Because learning changes everything.

Chapter 3

Basic Logical
Concepts

Copyright © 2023 McGraw Hill. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or
retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill, including, but not limited to, network storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
 Introduction

In the previous chapter, we talked about what arguments are

and how we can distinguish them from nonarguments.

In this chapter, we introduce some basic logical concepts

needed to separate good arguments from bad ones.

In evaluating any argument, one should always ask two key

questions: (1) Are the premises true? And

(2) Do the premises provide good reasons to accept the

conclusion?

© McGraw Hill 2
 Introduction
In this chapter, we focus on the second question.

What does it mean to say that an argument’s premises

provide “good reasons” for its conclusion, and how can we
know when such reasons are being offered?

Before we can effectively evaluate an argument, we need to

understand what kind of argument is being offered.

Traditionally, arguments have been divided into two types:

deductive arguments and inductive arguments.

© McGraw Hill 3
 Introduction
All arguments claim to provide support—that is, evidence or
reasons—for their conclusions.

But arguments differ greatly in the amount of support they

claim to provide.

Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with

rigorous, inescapable logic.

Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are

plausible or likely given the premise(s).

© McGraw Hill 4
 Deduction and Induction 1

Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous,

inescapable logic.
• Example.

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

• If the president lives in the White House, then he lives in

Washington, D.C.

• The president does live in the White House.

• So, the president lives in Washington, D.C.

© McGraw Hill 5
 Deduction and Induction 2
Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are
plausible or likely given the premises.
• Example.
• Every ruby so far discovered has been red.

• So, probably all rubies are red.

• Polls show that 75 percent of Republicans favor a school prayer

amendment.

• Joe is a Republican.

• Therefore, Joe likely favors a school prayer amendment.

© McGraw Hill 6
 Inductive arguments
• The bank safe was robbed last night.

• Whoever robbed the safe knew the safe’s combination.

• Only two people know the safe’s combination: Lefty and Bugsy.

• Bugsy needed money to pay his gambling debts.

• Bugsy was seen sneaking around outside the bank last night.

• It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Bugsy robbed the safe.

© McGraw Hill 7
 Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 1
• Arguments are deductive when their premises are intended
to provide this kind of rigorous, airtight logical support for
their conclusions.
• Deductive reasoning isn’t some technical and specialized
form of reasoning engaged in only by logicians or
mathematicians. It is something we all do easily and
naturally.
• Exercise 3. 1.
1. Either Moriarty was the murderer or Stapleton was the murderer.
If Stapleton was the murderer, then traces of phosphorus should have been
found on the body.
No traces of phosphorus were found on the body.
Whodunnit?

© McGraw Hill 8
 Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 1
2. The murder did not occur in the library.
If Adler was the murderer, then the weapon was a revolver.
Either Hope was the murderer or Adler was the murderer.
If Hope was the murderer, then the murder took place in the library.
Whodunnit? With what weapon?
3. The murder was not committed on the moor.
If Windibank was the murderer, then the weapon was a rope.
Either Windibank was the murderer or Calhoun was the murderer.
If the weapon was a rope, then the murder was committed on the downs.
If Calhoun was the murderer, then the weapon was a crowbar.
If the weapon was a crowbar, then the murder was committed on the moor.
Whodunnit? With what weapon? Where was the murder committed?

© McGraw Hill 9
 Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 1
• Deductive arguments claim to provide logically conclusive
grounds for their conclusions.

• Inductive arguments, on the other hand, simply claim that

their conclusions are likely or probable, given the premises
offered.
Misconception.
• Deduction moves from general premises to particular
conclusions.
• Induction moves from particular premises to general
conclusions.

© McGraw Hill 10
 Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 2

Arguments can be presented in this manner:

• Deduction: All males are mortal. (general premise) I am a

male. Therefore, I am mortal. (particular conclusion).
• Inductive: The last two winter days were cold. (particular
premise) Therefore, all winter days are cold. (general
conclusion).

© McGraw Hill 11
 Deduction and Induction: Avoid a Misconception 3

But arguments can be presented in this manner as well:

• Deductive.
• Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865 (particular
premise).
• So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in
the nineteenth century (general conclusion).
• Inductive.
• All of John Grisham’s previous novels have been good
(general premise).
• Therefore, Grisham’s next novel will probably be good
(particular conclusion).

