1.
LOGIC Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluate arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.
2.
ARGUMENT <ul><li>An argument is a statement or group of statements of which the premises are claimed to provide support to the conclusion. </li></ul>
3.
GOOD ARGUMENT <ul><li>That argument in which the promises really do support the conclusion. </li></ul>
4.
BAD ARGUMENT <ul><li>The argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion though they claim to. </li></ul>
5.
<ul><li>The term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>A mere verbal fight as one might have with friends, parents or spouse. </li></ul>
6.
STATEMENT <ul><li>A statement is a declarative sentence e.g. the following sentences are statements: </li></ul><ul><li>Al is attacked by HCl </li></ul><ul><li>Orange is a good source of vitamin C </li></ul><ul><li>Argentina is located in North America </li></ul><ul><li>Napoleon prevailed over water loo. </li></ul><ul><li>Ahmad was a painter, and Iqbal was a poet. </li></ul><ul><li>The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expressed two statements, both of which are true. </li></ul>
7.
<ul><li>Unlike statements, many sentences can not be said to be either true or false. Question, proposals, suggestions, commands and exclamation are not statements. </li></ul><ul><li>What is the at wt of C. (Q) </li></ul><ul><li>Let’s go the park today (Proposal) </li></ul><ul><li>We suggest that you travel by bus (suggestion) </li></ul><ul><li>Turn to the left at the next corner. (Command) </li></ul><ul><li>All right (Exclamation) </li></ul>
8.
PREMISES <ul><li>The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence and the conclusion; </li></ul>
9.
CONCLUSION <ul><li>Is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. In other words, the conclusion is a statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. E.g. </li></ul><ul><li>All crimes are violations of the law. </li></ul><ul><li>Theft is a crime. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, theft is a violation of the law. </li></ul><ul><li>The first two statements are premises, the third is </li></ul><ul><li>the conclusion. In this argument the premises really do </li></ul><ul><li>support the conclusion and so the argument is a good one. </li></ul>
10.
<ul><li>But consider this argument: </li></ul><ul><li>Some crimes are misdemeanor’s </li></ul><ul><li>Murder is a crime </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore murder is a misdemeanor. </li></ul><ul><li>In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one. </li></ul><ul><li>Premises can be distinguish from conclusion by the occurrence of indicator words </li></ul>
11.
SOME TYPICAL CONCLUSION INDICATORS ARE: <ul><li>Therefore </li></ul><ul><li>Wherefore </li></ul><ul><li>Accordingly </li></ul><ul><li>We may conclude </li></ul><ul><li>Hence </li></ul><ul><li>Entail that </li></ul><ul><li>Thus </li></ul><ul><li>Consequently </li></ul><ul><li>We may infer </li></ul><ul><li>It must be that </li></ul><ul><li>Whence </li></ul><ul><li>So </li></ul><ul><li>It follows that </li></ul><ul><li>it implies that </li></ul><ul><li>As a result </li></ul>
12.
<ul><li>whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as the conclusion. E.g. </li></ul><ul><li>corporate raiders leave their target corporation with a heavy debt burden and no increase in productive capacity. Consequently, corporate raiders are bad for the business community. </li></ul><ul><li>In this reasoning the 1st one is the premises and the last is the conclusion. </li></ul>
13.
<ul><li>CLAIMED EVIDENCE </li></ul><ul><li> WHAT IS CLAIMED TO FOLLOW FROM EVIDENCE </li></ul>Premises Conclusion
14.
<ul><li>If an argument do not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain </li></ul><ul><li>premises. </li></ul><ul><li>Since </li></ul><ul><li>in that </li></ul><ul><li>seeing that </li></ul><ul><li>as indicated by </li></ul><ul><li>became </li></ul><ul><li>for </li></ul><ul><li>may be inferred from </li></ul><ul><li>as </li></ul><ul><li>give that </li></ul><ul><li>for the reason that </li></ul><ul><li>in as such as </li></ul><ul><li>owing to. </li></ul>
15.
<ul><li>Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as premises. E.g. </li></ul><ul><li>Expectant mothers should never use recreated drugs, since the use of there drugs can jeopardize the development of fetus. The premises of this argument is, the use of drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus, and the conclusion is “Expectant mother should never use recreational drugs”. </li></ul>
16.
<ul><li>Some times a single indicator can be used to identify more than one promises e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>The development of high Temp. Super conducting materials is technologically justified, for such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted without loss over great distances, and will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically. </li></ul><ul><li>The premises indicator “ for” goes with both “such material will allow ………… over great distance “ and ” they will ……… levitate magnetically” </li></ul>
17.
