Professional Courses
Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.
Categories
Interactive Games
Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skills—perfect for learners of all ages.
Typing
Memory
Math
English Adventures
Knowledge
Enroll to start learning
You’ve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take practice test.
Interactive Audio Lesson
Listen to a student-teacher conversation explaining the topic in a relatable way.
Understanding Premises and Conclusions
Unlock Audio Lesson
Today, we'll begin by discussing what premises and conclusions are in the context of logical arguments. Premises are statements that provide support for a conclusion. Let’s take an example: 'All students who study math are math majors.' This statement supports the conclusion that ‘some seniors are math majors.’ Do you see how these ideas connect?
Yes, but what if the conclusion isn’t always true, even if the premises are?
Great question, Student_1! This brings us to the concept of validity. An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Let's use the mnemonic 'V.P.C.' for Validity = Premises lead to Conclusion.
So, you're saying the conclusion might not always be right?
Exactly! The conclusion might fail even with true premises, as we’ll see with our example today.
Predicate Definitions
Unlock Audio Lesson
Now let’s define the predicates we’ll use. We have `M(x)`, which means student x is a math major, and `W(x)`, which signifies x has left for the weekend. How would we express 'Some math majors left campus for the weekend' using these predicates?
I think it would be ∃x (M(x) ∧ W(x)).
Correct! That's the right predicate representation. Next, how would we express 'All seniors left for the weekend'?
That’s ∀x (S(x) → W(x)), right?
Yes! And both of these statements form the basis of our argument.
Analyzing the Argument's Validity
Unlock Audio Lesson
Let’s review our premises and conclusion. Given our predicates, how can we verify if 'Some seniors are math majors' logically follows?
We could check if it’s possible to have the first two premises true and the conclusion false.
Exactly! This is called finding a counterexample. If we can find one scenario where the premises hold, but the conclusion does not, we prove the argument is invalid. Let’s role-play a scenario with three students.
Okay, I’ll be Student 1 who is a math major but not a senior.
Great! You just created a counterexample, showing the premises true but the conclusion false, demonstrating that the argument is invalid!
Introduction & Overview
Read a summary of the section's main ideas. Choose from Basic, Medium, or Detailed.
Quick Overview
Standard
In this section, we analyze the validity of a specific argument involving predicates related to math majors and seniors. We explore how premises can lead to conclusions and illustrate the concept with counterexamples, highlighting the distinction between universal and existential quantification.
Detailed
Detailed Overview
In this section, we explore the validity of a logical argument that is rooted in predicate logic. We first establish the necessary predicates to assess the premises and conclusion of the argument. Two primary predicates are defined: M(x) indicates whether a student x is a math major, and W(x) signifies if student x has left campus for the weekend. The argument hinges on two premises:
- Premise 1: Some math majors left the campus for the weekend. This is expressed as an existentially quantified statement:
- ∃x (M(x) ∧ W(x))
- Premise 2: All seniors left campus for the weekend, translated into a universally quantified form:
- ∀x (S(x) → W(x))
The conclusion posits that some seniors are math majors:
- ∃x (S(x) ∧ M(x))
To establish whether this argument is valid, we step through the logic and consider possible counterexamples. It is derived that the argument is invalid as a single counterexample suffices to demonstrate the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. The section provides a specific counterexample involving three students which concludes that although the premises hold, the conclusion does not, illustrating the differentiation between existential and universal statements and their implications in logical arguments.
Youtube Videos
Audio Book
Dive deep into the subject with an immersive audiobook experience.
Understanding the Argument
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Here, you are supposed to find out whether the following argument is valid or not. So you are given some premises and conclusion. So the first thing that we have to do is we have to convert everything in terms of predicate functions. So we introduce appropriate predicates here. So of course, the domain is explicitly not given here. But domain, the implicit domain here is the set of students.
Detailed Explanation
The argument revolves around determining the validity of a statement based on given premises. First, we need to express these premises using predicates, which are functions that return true or false based on certain conditions or inputs. In this case, the domain we analyze consists of students, meaning all statements will pertain to students and their characteristics.
Examples & Analogies
Think of it like investigating whether a group of students fulfills certain criteria for a project. To clarify who's who, you might label each student with tags like 'math major' or 'senior,' instead of stating each characteristic in plain language. This simplifies our analysis.
First Premise Analysis
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
The first statement here, the premise here is some math majors left the campus for the weekend. So it is easy to see that this is an existential quantified statement, it is not making an assertion about all the math majors. But let us first decide what are the predicates that we need here. So the assertion is about math majors. So let M(x) be the predicate which is true if the student x is a math major. And we are saying something regarding whether he has left the campus for the weekend or not. So that is the second property for the subject x. So that is why I introduce a predicate the W(x) which is true, if the subject x or if the student x is left for the weekend.
Detailed Explanation
Here we analyze the first premise: 'Some math majors left the campus for the weekend.' This is an existential statement, meaning it asserts the existence of at least one math major who left. We represent this using predicates, where M(x) indicates 'student x is a math major' and W(x) indicates 'student x has left for the weekend.' This sets the foundation for our logical analysis.
Examples & Analogies
Imagine a classroom where the teacher asks if any students went on a trip. The teacher doesn't mean all students but just wants to know if at least one student went. Here, instead of asking students directly, we label them as 'student who went on a trip,' allowing us to keep track of the information.
