3

Logic: The Building

Blocks of Philosophy
The best way to understand what an argument is is to contrast it with what it is certainly not—
namely an opinion. An opinion is simply a belief or attitude that is held about someone or
something. We express our opinions all the time: we love or hate certain films, different types of
food, other people. For the most part, however, people's opinions are based almost exclusively
upon their feelings about certain matters and rarely if ever do they feel compelled to support
their opinions with any kind of evidence.
An argument is something a bit different than this. It is an attempt to formulate reasons
in support of one's claims in order to convince others that these claims are true. For example,
compare the statements of the following individuals who have entered into an impromptu
discussion about the Clinton presidency over a few beers at a local bar:

Joe: I think Clinton was a lousy President.

Pete: How can you say that? A good president is someone who keeps the country on the
right track economically, who works with Congress to get important legislation passed, and
who keeps the country out of messy wars. Clinton certainly did all that, didn't he?
Joe: I have the right to my opinion.

What is the basic difference between the statements of Joe and Pete regarding the legacy of
the Clinton presidency? As opposed to Joe, who is simply expressing his opinion, Pete is trying
to give reasons in support of his views. In other words, he is attempting to argue his position
by citing facts which he believes will demonstrate the truth of his claim that Clinton was a good
president.
Opinions are worthless: even the most irrational person can formulate an opinion about
virtually any matter under the sun. Arguments, on the other hand, are the building blocks of
philosophy, and the good philosopher is one who is able to create the best—that is, the most
sound and persuasive—arguments possible.

What is an Argument?

To put it simply, an argument consists of one or more premises and a conclusion. In an argument,
 40 l The Problems of Philosophy

the group of statements known as premises leads to another group of statements known as
conclusions. Conclusions are nothing more than statements designed to be defended; premises
are the statements designed to defend the conclusions.
There are two main kinds of arguments: inductive and deductive. The difference between
these two lies primarily in the kinds of results that they produce. As we shall see, an inductive
argument produces probable results, whereas a deductive argument produces certain results.
This doesn’t mean, however, that deductive arguments are superior to inductive ones. Both
types of arguments can be extremely persuasive to different audience sand for different topics,
and, should therefore be used deliberately when making speeches.

Inductive Arguments

A Inductive argument is and argument that (1) moves from particular observations to general
conclusions, (2) leads to probable conclusions, not necessary ones, and (3) can be stronger or
weaker depending on the degree of probability.
Most inductive arguments are based upon experience or observation, and, for this reason,
they are often referred to as empirical arguments. The most common form of inductive argument
occurs when we observe a particular phenomenon (e.g., noticing that people who smoke seem
to get cancer) and draw general conclusions about all such phenomena from that (that lung
cancer can be avoided if one avoids smoking). This is how the inductive form of this argument
would appear:

Many people who smoke seem to get lung cancer.

Thus, if you want to avoid getting lung cancer, don't smoke.

Notice how in an inductive argument like this one the conclusion makes a leap beyond what is
stated in the premises. We go from observing a connection between smoking and cancer among
the people in a select population (family, friends, a medical study group) to making a causal link
between smoking and cancer in general.
Inductive arguments, as we have seen, can be strong or weak if the conclusion follows
with a high degree of probability from the premise(s). The argument cited above would be an
example of strong induction, because the connection between smoking and cancer is fairly well
established. But how about the following inductive argument?

All of the philosophy professors that I have had have been uptight and
rigid.
Therefore, all philosophy professors are uptight and rigid people.

Obviously, this would be an example of a weak inductive argument, because the student
speaking probably has not studied with a large enough sample of philosophy professors to draw
the conclusion that “all philosophy professors are uptight and rigid people.”
This example shows the inherent limitations of inductive arguments. Unless one’s
observations are fairly exhaustive (i.e., you have done a large scale study of the characters of
thousands of philosophers all around the world), the results will be conjecture at best. The more
representative the evidence one presents is, the more compelling the conclusion will be.
It should be noted again, however, that at best what we have with any inductive argument is
probability. This probability can be higher or lower based upon the evidence presented, but it
 Logic l 41

will never lead to absolute certainty. For this kind of result, we need to look to a different type
of argument altogether—the deductive argument.

