{"id":1598,"date":"2016-09-07T18:09:27","date_gmt":"2016-09-07T18:09:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-collegesuccess\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=1598"},"modified":"2024-05-01T18:21:24","modified_gmt":"2024-05-01T18:21:24","slug":"text-logic","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/chapter\/text-logic\/","title":{"raw":"Logic","rendered":"Logic"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Describe\u00a0the role that logic plays in critical thinking<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2>Critical Thinking and Logic<\/h2>\r\nCritical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination for the purpose of logically constructing reasoned perspectives.\r\n<h3>What Is Logic, and Why Is It Important in Critical Thinking?<\/h3>\r\nThe word logic comes from the ancient Greek word\u00a0<em>logike<\/em>, referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and reasoning and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning. Using logic, you can evaluate ideas or claims people make, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world.[footnote]\"logike.\" <em>Wordnik,<\/em>\u00a0https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/logic.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nCritical thinking involves reflective thinking, considering bias, and remaining open minded and curious. It also demands the intellectual rigor to deconstruct and evaluate claims made by others while also making sound and strong arguments, ourselves. <strong>Logic<\/strong> is the study and evaluation of arguments to distinguish good reasoning from bad. When using logic in critical thinking, you will consider the logical structure in order to evaluate its quality. In the next section, we will explore what logical structure is.\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/932d8929-1ec6-4c16-a482-b11283ca364a\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2>Logical Structure<\/h2>\r\nSuppose I argue as follows: if it is raining, then the ground is wet; but since it is not raining, it follows that the ground is not wet. This is an argument whose conclusion is the statement \u201cthe ground is not wet.\u201d The two premises of the argument are the conditional statement \u201cif it is raining, then the ground is not wet\u201d and the statement \u201cit is not raining.\u201d\u00a0 We can rewrite the argument to clearly show each of the statements\u2014the two premises and the conclusion\u2014like this:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If it is raining, then the ground is wet.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">The ground is not wet.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, it is not raining.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThis example is a valid argument. A <strong>valid argument<\/strong> is an argument whose premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. In other words, a valid argument is one such that on the assumption of the truth of the premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Think about the previous argument. Can you see that if we accept the two premises (lines 1 and 2) as true, then we must logically accept the conclusion (line 3) to be true? Valid arguments are the gold standard of reasoning in logic\u2014it is what all arguments aspire to be. When you have constructed a valid argument, no one can argue with your reasoning (although they can still disagree with you regarding whether your premises are true). What is interesting about the concept of logical validity is that an argument can be valid (i.e., the reasoning can be good) even if the premises are obviously false or absurd. For example, consider this (slightly altered) argument from a scene in <em>Monty Python and the Holy Grail<\/em>:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If this woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is is made of wood.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Everything made of wood is a witch.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">This woman does weigh the same as a duck.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, this woman is a witch.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nClearly, the first two premises of this argument (lines 1 and 2) are false. However, if we hold them (and also the premise in line 3) true, then the conclusion follows logically. That is, this argument is a valid argument. Think about the logic of this argument for a second. If we assume that lines 1 and 3 are true, then it follows that the woman is made of wood.\u00a0 And if that is true then by line 2, it follows that she is a witch, which is the conclusion stated in line 4. This silly argument illustrates that logic is first and foremost about the relationship between premises and conclusion, not the actual truth of the premises. Whether or not the premises of an argument are true is often a matter that is outside logic. For example, if one of the premises of an argument were the statement \u201csome mammals do not give live birth,\u201d then logic alone cannot help you figure out whether that is true. For that you need another disciplines: biology.\r\n\r\nLet\u2019s return to the first argument for a second to illustrate what logical structure is. That argument has a certain structure that looks like this:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If A then B.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Not B.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, not A.