Ifpthenq Not P Therefore Not Q: Wrong Form Arguments

WRONG FORM ARGUMENTS:
If p then q
Not p
Therefore not q
If p then q
q
Therefore, p
CORRECT FORM ARGUMENT:

If p then q
p
therefore q
If p then q
Not q
Therefore, not p
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 2
2016-10-23, 3)18 PM
Conditional Arguments
Now that we have seen how to identify necessary and sufficient conditions in a variety of
statements, let's see how these claims are used in arguments.
Arguments that contain conditional claims as at least one premise are called "conditional
arguments".
The kinds of conditional arguments we will be concerned with are called "deductive"
arguments. What deductive arguments all share is that their conclusions are always implicitly
present, but hidden, in their premises. Part of how a deductive argument is defined is in terms
of the concept of validity, so let's look at this first.
Validity
Validity is a technical term in logic that is used in the evaluation of deductive arguments. While
you have likely heard people refer to an argument or opinion as valid, this differs significantly
from the technical understanding of the term. In common usage a "valid" argument or opinion
usually means that it is one worth holding or one we should respect. In logic, an argument's
validity is a function of its logical form or structure. More specifically, validity refers to the
relationship between the premises of an argument and its conclusion.
An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion necessarily follows from its premises.
Another way this is expressed is as follows:
An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true and for its conclusion to be
false.
This means that if an argument is valid, and if its premises are true, there is an absolute
guarantee that the conclusion is true as well. Hence, valid deductive arguments are extremely
powerful tools to use if you want to convince someone of a certain claim.
It is important to note, however, that the premises of a deductive argument need not actually
be true in order for the argument to be valid. What matters is whether or not it is possible for
the conclusion to be false if the premises were true.
Example
All men are made of peanut butter
Alice is a man
Therefore, Alice is made of peanut butter
This argument is deductively valid. Even though both of its premises are in fact false, if they
were true, the conclusion would also have to be true.
Does the truth of the premises of a deductive argument matter? Of course it does. If you want
to use the above argument to convince me that Alice is made of peanut butter, it had better be
true that Alice is a man and that all men are made of peanut butter. That is, if the conclusion
of a valid deductive argument is true and follows from the premises of the argument, those
premises need to be true.
https://mylearningspace.wlu.ca/content/enforced/194127-692.2016092lSessionVal=QUYpq6BrISs2IOJJFeFJagccg&ou=194127&d2l_body_type=3
Page 1 of 2
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 2
2016-10-23, 3)18 PM
Soundness
The soundness of an argument is a function of the truth of its premises. An argument is sound
if and only if it has all true premises. If any of the premises of an argument are false, then the
argument is said to be unsound.
Hence, the above argument about Alice is valid but unsound. Good arguments are both valid
and sound. These are the kinds of arguments you should strive for. There are, however, bad
deductive arguments that may be sound but are invalid. You need to be able to spot these
when you encounter them.
We will examine four common types of conditional argument. Two of these are valid forms of
argument and two are invalid.
Page 2 of 2
Valid Conditional Arguments
2016-10-23, 3)28 PM

