Fluent Essays

I need you to read the question follow the instruction and write a college level paper irving_m._copi__carl_cohen__kenneth__mcmahon_introduction_to_logic_pearson_education__2013_.pdf writing_assignment_4_2.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copi Carl Cohen Kenneth McMahon Fourteenth Edition Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk © Pearson Education Limited 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners. ISBN 10: 1-292-02482-8 ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02482-0 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Printed in the United States of America P E A R S O N C U S T O M L I B R A R Y Table of Contents 1. Basic Logical Concepts Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 1 2. Analyzing Arguments Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 35 3. Language and Definitions Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 67 4. Fallacies Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 109 5. Categorical Propositions Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 167 6. Categorical Syllogisms Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 211 7. Syllogisms in Ordinary Language Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 255 8. Symbolic Logic Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 305 9. Methods of Deduction Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 365 10. Quantification Theory Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 433 11. Analogical Reasoning Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 485 12. Causal Reasoning Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 513 13. Science and Hypothesis Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 559 I 14. Probability II Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 587 A Very Brief History of Logic Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 615 Glossary Irving M. Copi/Carl Cohen/Kenneth McMahon 617 Index 631 Basic Logical Concepts From Chapter 1 of Introduction to Logic, Fourteenth Edition. Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Kenneth McMahon. Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc. Published by Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. This asset is intentionally omitted from this text. It may be accessed at www.mcescher.com. (Waterfall by M.C. Escher) Basic Logical Concepts 1 What Logic Is 2 Propositions and Arguments 3 Recognizing Arguments 4 Arguments and Explanations 5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments 6 Validity and Truth 1 What Logic Is Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. When we reason about any matter, we produce arguments to support our conclusions. Our arguments include reasons that we think justify our beliefs. However, not all reasons are good reasons. Therefore we may always ask, when we confront an argument: Does the conclusion reached follow from the premises assumed? To answer this question there are objective criteria; in the study of logic we seek to discover and apply those criteria. Reasoning is not the only way in which people support assertions they make or accept. They may appeal to authority or to emotion, which can be very persuasive, or they may rely, without reflection, simply on habits. However, when someone wants to make judgments that can be completely relied upon, their only solid foundation will be correct reasoning. Using the methods and techniques of logic—one can distinguish reliably between sound and faulty reasoning. Logic The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Proposition A statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence always either true or false—although its truth or falsity may be unknown. 2 2 Propositions and Arguments We begin by examining more closely the most fundamental concepts in the study of logic, concepts presupposed in the paragraphs just above. In reasoning we construct and evaluate arguments; arguments are built with propositions. Although these concepts are apparently simple, they require careful analysis. A. Propositions Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that something is the case or it asserts that something is not. We may affirm a proposition, or deny it—but every proposition either asserts what really is the case, or it asserts something that is not. Therefore every proposition is either true or false. Basic Logical Concepts Biography Aristotle O f all the great philosophers and logicians, ancient and modern, none is greater than Aristotle (384–322 BCE), whose works and influence largely ruled the world of intellect for two millennia. He was often referred to as “The Philosopher”; his authority (even when he was mistaken!) was rarely questioned. Born in Macedonia, in the city of Stagira, where his father was physician to the king, he was viewed from birth as a member of the aristocracy, and was a friend of the king’s son, Philip. When Philip became king of Macedonia, he summoned Aristotle, who had for many years been studying in Athens at Plato’s school, The Academy, to return to Macedonia as tutor to his son Alexander (who later would be known as Alexander the Great). As he advanced on his subsequent conquests in Asia, Alexander remained in contact with his respected teacher, sending back, at Aristotle’s request, specimens and artifacts that contributed to the early growth of the sciences. Aristotle—one of the trio, with Plato and Socrates, who largely founded Western philosophy—had a truly encyclopedic mind. He investigated, contributed to, wrote about, and taught virtually all subjects on which some knowledge had been accumulated at his time: the natural sciences (biology, zoology, embryology, anatomy, astronomy, meteorology, physics, and optics); the arts (poetry, music, theater, and rhetoric); government and politics; psychology and education; economics; ethics; metaphysics—and of course logic, of which he alone was the systematic founder. His treatises on logic, later combined into one great work entitled The Organon (“The Instrument”), constitute the earliest formal study of our subject. The penetration and coherence of his logical analyses, and the comprehensiveness and general accuracy of his scientific studies, justify his acknowledged status