CHAPTER THREE
Critical Thinking BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
1. Types of Argument
2. How Can We Tell Whether an
Argument Is Deductive or
Inductive?
Learning 3. Common Patterns of Deductive
Objectives Reasoning
4. Common Patterns of Inductive
Reasoning
• Traditionally, arguments have
been divided into two types:
Types of deductive arguments and
Argument inductive arguments.
• All arguments claim to provide
support—that is, evidence or
reasons— for their conclusions.
• Deductive arguments try to prove their
conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.
• Inductive arguments try to show that their
conclusions are plausible or likely given the
Types of premise(s).
Argument • Here are two examples of deductive
arguments:
1. All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
• If the president lives in the Villa
Somalia, then he lives in
Mogadishu.
Types of • The president does live in Villa
Argument Somalia
• So, the president lives in
Mogadishu, the conclusion
• Each argument’s conclusion
follows necessarily from the
premises.
Types of • Arguments are deductive when
Argument their premises are intended to
provide this kind of rigorous,
airtight logical support for their
conclusions.
An example of inductive arguments:
A study shows that 85 percent of
SIMAD students are interested in
participating SIMAD Cultural Week
Types of show.
Argument • Aisha is a student at SIMAD
University
• Therefore, Aisha is likely interested in
participating SIMAD Cultural Week
show.
Types of Key Differences between
Argument Deductive and Inductive
Arguments
Deductive arguments claim
that . . .
1. If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
Types of 2. The conclusion follows necessarily
Argument from the premises.
3. It is impossible for all the premises to
be true and the conclusion false.
4. It is logically inconsistent to assert the
premises and deny the conclusion; if
you accept the premises, you must
accept the conclusion.
Inductive arguments claim that . . .
1. If the premises are true, then the
conclusion is probably true.
2. The conclusion follows probably from
Types of the premises.
Argument 3. It is unlikely for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false.
4. Although it is logically consistent to
assert the premises and deny the
conclusion, the conclusion is probably
true if the premises are true.
• It is sometimes difficult to tell whether a
How Can We
particular argument is deductive or
Tell Whether an inductive.
Argument Is • Fortunately, four tests greatly simplify
Deductive or the task of determining whether an
Inductive? argument should be regarded as
deductive or inductive:
1. the indicator word test
2. the strict necessity test
3. the common pattern test
4. the principle of charity test
1. The indicator word test
How Can We We use indicator words to signal when our
Tell Whether arguments are deductive or inductive.
an Argument Here are some other common deduction
Is Deductive indicator words:
or Inductive? • certainly
• definitely
• absolutely
• conclusively
How Can We • It logically follows that
Tell Whether • It is logical to conclude that
an Argument
Is Deductive • This logically implies that
or Inductive? • This entails that
1. The indicator word test
How Can We Here are some other common
Tell Whether induction indicator words:
an Argument • Probably
Is Deductive • Likely
or Inductive?
• it is plausible to suppose that
• it is reasonable to assume that
2. The strict necessity test
How Can We An argument’s conclusion either follows with
Tell Whether strict logical necessity from its premises or it
an Argument does not.
Is Deductive • If the argument’s conclusion does follow
or Inductive? with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should always be
treated as deductive.
• If the argument’s conclusion does not follow
with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should normally be
treated as inductive.
• Ali is a father. Therefore, Ali is a male.
• Does the conclusion of the first
How Can We argument (“Ali is a male”) follow with
Tell Whether strict necessity from the premise (“Ali
an Argument is a father”)? Could it possibly be true
Is Deductive that Ali is a father yet false that he is
or Inductive? a male? Clearly not, for by definition
all fathers are male
3. The common pattern test
• If an argument exhibits a particular
How Can We pattern associated with a deductive
Tell Whether argument, then it is a deductive
an Argument argument. Consider the example: “
Is Deductive • If A is true, then B is true.
or Inductive? A is true.
Therefore, B is true.”
• This is an argument pattern that
logicians call modus ponens, a Latin
expression that means “affirmative
How Can We mode.”
Tell Whether • Because it is obvious that this is a
an Argument logically reliable pattern of reasoning,
Is Deductive arguments of this pattern should
or Inductive? always be treated as deductive.
• Modus ponens is one very common
pattern of deductive reasoning.
4. The principle of charity test
• Never attribute to an arguer a
weaker argument when the
evidence reasonably permits us
How Can We to attribute to him a stronger
Tell Whether argument.
an Argument
Is Deductive • In other words, we should
or Inductive? always interpret a doubtful
argument in the way most
favorable to the arguer.
• Let’s apply the principle of
charity test to an actual
example. Consider the following:
How Can We • Abdi told me that he ate at
Tell Whether Hodan’s Restaurant yesterday.
an Argument
Is Deductive But Hodan’s was completely
or Inductive? destroyed by fire less than a
month ago. It is certain,
therefore, that Abdi either lying
or mistaken.
• Should this argument be regarded as
deductive or inductive? Let’s apply our
various tests.
• First, are there any deduction or induction
How Can We indicator words? Yes. We have seen that
Tell Whether an the phrase “it is certain that” is often used
Argument Is as a deduction indicator. But we have also
Deductive or seen that people often use indicator words
Inductive? —especially deduction indicator words—
loosely or improperly. So this first test,
though it clearly suggests that the
argument is meant to be deductive,
shouldn’t be treated as conclusive.
• Second, does the conclusion follow with strict
necessity from the premises? No. Although it
seems quite unlikely, it is certainly conceivable
How Can We that the restaurant has been quickly rebuilt and
Tell Whether has reopened for business. This suggests that
an Argument the argument should be regarded as inductive.
