Analyzing Arguments. Objectives Determine the validity of an argument using a truth table. State the conditions under which an argument is invalid.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

3.5 – Analyzing Arguments with Euler Diagrams

Valid arguments A valid argument has the following property:

Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:

1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.

Common logical forms Study the following four arguments.

Quiz Methods of Proof..

Slide 1Fig. 2.1a, p.25. Slide 2Fig. 2.1b, p.25 Slide 3Table 2.1, p.25.

Logic ChAPTER 3 1. Truth Tables and Validity of Arguments

Use a truth table to determine the validity or invalidity of this argument. First, translate into standard form “Martin is not buying a new car, since.

IX Conjunctions of Premises & Conclusions Working with more than two premises.

Chapter 1 The Logic of Compound Statements. Section 1.2 – 1.3 (Modus Tollens) Conditional and Valid & Invalid Arguments.

MAT 142 Lecture Video Series. Truth Tables Objectives Construct a truth table for a given symbolic expression. Determine if two given statements are.

Conditional Statements

Chapter 1 Section 1.5 Analyzing Arguments. Syllogisms A syllogism is a type of deductive reasoning that draws a logical conclusion from two statements.

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

Truth Tables (MAT 142) Truth Tables.

More on Conditionals. Objectives Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of a given conditional statement. Determine the premise and conclusion.

Chapter 3 Section 4 – Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.

© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 3 Logic.

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.

MATERI II PROPOSISI. 2 Tautology and Contradiction Definition A tautology is a statement form that is always true. A statement whose form is a tautology.

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.

Arguments with Quantified Statements M Universal Instantiation If some property is true for everything in a domain, then it is true of any particular.

Review Complete the chart: pq Conditional p  q Converse _  _ TT TF FT FF.

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements 2.2 Conditional Statements

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.

MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Propositional Logic Fall Term 2006 North Central College.

Why Truth Tables? We will learn several ways to evaluate arguments for validity. * Proofs * Truth Tables * Trees.

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.

 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic.

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.

Analyzing Arguments Section 1.5. Valid arguments An argument consists of two parts: the hypotheses (premises) and the conclusion. An argument is valid.

If then Therefore It is rainingthe ground is wet It is raining the ground is wet.

Symbolic Logic and Rules of Inference. whatislogic.php If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor. Tom is a philosopher.

2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary

MAT 142 Lecture Video Series

Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13

Evaluating truth tables

2 Chapter Introduction to Logic and Sets

2-1 Conditional Statements

A Universal-Particular (U-P) argument

Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.

3.5 Symbolic Arguments.

TRUTH TABLE TO DETERMINE

TRUTH TABLES continued.

Review To check an argument with a tree:.

Discrete Mathematics Lecture # 8.

Let us build the tree for the argument Q>-P | P>Q.

Conditional Statements

Section 3.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments

CHAPTER 3 Logic.

6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments

Scientific Method Vocabulary

Logic and Reasoning.

2-3 Conditional Statements

Conditional Statements

TODAY’S OBJECTIVE: Standard: MM1G2

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

If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.

Conditional Statements

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.

CHAPTER 3 Logic.

Presentation transcript:

Analyzing Arguments

Objectives Determine the validity of an argument using a truth table. State the conditions under which an argument is invalid

Vocabulary hypothesis conclusion valid argument

Use the given symbols to rewrite the argument in symbolic form: 1.If it is Tuesday, then the tour group is in Belgium. 2.The tour group is not in Belgium. p: q:q: It is Tuesday. The tour group is in Belgium. Therefore, it is not Tuesday.

Make a truth table to determine the validity of the argument pq H1H2C TT T F F T F F

Define the necessary symbols, rewrite the argument in symbolic form, and use a truth table to determine whether the argument is valid. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. You eat at Lulu’s. Therefore, you eat good food.

1. 2. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. 3. You eat at Lulu’s. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. You eat at Lulu’s. Therefore, you eat good food. Therefore, you eat good food.

p: q:q: You are in a hurry. Your eat at Lulu’s Diner. r:r: You eat good food. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. You eat at Lulu’s. Therefore, you eat good food.

1. 2. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. 3. You eat at Lulu’s. Therefore, you eat good food q Therefore, r.

If the argument is invalid, interpret the specific circumstances that cause the argument to be invalid. If you are not in a hurry, you eat at Lulu’s Diner. If you are in a hurry, you do not eat good food. You eat at Lulu’s. Therefore, you eat good food.