Jai Y Chetram, Week 1

Tutorials 6,7&8

Some objectives of MODR 1760E

➢ Introduction to Arguments –
• What an argument is
 Learn how the parts of an argument function,
 Extract an argument from a passage or text
• How to evaluate an argument
• We examine the use and misuse of language
• Learn the difference between concepts, facts and evaluation
• Uses and limits of basic forms of reasoning
• Learn to identify and avoid the logical fallacies that are commonly found
in ordinary discussion, academic texts, mass media, advertising, etc…
 Fallacies = any error in reasoning = an argument whose conclusion is
not adequately supported and/or does not necessarily have to be the
conclusion that can be drawn
➢ 2. Conceptual Analysis
• Learn a systematic technique for working out unclear concepts or
questions (point to questions on the board)
• A concept, as you will learn later in the course, is a thought, idea or notion
that can be expressed in one word or a compound word
 Word “concept” comes from the Latin concipere, “to conceive”
• What is “analysis”?
 Analysis is the opposite of synthesis
 Synthesis means putting together
 Analysis means taking things apart
• You will be learning how to unpack a concept like unpacking a suitcase.
 You will be looking at how different meanings relate to each other
 When it is appropriate to use one meaning over another
• Take the question: Is a fetus a person? – answer depends on the meanings
of the words.

What is critical thinking?

What is Logic?

What is the function of the conclusion? (RAD, Reason -

Arguments/Argumentative/Discourse.)
The definition of a claim

Explain the various functions of the claims.

The point of the conclusion

The function of the premises.

Types of Arguments: Deductive. And Inductive

Definitions and examples of these two types of arguments

Language Words and Concepts

What is a concept? How do we reason with concepts.

“Logic is the systematic study of principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. It
involves the analysis of arguments to determine their validity and soundness. Logic is used
to differentiate between good and bad reasoning, ensuring that conclusions drawn from
premises are logically coherent.”

Key components of logic include:

1. Propositions: Statements that are either true or false.

2. Arguments: Sets of propositions, where some (premises) support another (the

conclusion).

3. Inference: The process of deriving conclusions from premises.

4. Validity: An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

5. Soundness: An argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true, (notice
soundness needs to fulfill both conditions. Premise(s) must be empirically/conceptually
true and conclusion correctly inferred from the premises.)

Logic can be divided into various branches, such as:

Deductive Logic: Focuses on arguments where the conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Inductive Logic: Involves arguments where the premises support the conclusion with a
degree of probability, rather than certainty.

**Formal Logic**: Studies the forms of reasoning in symbolic terms, often using systems
like propositional and predicate logic.

Informal Logic: Deals with natural language arguments and fallacies, emphasizing clarity
and critical thinking.

Historically, logic has been a fundamental discipline in philosophy, mathematics, and

computer science, among other fields.

A logical statement, also known as a proposition, is a declarative sentence that is either

true or false, but not both. It conveys a specific piece of information that can be evaluated
for its truth value. A logical statement has to have a binary structure to it, either true or
false, cannot be both true and false at the same time, that would be a contradiction.

Examples of logical statements include:

"The earth is round.”

"2 + 2 = 4.”

"All humans are mortal.”

These are all statements that assert something about the world or some abstract concept,
and they can be definitively classified as true or false.

Non-examples (things that are not logical statements) include:

Questions: "What time is it?"

-Commands: "Close the door."

Exclamations: "Wow!"

These types of sentences do not have a truth value and thus do not qualify as logical
statements.

What is a concept?

A concept is a general idea or understanding that represents a category or class of objects,

events, qualities, or relationships. Concepts are mental constructs that help us organize
and interpret information, allowing us to recognize patterns, make sense of experiences,
and communicate effectively. (For example: “some birds can fly,” birds are members of a
class of entities with flight as a unique characteristic.

Key features of concepts include:

1. **Abstraction**: Concepts often involve abstract thinking, where specific details are
generalized into broader categories.

2. **Categorization**: Concepts help group similar items, events, or ideas together based
on shared characteristics.

3. **Cognitive Tools**: Concepts are fundamental to reasoning, learning, and problem-

solving, providing the building blocks for thoughts and ideas.

For example:

The concept of "dog" includes all breeds and variations of dogs, focusing on common
features like being a mammal, having four legs, and barking.

