:J-I)] TTT F F F TT F F TTF T F F FF T T TFT T F F FF T F TFF T F F FF T T FTT F T T TT F F FT F F T T TF T T F FT T T F FF T F FFF T F FF T T 16 Contradiction ABC -{[A • (B • C)] = [(A • B) • C]} TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF F T T F F F F F F F F F F F T F F F F F F F F F 18. Tautology A B (A • B) = (B • A) TT T T T TF F T F FT F T F FF F.I_F 20. Tautology T T T T T F T F F T F F T F F T F F T F F T F F AB (A ;;e B) = [(A :J B) • (B :J A)] F T T T T F T F F TT TF FT FF i �T i T T T T XX! 2. Contingency EO TT TF FT FF -EvO F ill F F T T T T 4. Contingency EO -E=O TT TF FT FF ;rn T T T ..E 7. Tautology BO (B• O):l 0 TT T rn TF F FT F FF F 11. Tautology HL (H • L)= --(H • L) TT T rn T F T TF F T F T F FT F T F T F FF F T F T F 12. Contingency BOHL -(B • 0) = -(H • L) TTTT F T T F T TTTF F T F T F TTFT F T F T F TTFF F T F T F TFTT T F F F T TFTF T F T T F TFFT T F T T F TFFF T F T T F FTTT T F F F T FTTF T F T T F FTFT T F T T F FTFF T F T T F FFTT T F F F T FFTF T F T T F FFFT T F T T F FFFF T F .I. T F 1.4. Tautology BO -(B v 0)"" (-B • -0) TT F T ]' FF TF F T F F T FT F T T F F FF T F T T T XXII 3. Fred is at the library if and only if either the library is open or Mary is not at the library. s, The essay is due on Thursday just in case the library being open implies that I have Internet access. 7. It is not the case that if Fred is not at the library then either the library is not open or Mary is at the library. SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 12 II 4, Invalid J N ], Jv N :. -N TT TF FT FF rn � +­ +- w I- w Cf) 0 I- (/) (/) Zw 0 (/) I- 0 ::::) rr. __J w Ox (/) w 0 LI.J f- 0 LI.J _J LI.J (f) 0 r- (f) (f) z LI.J 0 (f) f- 0 :) er: _J LI.J Ox (fJ LI.J 8.Invalid CBA -CV -B. -(B. A) :. AV C TTT F F F F T T TTF F F F T F T TFT F T T T F T TFF F TT T F T FTT T T F F T T FTF T T F T F F FFT T TT T F T FFF T .I. T.I_ F .E 10. Valid BKH ~B, -(-K= -H) :. K:, -H TTT F F F T F 'p F TTF F TF F T T T TFT F TT F F T F TFF F F T T T TT FTT T F F T F F F FTF T TF F T TT FFT T T T F F T F FFF J .£.T T T .J:. T 13. Valid K E 0 K •(-Ev 0), -E:, -K :. 0 T T T T F T F T F T T F F F F F T F T F T TT T T F F T F F TT T T F F F T T F F T F T T F T F F F F F T T F F T F T T T T T F F F ..ET T T .I. T 14. Invalid E A E:::, A, --A:. -Ev-A T T rn rn, F� 4- T F F T F T F T T F T T F F F T T T 22. Invalid H I J H•(-IvJ),J:)-H :.] T T T TF T F F T T F F F F TF T F T TT T F F T F F TT T T F F T T F F T TT F T F F F F T T F F T F T T TT F F F ...E T T ...IT 23. Invalid 0 A B -0, A :J B :. -0 • B T T T F "'f F T T T F F F F F T F T F T F F T F F F T F F F T T T T T T F T F T F T F F F T T T T T F F F T ,.I T .E III 3. Invalid ABF -A=-B,-B :J F :. Av-F TTT F "'f F F r'r T F TTF F T F F T T T TFT F F T T T T F TFF F F T T F T T FTT T F F F T F F FTF T F F F T T T FFT T T T T T F F +- FFF T,.I T T ,.E. .I T 6. Valid J A I J :J (Av I), -A• -I :. -] TTT T T F F F F TTF T T F FT F TFT T T T F F F TFF F F T TT F FTT T T F F F T FTF T T F F T T FFT T T T F F T FFF .I F T .IT T 7. Valid A0F A• 0, 0 = F :. -F :J -A TTT T T F T F TTF T F T F F TFT F F F T F TFF F T T F F FTT F T F T T FTF F F T T T FFT F F F T T FFF ...E .I T .IT 10. Invalid MFD M=(Dv F), (F :J -D):)-M :. M • F T TT T T F F T F T TT F T T TT F F T TFT T T T F F F F TFF F F TT F F F F TT F T F F TT F F T F F T TT TT F F FT F T TF TT F F FF .I F TT .IT L +- 0 LJ.J f-- 0 w _J w (/) 0 f-- (/) (/) Zw 0 (/) f-- 0 :J a: _J w Ox (/) w 0 UJ l­ o UJ _J UJ (/) 0 I- (/) (/) z UJ 0 (/) i= 0 :::, [C _J UJ Ox (/) UJ Invalid EMA Mv(E:::)-A),E=-(AvM) :.~ E TT T T F F F F T F TT F T TT F F T F TF T F F F F F T F TF F T TT TT F F FT T T T F T F T T FT F T TT T F T T F F T T T F T F T T F F F i TT ,...E T F .I V 3. hypothetical syllogism s- modus ponens 6. contraposition 8. modus tollens 12. disjunctive syllogism VI 3. -I:::) (M:::) -HJ:. -(M:::) -H):::) --I contraposition s- D:::) M; M:::) H :.D:::) H hypothetical syllogism 6. E:::) -A, E :. -A modus ponens 8. G v -H, H :. G disjunctive syllogism 10. -M, H:::) M :. -H modus tollens IX 3. hypothetical syllogism; valid s- disjunctive syllogism; valid 7. denying the antecedent; invalid 9. contraposition; valid 11. disjunctive syllogism; valid 13. modus ponens; valid 15- modus tollens; valid 17. affirming the consequent; invalid 19. denying the antecedent; invalid X 4. E:::) M, -E :. -M denying the antecedent; invalid 6. H v D, D :. -H affirming a disjunct; invalid 7. B :) N, N:::) F :. B :) F hypothetical syllogism; valid 11. M:::) -E, E :. -M modus tollens; valid 12.J:::) L, L :. J affirming the consequent; invalid XIII 3- l. -D• C 2. f :::)-C 3. -F:::) (Ev D) /:. Dv E 4. --C :::)-F 2 Contr 5. C:::)-F 4DN 6. C:::) (Ev D) 5,3 HS 7. C •-D 1Com 8.C 7Simp 9.Ev D 6,8MP 10. Dv E 9Com s- 1.(G:::) D) :::)-F 2.D:::) F 3. D• C /:. -{G:::) D) 4.-F:::)-D 2 Contr 5.(G:::)D):::) -D 1,4 HS 6.D 3 Simp 7.--D 6DN 8. -{ G:::) D) 5,7MT 7• 1. (D :::) C) V -(A V B) 2.A /:. -Dv C 3. -{Av B) v (D:::) C) 1Com. 4.AvB 2Add S- --{Av B) 4DN 6.D:::) C 3,5DS 7.-Dv C 6Cond 9- 1.(EvAP C 2. [(Ev A) :::) CJ :::) (E • G) /:. C 3. E • G 1,2MP 4.E 3 Simp 5. EvA 4Add 6.C 1,5MP 11. 1. (-H v L):J -(I• G) 2.Gol 3. I• G 4. --(I• G) 5. -(-H v L) 6. --H• -L 7. H• -L 8, -L• H XIV 4. 1.D:JB 2. -Mv-D 3. -B • D 4. D•-B 5.D 6.--D 7.-M 6. 1.H•(-I v.J) 2.J:J -H 3.H 4.--H 5.-J 8. l. I• -C 2. I :J B 3. I 4.B 5. -C • I 6.