Arguments

LEARNING OUTCOMES

 Discern between an inductive argument and a deductive argument

 Evaluate deductive arguments
 Analyze arguments with Venn diagrams and truth tables
 Use logical inference to infer whether a statement is true

A logical argument is a claim that a set of premises support a conclusion. There are two general types of
arguments: inductive and deductive arguments.

ARGUMENT TYPES
An inductive argument uses a collection of specific examples as its premises and uses them to
propose a general conclusion.
A deductive argument uses a collection of general statements as its premises and uses them to
propose a specific situation as the conclusion.

TRY IT

Determine whether the following argument is inductive or deductive:

"The last mayor was honest. The current mayor is honest. All mayors are honest."

Select an answer

This argument is    

EXAMPLE

The argument “when I went to the store last week I forgot my purse, and when I went today I forgot
my purse. I always forget my purse when I go the store” is an inductive argument.
The premises are:
I forgot my purse last week
I forgot my purse today
The conclusion is:
I always forget my purse
Notice that the premises are specific situations, while the conclusion is a general statement. In this
case, this is a fairly weak argument, since it is based on only two instances.
EXAMPLE

The argument “every day for the past year, a plane flies over my house at 2pm. A plane will fly over my house
every day at 2pm” is a stronger inductive argument, since it is based on a larger set of evidence.
EVALUATING INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
An inductive argument is never able to prove the conclusion true, but it can provide either weak or strong
evidence to suggest it may be true.

Many scientific theories, such as the big bang theory, can never be proven. Instead, they are
inductive arguments supported by a wide variety of evidence. Usually in science, an idea is
considered a hypothesis until it has been well tested, at which point it graduates to being considered
a theory. The commonly known scientific theories, like Newton’s theory of gravity, have all stood up to
years of testing and evidence, though sometimes they need to be adjusted based on new evidence.
For gravity, this happened when Einstein proposed the theory of general relativity.

A deductive argument is more clearly valid or not, which makes them easier to evaluate.

EVALUATING DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

A deductive argument is considered valid if all the premises are true, and the conclusion follows logically from
those premises. In other words, the premises are true, and the conclusion follows necessarily from those
premises.

EXAMPLE

The argument “All cats are mammals and a tiger is a cat, so a tiger is a mammal” is a valid deductive
argument.
The premises are:
All cats are mammals
A tiger is a cat
The conclusion is:
A tiger is a mammal
Both the premises are true. To see that the premises must logically lead to the conclusion, one approach
would be use a Venn diagram. From the first premise, we can conclude that the set of cats is a subset of the
set of mammals. From the second premise, we are told that a tiger lies within the set of cats. From that, we can
see in the Venn diagram that the tiger also lies inside the set of mammals, so the conclusion is valid.

TRY IT

uestion 1
Premise 1: The defendant has no alibi for the night of the theft. 

Premise 2: The stolen goods were found in the defendant’s possession. 

Premise 3: Two witnesses have identified the defendant as the thief. 

Conclusion: The defendant is guilty of theft. 

Decide whether the above argument is inductive or deductive.

   

If the above argument is inductive, decide if it is strong or weak. Select not applicable if the argument
is deductive.

    

If the above argument is deductive, decide if it is valid or invalid. Select not applicable if the argument
is inductive.

    

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS WITH VENN/EULER DIAGRAMS

To analyze an argument with a Venn/ Euler diagram
1. Draw a Venn/ Euler diagram based on the premises of the argument
2. If the premises are insufficient to determine what determine the location of an element, indicate that.
3. The argument is valid if it is clear that the conclusion must be true

EXAMPLE

Premise: All firefighters know CPR

Premise: Jill knows CPR

Conclusion: Jill is a firefighter

From the first premise, we know that firefighters all lie inside the set of those who know CPR. From
the second premise, we know that Jill is a member of that larger set, but we do not have enough
information to know if she also is a member of the smaller subset that is firefighters.

Since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, this is an invalid argument, regardless of
whether Jill actually is a firefighter.
It is important to note that whether or not Jill is actually a firefighter is not important in evaluating the
validity of the argument; we are only concerned with whether the premises are enough to prove the
conclusion.

In addition to these categorical style premises of the form “all ___,” “some ____,” and “no ____,” it is
also common to see premises that are implications.