<ul><li>There are the premises “ the development of high Temp. Is technologically justified” is the conclusion sometimes an argument contains no indicators. </li></ul><ul><li>When this occurs, the listener/ reader must ask himself what is the arguer trying to prove e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>The space program deserve increase expenditure in the years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend upon it, but the program will more than pay for it self in terms of technological spin-offs. </li></ul>
18.
<ul><li>Further more, at current funding levels the program can not fulfill its anticipated potential. </li></ul><ul><li>The main point of this argument is that the space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. </li></ul><ul><li>All the other statements provide support for this statement. </li></ul>
19.
CONDITIONAL STATEMENT It is an “ if … then … ” statement, e.g. If Mr. A work hard then he will pass. Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement immediately following the “ if ” is called antecedent and the one following the “ then ” is called the consequent. In the above example the antecedent is “ Mr. A work hard ” and the consequent is “He will pass”.
20.
<ul><li>There is a causal connection between the </li></ul><ul><li>antecedent of the consequent. </li></ul><ul><li>If the antecedent is true, then so is the consequent. </li></ul><ul><li>A conditional statement as a whole present evidence </li></ul><ul><li>because it assert a relationship between statements. </li></ul>
21.
<ul><li>The conditional statement may serve as either the premises </li></ul><ul><li>or the conclusion (or both) of an argument e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smoker assume the risk of smoking. </li></ul><ul><li>If banks make bad loans, then they will be threatened </li></ul><ul><li>with collapse. </li></ul>
22.
EXPLANATION <ul><li>An explanation consists of a statement or group of statements intended to shed </li></ul><ul><li>light on some phenomenon that is usually accepted as a matter of fact e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>The challenger space craft exploded after lift off because an o ring failed In one of </li></ul><ul><li>the booster rockets. </li></ul><ul><li>The sky appears blue after the earth surface because light rays from the sun are </li></ul><ul><li>scattered by particles in the atmosphere. </li></ul><ul><li>Cows can digest grass, while human can not, because their digestive system </li></ul><ul><li>contains enzymes not found in humans. </li></ul><ul><li>Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanation and </li></ul><ul><li>the explanans. </li></ul>
23.
EXPLANANDUM <ul><li>The explanandum is the statement that describe the event </li></ul><ul><li>or phenomenon to be explained. </li></ul>
24.
EXPLANANS <ul><li>The explanans is the statement or group of statement </li></ul><ul><li>that purports to do the explaining. </li></ul><ul><li>In the first example above explanadum is the statement, </li></ul><ul><li>“ the challenger space craft exploded after lift off ” and </li></ul><ul><li>the explanans is “an o-ring failed in one of the booster rocket. </li></ul>
25.
DEDUCTION & INDUCTION An argument can be divided into two groups: Deductive and Inductive
26.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. </li></ul>
27.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In these arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the premises. </li></ul>
28.
<ul><li>Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Jan is closely related to Mr. Ahmad </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Ahmad is a student of BBA </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore probably Mr. jan is a student of BBA </li></ul><ul><li>Akbar is a student of BBA </li></ul><ul><li>All students of BBA are married therefore, it necessarily follows that Akbar is married. </li></ul><ul><li>The first of these arguments is inductive and the second is deductive. </li></ul>
29.
<ul><li>The distinction between deductive and inductive </li></ul><ul><li>argument lies in the: </li></ul><ul><li>The occurrence of special indicator words </li></ul><ul><li>The actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and the conclusion. </li></ul><ul><li>The character of the argumentation the arguer uses. </li></ul>
30.
TYPICALLY DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS <ul><li>ARGUMENT BASED ON MATHEMATICS: </li></ul><ul><li>It is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example a shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a bag and then conclude that the bag contains five pieces of fruit . Or a surveyor might measure a square piece of land and after determining that it is 100 feet on each side, conclude that it contains 10,000 square feet. </li></ul>
31.
ARGUMENT FROM DEFINITION <ul><li>It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premises or conclusion e.g. Mr. A is mendacious, it follows that he tells lies, or a certain paragraph is prolix, it follows that it follows that it is excessively wordy. </li></ul>
32.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM <ul><li>It is syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words “ all ” “ no ” or “ some ” e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All lasers are optical devices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some lasers are surgical instruments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>therefore, some optical devices are surgical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>instruments. </li></ul></ul>
33.
A HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM <ul><li>It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If electricity flows through a conductor, then a magnetic field is produced. If a magnetic field is produced then a nearby compass will be deflected. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore, if electricity flows through a conductor, then a nearby compass will be deflected. </li></ul></ul>
34.
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM <ul><li>It is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement ( i.e. an “either….. or ….” statement) for one of its premises e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>Either breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable by the state. </li></ul><ul><li>Breach of contract is not a crime. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, it is not punishable by the state. </li></ul>
35.
<ul><li>SOME TYPICAL INDUCTIVE FORM OF ARGUMENTATION: </li></ul>
36.
