Logic: The study of the methods and principles used

to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.

Proposition: A statement; what is typically asserted
using a declarative sentence, and hence always either
true or falsealthough its truth or falsity may be
unknown. Propositions are the building blocks of our
reasoning.
Statement: A proposition; what is typically asserted
by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself.
Every statement must be either true or false, although
the truth or falsity of a given statement may be
unknown.
Inference: A process by which one proposition is
arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other
proposition or propositions.
Argument: Any group of propositions of which one is
claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded
as providing support or grounds for the truth of that
one.
Inference is a process that may tie together a cluster
of propositions. uch a cluster of propositions
constitutes an argument. !n logic, argument refers
strictly to any group of propositions of which one is
claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded
as providing support for the truth of that one. "or
every possible inference there is a corresponding
argument.
Conclusion: !n any argument, the proposition to
which the other propositions in the argument are
claimed to give support, or for which they are given as
reasons.
Premises: !n an argument, the propositions upon
which inference is based; the propositions that are
claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the
conclusion.
The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that
is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the
argument. Those other propositions, which are
affirmed #or assumed$ as providing support for the
conclusion, are the premises of the argument.
Recognizing Arguments:
A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators
%ne useful method depends on the appearance of
certain common indicators, certain words or phrases
that typically serve to signal the appearance of an
argument&s conclusion or of its premises.
Conclusion indicator: A word or phrase #such as
'therefore( or 'thus($ appearing in an argument and
usually indicating that what follows it is the conclusion
of that argument.
Premise indicator: !n an argument, a word or phrase
#like 'because( and 'since($ that normally signals that
what follows it are statements serving as premises.
B. Arguments in Context:
ometimes it is )ust the meaning of the passage, or its
setting, that indicates the presence of an argument.
The full force of argument and counterargument can
be grasped only with an understanding of the context
in which those arguments are presented.
Rhetorical question: An utterance used to make a
statement, but which, because it is in interrogative
form and is therefore neither true nor false, does not
literally assert anything.
alidit!: A characteristic of any deductive argument
whose premises, if they were all true, would provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
uch an argument is said to be valid. *alidity is a
formal characteristic; it applies only to arguments, as
distinguished from truth, which applies to propositions.
To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that
it is not possible for its conclusion to be false if its
premises are true. Thus we define "alidit! as follows+
A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are
true, its conclusion must be true.
A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in
linking, with logical necessity, the conclusion to its
premises. !ts validity refers to the relation between its
propositionsbetween the set of propositions that
serve as the premises and the one proposition that
serves as the conclusion of that argument. !f the
conclusion follows with logical necessity from the
premises, we say that the argument is valid. Therefore
validity can never apply to any single proposition by
itself, because the needed relation cannot possibly be
found within any one proposition.
#ruth is the attribute of those propositions that assert
what really is the case.
$educti"e argument: %ne of the two ma)or types of
argument traditionally distinguished, the other being
the inductive argument. A deductive argument claims
to provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion. !f it
does provide such grounds, it is valid; if it does not, it
is invalid.
A s!llogism is a kind of logical argument that
applies deductive reasoning to arrive at
a conclusion based on two or more propositions that
are asserted or assumed to be true, from the
combination of a general statement #the ma)or
premise$ and a specific statement #the minor
premise$, a conclusion is deduced.
Inducti"e argument: %ne of the two ma)or types of
argument traditionally distinguished, the other being
the deductive argument. An inductive argument claims
that its premises give only some degree of probability,
but not certainty, to its conclusion.
A generalization #more accurately, an inductive
generalization$ proceeds from a premise about
a sample to a conclusion about the population.
The proportion , of the sample has attribute A.
Therefore+
The proportion , of the population has attribute A.
Argument from analog!: The process of analogical
inference involves noting the shared properties of two
or more things, and from this basis inferring that they
also share some further property+
P and , are similar in respect to properties a, b, and
c.
%b)ect P has been observed to have further property
-.
Therefore, , probably has property - also
A deducti"e argument makes the claim that its
conclusion is supported by its premises conclusively.
An inducti"e argument, in contrast, does not make
such a claim. Therefore, if we )udge that in some
passage a claim for conclusiveness is being made, we
treat the argument as deductive; if we )udge that such
a claim is not being made, we treat it as inductive.
