A tautology is a conclusion which requires no hypotheses.

Then,
in particular, it doesn't have any hypotheses which are false.
6dow Therefore, as we say in the business, all of its hypotheses
n vote
(vacuously) are true. Then the tautology is a true conclusion.
You should perhaps think of logical validity not as "truthpreserving", but more accurately as "not increasing falsity".
(This depends on being rather staunchly Boolean in one's view
of logic, so that you would for instance regard 0 = 1 to be no
larger a falsehood than 0 = 0.0001; but it is certainly not an
extremely controversial view.) Then, if you have no premisses,
you have no falsehood, and anything you can derive from no
premisses can therefore contain no falsehood, i.e. is necessarily
true.
Thank you for your question I've just understood a great deal about
logic, from where I come from it is very dear.
A proposition is either a tautology or not a tautology
(1) is a proposition
(1) is either a tautology or not a tautology
It seems like this could go endlessly. you could then say.
(3) is a proposition
(3) is either a tautology or not a tautology
And so on and so on. This might be correct in some logic systems...But
From a previous question I asked about the liars paradox, which is what
this reminds me of, M. Cort Ammon replied that a certain M.Gdel
concerned himself with systems which could "admit arithmetic". These
systems being "strong" logical systems.
And showed that in these systems :
For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic
arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T
includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.
so for example:
"1.(1) is not true" Is an inconsistent statement
Now your argument implies that we can easily swap "a proposition" by
"(1)" without changing any of the meaning since "a proposition" can be
any proposition. That gives us
(1) is either a tautology or not a tautology
which is inconsistent in a system that admits arithmetic.

What is a Deductive Argument?

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the

premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this
way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the
claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:
All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it
simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false. If you have a
deductive argument and you accept the truth of the premises,
then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you
reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.

What is an Inductive Argument?

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are

supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the

premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be

false.
Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and
inferences. Here is an example:
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible
for the conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish,
for example). Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive
- and hence probabilistic rather than necessary - include probably,
likely, possibly and reasonably.

Deductive Arguments vs. Inductive Arguments

It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive

arguments because there must always remain the possibility of
their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely true.
With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained,
even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive
at new information - at best, we are shown information which was
obscured or unrecognized previously. Thus, the sure truthpreserving nature of deductive arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new
ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a
way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus,
while deductive arguments may be used most often with
mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of
inductive arguments.
Sound and cogent arguments

So far we have talked about the kind of

support that can be given for conclusions:
deductive and non-deductive.
We defined an argument as being valid if its a
deductive argument for which the premises succeed
in providing conclusive support for the conclusion.
And we defined an argument as being strong if its a
non-deductive argument in which the premises
succeed in providing strong support for the
conclusion.
By that, we mean that, if the premises are true, then
the conclusion would be given the appropriate
support for also being true.
But we havent said anything yet about whether the
premises are true or not. This is what we do when
we evaluate whether arguments are sound or
cogent.
Validity and strength of arguments do not on their
own tell us whether arguments are good or bad.

Weve actually seen rubbish arguments that were

valid. Thats why we need to introduce two further
concepts for arguments: being sound and being
cogent.
Sound Arguments

Definition: A sound argument is a valid argument

that has true premises.
Firstly, a sound argument is a deductive argument.
Its trying to establish conclusive support for its
conclusion. Secondly, the argument is valid: the
premises, if true, would guarantee that the
conclusion is also true. And on top of all that, the
premises are actually true. Therefore, a sound
argument guarantees that its conclusion is true.
We say that a sound argument is a good argument.
It is a good argument because it guarantees that the
conclusion is true. It would be irrational for you not
to believe the conclusion of a sound argument.
Of course, sound arguments are very rare, because
theyre very hard to establish. But, some arguments
are sound.
For example:
The province of Qubec is part of Canada. Patrick
was born in Qubec. Therefore, Patrick was born in
Canada.
This is a valid argument. Can you see why?
Furthermore, the premises are true: Qubec is
indeed part of Canada, and Patrick was indeed born
in Qubec. Hence, you can be absolutely certain that
Patrick was born in Canada, and you ought to
believe that Patrick was born in Canada. Theres no
way around it.
Here are some more examples of sound arguments:
I drank coffee this morning; therefore, I drank
something this morning.
Patrick got married on January 4, 2014. Patrick has
not been divorced, and Patrick is not a widower.
Therefore, Patrick is not a bachelor.
It is true that Patrick got married on January 4, 2014,
that he has not divorced and that he is not a