-C 7. -C• B 10. l. I 2. H :J-E 3. -H :J (N :J -E) 4. --E :J -H 5. --E :J (N :J -E) 6. E :J (N :J -E) 7. I• [E :J (N :J -E)] SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 13 II /:. -L• H 2Com 3DN 1,4MT 5D eM 6DN 7Com /:. -M 3Com. 4Simp 5DN 2,6DS /:. -] 1 Simp 3DN 2,4MT /:. -C • B 1 Simp 2,3MP 1Com s Simp 6,4 Conj I.'. I. [E :J (N :J -E)] 2 Contr 4,3 HS 5DN 1, 6 Conj 3. No political scandals are situations sought b y city officials. Universal negative. 6. Some railroad engineers who are not car owners are train users. Particular affirmative. 8. Some single-celled organisms that thrive in the summer are bacteria that are not harmful. Particular affirmative. IV 3. Some firefighters are not m- Particular negative, 0. 5, Some precious metals are not available in Africa. Particular negative, 0. 7, Some historians are persons who are interested in the future. Particular affirmative, I. 9. All spies are persons who cannot avoid taking risks. Universal affirmative, A. VI 2. E: No movie stars are persons who love being ignored by the media. 4. E: No member of Congress who's being investigated is a person who can leave the country. 6. 0: Some mathematical equations are not equations that amount to headaches. 8. 0: Some dogs are not dogs that bark. 10. I: Some speedy vehicles are vehicles that don't put their occupants at risk. IX 3. incorrect X 3. A proposition, All Sare P. Venn diagram 3, Boolean notation 2. 6. E proposition, No S are P. Venn diagram 2, Boolean notation 1. 9. E proposition, No S are P. Venn diagram 2, Boolean notation 1. 12. E proposition, No Sare P. 0 w f- 0 w _j w (f) 0 f- (f) (f) Zw 0 (f) f- 0 ::i a: _j w Ox (f) w (/) w (/) 0 a: w X w Venn Diagram 2, Boolean notation 1. 15- 0 proposition, Some S are not P. Venn diagram 4, Boolean notation 3. 18. E proposition, No Sare P. Venn diagram 2, Boolean notation 1. 20. I proposition, Some Sare P. Venn diagram 1, Boolean notation 4. XII 3. I. Subcontrary. Some humans are mortal. Undetermined. s- E. Contrary. No labor unions are organizations dominated by politicians. False. 7. 0. Subcontrary. Some lions are not harmless. Undetermined. 9. I. Subcontrary. Some bats are nocturnal creatures. Undetermined. XIII 4. A. Contrary. Undetermined. 6. I. Subcontrary. True. 10. 0. Subcontrary. True. XIV 2. I. Some Democrats are opponents of legalized abortion. 4. 0. Some professional athletes are not highly paid sports heroes. 6. E. No chipmunks are shy rodents. 8. E. No cartographers are amateur musicians. 10. A. All airlines are profitable corporations. XVI 3. 0. Subaltern. Some butterflies are not vertebrates. True.5- E. Superaltern. No comets are frequent celestial events. Undetermined.7. E. Superaltern. No porcupines are nocturnal animals. Undetermined.9. 0. Subaltern. Some extraterrestrials are not Republicans. True. XVII 4. I. Subaltern. Undetermined.8. A. Superaltern. False.10. I. Subaltern. Undetermined. XVIII 4. A. Superaltern. All bassoonists are anarchists. Undetermined. E. Contradictory. No bassoonists are anarchists. False. 0. Subcontrary. Some bassoonists are not anarchists. Undetermined. 6. 0. Subaltern. Some Americans are not people who care about global warming. True. I. Contradictory. Some Americans are people who care about global warming. False. A. Contrary. All Americans are people who care about global warming. False. 8. E. Contrary. No acts of cheating are acts that are wrong. False. 0. Contradictory. Some acts of cheating are not acts that are wrong. False. I. Subaltern. Some acts of cheating are acts that are wrong. True. 10. A. Superaltern. All things are things that are observable with the naked eye. Undetermined. E. Contradictory. No things are things that are observable with the naked eye. False. 0. Subcontrary. Some things are not things that are observable with the naked eye. Undetermined. XIX 3. 0. Subaltern. Some liars are not reliable sources. Undetermined. I. Contradictory. Some liars are reliable sources. True. A. Contrary. All liars are reliable sources. Undetermined. 5. E. Contrary. No trombone players are musicians. Undetermined. 0. Contradictory. Some trombone players are not musicians. True. I. Subaltern. Some trombone players are musicians. Undetermined. 7. E. Contrary. No white horses are horses. Undetermined. 0. Contradictory. Some white horses are not horses. True. I. Subaltern. Some white horses are horses. Undetermined. xx 3. C. Contrariety, invalid according to the modern square. E. Subcontrariety, invalid according to the modern square. G. Contradiction, valid according to the modern square. XXI 3. Some candidates are not incumbents. Some incumbents are not candidates. NOT VALID 5- All amateurs are nonprofessionals. Some nonprofessionals are amateurs. BY LIMITATION 7. No quarks are molecules. No molecules are quarks. 9. All owls are nocturnal creatures. Some nocturnal creatures are owls. BY LIMITATION XXII 3. Some popular songs are hits. Some popular songs are not non-hits. 5. Some psychotherapists are not Democrats. Some psychotherapists are non-Democrats. 7. All hexagons are plane figures. No hexagons are non-plane figures. 9. Some Labrador retrievers are affectionate pets. Some Labrador retrievers are not non-affectionate pets. XXIII 2. Some used car salesmen are not fast talkers. Some non-fast talkers are not non-used car salesmen. 