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nWhat is interesting about logic is that once we can see the form of an argument, then we can automatically know that the argument is valid without even considering or thinking about the content of the argument. Any argument that has a valid structure is a valid argument. Logic is (in part) the study of these structures. The structure that I have just identified has a name: <em>modus tollens<\/em> (which in Latin means \u201cway of denying,\u201d since the second premise contains a negation, \u201cnot\u201d).\u00a0 Lines 1 and 3 of the Monty Python argument above also contain a valid structure that looks like this:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If A then B.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">A.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, B.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThat argument form is called <em>modus ponens<\/em> (which in Latin means \u201cway of affirming\u201d).\r\n\r\nThere are many different valid argument structures; however, this is not a logic course, so we will not consider them all.\u00a0 The important thing to understand is that logic concerns the strength of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and the goal in constructing arguments is to construct valid arguments. Again, valid arguments are such that the premises of the argument leave no possibility that the conclusion could be false. In contrast, invalid arguments are ones where the premises do leave open the possibility that the conclusion is false. In other words, the premises do not imply the truth of the conclusion. If an argument is invalid, then we should be able to give a counterexample that proves the argument is invalid. A counterexample is simply a description of a possible scenario where the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. Let\u2019s look at an example.\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If the train is late, Shondra is angry.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Shondra is angry.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, the train is late.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nIf we assume the premises (lines 1 and 2) are true, is it possible for the conclusion to be false? If so, then this would show the argument is invalid. Here\u2019s a hint if you can\u2019t already see the answer: might Shondra be angry for some other reason and yet the train still be on time? Suppose Shondra is angry because she spilled coffee on her favorite pants. If so, then it could still be the case that any time the train is late, Shondra is angry but on this occasion the train is actually on time. Given this scenario, let\u2019s check line by line the argument. In this scenario are the premises true? Yes they are\u2014premise 1 is true since Shondra would have been angry if the train were late even though the train wasn\u2019t late and premise 2 is true since Shondra is angry because of the coffee spill. And yet the conclusion is false since the train is not late in this scenario. Thus, we have given a counterexample: we have specified a scenario where the premises are true and yet the conclusion false. And that means the argument is invalid.\r\n<div class=\"textbox exercises\">\r\n<h3>Logical Validity<\/h3>\r\nAnswer the questions in the following interactive to test your knowledge of logical validity.\r\n\r\n<iframe src=\"https:\/\/lumenlearning.h5p.com\/content\/1292085718543841718\/embed\" width=\"1089\" height=\"638\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" aria-label=\"Logical validity\"><\/iframe><script src=\"https:\/\/lumenlearning.h5p.com\/js\/h5p-resizer.js\" charset=\"UTF-8\"><\/script>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2>Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments<\/h2>\r\nWhereas the gold standard of <strong>deductive arguments<\/strong> is validity (as discussed in the last section), the standard of <strong>inductive arguments<\/strong> is something less than validity. A strong inductive argument is typically called a cogent argument. It is important to understand the difference between deductive and inductive arguments because you need to understand what kind of argument you are trying to make or evaluate. The main difference between inductive and deductive arguments is that whereas deductive arguments seek to establish their conclusions with absolute certainty, inductive arguments only seek to establish their arguments with a high degree of probability. Here\u2019s an example of a strong inductive argument:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">All ravens that have ever been observed anywhere in the world have been black.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, all ravens are black.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nNotice that this argument doesn\u2019t quite obtain the standard of validity. It is possible that there is a non-black raven somewhere in the world that hasn\u2019t been observed. But even if that is a possibility, it seems that the \u201call ravens are black\u201d conclusion is still highly likely, given the amount of confirmation that claim possesses (i.e., the number of ravens that have been observed and that all of them have been black).\r\n\r\nUnlike deductive arguments, there is no inductive form that is strong. Any inductive argument could be strong or weak depending on the details of the argument. In contrast, deductive arguments have valid logical structures such that any argument that possesses an inductive form is thereby a valid argument, regardless of the topic of the argument; meaning that to evaluate inductive arguments, we have to draw on our knowledge of how the world is. We can say a couple of things about strong inductive reasoning, but to further understand these concepts would require a course in logic and\/or scientific reasoning. We will conclude this page with a few rules of thumb to keep in mind when it comes to inductive arguments:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">When making inductive generalizations (such as the ravens argument), make sure that the instances in your premises are not susceptible to any kind of sampling bias. For example, even if I have observed many black ravens, if I have only observed them in one part of the world, there is a good chance that my sample of ravens is not representative of all the ravens in the world.