DOCSLIB.ORG

3.5. ARGUMENTS Arguments Have Always Been Central to the Study Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.5. ARGUMENTS Arguments Have Always Been Central to the Study Of 3.5. ARGUMENTS Arguments have always been central to the study of logic. Aristotle was the first to formally study and analyze the structure of syllogistic arguments, such as the classic “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. So Socrates is mortal.” His systematic treatment of these standard forms of arguments remained influential for over 2,000 years. Today, arguments continue to play a fundamental role in logic. One needn’t go far to see the importance of arguments. All mathematical results, or theorems, are in some form or another arguments. Every case pleaded by an attorney before a judge in a court of law is an oral argument. Much of politics and science is grounded by the use of arguments. Critical theories, historical analyses, and social commentaries are all, in essence, rather elaborate arguments. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find an intellectual endeavor that was established without the use of logical arguments. Definition An argument consists of a finite set of statements called the premises that, in conjunction, imply a final statement called the conclusion. Essentially, an argument is an extension of a conditional statement. It can be represented symbolically by the conditional form (푷ퟏ ∧ 푷ퟐ ∧ … ∧ 푷풏) → 푪, where 푃1, 푃2, … , 푃푛 are the 푛 premises of the argument and 푪 is the conclusion of the argument. Typically, an argument is written in the following vertical format: 푷ퟏ 푷ퟐ ⋮ 푷풏 ____ ∴ 푪 Example Consider the following argument: “The bond market will fall in London if the stock market rises in Frankfurt. The bond market did not fall in London. Hence the stock market did not rise in Frankfurt.” Q: How can we verify whether an argument such as this one is valid? A: By applying the following criterion. Criterion for Validity An argument is valid if the conclusion always follows from the premises. In other words, the conclusion of a valid argument is true whenever all the premises in the argument are true. If this is not the case, then the argument is invalid. Checking for Validity: Analyzing an Argument In practice, this criterion can be implemented in several ways. Here is a list of methods that can be used to check whether an argument is valid or invalid. Note that one or more of these approaches might be applicable. Analyzing an Argument with Truth Tables To check for validity using truth tables, construct a truth table that shows all the possible truth values for each of the premises in the argument as well as all truth values for the conclusion. Make sure the columns for the premises and the conclusion are all displayed in sequential order at the end of the table. Applying the criterion for validity, you must then check that for every row in the table where all premises are true, the conclusion is also true. If this is not the case, then the argument is invalid. Any row where the premises are all true but the conclusion is false is called a fallacy. Analyzing an Argument with Circuits The criterion for validity also implies that an argument is valid if and only if the compound statement (푃1 ∧ 푃2 ∧ … ∧ 푃푛) → 퐶 is a tautology. This is the symbolic form used when checking for the validity of an argument using a circuit. In that case, you must show that the light bulb on the right end of the circuit is always lit (“ON”) in all cases. Analyzing an Argument with Standard Forms Perhaps the simplest way to check whether an argument is valid or not is by using standard forms (when applicable). Below are tables with some of the most commonly used standard forms for arguments. Analyzing an Argument with Euler Diagrams Euler diagrams are set diagrams that are only applicable to syllogistic argument involving quantifiers such as “All”, “Every”, “Some”, “At least”, “No(ne)”, etc. In such cases, draw the Euler diagram based on the premises of the argument and check that the conclusion must follow from the picture. If you can draw a diagram that makes the conclusion of the argument false, then the argument is invalid. The Euler diagram of a valid argument cannot be drawn to make the conclusion false. Standard Forms of Valid Arguments MODUS PONENS MODUS TOLLENS (Law of Detachment ) (Law of Contraposition) 푝 → 푞 푝 → 푞 푝 ~푞 ________ ________ ∴ 푞 ∴ ~푝 LAW OF SYLLOGISM DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM 푝 → 푞 푝 ∨ 푞 푞 → 푟 ~푝 _________ ________ ∴ 푝 → 푟 ∴ 푞 Standard Forms of Invalid Arguments FALLACY OF THE CONVERSE FALLACY OF THE INVERSE 푝 → 푞 푝 → 푞 푞 ~푝 ________ ________ ∴ 푝 ∴ ~푞 Note that there are many other forms of arguments that are either valid or invalid. The six classic forms shown above, however, are some of the most common ones used in propositional logic. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Material Implications Over Minimal Logic
