9/24/2020
BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
Critical Thinking - Chapter 3
1
9/24/2020
Forms of reasoning
1. Deduction – deductive arguments
2. Induction – inductive arguments
Deduction = suy diễn; Induction = quy nạp
Deduction vs. Induction
Deductive Arguments try to prove their
conclusions with rigorous, inescapable
logic.
Example:
1. In order to fly, birds need to be aerodynamic.
2. Bush-turkeys aren’t aerodynamic.
3. Therefore, bush-turkeys can’t fly.
rigorous = nghiêm ngặt, chặt chẽ; inescapable = không chối cãi
4
được
2
9/24/2020
Deduction vs. Induction
Inductive Arguments try to show that their
conclusion are plausible (likely or probable),
given their premises:
1. So far, every class, the professor has worn a tie.
2. Therefore, next class, the professor will wear a tie.
Plausible (adj) = hợp lý, đáng tin cậy
5
Avoid a Misconception
Misconception:
Deductive arguments go from the general to the
specific/particular.
Inductive argument go from the specific/
particular to the general.
Examples of deductive arguments:
All Males are mortal. (general) I am Male.Therefore I am
mortal. (particular)
Lincoln was president from 1861-1865 (particular); therefore
everyone born while he was president was born in the 1800’s.
(general)
3
9/24/2020
Avoid a Misconception
Examples of inductive arguments :
The last two winter days were cold. (particular)
Therefore, all winter days are cold. (general)
I have got A’s in all my classes so far (general). Therefore,
I will get an A in this class (particular).
Deductive Inductive
If the premises are true, then If the premises are true, then
the conclusion must be true. the conclusion is probably true.
The conclusion follows The conclusion follows probably
necessarily from the premises. from the premises.
The premises provide The premises provide good (but
conclusive evidence for the not conclusive) evidence for the
truth of the conclusion. truth of the conclusion.
It is impossible for all the It is unlikely for the premises to
premises to be true and the be true and the conclusion
conclusion false. false.
It is logically inconsistent to Although it is logically
assert the premises and deny consistent to assert the
the conclusion, meaning that if premises and deny the
you accept the premises, you conclusion, the conclusion is
must accept the conclusion. probably true if the premises
are true.
8
4
9/24/2020
HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN ARGUMENT
IS DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE?
There are four tests that can be used to determine
whether an argument is deductive or inductive:
The Indicator Word Test
The Strict Necessity Test
The Common Pattern Test
The Principle of Charity Test
The Indicator Word Test
The indicator word test asks whether there are any
indicator words that provide clues whether a
deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
Common deduction indicator words include words
or phrases like necessarily, logically, conclusively,
certainly, definitely it must be the case that, and this
proves that., this entails that…
Common induction indicator words include words or phrases
like probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to
think that, and it's a good bet that, probably, likely, one would
expect, reasonable to assume…
10
5
9/24/2020
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Like before, indicators are not perfect. They are not
always present, and they can sometimes be
misleading.
The speaker may say “it certainly follows” but be
exaggerating, knowing that it only “probably
follows.”)
11
The Strict Necessity Test
The burglar is tall and thin.
Duncan is short and fat.
Obviously, therefore, Duncan isn’t the burglar.
The strict necessity test asks whether the
conclusion follows from the premises with strict
logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is
deductive.
In this example, the conclusion does follow from
the premises with strict logical necessity.
12
6
9/24/2020
The Common Pattern Test
The common pattern test asks whether the
argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive or inductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning
that is characteristically deductive, then the
argument is probably deductive.
Pattern (n) = nguyên mẫu, hình mẫu, kiểu mẫu
13
Common patterns of deductive reasoning
The are five common patterns of deductive
reasoning:
1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Argument by elimination
4. Argument based on mathematics
5. Argument from definition
14
7
9/24/2020
1. Hypothetical syllogism
A syllogism is simply a three – line argument,
exactly two premises and a conclusion.
Hypothetical syllogism contains at least one
hypothetical or conditional (i.e, if – then)
premise
A typical form:
If A then B.
A
Therefore, B.
Syllogism (n) = tam đoạn luận
15
1. Hypothetical syllogism
Valid versions:
Modus Ponens:
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.
Examples:
If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d better study
hard.
I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, I’d better study hard.
A: Antecedent – sự việc có trước, tiền lệ, tiền đề
B: Consequent – hậu quả 1
6
16
8
9/24/2020
1. Hypothetical syllogism
Valid versions:
Modus Tollens:
If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.
Example:
If we’re in Sacramento, then we’re in California.
We’re not in California.
Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento.
1
7
17
1. Hypothetical syllogism
Invalid versions (that are still deductive):
Denying the antecedent:
If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore not B.
Example:
If I am female then I am human.
I am not female.
Therefore I am not human.
1
8
18
9
9/24/2020
1. Hypothetical syllogism
Invalid versions (that are still deductive):
Affirming the consequent:
If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.