Modus Ponens
The first and most common form of valid conditional argument goes by two names: modus
ponens and affirming the sufficient condition. Modus ponen is Latin for mood that affirms .
The form modus ponens takes is as follows:
Premise 1: If p then q
Premise 2: p
Conclusion: therefore q
p and q stand for any proposition. Plug in any proposition you want and the conclusion will
always follow.
Notice that the first premise is a conditional claim. The second premise affirms part of the
conditional. That is, it says that p is in fact the case. We saw earlier that this part of a
conditional claim is called the antecedent and is always the sufficient condition. This explains
why this form of argument is sometimes called affirming the sufficient condition . Finally, the
argument draws a positive conclusion. It affirms the other part of the conditional. Since
everything the argument does after the first premise is an affirmation, it is also sometimes
called by the Latin for mood that affirms (modus ponens).
An Important Note About Affirming
p and q can stand for any proposition, even a proposition that says something is not the case
(a negation), which can sometimes make it hard to determine whether or not p is affirmed in
the second premise. Consider the following example:
If you don't put your pants on, then I'll call the police.
You didn't put your pants on.
Therefore, I called the police.
It is tempting here to say that p is denied in the second premise because the claim You didn't
put your pants on expresses a negative statement. This is actually not the case as we can see
if we break the first premise down into its two components:
If you don't put your pants on, then I'll call the police.
P
Sufficient Condition
Q
Necessary Condition
As we can see, p is what is expressed in the entire first part of the above conditional claim. It
is the proposition you don't put your pants on. To determine whether the second premise in a
conditional argument like this affirms or denies p, you need to compare what is said in the first
premise with what is said in the second. The second premise says You didn't put your pants
on. This is saying the same thing as what was stated in the first part of the first premise
Page 1 of 5
2016-10-23, 3)28 PM
(except for a change in tense, but you can ignore that in conditional arguments altogether).
That is, they both express the same proposition or state of affairs: you haven't put your pants
on. Since the second premise says the same thing as p in the first premise, p is affirmed. We
therefore have an example of modus ponens. The argument is valid.
Example
If Janet gets the job, then I'll resign from the board.
Janet got the job.
Therefore, I'll resign.
Standardizing Modus Ponens
Modus ponens is always standardized as it is above. The conditional claim (the first premise) is
linked with the second premise (in which the sufficient condition is affirmed). Together these
support the conclusion, which is the other half of the conditional claim.
Example
Jill will only win the award if she doesn't offend the judges.
Jill won the award.
Therefore, Jill didn't offend the judges.
Is this an example of modus ponens? The first thing you should notice about this example is
that the first premise is a conditional claim containing only if . Recall the rule about
conditionals with only if : only if introduces the necessary condition. So, does the second
premise affirm the sufficient or the necessary condition?
In premise 2 we are affirming the sufficient condition. Hence, this is an example of modus
ponens and is a valid argument.
Modus Tollens
The second common form of valid conditional argument is modus tollens, which is Latin for
mood that denies .
Page 2 of 5
2016-10-23, 3)28 PM
The argument takes this form:

If p then q
Not q
Therefore, not p
The argument is called mood that denies because both the second premise and the conclusion
are negations. This form of argument is also called denying the necessary condition because
this is what happens in the second premise. When we have a conditional claim if p then q, q is
necessary for p. So if we say not q we are denying the necessary condition. Since q is a
necessary consequence of p, we know that if q didn't happen, p must not have happened.
Hence, from these two pieces of information we can draw the conclusion that p didn't happen
or is not the case.
An Important Note About Denying
We saw above that you need to be very careful to be clear about what p and q express in
order to tell whether a proposition is affirmed or denied in a conditional argument. Just as it
can be hard to tell when a proposition is affirmed, it can be difficult to tell when a proposition
is denied. Consider the following example:
If you put your pants on, I won't call the police.
I called the police.
Therefore, you didn't put your pants on.
It is tempting to say that premise 2 (I called the police) affirms something, because it is a
positive statement. However, if we examine the first premise more carefully, we will see that
this is not so.
If you put your pants on, I won't call the police.
P
Sufficient Condition
Q
Necessary Condition
As we can see, q is what is expressed in the entire second part of the first premise: I won't
call the police. To determine whether q is affirmed or denied in the second premise of the
argument, we need to compare what is said in the first premise with what is said in the
second. The second premise says I called the police. This is clearly different from the
proposition expressed by q. It is, in fact, the negation of q. In effect, I called the police is
equivalent to saying it is not the case that I won't call the police. Hence, the second premise
denies q, and so we have modus tollens. This is a valid argument.
Let's look at a few examples:
Example
If you work out, then you will feel tired.
You don't feel tired.
Page 3 of 5
2016-10-23, 3)28 PM
Therefore, you didn't work out.