© McGraw Hill 12
 Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments 1

Deductive arguments claim Inductive arguments claim

that: that:

• If the premises are true, • If the premises are true,

then the conclusion must then the conclusion is
be true. probably true.
• The conclusion follows • The conclusion follows
necessarily from the probably from the
premises. premises.

© McGraw Hill 13
 Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments 2

• Deductive arguments • Inductive arguments claim

claim that: that:

• It is impossible for all the • It is unlikely for the

premises to be true and premises to be true and
the conclusion false. the conclusion false.
• It is logically inconsistent • Although it is logically
to assert the premises consistent to assert the
and deny the conclusion. premises and deny the
conclusion, the
conclusion is probably
true if the premises are
true.
© McGraw Hill 14
 HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN ARGUMENT IS
DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?
• We have seen that an argument is deductive if its premises are
intended to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its
conclusion and inductive if its premises are intended to provide
merely probable grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
• But it is not always easy to know what a given speaker or writer
intends.
• For that reason, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a
particular argument is deductive or inductive.
• Fortunately, there are four tests that greatly simplify the task of
determining whether an argument should be regarded as
deductive or inductive:
• the indicator word test * the common pattern test
• the strict necessity test *the principle of charity test

© McGraw Hill 15
 Indicator word test.
• Indicator words can be used to communicate when an
argument is deductive or inductive.
• Examples of deduction indicator words: Certainly,
definitely, absolutely, and conclusively.
• Examples of induction indicator words: Probably,
likely, one would expect that, odds are that, and it is
reasonable to assume that.
• Indicator words are not always present, and they are
sometimes used loosely or improperly.
• For example, it is common to hear speakers use strong
phrases like “it must be the case that” and “it is logical
to assume that” when the context makes clear that the
argument is not intended to be strictly deductive.
© McGraw Hill 16
 Strict necessity test.
• An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical
necessity from its premises or it does not.
• If it does, the argument should always be treated as
deductive.
• If it doesn’t, the argument should be treated as
inductive.
• Examples.
• Alan is a father. Therefore, Alan is a male (deductive).
• Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile
in one minute flat (inductive).

© McGraw Hill 17
 Exceptions to the strict necessity test.

• An argument in which the conclusion does not follow

necessarily from the premises should nonetheless be
treated as deductive in the following situations:
• The language or context makes clear that the arguer
intended to offer a logically conclusive argument, but the
argument, in fact, is not logically conclusive.
• The argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive and nothing else about the
argument clearly indicates that the argument is meant to
be inductive.

© McGraw Hill 18
 Tests to Determine Whether an Argument Is Deductive or
Inductive

• Examples of exceptions.
• Magellan's ships sailed around the world. It necessarily
follows, therefore, that the earth is a sphere.
• If I’m Bill Gates, then I’m mortal. I’m not Bill Gates.
Therefore, I’m not mortal.

© McGraw Hill 19
 Common pattern test.

• We can frequently apply the common pattern test to

determine which kind of reasoning we are dealing with
• There are many common patterns that valid arguments
“use.”
• For example: If A then B. A. Therefore, B.
• This argument pattern is called modus ponens.
• If an argument follows this pattern, it is deductive.

© McGraw Hill 20
 Principle of charity test.
• When interpreting an unclear argument or passage,
always give the speaker or writer the benefit of the doubt.
• Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when
the evidence reasonably permits us to attribute to them
a stronger one.
• Never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the
evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as not an
argument at all.
Example: Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s Restaurant yesterday. But
Maxine’s was completely destroyed by fire less than a month ago. It is
certain, therefore, that Andy is either lying or mistaken.
• Since it is not possible that Maxine’s was rebuilt quickly, this argument
is deductively invalid.
• Assume that the author intended it to be inductive.

© McGraw Hill 21
 Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning

• Often, the quickest way to determine whether an argument

is deductive or inductive is to note whether it has a pattern
of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or
inductive.
• In this section, we discuss five common patterns of
deductive reasoning:
• Hypothetical syllogism.
• Categorical syllogism.
• Argument by elimination.
• Argument based on mathematics.
• Argument from definition.

