Introduction
to Business
logic
The study of logic has
LEGAL
legal foundation. 1987
FOUNDATION
Constitution Sec 3 of
Article XIV states
that “All educational
institution shall
encourage critical
and creative thinking.”
Introduction to logic
ETYMOLOGY COPI AND INFERENTIAL LOGIC AS AND
ART AND
Form Greek word
COHEN THINKING
SCIENCE
“logike” and was DEFINITION
It deals with correct
coined by Zeno, the
Logic is both science
inferential
Stoic (c.340- It is the study of and art ; it is
thinking. Inference
265BC) methods and concerned with the
signifies any
Etymologically, it procedures used to quest of knowledge
process by which and truth; and also of
means a treatise on distinguish correct
our mind proceed the
matters pertaining from incorrect
from one or study of validity and
to the human reasoning.
more proposition. correctness of our
thought.
reasoning.
Truth and
Validity
What is
argument?
ARGUMENT
It reflects an inference.
Inference is a process that
may tie a cluster of
proposition together.
Inference processes of
drawing out new proposition
from already known
proposition.
is a set of statements
consisting of premises and a
conclusion.
EXAMPLE:
Sally: Abortion is morally
wrong and those who think
otherwise are seeking to justify
AN ARGUMENT IS A murder!
HEATED EXCHANGE Bob: Abortion is not morally
wrong and those who think so
OF DIFFERING VIEWS
are right-wing bigots who are
seeking to impose their
narrow-minded views on all
the rest of
LOGIC CONCERNS A DIFFERENT
SENSE OF THE WORD
“ARGUMENT.”
EXAMPLE:
AN ARGUMENT,IN LOGIC, IS A Sally: Abortion is morally
REASON FOR THINKING THAT A wrong because it is wrong to
STATEMENT, CLAIM OR IDEA IS
TRUE take the life of an innocent
human being, and a fetus is
an innocent human being. In
this example Sally has given
an argument against the
moral permissibility of
abortion. That is, she has
given us a reason for thinking
that abortion is morally wrong
ARGUMENT
two parts of an argument: the
premise and the conclusion
Both premises and conclusions
are statements/propositions
A statement is a type of
sentence that can be true or
false (typically in declarative
form)
IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS
Premise indicators Conclusion Conclusion indicators
indicators therefore
since therefore so
because so hence
for hence thus
as thus implies that
given that implies that consequently
seeing that consequently it follows that
for the reason that it follows we may conclude that
that
is shown by the fact that we
may conclude that
NOTE: SUCH INDICATORS NOT NECESSARILY APPEAR IN THE ARGUMENT. SOMETIMES
IT IS THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE THAT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF ARGUMENT
IDENTIFYING
ARGUMENTS
Is there a statement that
I have been running
someone is trying to establish
competitively since 1999.
as trues or explain why it is
I am so happy to have finally
true by basing it on some other
finished that class.
statement? If so, then there is
an argument present. If not,
then there isn’t. "so” and “since” do not indicate that
an argument here.
IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS
If there is any doubt about whether a word is truly a
.
premise/conclusion indicator or not, you can use the
substitution test. Simply substitute another word or
phrase from the list of premiseindicators or conclusion
indicators and see if the resulting sentence still makes
sense. If it does,then you are probably dealing with an
argument. If it doesn’t, then you probably aren’t.
ARGUMETN VS. EXPLANATION
An argument aimts to establish An explanation attempts to
that the conclusion is true show why its conclusion is true
example: example:
The reason that the rate of obesity is on the
We know that obesity is on the
rise in the U.S. is that the foods we most often
rise in the U.S. because consume over the past four decades have
increasingly contained high levels of sugar and
multiple studies carried out by
low levels of dietary fiber. Since eating foods
the CDC and NIH have
high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the
consistently shown a rise in insulin system to start storing those calories as
obesity over the last four fat, it follows that people who consume foods
high in sugar and low in fiber will tend to store
decades.
more of the calories consumed as fat.
ARGUMETN VS. EXPLANATION
Premise-accepted facts/ Explanans-claims to shed light
claimed evidence/ the on
knowledge is already known,
support justification Explanandum-accepted facts
Conclusion- claimed
statement supported by the Note: The purpose of explanans
claimed evidence/ the is to show why something is the
knowledge derived from the case, while in the argument the
premise. purpose of the premise is to
prove that something is the
case.
TWO CLASSES OF ARGUMENT
Inductive Argument Deductive Argument
fr. Induco – “I lead into” Proceeds from fr. deduco – “I lead down”
specific or particular instances to the Proceeds from universal/ general
formulation of general or universal principles or statements to particular
principles or statements. instance or proposition.
