CTR-Lecture 3 (Basic Concepts of Logic)

CREATIVE THINKING &
REASONING
Lecture 3
(Basic Concepts of Logic)
Teacher:
ISMATULLAH BUTT
Creative Thinking & Reasoning
2
Lecture Contents:
 Definitions
 Types of propositions
Definitions
3
• Logic: Logic is the study of the methods and principles

used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning
 Reasoning as an Art
 Reasoning as a Science
• Proposition: An Assertion that something is (or is not)
the case; all propositions are either true or false
 It is raining (English)
 Barsaat ho rhi hai (Hindi/Urdu)
 Mazha peyyunnu (Malayalam)
Definitions
4
• Statement: The meaning of a declarative

sentence at a particular time; in logic, the word
“statement” is some times used instead of
“proposition”.
 Statement is not exact synonym of proposition
 Some logicians prefer statement to proposition
Types of propositions
5
 Simple Proposition: A proposition making only

one assertion.
 Compound Proposition: A proposition
containing two or more simple propositions.
Types of propositions
6
 Conjunctive: A type of compound proposition; if true, then

both of the component proposition must be true.
e.g. Students of logic are intelligent and hardworking
 Disjunctive Proposition: A type of compound proposition; if
true, at least one of the component proposition must be true.
 e.g. Students of logic are intelligent or hardworking
e.g. The upper house of parliaments are effective, or they are not effective.
 Hypothetical Proposition: A type of compound proposition; it
is false only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is
false.
e.g. If it is raining then the roads are wet
Arguments
7
 Propositions are the building block of which arguments are
made.
 Inferences: A process of linking propositions by affirming
one proposition by on the basis of the one or more other
propositions
 Arguments: A structured group of propositions, reflecting
an inference
 Premise: A proposition used in an argument to support
some other propositions
 Conclusion: The proposition in an argument that the other
propositions, the premises, support
Exercises
8
 Identify the premises and conclusions in the

passages, each of which contains only one
argument.
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
All bats are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
So, all bats are warm-blooded.
All arguments are deductive or inductive.
Inductive arguments: Inductive arguments are formed when we infer some
rule from several observed examples having one or more common
characteristics.
These are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
only with some degree or probability from the premises.
Deductive arguments: Process of drawing inference on the basis of an already

formed rule is called deduction.
These are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow

necessarily from the premises.
Is the argument above deductive or inductive?
9
All bats are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
So, all bats are warm-blooded.
Deductive.

If the premises are true, the conclusion, logically, must also be true.

10
There are four tests that can be used to determine
whether an argument is deductive or inductive:
· the indicator word test

· the strict necessity test
· the common pattern test
· the principle of charity test
11
Kristin is a law student.
Most law students own laptops.
So, probably Kristin owns a laptop.
The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator words that provide
clues whether a deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like

necessarily, logically, it must be the case that, and this proves that.
Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like probably,

likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to think that, and it's a
good bet that.
In the example above, the word probably shows that the argument is
inductive.

12
No Texans are architects.
No architects are Democrats.
So, no Texans are Democrats.
The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the
premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is
deductive.

In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with
strict logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the
conclusion does follow logically from the premises, because if the
premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well.
13
Either Kurt voted in the last election, or he didn't.
Only citizens can vote.
Kurt is not, and has never been, a citizen.
So, Kurt didn't vote in the last election.
The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a

pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically

deductive, then the argument is probably deductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is

characteristically inductive, then the argument is probably
inductive.
In the example above, the argument exhibits a pattern of
reasoning called "argument by elimination."
Arguments by elimination are arguments that seek to logically
rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains.
Arguments of this type are always deductive.
14
Arnie: Harry told me his grandmother recently climbed Mt. Everest.

Sam: Well, Harry must be pulling your leg. Harry's grandmother is over 90
years old and walks with a cane.
In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Sam's argument

should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these,
we fall back on the principle of charity test.
According to the principle of charity test, we should always interpret an

unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.
We could interpret Sam's argument as deductive. But this would be

uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises
with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly unlikely--
that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb Mt. Everest.)
Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat the argument as inductive.

15
Tess: Are there any good Italian restaurants in town?

Don: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their
Neapolitan rigatoni, their lasagne col pesto, and their
mushroom ravioli. I don't think you can go wrong with
any of their pasta dishes.

