Evaluating Inferences:

deductive validity and other grounds

Presented By: Group 3
Aashish Pillare
Bhawana Pant
Khusbu Shrestha
Prativa Shah
Sneha Siddhi Bajracharya
Sudan Aryal

1
 Content
• Inferences
• Initial test for Good Inferences
• Different standards for evaluating inferences
and arguments
• Deductive Validity
• Deductive Validity and Patterns of Argument
• Proved Beyond a reasonable doubt
• Shown to be more likely than not on the
balance of evidence
• Summary

2
 Inferences
To infer:
• deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and
reasoning, rather than from explicit statements.
Inferences:
• a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and
reasoning.
• It's what the mind does in figuring something out.

3
 Making an Inference

We know : she is new born baby We know: he is a 15-year old schoolboy

We infer that she cannot yet feed We infer: he is likely to have a mobile
herself, walk or talk phone

We can make inferences with varying degrees of confidence.

4
 Inferences

We infer our conclusion from our reasons

Arguments always consist of both reasons and inferences
Inferences are the ‘moves’ we make from reasons to conclusions,
the moves in which we say:
• [reason/s] therefore [the conclusion]’
• ‘given these reasons I conclude that . . .’

5
 Example #1
“Some people have solved their own unemployment
problem by great ingenuity in searching for a job or by
willingness to work for less, so all the unemployed could do
this.”

6
 Example #1

“Some people have solved their own unemployment problem by

great ingenuity in searching for a job or by willingness to work
for less, so all the unemployed could do this.”

Inference: the move from ‘some people have solved

their own unemployment problem . . .’ (the reason) to
‘all the unemployed could do this’ (the conclusion).

7
 Example #2
“Being an entrepreneur is a challenging and potentially
very rewarding job. One has great freedom in working
for oneself and it is not necessary to have a university
education. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone who
doesn’t go to university is to become an entrepreneur.

8
 Example #2
“Being an entrepreneur is a challenging and potentially
very rewarding job. One has great freedom in working
for oneself and it is not necessary to have a university
education. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone who
doesn’t go to university is to become an entrepreneur.

Inference: the move from the first two sentences,

taken as side-by-side reasoning, to ‘a suitable job for
anyone who doesn’t go to university is to become an
entrepreneur’ (the conclusion).

9
 Example #3
“My throat is sore and my nose is running, so I have
probably caught a cold.”

10
 Example #3
“My throat is sore and my nose is running, so I have
probably caught a cold.”

Inference: the move from ‘My throat is sore and

my nose is running’ (the reason) to ‘I have probably
caught a cold.’ (the conclusion).

11
 Example #4
“When prisoners under sentence of death are given the
choice between life in prison and execution, 99 percent
of them choose life imprisonment. This shows that they
fear death more than they fear life imprisonment. Since
one is most deterred by what one most fears, it is evident
that the threat of the death penalty is more likely to deter
most potential murderers than is the threat of life
imprisonment.”
Hint: There are two inferences on this.

12
Example #4
2 inferences:
• Move from ‘When prisoners under sentence of death
are given the choice between life in prison and
execution, 99 percent of them choose life
imprisonment’ to ‘they fear death more than they fear
life imprisonment’.

• Move from ‘they fear death more than they fear life
imprisonment’ and ‘one is most deterred by what one
most fears’ taken jointly to ‘the threat of the death
penalty is more likely to deter most potential
murderers than is the threat of life imprisonment’.
13
Initial test for Good Inferences
For an inference to be good, there must be some
reasonably secure connection between reason and
conclusion if the one is to justify the other
Example:
Today’s weather forecast says there is 80% chance of
thunderstorms, so I think it’s a good idea to bring an
umbrella
Connection: Since, there is high probability of raining, it
justifies my idea to bring an umbrella.

14
Is this inference good or bad?

“Women’s brains are on average smaller than

men’s, therefore women are less intelligent than
men.”