    Classifying Material Implications over Minimal Logic Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens March 28, 2018 Abstract The so-called paradoxes of material implication have motivated the development of many non- classical logics over the years [2–5, 11]. In this note, we investigate some of these paradoxes and classify them, over minimal logic. We provide proofs of equivalence and semantic models separating the paradoxes where appropriate. A number of equivalent groups arise, all of which collapse with unrestricted use of double negation elimination. Interestingly, the principle ex falso quodlibet, and several weaker principles, turn out to be distinguishable, giving perhaps supporting motivation for adopting minimal logic as the ambient logic for reasoning in the possible presence of inconsistency. Keywords: reverse mathematics; minimal logic; ex falso quodlibet; implication; paraconsistent logic; Peirce’s principle. 1 Introduction The project of constructive reverse mathematics [6] has given rise to a wide literature where various the- orems of mathematics and principles of logic have been classified over intuitionistic logic. What is less well-known is that the subtle difference that arises when the principle of explosion, ex falso quodlibet, is dropped from intuitionistic logic (thus giving (Johansson’s) minimal logic) enables the distinction of many more principles. The focus of the present paper are a range of principles known collectively (but not exhaustively) as the paradoxes of material implication; paradoxes because they illustrate that the usual interpretation of formal statements of the form “. → . .” as informal statements of the form “if. then. ” produces counter-intuitive results. Some of these principles were hinted at in [9]. Here we present a carefully worked-out chart, classifying a number of such principles over minimal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • MGF 1106 Learning Objectives
    Learning Objectives L01 Set Concepts and Subsets (2.1, 2.2) 1. Indicate sets by the description method, roster method, and by using set builder notation. 2. Determine if a set is well defined. 3. Determine if a set is finite or infinite. 4. Determine if sets are equal, equivalent, or neither. 5. Find the cardinal number of a set. 6. Determine if a set is equal to the empty set. 7. Use the proper notation for the empty set. 8. Give an example of a universal set and list all of its subsets and all of its proper subsets. 9. Properly use notation for element, subset, and proper subset. 10. Determine if a number represents a cardinal number or an ordinal number. 11. Be able to determine the number of subsets and proper subsets that can be formed from a universal set without listing them. L02 Venn Diagrams and Set Operations (2.3, 2.4) 1. Determine if sets are disjoint. 2. Find the complement of a set 3. Find the intersection of two sets. 4. Find the union of two sets. 5. Find the difference of two sets. 6. Apply several set operations involved in a statement. 7. Determine sets from a Venn diagram. 8. Use the formula that yields the cardinal number of a union. 9. Construct a Venn diagram given two sets. 10. Construct a Venn diagram given three sets. L03 Equality of Sets; Applications of Sets (2.4, 2.5) 1. Determine if set statements are equal by using Venn diagrams or DeMorgan's laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Intuitionistic Euler-Venn Diagrams⋆
    Intuitionistic Euler-Venn Diagrams? Sven Linker[0000−0003−2913−7943] University of Liverpool, UK [email protected] Abstract. We present an intuitionistic interpretation of Euler-Venn di- agrams with respect to Heyting algebras. In contrast to classical Euler- Venn diagrams, we treat shaded and missing zones differently, to have diagrammatic representations of conjunction, disjunction and intuition- istic implication. Furthermore, we need to add new syntactic elements to express these concepts. We present a cut-free sequent calculus for this language, and prove it to be sound and complete. Furthermore, we show that the rules of cut, weakening and contraction are admissible. Keywords: intuitionistic logic · Euler-Venn diagrams · proof theory 1 Introduction Most visualisations for logical systems, like Peirce's Existential Graphs [6] and the Venn systems of Shin [16], are dedicated to some form of classical reasoning. However, for example, within Computer Science, constructive reasoning in the form of intuitionistic logic is very important as well, due to the Curry-Howard correspondence of constructive proofs and programs, or, similarly, of formulas and types. That is, each formula corresponds to a unique type, and a proof of the formula corresponds to the execution of a function of this type. Hence, a visu- alisation of intutionistic logic would be beneficial not only from the perspective of formal logic, but also for visualising program types and their relations. Typical semantics of intuitionistic logic are given in the form of Heyting algebras, a slight generalisation of Boolean algebras, and an important subclass of Heyting algebras is induced by topologies: the set of open sets of a topology forms a Heyting algebra.