Based on what you've learned in this Chapter , is this
argument deductive or inductive? How can you tell?

16
Don: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan
rigatoni, their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom
ravioli. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their
pasta dishes.
Inductive.

The argument is an inductive generalization, which is
a common pattern of inductive reasoning. Also, the
conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from
the premises.

17
I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology
textbook as well as my biology and history textbooks.
Let's see, I have $200. My biology textbook costs $65 and
my history textbook costs $52. My psychology textbook
costs $60. With taxes, that should come to about $190.
Yep, I have enough.

Is this argument deductive or inductive? How can you
tell?

18
I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook as well
as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have $200. My biology
textbook costs $65 and my history textbook costs $52. My psychology
textbook costs $60. With taxes, that should come to about $190. Yep, I
have enough.
Deductive.

This argument is an argument based on mathematics, which is a
common pattern of deductive reasoning. Plus, the conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises.

19
Mother: Don't give Billy that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I think
Billy is allergic to walnuts. Last week he ate some oatmeal cookies with
walnuts and he broke out in a severe rash.

Father: Billy isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember he ate some
walnut fudge ice cream at Melissa's birthday party last spring? He didn't
have any allergic reaction then.

Is the father's argument deductive or inductive? How can
you tell?

20
Mother: Don't give Billy that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I
think Billy is allergic to walnuts. Last week he ate some oatmeal
cookies with walnuts, and he broke out in a severe rash.

Father: Billy isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember he ate
some walnut fudge ice cream at Melissa's birthday party last
spring? He didn't have any allergic reaction then.
Inductive.

The father's argument is a causal argument, which is a common
pattern of inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises. (Billy might have
developed an allergic reaction to walnuts since last spring.)

21
More Definitions
22
• Valid: in a valid argument, if all the premises are

true, then the conclusion must be true.
• Sound: a sound argument is valid and has all true
premises.
• Strong: in a strong argument, if the premises are
all true, then the conclusion is likely to be true.
• Cogent: a cogent argument is strong and has all
true premises.
Argument Form
23
• If the premises and the conclusion are

statement forms instead of statements, then the
resulting form is called argument form.
• Ex: If p then q;
p;
q.
Validity of Argument Form
24
 Argument form is valid means that

for any substitution of statement variables,
if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also
true.
 The example of previous slide is a valid argument

form.
Checking the validity of an argument form
25
1) Construct truth table for the premises and the

conclusion;
2) Find the rows in which all the premises are true
(critical rows);
3) a. If in each critical row the conclusion is true
then the argument form is valid;
b. If there is a row in which conclusion is false
then the argument form is invalid.
Example of valid argument form
26
p and q;
if p then q;
 q. premises conclusion
Critical row p q p and q if p then q q
T T T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Valid Argument Forms
27
 Modus ponens: If p then q;

p;
 q.
 Modus tollens: If p then q;
~q;
~p.
A more complex deduction
28
 Knights always tell the truth, and knaves always lie.
U says: None of us is a knight.

V says: At least three of us are knights.
W says: At most three of us are knights.
X says: Exactly five of us are knights.
Y says: Exactly two of us are knights.
Z says: Exactly one of us is a knight.
 Which are knights and which are knaves?

CTR-Lecture 3 (Basic Concepts of Logic)

Uploaded by

CTR-Lecture 3 (Basic Concepts of Logic)

Uploaded by

CREATIVE THINKING &

• Logic: Logic is the study of the methods and principles

• Statement: The meaning of a declarative

 Simple Proposition: A proposition making only

 Conjunctive: A type of compound proposition; if true, then

 Identify the premises and conclusions in the

Deductive arguments: Process of drawing inference on the basis of an already

These are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow

· the indicator word test

Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like

Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like probably,

The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a

If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically

If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is

In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Sam's argument

According to the principle of charity test, we should always interpret an

We could interpret Sam's argument as deductive. But this would be

• Valid: in a valid argument, if all the premises are

• If the premises and the conclusion are

 Argument form is valid means that

 The example of previous slide is a valid argument

1) Construct truth table for the premises and the

 Modus ponens: If p then q;

 Knights always tell the truth, and knaves always lie.

U says: None of us is a knight.

 Which are knights and which are knaves?

You might also like