24.

09x Guide to Logic and Argumentation

An argument in logic is not a quarrel or dispute; instead, it is a list of sentences.1 The last
sentence is the conclusion, and the other sentences are the premises. The premises are
sometimes separated from the conclusion by a line. Thus:

(1) No professors are ignorant.

All ignorant people are vain.
No professors are vain.
and:
(2) All lions are fierce.
Some lions do not drink coffee.
Some creatures that drink coffee are not fierce.

are both arguments. (These two examples are taken from Lewis Carroll, who was a
mathematician and logician, as well as the author of Alice in Wonderland.) The readings
will usually not contain arguments in this nice form. Rather, you will have to extract
premises and conclusions from much more complex and lengthy passages of text. In
doing this, it is helpful to look out for certain key words which often serve as indicators
of (“flags for”) premises or conclusions.
Some common premise-indicators are because, since, given that, for. These
words usually come right before a premise. Here are some examples of the use of such
flags for premises:

(3) Mr. Toad should be imprisoned, because he stole a motor car.

(4) Given that keeping pet dragons is a common practice, we might as well
make it legal.
(5) Since cockroach clusters are disgusting sweets, they should not be sold to
children.
(6) We must occupy Dumbledore’s office, for house-elves are enslaved.
(7) Because the existence of the Gruffalo is hotly contested, nobody should
force her opinion about it on anyone else.

1
More exactly, sentences that are either true or false. Thus “Shut the door!”, and “Is the door shut?”,
although perfectly acceptable sentences, cannot form part of an argument as explained here. (Propositions
are alternative candidates for premises and conclusions—see the Glossary entries Argument and
Proposition.)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology last revision November 13, 2015

2

Some common conclusion-indicators are thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, so,
consequently. These words usually come right before the conclusion of the argument.
Here are some examples of the use of such flags for conclusions:

(8) Either Snape lied to Voldemort, or to Dumbledore, or to Hagrid; so he lied to

someone.
(9) Affirmative action for plain-belly Sneetches violates the rights of star-belly
Sneetches to a fair shake; hence it is unjust.
(10) It is wrong to destroy the environment, and the Once-ler is chopping down
Truffula trees. It follows that the Once-ler is acting wrongly.
(11) Harry Potter is a wizard of impeccable integrity and would never lie.
Consequently, he was wrongly accused.
(12) Mr. Toad has crashed another motor car and so has taken leave of his senses.
Thus, reasoning with him is pointless and he should therefore be locked in
his bedroom.

It is also helpful to use these premise- and conclusion-indicators in your own writing,
whether on the forum for this course or elsewhere, to make the structure of your
arguments clearer. Don’t use them lightly, however: make sure they really are “flagging”
either a premise or a conclusion of your argument, as appropriate. A reader is entitled to
think that sentences preceded by because, etc., are premises, and that sentences preceded
by therefore, etc., are conclusions.

Evaluating arguments
Definitions:
A conclusion is entailed by (or is a logical consequence of, or logically follows
from) some premises just in case it is absolutely imposssible for all the premises
to be true and the conclusion false. Put another way, the conclusion is entailed by
the premises just in case, necessarily, if the premises are all true, the conclusion is
true.2
An argument is valid just in case its conclusion is entailed by its premises.
An argument that is not valid is invalid.

2
At any rate, this will do for our purposes; if you want to read about some complications, see the Stanford
Encyclopedia entry on Logical Consequence.
3

Note that there are perfectly good arguments (in the sense that if you were to know that
the premises are true, you would have good reason to believe that the conclusion is true)
that are nonetheless invalid. For example:

(13) Past Wizards’ Congresses have always contained many adulterers.

The current Wizards’ Congress contains some adulterers.
(14) We have examined a large random sample of rats, and found that they enjoy
messing about in boats. x
Most rats enjoy messing about in boats.

Such arguments are called inductively strong. (Deductive logic is the

formal/mathematical theory of entailment or logical consequence; it is controversial
whether there is a similarly formal/mathematical theory of inductive strength.)
Although invalidity is not necessarily a sign of failure, often arguments in
philosophy are good arguments only if they are valid. There are many exceptions to this,
but in 24.09x it’s a good rule of thumb. So the first thing you should ask yourself in
evaluating an argument from the readings is whether it is valid. Is it possible for the
conclusion to be false and the premises true?
Exercise: determine, for each of the two arguments from Lewis Carroll (i.e. (1)
and (2)), and for each of the following arguments, whether it is valid or invalid. If the
argument is invalid, explain why.