The concept of "justice" encompasses ideas related to fairness, law, and morality, though
it may vary across different cultures and contexts.

Concepts are essential in various fields, including philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and
cognitive science, where they are studied to understand how humans perceive, think, and
communicate about the world
A deductive argument is a type of reasoning where the conclusion necessarily follows from
the given premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This form of
argument aims for certainty rather than probability.

Types of Arguments

Deductive Argument

A typical deductive argument consists of:

1. Premises: Statements or propositions that provide the foundation or evidence.

2. Conclusion: The statement that logically follows from the premises.

Example

Consider the following deductive argument:

1. Premise 1: All humans are mortal.

2. Premise 2: Socrates is a human.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this argument, if both premises are true (all humans are indeed mortal, and Socrates is
indeed a human), then the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) must be true as well.

Validity and Soundness

Validity: A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises,
regardless of whether the premises are actually true. Validity is about the form of the
argument.
 Example of a valid but unsound argument:

1. Premise: All birds can fly.

2. Premise: Penguins are birds.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, penguins can fly.

Here, the argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises, but it is not
sound because the first premise is false.

Soundness**: A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. A
sound argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

- Example of a sound argument:

1. Premise: All mammals have a backbone.

2. Premise: A horse is a mammal.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, a horse has a backbone.

Types of Deductive Arguments

1. Syllogism: A common form of deductive reasoning that involves two premises and a
conclusion.

Example:

1. Major Premise: All men are mortal.

2. Minor Premise: Plotinus is a man.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, Plotinus is mortal.

2. Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent):

- Form: If P, then Q. P is true. Therefore, Q is true.

- Example:

1. If it rains, the ground will be wet.

 2. It is raining.

3. Therefore, the ground is wet.

3. Modus Tollens** (Denying the Consequent):

- Form: If P, then Q. Q is false. Therefore, P is false.

- Example:

1. If it is a dog, then it has four legs.

2. It does not have four legs.

3. Therefore, it is not a dog.

What is an Inductive Argument?

An inductive argument is a type of reasoning where the premises provide some degree of
support for the conclusion, but do not guarantee its truth. Inductive reasoning involves
drawing generalizations or predictions based on specific observations or evidence.

Structure of an Inductive Argument

A typical inductive argument involves:

1. Premises: Specific observations or pieces of evidence.

2. Conclusion: A generalization or prediction that extends beyond the premises.

Example

Consider the following inductive argument:

1. Premise 1: The sun has risen in the east every morning so far.
2. Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

In this argument, the premises provide strong evidence that the conclusion is likely to be
true, but they do not ensure it with certainty. There is always a possibility, however small,
that the conclusion might be false.

Strength and Cogency

Strength: An inductive argument is strong if the premises, when true, make the conclusion
highly probable.

Example of a strong inductive argument:

1. Premise: 95% of the birds observed in the area are sparrows.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, the next bird observed in the area will likely be a sparrow.

Cogency: An inductive argument is cogent if it is strong and all its premises are true.

Example of a cogent argument:

Premise: In a survey , 90% of the sampled population preferred coffee over tea,

Conclusion: therefore, it is likely that randomly chosen person from this population will
prefer coffee over tea.

Types of Inductive Arguments

1. Generalization: Drawing a conclusion about all members of a group based on

observations of some members.

Example:

1. Premise: Every swan I have seen so far is white.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are white.

2. Statistical Inference: Using statistics to draw conclusions about a population based on a
sample.

Example:

1. Premise: 80% of the sampled voters support Candidate A.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, about 80% of all voters support Candidate A.

3. Causal Inference: Inferring a cause-and-effect relationship based on observed

correlations.

Example:

1. Premise: Whenever I eat peanuts, I get a rash.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, eating peanuts causes me to get a rash.

4. Analogical Reasoning: Drawing a conclusion based on the similarity between two

situations.

Example:

1. Premise: My old phone had a battery life of two days.

2. Premise: My new phone is from the same brand and model series as my old phone.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, my new phone will likely have a similar battery life.

Inductive arguments are fundamental in science, everyday decision-making, and many

fields that involve prediction and generalization. While they do not provide certainty, they
offer valuable insights and probabilistic conclusions based on observed patterns and
evidence.

