Common logical forms Study the following four arguments.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
Advertisements

Truth Functional Logic
Valid arguments A valid argument has the following property:
Part 2 Module 5 Analyzing premises, forming conclusions
Hypotheticals: The If/Then Form Hypothetical arguments are usually more obvious than categorical ones. A hypothetical argument has an “if/then” pattern.
Part 2 Module 5 Analyzing premises, forming conclusions.
Common logical forms Study the following four arguments.
Chapter 1 The Logic of Compound Statements. Section 1.3 Valid & Invalid Arguments.
SEVENTH EDITION and EXPANDED SEVENTH EDITION
Chapter Logic. Conjecture 4 A conjecture is an educated guess. 4 Example: If you walk into a DRHS classroom where the teacher is speaking Spanish,
Chapter 3 Section 5 - Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.
Part 2 Module 3 Arguments and deductive reasoning Logic is a formal study of the process of reasoning, or using common sense. Deductive reasoning involves.
Chapter 3 Section 4 – Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.
3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables
2.5 Verifying Arguments Write arguments symbolically. Determine when arguments are valid or invalid. Recognize form of standard arguments. Recognize common.
Valid and Invalid Arguments
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments
Verifying Arguments MATH 102 Contemporary Math S. Rook.
The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.
The Science of Good Reasons
Deductive Arguments.
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
Lecture 4. CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS: Consider the statement: "If you earn an A in Math, then I'll buy you a computer." This statement is made up of two.
CONDITIONALS. Conditional Statement: Any statement that is or can be written in if- then form. That is, If p then q.
Chapter 3: Introduction to Logic. Logic Main goal: use logic to analyze arguments (claims) to see if they are valid or invalid. This is useful for math.
Section 2-2: Conditional Statements. Conditional A statement that can be written in If-then form symbol: If p —>, then q.
Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.
Aim: Invalid Arguments Course: Math Literacy Do Now: Aim: What’s an Invalid Argument? Construct a truth table to show the following argument is not valid.
Logic The Lost Art of Argument. Logic - Review Proposition – A statement that is either true or false (but not both) Conjunction – And Disjunction – Or.
6.6 Argument Forms and Fallacies
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Hypothetical Syllogism If/Then Statements. Parts Major Premise: Two-part statement: – 1) "if," statement, known as the antecedent; – 2) consequent Minor.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.4, Slide 1 3 Logic The Study of What’s True or False or Somewhere in Between 3.
Chapter 7 Evaluating Deductive Arguments II: Truth Functional Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 7 Lecture Notes Chapter 7.
If-then statements April 4, What is an if-then statement? One of the postulates we looked at earlier stated: If B is between A and C, then AB +
Logic: The Language of Philosophy. What is Logic? Logic is the study of argumentation o In Philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions, but there.
L = # of lines n = # of different simple propositions L = 2 n EXAMPLE: consider the statement, (A ⋅ B) ⊃ C A, B, C are three simple statements 2 3 L =
Deductive Reasoning Valid Arguments
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
Valid and Invalid Arguments
Warm Up For this conditional statement: If a polygon has 3 sides, then it is a triangle. Write the converse, the inverse, the contrapositive, and the.
Deductive Arguments.
Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Principles of Computing – UFCFA3-30-1
Today’s Outline Discussion of Exercise VI on page 39.
Evaluate Deductive Reasoning and Spot Deductive Fallacies
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
A Universal-Particular (U-P) argument
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
1. Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of the conditional below and determine the truth value for each. “If the measure of an angle is less.
Logic 3.1 Statements and Logical Connectives
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H
Deductive Arguments: Checking for Validity
Deductive Arguments: More Truth Tables
Equivalent Statements
8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments
TODAY’S OBJECTIVE: Standard: MM1G2
TODAY’S OBJECTIVE: Standard: MM1G2
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

Common logical forms Study the following four arguments. If today is Tuesday, then I have math class. Today is Tuesday. Therefore, I have math class. I don’t own a badger. If I don’t own a badger, then I own a tortoise. Therefore, I own a tortoise. If that animal is a wolverine, then it isn’t cuddly. That animal is a wolverine. Therefore, that animal isn’t cuddly. I don’t like living below ground. If I don’t like living below ground, then I’m not a potato. Therefore, I’m not a potato. Do you see that all four arguments have the same structure?

Common logical forms If today is Tuesday, then I have math class. Today is Tuesday. Therefore, I have math class. I don’t own a badger. If I don’t own a badger, then I own a tortoise. Therefore, I own a tortoise. If that animal is a wolverine, then it isn’t cuddly. That animal is a wolverine. Therefore, that animal isn’t cuddly. I don’t like living below ground. If I don’t like living below ground, then I’m not a potato. Therefore, I’m not a potato. Each of these four arguments can be characterized as follows: One premise is a conditional statement; the other premise agrees with the antecedent of the conditional premise (“affirms the antecedent”); the conclusion agrees with the consequent of the conditional premise (“affirms the consequent”). Because all four arguments have the same structure, if one of them is valid, the other three should also be valid; if one of them is invalid, the other three should also be invalid.

Common logical forms If today is Tuesday, then I have math class. Today is Tuesday. Therefore, I have math class. pq p  q premise premise conclusion p q pq p q T T T T T T F F T F F T T F T F F T F F The truth table shows that the argument is VALID. Since the other three arguments on the previous slide have the same structure as this argument, they must also be valid. We don’t need to make three more truth tables.

