Deductive Arguments

38
Deductive Arguments A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

description

. Deductive Arguments. A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion . . A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Deductive Arguments

Page 1: Deductive Arguments

Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

Page 2: Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

Page 3: Deductive Arguments

Types of Propositions

Page 4: Deductive Arguments

Disjunctive or Alternative Proposition

Either A or B.

A and B are called the disjuncts or alternatives.

Page 5: Deductive Arguments

Hypothetical or Conditional Proposition

If A, then B.

A is called the antecedent.B is called the consequent.

Page 6: Deductive Arguments

Categorical Proposition

All A is B. (Universal Affirmative or A)

No A is B. (Universal Negative or E)

Page 7: Deductive Arguments

Categorical Proposition

Some A is B. (Particular Affirmative or I)Some A is not B. (Particular Negative or O)

Page 8: Deductive Arguments

Deductive Arguments

Page 9: Deductive Arguments

Disjunctive Syllogism

1st Premise: Either A or B.

2nd Premise: Not A (or Not B).

Conclusion: B (or A).Note: A and B are called the alternatives or the disjuncts.

Page 10: Deductive Arguments

Disjunctive Syllogism

Either interest rates go up or inflation gets worse. Since interest rates have not gone up, we can be sure that inflation is getting worse.

Page 11: Deductive Arguments

Disjunctive SyllogismThe premise “Either A or B”

asserts that at least one of the two disjuncts is true.

“Or” means “and/or” (inclusive).

Note that it is possible that both disjuncts are true.

Page 12: Deductive Arguments

That one disjunct is true does not mean that the other is false.

Either A or B.A.So, not B.

Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct

Page 13: Deductive Arguments

Pure Hypothetical Syllogism

1st Premise: If A, then B.

2nd Premise: If B, then C.

Conclusion: If A, then C.

Page 14: Deductive Arguments

Pure Hypothetical SyllogismIf more prisons are built,

public education will get worse due to lack of funding. If public education gets worse due to lack of funding, there will be more criminals. As a result, if more prisons are built, there will be more criminals.

Page 15: Deductive Arguments

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism: Modus Ponens

1st Premise: If A, then B.

2nd Premise: A.Conclusion: B.

Page 16: Deductive Arguments

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism: Modus Ponens

If Republicans favor free market economy, then they should oppose farm subsidies. Republicans favor free market economy. So they should oppose farm subsidies.

Page 17: Deductive Arguments

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

“If A, then B” claims that if A happens, then B will follow. It does not say that if B happens, A preceded it.

If A, then B.B.So, A.

Page 18: Deductive Arguments

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

If Barack Obama is a U.S. president, then he is a U.S. citizen. Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, so he is a U.S. President.

Page 19: Deductive Arguments

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism: Modus Tollens

1st Premise: If A, then B.

2nd Premise: Not B.Conclusion: Not A.

Page 20: Deductive Arguments

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism: Modus Tollens

If it is raining, then there are clouds in the sky. There are no clouds in the sky. It is not raining.

Page 21: Deductive Arguments

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

“If A, then B” claims that if A happens, then B will follow. It does not say that if A does not happen, B will not happen either.

If A, then B.Not A.So, not B.

Page 22: Deductive Arguments

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

If there is smoke, there is a fire.There is no smoke. So, there is no fire.

Page 23: Deductive Arguments

Categorical SyllogismBARBARA All M are P. All S are M.

So, all S are P.

BAROCOAll P are M.

Some S are not M. So, some S are not

P.

BOCARDOSome M are not P.

All M are S. So, some S are not

P. CAMENESAll P are M. No M are S.

So, no S are P.

CAMESTRESAll P are M. No S are M.

So, no S are P.

CELARENTNo M are P. All S are M.

So, no S are P. CESARE

No P are M. All S are M.

So, no S are P.

DARIIAll M are P.

Some S are M. So, some S are P.

DATISIAll M are P.

Some M are S. So, some S are P.

Page 24: Deductive Arguments

Categorical SyllogismDISAMIS

Some M are P. All M are S.

So, some S are P.

DIMARISSome P are M.

All M are S. So, some S are P.

FERIOSome P are M.

All M are S. So, some S are P.

FESTINONo P are M.

Some S are M. So, some S are not

P.

FRESISONNo P are M.

Some M are S. So, some S are not

P.

FERISONNo M are P.

Some M are S. So, some S are not

P.

Page 25: Deductive Arguments

EXERCISES

Determine the form of each argument. Then, say whether it is valid or invalid.

25

Page 26: Deductive Arguments

Smith is the fireman or Smith is the engineer. Smith is not the fireman. So Smith is the engineer.

[Example]

Page 27: Deductive Arguments

Smith is the fireman or Smith is the engineer. Smith is not the fireman. So Smith is the engineer.

Answer: Disjunctive Syllogism; Valid

[Example]

Page 28: Deductive Arguments

If Mr. Jones lived in Chicago, then Jones is the brakeman. Mr. Jones lives in Chicago. So Jones is the brakeman.

[1]

Page 29: Deductive Arguments

If Mr. Jones is the brakeman’s next-door neighbor, then $20,000 is exactly divisible by 3. But $20,000 is not exactly divisible by 3. So, Mr. Jones is not the brakeman’s next-door neighbor.

[2]

Page 30: Deductive Arguments

“J.J.,” I replied, “if it was any of your business, I would have invited you. It is not, and so I did not.”

[3]

Page 31: Deductive Arguments

If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine. But there are no such rules, so men cannot be machines.

[4]

Page 32: Deductive Arguments

I can’t have anything more to do with the operation. If I did, I’d have to lie to the Ambassador. And I can’t do that.

[5]

Page 33: Deductive Arguments

If the one-eyed prisoner does not know the color of his hat, then the blind prisoner cannot have on a red hat. The one-eyed prisoner does not know the color of his hat. So the blind prisoner cannot have on a red hat.

[6]

Page 34: Deductive Arguments

I have already said that he must have gone to King’s Pyland or to Capleton. He is not at King’s Pyland, So he is at Capleton.

[7]

Page 35: Deductive Arguments

If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end.

[8]

Page 36: Deductive Arguments

A theoryless position is possible only if there are no theories of evidence. But there are theories of evidence. So, a theoryless position is impossible.

[9]

Page 37: Deductive Arguments

If the first native denied being a politician, then the second native told the truth. If the second native told the truth, then the second native is not a politician. So if the first native denied being a politician, then the second native is not a politician.

[10]

Page 38: Deductive Arguments

We should be against big corporations only if we are against their stockholders. We are not against the stockholders. So we should not be against big corporations.

[11]