c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

B.A. Introduction to Logic 2013-14

Lecture 2: Logic and Formal Logic
Recap
Arguments: An argument is a set of thoughts or sentences that are intended to establish the truth of
some specific conclusion.
Premises: The premises of an argument are the thoughts or sentences that are intended to establish the
truth of the conclusion.
Validity: An argument is valid if (and only if) theres no possibility that its premises are true while its
conclusion is false.
Soundness: An argument is sound if (and only if) its valid and has true premises.

Validity: Further Points

If an argument has inconsistent premises, then theres no way in which all its premises can be true.
This means that the argument is automatically valid, because it means that theres no way in which its
premises can be true while its conclusion is false.
Example: Its raining. Its not raining. So I had cornflakes for breakfast.
There is no way in which both premises of this argument can be true. So there is no way in which
both premises can be true while the conclusion is false. The argument is therefore valid.
Suppose we have an argument with a conclusion that is necessarily true. If so, there is no way in
which that conclusion can be false. Again, this means that the argument is automatically valid,
because it means that theres no way in which its premises can be true while its conclusion is false.
Example: Its raining. So circles are circles.
There is no way in which the conclusion of this argument can be false. So there is no way in which
the premise can be true while the conclusion is false. The argument is therefore valid.

Validity, Soundness, and Goodness

What makes for a good argument, and how is the answer to this question related to validity and
soundness?
Its easy to see that there must be more to goodness than validity: just think of any valid argument
with obviously false premises.
More interestingly, it seems that there must also be more to goodness than soundness. Consider some
examples:
Example: Cameron is Prime Minister. Therefore, Cameron is Prime Minister.
This argument is sound: its valid and its premise is true. But it seems a bad argument.

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

Example: Obama is President. Cameron is Prime Minister. So circles are circles.

This argument is sound: its valid (because theres no way for its conclusion to be false), and its
premises are true. But again, the argument seems bad.
General moral: There must be more to a good argument than its simply being valid or its simply
being sound.

Validity and Formal Validity

Our primary focus on this course will be validity. Validity is worth investigating because its an
important good-making feature of arguments, and it also seems amenable to a priori inquiry.
But our primary interest isnt just validity in general; were going to be interested first and foremost in
a particular kind of validity: formal validity.
The easiest way to appreciate the difference between validity in general and formal validity is by
thinking about examples:
Example: If its raining, then you need an umbrella. Its raining. So you need an umbrella.
Example: My front door is red. So my front door is coloured.
The first argument isnt just valid; its valid because of its form. The second argument also seems
valid, but it doesnt seem to be because of its form.
How do we represent an arguments form? Answer: we can do so by using what Tomassi calls
sentential variables: letters (e.g. p or q) that can stand for any sentence you like.
So we can represent the form of the first argument like this:
If p, then q. p. So q.
This argument form is valid, because any instance of the form is valid. When an argument is an
instance of a valid form, we can say that the argument is formally valid.
How might we represent the form of the second argument above? It looks as though well have to do
it like this:
p. So q.
This argument form is obviously not valid, because there are lots of invalid instances of that form. If
an argument is an invalid instance of a certain argument form, we can say that it is a counterexample
to that form.

Reading
Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 1, Parts IV - VIII.

Exercises
Exercise 1.1, Questions 5 7 & for discussion question.