Exercise 1: Inductive Arguments

A. Indicate whether you think the following inductive arguments are strong or weak based upon
the evidence provided:

• The weather rarely gets cold enough for snow in New York in November. If we hold
our conference on November 21st this year, we definitely won’t have to worry about
being snowed-out.
• Ruby, did you hear that old Mr Jones’ house down the street was robbed last week
when he was away on vacation? I’m worried that Jim had something to do with
it. He’s been desperate for money and was asking lots of questions about Mr. Jones
lately. I happened to know that he also bought a new MP3 player this week, and where
else could he have gotten the money?
• Polls show that 80% of all registered Republicans oppose gay marriage. Well, Sam
has always been a registered Republican. So odds are he opposes gay marriage.
• It has been estimated that someone who graduates from college with a bachelor’s
degree can expect to earn about 66% more over the course of his or her working
career than a non-graduate. According to a recent report, over the course of their
adult work lives, high school graduates can expect to earn, on average, $1.2 million;
those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5
million. It would seem to be the case, then, that higher education is definitely worth
the price.
• Santa Claus is a myth; the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are myths. So wouldn’t you
also conclude based upon this that Jesus is a myth as well?

B. Write your own example of a strong inductive argument.

Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument (1) from the general to the particular, (2) that leads to
certain conclusions, and (3) which can be either valid or invalid. Here is an example of a
deductive argument.

P1: All men are mortal.

P2: Socrates was a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

What makes a deductive argument different from an inductive one is that the conclusion of a
deductive argument should follow necessarily from the premises.
The premises in the above argument are “All men are mortal” (P1) and “Socrates was a man”
(P2). Typically in a deductive argument premises are affirmed without any defense and are
indicated by words such as since, because, and for, which often precede them. The conclusion
in a deductive argument (C in the above example) is often indicated by words such as therefore,
thus, hence, and consequently, which typically precede conclusions.
 42 l The Problems of Philosophy

When we say that in a deductive argument the conclusion follows by necessity from the
premises, what we mean is that if they are designed well, we are compelled to accept the
conclusion that is being defended. Take the following example, for instance:

P1: Abortion is the taking of a human life,

P2: and the taking of a human life is murder.
C: Therefore, it must be true that abortion is murder.

If, in fact, it is true that abortion is the taking of a human life, and if, in fact, it is also true that the
taking of a human life is murder, then you are actually compelled by the force of the argument
to accept the conclusion that abortion is murder. But suppose that you don’t really believe that
abortion is murder. Are you still obligated to accept the conclusion? The answer in short is yes,
if the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are true.
But this answer also suggests a way to challenge a deductive argument: you either must
demonstrate that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises or that at least one of the
premises is false. To explain this a bit further, let’s define a few more terms that are commonly
used in deductive logic:

• truth and falsity describe the properties of statements alone (i.e., do they accord with
the facts)   (Note: it is possible to have valid arguments with false statements and
invalid arguments with true statements).
• a valid argument is one in which the conclusions follow from the premises.
• an invalid argument is one in which the conclusions do not follow from the premises
(Note: arguments can be valid or invalid).
• a sound argument is one with true premises and whose arguments are valid. An
argument would be unsound, on the other hand, if either one of its premises was false
or the argument itself was invalid.

With these terms in mind, let’s reexamine that famous deductive argument about Socrates
that we looked at just a little while ago:

P1: All men are mortal.

P2: Socrates was a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

Based upon what we discussed above, it seems to be the case that the premises are true—
all men are indeed mortal and Socrates was most certainly a man. The conclusion also
appears to follow necessarily from the premises: if you accept that all men are mortal and
that Socrates was a man, you are forced to also accept that Socrates was mortal. This
argument, though hardly profound, is totally sound: the argument is valid and the premises
are also true. The “All men are mortal” argument, therefore, achieves the gold standard for
any deductive argument—logical soundness.
But very few arguments are so clearly sound as this one is. In the film Love and Death,
the main character, Boris (played by Woody Allen) is contemplating whether or not to kill
Napoleon, who has just invaded Russia. Here is the argument that goes through his mind
as he is contemplating his decision:
 Logic l 43

“If I don’t kill him he’ll make war all through Europe. But murder….What would
Socrates say? All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild
parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer. A: Socrates is a
man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. Means all men are homosexuals.
Heh… I’m not a homosexual. Once, some cossacks whistled at me. I, I have the kind
of body that excites both persuasions. You know, some men are heterosexual and some
men are bisexual and some men don’t think about sex at all, you know… they become
lawyers.”