(15) Mr Toad’s troubles were caused either by a conspiracy of stoat and weasels,
or by his own animal urges.
They were caused by his animal urges. .
There was no conspiracy of stoats and weasels.
(16) Either Mr. Fox can outwit Boggis or pigs will fly.
Mr. Fox can outwit Boggis.
(17) All unicorns enjoy eating grass. .
Some male unicorns enjoy eating grass.
(18) Unforgivable curses are morally wrong.
Unforgivable curses are not a constitutional right.
Unforgivable curses ought to be against the law.
(19) Either moles or badgers write poetry.
Moles do not write poetry.
Badgers write poetry.
4

Exercise. Some sentences express (absolutely) necessary truths: truths that could not
possibly have been false, no matter how the world could have been.3 The truths of pure
mathematics are the best examples. 3 is in fact greater than 1 and, moreover, there is no
possible circumstance in which 3 is not greater than 1, so “3>1” expresses a necessary
truth. With this in mind, show that an argument whose conclusion expresses a necessary
truth is automatically a valid argument.
Sometimes an argument which is invalid (and also not inductively strong) as
written can easily be “fixed up” so that it is valid and in line with what the proponent of
the argument intended. The most common reason for this kind of “corrigible” invalidity
is missing premises. Sometimes a writer does not state all of his or her premises
explicitly, and this renders his or her argument invalid. In such cases we can make the
argument valid by supplying an appropriate premise, supposing that the writer intended it
to be a premise all along. You should become adept at filling in missing premises so that
you can see the structure of an argument more clearly.
Exercise: supply the missing premises to arguments (15), (16), (17)4 and (18)
above, and to the following arguments:

(20) If your mistreatment of house-elves is revealed, you’ll lose your reputation as

a witch of integrity. .
Your nomination to head up the Ministry of Magic will collapse.
(21) Killing hobbits involves terminating the existence of some organic matter.
Killing hobbits is always morally wrong.

Note that sometimes a premise is left out because it is taken to be obvious, as in argument
(16) above. However, sometimes the missing premise is contentious, as in (18) above.
Sometimes, in fact, it is the most contentious premise of the argument, as in (21) above.
Validity is a good feature of an argument, but clearly is not the only good
feature—argument (19) above is valid, but nonetheless is defective in some way. But
what way?

3
See the Glossary entry Necessity and possibility.
4
Hint: “Not all the eggs in the basket are brown” is true just in case there is at least one egg in the basket
that isn’t brown. Suppose that there are no eggs in the basket. Then “Not all the eggs in the basket are
brown” is false, and so “All the eggs in the basket are brown” is true when there are no eggs in the basket.
Now, there are no unicorns. What does that tell you about the premise of (17)?
5

Definition:
A deductive argument is sound just in case it is valid and all its premises are true.
An argument that is not sound is unsound.
Now we can say what is wrong with argument (19): despite being valid, it is unsound.
Note the following fact, which is a consequence of the definitions of soundness
and validity:
The conclusion of a sound argument is true.

This fact has practical import. It means that if disagree with the conclusion of an
argument you find in one of the readings, the onus is on you to show why the argument is
unsound. For if it is sound, the conclusion is true. Therefore, if the conclusion is false, the
argument must be unsound. This means that either the conclusion is not entailed by the
premises or at least one of the premises is false. In philosophy, it is never enough simply
to say that you disagree with someone’s position, or that his or her position is mistaken. If
it is mistaken, there must be something wrong with the argument, and you need to say
what it is.
Soundness is thus a very important criterion in evaluating both arguments from
the readings and your own arguments. After having identified the conclusion for which a
writer is arguing, and the premises which he or she advances in support of that
conclusion, you should attempt to determine whether the argument, thus reconstructed, is
sound. If it is not sound, it may yet be inductively strong, with true premises. If it is
neither, it may be committed to the flames.

Argument Forms
You may have noticed that your assessment of, for example, (19) as valid had nothing in
particular to do with its subject matter, the poetical inclinations of moles and badgers.
Any argument of the same form is valid, where the form of (19) is what we might call its
“logical skeleton”, revealed by, first, rephrasing (19) to make its structure clearer:

Either moles write poetry or badgers write poetry.

It is not the case that moles write poetry.
Badgers write poetry.
6

And then, second, replacing the sentences “Moles write poetry” and “Badgers write
poetry” with, respectively, the schematic letters “P” and “Q”:

Either P or Q
It is not the case that P
Q

Here are some examples of valid forms of argument.

Modus ponens. The general form of a modus ponens argument is given in (22). Two
examples follow.