as one of the finest thinkers ever to have graced our planet. At the age of 49 Aristotle returned to Athens and established his own highly influential school, the Lyceum, where he taught for twelve years. He died of natural causes in 322 BCE. In his will, he asked to be buried next to his wife, Pythias. In logic Aristotle grasped the overriding necessity of determining the rules of correct reasoning. He explained validity and characterized the four fundamental types of categorical propositions and their relations. In the Prior © Bettmann/CORBIS All Rights Reserved 3 Basic Logical Concepts Analytics, one of the six books of The Organon, he developed a sophisticated theoretical account of categorical syllogisms, an account that long dominated the realm of deductive logic and that remains today an effective tool of sound reasoning. It is said of Aristotle that he was probably the last person to know everything there was to be known in his own time. 쐍 There are many propositions about whose truth we are uncertain. “There is life on some other planet in our galaxy,” for example, is a proposition that, so far as we now know, may be true or may be false. Its “truth value” is unknown, but this proposition, like every proposition, must be either true or false. A question asserts nothing, and therefore it is not a proposition. “Do you know how to play chess?” is indeed a sentence, but that sentence makes no claim about the world. Neither is a command a proposition (“Come quickly!”), nor is an exclamation a proposition (“Oh my gosh!”). Questions, commands, and exclamations—unlike propositions—are neither true nor false. When we assert some proposition, we do so using a sentence in some language. However, the proposition we assert is not identical to that sentence. This is evident because two different sentences, consisting of different words differently arranged, may have the same meaning and may be used to assert the very same proposition. For example, “Leslie won the election” and “The election was won by Leslie” are plainly two different sentences that make the same assertion. Sentences are always parts of some language, but propositions are not tied to English or to any given language. The four sentences Statement A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself. Every statement must be either true or false, although the truth or falsity of a given statement may be unknown. 4 It is raining. Está lloviendo. Il pleut. Es regnet. (English) (Spanish) (French) (German) are in different languages, but they have a single meaning: all four, using different words, may be uttered to assert the very same proposition. Proposition is the term we use to refer to what it is that declarative sentences are typically used to assert. The term statement is not an exact synonym of proposition, but it is often used in logic in much the same sense. Some logicians prefer statement to proposition, although the latter has been more commonly used in the history of logic. Other logicians eschew both terms as metaphysical, using only the term sentence. Basic Logical Concepts However, the concept of a proposition is seen by many as making a useful distinction between a sentence and what the sentence asserts.. The very same sentence can be used to make very different statements (or to assert very different propositions), depending on the context in which it is expressed. For example, the sentence, “The largest state in the United States was once an independent republic,” once expressed a true statement or proposition (about Texas), but if asserted today would express a false statement or proposition (about Alaska). The same words assert different propositions at different times. Propositions may be simple, like those used in the preceding illustrations, but they may also be compound, containing other propositions within themselves. Consider the following proposition, from a recent account of the exploitation of the Amazon Basin in Brazil: The Amazon Basin produces roughly 20 percent of the Earth’s oxygen, creates much of its own rainfall, and harbors many unknown species.1 This sentence simultaneously asserts three propositions, concerning what the Amazon Basin produces and what it creates and what it harbors. The passage thus constitutes a conjunctive proposition. Asserting a conjunctive proposition is equivalent to asserting each of its component propositions separately. Some compound propositions do not assert the truth of their components. In disjunctive (or alternative) propositions, no one of the components is asserted. Abraham Lincoln (in a message to Congress in December 1861) said, “Circuit courts are useful, or they are not useful.” This disjunctive proposition is plainly true, but either one of its components might be false. Other compound propositions that do not assert their components are hypothetical (or conditional) propositions. The eighteenth-century freethinker, Voltaire, said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Here, again, neither of the two components is asserted. The proposition “God does not exist,” is not asserted, nor is the proposition, “it is necessary to invent him.” Only the “if–then” proposition is asserted by the hypothetical or conditional statement, and that compound statement might be true even if both of its components were false. In logic, the internal structure of propositions is important. To evaluate an argument we need a full understanding of the propositions that appear in that argument. Propositions of many different kinds will be analyzed in this chapter. B. Arguments With propositions as building blocks, we construct arguments. In any argument we affirm one proposition on the basis of some other propositions. In doing this, an inference is drawn. Inference is a process that may tie together a cluster of propositions. Some inferences are warranted (or correct); others are not. The logician analyzes these clusters, examining the propositions with which the process begins and with which it ends, as well as the relations among these propositions. Inference A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other proposition or propositions. 