LOGIC

FOREWORD

This college manual in Logic aims to expound some of the rules of good
argument and to make the reader more aware of some of the ways in which
arguments can fail. Sometimes a conclusion is drawn which very clearly does
not follow the premises; but sometimes the fault is more subtle, difficult to detect;
the arguer slips away from the point of the issue, or assumes more than an
opponent would be willing to grant, or trades too heavily on the emotional
component of the words he employs.

It is hoped that after a semester in Logic one would be able to appreciate the
fruits of thinking straight, and in this way, TRUTH, what we are after, will prevail.
We also hope that the student will not only accept things which have no logical
and rational basis but that he will not persuade people of things which are not
founded on reason and logic.

After all, we cannot afford not to think, not to be rational.

The authors
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

MODULE 1 INTRODUCTION 2
2 NATURE OF THE IDEA7
3 TERMS 9
4 DEFINITIONS 17
5 PROPOSITIONS 23
6 DIAGRAMING PROPOSITIONS 28
7 TRADITIONAL SQUARE
OF OPPOSITION 32
8 EDUCTION 36
9 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM 41
10 RULES AND FALLACIES 45
11 VENN DIAGRAMING SYLLOGISMS 51
12 HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS 56
13 DILEMMAS 64
14 INDUCTIVE: CAUSAL REASONING 69
15 FALLACIES 74

DEFINITION OF LOGICAL TERMS 81

107
 1
MODULE

INTRODUCTION

What is Logic?

To the ordinary person, Logic may be somewhat mysterious, but the

adjectives “logical” and “illogical” are familiar. A logical argument is one which is
sound; a logical person is one who habitually uses sound arguments. Logic, as
far as it concerns here, is the examination of some of the general principles
for distinguishing sound from unsound arguments, and an attempt to pick
out some of the commonest kinds of error in reasoning.

The study of logic in the above sense—the study of the principles

governing good argument—will not necessarily turn the student into a person
who argues well, any more than studying chess manual will turn them
automatically into a good chess player. The principles have to be applied, and
this requires practice and vigilance. People also differ in their natural talent for
assessing arguments. Yet anyone who is interested in thinking straight, rather
than crooked, is likely to be interested in general principles of sound argument.

The first—and in practice the most useful—steps are easily acquired,

and they are absorbing in their right. Much of what is involved is stating the
obvious: organizing common sense. Sometimes, however, common sense is
not enough.

Logic: the science and art of correct inferential thinking.

Logic as a science is a body of knowledge that includes the study of

principles and rules that helps us determine valid or invalid arguments. Unless
we are familiar with such rules and principles that govern right thinking or
reasoning, we could not possibly avoid the errors and established the valid
reasoning we ought to have. Logic is an art of reasoning in the sense that it
requires the reasoning skills for us to better express with ease, order and without
error the inferential thinking that we have. Inferential thinking in this sense simply
means our reasoning or the conclusion that we derive from certain statements.

1
Logic: the study of Arguments

What is an argument? We perhaps think of a couple of people locked in

an angry dispute, but from the point of view of the logician, an argument does not
necessarily involve a dispute or even disagreement. In this sense, an argument
is a set of statements of which one—the one being argued for—is taken to
be established as true on the basis of all the others. The supporting
statements are called premises, and the statement they are taken to support is
called the conclusion.
As a reasoning process, argument can be categorized as deductive or
inductive. Deductive is the process whereby a particular idea or premise is
established as true base from a general law or principle that is assumed to be
true. Inductive on the other hand is a reasoning process whereby the human
mind process particular instances to a universal/general truth.

Deductive: All nurses are health care providers

Florence Nightingale is a nurse
Ergo, Florence Nightingale is a health car provider

Inductive: Aristotle is a philosopher

Plato is a philosopher
Socrates is a philosopher
But Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are critical thinkers
Ergo, philosophers are critical thinkers

Here are other samples of arguments which are not arranged in a standard form
as compared from the given above:

 Almost every known human carcinogen causes cancer in

animals. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that compounds
that cause cancer in animals are also potential human
carcinogens.
 If we truly believe in the dignity of labor, any task can be
performed with pride, because no honest work can demand the
basic dignity of a human being.
 Since happiness consists in peace of mind, and since durable
peace of mind depends on the confidence we have in the future,
and since that confidence is based on the science we should
have of the nature of God and soul, it follows that science is
necessary for true happiness.
 If he’s smart, he isn’t going to go around shooting people. And
he’s smart. Therefore, he is not going around shooting people.