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Many times inductive arguments depend on establishing correlations and we try to infer causation based on correlation. However, this inference must be done carefully. As the saying goes, correlation is not causation; a correlation is not sufficient to establish causation\u2014just because A and B are strongly correlated, or tend to occur together, doesn\u2019t mean that A caused B. To establish that causal claim would require both a plausible causal story we can tell and (ideally) further test to determine whether A really does cause B.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Another common inductive argument is an analogical argument. Analogical arguments attempt to compare two different things (A and B) and argue that since they are similar in relevant respects, if A has a certain property (x), then B must have that property as well. The thing to be on the lookout for here is whether A and B really are similar in relevant respects; because if they aren\u2019t, the logic of the analogical argument breaks down.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>glossary<\/h3>\r\n<strong>deductive argument:<\/strong> one whose conclusions can be established with absolute certainty, often as a result of their form\r\n\r\n<strong>inductive argument:<\/strong> one whose conclusions can only be established with a high degree of probability\r\n\r\n<strong>logic:<\/strong>\u00a0the study and evaluation of arguments to distinguish good reasoning from bad\r\n\r\n<strong>valid argument:<\/strong> one\u00a0whose premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Describe\u00a0the role that logic plays in critical thinking<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Critical Thinking and Logic<\/h2>\n<p>Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination for the purpose of logically constructing reasoned perspectives.<\/p>\n<h3>What Is Logic, and Why Is It Important in Critical Thinking?<\/h3>\n<p>The word logic comes from the ancient Greek word\u00a0<em>logike<\/em>, referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and reasoning and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning. Using logic, you can evaluate ideas or claims people make, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;logike.&quot; Wordnik,\u00a0https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/logic.\" id=\"return-footnote-1598-1\" href=\"#footnote-1598-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Critical thinking involves reflective thinking, considering bias, and remaining open minded and curious. It also demands the intellectual rigor to deconstruct and evaluate claims made by others while also making sound and strong arguments, ourselves. <strong>Logic<\/strong> is the study and evaluation of arguments to distinguish good reasoning from bad. When using logic in critical thinking, you will consider the logical structure in order to evaluate its quality. In the next section, we will explore what logical structure is.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_932d8929-1ec6-4c16-a482-b11283ca364a\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/932d8929-1ec6-4c16-a482-b11283ca364a?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_932d8929-1ec6-4c16-a482-b11283ca364a\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Logical Structure<\/h2>\n<p>Suppose I argue as follows: if it is raining, then the ground is wet; but since it is not raining, it follows that the ground is not wet. This is an argument whose conclusion is the statement \u201cthe ground is not wet.\u201d The two premises of the argument are the conditional statement \u201cif it is raining, then the ground is not wet\u201d and the statement \u201cit is not raining.\u201d\u00a0 We can rewrite the argument to clearly show each of the statements\u2014the two premises and the conclusion\u2014like this:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If it is raining, then the ground is wet.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">The ground is not wet.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, it is not raining.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>This example is a valid argument. A <strong>valid argument<\/strong> is an argument whose premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. In other words, a valid argument is one such that on the assumption of the truth of the premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Think about the previous argument. Can you see that if we accept the two premises (lines 1 and 2) as true, then we must logically accept the conclusion (line 3) to be true? Valid arguments are the gold standard of reasoning in logic\u2014it is what all arguments aspire to be. When you have constructed a valid argument, no one can argue with your reasoning (although they can still disagree with you regarding whether your premises are true). What is interesting about the concept of logical validity is that an argument can be valid (i.e., the reasoning can be good) even if the premises are obviously false or absurd. For example, consider this (slightly altered) argument from a scene in <em>Monty Python and the Holy Grail<\/em>:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If this woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is is made of wood.