LOGIC,

TRUTH, AND
VALIDITY

THE BUILDING BLOCKS

OF CRITICAL THINKING
WHY IS LOGIC IMPORTANT
IN EVERYDAY LIFE?

Decision-
Communication
Making

Problem-
Critical Thinking
solving
RIDDLE:

I HAVE CITIES, BUT NO HOUSES. I

HAVE MOUNTAINS, BUT NO TREES. I
HAVE WATER, BUT NO FISH.

WHAT AM I?
ANSWER:

A MAP.
RIDDLE:

I HAVE KEYS BUT NO LOCKS. I HAVE

SPACE BUT NO ROOMS. I CAN BE
OPENED, BUT NOT CLOSED.

WHAT AM I?
ANSWER:

A PIANO.
RIDDLE:

I HAVE NO VOICE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU

STORIES. I HAVE NO LIFE, BUT I CAN TEACH
YOU ABOUT LIFE. I AM OFTEN OVERLOOKED,
BUT I AM ESSENTIAL FOR LEARNING.

WHAT AM I?
ANSWER:

A BOOK.
 REASONING

 INTUITION

 EMOTION
 REASONING
• is a cognitive process that involves the use of
logic, evidence, and critical thinking to draw
conclusions or make decisions.
• It's a systematic way of analyzing information
and making sense of it.
• Reasoning is often associated with conscious
thought, where we actively consider different
options and weigh the pros and cons.
 INTUITION
• is a gut feeling or an instinctive understanding
that often comes without conscious deliberation.
• It's a more subconscious process that can be
influenced by our past experiences, emotions,
and unconscious biases.
• Intuition can be a valuable tool, but it's important
to use it in conjunction with reasoning to make
informed decisions.
 EMOTION
• is a subjective experience that can influence
our thoughts and behaviors.
• While emotions can provide valuable
information, they can also cloud our
judgment.
• It's important to be aware of our emotions
and to use reasoning to evaluate their impact
on our decision-making.
 REASONING
• Problem-solving: A detective uses logical reasoning to
analyze clues and identify a suspect in a crime.

• Decision-making: A student weighs the pros and cons

of different college options based on factors like cost,
location, and academic programs.

• Argumentation: A lawyer uses logical reasoning to

present evidence and make a persuasive case in
court.
 INTUITION
• First impressions: You meet someone new and
immediately get a positive or negative feeling about
them.

• Artistic creation: A painter follows their intuition to

create a unique and expressive piece of art.

• Career choice: Someone chooses a career path

based on a gut feeling that it's the right fit for them.
 EMOTION
• Fear: A person feels afraid when they hear a
loud noise in the dark.

• Anger: A person becomes angry when they

feel wronged or insulted.

• Happiness: A person feels happy when they

achieve a goal or spend time with loved
ones.
PROPOSITIONS
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF
LOGIC

Statements or propositions are the

fundamental units of logical
reasoning. They are declarative
sentences that can be either true or
false, but not both.
PROPOSITIONS
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF
LOGIC

Key Characteristics of Statements:

1. Declarative: They assert something.

2. Truth-value: They have a definite truth
value (true or false).
3. Not questions or commands: They are not
interrogative or imperative sentences.
PROPOSITIONS
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF
LOGIC
A statement can be either simple or compound.
• A simple statement contains a single subject
and predicate.
• A compound statement on the other hand,
combine multiple simple statements using
logical connectives. These connectives include
words like "and," "or," "if...then," "if and only
if," and "not."
TRUTH VALUES
• Truth values are the fundamental
concepts in logic that determine
the truth or falsity of statements.

• A statement can have only one of

two truth values: true or false.
TRUTH VALUES
 Truth Tables
• Truth tables are a convenient way to visualize
the truth values of compound statements
based on the truth values of their simple
components.
• They are particularly useful for understanding
logical operators like AND, OR, NOT, IF...THEN,
and IF AND ONLY IF.
 Truth Tables
Example of a truth table for the logical operator

AND: BOTH P and Q must be TRUE.

P Q P AND Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
 Truth Tables
Example of a truth table for the logical operator

OR: AT LEAST ONE of P or Q must be TRUE.