2
 Our task is the assessment of arguments. However, before we can
pronounce arguments to be sound or unsound, we have to be able to identify the
premises and conclusion. It is good policy to look first for the conclusion, since
there are often grammatical clues to guide us—words or phrases that signpost
the drawing of a conclusion. We call such expression conclusion-indicators.
The presence of any of them often, though not always, signals that what follows
is the conclusion of an argument:

therefore it follows that consequently

hence we may infer proves that
thus I conclude that which implies that
so which shows that which allows us to infer
accordingly which means that which points to
as a result which entails that the conclusion that
inconsequence

Other words or phrase serve to mark the premises of an argument. They

are called premises-indicators.

since as indicated by the reason is that

because for the reason that may be inferred from
for may be derived from may be deduced from
follows from as shown by in view of the fact

Try to identify the conclusion and premises in each of the arguments

given above in the example.

Diagramming Arguments

To understand arguments and how the conclusion is supported by the

premises, it is important tat we try to see how the single arguments in the
passage are so arranged as to lead one rationally to accept that final conclusion.

To deal with the problem of analyzing complex argumentative passages,

it is useful to establish first a standard method of analyzing and diagramming
single arguments. That will enable us to fit them clearly into the complex
argumentative structure in which they may play a leading or bridging role. A
complex argumentative passage can best be understood by analyzing each of its

3
component argumentative parts and noting the articulation of those parts in the
larger whole.

A diagram of something is a spatial representation of it, like a blueprint of

a building or a machine or a wiring diagram for an electrical equipment. We will
adopt the convention of placing the argument’s conclusion below its premises
and will use an arrow as our diagrammatic conclusion-indicator.

Example 1: (1) Diamonds are of rare occurrence on the earth’s surface,

and hence, (2) their discovery costs, on the average, a
great deal of labor -time.

1 2

Example 2: (2) Communism will fail because (1) what is attempts is

against human nature.

1 2

Example 3: As a PhD student in operations research at Cornell

University, I can state from experience that (1)
professors moonlighting as consultants are not
shortchanging their students, (2) Money from consulting
contracts has helped finance many a graduate student’s
education. More important (3) students often serve as
research assistants under such contracts and can gain
valuable experience while still in school.

2 3

Example 4: (1) Desert mountaintops make good sites for astronomy. (2)
Being high, they sit above a portion of the atmosphere,
enabling a star’s light to reach a telescope without
having to swim through the entire depth of the
atmosphere. (3) Being dry, the desert is also relatively

4
 cloud-free. (4) The merest veil of haze or cloud can
render a sky useless for astronomical measures.

Example 5: Since (1) morals have an influence on the actions and

affections, it follows that (2) they cannot be derived from
reason; because (3) reason alone as we have already
proven can never have any such influence.

Diagram the given:

Example 6: (1) in order to sell, (2) you have to develop a positive

attitude, and in order to develop a positive attitude, (3)
you have to exercise.

Diagram the given:

Example 7: (1) The death penalty is necessary because (2) it is the only
practical way to make certain that a murderer will not
repeat his crime. (3) Under today’s justice, it is almost
an everyday occurrence to read where a convicted
murderer, after serving short sentence, has killed again.

Diagram the given:

5
 MODULE

NATURE OF THE IDEA 2

Ideas, concepts or notions are the building blocks of all human
knowledge. They are the ultimate stuff in which every argument, the subject
matter of logic, are made of. So it is essential that we start with this step as we
move through the complexity of evaluating and analyzing whether arguments are
valid or not, sound or unsound.

Formation of Ideas

The process of forming ideas will help us in understand their nature. All
knowledge starts from the sense. The combination of something “white,” “hard
and granular,” and “sweet” which has been presented to my senses an image in
mind which gives me an idea of “sugar.” This image or phantasm is the first step
in the formation of the idea. In the presence of this image, man’s mind begins to
think. The intellect now gives attention to this sense-image in order to make its
own representation of the thing. It does this by a process of abstraction.
Through experience we come in contact with many variety of play which we call
“trees.” Disregarding all the differences among them in size, age, color, texture,
shape, seasonal change etc., the intellect retain merely the essential elements of
the type, those found in all trees, and trees, and combines them into a single
intellectual image or idea: namely, a tree is wood perennial plant with a single
main stem, usually about at least ten feet high.

The intellect will make its own image or representation even of a single
object, without comparing it with similar objects of its class. Thus, by merely
putting my attention to the trees across the street and thinking about it, my
intellect makes an idea of it, even if I never see another. This idea would be real,
though not the most complete idea of a “tree.” To become complete, I would
have to compare this tree with others and make an intellectual image of the
essence of all the trees.

Ideas or concepts are, therefore, twofold. In a wider sense, an idea is the

simple apprehension of a thing, and it is made as soon as the intellect turns its
attention to an object, and makes its own image of the thing from the phantasm.
In a stricter sense, an idea is the intellectual image of a thing, representing its
essential elements, and this is the product of an extensive and exhaustive

6
comparison of large number of objects belonging to the same class. Hence, we
define as idea as the intellectual image or representation of a thing.

What then is the nature of an IDEA?

