Unit 2 Tutorials: Arguments

INSIDE UNIT 2

Arguments

What Is an Argument?
Identifying Arguments and Statements
Other Kinds of Arguments

Quality of Arguments

Validity
Soundness
Counterexamples
Inductive Arguments

Qualities of Good and Bad Arguments

Assuring, Guarding, and Discounting

Arguments With Hidden Premises
Reconstructing Arguments

What Is an Argument?
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about formally structured arguments. Specifically, this lesson will cover:

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 1
 1. Logical Arguments
2. How Formal Logic Aids Critical Thinking
2a. Analyzing Arguments
2b. Cognitive Skills

1. Logical Arguments

“Argument” is a word that has multiple distinct meanings, so it is important to be clear from the start about the
sense of the word we mean in logic, how it differs from ordinary use of the word, and how those meanings
relate to critical thinking. In one sense of the word, an argument is a heated exchange of differing views, as in
the following:

Sally: I’m so sick of you dog people with your dogs running around off the leash. It’s so inconsiderate!
Bob: My dog is under voice command and is very well-trained. Don’t be so uptight!

Sally and Bob are having an argument in this exchange. That is, they are each expressing conflicting views in a

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 2
 heated manner. However, that is not the sense of “argument” in logic. In logic, an argument is a reason or set of
reasons for thinking that a claim or conviction is true. For example:

Sally: Keeping your dog on a leash is necessary even if it is well-trained. It is for the animal’s safety more
than anything; it keeps the dog safe from running into traffic or getting in a tussle with another dog that’s
not so well-trained. Besides, it’s the law.

In the first example, Sally was simply yelling at Bob. In the second example, she is offering reasons for her
position. She has evidence to support her conclusion. The conclusion of the argument is the first sentence,
“Keeping your dog on a leash is necessary even if it is well-trained.” The evidence or premises for this
conclusion are “It is for the animal’s safety” and “It’s the law.” If Bob accepts her premises (he doesn’t have to!),
he will have to accept her conclusion, because she has made a valid argument. In fact, Bob might have a hard
time refuting her argument.
This shows that there is not a complete distinction between formal logic and real-world arguments. In fact,
effective real-world arguments should and often do have underlying logic to them: they present premises that
are acceptable to the other person, then come to a logical conclusion based on the premises.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 3
 In formal logic, we are more interested in the structure of arguments than their content. Logical arguments are
entirely composed of premises and conclusions, which are both types of declarative statements, which simply
means they assert that something is true. The premises of the argument provide a reason for thinking that the
conclusion is true. We can also call this type of logic sentential logic; the word “sentential” here means that it
has to do with a sequencing of logical sentences, which are the same as statements. To keep things clear, we
have three overlapping definitions of logic:

Real-world arguments: Analyzing the successes and pitfalls of the content of everyday arguments. Unlike
more formal logic, in more informal real-world argument analysis, we are interested in the content of
arguments rather than their structure.
Informal logic: Making and analyzing arguments in English that involves giving support for a conclusion.
These sorts of arguments are usually unstructured and are found in paragraph form, in newspapers, tv
broadcasts, and everyday life, but can be given more structure by putting them in premise/conclusion
format. Informal logic bridges the gap between critical thinking and formal logic—it is interested in both
content and structure.
Formal logic: Formulating and analyzing arguments that are highly structured. Formal logic is focused on
how the structure of an argument (how the premises relate to the conclusion) makes an argument good or
bad.

Throughout this unit we will be moving from informal logic to formal logic, by learning how to translate
statements and arguments into sentential form.
A standard way of capturing the structure of an argument is by numbering the premises and conclusion. For
example, in Sally’s argument against dogs off the leash, we could write it out as:

1. An off-leash dog might run into traffic.

2. An off-leash dog might get in a tussle with another dog.
3. Therefore, it’s safer for the dog to use a leash.

By convention, the last numbered statement is the conclusion, and the earlier numbered statements are the
premises. We call putting an argument into this format to be putting an argument into standard form. By this
standard, we can define a logical argument as a set of statements, some of which (the premises) attempt to
provide a reason for thinking that some other statement (the conclusion) is true. In subsequent tutorials, we will
often refer to simply arguments, but specifically mean logical arguments.

 BRAINSTORM

Think of something you have a strong belief about. Write it as a formal argument with that belief as a
conclusion, and the premises that support it. Now think about what premises might be unstated to accept
the conclusion.
In real-world arguments, there are other effective ways to persuade somebody than logic. For example, Bob
might explain that his dog had a bad experience with a previous owner that makes her now recoil at the sight of
a leash. He might ask Sally rhetorically if she has ever seen or even heard of dogs off the leash attacking
anyone in their neighborhood. He might simply tell her to mind her own business. These don’t address Sally’s
premises and can’t be translated into a logical argument. That doesn’t mean they are not arguments in the

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 4
 broad sense of the term, and it doesn’t mean they are “bad” arguments or fallacies. It means that logic is only
one part of persuasion, that there are several overlapping definitions of “argument,” and we are only dealing
with one in formal logic. To take from this that our meaning of argument is the only valid meaning would itself be
a fallacy.

 THINK ABOUT IT

Do you remember the name of the fallacy where we conflate two different meanings of a word?

Check Your Answer +

The fallacy is called equivocation.

 BIG IDEA

We are only concerned with the logical components of arguments, statements of fact, to which we can
apply reasoning. While these are not the only elements of effective argument in the real world, they are the
only ones which can be evaluated.
In the next unit, we will learn some techniques of evaluating arguments (determining if they are valid), but for
now the goal is to learn to understand the basic components of an argument, including its premises and
conclusion(s). It is important to be able to identify arguments and understand their structure, whether or not you
agree with the conclusion of the argument. In fact, it is important to be able to identify the logical components
of your own arguments! Throughout this challenge we will learn how to identify the logical components of real-
world arguments.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Statement
A declarative sentence, one that asserts something is true.

Sentential Logic
Another term for formal logic, this name indicates the arrangement of sentences.

Standard Form
The way of organizing a logical argument with numbered premises and a conclusion. The sequencing
of the statements shows how each premise leads to the conclusion.

Logical Argument
A set of statements, some of which (the premises) attempt to provide a reason for thinking that some
other statement (the conclusion) is true.

2. How Formal Logic Aids Critical Thinking

As you’ve seen, we can translate both realistic, real-world arguments and completely hypothetical ones about
hypothetical people and situations into formal logic. You may be wondering what the point is of the latter,

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 5
 especially when we proceed in the class and begin to translate arguments into a set of letters and symbols. We
may also have examples that are false or absurd, such as this one by author and logician Lewis Carroll.

EXAMPLE
1. All babies are illogical.
2. Illogical persons are despised.
3. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.
4. Therefore, no baby can manage a crocodile.

What do babies and crocodiles have to do with critical thinking?

2a. Analyzing Arguments

Logic is interested in how arguments are structured, and which structures make for better or worse arguments.
In logic, we study characteristics of this form which can be studied independently of the content we might place
in that form. For example, we will look at the role of sentences using the word “and,” and the conclusions we
can draw (or not draw) from its use. In logic, the sentences ‘All babies are illogical’ and ‘all roads lead to Rome’
play the same role, despite their different contents. This is because they have the same form:

If X, then Y.

X might be, “is a baby,” or “is a road,” and Y might be “is illogical,” or “leads to Rome.” Either way, the truth of the
statement doesn’t apply to the logic of the argument. The fundamental question in logic is whether the
premises lead to the conclusion. For example, whatever the truth of the statement, we can say that if X is true, Y
is true.
Of course, the kind of argument used in critical thinking is often written as an essay or given as a speech.
Critical thinking is focused on the content of arguments—the relationships between the meanings of the
sentences in the argument and their implications on our decisions. Critical thinking is aimed at enhancing our
ability to create stronger and better arguments of this form, by being open-minded, not engaging in biases or
fallacies, and interrogating our arguments for weaknesses and potential objections. These are about what is
being said in an argument (not the form, or how the argument is structured). We emphasize the truthfulness of
the facts, statistics, expert testimony, and first-hand testimony that support our conclusion; this is sometimes
called evidentiary support.

 THINK ABOUT IT

What’s another example (hint: think about school subjects) in which content or meaning and structure are
treated separately? How did this separation aid your learning?
However, every effective essay, op-ed, or speech does have the underlying form of a logical argument.
Studying logic thus helps you learn to be a better critical thinker because it helps you learn about the
underlying form of the arguments you make every day, or analyze the ones you encounter. When we don’t pay
attention to the form of our arguments, even our everyday ones, we are prone to poor argumentative skills. We
give arguments that fail to be clear, or concise, and are likely to fall prey to bad or incorrect argument structure.
Noticing and relying on clear form for your arguments also helps you make clear decisions because you can

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 6
 see what evidence supports what decision and how to craft a compelling argument to defend the decision you
do make.

2b. Cognitive Skills

Logic is an objective science, with objectively correct and incorrect answers to each question within the logical
system. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is deeply subjective; the quality of the arguments and thinking
process is evaluated subjectively by each individual. Some individuals will be more strongly persuaded by some
arguments as opposed to others. Logic is more mathematical than psychological. Logic is about the evaluation
of a formal argument on the basis of defined formal characteristics following a set of rules. The key to being
effective in logic is being rigorous and disciplined, adhering to the rules, and being careful with your analysis.

On the other hand, critical thinking is about developing a particular kind of cognitive skill. To be a strong critical
thinker is to have a set of abilities that let you create strong informal arguments for beliefs that you have, to be
highly perceptive to weaknesses in your own and your opponents’ beliefs and biases, and to avoid fallacies
(which we will discuss more in depth later). The key to being effective as a critical thinker is being creative and
even courageous (challenging your own assumptions is brave!)

So you may again ask, why is formal logic helping me as a thinker? Is it going to help me create a budget, do
my taxes, or solve today’s Wordle? If not, what’s the point?

The point, as we talked about in the last section, is to help you improve as a thinker by getting you to start
paying attention to the structure of your thinking. What is the structure of my thoughts or my arguments? Is that
structure valid? Is it good? Does it make sense? Do the premises support what I think they do? Are the premises
strong or weak support for their conclusions? Is my argument form valid or invalid? Am I falling prey to fallacies?
Thinking critically about and answering all of these questions thoroughly about your own thought processes is
essential to becoming an articulate and clear thinker and writer.

 TERM TO KNOW

Evidentiary Support
The facts, statistics, expert testimony, or anecdotal evidence that support the truth of a particular
statement

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned about logical arguments, which are both distinct from normal arguments but
also overlap, since they can represent the underlying structure of a real-world argument. We also
learned how formal logic aids in critical thinking. Learning how to write and analyze arguments in
formal logic helps us in both making and analyzing arguments in the real world, and the mental
exercise improves cognitive skills.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 7
 Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking and For All X:
An Introduction to Formal Logic

 TERMS TO KNOW

Evidentiary Support
The facts, statistics, expert testimony, or anecdotal evidence that support the truth of a particular
statement.

Logical Argument
A set of statements, some of which (the premises) attempt to provide a reason for thinking that some
other statement (the conclusion) is true.

Sentential Logic
Another term for formal logic, this name indicates the arrangement of sentences.

Standard Form
The way of organizing a logical argument with numbered premises and a conclusion. The sequencing of
the statements shows how each premise leads to the conclusion.

Statement
A declarative sentence, one that asserts something is true.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 8
 Identifying Arguments and Statements
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about identifying arguments in natural language that can be translated into
logical arguments. Specifically, this lesson will cover:
1. Indicator Words
1a. Conclusion Indicators
1b. Premise Indicators
1c. Statements That Aren’t Part of the Argument
2. Identifying Arguments
2a. Is It a Logical Argument?
2b. Normative Statements

1. Indicator Words
In the last tutorial, we mentioned that logical arguments are made up of sequenced statements. Statements
declare something. The statements can be subjective, false, or unproven as long as they claim something is
true. However, we do not include questions, exclamations, or commands.

 TRY IT

Which of the following sentences are logical statements? Remember that a statement does not have to be
true or even provable, as long as it asserts that something is true.

1. Alligators are on average larger than crocodiles.

2. Is an alligator a reptile or a mammal?
3. An alligator is either a reptile or a mammal.
4. Don’t let any reptiles into the house.
5. You should kill any reptile you see in the house.
6. Oh no! An alligator.

Check Your Work +

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 9
 Here are the answers you should have gotten.
1. Statement
2. Not a statement (question)
3. Statement
4. Not a statement (command)
5. Statement
6. Not a statement (exclamation)

However, determining whether a statement is declarative isn’t always that easy. Natural languages can be
ambiguous or nuanced. For example, people can ask a question that implies something without saying it
directly. If someone worriedly asks, “Did you cook this chicken to 165 degrees?”, they are definitely telling the
cook, “You undercooked the chicken.” In logical interpretation of arguments, we can’t make such assumptions
about what the speaker “really” meant. Understanding what is really a declarative statement and what is not is a
bit trickier than it might seem. Throughout this tutorial, we’ll learn how to spot the statements in natural
language and figure out which are the premises, which are the conclusions, and which are not actually part of
the argument.