© McGraw Hill 22
Hypothetical Syllogism 1

A syllogism is a three-line argument, that is, an argument that

consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion.

Three-line argument that contains at least one hypothetical

or conditional premise.

Varieties of hypothetical syllogisms.

• If A then B. A. Therefore, B (modus ponens).
• If A then B. If B then C. Therefore, if A then C (chain
argument).
• If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not A (modus tollens).

© McGraw Hill 23
Hypothetical Syllogism 2

• Patterns of deductive reasoning that are not logically

reliable.
• If A then B. Not A. Therefore, not B (denying the
antecedent).
• If A then B. B. Therefore, A (affirming the
consequent).
• These should be treated as deductive because they
have a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically
deductive.

© McGraw Hill 24
 Exercise 3.2.
For each of the following, indicate which type of hypothetical
syllogism it is: modus ponens, modus tollens, chain
argument, denying the antecedent, or affirming the
consequent. In some cases, the argument may need to be
rephrased slightly to make the logical pattern explicit.
*1. If we’re in London, then we’re in England. We are not in England. So,
we are not in London.
*4. If we’re in Paris, then we are in France. If we’re in France, then we are
in Europe. So, if we are in Paris, then we are in Europe.
*7. We are not in Mexico, because if we are in Mexico City, we are in
Mexico, and we are not in Mexico City.
*10. We’re in Berlin, given that if we are in Berlin, then we are in
Germany, and we are in Germany.

© McGraw Hill 25
Categorical Syllogism

Three-line argument in which each statement begins with the

word all, some, or no.

Forms.
• All A’s are B’s. All B’s are C’s. Therefore, all A’s are C’s.
• Some A’s are B’s. All B’s are C’s. Therefore, some A’s are
C’s.

Example.
• All oaks are trees.
• All trees are plants.
• So, all oaks are plants.

© McGraw Hill 26
Argument by Elimination 1

Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a

single possibility remains.
• Example 1.
• Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
• But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
• Therefore, Joe walked to the library.

© McGraw Hill 27
Argument by Elimination 2

• Example 2.
• If Dutch or Jack committed the murder, then the weapon
was a rope.
• The weapon was not a rope.
• So, neither Dutch nor Jack committed the murder.
• Therefore, Celia committed the murder.

© McGraw Hill 28
Arguments Based on Mathematics

Argument in which the conclusion depends largely or entirely

on some mathematical calculation or measurement.

Example.
• Eight is greater than four.
• Four is greater than two.
• Therefore, eight is greater than two.

© McGraw Hill 29
Arguments from Definition

An argument in which the conclusion is presented as being

“true by definition,” that is, as following simply from the
meaning of some key word or phrase used.

Examples.
• Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor.
• Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.

© McGraw Hill 30
Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning

• Inductive generalization.
• Predictive argument.
• Augment from authority.
• Causal argument.
• Statistical argument.
• Argument from analogy.

© McGraw Hill 31
Inductive Generalization 1

A generalization, as that term is used in critical thinking, is a

statement that attributes some characteristic to all or most
members of a given class
An inductive generalization is an argument in which a
generalization is claimed to be probably true based on
information about some members of a particular class. Here
are two examples:
Common form.
• So far, the B’s I have seen have had property P. Therefore,
all B’s must have property P.

© McGraw Hill 32
Inductive Generalization 2

Example.
All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more than sixty-
five million years old.
Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than sixty-five
million
years old.
Six months ago I met a farmer from Iowa, and he was friendly.
Four months ago I met an insurance salesman from Iowa, and he
was
friendly.
Two months ago I met a dentist from Iowa, and she was friendly.
I guess most people from Iowa are friendly.

© McGraw Hill 33
Predictive Argument 1

An argument in which a prediction is defended with reasons.

• Prediction: A claim about what someone thinks will
happen in the future.

Common form.
• So far, all the B’s I have seen have had property P.
• Therefore, the next B I see will have property P.

© McGraw Hill 34
Predictive Argument 2

Example.
• Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
• Therefore, probably the next president will be tall.

In some cases, predictions can be argued for deductively.

