31
Chapter Two: Organizing arguments logically
Kinds of propositions
You were introduced to the idea of propositions in Chapter 1. There is more than
one type.
Atomic propositions cannot be broken down into component sentences.
Kittens are cute.
Atomic propositions cannot be broken down into component sentences.
The lights are on in the garage.
The University of Saskatchewan is located in Saskatoon.
There are several kinds of compound propositions, which include two or more
component sentences.
There are conjunctions.
Saskatchewan is east of Alberta and west of Manitoba.
The students are young and every one of them is eager to learn.
Trudeau leads the Liberals while Poilievre leads the Conservatives.
The day is sunny but it is very cold.
In conjunctions, two sentences are joined by words like “and,” “but,” or “while.”
The components of a conjunction are called “conjuncts.” A conjunction is true if
and only if both conjuncts are true.
Saskatchewan is east of Alberta and west of Manitoba. True
Saskatchewan is east of Alberta and but not west of Manitoba. False
Saskatchewan is not east of Alberta but is west of Manitoba. False
Saskatchewan is neither east of Alberta nor west of Manitoba. False
In disjunctions, two sentences are joined by words like “or” and “unless.”
Today is Monday or today is Tuesday.
We will eat at home today unless we go to the movies.
Either Trudeau will continue to be Prime Minister or Poilievre will replace
him.
You will pass the course unless you miss the midterms and the final.
Disjunctions are true if and only if one, the other, or both components, which are
called “disjuncts,” are true.
32
Saskatchewan is east of Alberta or west of Manitoba. True
Saskatchewan is west of Alberta or west of Manitoba. True
Saskatchewan is east of Alberta or east of Manitoba. True
Saskatchewan is either west of Alberta or east of Manitoba. False
In conditionals, two sentences are joined by “if,” by “if” and “then,” or by “only
if.”
If it is winter, then it is cold.
It is winter only if it is cold.
It is cold if it is winter.
A conditional is true unless the if-component is true and the then-component is
false. The if-component is called the antecedent and the then-component is called
the consequent.
If Canada is north of the USA, then dogs are fish.
If the if-component or antecedent is false, the conditional is true. Saying “If the
moon is made of green cheese, it orbits Mars” is the same as saying “It is not true
that the moon is made of green cheese and the moon orbits Mars.” If “The moon
is made of green cheese” is false, then “The moon is made of green cheese and
the moon orbits Mars” is false too. The phrase “It is not true that …” negates “The
moon is made of green cheese and the moon orbits Mars,” resulting in a true
proposition.
A bi-conditional joins two conditionals with the same components but in reversed
positions.
Water is H2O if and only if H2O is water.
“Water is H2O if and only if H2O is water” combines “If water is H2O, then H2O is
water” and “If H2O is water, then water is H2O.”
A bi-conditional is true when both components are true or both components are
false.
You will graduate if and only if you meet all the requirements. True, true
You will have a fever just in case you are ill. True, true
You are not a human being if and only if you are not the offspring of human
beings. False, false
You are not in Saskatoon if and only if you are not in the city where the
University of Saskatchewan is located. False, false
33
Finally, there are negations.
We are not in Winnipeg. True
It is not midnight now. True
Negations are true if and only if removing the negating word results in a false
proposition.
We are in Winnipeg. False
It is midnight now. False
Organizing arguments into Standard Form
As mentioned in Chapter One, arguments are made up of premises and
conclusions.
Premise indicators include: since, because, after all, seeing that, due to, as, in the
first place, etc.
Conclusion indicators include: thus, therefore, so, hence, it follows that, which
implies that, obviously, etc.
Auxiliary verbs can also help you to identify conclusions. Ones like “should,”
“ought to,” and “had better” often indicate a conclusion when all other statements
are factual.
You cannot always rely on indicators because they are not always present. In
those cases, you have to consider the propositions and work out whether some
support another by giving reasons for the other.
You should always try to identify the conclusion first, although sometimes you
have to identify it in relation to premises, seeing what they support. The other
sentences are liable to be premises (or extraneous material).