1a. Conclusion Indicators

Say you’ve found all the statements in a natural language argument and are ready to write it in standard form.
Which statement is the conclusion? We tend to think of it as the last, the “therefore,” that caps off an argument,
but in natural language it can be anywhere. Consider this argument.

It had to be the gardener or the butler. The butler has an alibi. So, the gardener must have done it.

This is one of the most conventional forms of argument: two or more premises that, when combined, lead us to
a conclusion. However, a single sentence can contain a complete argument. Consider this example.

The butler has an alibi, so he cannot have done it.

This argument has one premise followed by a conclusion. Similarly, as we saw in Sally’s second argument with
Bob, the conclusion can actually come first:

The butler didn’t do it. He has an alibi.

The conclusion can even come in the middle.

Either the gardener or the butler did it. The gardener must have done it, because the butler has an alibi.

So, you can’t use the placement of the statement to figure out which is the conclusion. You have to use good

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 10
 judgment to see which sentence reflects the gist of the entire argument. There are a number of words and
phrases that can indicate the argument’s conclusion.

so
therefore
hence
thus
accordingly
consequently
ergo
it follows that

These are called conclusion indicator words. While it isn’t as simple as merely finding a sentence with one of
these words, it is a good way to start focusing on sentences that seem to draw conclusions from other
sentences.

 TERM TO KNOW

Conclusion Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is the conclusion, or main
purpose, of the argument. Common examples include therefore, so, thus, and hence.

1b. Premise Indicators

There are also premise indicator words, words and phrases that suggest a sentence will lead to a conclusion.
These words include:

whereas
since
because
given that
firstly, secondly, etc.

There are many more, and it’s not a one hundred percent certainty that any of these words means that the
sentence is a premise. For example, these are uses of “indicator words” which do not, here, function to indicate
a premise or conclusion.

I have been running competitively since 1999.

I am so happy to have finally finished that class.

The only way to be sure is to read carefully and use good judgment.
 TRY IT

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 11
 Which of the following statements is an argument? If it is an argument, what are the premises and what is
the conclusion?

The queen died, then the king died of sadness.

The queen died, so the king died of sadness.
I’m not surprised the king died, given what happened to the queen.

Check Your Answer +

The first statement is not an argument, it is simply a chronicle of events. The second and third are
arguments with the same premises (the queen died, which made the king sad) and the same
conclusion (the king died of sadness). You may recognize the conclusion indicator, “so,” or the premise
indicator, “given [that].”

 TERM TO KNOW

Premise Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is a premise, or reason to believe
the conclusion. Common examples include whereas, since, and because.

1c. Statements That Aren’t Part of the Argument

In natural language arguments, we may also encounter factual statements that are not part of the argument.
Consider this argument:

The bayou is home to a rich variety of wildlife, including herons, pelicans, muskrats, opossums, and more!
The one creature you don’t want to see up close is an alligator. These big reptiles are a real threat to
humans. They are quick to attack and eat anything, including pets and people.

If you were translating this into logical terms, you would omit the first sentence. It is a factual statement, but
does not support the conclusion, which is to stay away from alligators. So, keep in mind that just because
something is a statement, doesn’t mean it’s a premise or a conclusion.

2. Identifying Arguments
Before we translate an argument into sentential logic, we also need to confirm whether it is even a logical
argument. Let’s recap what we have learned so far.

A good logical argument is:

At least two statements, including at least one premise and a conclusion. (Remember that two statements
can appear in one sentence in natural language, linked by a word like “so” or “because.”)

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 12
 The conclusion is what is being argued for, and must be a statement of fact.
The premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
The argument involves a process of reasoning from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

Identifying a logical argument will involve determining if the first two conditions are met. Evaluating the
argument (seeing if it is a good argument) will involve determining if the next two conditions are met. For now,
we will focus on identifying logical arguments.

 HINT

When we say an argument isn’t logical, we don’t mean it is illogical, or unreasonable, simply that it uses
other kinds of persuasion like evoking sympathy. Indeed, to be illogical (or failing at logic), an argument
needs to be logical (in the sense that it is trying to use logical reasoning).

2a. Is It a Logical Argument?

The best way to identify whether a logical argument is present is to ask:

(a) whether there is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true, by...
(b) basing it on some other statement.

Consider this sentence. Is it a logical argument?

I’ve had the kids all day, so take them for tomorrow.

We have a premise that is a statement of fact: I’ve had the kids all day. But the next part is not a statement of
fact, but a command. Thus, though it meets the broader definition of an argument, it is not the kind of argument
you can translate into logical terms (at least not the way it is phrased).
If there had been a statement after ‘so’, meaning an assertion that something is true, then there would have
been a logical argument present. If not, then there isn’t.

In the next example, the conclusion is phrased as a statement, an assertion that something is true (if subjective),
so it could be written as a logical statement. But if the speaker states something without supporting premises, it
is not an argument, simply a statement.

You have to take the kids tomorrow!

Moreover, suppose your spouse tries to convince you by listing all the fun things you did last week while they
were stuck at home with the kids.

You went bowling on Monday, went out with coworkers on Tuesday, saw your brother on Wednesday, and
holed up in your man cave last night, so I had the kids all week.

This is simply a chronicling of events, not an argument. It may be exactly what is needed to persuade you that

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 13
 you’ve been shirking your duties and gives your spouse a break, but it is not a logical argument—it’s an
emotional one.
But suppose your spouse says:

I’ve had the kids all week and need a break. So, you should take them tomorrow.

Though the intent of this sentence is the same (to get the spouse to take the kids), this one explicitly makes an
assertion and supports it with evidence, so it is a logical argument.
Note that there is an assumption in the above argument, which is that parents should share in parenting duties
equally. An assumption like this does not make the argument invalid, as long as it is understood and agreed to
by others. These are called hidden premises, and we will discuss them more later. They do not always make an
argument invalid, but may hide premises that are false or misleading.

 TERM TO KNOW

Hidden Premise
An unstated premise in an argument, usually based on a safe assumption or shared understanding.

2b. Normative Statements

A final question—why do ‘should’ sentences count as statements when imperatives do not? In other words,
what’s the difference in logic between (a) and (b):

(a) You should do the dishes.

(b) Do the dishes!

The key lies in the grammar of English and other natural languages. Sentences constructed with words like
‘should’, ‘can’, or ‘must’ are still declarative sentences in grammatical terms. They don’t order somebody to do
something, but make a statement of fact about what they should do. These are called normative arguments, or
ones that state what one ought to do instead of what is already factually true. Normative statements can be
contrasted with descriptive statements, which are simply factual claims about what is true.

EXAMPLE “Alabama has the death penalty” is a descriptive statement. “Alabama should have the death
penalty” is a normative statement.
We will look more at normative arguments later in this unit. For now, it is just important to distinguish between
normative statements (which are allowed in logical arguments) and imperatives (which are not).

 HINT

A good way to determine if a statement is normative is to ask if you can tell what the person making the
argument believes from the statement. For example, see the three statements below. Each seems to be
arguing for an election day holiday, but only one is normative.

Statement Normative?

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 14
 People should have election day off so they
Normative
can vote

Not normative (declares a fact, it is unknown if the person

Most people support an election day holiday
making the argument is one of those people).

It is proven that countries with election day Not normative, it is unknown if the person making the
holidays have higher voter participation argument believes voter participation is good.
Normative arguments have their own indicator words like “should” and “ought,” or might have phrases like, “we
have an obligation to,” or “it is imperative that.” These will appear in addition to the usual conclusion indicator
words.

However, this does not affect the logical rules of the argument; the conclusion is still a declarative sentence that
follows from the premises. Be careful here when determining what does and does not count as a statement.

 TRY IT

For each of the following conclusions, determine if the argument is normative or descriptive. Remember
that in a normative statement you can tell what the speaker believes.

Downloading movies without paying is illegal. +

This is a descriptive statement. The speaker may or may not agree with the laws.

Lots of people download movies from pirate sites and most of them will not get caught. +

This is a descriptive statement. The speaker may or may not think the people doing this are in the
wrong.

Downloading movies takes money from the creators. +

This is a descriptive statement. While it suggests the speaker disapproves of downloading movies
illegally, they are making a factual statement.

Piracy costs the movie industry approximately thirty billion dollars a year. If it continues, it will affect
+
their ability to make new movies.

This is a descriptive statement. It is speculative -- predicting a cause and effect -- but does not take a
moral stance.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 15
 It's wrong to take things that don't belong to you, even if they are not physical objects. +

This is a normative statement. The speaker is explicitly saying that people should not download movies
illegally.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Normative Argument
An argument that argues towards what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Normative
A statement or argument about what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Descriptive
A statement or argument about what is actually true, in contrast to normative statements.

 SUMMARY

In this tutorial, you began learning how to translate arguments from natural language into standard
form. This sometimes requires close reading of an argument. We listen for indicator words so we can
identify the conclusion, which is often cued by conclusion indicators like “therefore,” “thus,” or “and
that’s why I believe.” Other sentences have premise indicators, like “since,” or “so.” Knowing how to
identify and sequence sentences can help us present the argument in a more logical way. Of course,
identifying logical arguments is also necessary, seeing the big picture. By asking yourself, "Is it a
logical argument?, you may see that perhaps the passage or speech is not an argument at all, but an
order, or a narrative. Others may not seem like arguments but have logical structure, like explanations,
which indeed are a kind of argument. Lastly, you learned that sentences constructed with words like
‘should’ or ‘ought’ are called normative arguments, or ones that state what one ought to do instead of
what is already factually true.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking and Critical
Thinking.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Conclusion Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is the conclusion, or main purpose,
of the argument. Common examples include therefore, so, thus, and hence.

Descriptive
A statement or argument about what is actually true, in contrast to normative statements.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 16
 Hidden Premise
An unstated premise in an argument, usually based on a safe assumption or shared understanding.

Normative
A statement or argument about what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Normative Argument
An argument that argues towards what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Premise Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is a premise, or reason to believe
the conclusion. Common examples include whereas, since, and because.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 17
 Other Kinds of Arguments
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about arguments that may present challenges in finding and recording the
conclusions. Specifically, you will learn about:
1. Explanations
2. Complex Arguments

1. Explanations
So far, we have defined arguments in terms of premises and conclusions, where the premises provide a reason
(support, evidence) for accepting that the conclusion is true. The goal of many arguments is to establish that the
conclusion is true. For example, when I am trying to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the U.S., I
may cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of
Health (NIH). The studies I cite would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are rising.

We could put this simple argument into standard form like this:

1. Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.
2. Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the U.S.

The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the
conclusion is supported by the evidence in the premise. Again, the goal of this simple argument would be to
convince someone that the conclusion is true.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 18
 However, sometimes we already know that a statement or claim is true, and we are trying to establish why it is
true rather than that it is true. An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an explanation.
Contrast the previous example with the following:

The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S. is that the foods we consume have increasingly
high levels of sugar and low levels of dietary fiber. Since eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers
the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in
sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat.

This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the U.S. Unlike the earlier example, here it is
taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the U.S. Instead of trying to convince someone that is true, it is
trying to explain why it is true.

We can put the obesity explanation into standard form just like any other argument. In order to do this, we will
make some paraphrases of the premises and conclusion of the argument.

1. Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in fiber.
2. Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as
fat.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 19
 3. When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese.
4. Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S.

Notice that in this explanation the premises (1-3) attempt to give a reason for why the conclusion is true, rather
than convincing us the conclusion is true. We can still think of explanations as a type of argument in formal
terms, and when we write them out they will look similar. We just have to distinguish two types of argument in
natural language: those that attempt to establish that their conclusion is true (arguments), and those that
attempt to establish why their conclusion is true (explanations). This will help us identify the conclusion and
premise correctly.

 TRY IT

What is the conclusion of the following argument?

You might look at a lit incandescent light bulb and notice that what looks like a tiny fire is inside the bulb
(don’t look too long, it’s hard on your eyes!). You might also wonder how such a little thing as the thread
inside the bulb can burn for so long. The answer is that there is indeed a little fire in an incandescent bulb,
but it is not the kind of fire you usually think of. Open fires are reacting with oxygen, which makes them
blaze and burn fast, but a light bulb is a vacuum. This controls the burn of the filament so it can last for
thousands of hours. Furthermore, the thread (or filament) is made of tungsten. Tungsten has a very high
melting point, so it can burn for a long time without melting.

Check Your Answer +

The conclusion is: Incandescent bulbs have a fire inside them. Though we would still call this an
argument if translated into formal logic, its purpose is to explain, not to persuade.

 TERM TO KNOW

Explanation
An argument where the premises show why the conclusion is true rather than try to persuade
somebody that the conclusion is true.

