Disjunctions are compound claims of the form A or B.

We looked at the logic of

disjunctive claims in the propositional logic course.

Here were going to look at the valid argument forms that use the disjunction as a major
premise.

1. Either youre with me or youre against me.
2. Youre not with me.
So, you must be against me.

This is a valid argument that uses a disjunction as a major premise.

The basic valid argument form looks like this:

1. A or B
2. not-A
Therefore, B

A and B are the disjuncts. If you can show that one of the disjuncts is false, then the
remaining disjunct MUST be true.

Note that here were negating A and inferring B, but this is arbitrary, you can just as
easily negate B and infer A.

In logic texts this argument form is sometimes called disjunctive argument or
disjunctive syllogism.

Now, what about this one?

1. A or B or C or D
2. not-A
Therefore, ?

Youre given a disjunction with four alternatives, four disjuncts. I say that the first one, A,
is false. What can I validly infer?

Well, you cant infer that any specific one of the remaining alternatives is true. All that you
can infer is that they cant all be false.

So the inference looks like this:

1. A or B or C or D
2. not-A
Therefore, B or C or D

Eliminating one possibility just leaves the rest. Either B or C or D must be true.

You can only arrive at a single conclusion if you can eliminate all of the remaining
alternatives. This is how that argument would look.

1. A or B or C or D
2. not-A
3. not-B
4. not-C
Therefore, D

This is the basic logic behind any reasoning based on a process of elimination.

We use this kind of reasoning every day, but it you see it most prominently in areas
like medical diagnosis or forensic research or detective work, or scientific reasoning
generally, where weve got a range of possible hypotheses that might explain some piece of
data, and youve got to find additional clues or information that will narrow down the list of
possibilities.

Just to close, heres the basic valid argument form again.

1. A or B
2. not-A
Therefore, B

As I said at the top, in logic texts this argument form is often called disjunctive
argument or disjunctive syllogism.

The term syllogism, by the way, comes from Aristotles writings on logic. Its normally
used to describe three-line categorical arguments, like All humans are mortal, Socrates is
human, therefore Socrates is mortal, but sometimes its used a bit more broadly, like in
this case, to refer to any simple valid argument form that has two premises and a
conclusion.

Now, if youve looked at the tutorials on propositional logic then you might be wondering
about how the inclusive OR-exclusive OR distinction factors in here. It is relevant, but
well look at that in the next tutorial on invalid argument forms that use the OR.
Lets talk about invalid argument forms that use OR.

Lets look at this example again:

1. Either youre with me or youre against me.
2. Youre not with me.
So, you must be against me.

This is valid, because the disjunction states that both of these disjuncts cant be false, at
least one of them must be true, so if you can eliminate one then the remainder has to be
true.

But what if I said something like this?

1. College teachers have to have either a Masters degree or a Ph.D.
2. Professor Smith has a Masters degree.
Therefore, he doesnt have a Ph.D.

Is THIS a valid argument?

It doesnt seem so. After all, why cant it be the case that Professor Smith as BOTH a
Masters AND a PhD? Generally this is the case, if you have PhD then you also have a
Masters degree, since having a Masters degree is usually a prerequisite for attaining the
PhD.

But if so, then this inference is clearly INVALID.

The general form of this invalid inference looks like this:

1. A or B
2. A
Therefore, not-B

In this form youre affirming that one of the disjuncts is true, and on the basis of this,
inferring that the remaining disjunct must be false.

In general, this is not a valid inference when its logically possible for the two disjuncts to
be true at the same time.

In other words, its invalid when the OR is an INCLUSIVE OR.

An inclusive OR is one that asserts that A is true, or B is true, OR BOTH may be true.
The only case that it rules out is the case where both are FALSE.

Now, as you might expect, the case is different if the OR is exclusive. Heres a clear
example of anexclusive OR:

1. The coin landed heads or tails.
2. The coin landed heads.
Therefore, the coin did not land tails.

Here youre doing the same thing, youre affirming one of the disjuncts and inferring that
the remaining disjunct must be false.

But in this case the inference is VALID, since the OR is an exclusive or -- it excludes
the case where both of the disjuncts can be true.

So, this argument form
1. A or B
2. A
Therefore, not-B
is VALID when the OR is an exclusive OR.
Lets put the OR forms side-by-side:
1. A or B
2. not-A
Therefore, B

Always valid
1. A or B
2. A
Therefore, not-B

Invalid if OR is inclusive, valid if OR is
exclusive

Before we move on to the invalid forms, heres one more valid conditional form that you
should know. Its sometimes called hypothetical syllogism or hypothetical argument,
or more informally its sometimes called reasoning in a chain.

