Analyzing Arguments With Logic
In the next section we will use what we have learned about constructing statements to build arguments with logical statements. We will also use more Venn diagrams to evaluate whether an argument is logical, and introduce how to use a truth table to evaluate a logical statement.Arguments
A logical argument is a claim that a set of premises support a conclusion. There are two general types of arguments: inductive and deductive arguments.Argument types
An inductive argument uses a collection of specific examples as its premises and uses them to propose a general conclusion. A deductive argument uses a collection of general statements as its premises and uses them to propose a specific situation as the conclusion.try it now
Example
The argument “when I went to the store last week I forgot my purse, and when I went today I forgot my purse. I always forget my purse when I go the store” is an inductive argument. The premises are:I forgot my purse last week I forgot my purse today
The conclusion is:I always forget my purse
Notice that the premises are specific situations, while the conclusion is a general statement. In this case, this is a fairly weak argument, since it is based on only two instances.Example
The argument “every day for the past year, a plane flies over my house at 2pm. A plane will fly over my house every day at 2pm” is a stronger inductive argument, since it is based on a larger set of evidence.Evaluating inductive arguments
An inductive argument is never able to prove the conclusion true, but it can provide either weak or strong evidence to suggest it may be true.Evaluating deductive arguments
A deductive argument is considered valid if all the premises are true, and the conclusion follows logically from those premises. In other words, the premises are true, and the conclusion follows necessarily from those premises.Example
The argument “All cats are mammals and a tiger is a cat, so a tiger is a mammal” is a valid deductive argument. The premises are:All cats are mammals A tiger is a cat
The conclusion is:A tiger is a mammal
Both the premises are true. To see that the premises must logically lead to the conclusion, one approach would be use a Venn diagram. From the first premise, we can conclude that the set of cats is a subset of the set of mammals. From the second premise, we are told that a tiger lies within the set of cats. From that, we can see in the Venn diagram that the tiger also lies inside the set of mammals, so the conclusion is valid.
try it now
Example
Solve the puzzle. In other words, find a logical conclusion from these premises. All babies are illogical. Nobody who can manage a crocodile is despised. Illogical persons are despised.Answer: Let B = is a baby, D = is despised, I = is illogical, and M = can manage a crocodile. Then we can write the premises as:
[latex]B{\rightarrow}I\\M{\rightarrow}{\sim}D\\I{\rightarrow}D[/latex]
From the first and third premises, we can conclude that [latex]B{\rightarrow}D[/latex]; that babies are despised. Using the contrapositive of the second premised, [latex]D{\rightarrow}{\sim}M[/latex], we can conclude that [latex]B\rightarrow\sim{M}[/latex]; that babies cannot manage crocodiles. While silly, this is a logical conclusion from the given premises.Logical Inference
Suppose we know that a statement of form [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q[/latex] is true. This tells us that whenever P is true, Q will also be true. By itself, [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q[/latex] being true does not tell us that either P or Q is true (they could both be false, or P could be false and Q true). However if in addition we happen to know that P is true then it must be that Q is true. This is called a logical inference: Given two true statements we can infer that a third statement is true. In this instance true statements [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q[/latex] and P are “added together” to get Q. This is described below with [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q[/latex] stacked one atop the other with a line separating them from Q. The intended meaning is that [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q[/latex] combined with P produces Q.| [latex]P{\rightarrow}Q\\\underline{P\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\\Q[/latex] | [latex]\,\,P{\rightarrow}Q\\\underline{{\sim}Q\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\\{\sim}P[/latex] | [latex]\,\,P{\vee}Q\\\underline{{\sim}P\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\\Q[/latex] |
| [latex]\,\,P\\\underline{\,\,Q\,\,\,\,\,}\\P{\wedge}Q[/latex] | [latex]\underline{P{\wedge}Q}\\P[/latex] | [latex]\underline{\,P\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}\\\,P{\vee}Q[/latex] |
The first two statements in each case are called “premises” and the final statement is the “conclusion.” We combine premises with [latex]{\wedge}[/latex] (“and”). The premises together imply the conclusion. Thus, the first argument would have [latex]\left(\left(P{\rightarrow}Q\right){\wedge}P\right){\rightarrow}Q[/latex]
An Important Note
It is important to be aware of the reasons that we study logic. There are three very significant reasons. First, the truth tables we studied tell us the exact meanings of the words such as “and,” “or,” “not,” and so on. For instance, whenever we use or read the “If..., then” construction in a mathematical context, logic tells us exactly what is meant. Second, the rules of inference provide a system in which we can produce new information (statements) from known information. Finally, logical rules such as DeMorgan’s laws help us correctly change certain statements into (potentially more useful) statements with the same meaning. Thus logic helps us understand the meanings of statements and it also produces new meaningful statements. Logic is the glue that holds strings of statements together and pins down the exact meaning of certain key phrases such as the “If..., then” or “For all” constructions. Logic is the common language that all mathematicians use, so we must have a firm grip on it in order to write and understand mathematics.Logical Fallacies in Common Language
In the previous discussion, we saw that logical arguments can be invalid when the premises are not true, when the premises are not sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, or when there are invalid chains in logic. There are a number of other ways in which arguments can be invalid, a sampling of which are given here.Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument attacks the person making the argument, ignoring the argument itself.Example
“Jane says that whales aren’t fish, but she’s only in the second grade, so she can’t be right.”Answer: Here the argument is attacking Jane, not the validity of her claim, so this is an ad hominem argument.
