8.

4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy

The main task of deductive logic is to distinguish valid arguments from invalid ones. If the
premises of a valid argument are true, its conclusion must be true. If the conclusion of a valid
argument is false, at least one of the premises must be false.

 The valid argument gives incontrovertible proof of the conclusion drawn.

Argument

- Is a rationale in which the reason presents evidence in support of a claim made in the
conclusions. Its purpose is to provide a basis for believing the conclusion to be true.

Argument Forms

- as any array of symbols containing statement variables but no statements, such that when
statements are substituted for the statement variables- the same statement being
substituted for the same statement variable throughout- the result is an argument.
- Argument form consist of:
1. Specific form- (it is the first argument) If an argument is produced by substituting
consistently a different simple statement for each different statement variable is an
argument form.
2. Statement Variable/Form- any argument that results from the substitution of
statements.

Refutate

- to say/prove that something is not true

Refutation by Logical Analogy

- This method points the way to an excellent general technique for testing argument.

A deductive argument₁ can be refuted (i.e., shown to be invalid, hence unsound) by stating a
second argument that has all three of the following features:

1. the same form as the first argument;

2. true premises; and
3. a false conclusion.

This is called “refutation by logical analogy” because the arguments have analogous (similar)
forms₂.

Here’s an example:

Suppose I wish to refute the argument that, since no conservatives are liberals and all religious
people are conservatives, all religious people are liberals. This argument—call it “A1”—has the
following form:
1. No C are L.
2. All R are C.
Therefore,
3. All R are L.
1 In making a deductive argument, one claims that the conclusion is implicit in, i.e., logically implied by,
the premises.

2 It is also called “the counterexample method of refutation,” because one is giving an example (the
second argument) that counters, or goes against, the first argument. Page 1
Let us substitute terms for the letters “C,” “L,” and “R” in such a way as to make 1 and 2 true
and 3 false. Here is A2:
4. No triangles are squares.
5. All three-sided figures are triangles.
Therefore,
6. All three-sided figures are squares.

Premises 4 and 5 are true (in fact, necessarily so), but 6 is false (again, necessarily so). What this
shows is that A2 is invalid, for, by definition, no valid argument has true premises and a false
conclusion. But if A2 is invalid and A2 has the same form as A1, then A1 is invalid. The
refutation is complete.

Arguments that have invalid forms are guaranteed to be invalid. If the form is invalid, the
conclusion does not follow the premises, even if the premises and conclusion are all true.
Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are example of invalid forms. If an
argument has an invalid form, then the argument is invalid.

To show invalidity, just do the following:

1. Determine the form of the argument whose validity is in question.

2. Attempt to construct another argument of the same form with obviously true premises and
an obviously false conclusion.

This method works because a valid argument form guarantees validity, and validity means
it’s impossible for the conclusion to the false if the premises are true. If the premises had been
true, and the form valid, the conclusion could not have been false. (The argument would have
been sound: valid, with all true premises.) So the very fact that the form allows true premises and
a false conclusion shows it can’t be a valid form. And if the form of an argument is invalid, the
argument is invalid.

Example:

You are confronted with the following argument:

If I were the President, I’d be famous. So I’m not famous, since I’m not the President.

The conclusion indicator so tells you the conclusion is I’m not famous.

So the argument is:

Premise: If I were President, I’d be famous.

A B
Premise: I’m not President.
A
Conclusion: I’m not famous.
B

The argument obviously is an instance of the invalid form Denying the Antecedent, but we’re
supposing you don’t know that.

Step 1: Determine the form of the argument whose validity is in question.

Premise: If A, then B. AͻB

A
̤̤̤B

Page 2
Premise: Not A (or A is not the case).

Conclusion: Not B (or B is not the case).

Step 2: Now that you’ve extracted the form, try to construct an argument of the very same form
with all true premises and a false conclusion.

For example:

Premise: If James Reid were President, he’d be famous. (true)

Premise: James Reid is not President. (true)

Conclusion: James Reid is not famous. (false)

Note that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false (Robert Redford is famous).

8.5 The Precise Meaning of “Invalid” and “Valid”

Using the method of refutation by logical analogy, we can say that “Invalid” argument is if and
only if it has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion. Hence
an argument form is “valid” if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises and
a false conclusion.

Example of Valid argument:

Murder is always wrong.

Sometimes murder isn’t wrong.
Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal.

The premises contradict each other, but the argument is still valid because it’s impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time. We can tell that both premises
can’t be true at the same time, so it’s impossible to make a counterexample because that would
require both premises to be true. The argument form looks like the following:

A.
Not-A
Therefore, B.

Example of Invalid argument:

Either disciplining people is always wrong or it’s not always wrong to discipline people for
committing crimes.
Disciplining people hurts them.
Therefore, disciplining people is always wrong.

This argument is invalid, and it’s already a counter example because the premises are true and
the conclusion is false. The argument form is the following:

Either A or not-B.
C
Therefore, B.

Another counterexample is the following:

Either murder is always appropriate or it’s not always appropriate to murder people for making
you angry.

Page 3
Murdering people hurts them.
Therefore, murder is always appropriate.

The first thing to understand is that validity is a formal or structural property of an argument. To
say that an argument is valid is to say nothing about whether its constituent propositions are true.
What it says is that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. A valid argument is such
that it is logically impossible for its premise(s) to be true while its conclusion is false. Validity is
a relation between premise(s) and conclusion, not a property of premise(s) or conclusion. A valid
argument is one that preserves truth. We value validity because—and only because—we value
truth. It is a means to our end.

Since validity concerns only the form of an argument, if two arguments have the same form and
one of them is invalid, the other is invalid as well. (In other words, two arguments with the same
form are either both valid or both invalid.)

Sources:

Copi Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 14th ed.

Bayot, Kerwin & Damayon, Samuel , Philosophy 1: Logic and Critical Thinking: Course
Manual, 5th Edition
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/LogAnalogy.htm
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_analogy.html

Page 4