Its obvious why its called this when you see the argument form in action:

1. If A then B
2. If B then C
Therefore, if A then C

Its what you get when you chain a series of conditionals together, where the consequent of
one becomes the antecedent of another. You can chain as many of these together as you
like.

Note that both the premises and the conclusion are conditionals. In this argument form
were never actually asserting that A or B or C is true. All were asserting is a set of
hypothetical relationships: IF A was true, then B would follow; and IF B was true then C
would follow. And from this we can assert that IF A was true, then C would follow.

In logic and mathematics, this kind of relationship is called a transitive relationship.
Some relationships are transitive and some arent. Tallness, for example, is transitive. If
Andrew is taller than Brian, and Brian is taller than Chris, then Andrew must be taller
than Chris.

On the other hand, being an object of admiration is NOT transitive. If Andrew admires
Brian, and Brian admires Chris, theres no guarantee that Andrew will admire Chris.

At any rate, what this argument form shows is that the relation of logical implication is
transitive. If A logically implies B, and B logically implies C, then A logically implies C.

This argument form is often used to represent chains of cause and effect, like in this
example:

1. If the cue ball hits the red ball, then the red ball will hit the blue ball.
2. If the red ball hits the blue ball, then the blue ball will go into the pocket.
Therefore, if the cue ball hits the red ball, then the blue ball will go into the pocket.

This is precisely the reasoning that a pool player is using when theyre setting up a
combination shot like this. They have to reason through a chain of conditionals to figure
out how to best strike the cue ball.

It should be obvious, but in case its not, you can also use this form to generate a modus
ponens type of argument:

1. If A then B
2. If B then C
3. A
Therefore, C

To establish this, note that from premises 1 and 2 we get the assumed premise, If A then
C:

1. If A then B
2. If B then C
Therefore, if A then C [by hypothetical syllogism on 1 and 2]

Then from this new premise, plus the affirmation of A, we can derive C using modus
ponens:

1. If A then B
2. If B then C
3. If A then C
4. A
Therefore, C [by modus ponens on 3 and 4]

Now, note that with hypothetical syllogism, the order of the terms is important. The
argument form below, for example, is not valid:

1. If A then B
2. If B then C
Therefore, if C then A

This is arguing backwards with conditionals. The direction of logical dependency
doesnt work this way. With conditionals the only valid inference is from antecedent to
consequent, you cant go the other way. To illustrate, lets assume the following
conditionals are true.

1. If John studies hard then hell pass the test.
2. If John passes the test, then hell pass the class.

Now, assume that John does indeed pass the class. Does it follow with deductive certainty
that John studied hard for that test? That is, is this argument form valid?

1. If John studies hard then hell pass the test.
2. If he passes the test, then hell pass the class.
3. John passed the class.
Therefore, John studied hard for the test.

No, it isnt. Maybe the teacher gave a very easy test that day that John could pass without
studying hard. Maybe he bribed the teacher to pass him. There are lots of possible ways
that these premises could be true and the conclusion still false.

On the other hand, if we knew that he studied hard for the test, we could validly infer that
he passed the class. That would be the valid form of reasoning in a chain.
Transcript
Affirming the Consequent is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can
think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens.

Below is modus ponens, which is valid:

1. If A then B
2. A
Therefore, B

Now, below is the invalid form that you get when you try to infer the antecedent by
affirming the consequent:

1. If A then B
2. B
Therefore, A

No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of
modus ponens will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will
be INVALID.

Remember, what it means to say that an argument is invalid is that IF the premises are all
true, the conclusion could still be false. In other words, the truth of the premises does not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Heres an example:

1. If I have the flu then Ill have a fever.
2. I have a fever.
Therefore, I have the flu.

Here were affirming that the consequent is true, and from this, inferring that the
antecedent is also true.

But its obvious that the conclusion doesnt have to be true. Lots of different illnesses can
give rise to a fever, so from the fact that youve got a fever theres no guarantee that youve
got the flu.

More formally, if you were asked to justify why this argument is invalid, youd say that its
invalid because there exists a possible world in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion turns out false, and you could defend this claim by giving a concrete example of
such a world. For example, you could describe a world in which I dont have the flu but my
fever is brought on by bronchitis, or by a reaction to a drug that Im taking.