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

© McGraw Hill 35
 Argument from Authority 1
An argument from authority asserts a claim and then supports that
claim by citing some presumed authority or witness who has said
that the claim is true.
Common form.
• P said that A was true. Therefore, A is true.
Here are three examples:
More Americans die of skin cancer each year than die in car accidents.
How do I know? My doctor told me.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia.
In general, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a highly reliable source of
information.
Therefore, it’s probably true that Jefferson was born in Virginia.
There are bears in these woods. My neighbor Frank said he saw one last week.

© McGraw Hill 36
Argument from Authority 2
Because we can never be absolutely certain that a supposed
authority or witness is accurate or reliable, arguments from
authority should normally be treated as inductive. Arguments
from authority are sometimes deductive, however. For
example:
Example.
• Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
• The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbors.
• Therefore, we should love our neighbors.
Because the conclusion of this argument follows necessarily
from the premises, the argument is deductive.

© McGraw Hill 37
Causal Argument

Asserts or denies that something is the cause of something

else.
• Example: I can’t log on. The network must be down.

Not all causal arguments are inductive.

• Example.
• Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts.
• This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen and water.
• Therefore, it will rust.

© McGraw Hill 38
Statistical Argument 1

Rests on statistical evidence (evidence that some

percentage of some group or class has some particular
characteristic).

Example.
• Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s students can swim.
• Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
• So, Beatrice probably can swim.

© McGraw Hill 39
Statistical Argument 2

Because statistical evidence is used to support claims that

are presented as probable, statistical arguments are usually
inductive.
• Statistical evidence can also be used in deductive
reasoning.
• Example.
• If 65% of likely voters polled support Senator Beltway,
then Senator Beltway will win in a landslide.
• Sixty-five percent of likely voters polled do support
Senator Beltway.
• Therefore, Senator Beltway will win in a landslide.

© McGraw Hill 40
Argument from Analogy 1
An analogy is a comparison of two or more things that are
claimed
to be alike in some relevant respect.
In an argument from analogy, the conclusion is claimed to
depend on an analogy (i.e., a comparison or similarity) between
two or more things.
Common form.
• These things are similar in such-and-such ways.
• Therefore, they are probably similar in some further way.
Here are two examples:
Hershey Park has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.
Dorney Park, like Hershey Park, is a great amusement park.
Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.
Bill is a graduate of Central University, and he is bright, energetic, and
dependable.
© McGraw Hill 41
Argument from Analogy 2

Note the basic logical pattern of these arguments:

Example.
• Hershey Park has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.
• Dorney Park, like Hershey Park, is a great amusement park.
• Therefore, probably Dorney Park also has a thrilling roller-coaster ride.

Because the conclusions of arguments of this pattern are claimed to

follow only probably from the premises, such arguments are clearly
inductive.

© McGraw Hill 42
Argument from Analogy 3

Some analogical arguments are deductive.

• Example.
• Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each year and produce noxious
and offensive fumes.
• Smoking causes thousands of deaths each year and produces noxious
and offensive fumes.
• Thus, if smoking is heavily regulated, automobiles should also be heavily
regulated.
• But automobiles shouldn’t be heavily regulated.
• Therefore, smoking shouldn’t be heavily regulated, either.

© McGraw Hill 43
Exercise 3.3
Determine whether the following arguments are deductive or
inductive.
1. Because x = 3 and y = 5, then x + y = 8.
4. Either Elmo will win the election or Schlomo will win the election.
But Elmo won’t win the election. Therefore, Schlomo will win the
election.
7. The sign says it is seven miles to Lake Lily. Therefore, it is
approximately seven miles to Lake Lily.
10. If it rains, the game will be postponed until next Saturday.
According to the National Weather Service, there’s a 90 percent
chance of rain. Therefore, probably the game will be postponed
until next Saturday.

© McGraw Hill 44
Deductive Validity 1

A valid deductive argument is an argument in which it is

impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion
false.
• The following conditions apply in a valid deductive
argument:

• If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

• The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
• The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of the
conclusion.
• It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and deny the
conclusion.

© McGraw Hill 45
Deductive Validity 2

It is not necessary to know whether an argument’s premises or

conclusion are true to know whether the argument is valid.
• Some valid arguments have obviously false premises and a false
conclusion.
• Example: All squares are circles. All circles are triangles. Therefore, all
squares are triangles.

