Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 5
ARGUMENT &INFERENCE

Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Instructor
Logic and Critical Thinking

Desired Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to…

1. .
2. Demonstrate the ability in establishing logical relations.
3. Practice the appropriate technique for logical reasoning

What is an Inference?

 any process by which the mind proceeds from one or more propositions to other
propositions seen to be implied in the former.

 it signifies the operation by which the mind gets new knowledge by drawing out the
implications of what it already knows.

 The word inference is applied to a series of propositions so arranged that one, called
the consequent flows with logical necessity from one or more others, called the
antecedent .

Antecedent - ( antecedo ) that which goes before.

Consequent - ( consequor ) that which follows after or that which is inferred by the
antecedent.

The Relation of the Antecedent and the Consequent

a. The truth of the antecedent entails the truth of the consequent.

b. The falsity of the consequent entails the falsity of the antecedent.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

In other words:

 If the antecedent is true, the consequent is true.

 If the consequent is false, the antecedent is false

 If the antecedent is false, the consequent is doubtful.

 If the consequent is true, the antecedent is doubtful

 Consequence / Sequence - the connection by virtue of which the consequent flows

with logical necessity from the antecedent. It is known to be “ the heart of the
inference”.

Consequence/Sequence is usually signified by the terms: “therefore”, “consequently”,

“accordingly”, “hence”, “thus”, “and so”, “for this reason”, and so on.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

IMMEDIATE AND MEDIATE INFERENCE

Immediate Inference
 Consists in passing directly, without the intermediary of a middle term or a second
proposition, from one proposition to a new proposition that is a partial or complete
reformulation of the very same truth expressed in the original proposition. Strictly
speaking it does not involve the advancement of knowledge because the consequent
is only the reformulation of the truth expressed in the antecedent.

Ex. Dogs are animal;

Therefore, some animals are dogs.

Mediate Inference
 draws a conclusion from two propositions and does involve an advancement in
knowledge.

Ex. Every animal is mortal; but every dog is an animal; therefore, every dog is mortal.

The Discipline of Logic in the perspective on ARGUMENTS AND INFERENCE

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe.
Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about
what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions
in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all
recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important
ways.

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would
also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!)
disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent,
reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to
establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Crisostomo Ibarra was
Filipino because I believe that Crisostomo Ibarra was a character in a novel by Jose Rizal
and that some characters in the Noli Me Tangere are Filipinos, then even someone who
shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons
for accepting its truth.

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the
points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the
 Logic and Critical Thinking

discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the
truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing
attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its
truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs
with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning
does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.

In this review of elementary logic, we'll undertake a broad survey of the major
varieties of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical
tradition. We'll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth
while other patterns do not, and we'll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding
the latter. It will be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe
human reasoning in general.

THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT

Our fundamental unit of what may be asserted or denied is the proposition (or
statement) that is typically expressed by a declarative sentence. Logicians of earlier
centuries often identified propositions with the mental acts of affirming them, often called
judgments, but we can evade some interesting but thorny philosophical issues by avoiding
this locution.

Propositions are distinct from the sentences that convey them. "Malakas loves
Maganda" expresses exactly the same proposition as "Maganda is loved by Malakas," while
the sentence "Today is my birthday" can be used to convey many different propositions,
depending upon who happens to utter it, and on what day. But each proposition is either
true or false. Sometimes, of course, we don't know which of these truth-values a particular
proposition has ("There is life on the third moon of Jupiter" is presently an example), but we
can be sure that it has one or the other.

The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the
truth of another. Thus, we will usually consider a group of related propositions. An argument
is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of
them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the
conclusion). The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection
between them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.

