ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

I. Identifying Premises and Conclusions

A premise provides support, evidence, or reason for accepting a claim.
A conclusion is what the argument tries to prove.
Key Indicators
Common Premise Indicators
✔ Since ✔ Given that
✔ Because ✔ It follows from
✔ For ✔ Assuming that
Common Conclusion Indicators
✔Therefore ✔ So
✔ Thus ✔ Consequently
✔ Hence ✔ This means that

II. STRUCTURE OF AN ARGUMENT

Standard Structure
Premise 1
Premise 2
Therefore, conclusion
Example:
1. All athletes train daily.
2. Mario is an athlete.
Therefore, Mario trains daily.
→ Premises support the conclusion logically.

III. Validity and Soundness

A. Validity
An argument is valid when:
👉 If the premises were true, the conclusion cannot be false.
In other words:
→ The conclusion logically follows from the premises.
⚠ Validity is about structure—not truth.
Example of a Valid Argument (but False Premise)
1. All cats are reptiles. (False)
2. Luna is a cat. (True)
Therefore, Luna is a reptile. (False conclusion)
This argument is:
✔ Valid (correct logical form)
✘ Unsound (false premise)

B. Soundness
A sound argument is:
1. Valid, and
2. All premises are true.
Example:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Jose is human.
Therefore, Jose is mortal.
✔ Valid
✔ Premises true
= Sound

IV. HOW TO TEST VALIDITY

Ask:
“If the premises are true, is the conclusion guaranteed to be true?”
If yes → Valid
If no → Invalid
Example:
1. Most teachers are female.
2. Marie is a teacher.
Therefore, Marie is female.
This is invalid because general statements like “most” do not guarantee truth for every case.

V. PRACTICE EXERCISES
Identify the Premises and Conclusion, then evaluate validity and soundness.

1.
Premise 1: All mammals have lungs.
Premise 2: Dolphins are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, dolphins have lungs.
➡ Identify: Valid or invalid?
➡ Is it sound?

2.
Premise 1: All fruits grow on trees.
Premise 2: Bananas are fruits.
Conclusion: Therefore, bananas grow on trees.
➡ Valid or invalid?
➡ Sound or unsound?

3.
Premise 1: Some students who study late pass their exams.
Premise 2: Kim studies late.
Conclusion: Therefore, Kim will pass her exam.
➡ Valid or invalid? Why?
➡ Sound or unsound?

4.
Premise 1: If something is metal, then it conducts electricity.
Premise 2: Gold is metal.
Conclusion: Therefore, gold conducts electricity.
➡ Valid?
➡ Sound?

5.
Premise 1: No fish are mammals.
Premise 2: Tuna are fish.
Conclusion: Therefore, tuna are not mammals.
➡ Valid?
➡ Sound?

Answers & Reasons

1. Dolphins have lungs
✔ Valid (correct deduction)
✔ Sound (premises are factually true)

2. Bananas grow on trees

✔ Valid inference form
✘ Unsound (not all fruits grow on trees; some grow on vines or bushes)

3. Kim will pass

✘ Invalid — conclusion does not necessarily follow
✘ Unsound — statistical possibility, not certainty

4. Gold conducts electricity

✔ Valid — follows logically
✔ Sound — true premises

5. Tuna are not mammals

✔ Valid — exact deductive form
✔ Sound — empirically true

REMEMBER THIS WHEN EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

Feature Validity Soundness
Concern Logical Truth of premises
connection
About facts? No Yes
Possible status Valid or invalid Sound or unsound
Requirements Good form Good form + true premises

👉 A valid argument may be false.

👉 An invalid argument may have true premises.
👉 Only sound arguments guarantee truth of the conclusion.

💠 STANDARD ARGUMENT FORM (Review)

This appears often in textbooks and logic exercises.
Example:
1. If P, then Q

∴ Therefore Q is true
2. P is true

Example in words:
 If someone is a guitarist, then they play music.
 Anna is a guitarist.
 Therefore, Anna plays music.

💠 OTHER ARGUMENT STRUCTURES

1. Implied or Hidden Premise Arguments
Sometimes the argument does not explicitly state all supporting statements; one premise must be inferred.
Example:
“Maria must be rich; she drives a Mercedes.”
🔹 Stated Premise: Maria drives a Mercedes.
🔹 Hidden Premise: Anyone who drives a Mercedes is rich.
🔹 Conclusion: Maria is rich.
📌 Why important?
Students must uncover hidden assumptions, which often reveal weak reasoning or fallacies.

2. Single-Premise Arguments
Some arguments produce a conclusion from one statement only.
Example:
Premise: Gold is a metal.
Conclusion: Therefore, gold conducts electricity.
👉 This works because "metal conducts electricity" is understood as implicit.

