Hypothetical Syllogism A syllogism is simply a three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists of exactly two premises and

a conclusion. A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains at least one hypothetical or conditional (i.e., if-then) premise.7 Here are two examples of hypothetical syllogisms:
If the Tigers beat the Yankees, then the Tigers will make the playoffs. The Tigers will beat the Yankees. So, the Tigers will make the playoffs. If I want to keep my financial aid, I'd better study hard. I do want to keep my financial aid. Therefore, I'd better study hard.

Notice that these two arguments each have the same logical pattern or form:
If A th e n B . A. Therefore, B.

his pattern, as we have seen, is called modus ponens. Arguments with this pattern consist of one conditional premise, a second premise that asserts as true the antecedent (the if part! of the conditional, and a conclusion that asserts as true the conse"uent (the then part! of the conditional. #ther common varieties of hypothetical syllogisms include $ chain argument $ modus tollens (denying the conse"uent! $ denying the antecedent $ affirming the conse"uent Chain arguments consist of three conditional statements that lin% together in the following way:
If A then B. If B then . Therefore, if A then .

Here is an example of a chain argument:

If we don't stop for gas soon, then we'll run out of gas. If we run out of gas, then we'll be late for the wedding. Therefore, if we don't stop for gas soon, we'll be late for the wedding.

Modus tollens& arguments have the following pattern:

If A then B. !ot B. Therefore, not A.

Arguments of this pattern are sometimes called 'denying the conse"uent' (ecause they consist of one conditional premise, a second premise that denies (i.e., asserts to (e false! the conse"uent of the conditional, and a conclusion that denies the antecedent of the conditional. Here is an example:
If we're in Sacramento, then we're in "e're not in alifornia. Therefore, we're not in Sacramento. alifornia.

Modus ponens, chain argument, and modus tollens are all logically relia(le patterns of deductive reasoning. hat is, any argument that has one of these patterns is a(solutely guaranteed to have a true conclusion if the premises are also true. )ut not all patterns of deductive reasoning are completely relia(le in this way. wo patterns that are not logically relia(le are denying the antecedent and affirming the conse"uent. Denying the antecedent arguments have the following pattern:
If A then B. !ot A. Therefore, not B.

# most lame and impotent conclusion! *

Here is an example:
If Shakespeare wrote War and Peace, then he's a great writer. Shakespeare didn't write War and Peace.

Therefore, Shakespeare is not a great writer.

Notice in this example that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. his shows straightaway that the pattern of reasoning of this argument is not logically relia(le. Another faulty pattern of deductive reasoning is affirming the consequent. +ts pattern is as follows:
If A then B. B. Therefore, A.

Here is an example:
If we're on !eptune, then we're in the solar system. "e are in the solar system. Therefore, we're on !eptune.

,iven that this argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it is clear that affirming the conse"uent is not a logically relia(le pattern of reasoning. )ecause modus ponens, modus tollens, and chain argument are logically relia(le patterns of reasoning, they should always (e treated as deductive. -enying the antecedent and affirming the conse"uent are not logically relia(le patterns of reasoning. nevertheless, they should generally (e treated as deductive (ecause they have a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive.
EXERCISE

3.2

0. 6. 8. ;.

/or each of the following, indicate which type of hypothetical syllogism it is: modus poiiens, modus tolkns, chain argument, denying the antecedent, or affirming the conse"uent. +n some cases, the argument may need to (e rephrased slightly to ma%e the logical pattern explicit. +f we1re in 2ondon, then we1re in 3ngland. 4e are not in 3ngland. 5o, we are not in 2ondon. +f we1re in 7aris, then we are in /rance, +f we1re in /rance, then we are in 3urope. 5o, if we are in 7aris, then we are in 3urope. 4e are not in 9exico, (ecause if we are in 9exico :ity, we are in 9exico, and we are not in 9exico :ity. 4e1re in )erlin, given that if we are in )erlin, then we are in ,ermany, and we are in ,ermany. Categorical Syllogism Another common pattern of deductive reasoning is categorical syllogism. /or present purposes, a categorical syllogism may (e defined as a three-line argument in which each statement (egins with the word all, some, or no,'' Here are two examples:
All oaks are trees. All trees are plants. So, all oaks are plants. Some #emocrats are elected officials. All elected officials are politicians, Therefore, some #emocrats are politicians.

