Logical Toolkit
Logical Toolkit
two reasons are represented by premises 1 and 2, and they are meant to
support the conclusion, which is number 3. Arguments in the articles that
you read for class will most often not appear in this numbered form, but
they can all be reconstructed in this form so that the reasoning is easy to
see.
In this example, if you were to accept the two premises, you would have to
accept the conclusion. So our argument is, in a certain sense, a good
argument. But there are different ways that an argument can be good.
Validity
The first way an argument can be good is if its premises actually do support
its conclusion. Recall that our definition of an argument is a series of
statements where the conclusion supposedly follows from or is supported by
the premises. Well, there are some arguments with conclusions that actually
do follow from the premises, and there are some arguments with
conclusions that dont actually follow from the premises, even though they
supposedly do. The first type of arguments are valid arguments, and the
second type are invalid arguments. Or, a bit more carefully:
An argument is valid if its conclusion follows from its premises.
Or, more carefully still:
An argument is valid if it satisfies the following condition: If its
premises were true, then its conclusion would have to be true.
The argument we gave previously is an example of a valid argument
because if premises 1 and 2 were true, then 3 would have to be true. But
the following is an example of an invalid argument:
1) Everyone who lives in Los Angeles lives in California.
2) Alvin lives in California.
3) Therefore, Alvin lives in Los Angeles.
If we were to put forth this argument while trying to convince you that our
friend Alvin lives in Los Angeles, you shouldnt be convinced. Why not?
Simply because the reasons that we gave for believing that Alvin lives in Los
Angeles dont actually support that conclusion. For in this case, premise 1
could be true (it actually is true), and premise 2 could be true, but the
conclusion might still be false (Alvin could live in San Francisco, for
instance). Thus this is an invalid argument. The conclusion doesnt actually
follow from the premises. Its not the case that if its premises were true,
then its conclusion would have to be true.
1) If Amelia can vote in the United States, then she is 18 years old.
2) Amelia cannot vote in the United States.
3) Therefore, Amelia is not 18 years old.
Again, we have a conditional in the first premise, but in this case the second
premise is a denial of the antecedent. The argument then concludes that the
consequent must be false as well. But as in the previous case, this is a
fallacious form of reasoning. Again, imagine a situation in which Amelia is
18 years old but is not a citizen of the United States. In that case, it would
still be true that if she can vote in the United States, she is 18 years old, and
it would be true that she cannot vote in the United States, but it would not
be true that she is not 18 years old. And again, any argument that takes this
forma conditional, the antecedent denied, and then the consequent denied
as a conclusionis invalid.
These two invalid bits of reasoning seem valid because they closely
resemble two bits of reasoning that are valid. These are affirming the
antecedent and denying the consequent, and they are illustrated by the
following two arguments:
1) If Amelia can vote in the United States, then she is 18 years old.
2) Amelia can vote in the United States.
3) Therefore, Amelia is 18 years old.
1) If Amelia can vote in the United States, then she is 18 years old.
2) Amelia is not 18 years old.
3) Therefore, Amelia cannot vote in the United States.
These are both valid forms of reasoning. In both arguments, if premises 1
and 2 were true, then the conclusion would have to be true. As you can see,
its important not to confuse these two bits of valid reasoning with the
fallacious reasoning involved in affirming the consequent and denying the
antecedent.
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
So much for arguments. Another important logical concept is that of
necessary and sufficient conditions. The best way to get a handle on these
concepts is through an example. So consider the following statement:
If you are a sophomore, then you are an undergraduate.
This statement is saying that being a sophomore is sufficient for being an
undergraduate. In other words, all you need to be an undergraduate is to be