2. Complex Arguments
So far, we have seen that an argument consists of one or more premises (usually more than one) and a
conclusion. However, very often arguments and explanations have a more complex structure. For example,
sometimes premises lead to conclusions that then serve as premises for another conclusion. These are called
complex arguments.

For example, consider the following argument:

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 20
 No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The reason is simple: the lava
was flowing too fast and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time. Therefore, this account of the
eruption, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness living in Pompeii, was not actually written by
an eyewitness.

This argument’s structure is more complex than having a couple of premises that provide evidence directly for
the conclusion. Rather, there are statements that lead us to an initial conclusion, which then supports the main
conclusion, or the overall conclusion the argument wants us to come to. To determine the structure of an
argument, we must determine which statements support which, and the best way to do that is to find the main
conclusion. First, let’s break this argument down into sentences so we can look at it more clearly. We’ll use
letters instead of numbers so it’s not confused with standard form.

A. No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.
B. The reason is simple: the lava was flowing too fast and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time.
C. Therefore, this account of the eruption, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness living in
Pompeii, was not actually written by an eyewitness.

Starting with A, we can see that it is a conclusion. It follows from the premise in statement B, which states why
nobody in the city of Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius nearly 2000 years ago. So far,
so good. We have a premise, a conclusion, and only one sentence left to identify.
The question now is whether sentence A is the main conclusion. Unlike simple arguments, complex arguments
might have statements that serve as both conclusions and premises. The way to see if it is the main conclusion
is to check and see if it supports any other statements in the argument. We already know A doesn’t support B,
because B supports A. What about C?

C argues that there can be no firsthand accounts of the eruption written by someone in Pompeii. That does
follow logically from the premise that nobody could have survived the eruption, so A is not our main conclusion.

However, C is itself a conclusion. We know from the word “therefore,” which is a conclusion indicator. We also
know that C doesn’t support any other statement in the argument. The lack of eyewitness accounts doesn’t
support the statement that there were no survivors, nor does it prove the lava was flowing too fast for anyone to
escape.

Now that we have the main conclusion, we can write it in standard form.

1. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast and there was nowhere for someone living in Pompeii to go
in order to escape it in time.
2. Therefore, no one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. (from 1)
3. Therefore, this account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness. (from 2)

Note the parentheticals, “from 1” and “from 2.” We use this convention as a way of keeping track of the structure
of the argument.
It may also help to visualize the structure of an argument.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 21
 The main argument here (from 2 to 3) is supported by a subargument, in this case, the argument from 1 to 2. A
subargument, as the term suggests, is a part of an argument that provides indirect support for the main
argument. A subargument is a complete argument on its own, with premises and a conclusion, but it is used to
establish a premise that then supports the main conclusion. As you might guess, the main argument is the one
with the main conclusion.

Here is another example. See if you can identify the main argument and the subargument.

Sally cannot come to dinner because her wheelchair is broken. Kelly also cannot come because he's
picking up his new suit. I did not invite anyone else, so no one will come to dinner.

Here we have three sentences in English, but six statements. This is because we have three indicator words,
two premise indicators, ‘because’, and one conclusion indicator, ‘so’.

1. Sally cannot come to dinner.

2. Sally’s wheelchair is broken.
3. Kelly also cannot come.
4. Kelly is picking up his new suit.
5. I did not invite anyone else.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 22
 6. Therefore, no one will come to dinner.

If we restructure these statements, we can better show what conclusion is drawn from each premise.

1. Sally’s wheelchair is broken.

2. Therefore, Sally cannot come to dinner.
3. Kelly is picking up his new suit.
4. Therefore, Kelly cannot come to dinner.
5. I did not invite anyone else.
6. Therefore, no one else will come to dinner.
7. Therefore, no one will come to dinner. (from 2, 4, and 6)

 TRY IT

What is the main conclusion in the following argument? What is an intermediate conclusion, i.e., an
intermediate conclusion that then supports the main conclusion?

Pets should not be given as gifts unless you discuss it with the person first and find out that they are ready
for that change in their life. Even a small pet is a big responsibility that requires preparation and
commitment. People getting them unexpectedly might not have the time for a pet, or even a good space for
them. They might love animals, but don’t want one at the current time. If they can’t take care of the pet,
you’re putting both the recipient and the animal in a bad situation. Never surprise someone with a new pet!

Check Your Answer +

The main conclusion is “Pets should not be given as gifts unless you discuss it with the person first and
find out that they are ready for that change in their life,” which is a normative statement (it says what
one ought to do, not what is true). The intermediate conclusion is “If they can’t take care of the pet,
you’re putting both the recipient and the animal in a bad situation.” This is supported by the three
previous sentences, and becomes the premise in direct support of the main conclusion.

Another way arguments can be complex arguments is to have two or more premises provide direct but
independent support for the conclusion. Here is an example:

I have to quit smoking. I know it’s bad for my health, and it’s also expensive. I hear the price is going up
again next month. I can’t afford that.

The conclusion of this argument is “I have to quit smoking,” and there are two premises that provide
independent support for it: the fact that it’s bad for one’s health, and the fact that it is expensive.

1. The price of cigarettes is going up.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 23
 2. I can’t afford to smoke anymore (1).
3. Smoking is bad for my health.
4. Therefore, I have to quit smoking (2, 3).

It is important to point out that an argument or subargument can be supported by one or more premises. We
see this in the present argument since the conclusion (4) is supported jointly by 1 and 2, and singly by 3. As
before, we can represent the structure of this argument spatially, as figure 2 shows:

There are endless different argument structures that can be generated from these few simple patterns. At this
point, it is important to understand that arguments can have these different structures and that some arguments
will be longer and more complex than others. Determining the structure of very complex arguments is a skill
that takes some time to master. Even so, it may help to remember that any argument structure ultimately traces
back to some combination of these.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Complex Argument
An argument in which some premises lead to conclusions that then serve as premises for another
conclusion, or where premises provide independent support for the conclusion.

Main Conclusion
In a complex argument, the overall conclusion the argument comes to.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 24
 Subargument
Part of a complex argument that provides indirect support to the main conclusion.

Main Argument
In a complex argument, the main conclusion and premises that directly support it.

 SUMMARY

In this tutorial, we looked at a few forms of argument you might encounter in natural language that are
harder to translate into sentential form. First, explanations have premises and a conclusion, like other
arguments, but the premises don’t prove the conclusion, they simply explain why it is true. In natural
language, it might not be called an argument at all, but it can be written in formal language and called
an “argument,” in that regard. Complex arguments have two or more conclusions, with at least one
supported by premises but then becoming a premise itself to support the main conclusion.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM [LUMEN LEARNING'S "ECONOMIC THINKING"]
TUTORIAL.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Complex Argument
An argument in which some premises lead to conclusions that then serve as premises for another
conclusion, or where premises provide independent support for the conclusion.

Explanation
An argument where the premises show why the conclusion is true rather than try to persuade somebody
that the conclusion is true.

Main Argument
In a complex argument, the main conclusion and premises that directly support it.

Main Conclusion
In a complex argument, the overall conclusion the argument comes to.

Subargument
Part of a complex argument that provides indirect support to the main conclusion.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 25
 Validity
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about the first of two tests for logical arguments: validity. Specifically, you
will learn about:
1. Validity
2. Invalidity
3. Cases
4. Validity in Practice

1. Validity
In the previous challenge, we talked about arguments, which are a collection of sentences (the premises),
followed by a single sentence (the conclusion). We said that some words, such as “therefore,” indicate which
sentence is supposed to be the conclusion. “Therefore,” of course, suggests that there is a connection between
the premises and the conclusion, namely that the conclusion follows from, or is a consequence of, the premises.
This notion of consequence is one of the primary things with which logic is concerned. One might even say that
logic is the science of what follows from what.

Logic provides theories and tools that tell us when a sentence follows from some others. For example, consider
this argument.

1. Either the butler or the gardener did it.

2. The butler didn’t do it
3. Therefore, the gardener did it.

We don’t have any context for what the sentences in this argument refer to. You might imagine that the
argument occurs in a mystery novel or TV show, perhaps spoken by a detective working through the evidence,
and “it” is some heinous crime. But even without having any of this information, you probably agree that the
argument is a good one in the sense that whatever the premises refer to, if they are both true, the conclusion
must be true as well. If the first premise is true—that is, if it’s true that “the butler did it or the gardener did it”—
then at least one of them “did it,” whatever that means. And if the second premise is true, then the butler did not
“do it.” That leaves only one option: “the gardener did it” must be true. Here, the conclusion follows from the

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 26
 premises. We call arguments that have this property valid. Valid simply means that the conclusion follows from
the premises. However, let’s make this general definition of validity more precise.
First, we can understand validity as follows: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. What this
means is that to determine if an argument is valid, we must assume that the premises are true (regardless of
whether they are actually true in the real world). Then, we want to look at the conclusion and determine
whether, given those premises, the conclusion has to be true. We ask ourselves, if the premises are true, is
there any way for the conclusion to be false?

If the answer to this question is no, then the argument is valid. In the argument above, we can see that the
gardener had to do it; we had a list of two suspects, then removed one, leaving only the gardener.

The second way to understand validity is this: in a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion to be false. This form of validity invites us to look for circumstances that would render the
argument not valid. That is, if we can find a circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion is
false, then the argument is not valid. If no such circumstances can be found, then we can conclude the
argument is valid. We will see examples of this in a moment.

2. Invalidity
Now that we have this second form of validity on the table, let’s look a little bit closer at what it is to be not valid,
or invalid. Invalidity is when the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises.

Consider the following argument:

1. If the driver did it, the maid didn’t do it.

2. The maid didn’t do it.
3. Therefore, the driver did it.

While there are still important aspects of this story that we don’t know, we can see that the argument is different
in one important respect. If the premises are true, it is not guaranteed that the conclusion is also true. Assuming
both of the premises of this argument are true does not rule out (by themselves) the possibility that someone
other than the driver “did it.” There is a case where both premises are true, and yet the driver didn’t do it—
maybe it was the butler!—and thus the conclusion is not true. In a situation where the butler did it, the first and
second premises can still be true, while the conclusion is totally false. Because we can imagine a scenario
where all premises are true but the conclusion is false, that means the conclusion does not follow from the
premises. If, like in this argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, we say the argument is
invalid.

 THINK ABOUT IT

This invalid argument about who "did it" is also an example of a formal fallacy we discussed earlier.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 27
 Do you remember what it is called? +

This is an example of affirming the consequent. It may be confusing because the consequent we are
affirming is itself a negative, “the maid didn’t do it.” However, this is a case where the consequent is
one of the premises and so we try to conclude the antecedent. This is an invalid and fallacious
argument form.

We can make the definition of invalidity more precise by reversing the process we used to make validity more
precise. An argument is invalid when there is at least one circumstance in which the premises are true but the
conclusion is false. Another way of putting this is that an argument is invalid if and only if the conclusion doesn’t
have to be true when the premises are true.

To determine whether an argument is invalid, we search for a circumstance in which the premises are true, and
the conclusion is false. This circumstance is called a counterexample to the argument. A counterexample is any
exception you can find where the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. This is precisely what we did in
the above example, as the circumstance in which the butler did it, the butler “doing it,” does not falsify either
premise, but does falsify the conclusion. Since the premises are true, but the conclusion is false, we can
conclude that the argument is invalid. If there is a single counterexample to an argument, the conclusion cannot
be a consequence of the premises, and it is invalid.

 BIG IDEA

For an argument to be valid, the premises must guarantee that the conclusion is true without a single
exception.
 TRY IT

For each of the following, see if you can determine if the argument is valid or invalid by identifying a single
counterexample.

1. I can have either oatmeal or granola for breakfast.

2. We don’t have any oatmeal.
3. Therefore, I must have granola for breakfast.

Is this valid? +

This argument is valid. Although we can probably come up with another option like picking up a
breakfast burrito on the way to work or skipping breakfast entirely, the first premise limits us to two
options. One option is then taken away, leaving us with one option for the purposes of the argument.

1. Even if I can have granola, I will have oatmeal.

2. We don’t have oatmeal.
3. Therefore, I must have granola.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 28
 Is this valid? +

This argument is not valid. The first premise leads us to believe that oatmeal is our first choice,
because the first premise says that even if I have granola, my desire is to have oatmeal. The second
premise affirms the opposite of the consequent of the first premise—that is, that there is no oatmeal.
Thus, my first choice is not possible. However, notice that just because I don’t have oatmeal, the first
premise does not lock me into having granola. There are a whole bunch of other choices I could have
—cereal, no breakfast at all, a breakfast burrito. The first and second sentences would still be true, but
the conclusion would be false.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Invalid
When the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises.

Counterexample
A hypothetical scenario demonstrating a way the premises can be true and the conclusion is false. This
gives proof of the argument’s invalidity.

3. Cases
In testing for validity, we refer to these hypothetical scenarios as cases, or hypothetical scenarios that are
consistent with the premises, to check the validity of an argument. In our "who done it" argument, if we imagine
a case where our only suspects are the butler and the gardener, and then we remove the butler, we are always
left with the gardener.