)ecause categorical reasoning li%e this is such a familiar form of rigorous logical reasoning, such arguments should nearly always (e treated as deductive. Argument by Elimination An argument (y elimination see%s to logically rule out various possi(ilities until only a single possi(ility remains. Here are two examples:
$ither %oe walked to the library or he dro&e. But %oe didn't dri&e to the library.

Therefore, %oe walked to the library. '( $ither #utch committed the murder, or %ack committed the murder, or If #utch or %ack committed the murder, then the weapon was a rope. The weapon was not a rope. So, neither #utch nor )ack committed the murder. Therefore, elia committed the murder. elia committed the murder.

)ecause the aim of such arguments is to logically exclude every possi(le outcome except one, such arguments are always deductive. Argument Based on athematics

9athematics is a model of logical, step-(y-step reasoning. 9athematicians don1t claim that their conclusions are merely li%ely or pro(a(le. hey claim to prove their conclusions on the (asis of precise mathematical concepts and reasoning. +n an argument (ased on mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to depend largely or entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement (perhaps in con<unction with one or more nonmathematical premises!.00 Here are two examples:
$ight is greater than four. *our is greater than two. Therefore, eight is greater than two. +ight tra&els at a rate of ',-,((( miles per second. The sun is more than ./ million miles distant from the earth. Therefore, it takes more than eight minutes for the sun's light to reach the earth.

)ecause mathematical arguments are generally models of precise logical reasoning, arguments (ased on mathematics are usually (est treated as deductive. Arguments (ased on mathematics can (e inductive, however, as this example shows:
0y blind uncle told me that there were , men, - women, and '1 kids at the party. By simple addition, therefore, it follows that there were 1- people at the party.

!op Culture Connection

Logic in Narnia *ans of 2. S. +ewis's best3selling children's book series, The Chronicles of Narnia, will readily recall the memorable scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe 4also featured in the recent #isney5"alden 0edia film &ersion of the book6 in which the 7rofessor uses an argument by elimination to con&ince 7eter and Susan 7e&ensie that, fantastic as it may seem, their sister, +ucy, is probably telling the truth about a magical realm she calls 8!arnia.8 +ucy claims to ha&e walked through a wardrobe into a wintry world inhabited by witches, fauns, and other strange and mythological creatures. After muttering, 8+ogic9 "hy don't they teach logic in these schools:8 the 7rofessor reminds 7eter and Susan that there are only three possibilities; +ucy is lying, or she's cra<y, or she's telling the truth. The children =uickly agree that it would be completely out of character for +ucy to lie. They also agree that she has shown no telltale signs of madness. 8*or the moment, then,8 the 7rofessor concludes, 8and unless any further e&idence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.8 The 7rofessor's argument by elimination is clearly modeled on 8+ewis's trilemma,8 a famous argument for hristian belief +ewis had put forward in his '.>1 book, Mere Christianity. The trilemma +ewis offers is that %esus did not claim to be simply a moral teacher? he claimed to be 2od. This lea&es us only three real &iable alternati&es; %esus was lying, or he was cra<y, or he was e@actly who he claimed to be; 2od. Based on e&erything we know about %esus, it is impossible to belie&e he was either lying or insane. Thus, we should conclude, %esus was 2od. Is +ewis's trilemma a sound argument by elimination: In particular, are there any other possibilities besides the three +ewis identifies 48+iar, +unatic, +ord86:

Here, the conclusion clearly does not follow from the premise (ecause it is possi(le for the premise to (e true and the conclusion false. (9ay(e my (lind uncle miscounted, for example.! /or that reason, the argument is (est treated as inductive. Argument "rom #e"inition +n an argument from definition, the conclusion is presented as (eing 'true (y

definition,' that is, as following simply (y definition from some %ey word or phrase used in the argument. Here are two examples:
%anelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, %anelle is a doctor. Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.