15
Is this inference good or bad?
“Women’s brains are on average smaller than
men’s, therefore women are less intelligent than
men.”
Answer:
BAD
Why?
Because there is no connection suggested between
brain size and intelligence

16
Initial test for Good Inferences
Ask yourself a question:
Could the reason(s) be true (or otherwise acceptable)
and the conclusion false/ unacceptable at the same
time?
If answer is:
No: The inference is good.
Yes: The inference is bad.

17
Initial test for Good Inferences
“Women’s brains are on average smaller than men’s,
therefore women are less intelligent than men.”
• Is the reason true?
Yes, biologically.
• Is the conclusion true?
Because of the vagueness of the conclusion, NO
Thus, here reason is true, conclusion is false at the
same time. So, the inference is bad.

18
Is this inference good or bad?
Being an entrepreneur is a challenging and
potentially very rewarding job. One has great
freedom in working for oneself and it is not necessary
to have a university education. Therefore, a suitable
job for anyone who doesn’t go to university is to
become an entrepreneur.

19
Is this inference good or bad?
Being an entrepreneur is a challenging and
potentially very rewarding job. One has great
freedom in working for oneself and it is not necessary
to have a university education. Therefore, a suitable
job for anyone who doesn’t go to university is to
become an entrepreneur.
Answer: BAD
There is no connection between reasons and the
conclusion
Reasons may be true, but the conclusion is still
unacceptable.
20
• Sometimes an argument fails because its
reasons are unacceptable even though the
inferences based upon them meet our test for
being good inferences.

For example:
If you have memorized the key points in the
book you will do well in the critical thinking
examination and you have memorized them so
you will do well in the exam.
For an argument to succeed in justifying its
conclusion it must meet two conditions:
1. Its reasons must be true or otherwise
acceptable, and
2. The inferences which are then drawn from
those reasons must be good ones.
 Some different standards for
evaluating inferences and arguments
• Different reasons and inference have to be
judge differently.
• Every argument aims to provide support for its
conclusion, but some arguments are much more
‘conclusive’ than others.
• It is deductive valid.
 Test to decide whether it is
deductive valid or not:

• Can you think of any way the reason could be true and the
conclusion false?

• If no, then it is deductively valid.

• If Yes, then it is not deductively valid.

• If an argument is deductively valid, the truth of its
reasons absolutely guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
Example:
All whales are mammals and all mammals give birth to
live young. So, all whales give birth to live young.

All human are mortal and you are human. So, you are
mortal.
Example:

If Mary misses her plane, she will be late for the conference.
Mary is late for the conference. Therefore, she missed her
plane.

Answer:
Not, deductively valid.
Conclusion is doubtful.
Example:
Abe has confessed to murdering Bert. The murder
weapon was Abe’s handgun and it is covered in
Abe’s fingerprints. It was well known that Abe
hated Bert. Despite a thorough police investigation,
there is no evidence to suggest that anyone else was
involved. Therefore Abe must have been the
murderer.
Deductive Validity
If an argument is deductively valid, the truth of its reasons absolutely

guarantees the truth of its conclusion; if the reasons are true, the conclusion

must be true – there are no other possibilities.

Deductive validity (Criteria):

1. Facts also known as premise must be correct

2. Analysis of facts also known as conclusion must hold logically

For instance:
Ist premise: If she pianist, she is a musician.
2nd premise: She is a pianist.
Conclusion: Therefore, she is a musician.

● Arguments which satisfy both of

validity criteria.
● Arguments which do not satisfy the
validity criteria
 Deductive Validity
Example 1.
● All mammals have kidney
● No plants have kidney
○ Conclusion: Therefore, no plants are mammals.

Example 2.
● If the headlights are out, then car is not legal to drive
● John’s car is legal to drive
○ Conclusion: Therefore, the headlights are not out on John’s car.
 Deductive Validity
Example 1.
If the premises are
● All mammals have kidney true, it would
● No plants have kidney guarantee the truth
of conclusion.
○ Conclusion: Therefore, no plants are mammals.