Is Deductive • Third, does the argument have a pattern of
or Inductive? reasoning that is either typically deductive or
typically inductive? Not really, as we shall see.
Thus, the third test doesn’t apply in this case.
• A word of caution, however: The principle of
charity should never be used to reinterpret bad
arguments as good ones.
In this section, we discuss five
common patterns of deductive
COMMON reasoning:
PATTERNS OF • hypothetical syllogism
DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
• categorical syllogism
• argument by elimination
• argument based on
mathematics
• argument from definition
1. Hypothetical Syllogism
• A syllogism is a three-line
COMMON
PATTERNS OF argument, that is, an argument
DEDUCTIVE that consists of exactly two
REASONING premises and a conclusion. A
hypothetical syllogism is a
syllogism that contains at least
one hypothetical or conditional
(i.e., if-then) premise
COMMON
PATTERNS OF Here is an example of hypothetical
DEDUCTIVE syllogisms:
REASONING • If I want to keep my financial aid,
I’d better study hard. I do want to
keep my financial aid. Therefore,
I’d better study hard.
COMMON
PATTERNS OF Modus ponens
DEDUCTIVE If A then B.
REASONING A.
Therefore, B.
COMMON
PATTERNS OF • Chain arguments consist of
DEDUCTIVE three conditional statements that
REASONING link together in the following way:
• If A then B.
If B then C.
• Therefore, if A then C.
Modus tollens arguments have the
following pattern:
COMMON If A then B.
PATTERNS OF Not B.
DEDUCTIVE
REASONING Therefore, not A.
Example;
If we’re in Beledweyn, then we’re in
Hiran.
We’re not in Hiran.
Therefore, we’re not in Beledweyn.
2. categorical syllogism
a categorical syllogism may be
COMMON defined as a three-line argument in
PATTERNS OF which each statement begins with
DEDUCTIVE the word all, some, or no.
REASONING Example:
All oaks are trees.
All trees are plants.
So, all oaks are plants.
3. Argument by Elimination
An argument by elimination seeks
to logically rule out various
COMMON possibilities until only a single
PATTERNS OF possibility remains.
DEDUCTIVE Examples:
REASONING
Either Jamal walked to the library,
or he drove. But Jamal didn’t drive
to the library.
Therefore, Jamal walked to the
library.
4. Argument Based on
Mathematics
COMMON
PATTERNS OF In an argument based on
DEDUCTIVE mathematics, the conclusion is
REASONING claimed to depend largely or
entirely on some mathematical
calculation or measurement
(perhaps in conjunction with one or
more nonmathematical premises).
COMMON Here are two examples:
PATTERNS OF Eight is greater than four.
DEDUCTIVE
REASONING Four is greater than two.
Therefore, eight is greater than
two.
5. Argument from Definition
• In an argument from definition,
the conclusion is presented as being
COMMON “true by definition,” that is, as
PATTERNS OF following simply by definition from
DEDUCTIVE some key word or phrase used in the
REASONING argument.
Example:
• Jawahir is a cardiologist. Therefore,
Jawahir is a doctor.
• Barni is an aunt. It follows that she is
a woman.
We look at six common patterns of
inductive reasoning:
COMMON PATTERNS
OF INDUCTIVE • inductive generalization
REASONING
• predictive argument
• argument from authority
• causal argument
• statistical argument
• argument from analogy
1. Inductive generalization
An inductive generalization is an
argument in which a generalization is
COMMON PATTERNS claimed to be probably true based on
OF INDUCTIVE information about some members of a
REASONING particular class.
Here is an example
• All dinosaur bones so far discovered have
been more than sixty-five million years
old.
• Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones
are more than sixty-five million years old.
2. Predictive Argument
COMMON PATTERNS A prediction is a statement about
OF INDUCTIVE what may or will happen in the
REASONING future. In a predictive argument, a
prediction is defended with reasons.
Here is an example
• Most U.S. presidents have been tall.
Therefore, probably the next U.S.
president will be tall.
3. Argument from Authority
COMMON PATTERNS An argument from authority asserts a
OF INDUCTIVE claim and then supports that claim by
REASONING citing some presumed authority or
witness who has said that the claim is
true.
Here are three examples:
More Americans die of skin cancer
each year than die in car accidents.
How do I know? My doctor told me.
4. Causal Argument
A causal argument asserts or
COMMON PATTERNS denies that something is the cause
OF INDUCTIVE of something else. Here is an
REASONING example
I can’t log on. The network must be
down.
5. Statistical Argument
A statistical argument rests on
statistical evidence—evidence that
some percentage of some group or
COMMON PATTERNS
OF INDUCTIVE class has some particular
REASONING characteristic.
Here is an example
Eighty-three percent of SIMAD’s
students are black.
Abukar is a SIMAD’s student.
So, Abukar is probably black.
6. Argument from Analogy
COMMON PATTERNS An analogy is a comparison of two
OF INDUCTIVE or more things that are claimed to
REASONING be alike in some relevant respect.
Here is an examples of analogy:
• Habits are like a cable. We weave
a strand of it every day and soon
it cannot be broken. (Horace
Mann)
DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY
DEDUCTIVE
VALIDITY More formally, a valid deductive
argument is an argument in which
it is impossible for all the premises
to be true and the conclusion false.
More precisely, in a strong
inductive argument, the conclusion
follows probably from the
premises. Put otherwise, a strong
inductive argument is an argument
in which the following conditions
INDUCTIVE apply:
STRENGTH • If the premises are true, the
conclusion is probably true.
• The premises provide probable,
but not logically conclusive,
grounds for the truth of the
conclusion.
• The premises, if true, make the
Thanks Any
Question