)ecause a statement that follows (y definition is necessarily true if the relevant definition is true, arguments from definition are always deductive. #ur discussion of common patterns of deductive reasoning can (e summari=ed as follows: Arguments (y elimination and arguments from definition should always (e treated as deductive. 2ogically relia(le hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, and arguments (ased on mathematics should always (e treated as deductive. 2ogically unrelia(le hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, and arguments (ased on mathematics should (e treated as deductive unless there is clear evidence that they are intended to (e inductive.

Common !atterns o" Inducti$e Reasoning

+n this section we loo% at six common patterns of inductive reasoning: $ inductive generali=ation $ predictive argument $ argument from authority $ causal argument $ statistical argument $ argument from analogy Inducti$e %enerali&ation A generalization, as that term is used in critical thin%ing, is a statement that attri(utes some characteristic to all or most mem(ers of a given class. Here are some examples of generali=ations:
All wild gri<<ly bears in the Anited States li&e west of the 0ississippi Bi&er. 0ost college students work at least part3time. 0en are so unromantic9

An inductive generalization is an argument in which a generali=ation is claimed to (e pro(a(ly true (ased on information a(out some mem(ers of a particular class. Here are two examples:
All dinosaur bones so far disco&ered ha&e been more than si@ty3fi&e million years old. Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than si@ty3fi&e million years old. Si@ months ago I met a farmer from Iowa, and he was friendly. *our months ago I met an insurance salesman from Iowa, and he was friendly. Two months ago I met a dentist from Iowa, and she was friendly. I guess most people from Iowa are friendly.

)ecause all inductive generali=ations claim that their conclusions are pro(a(le rather than certain, such arguments are always inductive. !redicti$e Argument A prediction is a statement a(out what may or will happen in the future. +n a predictive argument, a prediction is defended with reasons. 7redictive arguments are among the most common patterns of inductive reasoning. Here are two examples:
It has rained in Cancou&er e&ery *ebruary since weather records ha&e been kept. Therefore, it will probably rain in Cancou&er ne@t *ebruary.

0ost A.S. presidents ha&e been tall. Therefore, probably the ne@t A.S. president will be tall.

)ecause nothing in the future (including death and taxes! is a(solutely certain, arguments containing predictions are usually inductive. +t should (e noted, however, that predictions can (e argued for deductively. /or example:
If Amy comes to the party, Ted will come to the party. Amy will come to the party. Therefore, Ted will come to the party.

3ven though this argument contains a prediction, it is clearly deductive (ecause the conclusion must (e true if the premises are true. Argument "rom Authority An argument from authority asserts a claim and then supports that claim (y citing some presumed authority or witness who has said that the claim is true. Here are three examples:
0ore Americans die of skin cancer each year than die in car accidents. Dow do I know: 0y doctor told me. The Encyclopaedia Britann'tca says that parts of Cirginia are farther west than #etroit. In general, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a highly reliable source of information. Therefore, it's probably true that parts of Cirginia are farther west than #etroit. There are bears in these woods. 0y neighbor *rank said he saw one last week.

)ecause we can never (e a(solutely certain that a presumed authority or witness is accurate or relia(le, arguments from authority should normally (e treated as inductive. Arguments from authority are sometimes deductive, however. /or example:
"hate&er the Bible teaches is true. The Bible teaches that we should lo&e our neighbors. Therefore, we should lo&e our neighbors.

)ecause the conclusion of this argument follows necessarily from the premises, the argument should (e regarded as deductive. Causal Argument A causal argument asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else. Here are three examples:
I can't log3in. The network must be down. Bashid isn't allergic to peanuts. I saw him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight from #allas. 0edical care is the number3one cause of sudden rapid aging among middle3aged people. Ask yourself how many times you ha&e heard somebody tell you a story like this; 8Balph was feeling fine, no problems at all, and then he went in for a routine physical checkup, and the ne@t thing we heard he was in critical condition with the ma)ority of his internal organs sitting in a free<er in an en tirely different building.8'1

As we shall see in :hapter 00, we can rarely, if ever, (e 0>> percent certain that one thing causes, or does not cause, something else. /or that reason causal arguments are usually (est treated as inductive. +t cannot (e assumed, however, that causal arguments are always inductive. he following causal argument, for example, is clearly deductive:
"hene&er iron is e@posed to o@ygen, it rusts. This iron pipe has been e@posed to o@ygen. Therefore, it will rust.