1. Either the butler or the gardener did it.

2. The butler didn’t do it.
3. Therefore, the gardener did it.

However, in this next example we are able to come up with a case where the premises are true and the
conclusion is false. Note that coming up with these cases requires both imagination and careful scrutiny of the
argument to determine exactly what is being said. This is one way that studying formal logic can help develop
your critical thinking skills.

1. If the driver did it, the maid didn’t do it.

2. The maid didn’t do it.
3. Therefore, the driver did it.

For this argument, imagine a case where the butler did it. Let’s check the premises. It’s still true that if the driver
did it, the maid didn’t do it, which makes #1 true. (The driver didn’t do it, but as a conditional statement it still is

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 29
 functionally true; we will explain more in Unit 3). We also know that the maid didn’t do it because of premise #2.
Note that this is an independent premise; we aren’t deriving it from the first statement.
Now, let’s look at the conclusion. Obviously if the butler did it, the driver did not, so the conclusion is false. This
means we have a case where all the premises are true and the conclusion is false, and the argument is invalid.

 TERM TO KNOW

Cases
The hypothetical scenarios generated to test an argument for validity. A counterexample is a case
where the argument is shown to be invalid.

4. Validity in Practice
So far, we have only talked about validity, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. The
conclusion may in fact be false, and the premises false, but the argument would still be valid. Consider this
argument:

1. Everyone born in France can speak French.

2. Barack Obama was born in France.
3. Therefore, Barack Obama can speak French.

Note that the first sentence is a conditional statement, even though it does not have the words “if” and “then.”
Conditional statements can take various forms, but can always be rephrased as an if/then statement, so the first
statement is equivalent to, or can also be read as, “If a person was born in France, then they can speak French.”
This is a valid argument. Why? Because when we assume the truth of the premises (everyone born in France
can speak French, Barack Obama was born in France), the conclusion (Barack Obama can speak French) must
be true. However, none of these statements is actually true! Not everyone born in France can speak French
(imagine a child born in France to Arabic-speaking parents, who moved to Morocco when the child was still
small—that child might not speak French at all!) and Obama was not born in France, nor can he speak French.
Yet we have a valid argument even though neither the premises nor the conclusion is actually true.

It may sound strange to have a valid argument with entirely false premises and conclusion, but if you
understand the concept of validity, it is not strange at all. Remember: validity describes the relationship between
the premises and conclusion, and it means that the premises imply the conclusion; it does not describe whether
or not those premises or that conclusion is true.

Now let’s look at an example of an invalid argument:

1. Joe Biden is President of the United States.

2. Therefore, Joe Biden was elected President of the United States (from 1).

In this case, both the premise and the conclusion are true, but the argument is actually invalid. The argument
suggests that to be president, one must be elected. But several presidents took on the role of president

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 30
 because their predecessor died in office, and one, Gerald Ford, was not even elected to be Vice President. So,
the conclusion is not proven true by the premise, even if we happen to know it is true!
 TRY IT

For each of the following arguments, determine if it is valid or invalid. Remember that validity is when the
conclusion follows from the premises. Also remember our simple test for invalidity is imagining a case
where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

1. An astronaut is a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.

2. Albert was trained to travel in a spacecraft.
3. Therefore, Albert is an astronaut.

Is this argument valid? +

The argument is invalid. Albert is the name of a Rhesus Monkey who was the first mammal in outer
space. Albert was trained to handle the trip, so it can be truthfully said he was trained to travel in a
spacecraft. However, he is not able to operate the craft, so it is false to say he is an astronaut. Thus, the
argument is invalid, in that there is a case where the premises are true, and the conclusion is false. It’s
crucial to remember that premise 1 says, “If you are an astronaut, then you are a person trained to
travel in a spacecraft.” In other words, that all astronauts are trained to travel in a spacecraft, but that’s
not the only skill they have that makes them astronauts.

1. To truly be in outer space, one must be outside the orbit of the Earth.
2. The moon is inside the orbit of the Earth.
3. Therefore, the moon is not in outer space.

Is this argument valid? +

The argument is valid. The first premise says, “If you are actually in outer space, then you must be
outside the orbit of Earth.” The second premise is the negation of the consequent of the first premise.
And thus, we can conclude the negation of the antecedent of the first premise. In other words, if you
have to be outside the orbit of Earth to be in outer space, and the moon is not outside the orbit of
Earth, then the moon is not in outer space. While there may be some varying interpretations of “outer
space,” they will not affect the interpretation of the argument since we accept the premises as stated in
determining the argument’s validity.

You may be frustrated or confused by this seeming disinterest in the truthfulness of the premise for determining
validity. The actual truth of the premises is, of course, important to the overall quality of the argument, since if

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 31
 the premises of the argument are false, then the argument doesn’t provide any reason for accepting the
conclusion. Luckily, validity is not the only measure of the quality of an argument.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you began to learn about testing arguments for validity, the condition where the
conclusion follows from the premises. Invalidity is when the argument’s conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises. We test this by generating cases where the premises are true,
and the conclusion is false; this kind of case is called a counterexample. Logical arguments are
assessed only by their premises and conclusions; even if the premises and conclusion are false, an
argument can have validity, meaning that if the premises were true, the conclusion would be true.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking and For All X:
An Introduction to Formal Logic..

 TERMS TO KNOW

Cases
The hypothetical scenarios generated to test an argument for validity. A counterexample is a case where
the argument is shown to be invalid.

Counterexample
A hypothetical scenario demonstrating a way the premises can be true and the conclusion is false. This
gives proof of the argument’s invalidity.

Invalid
When the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 32
 Soundness
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about the second of two tests for logical arguments: soundness, which
considers the truthfulness or reliability of the premise. Specifically, you will learn about:
1. Soundness
2. Types of Truth
2a. Possible Truth
2b. Actual Truth
2c. Necessary Truth
3. Applying Concepts of Truthfulness

1. Soundness
A good argument is not only valid, but also sound. A sound argument is a valid argument that has all true
premises. That means that the conclusion of a sound argument will always be actually true. As we’ve already
discussed, validity assures that the conclusion will always follow from the premises. If the premises are true,
then the conclusion must also be true—but in evaluating soundness, we do care about the truthfulness of the
premises, not just whether the argument is logically consistent.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 33
 Soundness is what we aim for in constructing arguments (at least if we are arguing in good faith). But while we
have learned some tests for validity and will continue to do so, how do we determine whether the premises of
an argument are actually true? This is itself an entire field of study, called epistemology, which tries to
determine, “How do we know what we know?” One method of ascertaining truth is simple: first hand
experience. If you were just outside, you know for certain whether or not it is raining. If you’ve met Jim, you can
say with some certainty whether Jim is tall compared to most men. If you grew up in Fargo, you know it’s cold
there in the winter. The second method of ascertaining truth is research, and here it is important to have a good
understanding of how to determine the credibility of our sources: confirming that the author has authority on the
topic and an absence of bias, that other experts have reviewed the source, that the source is recent (so the
information is not obsolete), and so forth. A third way of ascertaining truth is the ability to make accurate
predictions—this is the foundation of scientific knowledge. For example, Galileo famously dropped two different
weights from the Tower of Pisa to prove they would hit the ground at the same time. The prevailing belief was
that heavy things fall faster. Galileo showed that this was false. That is, he made a prediction that came true.

For the purpose of logic, we will adopt a basic conception of truth based on these three standards: it is what is
observable or measurable; it is the consensus of experts; and/or it can be affirmed through rigorous testing. But
suffice to say, a careful approach to determining what is true is a cornerstone of critical thinking.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Sound

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 34
 A valid argument with true premises, one in which the conclusion must be true.

Epistemology
The field of philosophy that explores how we ascertain truth, or attempting to answer, “How do we
know what we know?”

2. Types of Truth
Now that we have both validity and soundness on the table, it’s worth considering the different uses of truth
throughout this tutorial. Here, we’ll define three separate notions of truth and what kinds of arguments they
matter for. However, first let’s take a quick deviation into metaphysics and talk about possible worlds.

The world we live in has a set of discrete truths—the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Audrey Hepburn
was an actor who lived on Earth, etc. But all of these things could have been different. We could’ve lived in a
world where the sun rises in the west and sets in the east (i.e., the earth rotates in the opposite direction), or
where Audrey Hepburn was a savvy and poignant newscaster. All of these changes are possibilities that could
have happened if the world had been different. Call each of the worlds in which these possibilities actually
occur (even though they didn’t happen in our world), possible worlds. It's more or less the same concept as a
parallel universe created by a change to the timeline—if Marty McFly (hero of the 1985 movie Back to the
Future) prevented his parents from falling in love and thus his own birth, the world with no Marty McFly is, in a
metaphysical sense, a possible world. Though it seems like the stuff of science fiction, the concept of possible
worlds is a major concept in modern logic.

It is important to note that possible worlds (in logic) are of the same kind as ours, meaning that they obey the
same physical laws of the universe.

EXAMPLE A possible world might have the earth rotating on its axis in the opposite direction, leading
the sun to rise in the west and set in the east (as we now know them), but a world in which the earth is flat
and the sun is a fiery chariot driven by a god is too different in kind to be considered a possible world in this
context; it would not follow the same laws of physics as our world.

 TERM TO KNOW

Possible Worlds
Hypothetical but believable worlds with different truths, such as divergent timelines.

2a. Possible Truth

Possible worlds are really useful logical tools for thinking about truth. They give us a notion of truth that’s in
between actual truth and impossibility. While the statement “Calvin Klein is a world-famous logician” is actually
false (in our world, Calvin Klein founded a famous clothing brand), it is true that there is a possible world in
which young Calvin Klein did not study fashion but logic, and became the world’s best logician. A possible truth
is a statement that is true in at least one possible world.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 35
 This sort of truth doesn’t require that the statement be true in the actual world. Rather, it’s just a case where it
has to be possible for the statement to be true in some world. Another way of putting this is that any statement
is a possible truth so long as it’s not logically impossible.

EXAMPLE These are all examples of possible truths:

Calvin Klein’s girlfriend lives in Canada.
It's faster to drive places than it is to take the train.
The Red Sox will win the World Series next season.

 TERM TO KNOW

Possible Truths
Statements that are true in at least one possible world.

2b. Actual Truth

The second sort of truth is perhaps the most easily grasped. That is, statements that are true in the actual world
(that is, the world that we live in). Remember, this is an expansive notion of the world. It includes what’s in our
history, our future, and the facts we know about the universe beyond the orbit of the earth. So, for example, the
statement “Calvin Klein founded a clothing brand” is true in the actual world and thus an actual truth. So, we can
define actual truth as a statement that is true in the actual (our) world.

EXAMPLE These are all examples of actual truths:

Justin Trudeau’s wife lives in Canada.
When traveling between Tokyo and Kyoto, it is faster to take the train than to drive.
In 2004, the Red Sox won the World Series.

 TERM TO KNOW

Actual Truths
Statements that are true in our world.

2c. Necessary Truth

Last but not least, some things are true no matter what possible world we create. For example, the statement
“Calvin Klein is Calvin Klein” is true in every possible world. Why? Because no matter who Calvin Klein is and
what traits they have, they will always be identical to themselves. If this is a little confusing, think about the
equation 2=2. No matter what world you're in and how you define 2, it will always be identical to itself. This sort
of statement is a necessary truth, a statement that is true in every possible world.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 36
  TERM TO KNOW

Necessary Truths
Statements that are true in all possible worlds.

3. Applying Concepts of Truthfulness

So, now that we have these definitions on the table, how do they apply to critical thinking and logic? Happily, for
us, they very cleanly delineate differences between critical thinking and formal logic. Formal logic is concerned
with possible truth. As you have learned in previous tutorials, whether or not the premises are actually true
doesn’t matter for the validity of a statement, and the further we dive into logic, the less actual truth will matter
(remember, it does matter for the definition of soundness).

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is almost entirely concerned with actual truth—thinking critically involves
attempting to arrive at true conclusions and strong arguments about the actual world.

What about necessary truths? Disciplines like mathematics are especially interested in necessary truths,
because they are looking for theorems and conclusions that are true by virtue of the mathematical system we
work within.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 37
 Last, notice an important overlap in some of these definitions. The actual world is a possible world. That is
because it is full of possibilities that are real. So, anything that’s true in the actual world is possibly true. This is
because if a statement is actually true, then it must be possible. We can extend this to necessary truth. If a
statement is necessarily true, then it is true in all possible worlds. So, it must also be actually true and possibly
true. This is because if it is true in all possible worlds, then it must be true in the actual world, and it must be true
in at least one possible world (in fact, it’s true in all of them!). It’s important to notice that these overlaps exist,
but for simplicity’s sake, when a statement is necessarily true, we simply write that it’s a necessary truth, which
implies it’s also actually and possibly true. The same thing goes for actual truths. When we write that they are
actual truths, it is a given that they are possible truths, but may or may not be necessary truths.