3. Enthymemes (Arguments with Missing Components)

An enthymeme is an argument in which either premise or conclusion is unstated.
Structure:
 Only one premise stated
 Conclusion stated
 One premise assumed
Example:
“He must be Filipino; he loves adobo.”
Hidden assumption: All Filipinos love adobo.

4. Chain Arguments (Hypothetical Syllogisms)

These arguments form a logical chain.
Example:
1. If a student studies, they learn.

∴ If a student studies, they pass.

2. If they learn, they pass.

Structure:
 If A → B

∴ If A → C
 If B → C

Used in:
✔ Mathematics proofs
✔ Scientific reasoning
✔ Policy arguments

5. Disjunctive Arguments
Uses “either/or” statements.
Format:
1. Either A or B is true.

∴ Therefore, B is true.
2. A is not true.

Example:
Either we implement stricter study hours or the exam results will decline.
We cannot implement stricter study hours.
Therefore, exam results will decline.

6. Constructive Dilemma
Two conditional statements and a choice.
Example:
If taxes increase, businesses close.
If taxes decrease, public services weaken.
Either taxes increase or taxes decrease.
Therefore, either businesses close or public services weaken.
This reflects policy debate logic.

7. Destructive Dilemma
Negation leads to negation.
Example:
If the phone has charge, it will turn on.
If the battery works, it will turn on.
But it does not turn on.
Therefore, either it has no charge or the battery does not work.

8. Argument by Analogy
Reasoning from resemblance:
Example:
Carla passed the board exam because she studied daily.
Miko is studying daily as well.
Therefore, Miko will pass the board exam.
Not deductively certain—but plausibly strong.

9. Cause-Based Arguments
Structure:
Premise 1: Evidence of cause
Premise 2: General causal rule
Conclusion: Result due to cause
Example:
He has severe fever and sore throat.
Those symptoms indicate infection.
Therefore, he may have an infection.
Used in:
✔ Medicine
✔ Criminal investigation
✔ Scientific explanations

10. Nonlinear or Embedded Arguments

Arguments inside arguments
Example:
We should not trust that spokesperson’s claim because his source was proven unreliable, and unreliable
sources cannot support arguments.
Here:
Sub-argument:
 His source was unreliable
 Therefore, his claim lacks support
Main argument:
 Therefore, we should not believe him
This develops layered reasoning.

💠 SUMMARY TABLE OF ARGUMENT TYPES

Type of Argument Features
Standard Form Explicit premises → conclusion
Single-Premise Only one reason given
Enthymeme Unstated assumption
Chain Arguments Linked conditionals
Disjunctive “Either/or” reasoning
Constructive Dilemma Conditional options leading to alternatives
Destructive Dilemma Negation leads to conclusion
Argument by Analogy Similarity used as basis
Causal Argument Cause–effect reasoning
Embedded Argument Argument within an argument

💠 PRACTICE TASK FOR STUDENTS

Instruction: Identify argument type and reconstruct missing parts.
Example Statement:
"I know she's honest because she donated money to charity."
Students must answer:
1. Type → Enthymeme
2. Hidden Premise → Anyone who donates to charity is honest
3. Full Argument →
P1: Anyone who donates to charity is honest.
P2: She donated money to charity.
Conclusion: Therefore, she is honest.
1. Conditional Statements (Basics)
A conditional statement is an “if…then…” statement:
Form:
If P, then Q
(symbolically: P → Q)
 P = Antecedent
 Q = Consequent
Example:
If it rains (P), then the ground gets wet (Q).
Symbolically: P → Q

2. Converse
The converse of a conditional statement switches the antecedent and the consequent.
Form:
If Q, then P (Q → P)
Example:
Original: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
Converse: If the ground gets wet, it rains.
⚠ Caution: The converse is not automatically true.
 Ground can get wet for other reasons (sprinkler, cleaning, etc.)

3. Inverse
The inverse negates both the antecedent and the consequent.
Form:
If not P, then not Q (¬P → ¬Q)
Example:
Original: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
Inverse: If it does not rain, the ground does not get wet.
⚠ Caution: The inverse is not automatically true.
 Ground could get wet from other sources (sprinkler, flooding, etc.)

4. Contrapositive
The contrapositive negates and switches the antecedent and consequent.
Form:
If not Q, then not P (¬Q → ¬P)
Example:
Original: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
Contrapositive: If the ground is not wet, then it did not rain.
✅ Important: The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement.
 Always true if the original statement is true.
 This is why contrapositive reasoning is powerful in logic.

