List of valid argument forms

Last updated

Of the many and varied argument forms that can possibly be constructed, only very few are valid argument forms. In order to evaluate these forms, statements are put into logical form. Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its subject matter. [1]

Contents

Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This can be proven for any valid argument form using a truth table which shows that there is no situation in which there are all true premises and a false conclusion. [2]

Valid syllogistic forms

In syllogistic logic, there are 256 possible ways to construct categorical syllogisms using the A, E, I, and O statement forms in the square of opposition. Of the 256, only 24 are valid forms. Of the 24 valid forms, 15 are unconditionally valid, and 9 are conditionally valid.

Unconditionally valid

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4
AAA
EAE
AII
EIO
AEE
EAE
EIO
AOO
AII
IAI
OAO
EIO
AEE
IAI
EIO

Conditionally valid

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4Required condition
AAI
EAO
AEO
EAO
AEOMinor term exists
AAI
EAO
EAOMiddle term exists
AAIMajor term exists

Valid propositional forms

The following is a list of some common valid argument forms in propositional logic. It is nowhere near exhaustive, and gives only a few examples of the better known valid argument forms.

Modus ponens

One valid argument form is known as modus ponens, not to be mistaken with modus tollens, which is another valid argument form that has a like-sounding name and structure. Modus ponens (sometimes abbreviated as MP) says that if one thing is true, then another will be. It then states that the first is true. The conclusion is that the second thing is true. [3] It is shown below in logical form.

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

Before being put into logical form the above statement could have been something like below.

If Kelly does not finish his homework, he will not go to class
Kelly did not finish his homework
Therefore, Kelly will not go to class

The first two statements are the premises while the third is the conclusion derived from them.

Modus tollens

Another form of argument is known as modus tollens (commonly abbreviated MT). In this form, you start with the same first premise as with modus ponens. However, the second part of the premise is denied, leading to the conclusion that the first part of the premise should be denied as well. It is shown below in logical form.

If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A. [3]

When modus tollens is used with actual content, it looks like below.

If the Saints win the Super Bowl, there will be a party in New Orleans that night
There was no party in New Orleans that night
Therefore, the Saints did not win the Super Bowl

Hypothetical syllogism

Much like modus ponens and modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism (sometimes abbreviated as HS) contains two premises and a conclusion. It is, however, slightly more complicated than the first two. In short, it states that if one thing happens, another will as well. If that second thing happens, a third will follow it. Therefore, if the first thing happens, it is inevitable that the third will too. [3] It is shown below in logical form.

If A, then B
If B, then C
Therefore if A, then C

When put into words it looks like below.

If it rains today, I will wear my rain jacket
If I wear my rain jacket, I will keep dry
Therefore if it rains today, I will keep dry

Disjunctive syllogism

Disjunctive syllogism (sometimes abbreviated DS) has one of the same characteristics as modus tollens in that it contains a premise, then in a second premise it denies a statement, leading to the conclusion. In Disjunctive Syllogism, the first premise establishes two options. The second takes one away, so the conclusion states that the remaining one must be true. [3] It is shown below in logical form.

Either A or B
Not A
Therefore B

When A and B are replaced with real life examples it looks like below.

Either you will see Joe in class today or he will oversleep
You did not see Joe in class today
Therefore Joe overslept

Disjunctive syllogism takes two options and narrows it down to one.

Constructive dilemma

Another valid form of argument is known as constructive dilemma or sometimes just 'dilemma'. It does not leave the user with one statement alone at the end of the argument, instead, it gives an option of two different statements. The first premise gives an option of two different statements. Then it states that if the first one happens, there will be a particular outcome and if the second happens, there will be a separate outcome. The conclusion is that either the first outcome or the second outcome will happen. The criticism with this form is that it does not give a definitive conclusion; just a statement of possibilities. [3] When it is written in argument form it looks like below.

Either A or B
If A then C
If B then D
Therefore either C or D

When content is inserted in place of the letters, it looks like below.

Bill will either take the stairs or the elevator to his room
If he takes the stairs, he will be tired when he gets to his room
If he takes the elevator, he will miss the start of the football game on TV
Therefore Bill will either be tired when he gets to his room or he will miss the start of the football game

There is a slightly different version of dilemma that uses negation rather than affirming something known as destructive dilemma. When put in argumentative form it looks like below.

If A then C
If B then D
Not C or not D
Therefore not A or not B [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement under certain assumptions, and invalidly inferring its converse, even though that statement may not be true under the same assumptions. This arises when the consequent has other possible antecedents.

In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False dilemma</span> Informal fallacy involving falsely limited alternatives

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when, in fact, there could be many.

The propositional calculus is a branch of logic. It is also called propositional logic, statement logic, sentential calculus, sentential logic, or sometimes zeroth-order logic. It deals with propositions and relations between propositions, including the construction of arguments based on them. Compound propositions are formed by connecting propositions by logical connectives representing the truth functions of conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, and negation. Some sources include other connectives, as in the table below.

In propositional logic, modus ponens, also known as modus ponendo ponens, implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "P implies Q.P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true."

In propositional logic, modus tollens (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syllogism</span> Type of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning

A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from an original statement. It is a type of mixed hypothetical syllogism in the form:

In classical logic, a hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form, a deductive syllogism with a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. Ancient references point to the works of Theophrastus and Eudemus for the first investigation of this kind of syllogisms.

In philosophy of logic and logic, a rule of inference, inference rule or transformation rule is a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enthymeme</span> Type of rhetorical deductive argument

An enthymeme is an argument with a hidden premise. Enthymemes are usually developed from premises that accord with the audience's view of the world and what is taken to be common sense. However, where the general premise of a syllogism is supposed to be true, making the subsequent deduction necessary, the general premise of an enthymeme is merely probable, which leads only to a tentative conclusion. Originally theorized by Aristotle, there are four types of enthymeme, at least two of which are described in Aristotle's work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical reasoning</span> Process of drawing correct inferences

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informal fallacy</span> Form of incorrect argument in natural language

Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical form</span> Form for logical arguments, obtained by abstracting from the subject matter of its content terms

In logic, the logical form of a statement is a precisely-specified semantic version of that statement in a formal system. Informally, the logical form attempts to formalize a possibly ambiguous statement into a statement with a precise, unambiguous logical interpretation with respect to a formal system. In an ideal formal language, the meaning of a logical form can be determined unambiguously from syntax alone. Logical forms are semantic, not syntactic constructs; therefore, there may be more than one string that represents the same logical form in a given language.

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

The paradoxes of material implication are a group of true formulae involving material conditionals whose translations into natural language are intuitively false when the conditional is translated as "if ... then ...". A material conditional formula is true unless is true and is false. If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis had won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is vacuously true. Given that such problematic consequences follow from a seemingly correct assumption about logic, they are called paradoxes. They demonstrate a mismatch between classical logic and robust intuitions about meaning and reasoning.

In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas.

Stoic logic is the system of propositional logic developed by the Stoic philosophers in ancient Greece.

References

  1. May, Robert (1993). Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  2. Stanley, Jason (30 August 2000). "Context and Logical Form". Linguistics and Philosophy. 23 (4): 391–434. doi:10.1023/A:1005599312747. S2CID   50570399.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Johnson, Robert (2006). A Logic Book: Fundamentals of Reasoning. Cengage Learning.
  4. Elugardo, Reinaldo (1 September 2001). "Logical Form and the Vernacular". Mind and Language. 16 (4): 393–424. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.400.517 . doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00177.