Argument Forms
Arguments in propositional logic have forms with specific names that can be immediately recognized as
either valid or invalid.
Common Argument Forms
1. Disjunctive syllogism is an argument that consists of a disjunctive premise, a premise that denies
one of the disjuncts, and a conclusion that affirms the other disjunct
Example:
Thomas will apologize or Michelle will be angry. TvM
Thomas will not apologize. ~T__
Therefore, Michelle will be angry. M Valid
Tagbilaran is in Bohol or Dumaguete is in Negros. TvD
Tagbilaran is in Bohol. T___ Invalid
Therefore … …
Argument form:
pvq
~p__
q
Any argument having this form – that is, any substitution instance – will be a valid
argument
2. Hypothetical syllogism – if all three statements in the argument are conditional statements, the
argument is a pure hypothetical syllogism; if only one is a conditional statement, the argument
is a mixed hypothetical syllogism.
T⊃E
Example of a pure hypothetical syllogism:
E ⊃ I_
If tuition increases, enrolment will drop.
T ⊃ I Valid
If enrolment drops, instructors will be laid off.
Therefore, if tuition increases, instructors will be
laid off.
T⊃L
D ⊃ L_
If Tagbilaran is in Bohol, then Larena is in Siquijor.
T ⊃ D Invalid
If Dumaguete is in Negros, then Larena is in Siquijor.
Therefore, if Tagbilaran is in Bohol, then Dumaguete
is in Negros.
p⊃q
Argument form:
q ⊃ r_
p⊃r
Pure hypothetical syllogism (HS)
Mixed hypothetical syllogism – only one of the premises is a conditional statement – comprises
four forms, two of which are valid, two invalid.
Valid: a.) modus ponens (“asserting mode”)
b.) modus tollens (“denying mode”)
Invalid: a.) affirming the consequent
b.) denying the antecedent
F⊃B
Example of modus ponens:
If this flashlight works, then the batteries are good.
This flashlight does work. F_____
Therefore, the batteries are good. B Valid
In modus ponens, it is essential that the antecedent of the first premise be asserted in
the second. The conclusion then asserts the consequent of the first premise.
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napoleon is dead. K ⊃ D
Napoleon is dead. D_____
Therefore, Napoleon was killed in a plane crash. K Invalid
This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.
F⊃B
Example of modus tollens:
If this flashlight works, then the batteries are good.
The batteries are not good. ~B___
Therefore, this flashlight does not work. ~F Valid
In modus tollens, the consequent of the first premise is denied in the second premise,
and the conclusion then denies the antecedent of the first premise.
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napoleon is dead. K ⊃ D
Napoleon was not killed in the plane crash. ~K___ Invalid
Therefore, Napoleon is not dead. ~D
This is a fallacy of denying the antecedent.
p⊃q p⊃q
Argument forms: Invalid forms:
modus ponens (MP)
p_____ q_____
q p
modus tollens (MT) p⊃q p⊃q
~q____ ~p____
~p ~q
Any substitution instance of either of these forms in the left side is a valid argument.
Given the argument:
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napoleon is dead.
Napoleon was not killed in a plane crash.
Therefore, napoleon is not dead.
Note:
The fallacy of denying the antecedent mistakenly converts this sufficient condition into a
necessary condition with the effect that Napoleon’s being not killed in a plane crash
supposedly entails his not being dead.
Given the argument:
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napoleon is dead.
Napoleon is dead.
Therefore, Napoleon was killed in a plane crash.
Note:
Napoleon’s being dead is actually a necessary condition for his being killed in a plane
crash. The fallacy of affirming the consequent mistakenly converts this necessary
condition into a sufficient condition and concludes that because Napoleon is dead, he
was therefore killed in a plane crash.
Note: Converting sufficient conditions into necessary conditions, and vice versa, is not legitimate.