1. It is a representation:

a) But it is not a picture, like a picture of a man in Kodak paper. This picture
in Kodak paper is a material representation of the external appearance of
particular man, at a particular time in a particular place.
b) It is not a limited representation. Unlike the picture of a man in Kodak
paper, the idea as a representation is a representation of any man, at
any time, at any place.

2. It is a representation of an essence:

a) The essence of a thing is that which makes it what it is.

b) The essence is sometimes called the “whatness” or “quiddity” of a thing,
because it answers the most penetrating question, “What is it?”
c) The answer to the question “What is it?” must not be a mere description
but it must be the actual definition of the thing, giving the essential
characteristics which makes a thing what it is.
3. The idea is a representation of the essence of a thing in the mind:

a) This representation is not in the senses nor in the imagination. The

senses and the imagination perceive concrete things only.

7
 MODULE

TERMS 3
It is impossible to talk of ideas and explain various concepts without
putting them in something sensible and material. These sensible and material
entities that we couched our ideas into words, specifically, terms. It is important
to understand these terms and their relation to the ideas which they represent
and stand for.

A term is a sensible, artificial, material, arbitrary and conventional

sign, expressive of an idea.

1. A sign is something which points to something beyond itself, which

stands for something other than itself. Thus we see three important
elements here: the signified thing, the signifying thing, and the
connection between the two. The signified thing is made known; the
signifying thing makes it known; the connection between the two is
the power of the signifying thing to convey knowledge of the signified
thing to the mind. Terms being signs stand for things. Terms lable
things.

2. A term is sensible and material in the sense that we can hear and see
them. Of course terms are just noises, but noises that have been
given a particular meaning. Terms are visible, straight and curve
lines, but curve and lines have been given a corresponding meaning.

3. A term is an artificial, arbitrary and conventional sign. Smoke is a

sign that there is fire. The presence of smokes gives us the idea that
there is relation. Terms, on the other hand, has no natural
connection between the particular combination of vowels and
consonants and the thing signified. We invented the relationship
through an agreement and arbitration and later on agreed to such
usage.

4. A term is expressive of an idea. It is the very purpose of words,

terms and language to express ideas. Words are used to convey the
ideas of one mind to another mind; since however ideas stand for
things, words have the secondary purpose of conveying information
about things to another mind.

8
Properties of Terms:

By convention, words stand for things and unless they are proper names,
they stand for classes of things. But we have also talked as if words or terms
stood for characteristics. Which of these is correct?

Both of them: words or terms stand for both, but not in the same way.
Words denote, and they also designate. The term “triangle” denotes right
triangles, scalenes, equilateral and all particular things to which the word
“triangle” is applicable; and the entire class of these particular things is called
denotation, or extension. But it designates a set of characteristics, namely,
those characteristics which a thing must have in order for the term “triangle” to be
applicable to it. This is called designation or comprehension or intention.

Of the two, designation or comprehension is by far the more important,

for the characteristics which a term designates will determine what the particular
things are which the term denotes. If we know what a word designates, we know
the conditions of applicability of the term; we know under what conditions we can
apply the word to a given particular thing in the world and under what conditions
we cannot. “When a thing has characteristics A, B and C, the word “X” is
applicable to it; otherwise it is not.

Formally,

The comprehension of a term (or concept) is the sum total of the

intelligible elements or essential notes or characteristics which make up an idea.
These intelligible elements are referred to as notes. This sum total includes, in
the first place, the basic elements that a thing has to have in order to be thought
of as the kind of thing signified by the term. It includes nothing, however, that a
thing does not have to have in order to the kind of thing signified by the term.

Examples:
Term Extension
Man Erap Estrada, Mr. Honasan, all men
Triangle equilateral triangle, right triangle,
all triangles
city Manila, Paris, Moscow, Cabanatuan, all cities

Try this orally: What is the extension of the following:

1. mammal
2. car
3. continent

9
 4. teacher
5. quadrilateral
6. Asian countries
7. school
8. course
9. profession
10. Philippine presidents
11. Institution
12. subject
13. Health care practitioner
14. Artists
15. country

What is the relation between comprehension and extension of an idea?

1. The comprehension of an idea always remain the same, while the

extension of an idea may change continually.

The comprehension can be neither increased nor diminished without

changing the idea itself. The extension, however, can be diminished or increase
without destroying the idea. By this we mean that the comprehension of an idea
can be applied to more or fewer individuals without any change in the idea.

2. As comprehension increases, the extension decreases; and as the

extension increases, the comprehension decreases.

The more specific you are with a particular term or idea, the lesser will be
its extension but its comprehension will increase. But the more general you are,
the greater the extension but the comprehension will decrease. Thus, there is an
inverse relationship between comprehension and extension.