The premises claim to support its The premises claim to support its
conclusion only with some degree of conclusively.
probability. Claims that its logically necessary that
Even if the premises of an inductive if the premise are true then so the
argument are true, they do not support conclusion.
its conclusion with certainty. Cannot The conclusion can be confirmed or
categorized as valid/invalid refuted by appeal to the premises
themselves.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE:
All who live in France live Most who live in France speak
in Europe. French.
Pierre lives in France. Pierre lives in France.
Therefore, Pierre lives in This is all we know about the
Europe. matter.
Therefore Pierre speaks French
(probably).
TWO CLASSES OF INFERENCE
Immediate or Direct Mediate or Indirect
Inference Inference
The conclusion is directly The conclusion is drawn from a
given statement or proposition
drawn from a given
Deduction is an inference
statement or proposition which starts from universal to
without the aid of a middle particular. While induction
term or another starts from particular to
universal.
proposition.
What makes
an argument
valid?
VALID ARGUMENT
An argument is valid if it would be
contradictory (impossible) to have the
premises all true and conclusion false
In calling an argument valid, we aren’t
saying whether the premises are true.
We’re just saying that the conclusion
follows from the premises
Our argument is valid because of its
logical form – its arrangement of logical
notion
FIRST EXAMPLE
If you overslept, you’ll be late. You
aren’t late. Therefore:
(a) You did oversleep.
(b) You didn’t oversleep.
(c) You’re late.
(d) None of these follows.
Truth and Validity
FIRST EXAMPLE
If you overslept, you’ll be late. You
aren’t late. Therefore:
(a) You did oversleep.
(b) You didn’t oversleep.
(c) You’re late.
(d) None of these follows.
Truth and Validity
SECOND
EXAMPLE
If you overslept, you’ll be late. You
didn’t oversleep. Therefore:
(a) You’re late.
(b) You aren’t late.
(c) You did oversleep.
(d)None of these follows
Truth and Validity
SECOND
If you overslept, you’ll be
EXAMPLE
late.You didn’t oversleep.
Therefore:
(a) You’re late.
(b) You aren’t late.
DOESN’T NECESSARY
(c) You did oversleep.
FOLLOW
(d)None of these follows
Truth and Validity
If you overslept, you’ll be late.
Valid or
You aren’t late.
Therefore: You didn’t oversleep.
Invalid?
Truth and Validity
If you overslept, you’ll be VALID LOGICAL FORM:
late. IF A THEN B VALID
You aren’t late.
NOT-B
Therefore: You didn’t
oversleep.
THEREFORE: NOT-A
VALID
Truth and Validity
If you’re in France, you’re in VALID LOGICAL FORM:
Europe.
IF A THEN B VALID
You aren’t in Europe.
Therefore, You aren’t in
NOT-B
France. THEREFORE: NOT-A
VALID
Truth and Validity
THERE IS AN
OVERARCHING
PRINCIPLE!
LOGIC STUDIES FORMS OF
REASONING. THE CONTENT CAN
DEAL WITH ANYTHING –
BACKPACKING, MATHEMATICS,
COOKING, PHYSICS, ETHICS, OR
WHATEVER. WHEN YOU LEARN
LOGIC, YOU’RE LEARNING TOOLS
OF REASONING THAT CAN BE
APPLIED TO ANY SUBJECT
If you overslept, you’ll be
Valid or late.
You didn’t oversleep.
Invalid? Therefore You aren’t late.
Truth and Validity
INVALID LOGICAL FORM:
If you overslept, you’ll be
late. IF A THEN B
You didn’t oversleep. NOT-A
Therefore You aren’t late.
THEREFORE NOT-B
INVALID
Truth and Validity
INVALID LOGICAL FORM:
If you’re in France, you’re in
Europe.
IF A THEN B
You aren’t in France.
Therefore, You aren’t in
NOT-A
Europe. THEREFORE NOT-B
INVALID
Truth and Validity
Sound
Arguments
SOUND
ARGUMENT
An argument is sound if it’s valid
and has every premise true.
VALID
Calling an argument “valid” says
AND TRUE nothing about whether its
PREMISES premises are true. But calling it
“sound” says that it’s valid (the
conclusion follows from the
premises) and has true premises.
OUR
PREMISES ARE
TRUE AND The conclusion of a sound
argument is always true.
THAT OUR
CONCLUSION
FOLLOWS
FROM OUR
PREMISES.
EXAMPLE
SOUND If you’re reading this, you aren’t
ARGUMENT illiterate.
You’re reading this.