It doesn’t take a degree in philosophy to realize that this is a seriously problematic argument.
For one thing all men are certainly not Socrates, and therefore premise C is false. For another
the conclusion, “all men are homosexuals” clearly does not follow from the premises. Although
this example is a joke—a pretty good one too, if you watch the movie—it shows how easy it is
to distort an argument and render it completely unsound.
Let’s look at a few more examples of deductive arguments to see how the questions of
validity and soundness play themselves out:

The assassin of President Kennedy was either Oswald or some other party
or parties.      [P 1]  
It wasn't Oswald. [P 2]
Therefore, it had to have been some other party or parties. [C]

This argument is clearly an example of a valid argument, since the conclusion follows necessarily
from the premises. The only question is whether this argument is also sound. In order for it to
be sound the premises also have to be true. One could argue against the truthfulness of premise
1 by maintaining that Oswald could have been involved in a conspiracy that included other
parties as well. One could also argue against the truthfulness of premise 2 by maintaining that
the assassin was indeed Oswald.   The soundness of the argument could thus be thrown into
question by challenging the truthfulness of one or more of the premises.

All pigs are cats. [P 1]

Babe is a pig. [P 2]
Therefore babe is a cat.   [C]

You might be tempted to jump to the conclusion that this is an invalid argument because it looks
strange. It is actually a valid argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises. It is
not sound, however, because premise 1 is certainly false.

If I bought a ticket on the Queen Elizabeth II, I would be broke. [P 1]

I am broke. [P 2]
Therefore I must have bought a ticket on the Queen Elizabeth II. [C]

Let's accept that both premises are true. The argument is invalid because the conclusion does
not follow from the premises. The person in question could be broke for reasons other than
having bought a ticket on the QE II. The argument therefore is most assuredly unsound.
 44 l The Problems of Philosophy

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Now that you are armed with the basics of deductive logic, we can go back and see how you
might challenge the soundness of an opponent’s arguments. Remember, to do this you must
attack at least one of the following:

the argument is not valid (i.e., the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises).

or

at least one of the premises are not true (regardless of whether the argument is valid or
not).

If you can demonstrate the either of these is the case, then your opponent’s argument will be
deemed unsound.
To illustrate this process, let’s go back to the tricky argument about abortion that we had
encountered earlier:

P1: Abortion is the taking of a human life,

P2: and the taking of a human life is murder.
C: Therefore, it must be true that abortion is murder.

Most novices to logic immediately cave in the face of this argument and accept that it
automatically must be sound. To critique it we first must assess whether the argument presented
is valid. Since the conclusion does indeed follow from the premises, the argument is indeed a
valid one. If abortion is, in fact, the taking of a human life, and, if the taking of a human life
is murder, then by necessity one would have to accept the conclusion that abortion must be
murder. You really can’t challenge that part of the argument.
But what you can challenge is the truthfulness of either or both of the premises. You might
begin by questioning whether abortion, indeed, is actually the taking of a human life. Is an
embryo really a human being? When does human life begin? At conception? At natural
birth? If the embryo is not a human being, then what is it? Something else entirely (a mere
conglomeration of cells)? Simply a potential human life?
Your next step would be to examine the truthfulness of premise 2: Is the taking of a human
necessarily murder? Are there other situations, in fact, where a human life could be taken, when
we are taking about something quite different from the “unjustifiable, illegal, intentional taking
of a human life,” which is the common definition of murder? How about the taking of a human
life in wartime or as an act of self-defense? Are these examples of murder?
You can probably see where all this is going. There are very few deductive arguments that
are impervious to any kind of challenge. Your job when assessing an argument made by an
opponent—or anyone for that matter—is to find a way to poke as many holes in the argument as
possible. And you do that by challenging either the validity of the argument or the truthfulness
of the premises.

Exercise 2: Premises and Conclusions

A. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following arguments:

 Logic l 45

• All spiders have six legs. All six-legged creatures have wings. It follows, then, that
all spiders have wings.
• If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer. Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet.
• Government-funded efforts to save the whooping crane from extinction are paying off.
Therefore, government funding of programs to preserve endangered species should
be continued.
• One should be extremely cautious to judge another human beings, since we are all
sinners.
• Almost every known carcinogen causes cancer in animals. Therefore, it is reasonable
to expect that compounds that cause cancer in animals are also potential human
carcinogens.
• Since happiness consists in peace of mind, and since durable peace of mind depends
on the confidence we have in the future, and since that confidence is based on the
science we should have of the nature of God and the soul, it follows that science is
necessary for happiness.
• All rational beings are responsible for their actions, and since all human beings are
rational, it follows that all human beings are responsible for their actions.
• Old man Brown claims that he saw a flying saucer land on his farm. But old man
Brown never got beyond the fourth grade in school and can hardly read or write. He
is completely ignorant of what scientists have written on the subject, so his report
cannot possibly be true.
• It is immoral to use rabbits in cosmetic experiments, because causing pain is immoral,
and animals such as rabbits are capable of feeling pain
• It seems that mercy cannot be attributed to God. For mercy is a kind of sorrow. But
there is no sorrow in God; and so there can be no mercy in Him either.