Now that you have these definitions, be sure to keep them at the forefront of your mind for future tutorials, as
they will come back quite a bit, the deeper into formal logic we go.

 TRY IT

Determine whether the following statements are possible truths, actual truths, necessary truths, or none of
the above.

1. Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States. +

Actual truth.

2. Donald Trump is the 46th President of the United States. +

Possible truth.

3. The 46th President of the United States is the 46th President of the United States. +

Necessary truth.

4. If a sentence is a necessary truth, then it is a necessary truth. +

Necessary truth.

5. Sharks live in the ocean. +

Actual truth.

6. Two does not equal 2. +

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 38
 None of the above.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned about evaluating an argument for soundness. By definition, a sound
argument is valid, but also has true premises, meaning the conclusion is also true. Truth itself is not so
black and white; there are types of truth, such as possible truth, actual truth, and necessary truth. You
briefly saw the ways in which applying concepts of truthfulness have relevance to critical thinking in
fields such as mathematics and forensic science.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking and For All X:
An Introduction to Formal Logic..

 TERMS TO KNOW

Actual Truths
Statements that are true in our world.

Epistemology
The field of philosophy that explores how we ascertain truth, or attempting to answer, “How do we know
what we know?”

Necessary Truths
Statements that are true in all possible worlds.

Possible Truths
Statements that are true in at least one possible world.

Sound
A valid argument with true premises, one in which the conclusion must be true.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 39
 Counterexamples
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about counterexamples and how to construct them. Specifically, this lesson
will cover:
1. Counterexamples in the Real World
2. Constructing Counterexamples
3. Limitations of Counterexamples

1. Counterexamples in the Real World

As we’ve already discussed, a counterexample is a hypothetical case used to test an argument. For example,
many counterexamples are used to show that arguments are invalid by giving cases where the premise is true
but the conclusion is false. We already learned that one way to show that an argument is invalid is to find at
least one case where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. That one case is a counterexample. In
the following argument, we showed how “the butler did it” presents a counterexample where the premises are
still true but the conclusion is false.

1. If the driver did it, the maid didn’t do it.

2. The maid didn’t do it.
3. Therefore, the driver did it.

Counterexamples are really helpful beyond simply proving that an argument is invalid. We use counterexamples
in mathematics, science, and philosophy more broadly. They are an integral part of critical thinking.
Think about a basic science experiment. If someone does an experiment and draws a general conclusion from
their results, one way to question that conclusion is to come up with a possible counterexample. Is there a
circumstance under which they would perform the same experiment and get a different result?

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 40
 IN CONTEXT

Suppose a pair of forensic scientists run an experiment to detect whether or not blood is present in
the house of a potential murder suspect. They use the standard Luminol procedure, a process in
which a chemical is sprayed onto a surface where blood is suspected. The chemical in the spray
reacts with blood traces, which produces a luminescence that can be seen using a black light. This
procedure is done on the house and produces a positive result; the luminescence appears, indicating
the presence of blood.

Initially, the scientists believed that this test provided a foolproof way to test for the trace presence of
blood. They concluded “if luminescence is detected by the Luminol process, then there are trace
amounts of blood at that location.”

However, this conclusion is too quick. There is a counterexample to this conclusion by way of scientific
results. The counterexample is bleach. Bleach can also cause the luminescence result, in the same
way trace amounts of blood do. Therefore, the conclusion is incorrect. A positive result in the Luminol
process does not always imply the presence of blood.

Counterexamples also abound in mathematics and philosophy. Classically, in both disciplines (like in logic), a
counterexample is a created circumstance in which the premises of the argument are true and the conclusion
false. This circumstance can be true or as absurd (and even cartoonish) as it needs to be. Ultimately, if a set of
premises or assumptions and a conclusion can be identified, then a counterexample can be searched for.

Let’s look at a brief example from ethical philosophy: the study of what is morally right and wrong. One theory of
ethics is called consequentialism. This theory states (roughly) that an action is morally right if its positive

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 41
 consequences outweigh its negative consequences. If you’re trying to prove this theory wrong, you might first
look for a counterexample. That is, come up with one or two cases where consequentialism deems an action
morally right, but intuitively (according to our best judgment) it is morally wrong, or vice versa. For example, you
can propose that to end human suffering and save the environment, you will release a supervirus that
annihilates humankind. It’s hard to deny that this would end human suffering and curb pollution. But nobody
would suggest it is a morally right thing to do, so as a counterexample, it would challenge the theory of
consequentialism.

Constructing and deploying counterexamples is a really crucial skill to learn for critical thinking.
Counterexamples arise in any case where an argument is deployed. Ensuring you have a strong argument is
strengthening it against as many possible counterexamples as possible. Next, we will look a little further into the
steps involved in constructing a counterexample.

2. Constructing Counterexamples
Constructing a counterexample first involves identifying the premises and conclusion of the argument. Once
these have been identified, the goal is to create a scenario in which the premises are true and the conclusion is
false. Here are a few strategies for doing just that:

In ensuring that the premises are true in our counterexamples:

Any simple premise (without terms like “and”, “or”, “if/then”, etc.) must be straightforwardly true in your
counterexample.
Any premise with a conditional statement (“if/then”) is true in your counterexample, if the antecedent (what
comes after “if”) is false or both the antecedent and the consequent are true. (We will return to this in more
depth in Unit 3).
Any premise with an “or” is true in your counterexample if at least one statement connected by the “or” is
true. Neither side has to be false.
And-statements are true when the statements on both sides of the “and” are true. Thus, both parts of the
and-statement must be true in your counterexample.

In ensuring that the conclusion is false in our counterexamples, keep in mind the following rules:

If the conclusion is a simple declarative statement (without terms like “and”, “or”, “if/then”, etc.), it must be
straightforwardly false in your counterexample.
If the conclusion is a conditional (“if/then”), the antecedent (what comes after “if”) must be true and the
consequent must be false. This is the only way to render a conditional false. (We will return to this in more
depth in Unit 3).
Or-statements are false if both of the two statements on either side of the “or” are false. Both sides must be
false in your counterexample.
And-statements are false when one of the two statements on either side of the “and” are false. Thus, only
one part of the and-statement must be false in your counterexample.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 42
 In your Declarative
Or statements And statements If/then statements
counterexample… statements

Either the “if” part must be

For each premise in the At least one part All parts must be
Must be true false or both parts must be
argument must be true. true.
true.

The “if” part must be true

For the conclusion of All parts must be At least one part
Must be false and the “then” part must be
the argument false. must be false.
false.
Now let’s work through some concrete examples. Suppose we want to construct a counterexample to the
following argument:

1. Either Alice is in Wonderland or Alice is in Great Britain.

2. Alice likes crumpets.
3. Therefore, Alice is in Great Britain.

Let’s walk through the steps of creating a counterexample for this argument to show that the argument is
invalid.
First and foremost, we must make both the premises true. The second premise is the most straightforward. Our
counterexample must stipulate that Alice likes crumpets.

Next (for just a minute), let’s jump to the conclusion. The conclusion must be false in our counterexample. So,
our counterexample must stipulate that Alice is not in Great Britain.

Then, notice that if we stipulate Alice is not in Great Britain, the only way for the or-statement in premise 1 to be
true is if Alice is in Wonderland.

Thus, our counterexample is as follows:

Counterexample: Alice likes crumpets and is currently in Wonderland.

Let’s look at one more.

1. If Alice eats the chocolate, then she will grow big.

2. Alice is big.
3. Therefore, Alice ate the chocolate.

Now, we have seen invalid arguments like this before. This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
First, we ensure that the premises are true in our counterexample. We learned above that one way to make a
conditional true is to make the antecedent false. Thus, we can specify that in our counterexample, Alice did not
eat the chocolate. This actually serves two purposes at once. Why? Because we also need the conclusion to be
false, and the conclusion is that Alice ate the chocolate.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 43
 Second, we affirm that the second premise is true—Alice is big. Thus, in our counterexample, Alice didn’t eat
the chocolate and she is still big.

Counterexample: Alice didn’t eat the chocolate but something else she ate or drank made her grow big.

This is compatible with the premises of our argument and renders the conclusion false. Hence, the argument is
invalid.
 TRY IT

Construct a counterexample for the following argument:

1. If an animal is a bird, then it can fly.
2. Flappy can fly.
3. Therefore, Flappy is a bird.

Check Your Answer +

You may have suggested a case where Flappy is a bat or an insect, but you can even propose that
Flappy is a flying elephant, and it would still show the argument is invalid.

 BIG IDEA

The quality of an argument can be assessed in terms of whether the argument is valid and sound. Validity
requires that the conclusion follows from the premises, with no other possible cases (or counterexample)
where the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Soundness requires that the premises (and thus
also conclusion) of an argument be actually true in the real world.
 THINK ABOUT IT

Is it possible to have a valid argument with a false conclusion? +

Yes, the validity of an argument does not depend on the premises being true; they may be false,
hypothetical, or unproven.

Is it possible for a valid argument to have a few rare exceptions where the conclusion is false even
though the premises are true? +

No, remember that a single exception (or counterexample) where the premises are true and the
conclusion is false makes the argument invalid. In fact, the exception may be hypothetical, but if it is at
least possible, then the argument is considered invalid.

Is it possible to have a sound argument with a false conclusion? +

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 44
 No, by definition of a sound argument, the conclusion must be true, because the premises are true and
the conclusion follows from the premises. Put another way, if the conclusion is false, either the
premises are false, or the argument is invalid.

3. Limitations of Counterexamples
You may begin to see some problems with this method of testing validity. What if someone reads the sentence,
“If the driver did it, the maid didn’t do it,” as meaning, “Either the driver or the maid did it”? They may feel that in
the context of the argument and the speaker’s intent, the first sentence should be interpreted as stating either
the driver or the maid did it. The problem here is that natural language permits for numerous readings of a
single sentence. Take, for example, the sentence, “There is a bird in a cage that can talk.” This sentence again
has two readings, the natural and the absurd. The absurd reading is that there is a bird in a cage and the cage
can talk; the more natural reading is that there is a bird who can talk in a cage. This is just one example, but if
you reflect on it, you’ll find numerous examples in natural language of sentences that are ambiguous in a variety
of different ways, lending themselves to many different interpretations.

 DID YOU KNOW

The entire field of Constitutional Law is about the different interpretations of statements in the Constitution
and the intent of the authors.
Furthermore, there are no agreed-upon limits of what kind of hypothetical scenario is allowed. In the argument
about the butler and the gardener, perhaps someone comes up with a scenario where the gardener did it, but
only because the butler was using mind control, and the butler is actually responsible for the gardener’s crimes.
We said that a single case where the premises are true and the conclusion is false proves the argument is
invalid, but didn’t put any constraints on imagining far-fetched scenarios, loose interpretations of sentences, or
going beyond the bounds of known science in those scenarios. Different people may therefore come to
different determinations of whether the argument is valid. So, we are going to need to be precise about what
the rules are for proposing counterexamples or cases in testing for validity. In the next tutorial, we will try to
solve this problem, but for now we will have to settle for this imprecise test of validity.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned more about how to develop cases and search for counterexamples to test
the validity of arguments. We looked at counterexamples in the real world, and how this technique can
be a benefit in various fields like forensic science and ethics. You learned the rules of constructing
counterexamples and considered the limitations of counterexamples. Because the practice relies on
the imagination of the tester and their interpretations of the statements in the argument and the rules
for creating counterexamples, this practice does lack precision, but it can be very useful for exposing
the flaws in arguments.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 45
 Inductive Arguments
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about inductive arguments, which follow different rules than the deductive
arguments we have looked at so far. Specifically, this lesson will cover:
1. Identifying Inductive Arguments
2. Assessing an Argument's Strength

1. Identifying Inductive Arguments

So far, we have established some rules and some language for discussing arguments. For example, we have
suggested that one measure of an argument is validity, which means that the conclusion follows from the
premises, and another measure is soundness, which means the argument is valid and the premises are true.
These measures of quality only work on certain types of arguments.

But consider the following arguments. Are they valid?

1. No human so far has lived past the age of 122.

2. Therefore, no human will ever live to be 123.

1. The oldest any person has been known to live is 122.

2. There are more people over 100 years old now than at any time in history.
3. It is likely somebody in that group of people over 100 years old will set a new record for longevity.

You may remember that if you can come up with a counterexample that is consistent with the premises, but
where the conclusion is false, the argument is not valid. In the first example above, you may simply say that
somebody who is still alive will reach the age of 123 (or even older!); this is as yet unproven, but it is enough to
make the argument invalid.

The second example asks us to draw a conclusion from a large sample, but it is (like the first one) not based on
known facts; we can propose a scenario where nobody out of the approximately 300,000 global centenarians
lives to see their 123rd birthday.

However, these arguments represent a different kind of argument. So far, we have only described deductive
reasoning, where a conclusion must follow logically from the premises. Deductive arguments are measured by

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 46
 validity (the relationship between the premises and the conclusion) and soundness (whether the premises are
true, and the argument is valid).

