1

Logic
Tutorial Worksheet 1

1. Read chapter 1 of the textbook, and do the exercises at the end of the chapter.

2. Give examples of arguments which are sound as well as valid in virtue of form
using each of the words ‘not’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if’, ‘all’, ‘some’, ‘is’ and ‘the’. Give an
example of a tautology and a contradiction in virtue of form using each of the words
‘not’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if’, ‘all’, ‘some’, ‘is’, and ‘the’.

• Sound & valid arguments (in virtue of form):

• Not: “Not all cats are reptiles. Therefore, some cats are not reptiles.”
• And: “Alice is tall. Alice is smart. Therefore, Alice is tall and smart.”
• Or: “Alice is tall. Therefore, Alice is tall or Bob is short.”
• If: “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet.”
• All: “All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
• Some: “Some birds can fly. Therefore, some animals can fly.”
• Is: “Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
• The: “The prime minister is elected. Therefore, someone is elected.”

• Tautologies (true in virtue of form):

• Not: “Not (p and not p).”

• And: “p and q → p.”
• Or: “p or not p.”
• If: “If p, then p.”
• All: “All x are x.”
• Some: “If some x is F, then some x is F.”
• Is: “If Socrates is Socrates, then Socrates is Socrates.”
• The: “The F is the F.”

• Contradictions (false in virtue of form):

• Not: “Not p and p.”

• And: “p and not p.”
• Or: “p or not p is false.”
• If: “If p, then not p, and p.”
• All: “All x are not x.”
• Some: “Some x is not an x.”
• Is: “Socrates is not Socrates.”
• The: “The F is not the F.”
 2

3. Can a sound argument have a false conclusion? If the premises of a valid argument
are tautologies, what can we say about the conclusion? Can a sound argument have a
contradictory premise? Can adding a premise to a valid argument make the argument
invalid? Can adding a premise to a sound argument make the argument unsound?

• A sound argument cannot have a false conclusion, since soundness means valid
with true premises.

• If the premises of a valid argument are tautologies, the conclusion must also be
true (because tautologies can’t be false).

• A sound argument cannot have a contradictory premise, since that would make
the premise false.

• Adding a premise to a valid argument cannot make it invalid (validity is about

form).

• Adding a false premise to a sound argument can make it unsound.

4. Consider the following argument: ‘On the first toss, the coin landed heads. On the
second toss, the coin landed heads. On the third toss, the coin landed heads… On the
fiftieth toss, the coin landed heads. Therefore, the coin is biased, and will land heads
on all future tosses.’ Is the argument sound or valid? Is it good?

• This argument is neither sound nor valid in the strict logical sense (the conclusion
does not follow by necessity).

• At best, it is an inductive argument, which may be “good” in a probabilistic sense,

but not deductively valid.

5. Say whether the following sentences are tautologies, contradictions or neither:

‘What will be, will be.’ → Tautology (trivial, like p → p).
‘It is and it isn’t.’ → Contradiction.
‘To err is human’ → Neither (empirical statement).
‘All bachelors are unmarried men.’ → Tautology (analytic truth).
‘No head injury is too trivial to be ignored.’ → Ambiguous, but not
tautological/contradictory; rhetorical claim.
‘All generalisations are false.’ → Self-refuting; contradiction if taken literally.
 3

‘I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.’ → Neither;
witty preference.
‘What does not kill me makes me stronger.’ → Neither (empirical, contestable).
‘To be or not to be? That is the question.’ → Neither; question.
‘Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.’ → Neither; grammatically fine,
semantically nonsensical.
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.’ → Neither;
nonsense verse.
‘It’s raining and I don’t believe it’s raining.’ → Contradiction (Moore’s paradox).
‘Either there will or there won’t be a sea-battle tomorrow.’ → Tautology (excluded
middle).
‘This sentence is false.’ → Paradox (neither simple tautology nor
contradiction).

6. The following verse is from Nagarjuna’s The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle
Way “Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both nor without a cause, does
anything whatever, anywhere arise” (translated by Jay Garfield). Is it a contradiction,
a tautology or neither? What can we infer about the passage?

• This is not a contradiction (since it denies all possible causes).

• Not a tautology either (not true by form).
• It is a philosophical claim intended to show that the ordinary categories of
causation are inadequate.

7. According to a famous but probably false anecdote, Euler addressed Diderot with
the following argument: ‘Sir, (a + bn)/n = x, hence God exists; reply!’ Unable to reply,
Diderot was humiliated and fled the country. Was Euler’s argument sound or valid? Is
anything wrong with the argument?

• The conclusion has no connection to the premise.

• The argument is not valid (premises don’t entail conclusion).

• It is not sound either.

 4

8. The mathematician G. H. Hardy is said to have given the following argument to

prove that McTaggart is the pope from the premise that 2 + 2 = 5: “We also know that
2 + 2 = 4, so that 5 = 4. Subtracting 3 we get 2 = 1. McTaggart and the Pope are two,
hence McTaggart and the Pope are one.” Is any step of the argument sound or valid?

• The steps use invalid reasoning (e.g., equating “2=1” with “McTaggart =
Pope”).
• No step is sound, though parts may be formally valid if one accepts false
premises.

9. The English philosopher G. E. Moore offered the following proof of the existence
of the external world “I have two hands. If I have two hands, then the external world
exists. Therefore, the external world exists.” Was Moore’s argument sound or valid?
Is there anything wrong with the argument?

• This argument is formally valid (modus ponens).

• If the premises are true (which most people grant), it is sound.
• Critics argue it begs the question (assuming what it sets out to prove), but
formally it holds.

10. According to David Hume, you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. Give two
examples of valid arguments at least one of which has an “is” for a premise and an
“ought” for its conclusion. Given the existence of these arguments, what sense can we
still make of Hume’s claim?

• Example 1:
o Premise: “Stealing causes harm.” (is)
o Conclusion: “Therefore, we ought not steal.” (ought)
• Example 2:
o Premise: “Giving to charity helps the poor.” (is)
o Conclusion: “Therefore, we ought to give to charity.” (ought)
• These are valid only if hidden moral premises are added (e.g., “We ought
not cause harm”).
• Hume’s point: you cannot get “ought” from pure is without a bridging
normative claim.

11. Consider the following two arguments:

“Daffy is a flying duck. Therefore, Daffy is a duck.”
 5

“Daffy is a fake duck. Therefore, Daffy is a duck.”

The first seems valid in virtue of form, whereas the second seems invalid, but both
seem to have the same form. How can this problem be resolved?

• “Daffy is a flying duck → Daffy is a duck” = valid (predicate logic: flying

duck ⊆ duck).
• “Daffy is a fake duck → Daffy is a duck” = invalid, because “fake duck” does
not entail being a duck (like “toy gun” is not a gun).
• Resolution: The surface grammatical form is the same, but the logical form
differs. In the second, “fake” is an operator that changes category, not a
predicate of ducks.