Since their use is causing global heating, we should reduce our use of fossil
fuels. There are alternatives and they are becoming cheaper all the time.
In this argument, the conclusion is “We should reduce our use of fossil fuels.” The
word “should” is a conclusion indicator because all the other sentences are, or
appear to be, factual.
The premises are: “The use of fossils fuels causes global heating,” “There are
alternatives to fossils fuels,” and “The alternatives to fossils fuels are becoming
cheaper all the time.”
34
Note again that you replace pronouns (or other pro-forms) with the noun phrases
they represent. It is repetitive but it is important to be clear about what the
propositions actually mean. After all, one way to determine whether an argument
is good is to determine whether its premises are true and you cannot determine
whether its premises are true unless you know exactly what they are.
Also, you divide conjunctions into their component sentences when the
conjunctions are premises. The reason is that the conjunction is true if and only if
both components are true, and it is easier to determine whether the components
are true when they are separate.
To put the argument in the format called standard form, list the premises, draw a
line, and write down the conclusion. In this case, we have numbered the
premises and noted the conclusion. Whether you label the premises and
conclusion in this way, depends on your purposes. You will have to do so when
asked to put arguments into standard form.
P1: The use of fossils fuels causes global heating
P2: There are alternatives to fossils fuels
P3: The alternatives to fossils fuels are becoming cheaper all the time.
_____________________________________________________
C: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels
Here is another argument (taken from the passage above, which tells you what
things mean):
It is repetitive but it is important to be clear about what they actually mean.
After all, one way to determine whether an argument is good is to
determine whether its premises are true and you can’t determine whether
its premises are true unless you know exactly what they are saying.
Eliminate pronouns in favour of saying explicitly what they refer to.
Using complete noun phrases is repetitive but it is important to know what
the pronouns in an argument actually mean. After all, one way to determine
whether an argument is good is to determine whether its premises are true
and you can’t determine whether its premises are true unless you know
exactly what the pronouns in an argument actually mean.
The propositions are:
Using complete noun phrases is repetitive
It is important to know what the pronouns in an argument actually mean
One way to determine whether an argument is good is to determine
whether its premises are true
35
You can’t determine whether its premises are true unless you know exactly
what the pronouns in an argument actually mean
You end up with four sentences because you have two conjunctions, which means
you have four components (conjuncts). “After all” is a premise indicator and so
the conjuncts from the second sentence are premises.
P1: One way to determine whether an argument is good is to determine
whether its premises are true
P2: You can’t determine whether its premises are true unless you know
exactly what the pronouns in an argument actually mean
What are “Using complete noun phrases is repetitive” and “It is important to
know what the pronouns in an argument actually mean”?
If you think about it for a moment, you will see that the premises are reasons why
it is true that “It is important to know what the pronouns in an argument actually
mean.” They are not reasons why “Using complete noun phrases is repetitive.”
So, the conclusion must be “It is important to know what the pronouns in an
argument actually mean.”
P1: One way to determine whether an argument is good is to determine
whether its premises are true
P2: You can’t determine whether its premises are true unless you know
exactly what the pronouns in an argument actually mean
_____________________________________________________
C: It is important to know what the pronouns in an argument actually
mean
What about “Using complete noun phrases is repetitive”? It is extra information
that acknowledges a potential objection based on aesthetic rather than logical
grounds. It is not the conclusion, because we already have the conclusion, and it
is not a reason why the conclusion is true. So, we can get rid of it. It is
extraneous and must be left out.
Consider this argument.
The company is going to hire Barb, Chris, or Kim. Barb has five years
experience. Chris has a degree in the relevant field. But Kim has both five-
years experience and a relevant degree. Consequently, the company is
going to hire Kim.
This is the argument after restructuring into standard form with all the
propositions labelled.
36
P1: The company is going to hire Barb or the company is going to hire
Chris or the company is going to hire Kim.
P2: Barb has five years experience.
P3: Chris has a degree in the relevant field.