Example
“Jane says that whales aren’t fish, but everyone knows that they’re really mammals—she’s so stupid.”Answer: This certainly isn’t very nice, but it is not ad hominem since a valid counterargument is made along with the personal insult.
Try it now
Example
“A diet high in bacon can be healthy – Doctor Atkins said so.”Answer: Here, an appeal to the authority of a doctor is used for the argument. This generally would provide strength to the argument, except that the opinion that eating a diet high in saturated fat runs counter to general medical opinion. More supporting evidence would be needed to justify this claim.
Example
“Jennifer Hudson lost weight with Weight Watchers, so their program must work.”Answer: Here, there is an appeal to the authority of a celebrity. While her experience does provide evidence, it provides no more than any other person’s experience would.
Appeal to Consequence
An appeal to consequence concludes that a premise is true or false based on whether the consequences are desirable or not.Example
“Humans will travel faster than light: faster-than-light travel would be beneficial for space travel.”Try it now
Circular reasoning
Circular reasoning is an argument that relies on the conclusion being true for the premise to be true.Example
“I shouldn’t have gotten a C in that class; I’m an A student!” In this argument, the student is claiming that because they’re an A student, though shouldn’t have gotten a C. But because they got a C, they’re not an A student.Try it now
Correlation implies causation
Similar to post hoc, but without the requirement of sequence, this fallacy assumes that just because two things are related one must have caused the other. Often there is a third variable not considered.Example
“Months with high ice cream sales also have a high rate of deaths by drowning. Therefore ice cream must be causing people to drown.” This argument is implying a causal relation, when really both are more likely dependent on the weather; that ice cream and drowning are both more likely during warm summer months.Try it now
Try It Now
Identify the logical fallacy in each of the arguments- Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this.
- Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric carbon dioxide causes obesity.
- The oven was working fine until you started using it, so you must have broken it.
- You can’t give me a D in the class—I can’t afford to retake it.
- The senator wants to increase support for food stamps. He wants to take the taxpayers’ hard-earned money and give it away to lazy people. This isn’t fair so we shouldn’t do it.
Answer: 1.
| [latex]A[/latex] | [latex]B[/latex] | [latex]{\sim}A[/latex] | [latex]{\sim}A{\wedge}B[/latex] | [latex]{\sim}B[/latex] | [latex]\left({\sim}A{\wedge}B\right){\vee}{\sim}B[/latex] |
| T | T | F | F | F | F |
| T | F | F | F | T | T |
| F | T | T | T | F | T |
| F | F | T | F | T | T |
3. Let S: have a shovel, D: dig a hole. The first premise is equivalent to [latex]S{\rightarrow}D[/latex]. The second premise is D. The conclusion is S.
We are testing [latex]\left[\left(S{\rightarrow}D\right){\wedge}D\right]{\rightarrow}S[/latex]
| [latex]S[/latex] | [latex]D[/latex] | [latex]S{\rightarrow}D[/latex] | [latex]\left(S{\rightarrow}D\right){\wedge}D[/latex] | [latex]\left[\left(S{\rightarrow}D\right){\wedge}D\right]{\rightarrow}S[/latex] |
| T | T | T | T | T |
| T | F | F | F | T |
| F | T | T | T | F |
| F | F | T | F | T |
| Premise: | [latex]P{\rightarrow}T[/latex] |
| Premise: | [latex]P{\rightarrow}F[/latex] |
| Conclusion: | [latex]{\sim}F{\rightarrow}{\sim}T[/latex] |
- Circular
- Correlation does not imply causation
- Post hoc
- Appeal to consequence
- Straw man
Licenses & Attributions
CC licensed content, Original
- Introduction and Learning Objectives. Provided by: Lumen Learning License: CC BY: Attribution.
- Math in Society. Authored by: David Lippman. Located at: http://www.opentextbookstore.com/mathinsociety/. License: CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike.
- Question ID 132642. Provided by: Lumen Learning License: CC BY: Attribution. License terms: IMathAS Community License CC-BY + GPL.
- Revision and Adaptation. Provided by: Lumen Learning License: CC BY: Attribution.
CC licensed content, Shared previously
- Question ID 109528, 109527. Authored by: Hartley, Josiah. License: CC BY: Attribution. License terms: IMathAS Community License CC-BY + GPL.
