This document defines logic and argument terms, outlines methods for analyzing arguments, and discusses types of valid and invalid arguments. Specifically, it defines an argument, validity, and provides examples. It describes Euler diagrams and truth tables as two methods to analyze arguments. Four types of valid arguments are defined - modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism. Finally, it discusses two common fallacies - the fallacy of the converse and fallacy of the inverse.
This document defines logic and argument terms, outlines methods for analyzing arguments, and discusses types of valid and invalid arguments. Specifically, it defines an argument, validity, and provides examples. It describes Euler diagrams and truth tables as two methods to analyze arguments. Four types of valid arguments are defined - modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism. Finally, it discusses two common fallacies - the fallacy of the converse and fallacy of the inverse.
This document defines logic and argument terms, outlines methods for analyzing arguments, and discusses types of valid and invalid arguments. Specifically, it defines an argument, validity, and provides examples. It describes Euler diagrams and truth tables as two methods to analyze arguments. Four types of valid arguments are defined - modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism. Finally, it discusses two common fallacies - the fallacy of the converse and fallacy of the inverse.
This document defines logic and argument terms, outlines methods for analyzing arguments, and discusses types of valid and invalid arguments. Specifically, it defines an argument, validity, and provides examples. It describes Euler diagrams and truth tables as two methods to analyze arguments. Four types of valid arguments are defined - modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism. Finally, it discusses two common fallacies - the fallacy of the converse and fallacy of the inverse.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 25
Math 116
Logic Part 2 Definitions An argument is a set of statements (called the premises) that imply another statement (called the conclusion)
Examples
horseshoes wears Seabiscuit Therefore, horse a is biscuit Sea . horseshoes wear horses All exam the pass you Therefore, conclusion exam the pass or you study t don You study You
premises Validity of an argument An argument is valid if the premises are all true and the conclusion is true.
An argument is invalid if all the premises are true but the conclusion is false Analyzing arguments Two methods by used to analyze arguments are by (i) Euler diagrams ( set diagrams) (ii) Truth tables Using Euler diagrams Euler diagrams are usually used to test the validity of an argument when the words all and some are used in the premises Using Euler diagrams Note the following: A and B are premises A B None of A is in B (disjoint)
A B (Some of A is in B) Intersection
Euler diagrams A is a subset of B. All of A is in B B A Example Use Euler diagrams to test the validity of the following:
broke is Adam Therefore, student college a is Adam broke. are students college All Using truth tables Step 1: Translate premises and conclusions into symbolic form. Step 2: Write the truth table for the premises and the conclusion. Step 3: Determine the validity of the argument. It is valid if there is a row where the premises are true and the conclusion true; Invalid if there is a row where the premises are true but the conclusion false. Example Test the validity of the following argument using truth tables:
paid. get not did I Therefore, shoes of pair new a buy not did I shoes. of pair new a buy will I then paid, get I If Solution
Types of Valid arguments 1. Modus Ponens also called direct arguments is in the form
Q P Q P
Examples of Modus Ponens
umbrella my carrying am I Therefore, fly. can Pigs umbrella. my carrying am I then fly, can pigs If umbrella my carrying am I Therefore, raining. is It umbrella. my carrying am I then raining, is it If Types of Valid arguments 2. Modus Tollens also called indirect arguments is arguments in the form P Q Q P ~ ~
Examples of Modus Tollens
raining. not is it Therefore, umbrella. my carrying not am I umbrella. my carrying am I then raining, is it If fly. cannot pigs Therefore, umbrella. my carrying not am I umbrella. my carrying am I then fly, can pigs If Types of Valid arguments 3. Disjunctive Syllogism is an argument of the form
Note : In the premise either at least one of the statements is true or maybe both OR exactly one must be true but both cannot be. Q P Q P
~ Q P Example
stud. a tongue got Babbs Therefore, pierced. navel her get t didn Babbs stud. a tongue get ll she or pierced, navel her get will bs Either Bab Types of Valid arguments 4. Hypothetical Syllogism, also called transitivity, is an argument of the form R P R Q Q P
Example prom. the her to ask ll he Therefore, Babbs, likes Biff prom. the her to ask ll he then Babbs, likes Biff If Fallacies A fallacy is an invalid argument form. Two common fallacies The fallacy of the converse. The fallacy of the inverse. The Fallacy of the Converse The fallacy of the converse is the invalid argument form
This is also called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. P Q P
Q Example
raining. is it Therefore, umbrella. an carrying am I umbrella. an carrying am I then raining, is it If
Fallacy of the Inverse The fallacy of the inverse is the invalid argument form
This is also called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Q P Q ~ P
Example
umbrella. an carrying not am I Therefore, fly. cannot Pigs umbrella. an carrying am I then fly, can pigs If