P4: Kim has five-years experience
P5: Kim has a relevant degree
___________________________________________
C: The company is going to hire Kim
You don’t separate the first sentence into three different ones because you only do
that when the components are conjuncts, that is, conjoined with “and” or a word
that means “and”. You separate the fourth sentence into two different ones
because the components are joined by “and” and you can evaluate their truth
more effectively if they are separated.
Exercise 2.1 List the numbers of the premises and the conclusion in the
spaces provided. Leave out any sentences that are neither premises nor
conclusions.
1. (1) We should minimize risk to others. (2) Getting vaccinated minimizes risk to
others. Therefore, (3) we should get vaccinated.
Premises: Conclusion:
2. (1) All house cats are felines. (2) All felines are mammals. So, (3) all house
cats are mammals.
Premises: Conclusion:
3. (1) Elephants are bigger than horses, (2) which are bigger than cats, so (3)
elephants are bigger than cats.
Premises: Conclusion:
4. (1) Saskatoon is in Spain because (2) it is in Brittany and (3) Brittany is part of
Spain.
Premises: Conclusion:
5. (1) That man is fat, (2) he has a white beard, (3) he looks jolly, and (4) he is
wearing a red and white suit. (5) He must be Santa Claus.
Premises: Conclusion:
37
6. (1) There can be no doubt that Saskatoon is nicer than North Battleford. (2) It
has more restaurants and movie theaters; (2) it has better bars and night clubs;
and (3) it has more attractive parks.
Premises: Conclusion:
7. (1) The government is not requiring people to wear masks,(2) is not requiring
anyone to get vaccinated, and (3) is opposed to vaccine passports. Obviously,(4)
it does not care how much the pandemic costs the taxpayer.
Premises: Conclusion:
8. (1) Tax exemptions for places of worship and tax deductions for people who
donate to religious organizations shift the tax burden to other people. (2) Shifting
the burden violates other people’s religious freedom. It follows that (3) no
religious organization should have charitable status. (4) Getting subsidies like this
is a privilege, not a right.
Premises: Conclusion:
9. (1) Winter is followed by spring, (2) which is followed by summer. Then (3)
comes fall and (4) another winter. Obviously, (5) winter causes itself.
Premises: Conclusion:
10. (1) More people watch TV than read books, so (2) watching TV is better that
reading books.
Premises: Conclusion:
11. (1) God exists. (2) The Bible says so and (3) the Bible is completely true.
Premises: Conclusion:
12. (1) If God existed, there would be no evil. Since (3) there is evil, and (4)
there can be no doubt of that, (5) God does not exist.
Premises: Conclusion:
13. (1) It is better to study X than it is to study Y. (2) X is more interesting, (3)
there are more jobs for people who have studied X, (4) the pay is higher, and (5)
there are opportunities to travel.
Premises: Conclusion:
38
14. (1) If the Liberals win, Trudeau will be PM. (2) If the Conservatives win, then
Poilievre will be. (3) Either Trudeau or Poilievre will be PM because(4) either the
Liberals or the Conservatives will win.
Premises: Conclusion:
15. (1) All rock stars are young and sexy, which means that (2) Mick Jagger is not
a rock star, because (3) he is not young and sexy.
Premises: Conclusion:
16. (1) The meeting is at 8:00, 12:00, or 5:00. (2) It isn’t at 8:00 or 5:00, so (3) it
must be at 12:00.
Premises: Conclusion:
17. (1) It is sunny. (2) I know this. (3) I know it because (4) it is warm and sunny.
Premises: Conclusion:
18. (1) People see ghosts. (2) It is either all in their heads, in which case (3) they
are a delusion, or (4) photons bounce off ghosts. (5) If photons bounce off ghosts,
we should be able to trap them. But (6) we have never trapped them. So, (7)
ghosts are not real.
Premises: Conclusion:
19. (1) If Jack is absent, then Jill will be absent, too. So, (2) if Jill is not absent,
Jack is not absent.
Premises: Conclusion:
20. (1) Masks reduce the probability of COVID spreading. (2) So do vaccines and
social distancing. (3) We should do everything we can to reduce the spread of
COVID. So, (4) we should wear masks and we should social distance as well as
get vaccinated.