    [Show full text]
  • On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities †
    mathematics Article On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities † Marija Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ili´ca154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] † The conclusions given in this paper were partially presented at the European Summer Meetings of the Association for Symbolic Logic, Logic Colloquium 2012, held in Manchester on 12–18 July 2012. Abstract: We give some simple examples of applying some of the well-known elementary probability theory inequalities and properties in the field of logical argumentation. A probabilistic version of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule is as follows: if propositions A, B, C, A ! B, and B ! C have probabilities a, b, c, r, and s, respectively, then for probability p of A ! C, we have f (a, b, c, r, s) ≤ p ≤ g(a, b, c, r, s), for some functions f and g of given parameters. In this paper, after a short overview of known rules related to conjunction and disjunction, we proposed some probabilized forms of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule, with the best possible bounds for the probability of conclusion, covering simultaneously the probabilistic versions of both modus ponens and modus tollens rules, as already considered by Suppes, Hailperin, and Wagner. Keywords: inequality; probability logic; inference rule MSC: 03B48; 03B05; 60E15; 26D20; 60A05 1. Introduction The main part of probabilization of logical inference rules is defining the correspond- Citation: Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c,M. On ing best possible bounds for probabilities of propositions. Some of them, connected with Basic Probability Logic Inequalities. conjunction and disjunction, can be obtained immediately from the well-known Boole’s Mathematics 2021, 9, 1409.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.1 Rules of Implication I
    Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms) to derive either a conclusion or a series of intermediate conclusions that link the premises of an argument with the stated conclusion. The First Four Rules of Inference: ◦ Modus Ponens (MP): p q p q ◦ Modus Tollens (MT): p q ~q ~p ◦ Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p q q r p r ◦ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS): p v q ~p q Common strategies for constructing a proof involving the first four rules: ◦ Always begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. If the conclusion is not present in its entirely in the premises, look at the main operator of the conclusion. This will provide a clue as to how the conclusion should be derived. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens. ◦ If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus tollens. ◦ If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via pure hypothetical syllogism. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism. Four Additional Rules of Inference: ◦ Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p q) • (r s) p v r q v s ◦ Simplification (Simp): p • q p ◦ Conjunction (Conj): p q p • q ◦ Addition (Add): p p v q Common Misapplications Common strategies involving the additional rules of inference: ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via simplification.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing 3D Venn and Euler Diagrams
    Introducing 3D Venn and Euler Diagrams Peter Rodgers1, Jean Flower2, and Gem Stapleton3 1 University of Kent, UK [email protected] 2 Autodesk, UK 3 Visual Modelling Group, University of Brighton, UK [email protected] Abstract. In 2D, Venn and Euler diagrams consist of labelled simple closed curves and have been widely studied. The advent of 3D display and interaction mechanisms means that extending these diagrams to 3D is now feasible. However, 3D versions of these diagrams have not yet been examined. Here, we begin the investigation into 3D Euler diagrams by defining them to comprise of labelled, orientable closed surfaces. As in 2D, these 3D Euler diagrams visually represent the set-theoretic notions of intersection, containment and disjointness. We extend the concept of wellformedness to the 3D case and compare it to wellformedness in the 2D case. In particular, we demonstrate that some data can be visualized with wellformed 3D diagrams that cannot be visualized with wellformed 2D diagrams. We also note that whilst there is only one topologically distinct embedding of wellformed Venn-3 in 2D, there are four such em- beddings in 3D when the surfaces are topologically equivalent to spheres. Furthermore, we hypothesize that all data sets can be visualized with 3D Euler diagrams whereas this is not the case for 2D Euler diagrams, unless non-simple curves and/or duplicated labels are permitted. As this paper is the first to consider 3D Venn and Euler diagrams, we include a set of open problems and conjectures to stimulate further research.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional Logic (PDF)