Examples:
Asian And Filipino
polygons and triangle
triangle and equilateral triangle
cities and Manila

Try this: Which has the greater comprehension? Greater extension?

1. animal or bird
2. polygon or triangle
3. reptile or crocodile

10
 4. mammal or whale
5. fruit or apple
6. bird , eagle or animal
7. Logic, subject, or Philosophy
8. Institution, OLFU, or school
9. Nurse. profession, Health care provider, or Nursing aid
10. Basketball, game, or ball game

Classification of Terms According to Extension

1. Singular terms: a term is singular if it stands for one individual or

group and designates that individual or group definitely. Proper names
such as “Manila,” “Fidel Ramos,” “Our Lady of Fatima University,”
“ABS-CBN” are singular terms because they stand to a definite
individual or group. Demonstrative adjectives like “that chair” or “this
book” are singular terms as well because they refer to one specific and
definite thing.

Examples:
The most beautiful student in our school
The man who was accused of stealing the refrigerator
The daughter of the President who is an artist
This tree that I cut
That car which is parked outside
She is cute

2. Particular terms: a term is particular if it stands for an indeterminately

designated portion of its absolute extension. A term is particular
therefore, first, if it stands for one individual or group without
designating it definitely; and secondly, if it stands for more than one,
but not clearly all, of the individuals or group is to which it is applied.
Terms can be made particular by adding some modifying words before
them as in “some men,” “most universities,” “a few flowers,” “several
teachers,” etc.

Examples:
some animals
almost all students
a number of schools

3. Universal terms: a term is universal if it stands for each of the subjects

to which it can be applied—that is, if it stands for each one of an

11
 unlimited class of subjects. In other words, universal terms are terms
that apply to all members of a given group.

Examples:
Every boy in the neighborhood
All radio stations in the Philippines
Dogs are animals.
A stone is inorganic.

Try this: Indicate the quantity or extension of the following terms:

1. Miracles (still happen).
2. Some horses (are fast sprinters).
3. All mothers (love their children).
4. My mother (loves to cook).
5. Not all teachers (are dedicated to their work).
6. A Christian (is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus).
7. Things (occur for a reason).
8. Her boyfriend (left her for good).
9. Almost all students (passed the subject).
10. No student (failed in Philosophy).
11. The student (is good in Logic)
12. Women (are fickle minded).
13. You (are so kind).
14. The nurse (has a tender loving car for patients).
15. Health care practitioners (are nurses).

Classification of Terms According to Exactness of Meaning

1. Univocal terms: a term is univocal if it signifies exactly the same

concept or essence in at least two occurrences of the terms. In other
words, two terms are univocal if they have exactly the same meaning in
their usage.

Examples:
Gold is the most precious metal.
He has gold ring.

Rulers are important in making measurements.

Little Aldrin broke his ruler.

12
 2. Equivocal terms: these are terms which are used in two or more
different senses or meanings. They represent entirely two different
concepts or ideas, or are used with entirely different meanings.

Examples:
Napoleon was a very good ruler.
He hit his classmate with his ruler.

Brenda bought me a very expensive pen.

Pens are for pigs.

3. Analogous terms: An analogous term is one that is applied to unlike,

but related things, so that it is used in a meaning that is partly the same
and partly different. There is always some relation between such things,
entitling the mind to designate them by same term, hence they are not
equivocal. Due to their partial unlikeness, however, the term is not used
in a strictly univocal sense; hence they are not univocal. An analogous
term therefore, designated related things in such a manner that it applies
primarily to one thing and then secondarily to other things.

Examples:
We will have our date at the foot of the mountain.
My girlfriend has an athlete’s foot

Bonifacio is the brain of the Katipunan.

His brain is as small as an ant’s.

Try this: Classify the terms in bold letters whether U, E, or Analogous.

1. Sharks are man-eaters.

He is a loan-shark.
2. My friend talks too much.
Our parrot cannot talk.
3. All dogs are animals.
Animals need food to eat.
4. Jose Rizal speaks many tongues.
He burnt his tongue while sipping in soup.
5. You must be very patient for waiting two hours for me.
A dying patient must be given the right to die in peace.

13
Classification of Terms According to Relation

1. Contradictory terms: Two terms are contradictory with one another if

one is the simple negation of the other; for example “black” and “not
black” are terms which are mutually exclusive from one another.
Absolutely everything is either the one or the other of the two
contradictory terms. Thus, anything you can think of is either black or not
black.

Examples:
Good/not good; organic/inorganic; metallic/nonmetallic
Thing/nothing; handsome/not handsome; sane/insane

2. Contrary terms: Two terms are contrary if they belong to the same
genus but differ from one another as much as possible within that genus.
For example, “hot” and “cold” are at the extremes of the genus of
temperature; and “expensive” and “cheap” are at the extremes of the
genus of price. In other words, they are opposed with one another.
Meaning there is a middle ground between them that if one is the case,
the other one is not the case, however, if one is not the case, it does not
mean that the other contrary is the case. It is because the middle ground
might be the case.