But there is another kind of argument that is called inductive. In inductive reasoning, we do not expect to have
absolute assurance that the conclusion is never wrong; we instead seek sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion as “likely,” or “probable.” Instead of valid or invalid, we describe these arguments as “strong” or
“weak,” depending on how well the premises support the conclusion. While validity is an either-or value,
strength of an inductive argument is a matter of degrees, and perhaps perception.

 DID YOU KNOW

Inductive arguments are the keystone of much of hard science. The scientific method tells us what
conclusions are highly probable. We are never guaranteed the truth of the conclusions of our scientific
experiments in the same way we are guaranteed the truth of the conclusion of a mathematical proof.

EXAMPLE Say that you go to a diner one Friday for lunch, and the lunch special is a tuna melt. You
return the following Friday, and the special is again a tuna melt. After four or five Fridays, you might
determine that the restaurant simply always has tuna melts on Friday, perhaps to accommodate people who
don’t eat red meat or poultry on Fridays for religious reasons. With each successive week, that conclusion
becomes stronger, or more supported by the evidence. This means if one Friday you take a friend, they may
ask you what the special is, and you would say it is likely to be a tuna melt. You know it’s not a logical
certainty, but you have good reason to believe this.

In fact, if you show up and the special that day is egg salad, your argument is not shown to be invalid.
Unlike deductive arguments, a single exception does not make the whole argument invalid. However, the
exception does weaken your conclusion. You may revise it in light of new information.
Let's look at inductive arguments in standard form. Suppose that there are two opaque glass jars with different
color marbles in them.

1. All the marbles in jar #1 are blue.

2. This marble I drew from one of the jars is blue.
3. This marble probably came from jar #1.

1. This marble came from jar #2.

2. This marble is red.
3. All the marbles in jar #2 are probably red.

Both of these arguments may seem hasty given the limited information, but what if we drew 100 marbles from
jar #2 and found that they were all red? Let’s add that as a new premise to the first argument:

1. All the marbles in jar #1 are blue.

2. Of 100 marbles from jar #2, 100 are red.
3. This marble is blue.
4. This marble probably came from jar #1.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 47
 Knowing there are only two jars, we now see this conclusion as very likely, if not a certainty. We can judge that
this is a strong argument. We know all the marbles in #1 are blue, and so far, have no evidence that any in #2
are not red. Now let’s look at the other argument with this new information.

1. This marble came from jar #2.

2. Of 100 marbles from jar #2, 100 are red.
3. This marble is red.
4. All the marbles in jar #2 are red.

In this case, the conclusion is still very much in doubt. After all, it only takes one marble to make it false. We also
don’t know how many marbles there are in the jar. If there are 105, then drawing 101 red ones is more assurance
that they are all red than if there are 1000 marbles. However, there is an absolute statement in the conclusion
(all the marbles are red), so it is difficult to describe it as a strong inductive argument.

 HINT

The conclusion to an inductive argument should show that the argument is inductive. For example, “I
always find a parking place. So, we will find a parking place," has an inductive premise but the wording of
the conclusion suggests an absolute truth. The conclusion should be, "So, we will probably find a parking
place."
 TRY IT

For each of the following arguments, determine whether it is inductive or deductive.

1. The average winter temperature in Saskatchewan is well below freezing, so it’s safe to schedule
+
an outdoor hockey match in Saskatoon in January.

This argument is inductive, suggesting what is likely to happen.

2. It was well below freezing last night, so the lake will be frozen over. +

This argument is deductive, coming to a firm conclusion about what’s true based on the premises.

3. Mice live in colonies, so if you see one mouse in your house, there are a lot more. +

This argument is deductive, coming to a firm conclusion about what’s true based on the premises.

4. Mice actually don’t like cheese, but they do love peanut butter. Bait your traps with peanut butter
to have a better chance of catching them. +

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 48
 This argument is inductive, suggesting what is likely to happen.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Deductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Inductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where we look for evidence that the conclusion is probably or
likely but may not be 100% certain.

Strong
An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is well supported by its premises. In
inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

Weak
An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is not well supported by its premises. In
inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

2. Assessing an Argument's Strength

As with validity, the determination of a strong argument is based entirely on how well the premises logically
support the conclusion. However, we don’t have the absolute certainty that we have with sound arguments. In
judging inductive arguments, then, we don’t ask if we can find a single counterexample. We instead ask if the
premises provide probable support for the conclusion. Like the arguments themselves, these judgments may
not be straightforwardly true or false. For example, we may use statistics or probability.

But the premises can be accurate or inaccurate. For example, the statement, “It’ll probably rain tomorrow,”
could be based on strong meteorological indicators (accurate) or completely on a hunch (inaccurate). Either
way, it is not an absolute certainty.

If the premises are known to be accurate and provide logical support for the conclusion, we call an inductive
argument cogent, or convincing. This is similar to the concept of soundness for deductive reasoning, but there
is a key difference. In a sound argument, the conclusion is objectively true, the premises are true, and the
conclusion follows. The concept of cogency suggests only that the argument is convincing to a reasonable
person, but because the conclusion is only likely, or probable, we cannot consider it to be objectively true.

Moreover, the conclusion of a cogent argument may end up being false, but this doesn’t make the argument
itself “wrong” or “weak.” For example, if you caution your brother that playing the lottery has an extremely low
probability of paying off, and he does strike it rich, the argument itself is not proven wrong. The logic and
reasoning were good, but an extremely unlikely event occurred. Hope he still shares his winnings with you
anyway and there are no hard feelings!

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 49
 However, if correctly phrased, the conclusion itself is not stated as an absolute fact. In this example, you might
say, “It is extremely unlikely you will win the lottery.” Even if the person does, the conclusion (correctly phrased)
is correct. It was extremely unlikely that he won!

 THINK ABOUT IT

Can you have a strong inductive argument with a wrong conclusion? +

You may in fact have a wrong conclusion to a strong inductive argument if the premises supported your
argument logically but were not reliable.

Can you have a cogent inductive argument with a wrong conclusion? +

You may have a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument that is contradicted by actual outcomes.
Because they are usually not phrased as absolutes, they would not be “wrong,” but may have been
inaccurate predictions even if they were based on reliable and logical premises.

The point of all this is that inductive arguments—even cogent inductive arguments—are not (deductively) valid.
They are not watertight. Unlikely though it might be, it is possible for their conclusions to turn out to be wrong,
even when all of their premises are true and the logical support is strong.

Deductive Inductive

The purpose is trying to prove a

true likely
statement is…

If it is well-formed, it is… valid strong

If it is not well-formed, it is… invalid weak

If it is well-formed and the premises are

sound cogent
true, the argument is…

must have false premises or be may still be cogent, if the actual

If the conclusion is false, the argument…
logically flawed outcome was unlikely

EXAMPLE Election analysts are sometimes said to “get it wrong” if there is an upset in a political race.
However, this judgment is not necessarily fair. If an analyst says, for example, that candidate A has a 80%
chance of winning, that acknowledges there is a 20% chance that candidate B will pull it off. Their
conclusion is not really disproven by the outcome, as the argument may have been based on reliable data
and good reasoning.

 THINK ABOUT IT

Think back to Unit 1.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 50
 What kind of cognitive bias would be exhibited in the previous example if someone publicly rebukes
an analyst for "getting it wrong"? +

Somebody second-guessing an election analyst’s predictions the day after the election is exhibiting
hindsight bias.

 TERM TO KNOW

Cogent
In an inductive argument, indicates that the argument is strong and the premises are true, and so is
convincing to a reasonable person. However, unlike soundness, the conclusion in an inductive
argument is not a 100% certainty.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned about inductive arguments, which are quite different from deductive
arguments in that they attempt to make a case for an outcome instead of proving a conclusion. You
learned about identifying inductive arguments, recognizing if it is a deductive or inductive argument,
and about assessing an argument’s strength, which is similar to testing for validity with the key
difference that the strength or weakness of an inductive argument is not an absolute binary like valid
and invalid deductive arguments, and a cogent inductive argument only means that the conclusion is
convincing to a reasonable person, not a statement of 100% certainty.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking and Critical
Thinking.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Cogent
In an inductive argument, indicates that the argument is strong and the premises are true, and so is
convincing to a reasonable person. However, unlike soundness, the conclusion in an inductive argument
is not a 100% certainty.

Deductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Inductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where we look for evidence that the conclusion is probably or likely
but may not be 100% certain.

Strong

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 51
 An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is well supported by its premises. In
inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

Weak
An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is not well supported by its premises. In
inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 52
 Assuring, Guarding, and Discounting
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about some elements of natural language that are more difficult to
understand in logical terms. Specifically, we will learn about:
1. Assuring
2. Guarding
3. Discounting

1. Assuring

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 53
 As you have seen, arguments often have complex structures, including subarguments with conclusions that
then become premises in support of the main argument. But in practice, people do not always give further
reasons or arguments in support of every statement they make. Sometimes they use certain rhetorical devices
to cut the argument short, or to hint at a further argument without actually stating it.

Consider this example:

We can’t have the office party at that location. I’m told it’s not accessible.

Here, the person is making a subargument—“the location is not accessible”—but is not providing any premises
in support of the intermediary conclusion other than “I’m told.” Presumably between colleagues, such a claim is
made in good faith and with good support, and it isn’t necessary or desirable to go into the details. You might
consider “I’m told” a shortcut for a series of hidden premises about the accommodations at this location.
This is called assuring, informing someone that there are further reasons in support of one’s argument although
one is not giving them now. In this case, the assurance is made with the expectation that the audience will
accept “I’m told,” confident that the person who told them is qualified to judge and that the evidence is there.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 54
 Other times assurance is used when we make a claim that isn’t obvious and that the audience may not be
inclined to believe.

It’s true that the U.S. is only 4% of the world population, but our actions do matter. The UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the United States is the biggest source of carbon
emissions in the world.

This is one way of assuring our audience: by citing authorities. There are many ways to cite authorities, some
examples of which are these:

Dentists agree that…

Recent studies have shown…
It has been established that…

Another way of assuring is to comment on the strength of one’s own convictions. The rhetorical effect is that by
commenting on how sure you are that something is true, you imply, without saying, that there must be very
strong reasons for what you believe—assuming that the audience believes you are a reasonable person, of
course.

I’ve put my heart and soul into this project and feel strongly that it will succeed given more time.

Here are some other ways of commenting on the strength of one’s beliefs:

I’m certain that…

I’m sure that…
I can assure you that…
Over the years, I have become convinced that…
I would bet a million dollars that…

Yet another way of assuring one’s audience is to make an audience member feel that it would be stupid, odd, or
strange to deny the claim one is making. One common way to do this is by implying that every sensible,
informed, or ethical person would agree with the claim. In this example, the implication is that people who
disagree are not adequately informed.

Yes, I support the proposal, because I’ve actually read it.

Here are other common signals:

Everyone with any sense agrees that…

Of course, no one will deny that…
There is no question that…
No one with any sense would deny that…

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 55
 Another common way of doing this is by implying that no sensible person would agree with a claim that we are
trying to establish as false:

It is no longer held that…

No intelligent person would ever maintain that…
You would have to live under a rock to think that…

Assurances are not necessarily illegitimate, since the person may be right and may in fact have good arguments
to back up the claims, but the assurances are not themselves arguments, and a critical thinker will always
regard them as somewhat suspect. This is especially so when the claim isn’t obviously true.

 THINK ABOUT IT

When might an assurance be a legitimate argument shortcut, and when not? Imagine an expert in a niche
field, who finds herself stuck talking to a stranger at a party who reads an article about her field in the
newspaper and has opinions about it. How might these two different people make use of assurances
differently?

 TERM TO KNOW

Assuring
Informing someone that there are further reasons in support of one’s argument although one is not
giving them now.

2. Guarding

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 56
 Guarding involves reducing the requirements of a claim so that it is easier to defend it. Here is a simple contrast
that will make the point. Consider the following claims:

A. All U.S. presidents were honest.

B. Almost all U.S. presidents were honest.
C. Most U.S. presidents were honest.
D. Many U.S. presidents were honest.
E. Some U.S. presidents were honest.

A is the hardest to defend, with each subsequent claim a bit easier to defend. E is the easiest. It doesn’t take
very much for E to be true; there just has to be at least one U.S. president who was honest. In contrast, A is
much less likely than E to be true because it requires every U.S. president to have been honest. One way of
thinking about this is that any time A is true, it is also true that B-E are true, but B-E could be true without A
being true. That is what it means for a claim to be easier or harder to defend. An easier to defend claim is more
likely to be true, whereas a harder to defend claim is less likely to be true. E is much more likely to be true than
A. Likewise, D is somewhat more likely to be true than C, and so on.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 57
 Guarding thus involves taking a riskier claim and making it safer so there is less room to object to it. We can
also guard a claim by introducing a probability clause, such as “it is possible that…” and “it is arguable that…” or
by reducing our level of commitment to the claim, such as moving from “I know that x” to “I believe that x.”