Example 2.
● If the headlights are out, then car is not legal to drive
● John’s car is legal to drive
○ Conclusion: Therefore, the headlights are not out on John’s car.
 Deductive Validity
Example 3
● Everyone who goes to school will definitely get a degree
● Harry goes to school
○ Harry will definitely get a degree.
Example 4
● Everyone who has been imprisoned is a bad person
● Nelson Mandela was imprisoned
○ Nelson Mandela was a bad person.
 Deductive validity
Example 5
In a invalid argument, there could
● Cats have four legs be circumstance where premise
● Cats are mammals can be true, but the conclusion is
○ Therefore, mammals have four legs. conclusion.

Example 6 Similarly, the premise can be true

but the conclusion might not be
● All men are human logical.
● Greta Tunberg is a human
○ Therefore, Greta Tunberg is a man.
Example 7
● If your car do not have a smog certificate, then it cannot be
registered
● If your car cannot be registered, then it isn’t legal to drive
○ Therefore, if your car is not legal to drive, then it doesn’t
have a smog certificate.
Deductive validity and patterns
of argument
Types of argument
I. Modus Ponens or affirming the antecedent
II. Modus Tollens or denying the consequent
Modus Ponens or ‘affirming the antecedent’

• The way that affirms by affirming it.

• Follows the following pattern:
1. If A then B
2. A is true
Therefore, B must be true.
where, A means antecedent.
B means consequent.
• Pattern which is clearly deductively valid.
• If the reasons or the premises are true, the conclusions must be true
too.
• Known as “Affirming the antecedent”.
Example 1
Premises 1: If you play with fire, you will get burned.
Premises 2: You played with fire
Therefore, You got burned.
Example 2
Premises 1: If Lucky holds the football, Charlie will miss.
Premises 2: Lucky holds the football.
Therefore, Charlie will miss it.
Answer: If lucky holds the football, Charlie will miss, lucky holds the
football, so they are premises and based off of those premises we can
conclude that Charlie will miss because lucky is holding the football
and whenever lucky holds the football Charlie misses.
Modus Tollens or Denying the consequent
• Mode that by denying denies
• Follows the following pattern:
1. If A then B
2. But B is false,
So, A must be false too.
where, A means antecedent.
B means consequent.
• We need two premises A then B and B is false (the negotiation of
consequent).
• If we have these premises, we can conclude that A is false too.
• Hence, this refers that with this conditional firm, we are denying the
consequent (B) by denying the antecedent (A).
Example 1
Premises 1: If the dog detects an intruder, the watchdog will bark.
Premises 2: The dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the dog.
Example 2
Premises 1: If Lucky holds the football, Charlie will miss.
Premises 2: Charlie will not miss it.
Therefore, Lucky does not holds the football.
Answer
If Lucy holds the football Charlie will miss and if we know that
Charlie will not miss the we can conclude Lucy doesn’t holds the
football, because if Lucy were to hold football that second premises
cant be true.
If Lucy holds the football Charlie misses but in this case Charlie will
not miss, so it cant be the case Lucy is holding the football.
Determine which pattern is this?
Premises 1: Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
Premises 2: Jack does not have an alibi.
Therefore, Jack is not innocent.

Answer: Modus Tollens

Determine which pattern is this?
Premises 1: If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
Premises 2: Jack is innocent.
Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

Answer: Modus Ponens

 “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

• Both reasons and inferences must be proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.