Second Premise Analysis
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
The second statement here or the premise here is that all seniors left the campus for the weekend. So this is a universally quantified statement. And if you see clearly or closely here, the interpretation of this statement is that, if a student x is senior then he has left the campus. So there is an implicit implication here and that is why this premise can be represented as ꓯ x, S(x) → W(x).
Detailed Explanation
The second premise states that 'all seniors left the campus for the weekend,' which is a universally quantified statement, meaning it applies to every student who is a senior. We represent this using predicates as well, where S(x) denotes 'student x is a senior.' Thus, we can express it in logical terms as 'for all x, if x is a senior, then x has left for the weekend.' This helps in evaluating the conclusions based on these premises effectively.
Examples & Analogies
Imagine all seniors taking a school trip. The teacher can say, 'Every senior today is out of class.' This generalization makes it clear to the teacher which students aren't available based on their senior status.
Conclusion Analysis
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
The conclusion that I am making here is, some seniors that means existentially quantified statement, are math majors. That means at least one student is there for which the property that he is a math major as well as, he is a senior are true.
Detailed Explanation
The conclusion derived from the premises is stated as 'some seniors are math majors.' This is again an existential statement, implying that there exists at least one student who is both a senior and a math major. It's important to note that the validity of this conclusion relies heavily on the truth of the previous premises.
Examples & Analogies
Think of it like piecing together a puzzle. If I know two pieces fit together (the premises), it doesn't guarantee that they create a complete picture (the conclusion). Just knowing there are math majors and seniors doesn't mean there must be a math major who is also a senior without additional information.
Validity of the Argument
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Now we have to verify whether this is a valid argument and as per the definition it will be a valid argument if, based on the premises I can draw the conclusion for every possible domain. However, it turns out that this is not a valid argument and we can give a counterexample. You can give multiple counter examples here. Even if you show one counter example that is sufficient to show that this argument form is not valid.
Detailed Explanation
To determine if our conclusion is valid, we need to check if there are situations where the premises could be true while the conclusion is false. A valid argument guarantees that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true in all cases. We illustrate this by creating a counterexample where the premises hold true, but the conclusion does not.
Examples & Analogies
Consider having a few students classified into different groups. Just knowing that some students in one group (math majors) and all in another group (seniors) left does not prove that any member of the math majors group overlaps with the seniors. Imagine a classroom where some seniors are involved in arts, not math; therefore, the argument fails.
Counterexample Demonstration
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
So the domain that I consider is the following imagine you have a college where you have 3 students x1, x2, x3. And say with respect to those 3 students the status of the 3 predicate functions are as follows. For x1, the property M is true, W is true, but S is false. Student x2, the property M is false, property W is true and the property S is true and so on.
Detailed Explanation
In our constructed counterexample, we have three students: x1, x2, and x3, evaluated based on their properties as math majors (M), left for the weekend (W), and are seniors (S). By checking various combinations of these properties, we demonstrate that the premises can still be true while the conclusion remains false, thus concluding that the argument is invalid.
Examples & Analogies
Think of this as testing a recipe with different ingredients. If we have one ingredient (math major) mixed correctly but don’t have the essential seasoning (seniors), we can Produce a dish (true premises) that lacks the final flavor we desire (false conclusion) because not all parts fit together.
Definitions & Key Concepts
Learn essential terms and foundational ideas that form the basis of the topic.
Key Concepts
-
Premise: A statement that supports a conclusion in an argument.
-
Conclusion: The result derived from premises in a logical argument.
-
Predicate Logic: A system of symbolic representation for logical reasoning.
-
Existential Quantification: Affirming the existence of at least one element satisfying a property.
-
Universal Quantification: What is true for all elements in a domain.
Examples & Real-Life Applications
See how the concepts apply in real-world scenarios to understand their practical implications.
Examples
-
If you have students A, B, and C with different majors, their statuses might vary: A is a math major and left, B is a senior and left, C is neither.
-
In a campus of three students: D is a math major and left, while E and F are seniors who also left but are not math majors.
Memory Aids
Use mnemonics, acronyms, or visual cues to help remember key information more easily.
🎵 Rhymes Time
-
Premises are what help us think, conclusions tie them up like ink.
📖 Fascinating Stories
-
In a classroom, a teacher has three students. The premises are like the students' activities that lead to a strong conclusion, but if one activity isn't there, the conclusion may fall apart.
🧠 Other Memory Gems
-
PEP — Premise, Example, Proof, can help you remember the flow of logic.
🎯 Super Acronyms
P.C. — Premise leads to Conclusion.
Flash Cards
Review key concepts with flashcards.
Glossary of Terms
Review the Definitions for terms.
-
Term: Premise
Definition:
A statement in an argument that provides support for the conclusion.
-
Term: Conclusion
Definition:
The statement that follows from the premises in an argument.
-
Term: Predicate Logic
Definition:
A symbolic formalism that uses predicates and quantifiers to express statements and their logical relationships.
-
Term: Existential Quantification
Definition:
A logical statement expressing that there exists at least one element in a domain satisfying certain conditions.
-
Term: Universal Quantification
Definition:
A logical statement declaring a property holds for all elements within a designated domain.