Therefore, You aren’t illiterate.
(1) it might have a false premise
UNSOUND (2) its conclusion might not
ARGUMENT follow from the premises:
First premise false:
All logicians are millionaires.
Gensler is a logician.
Therefore, Gensler is a
UNSOUND millionaire.
ARGUMENT Conclusion doesn’t follow:
All millionaires eat well.
Gensler eats well.
Á Gensler is a millionaire.
THREE THINGS TO CONSIDER:
we try to show that it’s
unsound
We try to show either that
WHEN WE one of the premises is false
CRITICIZE AN or that the conclusion
OPPONENT’S doesn’t follow
ARGUMENT we could try to show that
one or more of the premises
are very uncertain.
EXAMPLE: ON UNCERTAINTY
Barack Obama is the
IN FALL 2008, BEFORE
BARACK OBAMA WAS
Democratic nominee.
ELECTED US PRESIDENT,
HE WAS FAR AHEAD IN THE If there was going to be a
POLLS. BUT SOME THOUGHT
HE’D BE DEFEATED BY THE
“BRADLEY EFFECT,”
Bradley effect, Barack
WHEREBY MANY WHITES
SAY THEY’LL VOTE FOR A wouldn’t be the nominee
BLACK CANDIDATE BUT IN
FACT DON’T. BARACK’S [because the effect would
WIFE MICHELLE, IN A CNN
INTERVIEW WITH LARRY
KING (OCTOBER 8), ARGUED
have shown up in the primary
THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE A
BRADLEY EFFECT: elections].
Therefore, There isn’t going
to be a Bradley effect.
LOGIC, WHILE NOT ITSELF
RESOLVING SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES, GIVES US
INTELLECTUAL TOOLS TO
REASON BETTER ABOUT SUCH
ISSUES. IT CAN HELP US TO BE
MORE AWARE OF REASONING, LOGIC AS A SCIENCE
TO EXPRESS REASONING IS REPUDIATED
CLEARLY, TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A CONCLUSION
FOLLOWS FROM THE PREMISES,
AND TO FOCUS ON KEY
PREMISES TO DEFEND OR
CRITICIZE.
Truth and
Validity
THERE ARE MANY
POSSIBLE
COMBINATIONS OF
TRUE AND FALSE
PREMISES AND
CONCLUSIONS IN
BOTH VALID
AND INVALID
ARGUMENTS.
I. SOME VALID ALL MAMMALS HAVE
ARGUMENTS LUNGS.
CONTAIN ONLY
TRUE ALL WHALES ARE
PROPOSITIONS— MAMMALS.
TRUE PREMISES AND THEREFORE ALL WHALES
A TRUE HAVE LUNGS
CONCLUSION
II. SOME VALID
ARGUMENTS ALL FOUR-LEGGED
CONTAIN ONLY CREATURES HAVE WINGS.
FALSE ALL SPIDERS HAVE
PROPOSITIONS— EXACTLY FOUR LEGS.
FALSE PREMISES THEREFORE ALL SPIDERS
AND
A FALSE HAVE WINGS
CONCLUSION:
THIS ARGUMENT IS
VALID BECAUSE, IF
ITS PREMISES WERE
TRUE, ITS ALL FOUR-LEGGED
CONCLUSION CREATURES HAVE WINGS.
WOULD HAVE TO BE ALL SPIDERS HAVE
TRUE ALSO—EVEN
THOUGH WE KNOW EXACTLY FOUR LEGS.
THAT IN FACT BOTH THEREFORE ALL SPIDERS
THE PREMISES AND HAVE WINGS
THE CONCLUSION
OF THIS ARGUMENT
ARE FALSE.
III. SOME INVALID IF I OWNED ALL THE GOLD
ARGUMENTS
CONTAIN ONLY IN FORT KNOX, THEN I
TRUE WOULD BE WEALTHY.
PROPOSITIONS— I DO NOT OWN ALL THE
ALL THEIR PREMISES GOLD IN FORT KNOX.
ARE TRUE, AND THEREFORE I AM NOT
THEIR
CONCLUSIONS ARE WEALTHY
TRUE AS WELL:
THE TRUE
CONCLUSION OF IF I OWNED ALL THE GOLD
THIS ARGUMENT IN FORT KNOX, THEN I
DOES NOT FOLLOW WOULD BE WEALTHY.
FROM ITS TRUE
PREMISES. THIS I DO NOT OWN ALL THE
WILL BE SEEN MORE GOLD IN FORT KNOX.
