Deductive Arguments: Checking for Validity

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Formal Criteria for Evaluating Arguments
Advertisements

TRUTH TABLES Section 1.3.
Truth Tables The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to construct truth tables and use them to test the validity of arguments. Go To Next Slide.
TRUTH TABLES The general truth tables for each of the connectives tell you the value of any possible statement for each of the connectives. Negation.
Truth Functional Logic
Chapter 21: Truth Tables.
Logic & Critical Reasoning
Valid arguments A valid argument has the following property:
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
For Wednesday, read Chapter 3, section 4. Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4, set I only; Power of Logic web tutor, 7.4, A, B, and C.
Deductive Validity In this tutorial you will learn how to determine whether deductive arguments are valid or invalid. Chapter 3.b.
Truth Trees Intermediate Logic.
Today’s Topics n Review Logical Implication & Truth Table Tests for Validity n Truth Value Analysis n Short Form Validity Tests n Consistency and validity.
For Friday, read Chapter 3, section 4. Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4, set I only; Power of Logic web tutor, 7.4, A, B, and C. Graded.
Statements and Quantifiers
1 Topic Mathematical Proofs. 2 Topic Mathematical Proofs California Standards: 24.2 Students identify the hypothesis and conclusion in logical.
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.
1.5 Rules of Inference.
Elementary Logic PHIL Intersession 2013 MTWHF 10:00 – 12:00 ASA0118C Steven A. Miller Day 4.
3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables
GLE Explore the concept of premises, including false premises. Intro to Logic.
Deduction, Proofs, and Inference Rules. Let’s Review What we Know Take a look at your handout and see if you have any questions You should know how to.
The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.
Truth Tables and Validity Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College pqrSp v qr & s~(p v q)~p~q~p & ~q~(p v q) -> (r & s) (~p & ~q) ->
Chapter 3: Semantics PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning March 13, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
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.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Proofs Rules of Inference Rules of Equivalence.
Thinking Mathematically
Proof of Invalidity Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.
Logic UNIT 1.
Analyzing Arguments Section 1.5. Valid arguments An argument consists of two parts: the hypotheses (premises) and the conclusion. An argument is valid.
TRUTH TABLES Edited from the original by: Mimi Opkins CECS 100 Fall 2011 Thanks for the ppt.
If then Therefore It is rainingthe ground is wet It is raining the ground is wet.
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 =
Truth Tables, Continued 6.3 and 6.4 March 14th. 6.3 Truth tables for propositions Remember: a truth table gives the truth value of a compound proposition.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Valid and Invalid Arguments
a valid argument with true premises.
AND.
Introduction to Logic Lecture 14 The truth functional argument
Chapter 2.3 Binary Logic.
Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13
Common logical forms Study the following four arguments.
Truth Tables How to build them
Evaluating truth tables
Propositional Calculus: Boolean Algebra and Simplification
2-1 Conditional Statements
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
A Universal-Particular (U-P) argument
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
TRUTH TABLES.
TRUTH TABLES continued.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
The most important idea in logic: Validity of an argument.
Deductive Arguments: More Truth Tables
Lecture 5 Binary Operation Boolean Logic. Binary Operations Addition Subtraction Multiplication Division.
Introductory Logic PHI 120
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Phil2303 intro to logic.
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Philosophical Methods
Propositional Logic 1) Introduction Copyright 2008, Scott Gray.
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.
Interpreting Truth tables (biconditional statements)
Presentation transcript:

Deductive Arguments: Checking for Validity ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Basic Truth Tables Here is a combined truth table for the three binary logical operators AND, OR, and IF..THEN... AND is only True if both of its simple statements are True. OR is only False if both of its simple statements are False. IF..THEN.. is only False for row p=T, q=F. Here is the truth table for unary logical operator NOT. The NOT operator switches True to False and False to True. p ∼p T F p q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F

