1

Lesson 1: INTRODUCTION to the COURSE

Desired Learning Outcomes

After engaging in each topic, students should have:

compared deductive and inductive logic;
critiqued arguments for their soundness and cogency;
developed sound and cogent arguments;

Topics

Topic 1: Introduction to Philosophy

Topic 2: Introduction to Logic
Topic 3: Introduction to Arguments
Topic 4: Evaluating Inductive and Deductive Arguments

Topic 1: OVERVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is defined as the study of general

and fundamental questions of nature,
understanding, beliefs, reason, mind, and language.
It is derived from the Greek words 'philo' and
'sophia,' which mean 'love of wisdom.' Pythagoras (c.
570-495 BCE) may have coined the phrase.

Historically, it encompassed all bodies of information. Since Ancient Greek philosopher

Aristotle's time to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" included astronomy, medicine, and
physics. Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), for example, later became
known as a book of physics. Similarly, the rise of modern research universities in the 19th century
contributed to the professionalization and specialization in academic philosophy and other
disciplines. Some work that was historically part of philosophy in the modern period became

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 2

independent academic fields, including psychology, sociology, linguistics and economics.

Philosophy, in a broad sense, is a practice that people pursue in trying to understand
fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the
universe and to each other.

It is almost the same as that of an academic discipline. Many who study philosophy are
actively engaged in questioning, answering and arguing for their responses to the most basic
questions of life. Traditionally to make such a practice more formal academic philosophy is divided
into major fields of study such as Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, History of Philosophy, and
Logic.

Logic, the significant element of philosophy

research, is the explanations or reasons provided for
the answers given to these questions by the people.
Philosophers employ logic for this purpose to
research the essence and structure of claims.
Logicians ask questions, such as:

 What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?

 How do we determine whether a given piece of reasoning is good or bad?

Topic 2: INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

LOGIC is order and consistency. It is the science of those principles, laws, and methodsin which
the mind of man must follow in its thinking for the secure and accurate attainment of truth. In
short….

 It is a science because it is a body of organized methods

of tried and true knowledge which is concerned with the
rectitude of reasoning.

 It is an art because argument in logic is donebeautifully

with habitual validity, ease, clarity, correctness, objectivity,
and certainty.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 3

 It is of correct thinking because it conforms to therules of

correctness, in an argument, premises have sufficient grounds
as basis for conclusion.

LOGIC is the study of reasoning. It examines the level of correctness of the reasoning
found in the arguments. The argument is a group of statements, one of which (theconclusion) is
claimed to follow from the other (the premises). A statement1 is a sentence which is either true or
false. Every statement is either true or false; these two possibilities are called "truth values."

Premises are statements that contain information intended to provide support or reasons
to believe that a conclusion has been reached. The conclusion is the statement which is claimed to
follow from the premises. In order to help us recognize arguments, we rely on the premise of the
words and phrases indicator and the conclusion of the words andphrases indicator.

No one under eighteen years old can vote. [Statement]

[Argument] Vince is under eighteen years old. [Premise]
Vince cannot vote. [Conclusion]

Note: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an argument can be valid if it

follows logically from its premises, but the conclusion can still be inaccurate if the premises are
inaccurate, too, as a matter of logic, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. Logic
and deductive reasoning are used in philosophy to create premises and follow them through to their
conclusion.

Truth and Logic

Truth Value Analysis refers to whether theindividual statements in the argument are accurate,
correct, or true.

 Truth Analysis/Material Logic: Determines whether the

information in the premises is accurate, correct, or true.
Truth analysis is about statements.
 Logical Analysis/Formal Logic: Determines the strength
with which the premises support the conclusion. Logical
analysis is about arguments.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 4

1 “Statement” is distinguished from “sentence” and “proposition” as follows:

1. A sentence is a set of words complete in itself, as in a statement, question, or exclamation.

2. A statement is a sentence that has two possible truth values: true and false.
3. A proposition is the information content or meaning of a statement.