    Mathematics for Computer Science Proving Validity 6.042J/18.062J Instead of truth tables, The Logic of can try to prove valid formulas symbolically using Propositions axioms and deduction rules Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.1 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.2 Proving Validity Algebra for Equivalence The text describes a for example, bunch of algebraic rules to the distributive law prove that propositional P AND (Q OR R) ≡ formulas are equivalent (P AND Q) OR (P AND R) Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.3 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.4 1 Algebra for Equivalence Algebra for Equivalence for example, The set of rules for ≡ in DeMorgan’s law the text are complete: ≡ NOT(P AND Q) ≡ if two formulas are , these rules can prove it. NOT(P) OR NOT(Q) Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.5 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.6 A Proof System A Proof System Another approach is to Lukasiewicz’ proof system is a start with some valid particularly elegant example of this idea. formulas (axioms) and deduce more valid formulas using proof rules Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.7 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.8 2 A Proof System Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Lukasiewicz’ proof system is a Axioms: particularly elegant example of 1) (¬P → P) → P this idea. It covers formulas 2) P → (¬P → Q) whose only logical operators are 3) (P → Q) → ((Q → R) → (P → R)) IMPLIES (→) and NOT. The only rule: modus ponens Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.9 Albert R Meyer February 14, 2014 propositional logic.10 Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Lukasiewicz’ Proof System Prove formulas by starting with Prove formulas by starting with axioms and repeatedly applying axioms and repeatedly applying the inference rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See Textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus P
    Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus Ponens. 6. Simplification. 7. X -- A very common student mistake; can't use Simplification unless the major con- nective of the premise is a conjunction. 8. Disjunctive Syllogism. 9. X -- Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. 10. X 11. Constructive Dilemma. 12. See textbook. 13. Hypothetical Syllogism. 14. Hypothetical Syllogism. 15. Conjunction. 16. See textbook. 17. Addition. 18. Modus Ponens. 19. X -- Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. 20. Disjunctive Syllogism. 21. X -- not HS, the (D v G) does not match (D v C). This is deliberate to make sure you don't just focus on generalities, and make sure the entire form fits. 22. Constructive Dilemma. 23. See textbook. 24. Simplification. 25. Modus Ponens. 26. Modus Tollens. 27. See textbook. 28. Disjunctive Syllogism. 29. Modus Ponens. 30. Disjunctive Syllogism. Step 2 Exercises #1 1 Z A 2. (Z v B) C / Z C 3. Z (1)Simp. 4. Z v B (3) Add. 5. C (2)(4)MP 6. Z C (3)(5) Conj. For line 4 it is easy to get locked into line 2 and strategy 1. But they do not work. #2 1. K (B v I) 2. K 3. ~B 4. I (~T N) 5. N T / ~N 6. B v I (1)(2) MP 7. I (6)(3) DS 8. ~T N (4)(7) MP 9. ~T (8) Simp. 10. ~N (5)(9) MT #3 See textbook. #4 1. H I 2. I J 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Forms and Fallacies
    6.6 Common Argument Forms and Fallacies 1. Common Valid Argument Forms: In the previous section (6.4), we learned how to determine whether or not an argument is valid using truth tables. There are certain forms of valid and invalid argument that are extremely common. If we memorize some of these common argument forms, it will save us time because we will be able to immediately recognize whether or not certain arguments are valid or invalid without having to draw out a truth table. Let’s begin: 1. Disjunctive Syllogism: The following argument is valid: “The coin is either in my right hand or my left hand. It’s not in my right hand. So, it must be in my left hand.” Let “R”=”The coin is in my right hand” and let “L”=”The coin is in my left hand”. The argument in symbolic form is this: R ˅ L ~R __________________________________________________ L Any argument with the form just stated is valid. This form of argument is called a disjunctive syllogism. Basically, the argument gives you two options and says that, since one option is FALSE, the other option must be TRUE. 2. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism: The following argument is valid: “If you hit the ball in on this turn, you’ll get a hole in one; and if you get a hole in one you’ll win the game. So, if you hit the ball in on this turn, you’ll win the game.” Let “B”=”You hit the ball in on this turn”, “H”=”You get a hole in one”, and “W”=”you win the game”.