The first premise is a conditional claim. The first thing you should notice about it is that it does
not contain words like only or unless , which means it is easy to identify the necessary and
sufficient conditions. From the conditional we can tell that working out is sufficient for feeling
tired and that feeling tired is necessary for working out. The second premise, then, is denying
the necessary condition. So far, so good. Has the correct conclusion been drawn?
Yes. The argument concludes by denying the rest of the conditional claim (remember mood
that denies ).
Let's think about the argument more concretely. If we assume that the conditional claim is
true, meaning that every time you work out, you feel tired, and we also know that you don't
feel tired, then we know that, among other things, that you must not have worked out
(otherwise you would feel tired).
Standardizing Modus Tollens
We standardize modus tollens the same way we standardize modus ponens. The two premises
are linked and support the conclusion as illustrated below.
The reason the premises are linked is that both are required to motivate the conclusion.
Without the other, neither premise gives the conclusion any support.
Example
I can only go to the mountains if I can get a ride.
I didn't get a ride.
Therefore, I can't go to the mountains.
In this case notice that the conditional claim contains only if . Remember that only if always
introduces a necessary condition. This means that my getting a ride is necessary for my going
to the mountains.
The second premise, then, is denying the necessary condition. It is saying that it is not the
case that I can get a ride to the mountains. The conclusion denies the other half of the
conditional claim, so we therefore have an example of modus tollens.
Page 4 of 5
2016-10-23, 3)28 PM
A handy way to remember which forms of argument are valid is to make use of the following
rule:
AFFIRM THE SUFFICIENT CONDITION & DENY THE NESSECARY CONDITION.
Anything else is invalid.
Page 5 of 5
Invalid Conditional Arguments
2016-10-23, 4*18 PM

There are two invalid conditional arguments that are often confused with the valid forms we
just looked at. As long as you can identify necessary and sufficient conditions and remember
the rules just mentioned, you shouldn't have any trouble recognizing these invalid forms of
argument.
Denying the Antecedent
The first form of invalid conditional argument is called "denying the sufficient condition" or
"denying the antecedent". Like the previous valid forms of argument, these names are derived
primarily from what happens in the second premise of the argument.
This argument has the following form:
If p then q
Not p
Therefore not q
Why is this invalid? The reason is that from the information we are given in the premises, we
cannot actually draw the conclusion that q is not the case. Even though p entails (i.e., leads to
or implies) q, or has q as a necessary consequence, if p does not happen this is no guarantee
that q didn't happen or will not happen. The main reason for this is that something else other
than p could lead to q.
Let's examine this more with the help of an example.
Example
If you take off your clothes, I'll laugh.
You did not take off your clothes.
Therefore, I didn't laugh.
First, let's consider the form of the argument. The conditional claim tells us that your taking
off your clothes is sufficient for my laughing, and that my laughing is necessary for your taking
off your clothes.
The second premise of the argument is denying the sufficient condition (the antecedent).
Hence, the argument is an example of denying the antecedent, which is invalid.
Why can't we draw the conclusion that I didn't laugh from these two premises?
Even if it is true that I will, without fail, laugh if you take off your clothes, this is not the only
thing that can make me laugh. Perhaps I am thinking about a funny joke someone told me
earlier. Other things might make me laugh besides your undressing, so we can't rule out the
possibility that I will laugh from the premises provided.
Example
If it rains, then the streets will be wet.
It didn't rain.
Therefore, the streets aren't wet.
Page 1 of 4
2016-10-23, 4*18 PM
What does the second premise of this argument do? It denies the antecedent or the sufficient
condition. Hence, we know the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This does not mean that
the conclusion is false. It might very well be true that the streets aren't wet. But that is not
the issue. The question is, "What can we conclude for certain, given what we do know?"
The reason we can't conclude that the streets aren't wet from these two premises is that the
streets can be wet for a number of other reasons (e.g., broken water mains, the street washer,
snow).
Affirming the Consequent
The second common form of invalid conditional argument is called "affirming the consequent"
or "affirming the necessary condition".
This argument has the following form:
If p then q
q
Therefore, p
The reason this is invalid is that, once again, from the premises provided we have no
guarantee that the conclusion is true. It might be true, but it could equally well be false. Even
though p must, necessarily lead to q, we cannot conclude that if q happened, p must have
happened. The reason for this is similar to the problem with denying the antecedent. Other
things, besides p can lead to q.
Example
If it rains then the streets will be wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it rained.
Even though it is true that if it rains the streets must get wet, we can't conclude from this and
from the fact that the streets are wet that it did in fact rain. Maybe it snowed, or maybe a dam
burst. Because the argument does not provide a guarantee that the conclusion is true, it is
invalid. Notice also the structure of the argument. The second premise is an affirmation, and
what it is affirming is the necessary condition.
Example
If you bring some chicken, then we'll have a barbeque.
We had a barbeque.
Therefore, you brought some chicken.
The conditional claim tells us that your bringing some chicken is sufficient for our having a
barbeque, and that our having a barbeque is necessary for your bringing some chicken. The
second premise says we had a barbeque, and so is affirming the necessary condition or the
consequent. The argument is therefore invalid.
Now that we've seen four forms of conditional argument, let's look at a few examples to
practice identifying them.
Example
Page 2 of 4
2016-10-23, 4*18 PM
You can't go outside unless you put on your shoes.