P Q P OR Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
 Truth Tables
Example of a truth table for the logical operator

NOT: The OPPOSITE of P

P NOT P
T F
F T
 Truth Tables
Example of a truth table for the logical operator

IF…THEN: If P is TRUE then Q must be TRUE

P Q P Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
 Truth Tables
Example of a truth table for the logical operator

IF AND ONLY IF: P is TRUE if and only if Q is TRUE

P Q P Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Truth Values and Their Role in Logic

Truth values are the fundamental

building blocks of logic. They are used
to represent the truth or falsity of
statements. In classical logic, there are
only two possible truth values: true and
false.
Truth refers to the accuracy of a statement in relation to
reality. A true statement aligns with the facts of the world.

Validity refers to the logical structure of an argument. A

valid argument is one where the conclusion logically
follows from the premises, regardless of the truth or
falsity of those premises. It's about the form of the
argument, not the content.

Correctness is a combination of truth and validity. A

statement is correct if it is both true and part of a valid
argument.
Premise 1: All mammals are animals.
Premise 2: Dogs are mammals.
Conclusion: Dogs are animals.
Premise 1: All birds can fly.
Premise 2: Penguins are birds.
Conclusion: Penguins can fly.
Sample Statements for Truth Table Practice

1. If it's raining, then the ground is wet.

2. Either I will study or watch a movie.
3. If I don't finish my homework, then I won't be able
to go out.
4. I will eat an apple if it's red and juicy.
5. If x is even, then x + 1 is odd.
Real-World Applications of Logical Operators
AND
Shopping: "I will buy a new phone IF AND
ONLY IF it has a good camera AND a long
battery life."

Decision-making: "I will go to the beach IF

it's sunny AND not too windy.
Real-World Applications of Logical Operators
OR
Planning: "I will either go to the
gym OR cook dinner tonight."

Choosing: "You can choose a red

shirt OR a blue shirt."
Real-World Applications of Logical Operators
NOT
Instructions: "Do NOT cross the
street when the light is red."

Negation: "It is NOT raining

outside."
Real-World Applications of Logical Operators

IF...THEN
Rules: "IF you break the rules, THEN
you will be punished."

Conditional statements: "IF I finish my

homework early, THEN I can watch TV."
Real-World Applications of Logical Operators
IF AND ONLY IF (IFF)
Contracts: "I will complete the project IF
AND ONLY IF you provide the necessary
resources."

Equivalence: "You can enter the club IF

AND ONLY IF you are 21 years old or older."
Practice Exercises: Constructing Compound
Statements

Instructions: Use the following logical

operators (AND, OR, NOT, IF...THEN, IF AND
ONLY IF) to construct compound
statements based on the given scenarios.
Practice Exercises: Constructing Compound
Statements

Scenario 1: Shopping
Practice Exercises: Constructing Compound
Statements

Scenario 2: Going Out

Practice Exercises: Constructing Compound
Statements

Scenario 3: Studying
Arguments

An argument is a set of
statements, one of which is the
conclusion and the rest are the
premises.
Key components of an argument:

Premises: These are the statements

that provide evidence or reasons in
support of the conclusion.

Conclusion: This is the claim or point

that the argument is trying to prove.
Types of Arguments
Deductive arguments: These are
arguments where the conclusion logically
follows from the premises. For example,
"All humans are mortal. Socrates is a
human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
Types of Arguments
Inductive arguments: These are arguments
where the conclusion is based on evidence
or observations, but it's not guaranteed to
be true. For example, "All observed swans
are white. Therefore, all swans are white."
Evaluating Arguments
Validity: A valid argument is one where the
conclusion logically follows from the
premises, regardless of whether the premises
are true.

Soundness: A sound argument is a valid

argument with true premises.
Evaluating Arguments
In summary:
• Validity ensures that the argument is
logically consistent.
• Soundness requires both validity and true
premises.
• Both concepts are essential for evaluating
the strength and reliability of arguments.
Deductive Arguments
3 Common Rules of Inference in Deductive Reasoning
• Modus Ponens: If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
• Modus Tollens: If P, then Q. Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
• Hypothetical Syllogism: If P, then Q. If Q,
then R. Therefore, if P, then R.
Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)

Structure:
• If P, then Q.
• P.
• Therefore, Q.

Explanation: If the antecedent (P) is true, and the

conditional statement "If P, then Q" is true, then the
consequent (Q) must also be true.
Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)

Structure:
• If P, then Q.
• Not Q.
• Therefore, not P.