Steps for Checking Validity An argument is VALID if, in all cases where the premises are True, the conclusion is also True. If there is even one case where all the premises are True but the conclusion is False, the entire argument is INVALID. So testing for validity is really searching for a row that invalidates the argument. If you can’t find such a row, then the argument must be VALID. Rows that don’t have all true premises can be ignored. They do not contribute to the validity of the argument. When presented with a deductive argument, you must first build a truth table for all of the statements and for all permutations of the basic statements being True or False. There will be a row for each True/False permutation of the basic statement logical variables. For two variables, like p and q, there are 22=4 rows. In general there are 2n rows, where n is the number of variables. Three variable arguments have 8 rows, etc. There will be a column for each premise and for the conclusion. The column will have a value for each row depending on whether it is True or False under those conditions of the variables. Once the table is built, look for any row that has all premises = True but the conclusion = False. (i.e. ‘TT….TTF’)

Examples to follow Following are seven examples of executing this process and determining validity of a deductive argument. There are four 2-variable, 3-statement arguments. Three of these are classic argument types, and have fairly simple statements. The fourth is a slightly more complex argument. There is one example of a 2-variable, 4-statement argument. There are two examples of 3-variable, 3-statement arguments. Some of these are arguments we discussed before and guessed were either valid or invalid, but the proof is now furnished.

Example 1: two variables, 3 statements q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F Here is an argument we have seen before: “If I eat apples, then I’ll eat bananas.” “I ate apples.” “Therefore, I ate bananas.” Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTF’. There is no ‘TTF’, so this argument is VALID. a → b a b a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F

Example 2: two variables, 3 statements q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F This argument seems similar: “If I eat apples, then I’ll eat bananas.” “I ate bananas.” “Therefore, I ate apples.” Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTF’. Row 3 has a ‘TTF’, so this argument is INVALID. (That is a case with all True premises, but a conclusion that is False, which invalidates the argument.) a → b b a a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F a b P1: a → b P2: C T F

Example 3: two variables, 3 statements q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F One more variation: “If I eat apples, then I’ll eat bananas.” “I didn’t eat bananas.” “Therefore, I didn’t eat apples.” Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTF’. There is no ‘TTF’, so this argument is VALID. a → b ~b ~a a b P1: a → b P2: ~b C ~a T F a b P1: a → b P2: ~b C ~a T F a b P1: a → b P2: ~b C ~a T F a b P1: a → b P2: ~b C ~a T F

Example 4: A more complex argument q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F Here is an argument: P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C: c ∩ d Fill in the truth table. A helper column for ~d is needed here. Check for ‘TTF’. Row 4 has a ‘TTF’, so this argument is INVALID. (The ‘TTT’ in row 1 makes no difference.) c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F c d ~d P1: c ∪ ~d P2: c → d C c ∩ d T F

Example 5: two variables, 4 statements q p ∩ q p ∪ q p → q T F A simple four-statement argument. P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C: ~h Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTTF’. Row 3 has a ‘TTTF’, so this argument is INVALID. g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F g h P1: ~g P2: g ∪ h P3: h ∩ ~g C ~h T F

Example 6: Dogs, Animals, and Things That Eat q p → q T F Here is an argument we have seen before: “All dogs are animals.” “All animals must eat.” “Thus, all dogs must eat.” There are 3 variables, so we will have 8 rows. Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTF’. There is no case where all premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. So this argument is VALID. d → a a → e d → e d a e P1: d → a P2: a → e C d → e T F d a e P1: d → a P2: a → e C d → e T F d a e P1: d → a P2: a → e C d → e T F d a e P1: d → a P2: a → e C d → e T F d a e P1: d → a P2: a → e C d → e T F

Example 7: Dogs, Animals, and 4-Legged Things q p → q T F Here is another argument we have seen before: “All dogs are animals.” “All dogs have 4 legs.” “Thus, all animals have 4 legs.” Fill in the truth table. Check for ‘TTF’. There is at least one case of ‘TTF’, so this argument is INVALID. d → a d → f d a f P1: d → a P2: d → f C a → f T F d a f P1: d → a P2: d → f C a → f T F d a f P1: d → a P2: d → f C a → f T F d a f P1: d → a P2: d → f C a → f T F d a f P1: d → a P2: d → f C a → f T F a → f

Conclusion An argument is valid if there are no cases with all True premises but a False conclusion. To check for validity, we build the truth table for the argument. There will be enough rows to accommodate all permutations of the number of variables. (2n, where n=# of variables) There will be one column for each statement (premise or conclusion). You should leave room for helper columns. Complete the truth table using the basic truth tables for logical operators. Check for any instance of ‘TT….TTF’. If one or more exist, the argument is INVALID. Otherwise, the argument is VALID.