Common logical forms There are several forms of short, valid arguments, and corresponding invalid forms, that occur so often that it is helpful to be able to recognize and name them. We will encounter names such as Direct Reasoning Contrapositive Reasoning Fallacy of the Converse Fallacy of the Inverse Disjunctive syllogism Transitive reasoning among others

Four Common Logical Forms Four common logical forms (two valid forms, two fallacies) involve a conditional statement for the major premise and a simpler statement for the minor premise. VALID forms INVALID forms Direct Reasoning Fallacy of the Converse AB AB A B  B  A Contrapositive Reasoning Fallacy of the Inverse ~B ~A  ~A  ~B

Examples of Contrapositive Reasoning Each of these arguments is valid, because of Contrapositive Reasoning: If I have a hammer, then I will hammer in the morning. I don’t hammer in the morning. Therefore, I don’t have a hammer. I don’t have to work. If today is Thursday, then I have to work. Therefore, today isn’t Thursday. I own a badger. If don’t own a wolverine, then I don’t own a badger. Therefore, I own a wolverine.

Examples of Fallacy of the Inverse Each of these arguments is invalid, because of Fallacy of the Inverse: If today is Wednesday, then I have math class. Today isn’t Wednesday. Therefore, today I don’t have math class. I own a bike. If I don’t own a bike, then I. Therefore, I don’t have math class.

Another form Test the validity of this argument: I’m not out of bananas or I won’t feed my monkeys. I will feed my monkeys. Therefore, I’m not out of bananas. A. Valid B. Invalid

Valid The truth table shows that the argument is valid. p q pq ~q p I’m not out of bananas or I won’t feed my monkeys. I will feed my monkeys. Therefore, I’m not out of bananas. One correct symbolization of the argument is as follows: Let p: I’m not out of bananas q: I won’t feed my monkeys pq ~q p The truth table shows that the argument is valid. p q pq ~q p T T T F T T F T T T F T T F F F F F T F

Disjunctive Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism is a method that turns an “or” statement into valid argument, as follows. Any argument having one of these forms is valid: AB AB ~A ~B  B  A This common form is called Disjunctive Syllogism.

Disjunctive Syllogism - examples Each of the following arguments is valid, because it is a disjunctive syllogism. Note that this form is characterized as follows: one premise is a disjunction, the other premise denies one term of the disjunction, while the conclusion affirms the other term. Argument 1 I own a badger or I own a wolverine. I don’t own a badger. Therefore, I own a wolverine. Argument 2 I own a badger or I own a wolverine. I don’t own a wolverine. Therefore, I own a badger.

Disjunctive Fallacy In order to turn an “or” premise into a valid argument, the minor premise must deny one of the terms of the major (“or”) premise. If the minor premise affirms one of the terms of the “or” premise, then we have the structure for a fallacy. Any argument having one of these forms is invalid: AB AB A B  ~B  ~A This common form is called Disjunctive Fallacy.

Exercise Test the validity of the argument. If I get elected, I'll reduce taxes. If I reduce taxes, the economy will prosper. Thus, if I get elected, the economy will prosper. A. Valid B. Invalid

Transitive Reasoning If I get elected, I'll reduce taxes. If I reduce taxes, the economy will prosper. Thus, if I get elected, the economy will prosper. A truth table would show that this is a valid argument. This is an example of Transitive Reasoning, a valid form in which conditional statements are connected, so to speak, in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

Transitive Reasoning Any argument that can be reduced to the form AB BC  AC is VALID. We refer to this common form as Transitive Reasoning.

Transitive Reasoning The following argument is valid, because it is an example of Transitive Reasoning. If I eat my spinach, then I'll become muscular. If I become muscular, then I'll become a professional wrestler. If I become I professional wrestler, then I'll bleach my hair. If I bleach my hair, then I'll wear sequined tights. If I wear sequined tights, then I'll be ridiculous. Therefore, if I eat my spinach, then I'll be ridiculous.

Transitive Reasoning The previous example illustrates an important property of Transitive Reasoning: This method of reasoning extends indefinitely. We easily can construct valid arguments that have as many "if...then" premises as we wish, as long as the fundamental pattern continues: namely, the antecedent of each new premise agrees with the consequent of the previous premise.

Not Transitive Reasoning The following argument looks similar to Transitive Reasoning, but the relationship between terms isn’t quite right. If I get elected, I'll take lots of bribes. If I get elected, I'll reduce taxes. Thus, if I take lots of bribes, then I'll reduce taxes. This is an example of a common fallacy, called a False Chain.

False Chains Any argument that can be reduced to one of these forms is INVALID. AB AB AC CB  BC  AC We refer to these common fallacies as False Chains.

Transitive Reasoning, False Chains Contrast these three arguments: Argument 1 If today is Friday, then I have math class. If I have math class, then I write. Therefore, if today is Friday, then I write. Argument 2 If today is Friday, then I wash the dog. Therefore, if I have math class, then I wash the dog. Argument 3 If today is Wednesday, then I have math class. Therefore, if today is Friday, then today is Wednesday. Although they sound similar, you should recognize that Argument 1 is valid (transitive reasoning) and Arguments 2 and 3 are invalid (false chains).