Notice that "premise" and "conclusion" are here defined only as they occur in relation
to each other within a particular argument. One and the same proposition can (and often
does) appear as the conclusion of one line of reasoning but also as one of the premises of
another. A number of words and phrases are commonly used in ordinary language to
indicate the premises and conclusion of an argument, although their use is never strictly
required, since the context can make clear the direction of movement. What distinguishes
 Logic and Critical Thinking

an argument from a mere collection of propositions is the inference that is supposed to hold
between them.
Thus, for example, "The class is composed of girls, and men are by nature polygamous. My
dog has fleas." is just a collection of unrelated propositions; the truth or falsity of each has
no bearing on that of the others. But "Joie is a physician. So Joie went to medical school,
since all physicians have gone to medical school." is an argument; the
32

truth of its conclusion, "Joie went to medical school," is inferentially derived from its
premises, "Joie is a physician." and "All physicians have gone to medical school."

Recognizing Arguments

It's important to be able to identify which proposition is the conclusion of each argument,
since that's a necessary step in our evaluation of the inference that is supposed to lead to it.
We might even employ a simple diagram to represent the structure of an argument,
numbering each of the propositions it comprises and drawing an arrow to indicate the
inference that leads from its premise(s) to its conclusion.

Don't worry if this procedure seems rather tentative and uncertain at first. We'll be studying
the structural features of logical arguments in much greater detail as we proceed, and you'll
soon find it easy to spot instances of the particular patterns we encounter most often. For
now, it is enough to tell the difference between an argument and a mere collection of
propositions and to identify the intended conclusion of each argument.

Even that isn't always easy, since arguments embedded in ordinary language can take on a
bewildering variety of forms. Again, don't worry too much about this; as we acquire more
sophisticated techniques for representing logical arguments, we will deliberately limit
ourselves to a very restricted number of distinct patterns and develop standard methods for
expressing their structure. Just remember the basic definition of an argument: it includes
more than one proposition, and it infers a conclusion from one or more premises. So "If
John has already left, then either Jane has arrived or Gail is on the way." can't be an
argument, since it is just one big (compound) proposition. But "John has already left, since
Jane has arrived." is an argument that proposes an inference from the fact of Jane's arrival
to the conclusion, "John has already left." If you find it helpful to draw a diagram, please
make good use of that method to your advantage.

Truth and Validity

Since deductive reasoning requires such a strong relationship between premises and
conclusion, we will spend the majority of this survey studying various patterns of deductive
inference. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the standard of correctness for deductive
arguments in some detail.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from premises to conclusion is
perfect. Here are two equivalent ways of stating that standard:

• If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
• It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises
are true.
33

(Considering the premises as a set of propositions, we will say that the premises are true
only on those occasions when each and every one of those propositions is true.) Any
deductive argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its conclusion to be false
while its premises are true, so even if the premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to
be either true or false.

Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement

In fact, an excessive reliance on emotively charged language can create the appearance of
disagreement between parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as easily
disguise substantive disputes under a veneer of emotive agreement. Since the degrees of
agreement in belief and attitude are independent of each other, there are four possible
combinations at work here:
1. Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude: There aren't any problems in this
instance, since both parties hold the same positions and have the same feelings about
them.
2. Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude: This case, if unnoticed, may
become the cause of endless (but pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ
sharply about some fact upon which they are in total agreement.
3. Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude: In this situation, parties may never
recognize, much less resolve, their fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled
by their shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.
4. Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude: Here the parties have so little in
common that communication between them often breaks down entirely.

It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or disagreement at work in

any exchange of views. That won't always resolve the dispute between two parties, of
course, but it will ensure that they don't waste their time on an inappropriate method of
argument or persuasion.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

34

Questions for Discussion

1. Among the aforementioned kinds of agreements and disagreements which among them
is conflict most likely to occur and which one could be resolved and managed rather lightly?

2. Give situational or case examples for each of the kinds of agreements and
disagreements.

3. Which among these agreements/disagreements are culturally prevalent among

Filipinos? Explain.

4. In your own opinion, how do you think will logic and the study thereof aid in the
settling of differences brought about by the mentioned disagreements or prevent them from
occurring at all?