An argument is a set of statements or propositions where some (the premises) are

intended to support or justify another statement (the conclusion). The purpose of an
argument is to provide reasons or evidence for accepting the conclusion as true or
plausible.

Components of an Argument
1. Premise: Statements that provide the basis or evidence for the argument. They are
assumed to be true for the purpose of the argument.

2. Conclusion: The statement that the premises are intended to support or prove. It is the
main point the argument seeks to establish.

Example of an Argument

1. Premise 1: All humans need water to survive.

2. Premise 2: Jai is a human.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, Jai needs water to survive.

Types of Arguments

1. Deductive Arguments: Arguments where the conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Example:

1. Premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.

2. Premise: A whale is a mammal.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, a whale is warm-blooded.

2. Inductive Arguments: Arguments where the premises provide probable support for the
conclusion. The conclusion is likely but not guaranteed to be true.

-Example:

1. Premise: The sun has risen every day in recorded history.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Evaluating Arguments

Arguments are evaluated based on two main criteria:

1. Validity (for deductive arguments): An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows
from the premises. Validity concerns the structure of the argument, not the actual truth of
the premises.

A valid argument:

1. Premise: If it rains, the ground gets wet.

2. Premise: It is raining.

3. Conclusion: The ground is wet.

2. Soundness (for deductive arguments): An argument is sound if it is valid and all its
premises are true.

-A sound argument:

1. Premise: All humans are mortal.

2. Premise: Socrates is a human.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

3. Strength (for inductive arguments): An argument is strong if the premises, when true,
make the conclusion highly probable.

A strong argument:

1. Premise: 90% of the apples in the basket are red.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, the next apple I pick will probably be red.

4. Cogency (for inductive arguments): An argument is cogent if it is strong and the premises
are true.
 - A cogent argument:

1. Premise: In a survey, 85% of participants preferred matcha ice cream.

2. Conclusion: Therefore, the next participant is likely to prefer matcha ice cream.

RAD: are fundamental to rational discourse, enabling us to justify beliefs, make decisions,
and persuade others. They are used extensively in philosophy, science, law, and everyday
life to explore and establish truths.

False logical claims often arise from incorrect reasoning or fallacious arguments. Here are
some examples of common fallacies and erroneous logical claims:

1. Affirming the Consequent:

Incorrect Claim: If it is raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining.

Explanation: The ground could be wet for other reasons, such as a sprinkler.

2. Denying the Antecedent:

Incorrect Claim: If it is raining, the ground is wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the ground is
not wet.

Explanation: The ground could be wet due to other factors, like a spilled bucket of water.

3. Hasty Generalization:

Incorrect Claim: My friend from Italy is rude. Therefore, all Italians are rude.

Explanation: This claim generalizes from a single instance without sufficient evidence.

4. False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy):

Incorrect Claim: You are either with us or against us.

Explanation: This claim ignores the possibility of neutral or alternative positions.

5. Circular Reasoning (or Begging the Question):

Incorrect Claim: The Bible is true because it is the word of God. We know it is the word of
God because the Bible says so.

Explanation: This argument assumes what it is trying to prove without providing external
evidence.

6. Slippery Slope:

Incorrect Claim: If we allow students to redo tests, next they will want to redo entire
courses, and then they’ll expect to redo their entire degree.

Explanation: This argument suggests an extreme outcome without evidence for such a
progression.

10. Appeal to Ignorance:

Incorrect Claim: No one has proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must exist.

Explanation: Lack of evidence against a claim does not constitute evidence for it.

These examples highlight various ways in which logical claims can be false due to flawed
reasoning or fallacious argumentation. Understanding these fallacies helps in identifying
and avoiding errors in reasoning.

Identifying a Conclusion

To identify the conclusion in an argument, look for indicator words or phrases that often
signal a conclusion, such as:

Therefore

Thus

Hence

Consequently

As a result
So

It follows that

Example Using Indicator Words

Premise 1: The streets are wet.

Premise 2: If it rains, the streets get wet.

Conclusion: Therefore, it has rained.

In this example, "therefore" indicates the conclusion drawn from the premises.

Role of the Conclusion

The conclusion is crucial because it encapsulates the argument's primary assertion or

claim, which the premises aim to justify or prove. It is the end point of the reasoning
process in an argument.

Understanding the role of the conclusion in an argument helps in evaluating the

effectiveness and logical coherence of the reasoning presented.