(22) If P then Q
P
Q
(23) If Bruce Bogtrotter eats the entire cake, then the Trunchbull will be very
annoyed.
Bruce Bogtrotter eats the entire cake.
The Trunchbull will be very annoyed.
(24) If house-elves enjoy being enslaved, then we should leave them alone.
House-elves enjoy being enslaved.
We should leave them alone.

Modus tollens. The general form of a modus tollens argument is given in (25). Two
examples follow.

(25) If P then Q
It is not the case that Q (often written “Not-Q”)
It is not the case that P
(26) If Filch can revive Mrs. Norris then he has supernatural powers.
He does not have supernatural powers.
Filch cannot revive Mrs. Norris.
(27) If green eggs and ham are delicious, then green eggs are delicious.
Green eggs are not delicious. .
Green eggs and ham are not delicious.

Disjunctive syllogism. Argument (19) above is a disjunctive syllogism. The general form
of such an argument is given in (28a) and (28b). Two examples follow.
7

(28a) (Either) P or Q
It is not the case that P
Q
(28b) (Either) P or Q
It is not the case that Q
P
(29) Either Hermione spends all her money on shoes or Minerva does.
Hermione does not spend all her money on shoes.
Minerva does.
(30) Either Matilda is a prodigy, or Miss Honey is deluded.
Miss Honey is not deluded.
Matilda is a prodigy.

Categorical syllogism. Two general types of categorical syllogism are given in (31a) and
(31b). Two examples follow.

(31a) All Fs are G

x is (an) F
x is G
(31b) All Fs are G
All Gs are H
All Fs are H
(32) All wizards shave.
Gandalf is a wizard. .
Gandalf shaves.
(33) All goblins are orcs.
All orcs dislike sunlight.
All goblins dislike sunlight.

Hypothetical syllogism. The general form of a hypothetical syllogism is given in (34).

Two examples follow.

(34) If P then Q
If Q then R
If P then R
(35) If Harry’s a better Seeker than Viktor, then he’s a better Seeker than Cho.
If Harry’s a better Seeker than Cho, then he’s a better Seeker than Cedric. .
If Harry’s a better Seeker than Viktor, then he’s a better Seeker than Cedric.
8

(35) If a giant peach crushed Aunt Sponge then she is dead.

If Aunt Sponge is dead then James is delighted. .
If a giant peach crushed Aunt Sponge then James is delighted.

Common Flaws
Arguments can have various kinds of flaws: for example, invalidity, false premises,
dialectical ineffectiveness. NB: these are quite different, and should not be confused—
false premises and failure to persuade an opponent are not logical flaws.
Exercise: give an example of a dialectically ineffective argument (i.e. an
argument that your imagined opponent will find unpersuasive) that is also sound.
Some of these flaws have common labels, as follows.
The fallacy of equivocation: using key terms in different senses in different parts of the
argument. For instance, if “pen” in the first premise means enclosure, and “pen” in the
second means writing implement, then the following argument is invalid because of
equivocation:

(36) There is a dragon in the pen.

The pen is in Harry’s pocket. .
There is a dragon in Harry ! s pocket.

Begging the question (also known as a circular argument): assuming what you are trying
to prove. We will seldom see really obvious cases of begging the question in the
readings. What we may see is a weak form of begging the question, namely putting
forward as a premise something so close to the conclusion that no one would believe the
premise who didn’t already believe the conclusion. This is an ineffective mode of
argument, precisely because it does not persuade.5
Proving too much: sometimes an argument N seems good (e.g. valid, sound), but N is
only good if a similar argument M is also good, and M is clearly not good. In that case,
argument N “proves too much”. For example, take this argument for the existence of
God: “By definition, God is the greatest being, and it is greater to exist than not to exist,
hence God exists”. That would seem to prove too much, because it seems just like this

5
See the Glossary entry Begging the question and circular arguments.
9

argument, which surely does not establish its conclusion: ““By definition, the most
perfect island is the greatest island, and it is greater to exist than not to exist, hence the
most perfect island exists”. Another example is (21) above.
Appeals to authority: in philosophy, there are no authorities, at least in the sense that it is
never acceptable to support a position simply by pointing out that someone we’ve read
holds it. David Chalmers is on the philosophy All-Star team, and endorses dualism, but
you shouldn’t argue that dualism is true because Chalmers thinks it is.
Straw man arguments: representing your opponent’s position or argument unfairly so that
it is easier to demolish. In such cases, you have at best refuted a “straw man”, not your
actual opponent.