B. Fill in the blank spaces with the appropriate premises or conclusions.

Premise 1: If President Bush had any integrity he would have resigned from office after
failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Premise 2: President Bush did not resign from office after failing to find weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
Conclusion:

Premise 1: If God were a deceiver, we could have no certain knowledge about the world
around us.
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, God is not a deceiver.

Premise 1: Anyone who kills and steals to earn a living is evil.

Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, Bonnie and Clyde were evil.
 46 l The Problems of Philosophy

Premise 1: We should not commit acts which break the law.

Premise 2: Acts of civil disobedience break the law.
Conclusion:

Premise 1: It is always wrong to treat people as a means to my own personal ends.

Premise 2: Engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute is to use him or her as a means to
my own ends—e.g., physical pleasure.
Conclusion:

C. Write your own example of an argument.

Four Common Argument Forms

At times it’s possible to intuitively recognize when an argument is valid or invalid. Fortunately,
however, logicians have a simpler way to determine when an argument is automatically going
to be true, which is a bit of a help for those of us who are not quite so innately logical.
What logicians as far back as ancient times discovered is that there are a few distinct argument
forms that will always be valid. The most common of these forms go by the names modus
ponens, modus tollens, the hypothetical syllogism, and the disjunctive syllogism. Naturally, we
could spend pages just discussing these four basic argument forms, but we can simplify things
for the sake of brevity:

Modus Ponens

If P, then Q. When the Dow Jones shows a decline for two months, we are in a
recession.
P. The Dow Jones has showed a decline for the past three months.
Therefore, Q. Therefore, we must be in a recession.

Modus Tollens

If P, then Q. If I owned property in Manhattan today, I would be rich.

- Q. I’m not rich.
Therefore, –P. Therefore, I don’t own property in Manhattan today.

Hypothetical Syllogism

If P, then Q. If I get an A on my calculus final, I will get an A in the course.

If Q, then R. If I get an A in the course, I will have a 3.5 average for the
semester.
Therefore, Therefore, if I get an A on the final, I will get a 3.5 average
if P then R for the semester.
 Logic l 47

Disjunctive Syllogism

P or Q. Either we should fight the Spartans or retreat until help comes.

- Q. We cannot afford to retreat.
Therefore, P. Therefore, we should fight the Spartans.

Remember, if an argument takes any of the above forms, it will automatically be valid. But you
also have to be very careful that arguments you are making (or investigating) actually follow
these forms rather strictly. For example, there are invalid forms of modus ponens and modus
tollens that are always invalid:

Invalid form of Modus Ponens [Affirming the Consequent]

If P, then Q. If you win the lottery, you will have a lot of money.
Q. You have a lot of money.
Therefore, P. Therefore, you won the lottery.

Invalid Form of Modus Tollens [Denying the Antecedent]

If P, then Q. If you win the lottery, you will have a lot of money.
-P. You didn’t win the lottery.
Therefore, - Q Therefore, you don’t have a lot of money.

Why are these two arguments invalid? Quite simply, because of the invalid argument form,
the conclusion must certainly does not follow from the premises. Reexamine these arguements
carefully, and you’ll see that this is the case. Make sure to be on guard against these invalid
argument forms, and try to avoid using them by accident in your own attempts at persuasion.
You may not ever be caught making an invalid argument, but if you are, it will most certainly
damage the case you are trying to make with the audience.
Naturally, there are many other argument forms, both valid and invalid, but to do justice to
them would require an entire course in logic. For now, it’s enough to be able to recognize the
four most common argument forms and to be able to spot their illegitimate counterfeits.

