All dogs bark —> All dogs are barking things

        All dogs are happy —> All dogs are happy things

This way, barking thing and happy thing count as

substitutions for G in the deductively valid form given above. In other words, we can treat them as predicates in
our logical form. (This is why we call logical forms that use variables for predicates and names predicate forms,
and logical forms that use variables for entire sentences sentential forms.)

There are many deductively valid predicate forms, and it's worth taking a look at some of them and making
sure you understand why they are deductively valid. (Two important points for how these forms are used: as
used in these forms, some F are G means at least one F is G, and does not guarantee that some F are also not G.
Also, every name is assumed to refer to a real object.)

These are all deductively valid logical forms, and there are many others. We won't be giving them names in this
text, because it's unrealistic to think we would memorize a long list of deductively valid logical forms and then
be able to recognize arguments with those forms in everyday life. If we do encounter arguments with these
forms, it's easier just to assess whether the premises guarantee the conclusion!

However, it is useful to acquire the skill of quickly identifying entailment. And one aspect of that skill is being
able to see that an argument has a deductively valid form. The best way to acquire this ability is not to
memorize a list of deductively valid forms: it's to repeatedly engage with arguments and logical forms until it
becomes easier to see which forms are deductively valid and which are not—that is, to practice.

The forms above are listed so that you can spend some time trying to understand why each of them is
deductively valid. (In some cases it may be easier to understand why a form is deductively valid if you flip it:
assume the conclusion is false and then see why the premises could not then be true.) It's good practice.

Counterexamples
If we are evaluating the claim All dogs bark, all need to show that the claim is false is to find a dog that does not
bark. More generally, when faced with a universal claim—one that says about a class of things that they all
have some feature—all it takes for that claim to be false is that one of the things in that class does not have that
feature. We call this a counterexample. If Fido is a dog that doesn't bark, then Fido is a counterexample to
the claim that all dogs bark.

So how is this relevant to logical forms? If a logical form is deductively valid, then every instance of it with true
premises has a true conclusion. So all that it takes to show that a logical form is not deductively valid is a single
instance of it in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. That would be a counterexample to
the claim that the logical form is deductively valid. For example, consider this logical form:

         All F are G
         Some G are H
         _________

          Some F are H 

Is this a deductively valid form? One way to assess this question is to see if we can come up with a
counterexample to it. If we can, it's not a deductively valid form. If we can't—well, we might be missing
something. Our inability to come up with a counterexample doesn't prove that there aren't any
counterexamples. Luckily, in this case our job is easy. We can find a simple example of an argument that is an
instance of this form in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false: 

All dogs are mammals

Some mammals are wombats
_________

Some dogs are wombats 

Clearly, the premises  are true and the conclusion is false. So this argument is not deductively valid. And it's an
instance of the logical form above. So we have provided a counterexample showing that the logical form is not
deductively valid. Any time we can provide a counterexample like this, it demonstrates that the logical form is
not deductively valid. 

We can do this  with sentential forms as well. Consider:

         If P and Q, then R

         Not R
         _________
          Not P

Is this a valid deductive form? Well, let's try to come up with an instance in which the premises are true and the
conclusion is false. It's not very difficult to do:

         If Fido is a dog and Fido is good, then Fido gets treats.
         Fido does not get treats.
         _________

          Fido is not a dog.

Something has gone badly wrong here: the premises can be true even if the conclusion is false (in the case
where Fido is a bad dog and doesn't get treats). So the argument is not deductively valid. But it's an instance of
the form above, so it's a counterexample to the deductive validity of the form.

The limits of logical form

Let's recap this section. We wanted an easy way to identify entailment. We noticed that some arguments share
structural features that guarantee entailment, namely deductively valid logical forms. We then considered two
types of deductively valid logical forms: some that involve replacing entire sentences with variables, and some
that involve replacing only predicates and names with variables.

We can now be more clear about the "good news and bad news" at the beginning of this section. The good
news is that deductively valid forms can often help us identify entailment. And it's possible, with practice, to
get good at recognizing deductively valid logical forms. The bad news is that not every case of entailment
argument has a deductively valid form. Consider, for example, these two arguments:

        Bob was killed

        So, Bob died   

        Alice is older than I am

        So, I am younger than Alice is

In both cases, the premise entails the conclusion, but neither argument seems to be an instance of a general
reliable recipe for deductive validity. In other words, they don't have deductively valid forms—at least not ones
that can be constructed with the two methods of generating logical forms that we have encountered [2]. 

So using a deductively valid form, if you do it properly, will always ensure that the premises entail the
conclusion. And checking arguments for deductive validity, if you do it properly, will never lead you to falsely
identify an argument as deductively valid. But that test will also miss any deductively valid arguments that
don't have deductively valid forms. 

Section Questions

4-3 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Consider this argument:

If there's a rainbow in the sky, I'll have good luck tomorrow

There's a rainbow in the sky.
So, I'll have good luck tomorrow.