Topic 3: INTRODUCTION TO ARGUMENTS

Recognizing Arguments
It's critical to distinguish between arguments and other non-inferential language when
reading or listening (whether it is philosophical literature, news stories, lectures, political
speeches, or conversation partners). The use of non-inferential language does not imply that a
claim is true. It can take many different forms, including (but not limited to) explanations,
examples, reports, and announcements.
Indicator/signal words help us identify the elements of an argument. The word “because”
and all of its synonyms may alert a reader (or listener) that a premise, or reason, is being provided
to support a claim.
Conclusion indicators (such as “therefore,’” “so,” “it follows that”) alert you to the
appearance of a conclusion, while premise indicators (such as “since,” “because,” “it followsfrom”)
alert you to the appearance of a premise.
In each case, indicator words tell you that a conclusion or premise is about to be, or has justbeen,
asserted.
Examples of words/ phrases that may signal a premise:

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 5

Examples of words/ phrases that may signal a conclusion:

When it comes to distinguishing arguments, signal words might be useful, but keep the
following in mind:
 When making an argument, argument signal words are not always present.
 Words that could be used as signal words for an argument are sometimes employedin
situations where there is no debate.

Arguments and Explanations

Arguments are “inferential; they intend to “infer” something. The process by which we
reason in order to reach a conclusion is referred to as inference. If a passage expresses a reasoning
process — that the conclusion is based on the premises — then we say that it makes an inferential
claim. If a passage does not express a reasoning process (explicit or implicit), it does not make an
inferential claim (it is a non-inferential passage). The explanation is one type of non-inferential
passage.
An explanation is why or how an event occurred is given. Explanations are not arguments
on their own; they can, however, form part of the argument. Both arguments andexplanations often
use the same indicator words.
The crucial distinguishing feature of an argument is that the truth of the conclusion is in
question. So, even when an explanation involves indicator words, there is no intent to prove
anything or settle some sort of issue.
“Because you were late meeting me at the restaurant
for dinner, I went ahead and placed my order.”
[Explanation]
Here, an explanation is offered for ordering food, an already accepted fact.
LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT
 6

Topic 4: EVALUATING DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Types of Arguments
When assessing the quality of an argument, we ask how well its premisessupport its
conclusion. More specifically, we ask whether the argument is either deductively valid or
inductively strong.
A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion is necessarily
based on the premises. In other words, it is claimed that, on the assumption that the
premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Here are valid deductive arguments:
1. All men are mortal. [Statement; true]
Joe is a man. [Premise; true]
Therefore Joe is mortal. [Conclusion; true]
If the first two statements are
true, then the conclusion must
2. Bachelors are unmarried men. [Statement; true]
be true. The argument,
therefore, is deductively valid.
Bill is unmarried. [Premise; true]
Therefore, Bill is a bachelor. [Conclusion; true]

3. To get a Bachelor’s degree at a University, a student must have 120 credits.

[Statement; true]
Sally has more than 130 credits. [Premise; true]
Therefore, Sally has a bachelor’s degree. [Conclusion; true]

An inductive argument is one in which it is argued that the premises make the conclusion
probable. In other words, it is claimed that, on the assumption that the premises are true, the
conclusion is unlikely to be false.

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument:

 Every time I’ve walked by that dog, it hasn’t tried to bite me. [Premise; true]
 So, the next time I walk by that dog it won’t try to bite me. [Conclusion; likely to be
true/ unlikely to be false]

There is no standard term for a successful inductiveargument, but it uses the term “strong.”
Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to be weak; there is no sharp line between strong

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 7

and weak. The argument about the dog biting me would be stronger if we couldn’t think of any
relevant conditionsfor why the next time will be different than previous times. The argument also
will be stronger the more times there were whenI did walk by the dog. The argument will be weaker
the fewer times I have walked by the dog. It will be weaker if relevant conditions about the past
time will be different next time, such as that in the past the dog has been behind a closed gate, but
next time the gate will be open.

If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises establishes the legitimacy of the conclusion, the
argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe
the conclusion is likely true, the argument is inductive.