Exercise 2: Identifying Valid Arguments

A. Identify the underlying basic argument form of the following, and explain whether the
argument is valid or invalid.

• Either he is a damned liar or he is completely nuts. Well, he sure as hell ain’t nuts, so
he must be a liar.
• If you spend a few hours a week taking care of your equipment, it won’t get rusty. If
it doesn’t get rusty, you’ll have it for the rest of your life. So, if you take care of your
equipment, you’ll have it for the rest of your life.
• If you like working for the Boy Scouts, then you’ve gotta like camping out. But you
know how much you hate camping out. So the Boy Scouts isn’t for you.
• Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. If a person was sane, he would not go around
 48 l The Problems of Philosophy

killing dozens of innocent women. Theodore Bundy killed dozens of innocent women.
Therefore, he can hardly be considered sane, now can he?
• If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and
things cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be
for an end (Aristotle).
• Either wealth is an evil or a good; but wealth is not an evil; therefore wealth is a good
(Sextus Empiricus).
• If the North Koreans are smart—and we know damn well how smart they are—they
will move in the direction of reform.
• If each man has a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life, he would
be no better than a machine. But there are no rules, so men cannot be machines.
• If error was something positive, God would be its cause, and by Him it would
continually be procreated. But this is absurd (Spinoza).
• If pornography has a harmful effect on one’s character, then it would certainly be
best to avoid it. Many religious leaders and teachers of morality have warned us to
avoid pornography. Therefore, it certainly must have a harmful effect on a person’s
character.

B. Write you own examples of arguments using the four valid argument forms, modus tollens,
modus ponens, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism.

Logical Fallacies

A fallacy is a type of argument that is psychologically persuasive but completely invalid. Very
often fallacies, especially when used in the heat of debate can seem to be valid, but they are
actually flawed arguments.
It is precisely because these sorts of arguments can be rhetorically persuasive that they are
often used in speeches. At times the use of fallacies can actually help to demolish an opponents
position or to bolster your own flimsy one—at least if the audience is not paying much attention.
The problem with using fallacies like the one we will examine, is that if you get caught, your
credibility will be demolished in the eyes of your audience: they’ll either think that you are
ignorant or duplicitous, and being accused of either of these will certainly not help you make
your case.
On the positive side, an understanding of what common logical fallacies are can help you to
tear down an opponent’s argument. Most audiences, even those who lack a formal knowledge
of logic, will be impressed if you can challenge an opponent’s argument by stating that he is
guilty of committing some kind of logical fallacy that you can identify with a fancy name. Your
credibility at such times soars, and your opponent’s plummets.
Among the commonly used types of logical fallacies are the following:

Appeal to Force occurs when one uses or threatens to use force—whether physical, psychological
or legal—in an attempt to coerce another person to accept their conclusion.

“Oh Senators, I would strongly advise you to make Claudius our next emperor. The
Praetorian guard has already rallied around him, and I fear for this august body if you
thwart their desires.”
“If you don’t convict this murderer, one of you may be his next victim.”
 Logic l 49

Ad Hominum Attack (“against the man”): An attempt to refute another’s position by attacking
the character, circumstance, or actions of the person making a claim rather than the argument
itself.

“I don’t think we should accept the councilman’s arguments in favor of Sunday shopping
in our town. He’s a godless communist after all.”
“You shouldn’t listen to Billy-Bob’s argument because he spent a year in prison.”

The reason why ad hominum attacks are always fallacious is because the character, circumstances,
or actions of the person being attacked have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his
arguments.

Argumentum ad Populum (“Argument to the People”): this sort of fallacy occurs when one
attempts to appeal to popular sentiment by arguing that everybody is doing something and
therefore it must be right. This fallacy also includes appeals to patriotism or religion. Of
course, the fact that everyone is doing something or believes something to be true has absolutely
no bearing on the validity of the argument being proposed:

85% of consumers choose PCs rather than Macs. Therefore, the PC must be a better
computer.
Real Americans eat red meat. Therefore, if you are a vegetarian, there must be something
seriously wrong with you.

Argument from Ignorance: An attempt to argue that a proposition is true because it hasn’t be
proven false or that a certain proposition is false because it hasn’t been proven true.

“God is clearly the creator of the moral order. Try as hard as they may, ethicists have
been unable to come up with any other explanation of the source of universal moral
principles or why moral principles are binding on us.”
“The superb quality of her character can be demonstrated by the fact that I have never
heard a word spoken against her.”

Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority involves using the testimony of someone who is an expert
or authority in a field other than the one under discussion, from a source that may not be reliable,
or from a biased authority.