Contrary terms are mutually exclusive; they cannot be true at same time
in the same subject. But between contraries, thee is always middle
ground or a third alternative.

Examples:
Thick/thin; fast/slow; plants/animals; white/black

3. Relative terms: These are two incompatible terms united in such a way
that the one cannot be understood without the other. They are also
mutually exclusive terms and so related that neither of them can be
thought of without reference to the other. Both of two relative terms must
be understood simultaneously, and each belong to the definition of the
other; for instance, “husband” and “wife”, “king” and “servant,” “cause”
and “effect.”

It is impossible for each of the two relative terms to be realized in the

same subject, at least in the same respect. A parent, for instance,
cannot be its own offspring—although a parent is an offspring in relation
to its own parent.

14
Try this: Classify the terms according to Relation: contradictory, contrary or
relative

1. Good - bad
2. dead – alive
3. teacher - student
4. do – undo
5. up - down
6. human - inhuman
7. leader – follower
8. mother – child
9. rich – poor
10. doctor – patient
11. yes – no
12. beautiful – ugly
13. first – last
14. bride – groom
15. employee - employee

15
 MODULE

DEFINITIONS 4
Clarity in our ideas is essential to correct thinking. And we can only
become clear in our ideas when the mind has accurate knowledge of their
comprehension and extension. The comprehension tells us what the idea
implies, what essential attributes it contains in itself, what information it has
concerning the thing it represents; the extension give us the application of the
idea to the individuals, show us how on many objects the idea is realized. This is
also essential in making definitions.

A definition is a statement which explains what a thing is. It is the

only adequate method of characterizing a concept or an idea.

Every definition has this standard form:

X = Y
df

where X is the definiendum or the term to be defined, and

Y is the definiens or the defining term.

Five Purposes of Definition

1. to increase vocabulary
2. to eliminate ambiguity
3. to reduce vagueness
4. to explain theoretically
5. to influence attitude

Five Types of Definition:

1. Stipulative Definitions: The first type of definition is the one given a

brand-new term when it is first introduced. Anyone who introduces a

16
 new symbol has complete freedom to stipulate what meaning to give it.
The assignment of meanings to new symbols is a matter of choice, and
we may call the definitions that make such assignments “stipulative
definitions.” In other words, stipulative definitions serve to introduce an
expression that is to be used I some specific sense in the context of a
discussion or a theory, or the like. Such definition can be given the form:

_______________is to have the same meaning as _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

or

By _________ let us understand the same thing as by _ _ _ _ _.

The expression on the left and right are called definiendum and
definiens, respectively. The resulting definitions have the character of
stipulations or conventions, which evidently cannot be qualified as true or
false.

Examples:
Let us use the term “acholia” as short for lack of secretion of bile. The
term “density” is short for mass in grams per cubic centimeter. By an
acid we will understand an electrolyte that gives hydrogen ions.
Particles of charge zero and mass number one will be called
neutrons.

2. Lexical Definitions: If the term is not new and the only purpose for
defining a term is to increase the vocabulary of a person whom it is
constructed and also to eliminate ambiguity, the definition is lexical. A
lexical definition does not give its definiendum a meaning it lacked but
reports a meaning it already has.

Examples:
A triangle is a closed figure with three sides and three angles.
A mountain is a large mass of earth or rock rising to a considerable
height above a surrounding country.

3. Denotative or Extensional Definitions: This is a kind of definition

which just enumerates the extension of a term and thus gives examples
of objects denoted by it.

Examples:
City = Rome, Tokyo, Manila, Kuala Lumpur
Flower=rose, gumamela, calachuchi

17
 4. Ostensive or Demonstrative Definitions: this is a special kind of
definition in the sense that instead of naming or describing the objects
denoted by the term being defined, an ostensive definition refers to the
examples by means of pointing or some other gestures.

Example:
The word “desk” means “this”, accompanied by a gesture such as
pointing a finger or nodding one’s head in the direction of a desk.

5. Connotative or Intentional Definitions: Definitions which define a term

by giving the comprehension or intention or all essential notes which
makes a thing what it is.

Examples:
Barometer = an instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure
Ethics = a branch of philosophy concerned with right conduct

6. Synonymous Definitions: Two words that have the same meaning are
called synonyms; so a definition of this type is called a synonymous
definition.

Example:
Bashful = shy
Obese = fat
7. Operational Definitions: A definition which states that the term is to be
applied to a given case of and only the performance of a specified
operation or operations in that case yield a specified result.

Example:
a certain liquid is an acid if and only is a blue litmus paper which has
been dipped into it turns to red.

RULES FOR DEFINITIONS:

Rule 1: A definition should state the essential attributes of the term to be defined.