EXAMPLE

Premise: If you live in Seattle, you live in Washington.

Premise: Marcus does not live in Seattle.

Conclusion: Marcus does not live in Washington.

From the first premise, we know that the set of people who live in Seattle is inside the set of those who live in
Washington. From the second premise, we know that Marcus does not lie in the Seattle set, but we have
insufficient information to know whether or not Marcus lives in Washington or not. This is an invalid argument.

EXAMPLE

Consider the argument “You are a married man, so you must have a wife.”
Show Solution

Some arguments are better analyzed using truth tables.

EXAMPLE

Consider the argument:

Premise: If you bought bread, then you went to the store

Premise: You bought bread

Conclusion: You went to the store

Solution
While this example is hopefully fairly obviously a valid argument, we can analyze it using a truth table
by representing each of the premises symbolically. We can then look at the implication that the
premises together imply the conclusion. If the truth table is a tautology (always true), then the
argument is valid.
We’ll get B represent “you bought bread” and S represent “you went to the store”. Then the argument
becomes:

Premise: B→SB→S

Premise: BB

Conclusion: SS
To test the validity, we look at whether the combination of both premises implies the conclusion; is it
true that [(B→S)∧B]→S[(B→S)∧B]→S?
BB SS B→SB→S (B→S)∧B(B→S)∧B [(B→S)∧B]→S[(B→S)∧B]→S

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T F T

F F T F T

Since the truth table for [(B→S)∧B]→S[(B→S)∧B]→S is always true, this is a valid argument.

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS USING TRUTH TABLES

To analyze an argument with a truth table:
1. Represent each of the premises symbolically
2. Create a conditional statement, joining all the premises with and to form the antecedent, and using the
conclusion as the consequent.
3. Create a truth table for that statement. If it is always true, then the argument is valid.

EXAMPLE

Premise: If I go to the mall, then I’ll buy new jeans.

Premise: If I buy new jeans, I’ll buy a shirt to go with it.

Conclusion: If I got to the mall, I’ll buy a shirt.

Let M = I go to the mall, J  = I buy jeans, and S = I buy a shirt.

The premises and conclusion can be stated as:
 Premise: M→JM→J

Premise: J→SJ→S

Conclusion: M→SM→S

We can construct a truth table for [(M→J)∧(J→S)]→(M→S)[(M→J)∧(J→S)]→(M→S)

MM JJ SS M→JM→J J→SJ→S (M→J)∧(J→S)(M→J)∧(J→S) M→SM→S [(M→J)∧(J→S)]→(M→S)[(M→J)∧

T T T T T T T T

T T F T F F F T

T F T F T F T T

T F F F T F F T

F T T T T T T T

F T F T F F T T

F F T T T T T T

F F F T T T T T

From the truth table, we can see this is a valid argument.

The previous problem is an example of a syllogism.

SYLLOGISM
A syllogism is an implication derived from two others, where the consequence of one is the antecedent to the
other. The general form of a syllogism is:

Premise: p→qp→q

Premise: q→rq→r

Conclusion: p→rp→r

This is sometime called the transitive property for implication.

 EXAMPLE

Premise: If I work hard, I’ll get a raise.

Premise: If I get a raise, I’ll buy a boat.

Conclusion: If I don’t buy a boat, I must not have worked hard.

Solution
If we let W = working hard, R = getting a raise, and B = buying a boat, then we can represent our
argument symbolically:
Premise: H→RH→R

Premise: R→BR→B

Conclusion: ∼B→∼H∼B→∼H
We could construct a truth table for this argument, but instead, we will use the notation of the
contrapositive we learned earlier to note that the implication ∼B→∼H∼B→∼H is equivalent to the
implication H→BH→B. Rewritten, we can see that this conclusion is indeed a logical syllogism
derived from the premises.

TRY IT

Is this argument valid?

Premise: If I go to the party, I’ll be really tired tomorrow.

Premise: If I go to the party, I’ll get to see friends.

Conclusion: If I don’t see friends, I won’t be tired tomorrow.

Determine if the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Premise: If a child is 8 years old, then they attend school

Premise: If a child attends school, then they play at recess
Conclusion: If a child is playing at recess, then she is 8 years old.

 Valid argument

 Invalid argument
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymakermath4libarts/chapter/truth-tables-and-analyzing-arguments-examples/