Explanation: If the consequent (Q) is false, and the

conditional statement "If P, then Q" is true, then the
antecedent (P) must also be false.
Hypothetical Syllogism
Structure:
• If P, then Q.
• If Q, then R.
• Therefore, if P, then R.

Explanation: If the antecedent of one conditional

statement is the consequent of another, then the
antecedents and consequents of both statements can be
combined to form a new conditional statement.
Key points to remember:
• Deductive arguments are based on logic and
rules of inference.
• If the premises of a valid deductive argument
are true, the conclusion must be true.
• Deductive arguments provide certainty, while
inductive arguments provide strong support
but not guaranteed truth.
Inductive Arguments
• Based on observation and generalization.
Example:
• Premise: All observed swans are white.
• Conclusion: All swans are white. (Note: This is a
generalization based on limited observations.)
• Strength of inductive arguments: Depends on the
number and variety of observations.
Inductive Arguments
• Scientific Observations:
Example 1: Scientists observe that all known samples of
gold are malleable. They conclude that all gold is
malleable.

Example 2: Meteorologists observe a pattern of low

pressure systems leading to rain. They predict that a low-
pressure system approaching the region will bring rain.
Inductive Arguments
• Everyday Life:
Example 1: You notice that every time you eat spicy
food, you get a headache. You conclude that spicy food
causes you headaches.

Example 2: You observe that your dog barks every time

the doorbell rings. You conclude that your dog barks to
alert you to visitors.
Inductive Arguments
• Literature and Art:
Example 1: A reader notices a recurring theme of
isolation in a novel. They conclude that the novel
explores the concept of loneliness.

Example 2: An art critic observes that many paintings by

a certain artist feature nature scenes. They conclude that
the artist is inspired by the natural world.
Limitations of Inductive Arguments and
the Possibility of Exceptions
1. Generalizations Based on Limited Data:

Inductive arguments often involve generalizing from a

limited set of observations. This can lead to overreaching
conclusions. For example, if you observe that all swans
you've seen are white, it doesn't necessarily mean that
all swans in the world are white. There could be black
swans that you haven't encountered.
Limitations of Inductive Arguments and
the Possibility of Exceptions
2. Biases and Errors in Observation:

Human perception can be influenced by biases and

errors. These can lead to faulty observations and,
consequently, incorrect conclusions. For instance, a
confirmation bias might lead someone to only notice
evidence that supports their preconceived notions.
Limitations of Inductive Arguments and
the Possibility of Exceptions
3. The Problem of Induction:

Philosopher David Hume famously pointed out the

problem of induction: just because something has
happened in the past, it doesn't guarantee that it will
happen in the future. Even if a pattern has held true for
centuries, there's no logical reason to believe it will
continue indefinitely.
Limitations of Inductive Arguments and
the Possibility of Exceptions

4. The Fallacy of Hasty Generalization:

This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn from

insufficient evidence. For example, concluding that all
people from a certain country are friendly based on a
few positive interactions.
Deductive vs Inductive Arguments

Deductive arguments and inductive

arguments are two primary methods of
reasoning used to draw conclusions. They
differ in their approach and the level of
certainty they provide.
Deductive vs Inductive Arguments

Feature Deductive Arguments Inductive Arguments

Basis Logic and rules of inference Evidence and observation

Conclusion Certain Probable

Use Mathematics, philosophy, law Science, history, everyday life

Fallacies: Errors in Reasoning

Fallacies are errors in reasoning that

undermine the validity of an argument.
They are common mistakes in thinking
that can lead to incorrect conclusions.
Common Fallacies
1. Ad hominem

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that occurs

when someone attacks the person making an
argument rather than addressing the
argument itself. It's a form of personal attack
that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Why is ad hominem a fallacy?
Irrelevance: Ad hominem attacks distract from the
actual issue at hand by focusing on the person making
the argument, not the argument itself.
Unfairness: It's unfair to judge the validity of an
argument based on personal characteristics rather than
the merits of the argument.
Ineffective persuasion: Ad hominem attacks can alienate
the audience and weaken the credibility of the person
using them.
Common Fallacies
2. Straw Man
Straw man is a logical fallacy that occurs when
someone misrepresents or exaggerates an
opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
Instead of addressing the actual argument, the
person creates a distorted version and then refutes
that distorted version.
Why is the straw man fallacy a problem?
Misrepresentation: Straw man fallacies misrepresent
the opponent's argument, making it seem weaker or
more extreme than it actually is.
Irrelevance: Attacking a distorted version of an
argument is irrelevant to the original point.
Ineffective persuasion: Straw man fallacies can alienate
the audience and weaken the credibility of the person
using them.
Common Fallacies
3. False Dilemma

