Week 4

Basic Concepts in Logic and

Deductive Reasoning Part 2
UGED1111 LOGIC 2024/ 25 TE RM TWO
DR. ARTHUR CHIN

1
Argument Form and
Soundness

2
 How to determine validity?
• Is this reasoning valid?
• “I cannot think of a situation in which the premises are true while the
conclusion is false.
• Therefore, this argument must be valid.”

• Is there any mechanical method that can reliably help us determine

validity?

3
 Valid? Invalid?
P1: If Arthur is a human, then Arthur P1: If Russia invades Ukraine, then
is mortal. WW3 will happen.
P2: Arthur is a human. P2: Russia invades Ukraine.
______________________________ _________________________
C: Arthur is mortal. C: WW3 will happen.

4
 Statement: Simple and Compound
• Simple statement (簡單述句): A • Compound statement (複合述句): A
statement that does not contain any statement that is constructed out of
other statement as a component. at least one simple statement
• Fast foods tend to be unhealthy. through logical connective(s).
• James Joyce wrote Ulysses. • It is not the case that fast food tends
• Aristotle wrote Politics. to be healthy.
• James Joyce wrote Ulysses and
Aristotle wrote Politics.

5
 Argument Form: 1
• Argument form (論證格式):
1) Preserve the logical connectives (邏輯連接詞).
2) Replace all simple statements with propositional letters (命題字母).

• Logical connectives
1) Conditional: “If…then…”
2) Conjunction (合取): “…and…”
3) Disjunction (析取): “…or…”
4) Negation: “It is not that…”

6
 Argument Form: 2
• Validity can be determined in a mechanical and reliable way through
checking with the argument form

• Basic forms of deductive reasoning

(1) Modus Ponens (MP) (2) Modus Tollens (MT)
(3) Affirming the Consequent (4) Denying the Antecedent
(5) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) (6) Chain Argument
(7) Constructive Dilemma (8) Destructive Dilemma

7
Modus Ponens (正斷律): Valid Argument Form
• Concreate Argument • Argument Form
P1: If you pray to false gods, then you P1: If P then Q.
will go to hell. P2: P.
P2: You pray to false gods. _____________________________
____________________________ C: Q.
C: You will go to hell.
• Also known as Affirming the
Antecedent (肯定前項)

8
Modus Ponens (正斷律): Valid Argument Form
• Concreate Argument • Argument Form
P1: If Russia invades Ukraine and NATO P1: If P and Q, then R or S.
helps defend Ukraine, then China will
stay put or WW3 will happen.
P2: Russia invades Ukraine and NATO P2: P and Q.
helps defend Ukraine.
_________________________ ______________________________
C: China will stay put or WW3 will C: R or S.
happen.

9
 Modus Tollens (逆斷律): Valid Argument Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form
P1: If you love me, then you P1: If P then Q.
remember my birthday.
P2: Not Q.
P2: You do not remember my
____________________________
birthday.
C: Not P.
___________________________
C: You do not love me.
• Also known as Denying the
Consequent (否定後項)

10
 Modus Tollens (逆斷律): Valid Argument Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form
P1: If Peter gets an A in a logic or he is P1: If P or Q, then R.
good at philosophy, then Mary will
marry him.
P2: Mary does not marry him. P2: Not R.
_____________________________ ____________________________
C: It is not the case that Peter gets an
A in logic or he is good at philosophy. C: Not P or Q.
• Any obscurity detected?

11
 Modus Tollens (逆斷律): Valid Argument Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form
P1: If Peter gets an A in a logic course P1: If (P and Q), then R.
and a philosophy course, then Mary
P2: Not R.
will marry him.
____________________________
P2: Mary does not marry him.
C: Not (P and Q).
_____________________________
C: It is not the case that (Peter gets an
A in logic and a philosophy course).

12
13
 Affirming the Consequent (肯定後項):
Not a Valid Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form

P1: If you keep making faces all the time, P1: If P then Q.
then you will be ugly.
P2: Q.
P2: You are very ugly.
____________________________
____________________________
C: P.
C: You keep making faces all the time.

• Why not valid? Explain in terms of

necessary or sufficient condition.

14
 Denying the Antecedent (否定前項):
Not a Valid Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form

P1: If you love me, then you will buy P1: If P then Q.
me flowers.
P2: Not P.
P2: You do not love me.
C: Not Q.
C: You will not buy me flowers.

• Why not valid? Explain in terms of

necessary or sufficient condition.

15
 Disjunctive Syllogism (析取句三段論):
Valid Argument Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form

P1: He will stab you or slap you. P1: P or Q.

P2: He will not stab you. P2: Not P.
C: He will slap you. C: Q.

16
 Is the following form valid? (UReply)
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form

P1: He will stab you or slap you. P1: P or Q.

P2: He will stab you. P2: P.
C: He will not slap you. C: Not Q.

17
 Chain Argument: Valid Argument Form
• Concrete Argument • Argument Form

P1: If you sing the national anthem P1: If P then Q.

everyday, then you are patriotic.
P2: If you are patriotic, then you are
a good person. P2: If Q then R.
_____________________________ _____________________________
C: If you sing the national anthem
everyday, then you are a good C: If P then R.
person.

18
 What can you validly infer?
P1: Stapleton or Moran is the P1:
murderer.
P2: If Stapleton is the murderer, then P2:
Moriarty is the mastermind.
P3: If Moran is the murderer, then
Holmes will die. P3:
_______________________________ ______________________

C: C:

19
 What can you validly infer?
P1: If Stapleton is the murderer, then P1:
Moriarty is the mastermind.
P2: If Moran is the murderer, then P2:
Holmes will die.
P3: Moriarty is not the mastermind or
Holmes will not die. P3:
_______________________________
_______________________________
C:
C:

20
 Revision
1) What are the 4 logical connectives?

2) What is a valid argument? Which of the following are valid patterns?

a) 1) If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.
b) 2) If P then Q. Not-P. Therefore not-Q.
c) 3) If P then Q. Not-Q. Therefore not-P or R.