Premises: Conclusion:
Exercise 2.2 Put the arguments in Exercise 2.1 into standard form.
Remember to label the premises and the conclusion.
Exercise 2.3 List the numbers of the premises and the conclusion in the
spaces provided. Leave out any sentences that are neither premises nor
conclusions.
39
1. (1) If Socrates escapes, then he causes his friends to suffer. (2) If he causes his
friends to suffer, then he does wrong. So, (3) if Socrates escapes, then he does
wrong.
Premises: Conclusion:
2. (1) If politicians break their promises, then either they are bad people or the
voters are irresponsible. (2) Politicians break their promises but (3) they are not
bad people. It follows that (4) the voters are irresponsible. (5) This is not a
popular view but (6) that does not mean it is wrong.
Premises: Conclusion:
3. (1) There is a hand. (2) If there is a hand, there are external objects. (3) If there
are external objects, there is an external world. Therefore, (4) there is an external
world.
Premises: Conclusion:
4. (1) We have the conception of a perfect being. (2) If we have the conception of
a perfect being, then it comes from the world or from a perfect being. (3) It does
not come from the world. (4) If there is a perfect being, then God exists. (5) God
exists.
Premises: Conclusion:
5. (1) Either religion is the result of discovery or religion is the result of invention.
(2) If religion is the result of discovery, then there will be only one kind view of
how we continue after death. But (3) it is not the case that there is only one kind
view of after-death continuations. Therefore, (4) religion is the result of invention.
Premises: Conclusion:
6. (1) Good opinions about situations are based on all the relevant facts. After
all, (2) if you lack some relevant information or believe some relevant falsehoods,
your opinion is not about the situation you think it is about. Furthermore, (3)
additional factual information or the elimination of misleading information often
leads people to change their minds. And, (4) sometimes, it is impossible to decide
on a good opinion because it is impossible to determine the facts. (5) The last
point is illustrated by the case of R v Collins 1973 QB 100.
Premises: Conclusion:
7. (1) If Victoria Beckham makes a scene in a shop over an autographed picture of
her husband, David Beckham, the tabloid newspapers will print the story. (2) She
40
knows they will print the story. (3) If she knows that they will print the story, then
she is responsible for their printing it. (4) If she is responsible for their printing
the story and if the story is libellous, then she is guilty of libel and will have to pay
damages to the shop. (5) The story is libellous. (6) She made a scene. Therefore,
(7) Victoria Beckham will have to pay damages. (8) It serves her right. (Inspired
by McManus v Beckham, 2002)
Premises: Conclusion:
8. (1) I am sure this news will sadden all of us in the cricket club. (2) We can play
cricket only if we do not cause a nuisance. (3) If we play cricket, we will hit balls
into the new development unless we install a net at the end of the cricket field. (4)
If we hit balls into the new development, we will cause a nuisance. Therefore, (5)
we cannot play cricket unless we install a net at the end of the cricket field.
(Inspired by Miller v Jackson, 1977)
Premises: Conclusion:
9. (1) The view of the physicist is correct. (2) If a firewalker does not burn her
feet, then either it is her mind power that protects her or the combination of coals
and ash she walks on is not a good conductor of heat. (3) If it is her mind power
that protects her, then a mindless band aid on the bottom of her foot will burn.
But (4) firewalkers do not burn their feet and mindless band aids on the bottom of
their feet do not burn either. Consequently, (5) the combination of coals and ash
she walks on is not a good conductor of heat.
Premises: Conclusion:
10. (1) If astrology is true, then the stars influence us at the time of our birth. (2)
If the stars influence us then, then we are affected either by their gravitational
attraction or by their radiation. (3) If we are born on earth, we are not affected by
their gravitational attraction.* (4) If we are born on earth, we are not affected by
their radiation.** (5) We are born on earth. Hence, (6) astrology is false. * (7)
Their gravitational attraction is swamped by the gravitational attraction of the
earth. ** (8) Their radiation is overwhelmed by the radiation of the electric lights
in the delivery room.