Rule 2: A definition must not be circular.

It is obvious that if the definiendum itself appears in the definiens, the

definition can explain the meaning of the term being defined only to those who

18
already understand it. In other words, if a definition is circular, it will fail in its
purpose, which is to explain the meaning of a definiendum.

Example:
Defense minister = a minister for the defense
df
Philosophy = that which is studied by philosophers
df

Rule 3: A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow.

This rule asserts that the definiens should not denote more things than
are denoted by the definiendum, nor fewer things either.

Examples:
Thermometer – a measuring instrument
Vasectomy = a surgical method of birth control

Rule 4: A definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure or figurative

language.
Ambiguous terms should certainly be avoided in framing definitions,
because if the definiens is itself ambiguous, the definition obviously fails to
perform its function of explaining the definiendum. And since the purpose of
definition is to clarify meaning, the use of obscure terms defeats this purpose.

Examples:
Evolution = an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of
motions, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent
homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the
retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.
Net = anything made with interstitial vacuities

Rule 5: A definition must not be negative where it could be affirmative.

The reason for this rule is that a definition is supposed to explain what a
term means rather than what it does not mean. It is important because for the
vast majority of terms there are far too many things that they do not mean for any
negative definition to cover.

Examples:
couch = not a bed and not a chair
healthy = not sick

19
Definitions per genus at differentian

Where synonymous definitions or operational definitions are unavailable,

we can often use a definition by genus and difference. It is regarded by many as
the most important kind of definition, and by some as the only genuine kind.

Classes having members may have their memberships divided into

subclasses. For example, the class of all triangles may be divided into three
subclasses: scalene, isosceles, and equilateral triangles. The terms “genus” and
“species” are often used in this connection: the class whose memberships is
divided into subclasses is the “genus” and the subclasses are “species”.

Since a class is a collection of entities having some common

characteristics, all the members of a given genus will have the same common
characteristics. Thus, all members of the genus “polygons” share the
characteristic of being closed plane figures. But the characteristics that serve to
distinguish them from one another in the same class is their specific difference.
Thus, having three sides is the specific difference between the species triangle
and the genus polygon.

Thus, if we are going to define triangle, we would do it this way:

A triangle is a polygon with three sides.

“polygon” is the genus and “having three sides is the difference.

Examples:
An altimeter is a device for measuring altitude.

Man is a rational animal.

Try this: define the given by choosing one genus and one specific difference.

GENUS: sibling, parent, woman, man, horse, meal

SPECIFIC DIFFERENCE: young, male, female, vary large, very small

1. banquet ______________ _________________

2. pony ______________ _________________

3. boy ______________ _________________

20
4. stallion ______________ _________________

6. brother ______________ _________________

5. mother ______________ _________________

7. girl ______________ _________________

8. father ______________ _________________

9. sister ______________ _________________

10. stallion ______________ _________________

21
 MODULE
PROPOSITIONS

A proposition is defined as a statement in which anything whatsoever is

5
affirmed or denied. In some propositions, the simple existence of a subject is
affirmed or denied, like “God exists.” In some, an attribute is affirmed or denied
of a subject, as in “Birds have feathers” or “Birds have no hair.” A proposition is
expressed by what grammarians call a declarative sentence, and must be
distinguished from a question, exclamation, which or command.

A proposition may also be defined as a discourse that expresses either

truth or falsity. A proposition if the only kind of discourse that can be true or false
in the strict sense, and every proposition is the one of the other. If things are as a
proposition says they are, it is true; if things are not as it says they are, it is false.
Hence, a proposition is the only kind of discourse that you believe, assume,
prove, refute, doubt, or deny.

There are many kinds of propositions but for the present moment, we will
first consider the simple categorical proposition which is commonly used in
categorical syllogism.

Basic Elements of a Categorical Proposition

A categorical proposition is defined as a proposition in which a predicate

(P) is affirmed or denied of a subject (S). It has three basic elements: the
subject, the predicate, and the copula.

The subject is that about which something is affirmed or denied.

The predicate is what is affirmed or denied of the subject.

The copula is either “is” or “is not.” Is the copula is “is,” the proposition
is affirmative; if the copula is “is not,” the proposition is negative. Affirmative and
negative are the two kinds of quality that a proposition can have. In the
affirmative proposition, the copula joins, or unites or copulates the predicate with
the subject; the subject is declared to exist as something identical with the
predicate; and the entire comprehension of the predicate is attributed to or drawn
into the subject. Thus, when we say “A monkey is an animal.” We declared that

22
“a dog” and (some) “animal” are identical, that the entire comprehension of
“animal” belongs to “dog” and that to exist as a dog is to exist as an animal.

In the negative proposition, the copula separates or divides the predicate

from the subject. The identity of the subject and the predicate are denied, and an
indeterminate portion of the comprehension of the predicate is excluded from the
subject, or vise versa.