PREDICTION <ul><li>In a prediction, the premises deals with some known event in the present or past, and the conclusion moves beyond this event to some event in the relative future e.g. some one might argue that because certain meteorological phenomena have been observed over NWFP, a storm will occur there in coming two hours. Again one might argue that because certain fluctuations occurred in the prime interest rate on Friday, the value of the dollar will decrease against foreign currencies on Monday. </li></ul>
37.
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY <ul><li>It is an argument depends on the existence of similarity between two things or states of affairs e.g. Ali’s Mercedes is a great handling car, it follows that Jan’s Mercedes must also be a great handling car. This argument is based on analogy which is obviously probabilistic. </li></ul>
38.
AN INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION <ul><li>It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it is argued that all the members of the group have the same characteristics e.g. one might argue that because three apples selected from a certain crate were especially tasty and juicy, all the apples from that crate are especially tasty and juicy. </li></ul>
39.
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY <ul><li>It is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness. e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>A person might argue that earning for Z- jan medicine company will be up in the coming quarter because of a statement to that effect by an investment counselor. </li></ul>
40.
ARGUMENT BASED ON SIGN <ul><li>It is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to a knowledge of the things or situation that the sign symbolizes e.g. when driving on an unfamiliar highway one might see a sign indicating that the road makes several sharp turns one mile ahead. Based on this information, one might argue that the road does indeed make several sharp turns one mile ahead. Because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the conclusion is only probable. </li></ul>
41.
CAUSAL INFERENCE <ul><li>It underlines argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect, or conversely from knowledge of the effect to knowledge of the cause. e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>From the knowledge that a bottle of medicine had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect) conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and finding it dry and crunchy, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause) </li></ul>
43.
<ul><li>Every argument has two basic claims; a claim that evidence exist and a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence. The first is factual claim, and the second is inferential claim. The evaluation of every argument is based the evaluation of these two claims. The most important of these two is the inferential claim, because if the premises fail to support the conclusion, an argument is worthless. </li></ul>
44.
VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>Valid argument is an argument such that it is impossible for premises to be true and the conclusion false means in which the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the conclusion e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>All television networks are media companies. </li></ul><ul><li>NBC is a television network. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore NBC is a media company. </li></ul><ul><li>All television networks are media companies. </li></ul><ul><li>NBC is a television network. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore NBC is a media company. </li></ul>
45.
INVALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An invalid argument is an argument such that it is possible for premises to be true and conclusion false. In invalid arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from premises, even though it claimed to e.g. <ul><li>All banks are financial institutions. </li></ul><ul><li>Wells Fargo is a financial institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank. </li></ul>
46.
SOUND ARGUMENT A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. Both condition must be met for an argument to be sound. A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a “good” deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term.
47.
<ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><li>All dictionaries are books. </li></ul><ul><li>Kitabistan is a dictionary. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore Kitabistan is a book. </li></ul>
48.
UNSOUND ARGUMENT <ul><li>An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid has one or more false premises, or both. For an argument to be unsound, the false premise or premises must actually be needed to support the conclusion. </li></ul>
49.
<ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><li>All students are intelligent. </li></ul><ul><li>Akbar is intelligent. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, Akbar is a student. </li></ul>
50.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>Inductive argument is the one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. </li></ul>
51.
STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>It is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises e.g. </li></ul>
52.
<ul><li>All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old. Therefore, probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old. In this argument the premise is actually true, the conclusion is probably true. So the argument is strong. </li></ul>
53.
WEAK INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT <ul><li>It is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even through it claimed to. e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>During the past fifty years, inflation has consistently reduced the value of Pakistani rupee. Therefore, industrial productivity will probably increase in the years ahead. </li></ul>
54.
<ul><li>In this argument, the premises is actually true and the conclusion is probably true in the actual world, but the probability of the conclusion is no way based on the assumption that the premises is true. Because there is no direct connection between inflation and increased industrial productivity, the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion and it provide no probabilistic support for it. The conclusion is probably true independently of the premise. As a result the conclusion is weak. </li></ul>
55.
COGENT ARGUMENT <ul><li>It is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. In a cogent argument the premises must not only be true, they must also not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entail a quite different conclusion. e.g. </li></ul>
56.
<ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><li>All previous Pakistani presidents were men. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, probably the next Pakistani president will be a man. </li></ul>
57.
UNCOGENT ARGUMENT <ul><li>An un cogent argument is an inductive argument that is weak has one or more false premises or both. e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>All previous Pakistani presidents were women. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, probably the next Pakistani president will be a woman. </li></ul>
58.
DIAGRAM SHOWING VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES OPEN TO STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENT
Be the first to comment