Premises: Conclusion:
Exercise 2.4 Put the arguments in Exercise 2.3 into standard form.
Remember to label the premises and the conclusion.
41
Arrow Diagrams
In the following argument, the premises are independent of each other. Each
provides support no matter whether the others are there or not.
We should rent instead of buying a house. We do not have enough money
for a down payment. We will probably have to move soon. And interest
rates are expected to increase in the near future.
In contrast, in this argument, they depend on each other to provide support for
the conclusion.
If we pick up Kim and get to the movie on time, we will eat before six. We
will pick up Kim and we will get to the movie on time. Therefore, we will
eat before six.
If one of the premises were missing, you would no longer have any support at all
for the conclusion. For instance, if take away “We will pick up Kim,” it is no
longer obvious at all that we will eat before six.
If we pick up Kim and get to the movie on time, we will eat before six. We
will get to the movie on time. Therefore, we will eat before six.
If we restructure the arguments in standard form, we get the following.
P1: We do not have enough money for a down payment.
P2: We will probably have to move soon.
P3: Interest rates are expected to increase in the near future.
___________________________________________
C: We should rent instead of buying a house.
P1: If we pick up Kim and get to the movie on time, we will eat before six.
P2: We will pick up Kim.
P3: We will get to the movie on time.
__________________________________
C: We will eat before six.
Restructuring them in standard form does not reveal the difference between
them. Arrow diagrams do.
We start by numbering the propositions.
(1) We should rent instead of buying a house. (2) We do not have enough
money for a down payment. (3) We will probably have to move soon. And
(4) interest rates are expected to increase in the near future.
42
2 3 4
Since the support is independent, we draw a separate arrow from the
number of each premise to the conclusion.
(1) If we pick up Kim and get to the movie on time, we will eat before six.
(2) We will pick up Kim and (3) we will get to the movie on time. Therefore,
(4) we will eat before six.
|____1____+___2____+___3______|
Since the premises have to work together, we group them together.
Sometimes, the premises can support more than one conclusion. In this example,
there is one premise and two conclusions.
I haven’t checked but because of the tornado that went through there
yesterday, there could be damage to the house and the grain bins could
have blown away.
I haven’t checked but because of (1) the tornado that went through there
yesterday, (2) there could be damage to the house and (3) the grain bins
could have blown away.
1
43
2 3
There can be parallel arguments.
I have gained weight but my blood pressure is lower. I am fatter but fitter.
(1) I have gained weight but (2) my blood pressure is lower. (3) I am fatter
but (4) I am fitter.
1 2
3 4
There are also serial arguments.
Tom looked after his mother himself, which meant that he enabled her to
stay in her own home, which meant that she could continue smoking.
(1) Tom looked after his mother himself, which meant that (2) Tom enabled
his mother to stay in her own home, which meant that (3) Tom’s mother
could continue smoking.
Converging arguments exist too.
44
The Loch Ness monster probably doesn’t exist. All the sightings have been
under poor conditions and sightings under poor conditions are unreliable.
Furthermore, large animals don’t live forever, you need a population to 150
to 200 individuals to prevent extinction, and Loch Ness couldn’t support
that many big creatures.
(1) The Loch Ness monster probably doesn’t exist. (2) All the sightings of
the Loch Ness monster have been under poor conditions and (3) sightings
under poor conditions are unreliable. Furthermore, (4) large animals don’t
live forever, (5) a population to 150 to 200 individuals is necessary to
prevent extinction, and (6) Loch Ness couldn’t support that many creatures
the size of the Loch Ness monster.
|_____2__+_3____| |____4 __+__5___+_6___|
There are even more complicated arrangements.
Either Lizzie Borden murdered her parents herself or a stranger committed
the crime. But it could not have been a stranger because there were no
strangers in the neighborhood at the time. Consequently, there can be no
reasonable doubt that Lizzie Borden killed them.