© McGraw Hill 46
Deductive Validity 3

• Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion.

• Example: All fruits are vegetables. Spinach is a fruit. Therefore, spinach is
a vegetable.
• Some valid arguments have true premises and a true conclusion.
• Example: If you’re reading this, you are alive. You are reading this.
Therefore, you are alive.
• No valid argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.

© McGraw Hill 47
Deductive Validity 4

Valid does not mean “true.”

• Valid means that the argument is deductively well reasoned, that the
conclusion does, in fact, follow necessarily from the premises.

Invalid deductive argument: Deductive argument in which the

conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.

© McGraw Hill 48
Deductive Validity 5

Notice, in the following argument, even though the premises and

conclusion are true, it is invalid:

• All dogs are animals.

• Lassie is an animal.
• Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
• What if “Lassie” here referred to an iguana? The premises would still be
true, and yet the conclusion would be false.

© McGraw Hill 49
Deductive Validity 6

• If you get rid of your assumption (which is not in the argument) that we
are talking about the TV dog, the invalidity becomes clear. Let’s use a
different name:

• All dogs are animals.

• Jub-Jub is an animal.
• Therefore, Jub-Jub is a dog.

Validity is important because it preserves truth.

© McGraw Hill 50
Deductive Validity: Sound and Unsound Deductive
Arguments

• Sound deductive argument: Deductive argument that is both valid

and has all true premises.
• Unsound deductive argument: Deductive argument that either is
invalid or has at least one false premise, or both.

© McGraw Hill 51
Inductive Strength 1

Strong inductive argument: Inductive argument in which the conclusion

follows probably from the premises.
• The following conditions apply in a strong inductive argument:

• If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.

• The premises provide probable, but not logically conclusive, grounds for
the truth of the conclusion.
• The premises, if true, make the conclusion likely.

© McGraw Hill 52
Inductive Strength 2

• Example.
• All recent U.S. presidents have been college graduates.
• Thus, it is likely that the next U.S. president will be a college graduate.

Weak inductive argument: An inductive argument in which the

conclusion does not follow probably from the premises.
• Example.
• All previous popes have been men.
• Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman.

© McGraw Hill 53
Inductive Strength 3

Inductively strong arguments can have combinations of truth or falsity in

the premises and conclusion.
• Some inductively strong arguments have:

• False premises and a probably false conclusion.

• Example: All previous U.S. presidents have been electricians. Hence, it
is likely that the next U.S. president will be an electrician.
• False premises and a probably true conclusion.
• Example: Every previous U.S. president has flown on Air Force One.
So, the next U.S. president probably will fly on Air Force One.

© McGraw Hill 54
Inductive Strength 4

• True premises and a probably true conclusion.

• Example: No previous U.S. president has been a native Alaskan. So,
the next U.S. president probably will not be a native Alaskan.
• No strong inductive argument can have true premises and a probably
false conclusion.

Weak inductive arguments can have any combination of truth or falsity in

the premises and conclusion.
• Example: Most U.S. presidents have been women. Therefore,
probably the next U.S. president will be married.

© McGraw Hill 55
Inductive Strength 5

The examples show that inductive strength or weakness of an argument

has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of its premises and the
conclusion.
• Depends on whether the conclusion would probably be true if the
premises were true.
• If the answer is yes, the argument is strong.
• If the answer is no, the argument is weak.

© McGraw Hill 56
Inductive Strength Comes in Degrees 1

This argument . . .
• According to the National Weather Service, there is a 10 percent
chance of rain today.
• Therefore, probably it will rain today.

. . . is weaker than this one:

• According to the National Weather Service, there is a 60 percent

chance of rain today.
• Therefore, probably it will rain today.

© McGraw Hill 57
Inductive Strength Comes in Degrees 2

Recall that a deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

• No two valid arguments differ in “how valid” they are.

Some inductively strong arguments are inductively stronger than others.

© McGraw Hill 58
Cogency

• Even if an argument is inductively strong, it can still have a false

premise and be a poor argument.
• Cogent argument: An argument that is inductively strong and has all
true premises.
• Uncogent argument: An inductive argument that is either weak or
has at least one false premise, or both.

© McGraw Hill 59