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Everything made of wood is a witch.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">This woman does weigh the same as a duck.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, this woman is a witch.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Clearly, the first two premises of this argument (lines 1 and 2) are false. However, if we hold them (and also the premise in line 3) true, then the conclusion follows logically. That is, this argument is a valid argument. Think about the logic of this argument for a second. If we assume that lines 1 and 3 are true, then it follows that the woman is made of wood.\u00a0 And if that is true then by line 2, it follows that she is a witch, which is the conclusion stated in line 4. This silly argument illustrates that logic is first and foremost about the relationship between premises and conclusion, not the actual truth of the premises. Whether or not the premises of an argument are true is often a matter that is outside logic. For example, if one of the premises of an argument were the statement \u201csome mammals do not give live birth,\u201d then logic alone cannot help you figure out whether that is true. For that you need another disciplines: biology.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s return to the first argument for a second to illustrate what logical structure is. That argument has a certain structure that looks like this:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If A then B.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Not B.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, not A.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>What is interesting about logic is that once we can see the form of an argument, then we can automatically know that the argument is valid without even considering or thinking about the content of the argument. Any argument that has a valid structure is a valid argument. Logic is (in part) the study of these structures. The structure that I have just identified has a name: <em>modus tollens<\/em> (which in Latin means \u201cway of denying,\u201d since the second premise contains a negation, \u201cnot\u201d).\u00a0 Lines 1 and 3 of the Monty Python argument above also contain a valid structure that looks like this:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If A then B.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">A.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, B.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>That argument form is called <em>modus ponens<\/em> (which in Latin means \u201cway of affirming\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>There are many different valid argument structures; however, this is not a logic course, so we will not consider them all.\u00a0 The important thing to understand is that logic concerns the strength of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and the goal in constructing arguments is to construct valid arguments. Again, valid arguments are such that the premises of the argument leave no possibility that the conclusion could be false. In contrast, invalid arguments are ones where the premises do leave open the possibility that the conclusion is false. In other words, the premises do not imply the truth of the conclusion. If an argument is invalid, then we should be able to give a counterexample that proves the argument is invalid. A counterexample is simply a description of a possible scenario where the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. Let\u2019s look at an example.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">If the train is late, Shondra is angry.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Shondra is angry.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, the train is late.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>If we assume the premises (lines 1 and 2) are true, is it possible for the conclusion to be false? If so, then this would show the argument is invalid. Here\u2019s a hint if you can\u2019t already see the answer: might Shondra be angry for some other reason and yet the train still be on time? Suppose Shondra is angry because she spilled coffee on her favorite pants. If so, then it could still be the case that any time the train is late, Shondra is angry but on this occasion the train is actually on time. Given this scenario, let\u2019s check line by line the argument. In this scenario are the premises true? Yes they are\u2014premise 1 is true since Shondra would have been angry if the train were late even though the train wasn\u2019t late and premise 2 is true since Shondra is angry because of the coffee spill. And yet the conclusion is false since the train is not late in this scenario. Thus, we have given a counterexample: we have specified a scenario where the premises are true and yet the conclusion false. And that means the argument is invalid.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox exercises\">\n<h3>Logical Validity<\/h3>\n<p>Answer the questions in the following interactive to test your knowledge of logical validity.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/lumenlearning.h5p.com\/content\/1292085718543841718\/embed\" width=\"1089\" height=\"638\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" aria-label=\"Logical validity\"><\/iframe><script src=\"https:\/\/lumenlearning.h5p.com\/js\/h5p-resizer.js\" charset=\"UTF-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments<\/h2>\n<p>Whereas the gold standard of <strong>deductive arguments<\/strong> is validity (as discussed in the last section), the standard of <strong>inductive arguments<\/strong> is something less than validity. A strong inductive argument is typically called a cogent argument. It is important to understand the difference between deductive and inductive arguments because you need to understand what kind of argument you are trying to make or evaluate. The main difference between inductive and deductive arguments is that whereas deductive arguments seek to establish their conclusions with absolute certainty, inductive arguments only seek to establish their arguments with a high degree of probability. Here\u2019s an example of a strong inductive argument:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">All ravens that have ever been observed anywhere in the world have been black.