Example:
If we’re on Neptune then we are in the solar system.
We are in the solar system.
Therefore, we’re on Neptune.
1
9
19
2. Categorical syllogism
A categorical syllogism may be defined as
a three line argument in which each
statement begins with the word all, some,
or no.
Example
All bats are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
So, all bats are warm-blooded.
20
10
9/24/2020
2. Categorical syllogism
Typical 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:
1. All oaks are trees
2. All trees are plants.
3. So all oaks are plants.
2
1
21
3. Argument by elimination
Argument by Elimination: seeks to
logically rule out various possibilities
until only a single possibility remains.
Typical forms:
A or B. Not B. Therefore A.
Example:
1. Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
2. But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
3. Therefore, Joe walked to the library.
2
2
22
11
9/24/2020
4. Argument based on mathematics
Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-
step reasoning. In an argument based on
mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to
depend largely or entirely on some
mathematical calculation or measurement.
Example:
Light travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per
second.
The sun is more than 93 million miles distant
from the earth.
Therefore, it takes more than eight minutes for
the sun’s light to reach the earth.
23
5. Argument from definition
In Argument from definition, the conclusion is
presented as being “true by definition”, that is,
as following simply by definition some key
word or phrase used in the argument.
Example
Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a
doctor.
Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a women.
24
12
9/24/2020
5. Argument from definition
In Argument from definition, the conclusion is
presented as being “true by definition”, that is,
as following simply by definition some key
word or phrase used in the argument.
Example
Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a
doctor.
Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a women.
25
Common patterns of Inductive reasoning
The are six common patterns of inductive
reasoning:
1. Inductive generalization
2. Predictive argument
3. Argument from authority
4. Causal argument
5. Statiscal argument
6. Argument from analogy
26
13
9/24/2020
Inductive generalization
A generalization is a statement that attribute
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.
27
Inductive generalization
Common Form:
So far, the b’s I have seen have had the property p.
Therefore, all b’s must have the property p.
Example:
Six montshs 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
2
8
28
14
9/24/2020
Predictive argument
A prediction is a statement about what may
or will happen in the future.
In a Predictive argument, a prediction is
defended with reasons.
Example
Ithas rained in Vancouver every February since
weather records have been kept.
Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next
February
29
Argument from Authority
Argument from authority: asserts a claim and
supports that claim by citing some presumed
authority or witness.
Common form:
P said that A was true, therefore A is true.
Example:
More Americans die of skin cancer each year
than die in car accidents. How do
I know? My doctor told me.
Since sources are not 100% reliable, conclusions of
such arguments are not guaranteed and thus such
arguments are inductive.
30
15
9/24/2020
Argument from Authority
Arguments from authority are sometimes
deductive, however.
Example:
Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
The Bible teaches that we should love our
neighbors.
Therefore, we should love our neighbors.
Bible is 100% reliable source.
31
Causal argument
Causal Argument: asserts or denies
that something is the cause of
something else.
Common form:
X is true. The likely cause of X being true is Y
being true. Therefore, Y must be true.
Example
I can’t log-in. The network must be down.
3
2
32
16
9/24/2020
Causal argument
Not all causal arguments are inductive, if
there are true evidences, they are deductive:
Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it
eventually rusts.
This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen.
Therefore, it will eventually rust.
33
Statistical argument
A Statistical argument rests on statistical
evidence, that is, evidence that some percentage
of some group or class has some particular
characteristic:
Common form: xx% of b’s have property p and x
is a b, therefore x probably has property p.
Example
Eighty-three percent of Trinity’s students are Anglican.
Beatrice is a Trinity’s student
So, Beatrice is probably Anglican.
34
17
9/24/2020
Argument from analogy
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 between two or more things
Common form:
These things are similar is such-and-such ways.
Therefore, they are similar in some further way.
35
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
Examples:
1. Hershey Park is a great amusement park and it has a
great roller coaster.
2. Dorney Park is a great amusement park.
3. Dorney Park probably has a great roller coaster.
36
18
9/24/2020
Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
Since, being similar in one way does not
guarantee being similar in another, most
analogies are inductive.
However, some analogies are deductive:
1. Cars and cigarettes both cause thousands of deaths.
2. Thus, if cigarettes are regulated, so too should cars.
3. But cars should not be regulated.
4. Therefore cigarettes should not be regulated either.
37
The Principle of Charity Test
The Principle of Charity Test. If it is unclear
what kind of argument it is then…
If it would make a bad deductive argument
assume it is not a deductive argument.
If it’s a choice between “bad deductive” and “good
inductive,” go with the latter—it’s nicer and more
likely what the person had in mind.
38
19
9/24/2020
The Principle of Charity Test
Example:
Andy told me that he ate at Maxine’s yesterday, but it
burned down a month ago. It is certain that he was
lying or mistaken.
Since it is possible that Maxine’s was rebuilt
quickly, this argument is deductively invalid.
Assume that the author intended it to be
inductive.
39
20