4. Some citizens are non-voters. Some voters are non-citizens. NOT VALID 6. No musicians are non-concertgoers. Some concertgoers are not non-musicians. BY LIMITATION 8. Some police officers are cigar smokers. Some cigar smokers are non-police officers. NOT VALID 10. Some pickup trucks are not non-expensive vehicles. Some expensive vehicles are not non-pickup trucks. XXIV 4. All airports are non-crowded places. Converse by limitation, Some non-crowded places are airports. Obverse, No airports are crowded places. Contrapositive, All crowded places are non-airports. 7. Some non-eagles are not non-friendly birds. Converse, not valid. Obverse, Some non-eagles are friendly birds. Contrapositive, Some friendly birds are not eagles. 9. No sanitation workers are non-city employees. Converse, No non-city employees are sanitation workers. Obverse, All sanitation workers are city employees. Contrapositive by limitation, Some city employees are not non-sanitation workers. XXV 2. A. Conversion, not valid. The converse of an O premise is always invalid. B. Obversion, valid. D. Contraposition, not valid. The contrapositive of an I premise is always invalid. G. Contraposition, not valid. The argument could be made valid by limitation-that is, by making its conclusion particular negative. 3. C. Subalternation, invalid. E. Conversion, not valid. G. Contrariety, valid by the traditional square only. I. Obversion, valid. SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 14 II 3. Not a syllogism: the argument has one premise. 5. No romantic songs are popular with first graders. All Sinatra songs are romantic songs. No Sinatra songs are popular with first graders. 6. No Oscar winners are talk-show hosts. Some men are Oscar winners. Some men are not talk-show hosts. 1. No Mare P 2.All Sare M 3. No Sare P 1. No Mare P 2. Some S are M 3. Some S are not P 0 w r () w .J UJ (/) 0 r Cf) CJ) z UJ 0 (/) j::: 0 ::J a: .J w Ox (/) UJ 0 w l­ o w _J w (/) 0 I-- Cf) (/) Zw 0 Cf) i= 0 :::, er: _J w Ox (/) w 9. Not a syllogism: the argument has one premise. 11. Some programmers are pool players. 1.Some Mare P III All computer scientists are programmers. Some computer scientists are pool players. 2. All Sare M 3. Some S are P 4. AIA-1 6. EAA-4 8. OOE-1 10. OII-1 12. EEA-3 IV 3. 1. All people who listen to reggae music are people who are not Lawrence Welk fans. 2. Some residents of California are people who are not Lawrence Welk fans. 3. Some residents of California are people who listen to reggae music. 1.All Pare M AII-2 2. Some S are M 3. Some S are P 5. 1. All loyal Americans are supporters of the president in his desire to trim the federal budget. 2. All loyal Americans are people who are willing taxpayers. 3. All people who are willing taxpayers are supporters of the president in hisdesire to trim the federal budget. 1.All Mare P 2.All Mare S 3. All Sare P AAA-3 7. 1. All animals that are convenient house pets are creatures your aunt Sophie would like. 2. No creatures your Aunt Sophie would like are reptiles weighing over eighty pounds. 3. No reptiles weighing over eighty pounds are animals that are convenient house pets. 1.All Pare M AEE-4 2. No Mare S 3. No Sare P 9. 1. Some devices that contain dynamite are not safe things to carry in the trunk of your car. 2. Some explosives are devices that contain dynamite. 3. No explosives are safe things to carry in the trunk of your car. 1. Some M are not P OIE-1 2. Some S are. M 3. No Sare P 11. 1. Some pacifists are not conscientious objectors. VII 2. No pacifists are persons who favor the use of military force. 3. Some persons who favor the use of military force are not conscientious objectors. 1. Some M are not P OE0-3 2. No Mare S 3. Some S are not P 4. 1. Some people who never run red lights are people who are not elitists. 2. All taxi drivers are people who are not elitists. 3. Some taxi drivers are people who never run red lights. 1. Some P are M 2.All Sare M 3. Some S are P IAI-2 INVALID M 7. 1. All intelligent creatures are things that will stay out of the middle of the highway. 2. No armadillos are things that will stay out of the middle of the highway. 3. No armadillos are intelligent creatures. 1. All Pare M 2. No Sare M 3. No Sare P AEE-2 VALID M 10. 1. Some axolotls are creatures that are not often seen in the city. 2. All axolotls are mud lizards that are found in the jungles of southern Mexico. 3. Some mud lizards that are found in the jungles of southern Mexico are creatures that are not often seen in the city. 1. Some M are P 2. All Mare S 3. Some S are P IAI-3 VALID M 13. 1. No impoverished persons are dentists who have done extensive postdoctoral study. 2. All orthodontists are dentists who have done extensive postdoctoral study. 3. No orthodontists are impoverished persons. 1. No Pare M EAE-2 2. All Sare M 3. No Sare P VALID 0 w l­ o w ....J w (/) 0 I- (/) (/) Zw 0 (/) i= 0 :) a: ....J w Ox (/) w 16. 1. All philosophy majors are rational beings. 2. No parakeets are rational beings. 3. No parakeets are philosophy majors. 1.All Pare M 2. No Sare M 3. No Sare P AEE-2 VALID 19. 1. No hallucinations are optical illusions. M M 2. Some misunderstandings that are not avoidable are hallucinations. 3. Some misunderstandings that are not avoidable are optical illusions. 1. No Mare P EII-1 2. Some S are M 3. Some S are P INVALID M 22. 1. No benevolent despots are defenders of faculty autonomy. 2. No defenders of faculty autonomy are college presidents. 3. Some college presidents are not benevolent despots. 