Weak inductive arguments are those in which the premises provide insufficient support for
the conclusion, making the conclusion unlikely or only weakly supported. Here are some
examples:

What is Conceptual Analysis?

Conceptual analysis is a method used in philosophy and other disciplines to break down
complex concepts into their constituent parts in order to understand their structure,
meaning, and relationships more clearly. This method involves examining the usage,
definitions, and implications of a concept to provide a clear and precise understanding of
it.

Miain Aspects of Conceptual Analysis

1. It aims to clarify the meaning of concepts by exploring how they are used in various
contexts and by different people. This involves identifying and articulating the essential
features of the concept.

2. It often seeks to provide definitions or criteria for the application of the concept. This
can involve proposing necessary and sufficient conditions for something to fall under the
concept.

3. It distinguishes between different but related concepts to avoid confusion. For example,
differentiating between "justice" and "fairness."

4. It evaluates the adequacy of existing definitions and theories about the concept. This
includes assessing whether the concept is coherent, consistent, and applicable.

5. It explores the implications of the concept for other areas of inquiry or practice. For
instance, analyzing the concept of "freedom" might have implications for political theory,
ethics, and law.

Example of Conceptual Analysis

1. Philosophers clarify what we mean by "knowledge" as opposed to "belief" or "opinion."

Traditionally, knowledge has been defined as "justified true belief."

2. They propose criteria for knowledge:

Believe: The person must believe the proposition.

Truth: The proposition must be true.

Importance of Conceptual Analysis

1. Philosophical Inquiry: It is a foundational method in philosophy for addressing

fundamental questions and resolving conceptual confusions.

2. Precision in Communication**: It promotes precision and clarity in language, helping to

avoid misunderstandings and ambiguities.

3. Interdisciplinary Applications**: It can be applied in various fields such as law, science,

and ethics to analyze and refine key concepts, leading to better theoretical and practical
outcomes.

4. Critical Thinking: It fosters critical thinking by encouraging rigorous examination and

questioning of assumptions underlying various concepts.

Conceptual analysis is thus a vital tool in both philosophical inquiry and practical
reasoning, providing clarity and precision in our understanding and use of concepts.

Modes of reasoning refer to different methods or approaches used to draw conclusions or

make inferences from premises or evidence. These methods help in structuring arguments
and analyzing various forms of information. Here are the primary modes of reasoning:

Critical Thinking: Modes of reasoning are essential for critical thinking and effective
problem-solving.

-Scientific Method: In scientific research, these reasoning methods help in forming

hypotheses, designing experiments, and interpreting data.

Decision Making: In everyday life and professional contexts, using different mof reasoning
aids in making informed and logical decisions.
Understanding and applying different modes of reasoning can enhance one’s ability to
analyze information, construct sound arguments, and solve complex problems. Each
mode has its strengths and appropriate contexts for use, making them valuable tools for
various disciplines and everyday reasoning.

1.) Arguments does not need a conclusion (T/F)

2.) A conclusion is a supporting claim (T/F.)
3.) The function of a premise is to support the conclusion (T/F.)
4.) Premises have to have a binary structure of being either true or false (T//f)

Laws of non-contradiction is not an important feature of logic (T/F)

Correct reasoning or inference from a set of propositions or claims or statements is a key

characteristic of the defining of logic(T/F)

A valid deduction argument could have faulty premises and yet being valid, if so, why?

A valid deductive argument could have false premises and correct conclusion. How do,
explain.

Inductive arguments are strong because of less evidence, (T/F.)

Inductive arguments give us certainty of the conclusion (T/F)

Which of the following are statement? Which are Not?

1) Should I go to class today?
2) Being able to express your political point of view in public is a fundamental right.
3) Do not allow your prejudices to distort your thinking.

HISTORY OF FORMAL LOGIC • BOCHENSKI, University of Notre Dame Press 1961.

“A. CONCERNING THE GEOGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY OF LOGIC”

Formal logic, so far as we know, originated in two and only two cultural regions: in the west and
in India. Elsewhere, e.g. in China, we do occasionally find a method of discussion and a
sophistic (3.01), but no formal logic in the sense of Aristotle or Dignaga was developed there.

Both these logics later spread far beyond the frontiers of their native region. We are not now
speaking merely of the extension of
10