3. Constructive dilemma is an argument (form) where the first premise consists of two conjoined
conditional statements, and the second premise asserts the truth of one of the antecedents. The
conclusion, which follows logically via two modus ponens steps, asserts the truth of at least one
of the consequents.
Example: If this punch contains gin, then Elisa will like it, and if it contains vodka, then
Carmen will like it.
This punch contains either gin or vodka.
Therefore, either Eliza will like it or Carmen will like it.
(G ⊃ E) ⋅ (V ⊃ C)
G v V_____________
EvC
4. Destructive dilemma is similar in form to the constructive dilemma, but the second premise,
instead of asserting the truth of at least one of the antecedents, asserts the falsity of at least one
of the consequents. The conclusion, which follows validly via two modus tollens steps, asserts
the falsity of at least one of the antecedents.
Example: If this punch contains gin, then Elisa will like it, and if it contains vodka, then
Carmen will like it.
Either Elisa will no like it or Carmen will not like it.
Therefore, either this punch does not contain gin or it does not contain vodka.
(G ⊃ E) ⋅ (V ⊃ C)
~E v ~C________
~G v ~V
The constructive and destructive dilemmas are defined in terms of the following argument
forms. Any substitution instance of either of these forms is a valid argument.
constructive dilemma (p ⊃ q) ⋅ (r ⊃ s)
p v r_________
qvs
destructive dilemma (p ⊃ q) ⋅ (r ⊃ s)
~q v ~s
~p v ~r
Note: In disjunctive argument, p v q is logically equivalent to q v p. Hence, in the following
substitution instance,
AvB may be re-expressed as BvA
~B__ ~B__
A A
Negated letters, as well as non-negated letters, may be interpreted as substitution
instances of the p, q, r and s in the argument forms. For instance,
~A ⊃ B is a substitution instance of p⊃q
~A____ p____
B q
The simple statement form p is logically equivalent to ~~p, hence, the argument on the
left may be re-expressed thtough the left, which is a substitution instance of modus
tollens.
A ⊃ ~B may be re-expressed as A ⊃ ~B
B_____ ~~B___
~A ~A
The order of the premises doe not affect the form of the argument. Consider the
following:
B⊃C
B ⊃ A (MT) A ⊃ B (HS)
~A
~B A⊃C
Additional examples. In some cases, the symbolized argument may have to be re-expressed,
using one or more of these three logical equivalences, before it fits the pattern of the argument
form indicated in parentheses:
~A ⊃ ~B A ⊃ ~B
~B ⊃ C_ B⊃ ~C
~A ⊃ C A ⊃ ~C
(HS) invalid
~A ⊃ ~B ~A ⊃ B
B________ (MT) A_______ (DA)
A ~B
~A v ~B ~A v B
A________ (DS) ~A____ invalid
~B ~B
(A⊃ ~B) ⋅ (~C ⊃ D) (~A ⊃ B) ⋅ (C ⊃ ~D)
A v ~C ________ (CD) B v ~D__________ invalid
~B v D A v ~C
A v ~B A ⊃ ~B
B______ (DS) ~B (AC)
A A
A ⊃ B_ (A ⊃ B) ⋅ (C ⊃ D)
A AvC
(MP) (CD)
B BvD
Summary:
p⊃q
Any argument that has one of the following forms is valid:
q⊃r
pvq disjunctive syllogism (DS) pure hypothetical syllogism (HS)
p⊃r
~p__
q
p⊃q modus ponens (MP) p⊃q modus tollens (MT)
p____ ~q___
q ~p
(p ⊃ q) ⋅ (r ⊃ s) constructive dilemma (CD) (p ⊃ q) ⋅ (r ⊃ s) destructive dilemma (DD)
p v r_____________ ~q v ~s_________
qvs ~p v ~r
Any argument that is correctly interpreted as an instance of either of the following forms is invalid:
p⊃q affirming the consequent (AC) p⊃q denying the antecedent (DA)
q___ ~p__
p ~q
