Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Lecture 6 Summary

    Uploaded by

    sihle lunikauthando smith
    The document discusses argument forms and validity. It explains that argument forms illustrate an argument's internal structure or pattern of reasoning. Valid argument forms are those where substituting terms necessarily leads to a valid argument, while invalid forms are those where substitution could lead to true premises and a false conclusion. The document provides examples of valid and invalid forms. It also describes the counterexample method, which proves an argument invalid by finding a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion, showing the underlying form is invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lecture 6 Summary

    Uploaded by

    sihle lunikauthando smith
    20 views3 pages
    The document discusses argument forms and validity. It explains that argument forms illustrate an argument's internal structure or pattern of reasoning. Valid argument forms are those where substituting terms necessarily leads to a valid argument, while invalid forms are those where substitution could lead to true premises and a false conclusion. The document provides examples of valid and invalid forms. It also describes the counterexample method, which proves an argument invalid by finding a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion, showing the underlying form is invalid.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses argument forms and validity. It explains that argument forms illustrate an argument's internal structure or pattern of reasoning. Valid argument forms are those where substituting terms necessarily leads to a valid argument, while invalid forms are those where substitution could lead to true premises and a false conclusion. The document provides examples of valid and invalid forms. It also describes the counterexample method, which proves an argument invalid by finding a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion, showing the underlying form is invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views3 pages

    Lecture 6 Summary

    Uploaded by

    sihle lunikauthando smith
    The document discusses argument forms and validity. It explains that argument forms illustrate an argument's internal structure or pattern of reasoning. Valid argument forms are those where substituting terms necessarily leads to a valid argument, while invalid forms are those where substitution could lead to true premises and a false conclusion. The document provides examples of valid and invalid forms. It also describes the counterexample method, which proves an argument invalid by finding a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion, showing the underlying form is invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    - the validity of a deductive argument by determining the argument form.

    - This mean that all valid arguments have the same form, and all invalid arguments have the
    same form.
    - Therefore, argument form illustrates the argument’s internal structure or pattern of
    reasoning.
    For example:

    All A are B
    A
    All C are A

    All C are B B C

    - If A, B and C represent groups of things, it’s easy to see that this is a valid form. Assumed by
    the second premise that the C’s are included in the A’s and by the first premise that the A’s
    are included in the B’s. Then it necessarily follows that the C’s are included in the B’s.
    - Hence: an argument form is an arrangement of letters and words such that the uniform
    substitution of words of phrases in the place of the letters results in an argument. For this
    form, the words or phrases being substituted must refer to groups of things (within the
    argument).

    For example:

    All A are B All sporting events are engaging pastimes.

    All C are A All baseball games are sporting events.

    All C are B All baseball games are engaging pastimes.

    - If we substitute “sporting events”, “engaging pastimes”, and “baseball games” in the place of
    A, B, and C, respectively in the argument form (left above), we obtain the following argument
    (right above). This instance is called a substitution instance of the argument form. Any
    substitution instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument.
    - Let’s consider invalid argument form:

    All A are B
    A
    All C are B C

    All A are C B

    - In this argument form, if we assume that the A’s are in the B’s and that the C’s are in the B’s,
    it does not necessarily follow that the A’s are in the C’s. It would not follow if the A’s were in
    one part of the B’s and the C’s were in another as the diagram illustrates above.
    - The diagram suggest that we can prove the form of the argument invalid if we can find a
    substitution instance having actually true premises and a false conclusion.
    - For example: if we substitute “cats” for A, “animals” for B and “dogs” for C, we have such a
    substitution instance:

    All A are B All cats are animals. True

    All C are B All dogs are animals. True

    All A are C Therefore, all cats are dogs. False

    - The substitution
    case where the As are in the Bs and the Cs are in the Bs but the As are not in the Cs.
    - Not every substitution instance for an invalid form Is in an invalid argument. The reason is
    that some substitution instances of invalid forms are also substitution instances of valid
    forms. However, we can say that any substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid
    argument provided that it is not a substitution instance of any valid form. Hence, we can say
    that an argument actually has an invalid form if it is a substitution instance of that form and
    is not a substitution instance of any valid form.
    - For example: the following valid argument is a substitution instance of the invalid form we
    have been discussing:

    All bachelors are persons. All A are B


    All unmarried men are persons. All A are B
    Therefore, all bachelors are unmarried men. All A are A

    - However, because “bachelors” are equivalent in meaning to “unmarried men” the argument
    is also a substitution instance of this valid form.

    - Counterexample Method

    - A substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion is called a


    counterexample, and the method we will use in the example below to prove that the
    argument is invalid is a counterexample method. It consists of isolating the form of an
    argument and then constructing a substitution instance having true premises and a false
    conclusion. This proves the form invalid, which in turns proves the argument invalid.

    - The counterexample method can be used to prove the invalidity of any invalid argument but,
    it cannot prove the validity of any valid argument. Therefore, before the method is applied to
    an argument, the argument must be known or suspected to be invalid in the first place.

    - For example, let’s apply the counterexample method to the following categorical syllogism:
    - Since some employees are not social climbers and all vice presidents are employees, we may
    conclude that some vice presidents are not social climbers.

    This argument is invalid because the employees who are not social climbers might not be
    vice presidents. Accordingly, we can prove the argument invalid by constructing a
    substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. We begin by isolating the
    form of the argument.
    Some E are not S
    All V are E
    Some V are not S

    Next we select three terms to substitute in place of the letters that will make the premises
    true and the conclusion false:
    E= Animals
    S= Mammals
    V=Dogs

    The resulting substitution instance is this:


    Some animals are not mammals.
    All dogs are animals.
    Therefore, some dogs are not mammals.

    The substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion and is therefore, by
    definition invalid. Because the substation instance is invalid, the form is invalid and therefore,
    the original argument is invalid.

    You might also like