• High standard of proof

• Commonly used in criminal courts (due to severity of discussions-

e.g.: a person’s liberty)
 What is a reasonable doubt?
• Not an imaginary doubt
• Doubt that arises only from reason, logic or common sense

Test
If the reasons are true (or otherwise acceptable), is there a reasonable
doubt about whether the conclusion is true (or otherwise acceptable)?
Example 1

Abe has confessed to murdering Bert. The murder weapon was Abe’s
handgun and it is covered in Abe’s fingerprints. It was well known that
Abe hated Bert. Despite a thorough police investigation, there is no
evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved. Therefore, Abe must
have been the murderer.
Example 2
On a sunny afternoon in 1996, Lin Russell and her two daughters, Megan and Josie
(aged nine), were walking home from school along a lonely country lane near
Canterbury, in England, when they were confronted by a strange man. He tied them up
and attacked them about the head with a hammer, leaving them all for dead (though
Josie survived). After a lengthy police investigation and subsequent trial, a man called
Michael Stone was convicted of the murders. There was no forensic evidence against
him (blood, hairs, fingerprints, and such evidence). He was convicted partly because he
had no alibi for the time of the murder but mainly on the basis of the testimony of two
people who had conversations with him when he was being held as a suspect. One,
Damien Daley, had convictions for robbery, burglary and assault; the other, an orderly,
was Barry Thompson. Both testified at Stone’s trial that he had confessed to the murders
in their hearing in prison. They were able to give details which were convincing to the
jury.
Example 3
Although the Earth looks ‘flat’ to us when we are on its
surface, and people believed it was flat until quite
recently, we have accumulated an enormous amount of
evidence in the last few hundred years that it is roughly
spherical. We can watch ships disappear over the horizon.
Ships and planes navigate successfully on the assumption
that the world is roughly spherical and more recently we
even have pictures taken from space which show that the
Earth is spherical. So, it must be roughly spherical.
Example 4
Adam has just slipped and fallen eight meters from a ladder onto a
concrete path beside his house. Although he seemed to hit the ground
hard, he is still conscious. He is motionless but groaning horribly and
there seems to be blood coming out of his mouth. He must be seriously
hurt.
More Likely Than Not On The Balance Of
Evidence
• Burden of Proof: a legal standard that requires parties to demonstrate
that a claim is valid or invalid based on facts and evidence
• Criminal court: proof beyond a reasonable doubt
• Civil court: proof on the balance of probability
Example
• Scale of justice - evenly balanced
• Add the weight of a feather to one side
• Side with the weight of a feather wins
 Example
• Dr. Watson hands Holmes an old pocket watch, which
was recently cleaned
• the watch belonged to Dr. Watson’s elder brother who
inherited it from their father
• letters HW were scrawled
• Watson’s brother was a man of untidy habits and was
careless
• lived for some time in poverty with occasional short
intervals of prosperity
• “the balance of probabilities”
• dinted in two places, cut and marked all over due to the habit of
keeping other hard objects such as coins and keys in the same pocket
• First inference: the brother was often at low water
• Secondary inference: he had occasional bursts of prosperity
• Third inference: was always drunk, due to which the key had always
slipped away from the keyhole
• 1st Premise: People that allow their items to be scratched are careless
• 2nd Premise: This watch is scratched.
• Conclusion: Therefore the owner of the watch is careless.
• Comment: This argument is valid but the first premise is false so the
conclusion is false.
To summarize

• Inferences: The moves we make from reasons to conclusions.

• Validity of inferences depend upon the connection between the reasons

and the conclusion.

• Deductive and Inductive approaches to make inferences

• Deductive and Inductive validity

Evaluating inferences; Test for validity
1. Anyone who lives in the city Honolulu, also lives on the island of
Oahu.
John lives on the island of Oahu.
Therefore, John lives in the city Honolulu.
2. Anyone who lives in the city Honolulu, also lives on the island of
Oahu.
John does not live on the island of Oahu.
Therefore, John does not live in the city Honolulu.
Test for Validity- Contd…
All printed books have a binding. I believe this because every book I
have read has had a binding. Therefore, any new book that is made will
probably have a binding

The chair in the living room is red. The chair in the dining room is red.
The chair in the bedroom is red. All the chairs in the house are probably
red.
THANK YOU

65