This argument has the form of:

A Modus ponens

B Modus tollens

C Disjunctive syllogism

D Hypothetical syllogism

4-4 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Consider this argument:

If I'm tall, then I'm a good basketball player

I'm not a good basketball player
So, I'm not tall

Is this argument deductively valid? Does it have any of the deductively valid forms given in the text?

A The argument is not deductively valid

 B The argument is deductively valid, but it doesn't any of the deductively valid forms given in the text

C The argument is deductively valid, and has the form of modus ponens

D The argument is deductively valid, and has the form of modus tollens

4-5 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Which of the following statements is true?

A If an argument has a deductively valid form, its premises entail its conclusion

B If an argument's premises entail its conclusion, the argument has a deductively valid form

C The disjunction of two sentences is only true if both sentences are true

D Even if an argument has the form of modus ponens, its premises may not entail its conclusion

4-6 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Consider this argument:

Some F are G
No G are H

Which conclusion would make this a deductively valid logical form?

A No F are H

B Some H are F

C All G are F
 D Some F are not H

4-7 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Consider this argument:

If Jane likes Hugo, she will text him.

She will text him.
So, she likes him.

This argument has the form "If P, then Q. Q. So, P". Which of the following is a counterexample clearly showing that this
form is not deductively valid?

If the history books are right about his height, Lincoln was tall. Lincoln was tall. So the history books are right
A about his height.

If the history books are right about his height, Lincoln was tall. The history books are right about his height. So
B Lincoln was tall.

C If Hilary Clinton is president, then someone is president. Someone is president. So Hilary Clinton is president.

D If Hilary Clinton is president, someone is president. Hilary Clinton is president. So, someone is president.

4.3 Pitfalls 
In this section, we'll mainly be considering cases where we think an argument's premises entail its conclusion
even though they don't. But first, let's consider the opposite kind of case, in which we think an argument's
premises do not entail its conclusion even though they do.

Overlooking deductive validity

Let's consider three reasons why we might overlook entailment. First, we might check to see if the argument
has a deductively valid logical form, and if it doesn't, conclude that its premises don't entail its conclusion. But
as we just saw at the end of the previous section, that would be a mistake.

Second, if an argument has false or poorly supported premises, it might be tempting to think it can't be good
in any other respect either. The key here is to remember that there are two separate elements of a good
argument: how well-connected the premises are to the conclusion, and how well-supported the premises are
themselves. Entailment only concerns the first of these, so even obviously false premises can entail a
conclusion.

Third, sometimes arguments are just complex or tricky. Even some of the simple deductively valid forms we've
been considering are easier to recognize as deductively valid than others. (For example, when it comes to
recognizing entailment, people have a much easier time with modus ponens than with modus tollens [3].) To
avoid cases like this, it's crucial to slow down. If an argument is complex, take it step by step. If it's not clear
whether the premises guarantee the conclusion, try flipping it. And if you have a hard time recognizing
whether a particular type of argument has a deductively valid form, it helps to repeatedly think through
arguments of that kind until the pattern sinks in.

Biased evaluation 
Let's turn now to cases where we mistakenly take an argument to entail its conclusion. One reason for this is
our old friend biased evaluation, from Chapter 2.

For example, does this argument have a deductively valid

form?

        All blueberries are brightly colored

        Some healthy things are brightly colored
        So, some blueberries are healthy

It's easy to be fooled. But if you look closely, it should be clear that the premises don't actually guarantee the
conclusion. (They allow for the possibility that none of the healthy and brightly colored things are blueberries.)

So why are people often tricked by this argument? It's a simple case of biased evaluation—we already accept
the conclusion, and this makes us inclined to find every aspect of the argument good, even though we're
consciously aware that entailment is unrelated to the truth of the conclusion.

Interestingly, when the same form of argument is presented with nonsense predicates, people are far less likely
to think the premises entail the conclusion [4]:

         All snorgs are approbines

         Some jamtops are approbines
         So, some snorgs are jamtops

With no subconscious tug telling us that the argument is good because its conclusion is true, we can assess
whether the premises actually entail the conclusion. The nonsense predicates force us to decouple our
evaluation of the argument from our assessment of its conclusion—and the same is true for the evaluation of
logical forms, since they abstract away from any actual conclusions.

Of course, it's even more obvious that this form of argument is not deductively valid when we consider this
example:

          All blueberries are brightly colored

          Some orange things are brightly colored
          So, some blueberries are oranges

Not only is it possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, it's actually the case! So it's a
counterexample to the deductive validity of the form. 

Some deductively invalid forms 

Despite this, logical forms can sometimes seem deductively valid when they're not. Many of the errors in
reasoning that are traditionally called "fallacies" involve cases where we are fooled into thinking that a logical
form is deductively valid. Let's consider a few well-known examples.

The logical form known as affirming the consequent can be deceiving because it looks a lot like modus
ponens: in fact, it's modus ponens in reverse, which is not a deductively valid form:

Here is an example that might look good at first:

        If this plant is a fern, it has spores

        It has spores.
        So, this plant is a fern.