widower. So Patrick is not a bachelor because a

bachelor is an unmarried male, by definition.
Cogent Arguments

Now, what about non-deductive arguments? For nondeductive arguments, we introduce the notion of a
cogent argument.
Definition: A cogent argument is a strong nondeductive argument that has true premises.
And again, we say that cogent arguments are good.
A cogent argument is by definition non-deductive,
which means that the premises are intended to
establish probable (but not conclusive) support for
the conclusion.
Furthermore, a cogent argument is strong, so the
premises, if they were true, would succeed in
providing probable support for the conclusion. And
finally, the premises are actually true. So the
conclusion indeed receives probable support.
Heres an example:
Patrick was born in North America and Patrick wasnt
born in Mexico. Its thus quite probable that Patrick
was born in the USA.
That is a cogent argument. If all you know about
Patrick is whats contained in the premises, and
those premises are true (they are!), then thats a
fairly strong argument, because the population of
the USA is over 300 000 000, whereas that of
Canada is under 40 000 000. This means that the
odds that Patrick was born in the USA are roughly
88%, which makes the support for the conclusion
quite strong. Furthermore, the premises are true.
Therefore, the argument is cogent, and so it is a
good argument.
This means that we can have good arguments that
have false conclusions!
Heres another example:
I had coffee this morning. Therefore, its quite likely
that I drank something this morning.
This is a strong argument with true premises, so it is
cogent and therefore, good. But the conclusion is not
guaranteed. It may be that I had coffee this morning

by eating it, or by some other means. But of course,

this is very unlikely, so the argument is strong,
though its still possible that the conclusion is false.
Still, this is cogent and therefore, a good argument.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the
arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of
the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises
(assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by
saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended
to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the
premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion
to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in
guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid
argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the
argument is said to be sound.
Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's
sunny in Singapore, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he
won't be carrying an umbrella.
Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked
by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by
that dog he won't try to bite me.
An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the
arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its
conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended
only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would
be unlikely that the conclusion is false. There is no standard term
for a successful inductive argument. But its success or strength is
a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive
argument is valid or else invalid.
The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie
solely in the words used; it comes from the relationship the author
or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the
premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument
believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the
truth of the conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment,
logical structure, or mathematical necessity), then the argument
is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the
truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the
conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides
good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument
is inductive.
Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from
conductive arguments; the latter are arguments giving explicit
reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator
of the argument to weigh these considerations, i.e., to consider
the pros and cons. This article considers conductive arguments to
be a kind of inductive argument.

The noun "deduction" refers to the process of advancing or

establishing a deductive argument, or going through a process of
reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument.
"Induction" refers to the process of advancing an inductive
argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed
as an inductive argument.
Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the
conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not
just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument
is a sound one, then the truth of the conclusion is said to be
"contained within" the truth of the premises; that is, the
conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises
implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are
usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions,
mathematics and rules of formal logic. Here is a deductive
argument:
John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting
today. Therefore, John won't be able to attend our meeting today.
That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If 'ill' were
replaced with 'happy', the argument would still be valid because it
would retain its special logical structure (called modus ponens).
Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus
ponens:
P
If P then Q
So, Q
The capital letters stand for declarative sentences, or statements,
or propositions. The investigation of these logical forms is
called Propositional Logic.
The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive
arguments are valid because of their structure is still controversial
in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will not be
explored further in this article.
Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging forms. Inductive
arguments might conclude with some claim about a group based
only on information from a sample of that group. Other inductive
arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence or authority or
causal relationships. Here is a somewhat strong inductive
argument based on authority:
The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed
the murder.
Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:
The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed
the murder.
Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:
Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder.
John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon. John
confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.
This last argument is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict
John, but none of these three arguments about John committing
the murder is strong enough to be called valid. At least itt is not

