Chapter 3 – Validity / Missing Premises and Pilling On / Soundness (Part 2)

Validity

Evaluating Logical Strength

- Critical thinking demands that we have acceptable and sufficient reasons for our beliefs
and decision
- Ideally (i) our reasons should be true and (ii) they should support our beliefs and
decision
- It turns out that these two conditions are totally independent of one another

Idea Logical Support: Validity

- An argument is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false

Example) if all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true too
Example) the conclusion logically follows from the premises

Every argument is either valid or invalid.

To test for validity:

1. Assume, for the sake of the test, that the argument’s premise is true
o Imagine a world where the premises are true
2. Ask: could the conclusion nonetheless be false?
o Could the conclusion be false in that imagined world?

If no, then the argument is valid

- The truth of the premise would be sufficient for that of the conclusion
If yes, then the argument is not valid
- The truth of the premises would not be sufficient of that of the conclusion

Example)

Taylor Swift is Prime Minister of Canada and every Prime Minister of Canada is Martian. So,
Taylor Swift is a Martian.

Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada and every Prime Minister of Canada is a Canadian.
So, Justin Trudeau is a Canadian.

Construct three arguments: (will be on next test)

a. Invalid with true premises and a true conclusion

EX) Cats are mammals, grass is green, therefore the sky is blue
 b. Valid with false premises and a true conclusion
c. Valid with true premises and a false conclusion
!!C is not possible, but a and b and all the other combinations are possible!!

Missing Premises and Piling On

Missing Premises

- Sometimes, an argument is invalid because the author left out some parts or elements
of his or her reasoning.

Example) Aristotle is a cop, so he likes donuts - We call these missing parts: missing premises.

Principles of Charity: when evaluating someone’s argument, try to turn it into a valid argument.

- Simply add a conditional (i.e., an ‘if-then’ sentence) whose antecedent is the existing
premise(s) and whose consequent is the argument’s conclusion

Aristotle is a cop, and IF Aristotle is a cop, THEN Aristotle loves donuts, so Aristotle loves
donuts.

Now the argument is valid. And we can focus on whether the premises are true.

Piling on Independ Premises

- Sometimes, independent bits of evidence work together in piling on sort of way

(1) John was at the scene of the crime, (2) owned a pistole like the one sued in the crime,
(3) suddenly had lots of cash, and (4) was evasive when asked about the crime. (5) He is the
robber.

This looks like a series of independent premises. None of these is a valid argument.

But it becomes valid if we add the following as a missing premise:

(6) If john was at the scene of the crime,

owns the sort of weapons used in the
crime, suddenly has lots of money and was
acting evasively, then John is the robber.
Soundness

- We would like our arguments to be valid

- If an argument is valid and has all true premise, then it is a perfect argument.
- We call such an argument a sound argument.
- An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has all true premises

Evaluating Arguments with Independent Premises

- We sometimes have several different independent reasons to believe or do something

- It might be that some of our reasons are better than others.
- So, we should think of these different reasons as like different argument for the same
conclusion
- Some might be sound while others are not!

(1) John robbed the bank. (2) If he robbed the bank, then he is a criminal. (3) And he
lied to his mother. (4) If he lied to his mother, then he is a criminal. (5) he is a criminal.

There are really two arguments here, with the

same conclusion.

The argument on the left is valid and may be

sound. But the reasoning on the right, though
valid, is not sound since (4) is false. (it is not
against the law to lie to your Mom!)

Soundness (will be on next test)

1. Can an argument with false premises be sound? NO

2. Can an argument with a false conclusion be valid? YES
3. Can a valid argument have true premises? YES
4. Can an argument with true premises be invalid? YES
5. Can an argument with true premises and a true conclusion be unsound? YES