    [Show full text]
  • Euler Diagram- Definition
    Euler Diagram- Definition #ALG-2-18 Category Algebra Sub-category Set Theory Description An introduction to the Venn diagrams. Course(s) 085 091 093 095 097 100 ADN E18 PHT x x x x 1.3 x x x Mini-Lesson Definition(s) Sets A set is a collection of objects, which are called elements or members of the set. A set is well-defined if its contents can be clearly determined. In other words, the contents can be clearly named or listed based on fact and not opinion. Sets are generally named with capital letters. Euler diagram (pronounced “oy-ler”) As with a Venn diagram, in an Euler diagram, a rectangle usually represents the universal set, U. The items inside the rectangle may be divided into subsets of the universal set. Subsets are usually represented by circles. Euler diagrams best represent disjoint sets or subsets. Disjoint sets – Set A and set B have no elements in common. Subsets – When A ⊆ B, every element of A is also an element of set B. Euler diagram for number sets We often use Euler diagrams to represent the relationship between the common sets of numbers: Natural: 푁 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … }, Whole: 푊 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … }, Integers: 푍 = {… , −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … }, 푎 Rational: 푄 = { | 푎, 푏 ∈ 푍 푎푛푑 푏 ≠ 0}, Irrational Numbers , Real 푏 Numbers: 푅 = {푛푢푚푏푒푟푠 푡ℎ푎푡 푐표푟푟푒푠푝표푛푑 푡표 푝표푛푡푠 표푛 푛푢푚푏푒푟 푙푛푒} ALG-2-18 | Page 1 Rule Familiarize yourself with Euler Diagrams. Example ퟐ Consider the set of numbers: {−ퟏퟎ, −ퟎ.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing Internal Diagrammatic Proofs from External Logic Diagrams
    Constructing internal diagrammatic proofs from external logic diagrams Yuri Sato, Koji Mineshima, and Ryo Takemura Department of Philosophy, Keio University fsato, minesima, takemurag@abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp Abstract “No C are A”. In what follows, we call such a syntactic ma- nipulation of diagrams to derive a conclusion of deductive Internal syntactic operations on diagrams play a key role in accounting for efficacy of diagram use in reasoning. How- reasoning a construction of a diagrammatic proof. The point ever, it is often held that in the case of complex deductive here is that by unifying two diagrams in premises and ob- reasoning, diagrams can serve merely as an auxiliary source serving the topological relationship between the circles, one of information in interpreting sentences or constructing mod- els. Based on experiments comparing subjects’ performances can automatically read off the correct conclusion. Shimojima in syllogism solving where logic diagrams of several different (1996) calls this a “free ride” property, and shows that it can forms are used, we argue that internal manipulations of dia- be seen to exist in other kinds of diagram use in reasoning grams, or what we call internal constructions of diagrammatic proofs, actually exist, and that such constructions are naturally and problem solving. triggered even for users without explicit prior knowledge of In general, a deductive reasoning task would be easy if their inference rules or strategies. it could be replaced with a task of constructing a concrete Keywords: External representation; Diagrammatic reasoning; Logic diagram; Deductive reasoning diagrammatic proof. Typically, such a construction is sup- posed to be triggered by external diagrams and carried out Introduction internally, without actual drawing or movement of physical objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Visualization for Interdisciplinary Research
    ©2016 Society for Imaging Science and Technology Interactive Visualization for Interdisciplinary Research Naomi Keena*, Mohamed Aly Etman*1, Josh Draper, Paulo Pinheiro, Anna Dyson; Center for Architecture Science and Ecology (CASE), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), New York, New York. an interdisciplinary context the need to reveal relationships between constituents presents a complex representational problem. A Abstract successful visualization can make the relationships between datasets Studies show that many multi-scalar research problems comprehendible, offering a shorter route to help guide the decision cannot easily be addressed from the confines of individual making process and become a tool to convey information critically disciplines for they require the participation of many experts, each [5]. Studies show that the difficulty of interdisciplinary work is often viewing the problem from their distinctive disciplinary perspective. disciplinarily in nature, in that a discipline is seen as an identity or The bringing together of disparate experts or fields of expertise is boundary condition of specification not differentiation. In order for known as interdisciplinary research. The benefit of such an interdisciplinary work to occur such boundaries or stereotypes need approach is that discourse and collaboration among experts in to be broken. To help break these boundaries and allow researchers distinct fields can generate new insights to the research problem at to better understand how their knowledge can enhance the hand. With this approach comes large amounts of multivariate data interdisciplinary process by assisting in the completion of a holistic and understanding the possible relationships between variables and evaluation of an interdisciplinary problem, studies in this area their corresponding relevance to the problem is in itself a challenge.
    [Show full text]