False dilemma is a logical fallacy that occurs when

someone presents only two options as if they were
the only possibilities, ignoring or dismissing other
alternatives. This fallacy is also known as a false
dichotomy or either/or fallacy.
Why is the false dilemma fallacy a problem?
Oversimplification: False dilemmas oversimplify
complex issues by presenting only two extreme options.
Limited Choices: By limiting choices, the fallacy can
prevent people from considering other viable options or
solutions.
False Dichotomy: It can create a false sense of urgency
or pressure to choose one of the presented options,
even if neither option is ideal.
Common Fallacies
4. Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy that occurs
when someone draws a broad conclusion based on
limited or insufficient evidence. It's a type of
overgeneralization where a person assumes that
what is true for a small sample is true for the entire
population.
Why is the hasty generalization fallacy a
problem?
Oversimplification: Hasty generalizations oversimplify
complex issues by reducing them to a single, broad
conclusion.
Inaccurate Conclusions: Drawing conclusions from
limited evidence can lead to inaccurate and misleading
generalizations.
Prejudice: Hasty generalizations can perpetuate
stereotypes and prejudice.
Common Fallacies
5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase
that translates to "after this, therefore
because of this." It's a logical fallacy that
occurs when someone assumes that because
one event follows another, the first event
must have caused the second.
Why is the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
fallacy a problem?
Coincidence: Events can occur sequentially
without a causal relationship.
Other factors: There might be other, unobserved
factors influencing the outcome.
Reverse causation: Sometimes, the effect can
actually cause the cause.
Common Fallacies
6. Slippery Slope
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that assumes
a chain of events will inevitably lead to a
disastrous outcome. It often involves
exaggerating the potential consequences of a
particular action or decision.
Why is the Slippery Slope fallacy a problem?

Oversimplification: It assumes a direct and

inevitable progression of events.
Exaggeration: The potential consequences are
often exaggerated or outlandish.
Ignoring alternatives: It fails to consider other
possible outcomes or mitigating factors.
Common Fallacies
7. Begging the Question

Begging the question is a logical fallacy

that occurs when the conclusion of an
argument is already assumed in the
premises. It's essentially arguing in a circle
Why is the Begging the Question fallacy a
problem?
Circular reasoning: The conclusion is already
assumed as a premise.
Lack of evidence: It doesn't provide any new
information or support for the conclusion.
Avoids the issue: It sidesteps the real question
of whether the conclusion is true.
Common Fallacies
8. Appeal to Authority

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that occurs when

someone argues that a claim is true simply because an
authority figure or expert believes it. While experts can
be valuable sources of information, relying solely on
their authority without considering evidence can lead to
faulty reasoning.
Why is the Appeal to Authority fallacy a
problem?
Lack of evidence: The authority figure's opinion
might not be based on sound evidence or research.
Expertise bias: The expert might be biased or have
conflicting interests.
False authority: The person cited might not be a
true expert on the subject.
Common Fallacies
9. Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy that occurs when

someone uses emotional manipulation to persuade
others, rather than relying on logical reasoning or
evidence. This fallacy often involves evoking strong
emotions like fear, anger, pity, or sympathy to influence
beliefs or actions.
Why is the Appeal to Emotion fallacy a
problem?
Irrelevance: Emotions are not necessarily relevant
to the truth or falsity of a claim.
Manipulation: It exploits people's emotions to
persuade them, rather than relying on logic.
Distraction: It can distract people from considering
the evidence or reasoning behind a claim.
Common Fallacies
10. Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy that occurs

when someone argues that a claim is true simply
because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
This fallacy assumes that a lack of evidence for a
claim means the claim is true or false.
Why is the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy a
problem?
Lack of evidence: The absence of evidence doesn't
necessarily prove or disprove a claim.
Burden of proof: The burden of proof is on the
person making the claim, not on those who doubt
it.
False assumptions: It assumes that the only
possibilities are either proven true or proven false.
Syllogisms