Deductive Argument: Validity and Soundness

Revealing the logical form of a deductive argument helps in logical analysis and evaluation.
When we evaluate deductive arguments, we use the following concepts: valid, invalid, sound and
unsound.
A valid argument is one where, assuming that the premises are true, it is impossiblefor the
conclusion to be false. In other words, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. An
invalid argument is one where, assuming that the premises are true, it is possible for the
conclusion to be false. In other words, a deductive argument in which the conclusion does not
necessarily follow the premises is an invalid argument. If the logical analysis shows that the
deductive argument is valid, and if the truth value analysis of the premises shows that they are all
true, then the argument is sound. If the deductive argument is invalid, or if at least one of the
premises is false (true value analysis), the argument is unsound.
Valid + True Premises = Sound
Valid + At Least One False Premise = Unsound
Invalid = Unsound
To show that an argument form is invalid, we need to show that an argument in that form
can have all true premises but a false conclusion. As with denying the antecedent, we can do this
abstractly by discussing the circumstances under which sentences of a certain form are true or
false. Alternatively, we can exhibit English language argument that fits the form and obviously has
true premises and a false conclusion. This latter method is called providing a counterexample.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 8

A counterexample to a statement is evidence that shows that the statement is false, and it
concerns an analysis of truth value. It shows the possibility that the premises assumedto be true do
not necessarily make the conclusion true.

Recall this example:

Everybody loves a winner, so nobody loves me. An argument is valid if and
only if there are no counter-
examples to the argument.
In standard form, the argument looks like this – with the Similarly, a single
suppressed premise: counterexample to a
deductive argument is
Everybody loves a winner. [Statement] sufficient to show that the
I am not a winner. [Premise] argument is invalid.
So, nobody loves me. [Conclusion]

Here’s a counter-example to this argument:

Suppose that everybody loves all winners and that I am not a winner (so both premises are
true.) Still, the conclusion can be false if one of the people out there who love all the winners also
lovesthe occasional non-winner, including me. We can imagine such a person saying: “I love all
winners, but I love you too, even though you’re not a winner.”
Hence now, the arguments become invalid.

Inductive Argument: Strength and Cogency

When assessing inductive arguments, we use the following concepts: strong, weak, cogent,
and uncogent.

A strong inductive argument is such that if the premises are assumed to be true, the
conclusion is probably true. In other words, if the premises are assumed to be true, then the
conclusion is unlikely to be false. An inductive argument is weak when, assuming the premises are
true, it is probable for the conclusion to be false. A further evaluation involves the actual truth of
the premises. A strong argument is cogent when the premises are true. A strong argument is
uncogent when at least one of the premises is false.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 9

Strong + True Premises = Cogent

Strong + At Least One False Premise = Uncogent
Weak = Uncogent

Reconstructing Arguments
To reconstruct an argument, you'll need to present it in a form that is understandable to
someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Here are some caveats you must take in mind:
 Keep your ideas separate from the author’s. Your purpose is to make the author’s argument
clear, not to tell what you think of it.
 Be charitable. Give the best version of the argument you can, even if you don’t agree with the
conclusion. The principle of charity asserts that we should choose the reconstructed argument
that gives the benefit of the doubt to the person presenting the argument.
 Define important terms.
 Organize your ideas so that the reader can proceed logically from premises to conclusion, step
by step.
 Explain each premise.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT

 10

Incomplete argument is called an enthymeme. Enthymemes are missing a conclusion or one

or more premises, or both. There are several other types of incomplete or unclearly stated
arguments and also several ways in which unclear language leads to erroneous inferences. The
principle of charity is, once again, helpful in reconstructing or clarifying such arguments:

 Rhetorical language: Occurs when we speak or write for dramatic or exaggerated effect;
when the language we employ may be implying things that are not explicitly said.
 Rhetorical question: Occurs when a statement is disguised in the form of a question.
 Rhetorical conditional: Occurs when a conditional statement is used to imply an argument.

LOGIC (LECTURE COMPILATION) RHEA E. MANGUBAT