5 Basic Logical Concepts Argument Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one. Conclusion In any argument, the proposition to which the other propositions in the argument are claimed to give support, or for which they are given as reasons. Premises In an argument, the propositions upon which inference is based; the propositions that are claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion. 6 Such a cluster of propositions constitutes an argument. Arguments are the chief concern of logic. Argument is a technical term in logic. It need not involve disagreement, or controversy. In logic, argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support for the truth of that one. For every possible inference there is a corresponding argument. In writing or in speech, a passage will often contain several related propositions and yet contain no argument. An argument is not merely a collection of propositions; it is a cluster with a structure that captures or exhibits some inference. We describe this structure with the terms conclusion and premise. The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument. Those other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing support for the conclusion, are the premises of the argument. We will encounter a vast range of arguments in this text—arguments of many different kinds, on many different topics. We will analyze arguments in politics, in ethics, in sports, in religion, in science, in law, and in everyday life. Those who defend these arguments, or who attack them, are usually aiming to establish the truth (or the falsehood) of the conclusions drawn. As logicians, however, our interest is in the arguments as such. As agents or as citizens we may be deeply concerned about the truth or falsity of the conclusions drawn. However, as logicians we put those interests aside. Our concerns will be chiefly two. First, we will be concerned about the form of an argument under consideration, to determine if that argument is of a kind that is likely to yield a warranted conclusion. Second, we will be concerned about the quality of the argument, to determine whether it does in fact yield a warranted conclusion. Arguments vary greatly in the degree of their complexity. Some are very simple. Other arguments, as we will see, are quite intricate, sometimes because of the structure or formulation of the propositions they contain, sometimes because of the relations among the premises, and sometimes because of the relations between premises and conclusion. The simplest kind of argument consists of one premise and a conclusion that is claimed to follow from it. Each may be stated in a separate sentence, as in the following argument that appears on a sticker affixed to biology textbooks in the state of Alabama: No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact. Both premise and conclusion may be stated within the same sentence, as in this argument arising out of recent advances in the science of human genetics: Since it turns out that all humans are descended from a small number of African ancestors in our recent evolutionary past, believing in profound differences between the races is as ridiculous as believing in a flat earth.2 Basic Logical Concepts Biography Chrysippus O f all the logicians of ancient times, Aristotle and Chrysippus stand out as the two greatest. The enormous influence of Aristotle, who first systematized logic and was its principal authority for two thousand years, has already been recognized. Born a century later, Chrysippus (c. 279–c. 206 BCE) developed a conceptual scheme whose influence has only more recently been appreciated. The logic of Aristotle was one of classes. In the Aristotelian argument “All men are mortal; Greeks are men; therefore Greeks are mortal,” the fundamental elements are the categories, or terms (“men,” “mortal things,” and “Greeks”). In contrast, the logic of Chrysippus was one built of propositions and the connections between them (e.g., “If it is now day, it is now light. It is now day. Therefore it is now light.”). This simple argument form (now called modus ponens) and many other fundamental argument forms, Chrysippus analyzed and classified. His logical insights were creative and profound. Born in Asia Minor, in Soli, Chrysippus studied the philosophy of the Stoics —most famous among them Zeno and Cleanthes—and eventually became head of the Stoic school in Athens. In that capacity he taught the need to control one’s emotions, which he thought to be disorders or diseases. He urged the patient acceptance of the outcomes of a fate one cannot control, and the recognition that the one God (of which the traditional Greek gods are but aspects) is the universe itself. But it is as a logician that his influence has been greatest. He grasped, as Aristotle did not, the central role of the proposition—“that which is, in itself, capable of being denied or affirmed.” From this base he developed the first coherent system of propositional logic. 쐍 Classic Image/ Alamy Images The order in which premises and conclusion appear can also vary, but it is not critical in determining the quality of the argument. It is common for the conclusion of an argument to precede the statement of its premise or premises. On the day Babe Ruth hit his 700th home run (13 July 1934), the following argument appeared in The New York Times: A record that promises to endure for all time was attained on Navin Field today when Babe Ruth smashed his seven-hundredth home run in a lifetime career. It promises to live, first because few players in history have enjoyed the longevity on the diamond of the immortal Bambino, and, second, because only two other players in the history of baseball have hit more than 300 home runs. 7 Basic Logical Concepts This is an example of an argument whose two premises, each numbered, appear after the conclusion is stated. It is also an example of a very plausible argument whose conclusion is false, given that Hank Aaron hit his 700th home run on 21 July 1973, thirty-nine years later. Even when premise and conclusion are united in one sentence, the conclusion of the argument may come first. The English utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, presented this crisp argument in his Principles of Legislation (1802): Every law is an evil, for every law is an in ... Purchase answer to see full attachment