3) Are the following contradictories?

a) He is happy about this.
b) He is unhappy about this.

21
 “Unless” and “Only if”
• Conditionals (條件述句) in ordinary language may be expressed in the form of
“unless (除非)” or “only if (只有當)”.

• How to translate “Unless P, Q” into “If…then…”?

• “Unless you give me your money, I will kill you.”

• How to translate “P only if Q” into “If…then…”?

• “You will pass this course only if you did both tests.”

22
 Complex Argument
• If a complex argument is constructed out of the basic valid forms we have
learnt, that complex argument is also valid.

• What basic argument forms are involved in the argument below?

• P1: Not S.
• P2: If Q, then R.
• P3: If P, then Q.
• P4: Not R or S.
• C: Not P.

23
 Meaning Analysis
• Is there any difference in meaning between the following statements?
1) Affirming the consequent is not a valid form of argument.
2) Affirming the consequent is an invalid form of argument.

• x is a valid argument form =df Every concrete argument instantiating the form of
x is valid, regardless of its contents.
• x is an invalid argument form =df Every concrete argument instantiating the
form of x is invalid, regardless of its contents.
• x is not a valid argument form =df It is not that every concrete argument
instantiating the form of x is valid, regardless of its contents.

24
 Question
• Evaluate the following argument

P1: If Moby Dick lives in water, then it is a fish.

P2: Moby Dick lives in water.
C: Moby Dick is a fish.

25
 Soundness
• An argument is sound (真確) =df An argument that (1) is valid and (2) all its
premises are true.

• If you know that an argument is sound. What can we validly infer about its
conclusion?

Class Exercise Q1.7-1.8 and Q2

26
More on Logical Relations between
Statements

27
 Logical Strength: 1
• Previously: Logical relations between statements concerns the possibility of
their being true and of being false at the same time
• Now: Logical relations in terms of their comparative logical strength, or in
terms of entailment (蘊涵)
• P is logically stronger than Q =df (1) P entails Q and (2) Q doesn’t entail P.
• The first is logically stronger than the second:
(1) This class is interesting. (2) This class is not boring.
(3) P在邏輯上不可能為真。(4) P在經驗上不可能為真。

28
 Logical Strength: 2
• P and Q are logically equivalent (邏輯對等) =df (1) P entails Q and (2) Q
entails P.
• Logically equivalent statements:
(1) Peter is a bachelor. (2) Peter is an unmarried man.
(3) No book can weigh >5kg. (4) A book can weigh at most 5kg.
• Two statements can be neither equivalent nor with one stronger than the
other.
(5) Peter loves reading books. (6) Peter loves buying books.

29
 Questions
• If P is consistent with Q, and Q is consistent with R, does it necessarily
follow that P is consistent with R?

• If P entails Q, and Q entails R, does it necessarily follow that P entails R?

Class Exercise Q3.1-3.5

30
Deduction and Induction

31
 Deduction
• Distinction between deduction (演繹法) and induction (歸納法) one: How
much support is claimed to be given by the premises?

• Deductive arguments: Arguments where the premises are claimed to

provide absolute support to the conclusion
• “All men are mortal. Arthur is a man. Therefore he must die some day.”
• Speaker aims at or intends to give a valid argument

• Deductive arguments to be evaluated by validity and soundness

32
 Common Forms of Deductive Reasoning
1) Mathematical or geometric proofs 3) Forms examined in this PPT
• “Since the two sides of this right- 1) Modus Ponens (MP)
angled triangle are 3 and 4 cm long,
its hypotenuse is 5 cm.” 2) Modus Tollens (MT)
3) Affirming the Consequent
2) Argument from definition 4) Denying the Antecedent
• “Peter is a Christian. So he is not an 5) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
atheist.”
6) Chain Argument
7) Constructive Dilemma
8) Destructive Dilemma

33
 Induction
• Inductive arguments: Arguments where the premises are claimed to
provide only probabilistic support to the conclusion.
• Speaker aims at or intend to show only that the conclusion is more likely to be
true if the premises are true.
• Example
• “Most people who have taken a course in logic knows the definition of
consistency. Since you have taken a course in logic, probably you also know
what it is.”
• 「既然著名股評人X姐都建議購入1234，現在入貨，多數唔會蝕。」

34
https://medium.com/@daniellekkincaid/the-sherlock-holmes-conundrum-or-the-difference-between-
deductive-and-inductive-reasoning-ec1eb2686112

Ref.: Hurley (2018) Section 1.3 “Deduction and Induction” pp.33-39

(on Blackboard)

35
 Summary
• How to determine validity through argument form (8 common forms)

• Argument forms to be identified through replacing expressions other than

logical connectives (4 connectives)

• Valid not about the actual truth values of argument’s premise or conclusion

• Deductive inferences evaluated by standard of validity and soundness

36
 Readings
• Primary reading:
• Lau (2011): Chapter 7 “Basic Logic” (Logical equivalence Ex.7.1 pp.66-67)
• Lau (2011): Chapter 9 “Valid and Sound Argument” Exercise Q9.2 and 9.3 on
pp.84-85

• Recommended reading: Hurley (2018): Sections 1.3 and 1.4 in Chapter 1

“Basic Concepts” (pp.33-52)

37