 BRAINSTORM

What are some ways that you might use guarding to reduce the risk of the following claims?
My cat is the best cat in the whole wide world.
Sequels are always terrible.
It's never a good idea to plan a picnic without a rain plan.

One common use of guarding is in reconstructing arguments with missing premises using the principle of
charity. For example, if an argument is that “Tom works for Merrill Lynch, so Tom has a college degree,” the
most charitable reconstruction of this argument would fill in the missing premise with “most people who work
for Merrill Lynch have college degrees” rather than “everyone who works for Merrill Lynch has a college
degree.” Here we have created a more charitable (plausible) premise by reducing the claim from “all” to “most,”
which as we have seen is a kind of guarding. We will discuss missing premises and reconstructing arguments in
more detail below (in section 2.3.2).

 TERMS TO KNOW

Guarding
Weakening a claim so that it is easier to defend the claim.

Principle of Charity
The principle that when reconstructing an argument, you should try to make that argument valid, or as
strong as possible if an inductive argument.

3. Discounting

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 58
 Discounting involves acknowledging an objection to the claim or argument that one is making, while dismissing
that same objection. The rhetorical force of discounting is to make it seem as though the argument has taken
account of the objections, especially the ones that might be most salient in a person’s mind. Consider the
following two claims:

The worker was inefficient, but honest.

The worker was honest, but inefficient.

Although each statement asserts the same facts, the first seems to be recommending the worker, whereas the
second doesn’t. We can imagine the first person continuing, “so I think we should keep them on the team,” and
the second continuing, “so we can’t keep them on the team.” In both cases, a person is making an argument,
and begins by acknowledging then discounting what they expect the opposing argument to be. In other words,
discounting involves acknowledging a potential objection to your ultimate conclusion and dismissing it in favor
of your own evidence/premise(s). Here are a few more examples.

The headphones have the worst battery life of any headphones on the market. That being said, they have
crisp audio and are comfortable in your ears. Hence, they are the best choice of the headphones out there.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 59
 Even if the soil doesn’t have good water drainage, there is a decent amount of sun, so that is an excellent
space for a garden.

The dog is lovable and cute, but she needs more attention than we can give her.

In the first two examples, objections (in italics) were brought up that were discounted rather than argued
against. In the third, a “pro” side was acknowledged, and then the objections were raised. In all three, the
arguer’s main purpose gets the emphasis by discounting the counterargument. You can spot discounting when
you hear a salient point raised and dismissed without a meaningful refutation. Some of the cue words for
discounting are:
but…
even if…
although…
nonetheless…
still…
however…
all that being said…

 TRY IT

Which rhetorical techniques (assuring, guarding, discounting) are being used in the following passages?

1. Although drilling for oil in Alaska will disrupt some wildlife, it is better than having to depend on
foreign oil, which has the tendency to draw us into foreign conflicts that we would otherwise not be +
involved in.

Discounting

2. Let there be no doubt: the entity that carried out this attack is a known terrorist organization,
+
whose attacks have a characteristic style—a style that is seen in this attack today.

Assuring

3. Privatizing the water utilities in Detroit was an unprecedented move that has garnered a lot of
criticism. Nonetheless, it is helping Detroit to recover from bankruptcy. +

Discounting

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 60
 4. Most pediatricians agree that the single most important factor in childhood obesity is eating
sugary, processed foods, which have become all too common in our day and age. +

Assuring

5. Although not every case of lung cancer is caused by smoking, it is arguable that most are. +

Discounting

6. Abraham Lincoln was probably our greatest president since he helped keep together a nation on
the brink of splintering into two. +

Guarding

7. No one with any sense would support Obamacare. +

Assuring

8. Even if universal healthcare is expensive, it is still the just thing to do. +

Discounting

9. While our country has made significant strides in overcoming explicit racist policies, the wide
disparity of wealth, prestige, and influence that characterize white and black Americans shows that +
we are still implicitly a racist country.

Discounting

10. Recent studies have shown that there is no direct link between vaccines and autism. +

Assuring

 TERM TO KNOW

Discounting
Anticipating objections that might be raised to one’s claim or argument as a way of dismissing those
objections.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 61
  SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned about analyzing arguments in natural language for elements that may be
vague or tricky, such as hiding premises behind assuring, softening claims for a safer argument, called
guarding, or discounting, which is dismissing objections without explaining why. Knowing these
rhetorical strategies will help you analyze arguments in natural language or translate them into logical
arguments.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Assuring
Informing someone that there are further reasons in support of one’s argument although one is not giving
them now.

Discounting
Anticipating objections that might be raised to one’s claim or argument as a way of dismissing those
objections.

Guarding
Weakening a claim so that it is easier to defend the claim.

Principle of Charity
The principle that when reconstructing an argument, you should try to make that argument valid, or as
strong as possible if an inductive argument.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 62
 Arguments With Hidden Premises
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will learn about identifying missing or hidden premises in an argument, which must
be identified to understand the logical structure of the argument. Specifically, this lesson will cover:
1. Missing Premises
2. The Principle of Charity

1. Missing Premises
Quite often, an argument will not explicitly state a premise that we can see is needed in order for the argument
to be valid. In such a case, we can supply the premise(s) needed in order to make the argument valid. Making
missing premises explicit is a central part of reconstructing arguments in standard form.

In some cases, the missing premise will be fairly obvious, as in the following:

Gary is a clown, so Gary works in a circus.

The premise and conclusion of this argument are straightforward:

1. Gary is a clown.
2. Therefore, Gary works in a circus. (from 1)

However, as stated, the argument is invalid. Before reading on, see if you can provide a counterexample for this
argument. That is, come up with an imaginary scenario in which the premise is true and yet the conclusion is
false.
Here is just one counterexample (there could be many):

Gary is a clown but works as an independent contractor doing parties and events (i.e., children’s birthday
parties).

It seems clear that this argument is relying upon a premise that isn’t explicitly stated. We can and should state
that premise explicitly in our reconstruction of the standard form argument. But what is the argument’s missing
premise? The obvious one is that no clown works outside of a circus, but we could also use a more carefully
worded statement like this one:

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 63
 Where Gary lives, all clowns work in circuses.

It should be obvious why this is a more “careful” statement. It is more careful because it is not so universal in
scope, which means that it is easier for the statement to be made true.
By putting the statement that clowns work in circuses in the context of where Gary lives, we leave open the
possibility that other places in the world don’t have this same restriction. So even if there are other places in the
world where clowns work outside of circuses, our statements could still be true since in this place (the place
where Gary lives), there aren’t any.

Here is the argument in standard form:

1. Gary is a clown.
2. Where Gary lives, all clowns work in circuses.
3. Therefore, Gary works in a circus. (from 1-2)

This argument is now valid: there is no way for the conclusion to be false, assuming the truth of the premises.
As we can see from this example, a missing premise is a premise that the argument needs in order to be valid.
Typically, this means supplying the statement(s) that are needed to support the conclusion. This doesn’t
necessarily mean the argument is poorly formed; it really depends on whether the premises are commonly
understood and agreed to.

 TRY IT

Can you find the missing premise in the following argument?

1. Kristen lives in the city.

2. She wishes she could see her horse more often.
3. Kristen is going to move to the country.

Check Your Answer +

There are several hidden premises here: that horses are not allowed in the city, or that horses need
more space than a city lot can provide, and that these problems do not exist in the country.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 64
  TERM TO KNOW

Missing Premise
An unstated premise that is crucial to an argument. We include it in the reconstruction of an argument.

2. The Principle of Charity

When we reconstruct an argument with a missing premise, we strive to supply the premise that will make the
argument valid (if deductive) or plausible (if inductive). This is called “the principle of charity.” The principle of
charity states that when reconstructing an argument, you should try to make that argument as reasonable as
possible.

 KEY CONCEPT

In interpreting arguments with the principle of charity, we do the best we can to make the argument well-
formed.
When it comes to supplying missing premises, this means supplying the most reasonable premises needed in
order to make the argument either valid (for deductive arguments) or inductively strong (for inductive
arguments). Although in the last example about Gary the clown, it was relatively easy to figure out the missing
premise, it is not always so easy. Here is an argument whose missing premises are not as easy to determine:

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 65
 Since the death penalty has the possibility of ending the life of innocent people, and several people on
death row in the last forty years have been found to be innocent, the state should eliminate the death
penalty.

The conclusion of this argument, that the state should eliminate the death penalty, is apparently supported by a
single premise, which should be recognizable from the occurrence of the premise indicator, “since.” Thus, our
initial reconstruction of the standard form argument looks like this:

1. The death penalty has the possibility of ending the life of innocent people, and several people on death
row in the last forty years have been found to be innocent.
2. Therefore, the state should eliminate the death penalty.

However, as it stands, this argument is invalid because it depends on certain missing premises. The conclusion
of this argument is a normative statement, which you might remember is a statement about whether something
ought to be true, relative to some standard of evaluation.
An important rule of logic is that statements about what ought to be the case (i.e., normative statements) can
never be derived entirely from statements about what is the case (i.e., descriptive statements). This is known as
the is-ought gap. The problem with the above argument is that it attempts to infer a normative statement from a
purely descriptive statement, violating the is-ought gap.

 DID YOU KNOW

The is-ought gap was first articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), so it is also called
Hume’s Law.
We can see the problem by constructing a counterexample. Suppose that in society X, it is true that the death
penalty has the possibility of ending the life of innocent people, and several people on death row in the last
forty years have been found to be innocent. However, suppose that in society X, people think it is acceptable
for a small number of innocent people to be put to death by the state for crimes they didn't commit because the
number of violent criminals eliminated outweighs the innocent lives lost. In this case, the conclusion, that the
state should eliminate the death penalty, does not follow from the premises; the conclusion only applies to a
society that believes that the execution of innocent people illegitimizes the death penalty.

Thus, we can see that the argument depends on a missing or assumed premise that is not explicitly stated. That
missing premise must be a normative statement, in order for us to infer the conclusion, which is also a
normative statement. There is an important general lesson here: Many times an argument with a normative
conclusion will depend on a normative premise which is not explicitly stated. The missing normative premise of
this particular argument seems to be something like this:

The state should always do what it can to decrease the number of innocent incarcerated people put to
death.

Notice that this is a normative statement, which is indicated by the use of the word “should.” There are many
other words that can be used to capture normative statements, such as: good, bad, and ought. We can now
reconstruct the argument, filling in the missing normative premise like this:

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 66
 1. The death penalty has the possibility of ending the life of innocent people, and several people on death
row in the last forty years have been found to be innocent.
2. The state should always do what it can to decrease the number of innocent incarcerated people put to
death.
3. Therefore, the state should eliminate the death penalty. (from 1-2)

The important lesson from this example is that supplying the missing premises of an argument is not always a
simple matter. In the example above, we have used the principle of charity to supply missing premises.
Mastering this skill is truly an art (rather than a science) since there is never just one correct way of doing it and
because it takes practice.
 TRY IT

Supply the missing premise or premises needed in order to make the following arguments valid. Try to
make the premises as plausible as possible while making the argument valid (which is to apply the principle
of charity).

Keep in mind that your own answers may be different than these and still be correct, especially in the
precise wording. But here are some examples of how to state the missing premise.

1. The team has a losing record, so there’s no way they make the playoffs. +

Playoff participation is limited to teams with winning records.

2. In 2019 in the United States, the net worth of the median white household was $188,200 in
wealth, whereas the net worth of the median black household was $24,100. Therefore, the United +
States still has systemic racism.

Any wealth gap is due to laws and policies that maintain racial inequity; laws and policies that maintain
inequity are evidence of systemic racism.

3. Prostitution is a fair economic exchange between two consenting adults. Therefore, prostitution
+
should be legal.

Any exchange between two consenting adults should be legal.

 TERMS TO KNOW

Descriptive
Factual claims about what is true, as opposed to normative statements about what ought to be true.

Is-Ought Gap (also called Hume’s Law)

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 67
 The logical principle that normative statements (what ought to be) cannot be derived entirely from
descriptive statements (what is). Such arguments often have unstated normative premises.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you learned about arguments with missing premises, or statements that aren't included
in a natural language argument but are necessary for the argument to be valid. These may be facts the
arguer assumes everyone knows. Other times, they are normative statements about what “ought” to
be, rather than descriptive statements about what “is.” The principle of charity is to identify these
unstated premises and write them out to make an argument strong or valid.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking.

REFERENCES

Moss, E., et al (2020, December 8). Up Front: The Black-white wealth gap left Black households more
vulnerable. The Brookings Institution. www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/08/the-black-white-wealth-
gap-left-black-households-more-vulnerable/

 TERMS TO KNOW

Descriptive
Factual claims about what is true, as opposed to normative statements about what ought to be true.

Is-Ought Gap (also called Hume’s Law)

The logical principle that normative statements (what ought to be) cannot be derived entirely from
descriptive statements (what is). Such arguments often have unstated normative premises.