But this argument actually has true premises and a false conclusion. As it happens, ferns are not the only
plants that have spores. Mosses do too, for example! So just from these premises, we can't conclude that the
plant is a fern.
Another well-known deductively invalid form is denying the antecedent, which is like modus tollens in
reverse:

An example of this would be:

        If this plant is a fern, it has spores

        It's not a fern.
        So, it doesn't have spores.

It's true that ferns have spores, but if the plant at issue is a kind of moss, it will have spores as well. So we can't
conclude from the premises that it doesn't have spores. The argument form is not deductively valid.

Section Questions

4-8 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Identify which of the following is a case of entailment:

A If Napolean got married, he conquered Alsace. Napolean did not conquer Alsace. So, he got married

B All foxes are mammals. Some mammals are hedgehogs. So, some foxes are hedgehogs

C If Napolean got married, he conquered Alsace. Napoleon did not get married. So, he did not conquer Alsace.

D Every mouse is larger than my cat. Freddie is a mouse. So Freddie is larger than my cat.
 4-9 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

This chapter discusses how biased evaluation can incline us to...

A think an argument is deductively valid because it has a deductively valid form

B think an argument is deductively valid because we already accept the conclusion

C look closely and notice that an argument's premises don't entail its conclusion

evaluate a logical form by looking for an argument with that form that actually has true premises and a false
D conclusion

4-10 Show Correct Answer Show Responses

Given the premises:

If groks are tibbs, then snurfs are tibbs

Snurfs are not tibbs.

Which of the following can we conclude?

A Groks are not tibbs

B Groks are snurfs

C Groks are tibbs

D none of the above

Key terms
Affirming the consequent: a deductively invalid logical form where P is inferred from the premises If P then Q
and Q.

Antecedent: in a conditional, the clause that expresses the condition—that is, the clause immediately
following if.

Conditional: a statement composed of two sentential clauses joined by if...then.... (Sometimes then is omitted,
as in: If Bob starts dancing, I will leave.)

Consequent: in a conditional, the clause that expresses what is said to follow if the condition given by the
antecedent obtains, usually immediately preceded by then.

Counterexample: an example that shows that a universal claim is false: for example, if Betty is happy, then
Betty is a counterexample to the claim Everyone is unhappy—assuming the speaker is really talking about
everyone! As we know, for a logical form to be deductively valid requires that every instance of it is deductively
valid. So it is sometimes possible to show that a logical form is not valid by providing a counterexample to this
universal claim—namely an instance of it that is not deductively valid. Such a counterexample will be
particularly vivid if the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false.  

Deductively valid argument: what makes an argument deductively valid is that its premises entail its
conclusion: if the premises were true, conclusion would have to be true.

Deductively valid logical form: what makes a logical form deductively valid is that every argument with that
form is deductively valid.

Denying the antecedent: a deductively invalid logical form where not Q is inferred from the premises If P then
Q and not P.

Disjunction: the disjunction of two sentences P and Q is a sentence that is true as long as either P is true or Q
is true, and false only when both P and Q are false. It can be formed by combining P and Q with either...or....

Disjunctive syllogism: deductively valid logical form where Q is inferred from the premises Either P or Q and
not P.

Flipping the argument: assuming that the conclusion is false, and asking whether all of the premises could
still be true. If so, the premises do not entail the conclusion.

Hypothetical syllogism: deductively valid logical form where If P then R is inferred from If P then Q and If Q
then R.
Logical form: A structure that can be shared by different arguments; it can be illustrated by replacing certain
words or sentences with variables until the argument are the same.

Modus ponens: deductively valid logical form where Q is inferred from the premises If P then Q and P.

Modus tollens: deductively valid logical form where not P is inferred from the premises If P then Q and not Q.

Negation: the negation of a sentence is true when the original sentence is false, and false when the original
sentence is true. Often formed by inserting not into the sentence that is being negated.

Footnotes
[1] This is the definition of what is called an inclusive disjunction, which is true just in case either one or both of the two disjuncts is

true. An exclusive disjunction would be true just in case either one but not both of the two disjuncts is true.

[2] Of course, if we let ourselves substitute only the name and keep the predicates, there is nothing to stop us from pointing out that

any argument with the form "n was killed; so, n died" entails its conclusion. But this "form" is so specific that it only applies to an

extremely narrow range of arguments: it's not a very useful generalization about arguments! Note also that we haven't considered all

the formal systems people use to generate logical forms: for example, there are some that generalize on the deductive validity of

sentences like "Alice lifted that box; So, it is possible to lift that box".

[3] See Marcus & Rips (1979).

[4] See for example, Evans, Barston & Pollard (1983), Stanovich & West (2008).

References
Evans, J. S. B., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic
reasoning. Memory & cognition, 11(3), 295-306.

Marcus, S. L., & Rips, L. J. (1979). Conditional reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 18(2), 199.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(4), 672.