CHAPTER 3

LOGIC
MPU 3193 PHILOSOPHY AND
CURRENT ISSUES
What is Logic?

• Originated from the Greek word- logos- has a variety of

meanings including word, thought, idea, argument,
account, reason or principle
• In Arabic, the word ‘mantiq’ which means speech or
words
• Logic is the science of correct reasoning.
• It pertains to the study of rules and principles for
making correct arguments.
• “Logic is a science that serves as a tool for the mind to
reason out correctly.”
• Rules should be understood, not memorized.
• Understanding means being able to apply.
Core of Logic

• The core of the science of logic lies in its collection of

universal and eternal rules that ascertains truth in the
flow of man’s statements.
• Logic is a discovery of the “norms” of correct thinking.
• Logic is primarily concerned with “arguments”
Logic v. Psychology
 Logic Psychology
Studies the actual way the mind
tells what the mind ought to do works,
i.e. what the mind is.
It is a normative science; it
It is an empirical science; it studies
imposes rules and norms for
actual facts.
thinking.
Arguments

• Argument composed of premises and conclusion.

Premise 1: All human will die

Premise 2: I am a human
Conclusion: I will die
Arguments

• Argument is not equivalent to opinion

• Argument contains sequence of statements in which
one of the statement is the conclusion.
• Proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a
judgement or opinion to determine statement is valid
or invalid.
• If all premises are correct, the conclusion is also
correct, then the argument is valid.
Types of Argument

Deductive Inductive
Deductive Argument

• Refer to arguments that start with a more universal

statement and conclude with a less universal
statement.
• Example:
• Premise 1: All students need to attend class; (most universal)
• Premise 2: Melisa is a student;
• Conclusion: Therefore, Melisa need to attend class. (least
universal)
Inductive Argument

• Refers to arguments that start with a sufficient list of

particular statements and end with a probable
universal statement as inferred from the premises.
• Examples:
• Premise 1: All students will receive certificate during graduation day.
• Premise 2: Daud is a student
• Premise 3: Pauline is a student
• Premise 4: Shaline is a student
• Conclusion: Therefore, Daud, Pauline and Shaline probably will receive
the certificates during graduation day.
Deductive v. Inductive

Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning

General Rule Specific Observation

Lead down
Lead into

Specific Conclusion General Conclusion

(always true) (may be true)
Abductive Reasoning

• Abduction means determining the precondition.

• It is using the conclusion and the rule to assume that
the precondition could explain the conclusion.
• Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is
wet, it must have rained."
• Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly
associated with this style of reasoning.
FALLACIES

• Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will

undermine the logic of your argument.
• Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or
irrelevant points, and are often identified because they
lack evidence that supports their claim.
• Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments
and watch for them in the arguments of others.
Slippery Slope

• This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A

happens, then eventually through a series of small
steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically
equating A and Z.
• So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed
to occur either.
• Example: If we ban Myvi because they are bad for the
environment eventually the government will ban all
cars, so we should not ban Myvi.
Hasty Generalization

• This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In

other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all
the relevant facts.
• Example:
• Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring
course.
• In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire
course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full
of housekeeping tasks for most courses.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

• This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred

after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.’
• Example:
• I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must
have made me sick.
• In this example, the author assumes that if one event
chronologically follows another the first event must
have caused the second. But the illness could have
been caused by other things.
Genetic Fallacy

• This conclusion is based on an argument that the

origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine
its character, nature, or worth.
• Example:
• The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally
designed by Hitler's army.
• In this example the author is equating the character of
a car with the character of the people who built the
car. However, the two are not inherently related.
Begging the Claim

• The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated

within the claim.
• Example:
• Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
• Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be
banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that
should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution
to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the
claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument

• This restates the argument rather than actually proving

it.
• Example:
• George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks
effectively.
• In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good
communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he
speaks effectively" are basically the same idea.
Either/ Or

• This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by

reducing it to only two sides or choices.
• Example:
• We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
• In this example, the two choices are presented as the
only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices
in between such as developing cleaner technology,
car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or
better community planning to discourage daily driving.
Ad hominem

• This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or

her opinions or arguments.
• Example:
• Prime Minister’s strategies aren't effective because he is coming from
low class community.
• In this example, the author doesn't even name particular
strategies Prime Minister has suggested, much less evaluate
those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the
characters of the individuals.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal

• This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a

group of people think, in order to persuade one to
think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one
such instance of an ad populum appeal.
• Example:
• If you were a true Malaysian, you would respect the choice
of people to choose the current government. Stop criticizing
the government.
Red Herring

• This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by

avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
• Example:
• The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do
to support their families?
• In this example, the author switches the discussion away from
the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic
issue, the livelihood of those catching fish.
Straw Man

• This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then

attacks that hollow argument.
• Example:
• People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase
hate the poor.
• In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive
to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition
probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to
support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the
author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their
position.
Moral Equivalence

• This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major

atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.
• Example:
• That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as
Hitler.
• In this example, the author is comparing the relatively
harmless actions of a person doing their job with the
horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and
inaccurate.