valid in the technical sense of 'deductively valid'. However, some

lawyers will tell their juries that these are valid arguments, so we
critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people around
us are using the term.
It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts improperly
define "deduction" as reasoning from the general to specific and
define "induction" as reasoning from the specific to the general.
These definitions are outdated and inaccurate. For example,
according to the more modern definitions given above, the
following argument from the specific to general is deductive, not
inductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth
of the conclusion:
The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and
Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.
Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from
the general to specific, is inductive:
It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded
history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.
It is worth noting that the proof technique used in mathematics
called "mathematical induction", is deductive and not inductive.
Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the
following form:
Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n +
1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that
if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.
Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary
standards.
Because the difference between inductive and deductive
arguments involves the strength of evidence which the
author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion,
inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the
standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The
difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter
of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to
present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on
the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.
Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that
having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the
defining feature of "champagne" and so the conclusion follows
from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker
that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive.
However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker's mind.

He or she may merely believe that nearly all champagne is made

in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or
her intention, then the argument is inductive.
It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between
deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the
justification that the author or expositor of the
argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If
the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the
premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or
even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This argument is logically fallacious because it is invalid. In
actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the
conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously
advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that
the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive
argument is not an inductive argument.

Sound vs. Valid Argument

Comments | Share

Today I spent some time reviewing my Formal Logic course for my up coming exam.
I came across a section that I have never really explored in any proper depth the
difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. Here go some notes I
made

What is an argument?

In this case we are not referring to a verbal fight, but more what we call a set of
premise followed by a conclusion.
Before we go further we need to understand what a premise is a premise is a
statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. Think of a
premise as an assumption that something is true.
So, an argument can consist of one or more premises and a conclusion

When is an argument valid?

An argument can be either valid or invalid.

An argument is valid if, and only if, it is impossible for there to be a situation
in which all it's premises are TRUE and it's conclusion is FALSE.
It is generally easier to determine if an argument is invalid. Do this by applying the
following
Assume that all the premises are true, then ask yourself if it is now possible for the
conclusion to be false. If the answer is "yes," the argument is invalid. If it's "no," the
argument is valid.
Example 1
P1 Mark is Tall
P2 Mark is a boy
C Mark is a tall boy
Walkthrough 1
Assume Mark is Tall is true and also assume that Mark is a boy. Based on these two
premises, the conclusion is also true Mark is a tall boy, thus the it is a valid
argument.
Lets make this an invalid argument
Example 2
P1 Mark is Tall
P2 Mark is a boy
C Mark is a short boy

Walkthrough 2
This would be an invalid argument, since from the premises we assume that Mark is
tall and he is a boy, and then the conclusion goes against this by saying that Mark is
short. Thus an invalid argument.

When is an argument sound?

An argument is said to be sound when it is valid and all the premises are indeed
true (not just assumed to be true).
Rephrased, an argument is said to be sound when the conclusion will follow from
the premises and the premises are indeed true in real life.
In example 1 we were referring to a specific person, if we generalized it a bit we
could come up with the following example.
Example 3
P1 All people called Mark are tall
P2 I know a specific person called Mark
C He is a tall person
In this instance, it is a valid argument (we assume the premises are true, which
leads to the conclusion being true), but the argument is NOT sound. In the real
world there must be at least one person called Mark who is not tall.
Something also to note, all invalid arguments are also unsound this makes sense,
if an argument is not valid, how on earth can it be true in the real world.

What happens when the premises contradict themselves?

This is an interesting one

An argument is valid if, and only if, it is impossible for there to be a situation
in which all it's premises are TRUE and it's conclusion is FALSE.
When premises are contradictory, the argument is always valid because it is
impossible for all the premises to be true at one time.
Lets look at an example..
P1 - Elvis is dead
P2 Elvis is alive
C Laura is a woolly mammoth
This is a valid argument, but not a sound one.
Think about it. Is it possible to have a situation in which the premises are true and
the conclusion is false? Sure, it's possible to have a situation in which
the conclusion is false, but for the argument to be invalid, it has to be possible for
the premises to all be true at the same time the conclusion is false. So if the
premises can't all be true, the argument is valid. (If you still think the argument is
invalid, draw a picture in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false.
Remember, there's only one Elvis, and you can't be both dead and alive.)

Validity and Invalidity, Soundness and Unsoundness

The task of an argument is to provide statements (premises) that
give evidence for the conclusion. There are two basic kinds of
arguments.