Syllogisms are three-sentence arguments

that consist of a major premise, a minor
premise, and a conclusion. They are used
to draw logical conclusions from given
premises.
Basic Structure of Syllogisms

1. Major Premise: A general statement.

2. Minor Premise: A specific statement
related to the major premise.
3. Conclusion: A logical deduction based
on the major and minor premises.
Basic Structure of Syllogisms
Here's a breakdown of the terms used in a
syllogism:
Major Term: The predicate term of the conclusion.
Minor Term: The subject term of the conclusion.
Middle Term: The term that appears in both
premises and connects the major and minor terms.
Types of Syllogisms
1. Categorical Syllogism: This is the most
common type, and it involves three
categorical propositions
Major Premise: All dogs are mammals.
Minor Premise: All mammals have hearts.
Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs have hearts.
Types of Syllogisms
2. Hypothetical Syllogism: This type involves
conditional statements

Premise 1: If it rains, the ground will get wet.

Premise 2: It is raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground will get wet.
Types of Syllogisms
3. Disjunctive Syllogism: This type involves
either/or statements
Premise 1: Either the cat is in the kitchen or the
cat is in the bedroom.
Premise 2: The cat is not in the kitchen.
Conclusion: Therefore, the cat is in the bedroom.
Rules of Syllogisms
There are several rules that govern the
validity of a syllogism. These rules ensure
that the conclusion logically follows from
the premises. Here are some of the most
important rules:
Rules of Syllogisms
1. The Middle Term Must Be Distributed at
Least Once.
The middle term is the term that appears in
both premises. It must be distributed at
least once, meaning it must be used
universally (e.g., "All A are B").
Rules of Syllogisms
2. No Term Can Be Distributed in the
Conclusion That Was Not Distributed in a
Premise.

3. Two Negative Premises Cannot Yield a

Positive Conclusion.
Rules of Syllogisms
4. A Negative Premise Cannot Yield a
Positive Conclusion Unless the Other
Premise is Negative.
Venn Diagrams
A Venn diagram is a visual tool that can be
used to assess the validity of a categorical
syllogism. In a Venn diagram, each term is
represented by a circle. The circles can
overlap to indicate relationships between
terms.
Venn Diagrams
Venn diagram is a graphical method of
representing categorical propositions and
testing the validity of categorical syllogisms,
devised by the English logician and
philosopher John Venn (1834–1923).
Propositions
A proposition, in logic, is a statement
that can be either true or false. It's the
basic building block of logical arguments.
While propositions can vary in
complexity, they generally consist of two
main parts:
Subject (S): The subject is the entity or
concept being discussed in the proposition.
It's the focus of the statement.
Predicate (P): The predicate is the part of the
proposition that describes or asserts
something about the subject. It's the
attribute or quality being attributed to the
subject.
Types of Categorical Propositions
Categorical propositions are statements
that relate categories or classes of things.
They typically use quantifiers like "all,"
"some," or "no." There are four main
types of categorical propositions:
Types of Categorical Propositions
1. Universal Affirmative (A): This type asserts that
all members of one category are also members of
another category. (All S are P)
Example: All dogs are mammals.
Types of Categorical Propositions
2. Universal Negative (E): This type asserts that
no members of one category are members of
another category. (No S are P)
Example: No cats are dogs.
Types of Categorical Propositions
3. Particular Affirmative (I): This type asserts that
some members of one category are also members
of another category. (Some S are P)
Example: Some students are athletes.
Types of Categorical Propositions
4. Particular Negative (O): This type asserts that
some members of one category are not members
of another category. (Some S are not P)
Example: Some birds cannot fly.
Validity Through Venn Diagrams
To determine the validity of a syllogism using
Venn diagrams:
1. Draw three overlapping circles. Label them for
the major term, minor term, and middle term.
2. Shade the circles to represent the premises.
3. Check if the conclusion is represented by the
shaded areas. If it is, the syllogism is valid. If
not, it is invalid.
Validity Through Venn Diagrams

[Link] Greeks are human.

[Link] humans are immortal.
[Link], no Greeks are immortal.
Validity Through Venn Diagrams

[Link] mammals are carnivores.

[Link] mammals are animals.
[Link], some animals are
carnivores.
Validity Through Venn Diagrams

[Link] sages are not seers.

[Link] seers are soothsayers.
[Link], some sages are not
soothsayers.