Either (1) Lizzie Borden murdered her parents or a stranger murdered
Lizzie Borden’s parents. (2) A stranger did not murder Lizzie Borden’s
parents because (3) there were no strangers in the neighborhood at the
time of the murders. Consequently, there can be no reasonable doubt that
(4) Lizzie Borden murdered her parents.
|_____1__ _+_____2_______|
45
The way to learn more is to try some questions and think about how you would
answer them.
Exercise 2.5 Draw arrow diagrams that show the relationships between
the propositions
1. (1) Kim is ambitious. So, (2) they are sure to graduate. Therefore, (3) they are
sure to get a good job.
2. (1) Kim is sure to get a good job. After all, (2) they are sure to graduate. After
all, (3) they have the necessary ambition.
3. (1) Saskatoon has more job opportunities. (2) It is centrally located. (3) There
is more nightlife there. Hence (4) we should move to Saskatoon. Therefore, (5)
we should start looking for a house in saskatoon.
4. (1) Electric cars would not suit Saskatchewan. (2) The distances are too great.
(3) The batteries lose power when it is cold. (4) And there are no charging
stations.
5. (1) Vegetarianism is the best option. (2) It prevents animal cruelty. (3) It is
healthier. And (4) it is cheaper.
6. (1) The world will end in a bang or a whimper. (2) It won’t end in a whimper
because (3) humans are too warlike. So, (4) it will end in a bang.
7. (1) If you don’t set your alarm, you won’t wake up in time. (2) If you don’t wake
up in time, you’ll miss the bus. (3) If you miss the bus, you won’t be able to write
your final exam. (4) If you miss one more final exam, you’ll get kicked out of
school. So (5) if you don’t set your alarm, you’ll get kicked out of school.
8. (1) The cat is friendly. (2) The cat is companionable. (3) The cat is easy to
care for. So, (4) the cat is the best possible pet. Therefore, (5) you should get a
cat.
46
9. (1) The cat is missing. So (2) someone left the door open. And (3) the children
will be sad. Since (3) the children will be sad, (4) we will have to look for the cat.
10. (1) If you gamble, you will lose a lot of money. (2) You will gamble. Hence,
(3) you will lose a lot of money. Therefore, (4) your children will be hungry, (5)
you won’t be able to pay your bills, and (6) your spouse will leave you.
Exercise 2.6 Draw arrow diagrams that show the relationships between
the propositions
1. (1) Either Ukraine or Russia will win. (2) Russia won’t win. So, (3) Ukraine
will win. Since (3) Ukraine will win, (4) refugees will return and (5) rebuilding will
begin.
2. Unless (1) more police are hired, crime will surge. (2) There are no plans to
hire more police. Consequently, (3) crime will surge. Since (3) crime will surge,
(4) people will buy better locks. Hence, (5) hardware stores should stock up on
deadlocks.
3. (1) It snowed heavily. So, (2) it must be winter. Hence, (3) it must be cold.
Therefore, (4) we must dress warmly.
4. (1) It is warm. (2) The trees are green. (3) Dandelions are blooming. (4) The
snow is all gone. So, (5) it must be spring.
5. (1) Axel won’t win the ski race. (2) He is still suffering from an old injury. (3)
He has gained too much weight. And (4) Svante is a better skier.
6. (1) The roof leaks. (2) the windows are drafty. (3) The floors are worn. But (4)
the roof is more important than the windows or the floors. So, (5) the roof should
be repaired first.
7. (1) It is a sunny day. Consequently, (2) it will warm up later, (3) the puddles
will dry up, and (4) the solar panels will produce a lot of power.
8. (1) The Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP or the PPC will win the next
election. (2) The NDP won’t. (3) Neither will the PPC. Hence, (4) either the
Liberals or the Conservatives will win. Therefore, (5) either Trudeau or Poilievre
will be PM after the election. So, either way, (6) the PM will have a French
surname.
9. (1) It is on sale. (2) It is more powerful. (3) It is newer. (4) It has a better
warranty. (5) So, that computer is the best deal.
47
10. (1) If we leave now, we will be able to see the movie, (2) If we see the movie,
we will be entertained. (3) If we are entertained, we will be happy. (4) But we
will not be happy. So, (5) we are not going to leave now.