5. Denying the Antecedent / Affirming the Consequent (Logical Fallacies)

These are common mistakes students make when reasoning with conditionals.

A. Denying the Antecedent (Invalid)

Form:
If P → Q
Not P (¬P)
Therefore, not Q (¬Q)
Example:
 If it rains, the ground gets wet.
 It did not rain.
 Therefore, the ground is not wet. ❌
Why invalid: Ground could be wet for other reasons.

B. Affirming the Consequent (Invalid)

Form:
If P → Q
Q
Therefore, P
Example:
 If it rains, the ground gets wet.
 The ground is wet.
 Therefore, it rained. ❌
Why invalid: The ground could be wet for other reasons (sprinkler, etc.)

6. Illicit Negative Inference

This occurs when someone tries to infer membership in a category from a negation, often seen in negative
statements:
Form:
No A are B
C is not B
Therefore, C is A ❌
Example:
 No dogs are reptiles.
 This animal is not a reptile.
 Therefore, this animal is a dog. ❌
Why invalid: There are many non-reptiles that are not dogs (cats, birds, humans, etc.).

7. Contrapositive in Practice
Let’s take Argument 10 from earlier:
No animals with wings are mammals. (Premise)

∴ Bats do not have wings.

Bats are mammals.

Analysis:
 Statement: “No animals with wings are mammals” → If an animal has wings, it is not a mammal.
 Contrapositive: If an animal is a mammal → it does not have wings. ✅
 This is exactly what the conclusion says.
 So the argument is valid, even if the premise is false in reality (bats are mammals with wings).

💡 Quick Table for Reference

Concept Form Example Truth Relation
Original P→Q If it rains, ground is wet Baseline
Converse Q→P If ground is wet, it rains Not necessarily true
Inverse ¬P → ¬Q If it does not rain, ground is not wet Not necessarily true
Contrapositive ¬Q → ¬P If ground not wet, it did not rain Always logically equivalent
to original
Denying ¬P → ¬Q If not rain, ground not wet Invalid
Antecedent
Affirming Q→P Ground wet → it rained Invalid
Consequent
Illicit Negative No A are B; C not B No dogs are reptiles; animal not Invalid
→ C is A reptile → animal dog
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT PATTERNS: VALID VS INVALID
Pattern Form Example Validity Explanation

This animal is a dog. ∴

Universal Negative No A are No dogs are reptiles. ✅ Valid The conclusion correctly follows

∴ C is not This animal is not a

(Valid) B; C is A; from the premises. All dogs are
non-reptiles, and this is a dog →
B reptile. cannot be a reptile.
Illicit Negative No A are No dogs are reptiles. ❌ Many non-reptiles are not dogs
Invalid
B; ∴ C is A reptile. ∴ This animal is
(Invalid) B; C is not This animal is not a (cats, birds, humans). Cannot infer
membership in A from negation of
a dog. B.

Antecedent (Invalid) ¬P; ∴ ¬Q

Denying the If P → Q; If it rains, the ground ❌ Ground may be wet for other
Invalid
rain. ∴ The ground is
gets wet. It did not reasons; denying P does not
guarantee ¬Q.
not wet.

Consequent (Invalid) Q; ∴ P
Affirming the If P → Q; If it rains, the ground ❌ Ground could be wet for other
gets wet. The ground is Invalid
wet. ∴ It rained.
reasons; affirming Q does not
prove P.

¬Q; ∴ ¬P
Contrapositive If P → Q; If it rains, the ground ✅ Valid Contrapositive is logically

not wet. ∴ It did not

(Valid) gets wet. The ground is equivalent to the original
conditional; conclusion must be
 rain. true if premises are true.

This animal lays eggs. ∴

Negative Universal No A are No mammals lay eggs. ✅ Valid Correctly uses contrapositive

∴ C is not
Syllogism (Valid) B; C is B; reasoning from the universal
This animal is not a negative.
A mammal.
Partial Negative / No A are No dogs are reptiles. ❌ Cannot assume all non-dogs are
Invalid
A; ∴ C is B dog. ∴ This animal is a
Illicit Generalization B; C is not This animal is not a reptiles; conclusion does not
(Invalid) follow.
reptile.

💡 Notes / Tips for Students

1. Always check the form first – validity depends on the structure, not the truth of premises.
2. Soundness comes after validity – check if the premises are actually true.
3. Red flags for invalid negative arguments:
o Trying to infer A from not-B (illicit negative).
o Denying the antecedent (¬P → ¬Q) in conditionals.
o Affirming the consequent (Q → P) in conditionals.
4. Contrapositive reasoning is your friend – it preserves truth in negative statements:
o Original: P → Q
o Contrapositive: ¬Q → ¬P (always valid)