“My priest says that genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization are dangerous. Therefore,
all experiments in this field should be stopped immediately.”
“All this talk about global warming is a lot of hooey. Why, I just heard Rush Limbaugh say
today that we have absolutely nothing to worry about.”

Hasty Generalization occurs when one uses unusual or atypical cases to support a general point
covering all cases.

“I know for a fact that drinking alcohol is evil. My father was an alcoholic and his drinking
damned near ruined our family.”
“I have a friend who lives near Brookhaven National Laboratories who has just been
 50 l The Problems of Philosophy

diagnosed with breast cancer. I think that we can safely conclude, then, that the
research being done at Brookhaven is responsible for the high rate of breast cancer on
Long Island.”

Begging the Question occurs when a person assumes what the argument is trying to prove. [i.e.,
when the conclusion and premises are rewordings of each other]

“To allow complete, unfettered freedom of speech is advantageous to the interests of the
state. For it is clearly helpful to the community to have each individual freely express
his or her own point of view.”
“You can’t expect eighteen-year-olds to vote intelligently, because they are too young to
have good judgment about the issues.”

Straw Man: An attempt to substitute for your opponent’s argument a simplistic caricature. By
defeating the caricature (the straw man), the fallacious impression is created that you have
defeated your opponent’s position.

“Of course the Equal Rights Amendment must be defeated. Do you want men and women
sharing the same toilet facilities?”

Exercise 3: Logical Fallacies

Identify the logical fallacies in the following passages:

• Women are so sentimental! My mother and sister always cry at the movies. My father
and I never do.
• No breath of scandal has ever touched the senator. Therefore he must be incorruptibly
honest.
• How can you take Sartre's philosophical views seriously? The man, after all, led an
abysmal life and was certainly no paragon of morality.
• After all, my views on gun control have been endorsed by some of Hollywood's most
notable actors—Sylvester Stallone, Barbra Streisand, and Alec Baldwin, among
others. How could you not agree with me?
• Gentlemen, we cannot let Honduras be ruled by a communist government. If we do
then sooner or later Mexico will become communist along with the islands in the
Caribbean and no doubt Canada.
• The governor supports tax increases for middle-income earners. This doesn’t surprise
me. He has always been against unions and this is just another measure designed to
undermine them. If we allow for these tax increases and the undermining of unions,
democracy in this country will be threatened.
• It is necessary to confine criminals and to lock up dangerous lunatics. Therefore, there
is nothing intrinsically wrong with depriving people of their liberties.
• If you hold that nothing is self-evident, I will not argue with you, for it is clear that you
are a quibbler and not to be convinced.
• God exists because the Bible tells us so, and we know what the Bible tells us is true
because it is the revealed word of God.
• Narcotics are habit forming. Therefore, if you allow your physician to ease your pain
with an opiate you will become a hopeless drug addict.
 Logic l 51

• You can’t park here. I don’t care what the sign says. If you don’t drive on, I’ll give you
a ticket.
• I also admit that there are people for whom the reality of the external world constitutes
a grave problem. My answer is that I do not address them, but that I presuppose a
minimum of reason in my readers.
• She says that she loves me and she must be telling the truth, because she certainly
wouldn’t lie to someone that she loves.
• It is totally idiotic to try to prevent teens from having sexual relations. Everybody’s
“doing it” anyway, so what can possibly be wrong with sex before marriage?
• There is no proof that the secretary "leaked" the news to the papers, so it couldn’t have
been the secretary who did it.
• Gentlemen, I am sure that if you think it over you will see that my suggestion has real
merit. It is only a suggestion of course, and not an order. As I mentioned at our last
conference, I am planning to reorganize the whole business. I still hope, however, that
it will not be necessary to curtail the operations of your department.
• The Rolls-Royce is a foreign made automobile and gets very few miles per gallon.
Therefore all foreign made automobiles get very few miles per gallon.
• Two students were having a disagreement about cars. Student A said, “I can prove
to you that Toyota Carolla’s are faster than Honda Civic’s. John owns a Carolla and
he told me he beats every Civic he has ever raced.” Student B asked, “How do you
know John is telling the truth?” Student A replied by saying, “Someone who drives the
fastest car wouldn’t have to lie.”

Michael S. Russo. The Problems of Philosophy. New York: SophiaOmni, 2012.

© SophiaOmni, 2012. This text is copyright. Permission is granted to print out copies for educa-
tional purposes and for personal use only. No permission is granted for commercial use.