THE RULES OF INFERENCE

 By an argument, we mean a sequence of statements that end with a conclusion.

By valid, we mean that the conclusion, or final statement of the argument, must
follow from the truth of the preceding statements, or premises, of the argument.

1. MODUS PONEMS

 Consider the following argument involving propositions (which, by dentition, is a

sequence of propositions):
 Logic and Critical Thinking

“If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network.”
“You have a current password.”
Therefore, “You can log onto the network.”

FORM:

Use “p” to represent the whole variable “You have a current password ” and “q” to
represent “You can log on to the network.”

pq
p
…q

We can say that this form of argument is valid because whenever all its premises (all
statements in the argument other than the final one, the conclusion) are true, the conclusion
must also be true.

2. MODUS TOLLENS

 Modus Tollens (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by
denying denies") and denying the consequent.

FORM:

Ex. If Zeus is human, then Zeus is Mortal

Zeus is not mortal
Therefore, Zeus is not human.

pq (if p then q)

~q
…~p

By Modus Tollens you can conclude that Zeus is not human.

3. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 The disjunctive proposition is one , which presents two or more alternatives , one of
which is true. Its member is linked by the conjunctions “either, or”

Ex. The ice cream is either vanilla flavoured or chocolate favoured”

The ice cream is not vanilla flavoured
Therefore, the ice cream is chocolate flavoured
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Legend: V=or

pvq
~p
…q

4. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

 Hypothetical syllogism conditional (if/then), 3 statement argument.

FORM:

Ex. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

If Socrates is mortal, then Socrates can be killed by poison
Therefore, if Socrates is a man, then Socrates can be killed by poison.

P q
Q r
p r

5. CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 No matter what the premises are, the conclusion is simply a conjunction of the two
premises.

FORM:
Ex.
He studies very hard
He is the best boy in the class
Therefore, He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class”

p
q
...p^q

6. ADDITION

Ex. I read the newspaper today, therefore I read the newspaper or I ate apple.

…pvq
 Logic and Critical Thinking

7. SIMPLIFICATION

He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class”

He studies very hard

p^q
…p
 Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 6
THE THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

Desired Learning Outcomes

1. Expose students to different theories on the origin of knowledge and their criticisms.
Allow students to critique the validity of theories.

The Five Theories of Knowledge

1. EMPIRICISM  It is a theory which states that

knowledge comes only or
Empiricist: primarily from sensory
experience.
David Hume
John Locke  Empiricism is the theory that the
origin of all knowledge is sense
experience. It emphasizes the
role of experience and evidence,
especially sensory perception, in
the formation of ideas, and
argues that the only knowledge
humans can have is a posteriori
(i.e. based on experience).

2. RATIONALISM  Rationalism is an epistemological

position in which reason is said to
Rationalist: be the primary source of all
Rene Discartes knowledge, superior to the
Wilhelm Leibniz senses.
 In general, rationalists believe
that abstract reasoning can
 Logic and Critical Thinking

produce undeniable, absolutely

certain truths about nature,
existence, and the whole of
reality.
 These truths are called a priori,
or innate, ideas – because they
are discovered independently of
experience, without empirical
observation or experimentation.
3. SKEPTICISM  is generally a questioning attitude
or doubt towards one or more
Rene Discartes putative instances
of knowledge which are asserted
to be mere belief or dogma.

 It the belief that some or all human

knowledge is impossible. Since
even our best methods for learning
about the world sometimes fall
short of perfect certainty, skeptics
argue, it is better to suspend belief
than to rely on the dubitable
products of reason.
4. IDEALISM  Matter doesn’t exist
 External world-Construction of
mind
 Reality consists exclusively of
“ideas”
 Reality is due to the sensory
abilities of the human mind and not
because reality exists in itself
 Rejects the idea that objects are
independent of our minds.
5. REALISM  Physical World alone is Objective •
 Knowledge acquired through
senses only is real
 Universe is independent of ideas
 Things exist whether or not the
human mind perceives them.