You didn't put on your shoes.
Therefore, you didn't go outside.
This is a considerably trickier example. Notice that the conditional claim contains the word
"unless". The best way to deal with this is to reformulate this claim in standard conditional
form. Recall that we do this by taking what follows "unless", negating it, and making it the
antecedent in the new conditional claim. The rest of the original claim takes the place of the
consequent. What we end up with is this:
If you don't put on your shoes, then you can't go outside.
Now, replace the first premise of the above argument with our new conditional. The argument
should look like this:
If you don't put on your shoes, then you can't go outside.
You didn't put on your shoes.
Therefore, you didn't go outside.
Now that we have rewritten the argument with the first premise in standard conditional form,
it is much easier to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions. Your not putting on your
shoes is sufficient for your not going outside, and your not going outside is necessary for your
not putting on your shoes.
The argument therefore is an example of modus ponens. It is valid since the conclusion
necessarily follows from the premises.
Example
If you pee into the wind, you'll get your shoes wet.
You didn't pee into the wind.
Therefore, you didn't get your shoes wet.
Your peeing into the wind is sufficient for your getting your shoes wet and your getting your
shoes wet is necessary for your peeing into the wind. The second premise is thus denying the
sufficient condition. The argument is invalid. Why? Because the conclusion could be false. Your
shoes might have gotten wet for some other reason.
Example
Unless he tells me otherwise, I'll paint his room pink.
I painted his room pink.
Therefore, he didn't tell me otherwise.
This conditional claim contains the word "unless". Rewrite the argument with the first premise
in standard conditional form.
If he doesn't tell me otherwise, I'll paint his room pink.
I painted his room pink.
Page 3 of 4
2016-10-23, 4*18 PM
Therefore, he didn't tell me otherwise.

Here the second premise affirms the necessary condition (the consequent). The argument is
therefore invalid .
Example
Only if you paid me would I go to see Patch Adams.
I didn't go to see Patch Adams.
Therefore, You didn't pay me.
This conditional claim contains "only if". "Only if" introduces a necessary condition. So this
argument is denying the sufficient condition and is therefore invalid.
Example
If Tamara doesn't call her mother, then her mother will cry.
Tamara calls her mother.
Therefore, her mother doesn't cry.
The first premise of this argument is a standard conditional claim. What happens in the second
premise? Be careful here. It is doing something with the sufficient condition. Is it affirming it
or denying it? It is denying it. The antecedent in the conditional is Tamara doesn't call her
mother . If the second premise were affirming this, it would just repeat it: "Tamara doesn't call
her mother". The proposition has instead changed from negative to positive. This is the result
of denying the proposition Tamara doesn't call her mother . Denying this proposition is like
saying the following:
It is not the case that Tamara doesn't call her mother.
This is equivalent to:
Tamara calls her mother.
This argument therefore denies the sufficient condition (the antecedent) and is therefore
invalid.
Page 4 of 4

Ifpthenq Not P Therefore Not Q: Wrong Form Arguments

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ifpthenq Not P Therefore Not Q: Wrong Form Arguments

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WRONG FORM ARGUMENTS:

CORRECT FORM ARGUMENT:

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 2

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 2

Valid Conditional Arguments

Valid Conditional Arguments

Valid Conditional Arguments

Valid Conditional Arguments

The argument takes this form:

Valid Conditional Arguments

Therefore, you didn't work out.

Valid Conditional Arguments

Invalid Conditional Arguments

Invalid Conditional Arguments

Invalid Conditional Arguments

Invalid Conditional Arguments

You can't go outside unless you put on your shoes.

Invalid Conditional Arguments

Therefore, he didn't tell me otherwise.

S-ar putea să vă placă și