Deductive argument: involves the claim that the truth of its

premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion; the terms valid and
invalid are used to characterize deductive arguments. A deductive
argument succeeds when, if you accept the evidence as true (the
premises), you must accept the conclusion.
Inductive argument: involves the claim that the truth of its
premises provides some grounds for its conclusion or makes the
conclusion more probable; the terms valid and invalid cannot be
applied.
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of
the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises
are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all
the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by

assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still
possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the
argument is invalid.
Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements.
For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or
invalid. True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For
our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All
deductive arguments aspire to validity.
If you consider the definitions of validity and invalidity carefully,
you'll note that valid arguments have the following important
property: valid arguments preserve truth. If all your premises are
true and you make a valid argument from them, it must be the case
that whatever conclusion you obtain is true. (We shall see below,
however, that valid arguments do not necessarily preserve truth
value: it is entirely possible to argue validly from false premises to a
true conclusion).
Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains
only true premises.
Unsound: an argument that is not sound.
Counterexample: an example which contradicts some statement
or argument (ex. a counterexample to the statement All fifteen
year-olds have blue hair would be a fifteen-year-old without blue
hair); for an argument, a counterexample would be a situation in
which the premises of the argument are true and the conclusion is
false; counterexamples show statements to be false and arguments
to be invalid.
Normally we classify all arguments into one of two types: deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are those meant to work because of their pattern alone, so that if the
premises are true the conclusion could not be false. All other arguments are considered to
be inductive (or just non-deductive), and these are meant to work because of the actual
information in the premises so that if the premises are true the conclusion is not likely to be
false. The difference is between certainty (we can be sure the conclusion is correct) and
probability (we can bet on the conclusion being correct).
We now go one step further. A deductive argument with the right form is considered to
be valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. When the premises are in fact true and the
argument is valid, then we call it sound.
Inductive arguments can be seen as strong (the conclusion is more likely to be true because
of support provided by the premises) or as weak. When an inductively strong argument
does have true premises, we call it cogent.
How strong does an argument have to be to be acceptable? A good rule to start with is that
the more is at risk, the more likely you want the conclusion to be correct. For instance, in a
civil case (the kind that occurs when one person sues another) a jury is asked to decide
between two sides based simply on the preponderance of the evidence, and typically there
can be a split decision among the jurors. However, in a criminal case there is obviously
more at stake (it could be a person's freedom or possibly his life), and so the jury is asked to
decide unanimously on the basis of there not being a reasonable doubt about their verdict.
In everyday life, you would expect a stronger argument about where to transfer for the last
two years of college than you would about what movie to see next weekend.
All arguments then can be classified as valid or invalid. If valid, they are sound or unsound.
If invalid, they are strong or weak and then, depending on the premises, cogent or not
cogent. Note that a strong argument by definition cannot be valid, and a valid argument by
definition cannot be strong.
Some additional notes: an argument that misuses a form (what we will call a formal fallacy)
may not be valid but then we need to look at it in terms of inductive strength. Also, an
argument may be technically sound (valid with acceptable premises) but still not a "good"
argument because of some informal fallacy (another kind of mistake in the reasoning but
one not related to the pattern). Most typically this could be a problem of what we call

begging the question, when the premises would be acceptable only if someone already
accepted the conclusion as true. (We'll see more about this later on.)
In the first part of the course we are going to look more closely at the form taken by
deductive arguments that involve complete statements with a premise expressed as a
conditional relationship (one that can be restated with the phrases "if" or "only if").
Inductive arguments can be seen as involving reasoning based on the similarities of things
or events (reasoning by analogy), reasoning based on inferences from a limited group to a
much larger one (inductive generalizations and statistical arguments), reasoning about what
is likely to take place in the future or have taken place in the past (think of explanations
such as those a jury is called up to make in a trial), and especially reasoning that sets out to
decide cause and effect relationships. We will be looking at all this in more detail in the
second half of the course.
A final point to be considered is how strong is a claim (the type of statement that might
become a conclusion in an argument). Saying that Jack will get a perfect score on his exam
is a stronger claim than saying he will do well on it. A good working rule for evaluating
arguments intended to prove such claims is that the stronger the claim, the better the
evidence should be. For instance, knowing that Jack is a good student and is studying hard
might be enough to justify saying he will do well on his exam, but we would need more
evidence before we can say he will get a perfect score. We would have a much stronger
case for this if we also knew the test was comparatively easy.