Missing Premise
An unstated premise that is crucial to an argument. We include it in the reconstruction of an argument.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 68
 Reconstructing Arguments
by Sophia

 WHAT'S COVERED

In this lesson, you will see how to translate a long argument in natural language into logical language.
We will do so by:
1. Reviewing the Argument in Natural Language
2. Identifying the Main Conclusion
3. Identifying Subarguments
4. Identifying Hidden Premises
5. Finalizing Our Reconstructed Argument

1. Reviewing the Argument in Natural Language

This section shows a complete argument in natural language broken down into logical form. This comes from
Matthew Van Cleave’s text, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. The original argument is a speech by
President Barack Obama on September 10, 2013, in response to a civil war in Syria. (You can watch the full
speech here or read the full transcript here.)

Van Cleave uses the concepts and techniques that have been introduced in this class to analyze and evaluate
Obama’s argument. It is important to note that regardless of one’s views—whether one agrees with Obama or
not—one can still analyze the structure of the argument and evaluate it by applying the informal test of validity
to the reconstructed argument in standard form. In fact, being able to analyze and test an opposing argument is
an excellent way to begin to form a rebuttal!

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 69
 First, here is an excerpt of Obama’s speech we will analyze; this excerpt is exactly as Obama delivered it, but
the numbering is ours; we will use this as an aid in analyzing the argument below.

1. My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria—why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of
Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed.
Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support,
to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement.
2. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through
force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over
a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men,
women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A
father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw
in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of
humanity has declared them off limits—a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
4. This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by
deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the
Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant,
the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate
overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined
by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 70
 5. On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.
6. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone
pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of
hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
7. Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that
Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They
distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11
neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.
8. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We
know senior figures in Assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime
increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also studied samples
of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
9. When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying
pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.
10. The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do
about it, because what happened to those people—to those children—is not only a violation of international
law, it's also a danger to our security.
11. Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.
12. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring
poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the
battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to
attack civilians.
13. If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
14. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other
weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore
international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.
15. This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I
determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's
use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter
Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the
world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief.

We will now condense this speech into a series of declarative statements ending in a conclusion, showing how
Obama builds his argument.

2. Identifying the Main Conclusion

The first question to ask is: What is the main point or conclusion of this speech? What conclusion is Obama
trying to argue for? What will the final statement of our reconstructed argument be?

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 71
  TRY IT

Review the speech and highlight the sentence you think best represents the main conclusion before you
continue reading.
This is no simple question and requires close reading to determine. One of the things to look for is a conclusion
or premise indicator, but there are numerous conclusion indicators in the speech, so we can’t assume the first
we find is the conclusion. Rather, we must read the full speech to ascertain its main purpose, then read through
again for the sentence that best captures that conclusion.

When we read the speech, it is clear that Obama is trying to convince the American public of the necessity of
taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria. So, the conclusion is an “ought” statement, not a factual
one. When we read through again for a sentence that captures this conclusion, we might spot this one in
paragraph 15.

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the
United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.

The phrase, “that is why,” is a conclusion indicator, and this introduces the main conclusion of the argument.
Here is a paraphrase of that conclusion:

Main conclusion: It is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to Assad’s use of
chemical weapons with military force.

 THINK ABOUT IT

Did you choose this sentence as the main conclusion?

3. Identifying Subarguments
Before Obama argues for this main conclusion, however, he makes a subargument supporting the claim that
Assad used chemical weapons on his own people; this happens in paragraphs 1-9. The reasons he gives for
how we know that Assad used chemical weapons support that conclusion (the parenthetical numbers show
which paragraph of the original speech these are found)

1. Assad's government has used chemical weapons against civilians.

a. Images of the destruction show women and children (6).
b. Humanitarian organizations have stories of hospitals full of civilians suffering from symptoms of exposure
to chemical weapons (6).
c. Assad’s chemical weapons experts were at a site where sarin gas is mixed just a few days before the
attack (7).
d. Assad distributed gas masks to his troops (7).
e. Assad’s forces fired rockets into neighborhoods where there were opposition forces (8).

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 72
 f. Senior military officers in Assad’s regime were aware of harm to civilians and still proceeded with the
attacks (8).
g. Sarin was found in blood and hair samples of people at the site of the attack (8).

These premises do provide support for the conclusion that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians, but you
might note that it is a strong inductive argument, rather than a valid deductive argument. The evidence strongly
supports the conclusion that Assad was responsible, and is convincing, but it is not impossible to come up with
counterexamples where the premises would be true and the conclusion was false. For example, it could be that
some other entity was trying to set Assad up. But the conclusion Obama comes to is likely, and this first
subargument should be taken as a strong inductive argument (assuming the premises are true, of course,
meaning the argument is cogent.). We can paraphrase the conclusion of this subargument as this:

Assad's government has used chemical weapons against civilians.

This conclusion then becomes a premise supporting the main conclusion. So, now we have this argument:

1. Assad's government has used chemical weapons against civilians.

2. Therefore, it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to Assad’s use of chemical
weapons with military force.

There is another, intermediate conclusion that Obama argues for more directly in paragraph 10. Although there
are additional arguments suggested by the sentences, the main idea is that ignoring Assad’s actions will be a
threat to U.S. security. We can paraphrase this as:

If the U.S does not respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with military force, our own national
security will be put at risk.

This is another subargument supported by paragraphs 11-14. You might notice the words, “Let me explain why,”
are indicators that the prior statement is a conclusion (though not the main conclusion), and the following
statements are premises in support of that conclusion.

If the U.S. does not respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with military force:
a. Assad will continue to use them against civilians (11).
b. Other tyrants will use chemical weapons (12).
c. The ban on chemical weapons will erode (12).
d. It will be easier for terrorists to obtain chemical weapons (12).
e. U.S. troops will face chemical weapons on the battlefield (12).
f. U.S. allies bordering Syria will be at risk (13).
g. It will weaken prohibitions on other weapons of mass destruction (14).
h. It will embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear program (14).

This is another inductive argument; the outcomes are not facts but things that (Obama argues) are likely to
occur.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 73
 4. Identifying Hidden Premises
You may see that there are a number of unstated premises that are crucial for the argument’s conclusion.

 THINK ABOUT IT

What unstated normative premises are necessary to reach Obama’s conclusion? Jot them down before you
continue reading; we will come back to it shortly.
Any real-world argument will take place within a context where some premises are presumed true, either
because the arguer assumes their audience is informed on some matters or because they have a common
ideology; both are used here. The first is a normative statement, necessary to a normative conclusion.

As a military superpower, the U.S. has a responsibility of maintaining the human rights of people around the
world.

The second is factual information well-known to the audience.

Non-military options for influencing Assad have already failed.

 THINK ABOUT IT

How do these compare to the one you wrote down?

5. Finalizing Our Reconstructed Argument

We can now reconstruct the entire argument. In this case, the parentheticals refer to the numbers within this
same reconstructed argument, the specific premises that inform a conclusion. This represents the standard way
that such arguments are constructed. We will include the unstated premises in brackets since they cannot be
found in the original argument.

1. Images of the destruction [in Syria] show women and children.

2. Humanitarian organizations have stories of hospitals full of civilians suffering from symptoms of exposure to
chemical weapons.
3. Assad’s chemical weapons experts were at a site where sarin gas is mixed just a few days before the
attack.
4. Assad distributed gas masks to his troops.
5. Assad’s forces fired rockets into neighborhoods where there were opposition forces.
6. Senior military officers in Assad’s regime were aware of harm to civilians and still proceeded with the
attacks.
7. Sarin was found in blood and hair samples of people at the site of the attack.
8. Therefore, Assad’s government has used chemicals against civilians (from 1-7).

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 74
 9. Assad will continue to use them against civilians.
10. Other tyrants will use chemical weapons.
11. The ban on chemical weapons will erode.
12. It will be easier for terrorists to obtain chemical weapons.
13. U.S. troops will face chemical weapons on the battlefields.
14. U.S. allies bordering Syria will be at risk.
15. It will weaken prohibitions on other weapons of mass destruction.
16. It will embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear program.
17. Therefore, if the U.S does not respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with military force, our own
national security will be put at risk (from 9-16).
18. (As a military superpower, the U.S. has a responsibility of maintaining the human rights of people around
the world.)
19. (Non-military options for influencing Assad have already failed.)
20. Therefore, it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to Assad’s use of chemical
weapons with military force (from 8, 17-19).

While any two logicians will come up with slightly different ways of reconstructing an argument in formal terms,
the logical structure and hidden premises should be revealed; any fallacious reasoning should be exposed, or
the strength of the argument revealed. This is one way that familiarity with logic can help you as a critical
thinker.

 TRY IT

Find a speech or opinion article and render it in logical terms like this one above.
Can you identify the main conclusion, and the premises?
Do the premises provide good evidentiary support for the conclusion?
Are there any subarguments?
What are the unstated premises?

 WATCH

View a demonstration of a shorter translation example.

 SUMMARY

In this lesson, you saw a full argument in natural language broken down into logical components and
translated into sentential logic. This process of finalizing our reconstructed argument begins with
carefully reviewing the argument in natural language and identifying the main conclusion. We can
then find premises that support the main conclusion. This will often involve identifying subarguments
and identifying hidden premises that are needed to reach the main conclusion. These may be
informational premises the speaker assumes the audience knows or normative statements the speaker

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 75
 assumes the audience agrees with. Seeing this in practice can help you see how skills in formal logic
can be applied in the real world.

Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking.

REFERENCES

Obama, B. (2013, September 10). Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria. The Barack
Obama White House Archives obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-
president-address-nation-syria

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 76
 Terms to Know
Actual Truths
Statements that are true in our world.

Assuring
Informing someone that there are further reasons in support of one’s argument although one
is not giving them now.

Cases
The hypothetical scenarios generated to test an argument for validity. A counterexample is a
case where the argument is shown to be invalid.

Cogent
In an inductive argument, indicates that the argument is strong and the premises are true,
and so is convincing to a reasonable person. However, unlike soundness, the conclusion in
an inductive argument is not a 100% certainty.

Complex Argument
An argument in which some premises lead to conclusions that then serve as premises for
another conclusion, or where premises provide independent support for the conclusion.

Conclusion Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is the conclusion, or
main purpose, of the argument. Common examples include therefore, so, thus, and hence.

Counterexample
A hypothetical scenario demonstrating a way the premises can be true and the conclusion is
false. This gives proof of the argument’s invalidity.

Deductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Descriptive
A statement or argument about what is actually true, in contrast to normative statements.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 77
 Discounting
Anticipating objections that might be raised to one’s claim or argument as a way of
dismissing those objections.

Epistemology
The field of philosophy that explores how we ascertain truth, or attempting to answer, “How
do we know what we know?”

Evidentiary Support
The facts, statistics, expert testimony, or anecdotal evidence that support the truth of a
particular statement.

Explanation
An argument where the premises show why the conclusion is true rather than try to persuade
somebody that the conclusion is true.

Guarding
Weakening a claim so that it is easier to defend the claim.

Hidden Premise
An unstated premise in an argument, usually based on a safe assumption or shared
understanding.

Inductive Reasoning
Constructing or analyzing arguments where we look for evidence that the conclusion is
probably or likely but may not be 100% certain.

Invalid
When the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises

Is-Ought Gap (also called Hume’s Law)

The logical principle that normative statements (what ought to be) cannot be derived entirely
from descriptive statements (what is). Such arguments often have unstated normative
premises.

Logical Argument

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 78
 A set of statements, some of which (the premises) attempt to provide a reason for thinking
that some other statement (the conclusion) is true.

Main Argument
In a complex argument, the main conclusion and premises that directly support it.

Main Conclusion
In a complex argument, the overall conclusion the argument comes to.

Missing Premise
An unstated premise that is crucial to an argument. We include it in the reconstruction of an
argument.

Necessary Truths
Statements that are true in all possible worlds.

Normative
A statement or argument about what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Normative Argument
An argument that argues towards what one ought to do, not what is already true.

Possible Truths
Statements that are true in at least one possible world.

Premise Indicator Words

Words in natural language that suggest the sentence in the argument is a premise, or reason
to believe the conclusion. Common examples include whereas, since, and because.

Principle of Charity
The principle that when reconstructing an argument, you should try to make that argument
valid, or as strong as possible if an inductive argument.

Sentential Logic
Another term for formal logic, this name indicates the arrangement of sentences.

Sound

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 79
 A valid argument with true premises, one in which the conclusion must be true.

Standard Form
The way of organizing a logical argument with numbered premises and a conclusion. The
sequencing of the statements shows how each premise leads to the conclusion.

Statement
A declarative sentence, one that asserts something is true.

Strong
An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is well supported by its
premises. In inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

Subargument
Part of a complex argument that provides indirect support to the main conclusion.

Weak
An indication that an inductive argument has a conclusion that is not well supported by its
premises. In inductive reasoning, these are not absolute statements like valid and invalid.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 80