Another example:

1. If theres no gas in the car then the car wont run.
2. The car wont run.
Therefore, theres no gas in the car.

This doesnt follow either. Maybe the battery is dead, maybe the engine is shot. Being out of
gas isnt the only possible explanation for why the car wont start.

Heres a tougher one. The argument isnt written in standard form, and the form of the
conditional isnt quite as transparent:

You said youd give me a call if you got home before 9 PM, and you did call, so you
must have gotten home before 9 PM.

Is this inference valid or invalid? Its not as obvious as the other examples, and partly this
is because theres no natural causal relationship between the antecedent and the
consequent that can help us think through the conditional logic. We understand that cars
need gas to operate and flus cause fevers, but theres no natural causal association
between getting home before a certain time and making a phone call.

To be sure about arguments like these you need to draw upon your knowledge of
conditional claims and conditional argument forms. You identify the antecedent and
consequent of the conditional claim, rewrite the argument in standard form, and see
whether it fits one of the valid or invalid argument forms that you know.

Heres the argument written in standard form, where weve been careful to note that the
antecedent of the conditional is what comes after the if:

1. If you got home before 9 PM, then youll give me a call.
2. You gave me a call.
Therefore, you got home before 9 PM.

Now its clearer that the argument has the form of affirming the consequent, which we
know is invalid.

The argument would be valid if the you said that youd give me a call ONLY IF you got home
before 9 PM, but thats not whats being said here. If you got home at 9:30 or 10 oclock and
gave me a call, you wouldnt be contradicting any of the premises.

If these sorts of translation exercises using conditional statements are unfamiliar to you
then you should check out the tutorial course on basic concepts in propositional logic,
which has a whole section on ways of saying If A then B.
Transcript
Denying the antecedent is the name of another invalid conditional argument form. You
should think of this as the invalid version of modus tollens.

Below is modus tollens, which is valid;

1. If A then B
2. not-B
Therefore, not-A

Below is the invalid form, known as denying the antecedent:

1. If A then B
2. not-A
Therefore, not-B

Its no mystery why its called this. Youre denying the antecedent and trying to infer the
denial of the consequent.

Lets look at some examples.

1. If the pavement is wet in the morning, then it rained last night.
2. The pavement is not wet this morning.
Therefore, it didnt rain last night.

Its not hard to see why this is invalid. It could have rained last night but it stopped early
and the rain on the pavement evaporated before morning. Clearly, these premises dont
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Heres another one, inspired by an example from the last tutorial:

1. If theres no gas in the car then the car wont run.
2. There is gas in the car.
Therefore, the car will run.

Note that weve eliminated the negations in the second premise and the conclusion by using
double-negation on the antecedent and the consequent. This still has the form of denying
the antecedent, if A then B, not-A, therefore not-B, but the antecedent, A, is already a
negation, so by denying the antecedent youre saying its not the case that theres no gas in
the car, which just means that there is gas in the car.

This is one is obviously invalid too. The fact theres gas in the car is no guarantee that the
car is going to run.

Lets do a trickier one:

I know you didnt say your wish out loud, because if you had, it wouldnt have come
true, and your wish did come true.

Hmm. The only way to be really sure about an argument like this is to re-write it in
standard form, either in your head or on paper.

First, of all whats the conclusion?

This is the conclusion: You didnt say your wish out loud. The word because is an
indicator word that flags this. (The I know isnt part of the content of the conclusion, it
just helps to indicate that this in an inference that follows from something else.)

Okay, so what is the conditional premise?

In the original it reads if you had, it wouldnt have come true. This is the conditional
premise. To make the antecedent explicit you need to clarify what it refers to -- it refers
to your wish.

Conditional premise: If you say your wish out loud, then it wont come true.

Ive rewritten the conditional in the present tense, because it will sound more natural when
its written in standard form, but youre not altering the content of the claim in any
significant way by doing this.

Now, what we have left is the phrase, and your wish did come true. The and isnt part
of the claim, the claim is Your wish did come true. This is the second premise.
Now we have all we need to write this in standard form:

1. If you say your wish out loud, then it wont come true.
2. Your wish did come true.
Therefore, you didnt say your wish out loud.
Now, does this argument have the invalid form of denying the antecedent?

No, it does not. This argument has the form of modus tollens, and its valid.

Some people can see the logical relationships right away just by glancing at the original
argument, but those people are in the minority. Most of us need to check to make sure
weve got it right, and the only way to do that is to reconstruct the argument and put it in
standard form, so we can compare the form with the valid and invalid forms that we do
know.