Statistical Argument A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence*that is, evidence that some percentage of some group or class has some particular characteristic. Here are two

examples:
$ighty3three percent of St. Stephen's students are $piscopalian. Beatrice is a St. Stephen's student. So, Beatrice is probably $piscopalian. Doctor to patient Studies show that condoms ha&e an annual failure rate of 1 to / percent, e&en if they are used consistently and correctly. So, you should not assume that condoms will pro&ide complete protection from the risk of pregnancy or se@ually transmitted diseases.

)ecause statistical evidence is generally used to support claims that are presented as pro(a(le rather than certain, statistical arguments are usually inductive. +t should (e noted, however, that statistical evidence can (e used in deductive reasoning. /or example:
If -> percent of likely &oters polled support Senator Beltway, then Senator Belt3way will win in a landslide. Si@ty3fi&e percent of likely &oters polled do support Senator Beltway. Therefore, Senator Beltway will win in a landslide.

Argument from Analogy An analogy is a comparison of two or more things that are claimed to (e ali%e in some relevant respect. Here are0 two examples of analogies:
Dabits are like a cable. "e wea&e a strand of it e&ery day and soon it cannot be broken. 4Dorace 0ann6 As man casts off worn3out garments and puts on others that are new, similarly the embodied soul, casting off worn3out bodies, enters into others, which are new. 4Bhaga&ad32ita6

+n an argument from analogy, the conclusion is claimed to depend on an analogy (i.e., a comparison or similarity! (etween two or more things. Here are two examples:
Dershey 7ark has a thrilling roller3coaster ride. #orney 7ark, like Dershey 7ark, is a great amusement park. Therefore, probably #orney 7ark also has a thrilling roller3coaster ride. Bill is a graduate of 0ary is a graduate of 7aula is a graduate of entral Ani&ersity, and he is bright, energetic, and dependable. entral Ani&ersity, and she is bright, energetic, and dependable. entral Ani&ersity.

Therefore, most likely, 7aula is bright, energetic, and dependable, too.

Note the (asic logical pattern of these arguments:

These things are similar in such3and3such ways. Therefore, they're probably similar in some further way.

)ecause the conclusions of arguments of this pattern are claimed to follow only pro(a(ly from the premises, such arguments are clearly inductive. Not all analogical arguments are inductive, however. /or example:
'. Automobiles cause thousands of deaths each year and produce no@ious and offensi&e fumes. 1. Smoking causes thousands of deaths each year and produces no@ious and offensi&e fumes. /. Thus, if smoking is hea&ily regulated, automobiles should also be hea&ily regulated. E. But automobiles shouldn't be hea&ily regulated. >. Therefore, smoking shouldn't be hea&ily regulated, either.

his is an analogical argument (ecause the main conclusion, statement ?, is claimed to depend on an analogy (etween automo(iles and smo%ing. Nevertheless, the argument is deductive (ecause it would (e logically inconsistent to assert all the premises and deny the conclusion. #ur discussion of common patterns of inductive reasoning can (e summari=ed as follows: +nductive generali=ations, (y definition, are always inductive. 7redictive arguments, arguments from authority, causal arguments, statistical

arguments, and arguments from analogy are generally, (ut not always, inductive. +t ta%es practice to (e a(le to recogni=e the patterns of deductive and inductive reasoning that we have discussed, (ut it is important to (e a(le to do so (ecause such patterns often provide the (est clue availa(le as to whether an argument is deductive or inductive. /./ -etermine whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive. /or each argument, state which test(s! you used in reaching your decision (i.e., the indicator word test, the strict necessity test, the common pattern test, and@or the principle of charity test!. +f the common pattern test is used, indicate which specific pattern the argument exemplifies (e.g., causal argument, argument from authority, and so on!.
$F$B IS$
0. 6. 8.

)ecause x A 8 and y A ?, then x + y = &. All inductive generali=ations are inductive. 5ome inductive generali=ations are unrelia(le. herefore, some inductive arguments are unrelia(le. +f it rains, the game will (e postponed until next 5aturday. According to the National 4eather 5ervice, there1s a B> percent chance of rain. herefore, pro(a(ly the game will (e postponed until next 5aturday.