Try this: identify which among the given is a statement.

1. I am a logician
2. Who is that logician?
3. Come and let us study Logic.
4. Aristotle is a logician.
5. What is the name of the nurse?
6. The nurse is a graduate from OLFU
7. All registered nurses are board passers
8. She is a competent nurse.
9. Oh my God!
10. Keep quiet.

Quantity or Extension of Proposition

The quantity or extension of a proposition is determined by the quantity

or extension of the subject term. A proposition is singular if its subject term is
singular, standing for one definitely designated individual or group. It is
particular if its subject term is particular, standing for an indeterminately
designated portion of its absolute extension; and universal if its subject term is
universal, standing for each of the subjects that it can be applied to.

Determine if the following statements or propositions is singular, universal or

particular.

1. Dogs are animals.

2. Some men are intelligent.
3. That tree is dead.
4. Most men are rational.
5. All students are attentive.
6. The nurse is well trained
7. You are not listening.
8. Board passers are nurses.
9. She is cute.
10. The boy is a good singer.

23
A, E, I and O Propositions

A proposition can be affirmative or negative and it can also be universal

or particular. On the basis of their quality and quantity, propositions can be
classified into:

1. Universal-affirmative (A) “All plants are organisms.”

2. Universal-Negative (E) “No plants are organisms.”
3. Particular-Affirmative (I) “Some plants are organisms.”
4. Particular-Negative (O) “Some plants are not organisms.”

A- form proposition
1. All students are logical.
2. Everybody is invited to dance.
3. Only healthcare providers are allowed.
4. Maria is a good nurse.
5. OLFU is medical school.

E- form proposition
1. No registered nurses are unlicensed.
2. Nothing is impossible with God.
3. All students are not attentive.
4. No one is stupid
5. None of the debaters are scholars

I- form proposition
1. Some girls are lovely.
2. Most of the politicians are self-centered individuals.
3. Several people are still kind-hearted.
4. Certain individuals are communists
5. Filipinos are idealists

O- form proposition
1. Some boys are not responsible
2. Not all men are good lovers.
3. many food products are not healthy
4. Most students are not lazy
5. Few artists are not degree holders.

24
Converting Propositions into its Logical Form

Logical form is defined as the basic structure or the basic arrangement

of the part, of a complex logical unit. Complex logical units include propositions
and inferences, or arguments, but not terms.

Reduction to logical form consists in recording a proposition or argument

according to some set plan in order to make its basic structure obvious. The
purpose of reduction to logical form is to extricate a part of a complex logical unit
(like the subject or the predicate of a categorical proposition) to make it an object
of special consideration or to facilitate various logical processes (for instance,
conversion.)

The following illustrates a logical form:

A propositions

1. Mario sells newspapers.

Mario is a newsboy.

It is correct to say “Mario is one who sells newspaper” but I think this
should be avoided, as “one” is vague and indefinite. It is also best and easiest to
retain the original subject and to be as brief and compact as possible.

2. Shakespeare wrote “Romeo and Juliet.”

Shakespeare is the author of “Romeo and Juliet.”
To say “Shakespeare is the writer who wrote Macbeth” is rather awkward
as “writer” and “wrote” are avoidable redundant terms.

3. Whatever is material will decay.

All things which are material are substances which will decay.

4. Whoever is hungry will be fed.

All persons who are hungry are persons who will be fed.

5. Only family members will be admitted.

All those who will be admitted are family members.

E propositions

1. No crocodiles fly.
No crocodiles are flyers.

25
 2. None of the guests came.
No guests are guests who came.
No guests are people who came.

Sometimes linguistic distortions are unavoidable in reducing propositions

to their logical form. It has this advantage, though; it forces us to think clearly
and to place the terms in their proper perspective.

3. Nothing that is a plant is an animal.

No plants are animals.

4. Nowhere that he goes is decent.

No place that he goes to is a decent place.
No place that he goes to is decent.

5. There are no men with tails.

No men are human beings with tails.

I Propositions

1. Some broken hearts can be mended.

Some broken hearts are mendable (things).

The quantifier “some” is interpreted as “at least one and possibly more”
or “at least one and possible all” or “at least one but not all.” So “many,” “several,”
and other indefinite quantifiers are interchangeable with “some.”

2. A dog barked furiously last night.

Some dog is an animal which barked furiously last night.

3. Women are fickle.

Most women are fickle.
Many women are fickle.

This is a general proposition for not all women are fickle.

4. There are inefficient teachers.

Some teachers are inefficient people.

5. A few students went to the concert.

26
 Some students are concert goers.

O Propositions

1. Several student radical have not traveled to Red China.

Several student radicals are not travelers to Red China.