CLEARLY WHEN THE THEREFORE I AM NOT
IMMEDIATELY WEALTHY
FOLLOWING
ILLUSTRATION IS
CONSIDERED
IV. SOME INVALID IF BILL GATES OWNED ALL
ARGUMENTS THE GOLD IN FORT KNOX,
CONTAIN ONLY THEN BILL GATES WOULD
TRUE PREMISES AND BE WEALTHY.
HAVE A FALSE BILL GATES DOES NOT OWN
CONCLUSION.
ALL THE GOLD IN FORT
KNOX.
THEREFORE BILL GATES IS
NOT WEALTHY.
V. SOME VALID ALL FISHES ARE MAMMALS.
ARGUMENTS HAVE ALL WHALES ARE FISHES.
FALSE PREMISES
THEREFORE ALL WHALES
AND A TRUE
CONCLUSION: ARE MAMMALS.
VI. SOME INVALID ALL MAMMALS HAVE
ARGUMENTS ALSO WINGS.
HAVE FALSE ALL WHALES HAVE WINGS.
PREMISES AND A THEREFORE ALL WHALES
TRUE CONCLUSION: ARE MAMMALS.
VII. SOME INVALID
ARGUMENTS, OF ALL MAMMALS HAVE
COURSE, CONTAIN WINGS.
ALL FALSE ALL WHALES HAVE WINGS.
PROPOSITIONS— THEREFORE ALL MAMMALS
FALSE ARE WHALES.
PREMISES AND A
FALSE
CONCLUSION:
CONCLUSION :
INVALID ARGUMENTS VALID ARGUMENTS
true conclusion false conclusion true conclusion false conclusion
example III example IV true Premises example I
true Premises
false premises example VI example VII false premises example V example II
Hence it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself
determine the validity or invalidity of that argument.
True Conclusion
False Conclusion
IF AN ARGUMENT IS VALID AND ITS
PREMISES ARE TRUE, WE MAY BE
CERTAIN THAT ITS CONCLUSION IS
TRUE ALSO.
IF AN ARGUMENT IS VALID AND ITS
CONCLUSION IS FALSE, NOT ALL OF ITS
TRUE CONCLUSION PREMISES CAN BE TRUE.
FALSE CONCLUSION SOME PERFECTLY VALID ARGUMENTS
DO HAVE FALSE CONCLUSIONS, BUT
ANY SUCH ARGUMENT MUST HAVE AT
LEAST ONE FALSE PREMISE.
WHEN AN ARGUMENT IS VALID AND ALL
OF ITS PREMISES ARE TRUE, WE CALL IT
SOUND.-ONLY A SOUND ARGUMENT
CAN ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF ITS
CONCLUSION.
TO TEST THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF
PREMISES IS THE TASK OF SCIENCE IN
GENERAL
THE LOGICIAN IS NOT INTERESTED IN
THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF
PROPOSITIONS
THE INSUBSTANTIABILITY LOGICIANS ARE INTERESTED IN THE
OF LOGIC LOGICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
BETWEEN PROPOSITIONS THAT
DETERMINE THE CORRECTNESS OR
INCORRECTNESS OF THE ARGUMENTS
MOREOVER, THEY ARE INTERESTED IN
THE CORRECTNESS EVEN OF
ARGUMENTS WHOSE PREMISES MAY BE
FALSE.
CONCLUSION
IN SCIENCE, WE VERIFY THEORIESBY DEDUCING TESTABLE CONSEQUENCES FROM
UNCERTAIN THEORETICAL PREMISES—BUT WE CANNOT KNOW BEFOREHAND
WHICHTHEORIES ARE TRUE. IN EVERYDAY LIFE ALSO, WE MUST OFTEN CHOOSE
BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION, FIRST SEEKING TO DEDUCE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF EACH. TO AVOID DECEIVING OURSELVES, WE MUST REASON
CORRECTLY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES, TAKING EACH AS
A PREMISE. IF WE WERE INTERESTED ONLY IN ARGUMENTS WITH TRUE PREMISES,
WE WOULD NOT KNOW WHICH SET OF CONSEQUENCES TO TRACE OUT UNTIL WE
KNEW WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVE PREMISES WAS TRUE. BUT IF WENKNEW WHICH
OF THE ALTERNATIVE PREMISES WAS TRUE, WE WOULD NOT NEED TO REASON
ABOUT IT AT ALL,BECAUSE OUR PURPOSE WAS TO HELP US DECIDE WHICH
ALTERNATIVE PREMISE TO MAKE TRUE. TO CONFINE OUR ATTENTION TO
ARGUMENTS WITH PREMISES KNOWN TO BE TRUE WOULD THEREFORE BE SELF-
DEFEATING.
