Logic and
Critical Thinking

 

Philosophy 4

Gale Justin

The objective of today’s class is to learn how:

uTo review the topics that we have so far studied.

uTo distinguish deductive from inductive arguments.

We will consider each topic in turn.

uWe begin with the review.

uWe have already considered the following topics:

Topic 1: Nature of an argument:

An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which are offered as reason(s) to think that one of the statements is true. 

The statement(s) that are regarded as being the reasons are called premisses.  The one statement that is being affirmed on the basis of the reason(s) is called the conclusion.

Topic 2: Arguments vs. Explanations

An argument offers reasons to believe that some statement is true. 

An explanation offers reasons why something happens, has happened or is the way that it is.

Examples of the distinction between arguments and explanations:

Argument: Tomatoes will be expensive this year, since growers in Florida were wiped out by the hurricane.

Explanation: The tomato crop was ruined because heavy rains rotted the vines of the plants.

To distinguish arguments from explanations, you need to:

uLook first for the conclusion or the main point of the passage.

uIf the conclusion or the main point of the passage can be directly known, then the passage gives an explanation.  If the conclusion or main point can only be indirectly know, ie. Is an inference, then the passage gives an argument.

uSometimes there are argument indicators (p. 12).  But sometimes there are not.

Indirectness indicators:

uIndirectness indicators: should, ought, is a good idea, must, may, probably, likely, apparently, and seems.

uThese words indicate that the main point in the passage is not directly known.  Rather, it is known “through” or on the basis of the reasons.

uIf no indirectness indicator is present, ask yourself whether you are being persuaded of the truth of one statement on the basis of some other statements that are either directly known or are being taken for granted.

Consider again:

uThe deftly skinned animal carcasses that have been turning up in the Lakewood area are most likely the carcasses of coyotes, not dogs. (2) An autopsy performed on the last of the four carcasses showed that the animals had fed on small animals, possibly birds.  (3) Birds are typical coyote food.

u(1) has an indirectness indicator. (2) is directly known. (3) is being taken for granted.

Topic 3: The conventions that we adopt in order to structure an argument.
1. Number the statements of the passage in order of their occurrence.
2. Place the number of the conclusion of the argument below the number(s) of the premisses of the argument.
3. Use an arrow as a conclusion indicator.

 

Recall that there are two kinds of support:

uIn some arguments, the reasons/premisses independently support the conclusion.

uIn some arguments, the reasons/premisses jointly support the conclusion.

uIn some arguments, some of the premisses independently support the conclusion and some jointly support it.

Case 1: Premisses individually support the conclusion.

(1) Steve’s car was evidently burgled.  (2) Valuables are missing and (3) there are signs of tampering with the door lock.

 

Case 2: Premisses support conclusion only when they are joined.

(1) Busby cannot have set the fire. (2) It broke out at 3 PM. (2) Four of his co-workers saw him at work from 9 am until 5 pm.  (4) No one can be in two places at once.

 

Case 3: Some premisses support individually, others support only when joined together.

(1) There is a storm system south of Elko.  (2) Such systems normally get here the next day.  (3)There are also cloud formations characteristic of an approaching storm.  (4) So it will rain here tomorrow.

 

Topic 4: Extracting an argument from its context.

With respect to this topic, you remember that passages that contain arguments can also contain additional material that neither serves as the conclusion or as a premiss of the argument.  Such extraneous material includes background information, repetition, dispensable detail, frills.

Group work on Explanation vs. Arguments and Extracting an argument from its context.

Topic 6: Distinguishing Deductive from Inductive Arguments.

As the book says, arguments divide into two major classes, depending on the way in which their conclusions are supported by their premisses. (p. 24)

Deductive Arguments:

These are arguments in which the premisses provide conclusive support for the conclusion.  “Conclusive” means that “if the premisses of the argument are true, then the conclusion of the argument must be true.

Examples of deductive arguments: 

All mammals have lungs.

All dogs are mammals.

______________________

Therefore, all dogs have lungs.

 

The argument has the form:

All A’s are B.

All C’s are A’s.

Therefore, all C’s are B’s.

Inductive Arguments:

The premisses of an inductive argument establish the conclusion of the argument with some degree of probability. That is, the premisses provide some, but not conclusive, support for the conclusion.  Moreover, inductive arguments can vary in the degree of support provided by the premisses for the conclusion.

Example of an Inductive Argument:

Tomatoes will be expensive this year, since growers in Florida were wiped out by the hurricane.

The premiss provides some reason to believe the conclusion.  But it does not provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion. The premiss could be true and the conclusion might turn out to be false.

 How to distinguish Deductive from Inductive Arguments:

The best way is to ask yourself whether additional information will strengthen or weaken the evidence for the conclusion.  For example, the fact that we generally import tomatoes from Mexico will weaken the conclusion that tomatoes will be expensive this year. Alternatively, if the hurricane also damaged the tomato crop in  Mexico, then that fact would strengthen the conclusion.

Some more logical terminology:

uValid:  An argument is valid when its form is such that if all of its premisses are true, then its conclusion must be true.

uSound: An argument is sound when its form is valid and all of its premisses are true.

uNote:  “being true or false” is a property of statements.  being valid” or “being invalid” is a property of arguments.

 

Exercise on Distinguishing Inductive from Deductive Arguments.