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Therefore, all ravens are black.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Notice that this argument doesn\u2019t quite obtain the standard of validity. It is possible that there is a non-black raven somewhere in the world that hasn\u2019t been observed. But even if that is a possibility, it seems that the \u201call ravens are black\u201d conclusion is still highly likely, given the amount of confirmation that claim possesses (i.e., the number of ravens that have been observed and that all of them have been black).<\/p>\n<p>Unlike deductive arguments, there is no inductive form that is strong. Any inductive argument could be strong or weak depending on the details of the argument. In contrast, deductive arguments have valid logical structures such that any argument that possesses an inductive form is thereby a valid argument, regardless of the topic of the argument; meaning that to evaluate inductive arguments, we have to draw on our knowledge of how the world is. We can say a couple of things about strong inductive reasoning, but to further understand these concepts would require a course in logic and\/or scientific reasoning. We will conclude this page with a few rules of thumb to keep in mind when it comes to inductive arguments:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">When making inductive generalizations (such as the ravens argument), make sure that the instances in your premises are not susceptible to any kind of sampling bias. For example, even if I have observed many black ravens, if I have only observed them in one part of the world, there is a good chance that my sample of ravens is not representative of all the ravens in the world.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Many times inductive arguments depend on establishing correlations and we try to infer causation based on correlation. However, this inference must be done carefully. As the saying goes, correlation is not causation; a correlation is not sufficient to establish causation\u2014just because A and B are strongly correlated, or tend to occur together, doesn\u2019t mean that A caused B. To establish that causal claim would require both a plausible causal story we can tell and (ideally) further test to determine whether A really does cause B.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\">Another common inductive argument is an analogical argument. Analogical arguments attempt to compare two different things (A and B) and argue that since they are similar in relevant respects, if A has a certain property (x), then B must have that property as well. The thing to be on the lookout for here is whether A and B really are similar in relevant respects; because if they aren\u2019t, the logic of the analogical argument breaks down.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>glossary<\/h3>\n<p><strong>deductive argument:<\/strong> one whose conclusions can be established with absolute certainty, often as a result of their form<\/p>\n<p><strong>inductive argument:<\/strong> one whose conclusions can only be established with a high degree of probability<\/p>\n<p><strong>logic:<\/strong>\u00a0the study and evaluation of arguments to distinguish good reasoning from bad<\/p>\n<p><strong>valid argument:<\/strong> one\u00a0whose premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-1598\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Original<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>College Success. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Linda Bruce. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><li>Logic. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Matthew Van Cleave. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><li>Logical Validity. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Matthew Van Cleave. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-1598-1\">\"logike.\" <em>Wordnik,<\/em>\u00a0https:\/\/www.wordnik.com\/words\/logic. <a href=\"#return-footnote-1598-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":19,"menu_order":12,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"College Success\",\"author\":\"Linda Bruce\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Logic\",\"author\":\"Matthew Van Cleave\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Logical Validity\",\"author\":\"Matthew Van Cleave\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"0ac1a7bc-3e11-4b18-a181-f08eaa955f15, 80cd3890-2fae-4f34-b33b-6a04bbac345a","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1598","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":131,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1598\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7564,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1598\/revisions\/7564"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/131"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1598\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1598"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1598"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-collegesuccess-2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}