1.NoPareM 2. No Mare S 3. Some S are not P EE0-4 INVALID M 25. 1. All philanderers are habitual prevaricators. 2. No habitual prevaricators are preachers who are well-known television personalities. 3. No preachers who are well-known television personalities are philanderers. 1, All Pare M 2. No Mare S 3. No Sare P 28. 1. All great music is uplifting. 2. Some jazz is uplifting. 3. Some jazz is great music. 1. All Pare M 2. Some S are M 3. Some S are P AEE-4 VALID AII-2 INVALID M M 30. 1, Some investments that are insured by the federal government are not an effective means of increasing one's wealth. 2. All investments that are insured by the federal government are interest-bearing bank accounts. 3. Some interest-bearing bank accounts are not an effective means of increasing one's wealth. 1. Some M are not P 2, All Mare S 3. Some S are not P OA0-3 VALID 0 w l­ o w ....J w (j) 0 1- (j) (j) Zw 0 (j) I- 0 :::J a: ....J w Ox (j) w M X 3. I. Subject undistributed; predicate undistributed. 6. A Subject distributed; predicate undistributed. 9. I. Subject undistributed; predicate undistributed. 11. 0. Subject undistributed; predicate distributed. 14. A Subject distributed; predicate undistributed. XI 3. 1. No people who are truly objective are people who are likely to be mistaken. 2. All people who ignore the facts are people who are likely to be mistaken. 3. No people who ignore the facts are people who are truly objective. 1. No Pare M EAE-2 VALID 2. All Sare M 3. No Sare P s, 1, No people who expect to win are people who can afford to lose. 2. Some people who bet on horse races are people who expect to win. 3. Some people who bet on horse races are people who can afford to lose. 1. No Mare P 2. Some S are M 3. Some S are P EII-1 INVALID Affirmative from a negative 7. 1. Some metals are copper alloys. 1. Some P are M 2. All copper alloys are good conductors of electricity. 2. All Mare S 3. Some good conductors of electricity are not metals. 3. Some S are not P IA0-4 INVALID Illicit process of the major term and negative from two affirmatives 9. 1. Some rabble-rousers are egalitarians. 1. Some P are M 2. No egalitarians are sympathetic dissidents. 2. No Mare S 3. No sympathetic dissidents are rabble-rousers. 3. No Sare P IEE-4 INVALID Illicit process of the major term 11. 1. Some coaches are not talent scouts. 2, Some athletes are not coaches. 3. No athletes are talent scouts. 1. Some M are not P 2. Some S are not M 3. No Sare P OOE-1 INVALID Illicit process of the minor term and exclusive premises 13, 1. Some college men are pigs (i.e., dirty). 2. All college men are living things. 3, Some living things are pigs (i.e., animals). IAI-3 INVALID Fallacy of four terms 1. Some M are P 2. All Mare S 3. Some S are P' 15- 1. No admirers of Heidegger are utilitarians. 2. All postmodernists are admirers of Heidegger. 3. No postmodernists are utilitarians. EAE-1 VALID 17. 1. All single-celled organisms are invertebrates. 2. All paramecia are single-celled organisms. 3. All paramecia are invertebrates. AAA-1 VALID 19. 1. All good neighbors are respectful people. 2. All good neighbors are well-intentioned zealots. 3. No well-intentioned zealots are respectful people. 1. No Mare P 2. All Sare M 3. No Sare P 1. All Mare P 2. All Sare M 3. All Sare P 1. All Mare P 2. All Mare S 3. No Sare P AAE-3 INVALID Illicit major and illicit minor. and negative from two affirmatives 21. 1. Some traitors are not benefactors. 2, No embezzlers are benefactors. 3. All embezzlers are traitors. 1. Some P are not M 2. No Sare M 3. All Sare P OEA-2 INVALID Exclusive premises and affirmative from a negative 23. 1. No angora goats are hamsters. 2. No angora goats are great white sharks. 3. No great white sharks are hamsters. EEE-3 INVALID Exclusive premises 25. 1. All television news anchors are photogenic. 2. Some average people are not photogenic. 3. Some average people are not television news anchors. A00-2 VALID 1. No Mare P 2. No Mare S 3. No Sare P 1. All Pare M 2. Some S are not M 3. Some S are not P 0 w l­ o w __J w (j) 0 1- (j) (j) Zw 0 (j) i= u ::) a: __J w Ox (j) w Glossary/Index 1 ACCIDENT FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION com­ mitted by inferring that a certain generalization applies to a case that is clearly an exception to it, 143, 175-176, 378. ACCURACY VIRTUE of any BELIEF that is either true or approximately true 52ff. AD BACULUM See APPEAL TO FORCE. ADDITION The principle that, from P, "either P or Q'.' can be inferred. See RULE OF INFERENCE. AD HOMINEM Argument that attempts to undermine an ARGUMENT, BELIEF, or theory by discrediting those who propose it. Such personal attack often commits a FALLACY OF RELEVANCE. See also NON-FALLACIOUS AD HOMINEM, 143, 209-212, 378. AD IGNORANTIAM See APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. AD MISERICORDIAM See APPEAL TO PITY. AD POPULUM See APPEAL TO EMOTION. AD VERECUNDIAM See APPEAL TO UNQUALI­ FIED AUTHORITY. AESTHETIC JUDGMENT Judgment that concerns EVALUATIONS or NORMS involving matters of taste. 82-83, 378. See also NORMATIVE ARGUMENT. AFFIRMATIVE FROM A NEGATIVE In a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM, the FORMAL FALLACY of inferring an affirmative CONCLU­ SION from one or two negative PREMISES, 349. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT FORMAL FALLACY of attempting to deduce the NEGATION of one DISJUNCT in an inclusive DISJUNCTION by asserting the other DISJUNCT, 270-271. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT FORMAL FAL­ LACY of attempting to deduce the ANTECEDENT of a MATERIAL CONDITIONAL by asserting its CONSEQUENT, 270, 378. AGAINST THE PERSON See AD HOMINEM. AMBIGUITY A problem of unclear language affecting any expression that could have more than one MEANING when the context makes unclear which meaning the speaker intends it to have, 182, 183ff, 189-190. 'Terms in CAPITALS are cross-listed in this glossary/index. AMPHIBOLY FALLACY OF UNCLEAR LANGUAGE committed by any ARGUMENT in which an awkward grammatical construction, word order, or phrasing may lead to the wrong CONCLUSION, 143, 191-193, 378. ANALOGY Type of INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT whereby a certain CONCLUSION about an individual or class of individuals is drawn on the basis of some similarities that individual or class has with other individuals or classes. See also WEAK ANALOGY, 129-130. ANTECEDENT The if-clause of a MATERIAL CONDITIONAL, 229-231. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY ARGUMENT that invokes expert opinion as a reason for its CON­ CLUSION. See also APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY. APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACY OF RELE­ VANCE committed by an ARGUMENT that resorts to emotively charged language or images to support its CONCLUSION, 143, 207-208, 215-216, 378. APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY OF RELEVANCE committed by an ARGUMENT that resorts to a threat as a way of trying to persuade someone to accept a CONCLUSION, 143, 205-206, 378. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE FALLACY OF FAILED INDUCTION committed by an ARGUMENT that draws a CONCLUSION on the basis of the absence of evidence against it, 150-151, 159, 378. APPEAL TO PITY FALLACY OF RELEVANCE committed by an ARGUMENT that attempts to arouse feelings of sympathy as a means of supporting its CONCLUSION, 143, 204-205, 378. APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY FALLACY OF FAILED INDUCTION committed by an ARGU­ MENT that invokes spurious expert opinion, 143, 152-154, 378. APPEAL TO VANITY A variation of the FALLACY of APPEAL TO EMOTION that invokes feelings of self-esteem as a way to support a certain CONCLUSION, 208, 378. 386 ARGUMENT One or more statements offered in support of another STATEMENT, 6-12, 14-15, 379. ARGUMENT ANALYSIS ARGUMENT RECON­ STRUCTION and ARGUMENT EVALUATION, 7-12, 103. ARGUMENT EVALUATION A step in ARGUMENT ANALYSIS whereby it is determined whether an argument is good or bad, 103. ARGUMENT FORM Outline of an ARGUMENT that captures the structure shared with other ARGUMENTS. 98ff See also VALID ARGUMENT FORM. ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION The first step in ARGUMENT ANALYSIS, whereby the PREMISE(s) and CONCLUSION of an argument are identified and listed in logical order, 8-12, 7off, 103. ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC Traditional logic. See also CATEGORICAL LOGIC. BANDWAGON APPEAL A variation of the FALLACY of APPEAL TO EMOTION that exploits people's desire to join in with the common experiences of others and not be left out, 208. BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION committed by an argument in which at least one PREMISE assumes the very CONCLUSION it is offered to support. 143, 161ff. See also CIRCULARITY and BURDEN OF PROOF. BEGGING THE QUESTION AGAINST FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION committed by an argument in which at least one PREMISE is itself controversial and therefore in need of support. 143, 167-168, 379. See also BURDEN OF PROOF. BELIEF The psychological attitude of accepting a PROPOSITION, 47, 48ff. BENIGN CIRCULARITY Condition in which an argument's CONCLUSION is implicit in its PREMISES but where this does not render it QUESTION BEGGING, 161, 164-166, 379. BESIDE THE POINT FALLACY OF RELEVANCE committed by an argument whose PREMISES fail to support its CONCLUSION but may instead support some other conclusion, 143, 212-213, 379. BICONDITIONAL See MATERIAL BICONDI­ TIONAL. BOOLEAN NOTATION Algebraic notation for CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS. BORDERLINE CASE Case to which it is unclear whether an expression affected by VAGUENESS applies or not, 186. BURDEN OF PROOF In the context of a controversy, the obligation to take a turn in offering reasons. At any given point, it falls upon the participant whose claim is more in need of support, 166ff. CASH VALUE Practical value of good reasoning. CATEGORICAL ARGUMENT ARGUMENT in which the relation of INFERENCE hinges on relations among the TERMS within the PREMISES and CONCLUSION, 100-103, 379. CATEGORICAL LOGIC Traditional logic, whose principal topic is CATEGORICAL ARGUMENT, 142,379. CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION In CATEGORICAL LOGIC, PROPOSITION featuring a QUANTIFIER, a SUBJECT TERM, a COPULA, and a PREDICATE TERM. It has QUANTITY (UNIVERSAL or PARTICULAR) and QUALITY (AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE� The combination of these yields four proposition types: A (universal affirmative), E (universal negative), I (particular affirmative), and O (particular negative), 286ff. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM SYLLOGISM made up of three CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS and three TERMS, each of which occurs exactly twice, 323ff. CAUSAL ARGUMENT Type of INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT in which one or more PREMISES are offered to support the hypothesis that a certain event is causally related to another event, 126-127, 147, 150, 379. See also FALSE CAUSE. CHARITY In ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION, principle prescribing that the truth of PREMISES and CONCLUSION and the strength of the INFERENCE be maximized. 7off, 103. See also FAITHFULNESS. CIRCULARITY A feature of an ARGUMENT whose CONCLUSION is assumed by the PREMISES. It may be either formal or conceptual, depending on whether it rests on the ARGUMENT FORM or the concepts involved, vicious or BENIGN, 163-166. See also BEGGING THE QUESTION. CLASS Category or group of things that share some attribute, 286ff. COGENCY See DEDUCTIVE COGENCY. COMMISSIVE SPEECH ACT aimed at bringing about the state of affairs announced by that act, 46,379. COMMON SENSE Generally accepted BELIEFS that are taken for granted as true and justified, 167, 379. Commonsense belie£ See COMMON SENSE. COMMUTATION See RULE OF REPLACEMENT. COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY OF PRESUMP­ TION committed by a question phrased in such a way that any answer to it counts as accepting a dubious assumption implicit in the question, 143, 172-173, 379-380. COMPOSITION FALLACY OF UNCLEAR LAN­ GUAGE committed in arguing that because the X w 0 z ---- >–
a:
<( (/) (/) 0 ...J (9 X w 0 z ---- >–
a:
–
a:
< Cf) Cf) 0 ...1 CD X UJ 0 z ..... >­
a:
<( Cf) Cf) 0 (j MPH PROPOSITION, the presupposition that the things referred to by its subject term exist, 304-305, 351. EXPLANATION One or more statements offered to account for the truth of another STATEMENT, 11, 14-15, 382. EXTENDED ARGUMENT ARGUMENT with more than one CONCLUSION, 73. EXTREME RELATIVISM The VICE of thinking that everything is a matter of opinion, 60-61, 382. See also RELATIVISM. FAITHFULNESS In ARGUMENT RECONSTRUC­ TION, principle prescribing fidelity to the arguer's intentions, 70-72, 213-214, 382. See also CHARITY. FALLACY Pattern of mistaken reasoning affecting especially ARGUMENT, EXPLANATION, or DEFINITION, 142-143. FALLACY OF FAILED INDUCTION Patterns of failed INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, 150-151, 382. See also INFORMAL FALLACY. FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION Patterns of failed ARGUMENT committed by reasoning that assumes something that is in fact debatable, 143, 161ff, 382. See also INFORMAL FALLACY. FALLACY OF RELEVANCE Patterns of failed ARGUMENT committed by reasoning whose premises are irrelevant to its CONCLUSION, 143, 204ff, 382. See also INFORMAL FALLACY. FALLACY OF UNCLEAR LANGUAGE Patterns of failed ARGUMENT committed by reasoning that fails owing to unclear MEANING or CONFUSED PREDICATION, 40-41, 182-183, 382. See also INFORMAL FALLACY. FALSE ALTERNATIVES FALLACY OF PRESUMP­ TION in which two alternatives are mistakenly taken to be exclusive and/or exhaustive 143, 173-175, 382. FALSE CAUSE FALLACY OF FAILED INDUCTION committed in arguing that there is a significant causal connection between two events, when in fact there is either minimal causal connection or none at all, 143, 147-150, 382. See also NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA, OVERSIMPLIFIED CAUSE, and POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC. FICTIONAL DISCOURSE Passage of written or spoken language representing imaginary or invented reality, as in novels, short stories, plays, song lyrics, and poetry, 16. 382. FIGURATIVE MEANING The MEANING of an expression that is not a result of the meanings of its parts taken at face value, 35-36, 382. FIGURE The MIDDLE TERM's arrangement as SUBJECT or PREDICATE in a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM's premises, 327-328. See also FORM. FORM In a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM, the combination of its MOOD and FIGURE, 327ff. FORMAL CIRCULARITY Condition affecting an ar­ gument which, because of its form, has the CON­ CLUSION among its premises, 165, 382. See also CIRCULARITY. FORMAL FALLACY Type of mistake made by any ARGUMENT that may appear to be an instance of a VALID ARGUMENT FORM but is in fact invalid by virtue of its form, 165-166. FORMAL LANGUAGE Language of formulas invented for a special purpose, such as the symbolic languages of mathematics and FORMAL LOGIC, 3-4, 184. See also NATURAL LANGUAGE. FORMAL LOGIC The study of INFERENCE and other relations between formulas, which need not be translated into a NATURAL LANGUAGE, 3-4. FORMAL SYSTEM A logical system consisting of a vocabulary of symbols, rules for forming WELL-FORMED FORMULAS, and rules for proving the system's theorems, 3-4. FOUR TERMS FALLACY FALLACY committed by any attempted CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM that fails to have exactly three TERMS, 348. GENERALIZATION See UNIVERSAL and NONUNIVERSAL GENERALIZATION. HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY OF FAILED INDUCTION resulting from drawing a CONCLU­ SION about an entire class of things on the basis of an observed sample that is either too small or atypical, or both, 143, 144-146, 382-383. HEAP PARADOX ARGUMENT that, trading on the VAGUENESS of some term, appears to be valid but also to have true premises and a false CONCLUSION, 186-187, 383. See also PARADOX. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM VALID ARGUMENT FORM with two conditionals in the premises linked so that the CONSEQUENT of one is the ANTECEDENT of the other, and another CONDI­ TIONAL in the CONCLUSION whose antecedent is the antecedent of one of those premises and whose CONSEQUENT is the consequent of the other, 98ff, 262,277. See also RULE OF INFERENCE. IGNORATIO ELENCHI See BESIDE THE POINT. ILLICIT CONTRAPOSITION FALLACY of inferring the CONTRAPOSITIVE of an I proposition, or the contrapositive of an E proposition without limitation, 315. ILLICIT CONVERSION FALLACY of inferring the CONVERSE of an O proposition, or the converse of an A proposition without limitation, 312. ILLICIT PROCESS OF THE MAJOR TERM FALLACY committed by a CATEGORICAL SYLLO­ GISM whose major term is an undistributed TERM in the MAJOR PREMISE but a DISTRIBUTED TERM in the CONCLUSION, 349-350. ILLICIT PROCESS OF THE MINOR TERM FALLACY committed by a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM whose minor term is an undistri­ buted TERM in the MINOR PREMISE but a DISTRIBUTED TERM in the CONCLUSION, 349-350. IMMEDIATE INFERENCE In CATEGORICAL LOGIC, single-premise DEDUCTNE ARGUMENT involving two CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, 3oiff. See also SQUARE OF OPPOSITION, OBVER­ SION, CONVERSION, and CONTRAPOSITION. IMPERATIVE SENTENCE Type of sentence commonly used to issue orders or commands, 33. INCLUSIVE DISJUNCTION COMPOUND PROPOSITION where 'P or Q'. signifies 'either P or Qis true, or both are true.'This DISJUNCTION is true in all cases except where both DISJUNCTS are false, 173, 263. INCONSISTENCY VICE that two or more BELIEFS have insofar as they could not all be true at once, 56-s8. See also CONSISTENCY. INDIRECT SPEECH ACT SPEECH ACT performed by the way of another speech act, 35, 383. INDIRECT USE See INDIRECT SPEECH ACT. INDUCTION See INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT that, if successful, provides some reason for its CON­ CLUSION but falls short of guaranteeing it, 77-78, 95, 119ff. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION CONCLUSION of an argument by ENUMERATIVE INDUCTION, 121, 144ff. INDUCTIVE RELIABILITY VIRTUE of any INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT whose form is such that, if its premises were true, it would be reasonable to accept its CONCLUSION, 133-134, 136, 143. See also INDUCTIVE STRENGTH. INDUCTIVE STRENGTH VIRTUE of any INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT that has both INDC­ UTIVE RELIABILITY and true premises, 134-136. INFERENCE The mental analogue of ARGUMENT, 2, 30, 55-56, 276-279, 311-312, 383. INFORMAL FALLACY A pattern of failed relation between the PREMISES and CONCLUSION of an ARGUMENT owing to some defect in form, content, or context, 142ff. See also FALLACY. INFORMAL LOGIC The study of the logical rela­ tions among BELIEFS and their building blocks, 4-6. INFORMATIVE Type of SPEECH ACT aimed at conveying information, 33. See also DECLARA­ TIVE SENTENCE. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCE Type of sentence commonly used to ask questions, usually punctuated with a question mark, 33ff. INVALID ARGUMENT ARGUMENT in which there is no ENTAILMENT. Its FORM is such that it is possible for all its premises to be true and its CONCLUSION false at once, 268-273, 383- INVALID ARGUMENT FORM ARGUMENT FORM that has COUNTEREXAMPLES, 268-269. See also VALID ARGUMENT FORM. IRRATIONALITY Super VICE that BELIEFS have when they fail the standard of RATIONALITY 61-62. JUDGMENT OFVALUE EVALUATIVE JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT OF OBLIGATION Judgment to the effect that something is permissible or obligatory, 81-83. See also NORMATNE ARGUMENT. LEGAL JUDGMENT Any judgment that concerns EVALUATIONS or NORMS involving what is permitted or obligatory by law, 82-83. See also NORMATIVE ARGUMENT. LINGUISTIC MERIT A quality of either written or oral language resulting from a combination of grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic factors such as concision, adequate vocabulary, and compliance with language rules, 26-27. LOGICAL CONNECTEDNESS The quality of BELIEFS that stand in an adequate logical relation, as in a strong INFERENCE, 23-25. LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE (1) A relation between two PROPOSITIONS such that both have the same TRUTH VALUE; (2) A relation between two expressions that could be substituted for each other, preserving truth value, 2 31ff. LOGICAL THINKING See INFORMAL LOGIC. LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE PROPOSITION PROPOSITION that's NECESSARILY FALSE. See also LOGICALLY POSSIBLE PROPOSITION. LOGICALLY POSSIBLE PROPOSITION PROPOSITION that is true in some POSSIBLE WORLD, 57. See also LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE PROPOSITION. MAIN CONNECTIVE TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVE that governs a COMPOUND PROPOSTION and determines whether it is correctly described as a NEGATION, CON­ JUNCTION, DISJUNCTION, CONDITIONAL, or BICONDITIONAL, 224, 228-229, 236-239, 247-248, 263-265, 384. MAJOR PREMISE In a CATEGORICAL SYLLO­ GISM, the premise that contains the MAJOR TERM, 32sff. MAJOR TERM In a CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM, the PREDICATE of the CONCLUSION, 323ff. X w 0 z >­
a:
<( (/) (/) 0 _J 0 EDI X w 0 z ;;:::: >­
a:
­
a:

,ct:
Cf)
Cf)

0
_J

(9

ID

Index of Names

Allen, Woody, 216

Aristotle, 295

Austin, J. L., 55m

Boole, George, 302

Bryan, William Jennings, 213

Cruise, Tom, 205

Daley, Richard J., 212

Dickens, Charles, 18

Dylan, Bob, 19

Farrow, Mia, 216

Galilei, Galileo, 128

Goldwater, Barry, 214

Hess, Rudolf, 210

Hitler, Adolf, 210

Hogan, Paul, 14

Jefferson, Thomas, 216–217

Johnson, Lyndon B., 214

Johnson, Samuel, 216

Keats, John, 19

King, Larry, 158

Mill, J. S., 132

Newton, Isaac, 128

Plato, 44

Previn, Soon-Yi ch, 216

Protagoras of Abdera, 69

Richards, Keith, 205

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 213

Seacrest, Ryan, 204

Shakespeare, William, 19

Socrates, 74, 223

Stalin, Josef, 212

Venn, John, 301-305

396

Millions of students improve their grade using a Pearson MyLab!

MySearchLab delivers proven results in helping individual students
succeed. It provides engaging experiences that personalize, stimulate, and
measure learning for each student. And, it comes from a trusted partner

with educational expertise.

WRITING

Step by step tutorials present complete overviews of the research
and writing process.

RESEARCH AND CITING SOURCES

Instructors and students receive access to the EBSCO ContentSelect
database, census data from Social Explorer, Associated Press news feeds,

and the Pearson bookshelf. Pearson SourceCheck helps students and
instructors monitor originality and avoid plagiarism.

ETEXT AND MORE

Just like the printed text, students and instructors can highlight and add their
own notes to their interactive text online. Chapter quizzes and flashcards
offer immediate feedback and a gradebook allows both students, and

instructors to monitor student progress throughout the course.

To order this text with MySearchLab access at
no extra charge, use ISBN 0-205-23441-0

www.mysearchlab.com

www.pearsonhighered.com

ISBN-13: 978-0-205-15498-2

ISBN-10: 0-205-15498-0

�. ,”‘°’ “””

90000>

PEARSON ALWAYS LEARNING

I

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_001

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_002

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_003

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_004

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_005

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_006

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_007

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_008

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_009

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_010

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_011

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_012

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_013

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_014

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_015

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_016

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_017

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_018

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_019

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_020

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_021

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_022

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_023

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_024

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_025

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_026

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_027

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_028

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_029

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_030

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_031

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_032

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_033

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_034

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_035

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_036

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_037

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_038

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_039

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_040

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_041

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_042

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_043

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_044

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_045

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_046

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_047

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_048

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_049

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_050

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_051

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_052

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_053

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_054

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_055

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_056

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_057

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_058

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_059

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_060

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_061

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_062

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_063

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_064

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_065

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_066

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_067

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_068

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_069

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_070

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_071

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_072

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_073

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_074

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_075

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_076

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_077

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_078

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_079

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_080

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_081

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_082

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_083

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_084

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_085

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_086

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_087

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_088

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_089

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_090

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_091

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_092

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_093

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_094

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_095

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_096

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_097

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_098

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_099

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_100

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_101

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_102

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_103

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_104

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_105

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_106

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_107

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_108

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_109

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_110

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_111

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_112

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_113

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_114

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_115

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_116

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_117

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_118

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_119

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_120

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_121

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_122

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_123

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_124

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_125

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_126

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_127

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_128

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_129

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_130

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_131

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_132

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_133

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_134

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_135

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_136

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_137

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_138

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_139

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_140

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_141

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_142

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_143

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_144

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_145

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_146

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_147

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_148

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_149

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_150

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_151

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_152

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_153

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_154

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_155

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_156

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_157

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_158

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_159

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_160

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_161

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_162

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_163

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_164

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_165

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_166

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_167

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_168

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_169

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_170

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_171

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_172

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_173

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_174

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_175

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_176

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_177

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_178

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_179

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_180

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_181

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_182

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_183

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_184

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_185

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_186

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_187

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_188

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_189

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_190

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_191

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_192

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_193

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_194

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_195

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_196

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_197

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_198

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_199

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_200

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_201

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_202

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_203

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_204

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_205

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_206

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_207

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_208

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_209

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_210

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_211

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_212

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_213

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_214

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_215

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_216

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_217

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_218

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_219

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_220

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_221

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_222

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_223

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_224

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_225

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_226

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_227

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_228

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_229

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_230

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_231

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_232

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_233

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_234

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_235

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_236

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_237

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_238

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_239

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_240

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_241

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_242

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_243

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_244

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_245

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_246

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_247

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_248

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_249

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_250

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_251

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_252

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_253

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_254

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_255

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_256

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_257

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_258

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_259

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_260

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_261

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_262

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_263

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_264

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_265

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_266

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_267

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_268

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_269

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_270

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_271

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_272

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_273

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_274

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_275

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_276

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_277

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_278

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_279

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_280

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_281

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_282

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_283

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_284

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_285

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_286

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_287

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_288

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_289

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_290

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_291

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_292

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_293

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_294

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_295

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_296

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_297

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_298

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_299

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_300

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_301

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_302

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_303

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_304

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_305

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_306

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_307

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_308

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_309

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_310

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_311

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_312

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_313

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_314

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_315

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_316

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_317

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_318

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_319

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_320

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_321

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_322

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_323

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_324

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_325

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_326

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_327

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_328

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_329

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_330

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_331

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_332

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_333

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_334

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_335

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_336

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_337

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_338

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_339

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_340

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_341

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_342

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_343

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_344

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_345

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_346

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_347

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_348

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_349

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_350

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_351

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_352

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_353

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_354

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_355

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_356

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_357

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_358

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_359

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_360

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_361

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_362

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_363

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_364

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_365

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_366

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_367

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_368

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_369

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_370

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_371

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_372

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_373

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_374

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_375

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_376

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_377

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_378

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_379

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_380

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_381

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_382

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_383

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_384

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_385

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_386

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_387

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_388

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_389

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_390

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_391

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_392

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_393

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_394

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_395

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_396

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_397

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_398

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_399

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_400

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_401

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_402

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_403

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_404

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_405

How to Think Logically 2nd Edition_Page_406

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Philosophy homework ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order