.ecause every argument either makes this claim of
conclusiveness #e-plicitly or implicitly$ or does not
make it, every argument is either deductive or
inductive.
%allac! of rele"ance: A fallacy in which the premises
are irrelevant to the conclusion.
#he Appeal to the Populace &Argumentum ad
Populum': An informal fallacy in which the support
given for some conclusion is an appeal to popular
belief. Also known as argument ad populum.
This type of argument is known by several
names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to
(elief, appeal to the ma)orit!, appeal to
democrac!, appeal to popularit!, argument (!
consensus, consensus fallac!, authorit! of the
man!, and (and*agon fallac!.
Appeals to +motion,Appeal to Pit! &ad
Misericordiam': A fallacy in which the argument
relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on
reason.
#he Red -erring: A fallacy in which attention is
deliberately deflected away from the issue under
discussion.
Stra* man: A fallacy in which an opponent/s position
is depicted as being more e-treme or unreasonable
than is )ustified by what was actually asserted.
Argument against the person: A fallacy in which the
argument relies upon an attack against the person
taking a position. This fallacy is also known as
'argument ad hominem.(
A. Argumentum ad hominem. A(usi"e: occurs
when an attack on the character or other irrelevant
personal 0ualities of the oppositionsuch as
appearanceis offered as evidence against their
position.
B. Argumentum ad hominem. Circumstantial: is
one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance
surrounding the opposition is offered as evidence
against their position.
#he Appeal to %orce &Argumentum ad Baculum': A
fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or
veiled threat of force. Also known as 'argument ad
baculum.(
/issing the Point &Ignoratio Elenchi': A fallacy in
which the premises support a different conclusion
from the one that is proposed. Also known as
'irrelevant conclusion(
%allac! of defecti"e induction: A fallacy in which the
premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the
conclusion.
Argument from ignorance: A fallacy in which a
proposition is held to be true )ust because it has not
been proven false, or false because it has not been
proven true. Also known as 'argument ad
ignorantiam.(
Appeal to inappropriate authorit!: A fallacy in which
a conclusion is accepted as true simply because an
e-pert has said that it is true. This is a fallacy whether
or not the e-pert&s area of e-pertise is relevant to the
conclusion. Also known as 'argument ad
verecundiam.(
0%alse cause &p123': A fallacy in which something
that is not really the cause of something else is treated
as its cause. Also known as non causa pro causa.
*Post hoc ergo propter hoc: A fallacy in which an
event is presumed to have been caused by a closely
preceding event. 1iterally, 'After this; therefore,
because of this.(
Slipper! slope: A fallacy in which change in a
particular direction is asserted to lead inevitably to
further changes #usually undesirable$ in the same
direction.
-ast! generalization: A fallacy of defective induction
in which one moves carelessly from a single case, or
a very few cases, to a large scale generali2ation about
all or most cases. Also known as 'converse accident.(
%allac! of presumption &p145': Any fallacy in which
the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is
dubious, unwarranted, or false.
%allac! of accident: A fallacy in which a
generali2ation is mistakenly applied to a particular
case to which the generali2ation does not apply.
Complex question: An informal fallacy in which a
0uestion is asked in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some conclusion buried in that 0uestion.
Begging the question: An informal fallacy in which
the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in
any one of the premises. Also known as 'circular
argument( and petitio principii.
%allac! of am(iguit! &p143': An informal fallacy
caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings of
words or phrases within an argument. Also known as
a 'sophism.(
%allac! of equi"ocation: A fallacy in which two or
more meanings of a word or phrase are used,
accidentally or deliberately, in different parts of an
argument.
%allac! of amphi(ol!: A fallacy in which a loose or
awkward combination of words can be interpreted in
more than one way; the argument contains a premise
based upon one interpretation, while the conclusion
relies on a different interpretation.
%allac! of Accent: A fallacy of ambiguity that occurs
when an argument contains a premise that relies on
one possible emphasis of certain words, but the
conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives
those same words a different meaning.
%allac! of composition: A fallacy of ambiguity in
which an argument erroneously assigns attributes to a
whole #or to a collection$ based on the fact that parts
of that whole #or members of that collection$ have
those attributes.
%allac! of di"ision: A fallacy of ambiguity in which
an argument erroneously assigns attributes to parts of
a whole #or to members of a collection$ based on the
fact that the whole #or the collection$ has those
attributes.
0Search for examples