Pointers

1. Keep the original subject.

2. Do not use the progressive tense for your predicate.
3. Avoid the use of “one” for your predicate. Think of a more appropriate
word.
4. Avoid redundancies.
5. Be simple and direct in your answers.

MODULE
27

6
 DIAGRAMING CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITIONS

To aid our explanations, we shall use diagrams. These diagrams

(devised in the last century by the mathematician John Venn) will be familiar from
school to some readers, although perhaps slightly different from the way they are
used here. Those who have not yet encountered them before will find them self-
evident. They give us a map of the logical relations between classes. They
picture logical possibilities.

Suppose we are considering two sorts of thins, S and P. We represent

each sort by a circle, and the sorts can be existing or imaginary things. By
overlapping the circles we can show different possibilities. Put S = cat and P =
carnivore. Then by overlapping the circles as shown, we represent three
possible sorts of object. Reading from left to right, we have (1) Ss are not Ps
(cats which are not carnivores); (2) things which are both Ss and Ps (carnivorous
cats); and Ps which are not Ss (carnivores which are not cats). By enclosing the
circles in a box, we create a fourth possibility; (4) things which are neither S nor
P (neither carnivores nor cats). Our four areas show only possibilities so far. We
are not saying that there are any non-carnivorous cats—or that there are any
carnivorous cats, come to that. We are showing only what might be; providing a
framework for positive assertions about what does or does exist.

Now we return from possibilities to statements:

Suppose we have the assertion “Some S is a P” (in our example, “Some

cat is a carnivore”). In terms of our diagram, what we are saying is that there is
something in the area of overlap between S and P. This is signified by putting an
X mark in the area of overlap. An X signifies existence.

Similarly, we can represent “Some S is not P” by putting an X inside the

S circle but outside the P circle as shown in the second diagram.

28
 Just as an X signifies existence, so we show non-existence by shading.
Consider the statement “No S is a P.” In terms of the diagram, the claim us that
there does not exist anything which is in both the S circle and the P circle. We
show as much by shading out the area of overlap between the two circle as
shown below.

So far, we have dealt with three of our four basic sorts of statement. The
remaining one, and the one most likely to cause difficulty is “Every S is a P.”

Put s = “cat” and P = “carnivore”; then a statement such as “All cats are
carnivores” become “If anything is a cat than it is a carnivore” or “There are no
non-carnivorous cats.” We can show this by shading out the space for non-
carnivorous cats.

“If there are cats, then, they are carnivorous.” The diagram shows as
such, because the only place where S (cats) can exist—the only unshaded part
of the S circle—lies within the P circle.

29
 We can use the diagram to say other things, too. Suppose we want to
say, “There are no Ss.” This can be shown in our diagram by shading out the
whole of S.

Try this: Draw diagrams to express:

1. Something is B and not A.

2. Only Bs are As.

3. Nothing is B and something is A.

4. Something is both not A and not B.

5. Nothing is both not A and not B.

6. Everything is either a B or an A.

7. Everything is either a B or an A, and nothing is both.

8. All and only As are Bs.

Also try this: Complete the table for the diagram below.

30
THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE
MODULE

OF OPPOSITION
31
7
 Standard-form categorical propositions having the same subject and
predicate term may differ from each other in quality or in quantity. This kind of
differing was given the technical name opposition by older logicians, and certain
important truth relations were correlated with the various kinds of opposition.
Two propositions are contradictories if one is the denial or negation of the
other, that is, if they cannot both be true and they cannot be both false. It is clear
that two standard-form categorical propositions having the same subject and
predicate terms but differing from each other both in quality and quantity are
contradictories.

Logicians were able to illustrate the relationship of propositions in the

form of what they called Traditional Square of Opposition.

This diagram illustrates the four types of opposition and the four relations
resulting from this opposition, namely:

1. The relation of contradiction is the opposition existing between a

universal-affirmative (A) and a particular-negative (O), and between
universal-negative (E) and a particular-affirmative (I).
Thus,
All engineers are good in math. (A)
and

Some engineers are not good in math. (O)

which are opposed both in quantity and quality are obviously contradictories.
Exactly one is true, and exactly one is false. And also,

No scientists are religious. (E)

And

32
 Some scientists are religious. (I)

which are opposed both in quantity and quality are contradictories. Thus, A and
O are contradictories, as are E and I.

2. Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both be true, that is if the
truth of either one entails that the other is false. Thus, the relation of
contrariety is the opposition existing between a universal-affirmative (A)
and a universal-negative (E).

3. The relation of subalternation is the opposition existing between a

universal and particular-affirmative (A and I), and between a universal
and particular-negative (E and O). Both propositions, the universal and
particular, are called subalterns; the universal is the subalternant (A
and E), while the particular is the subalternate (I and O).

4. The relation of subcontrariety is the opposition were believed to provide

a logical basis for validating certain rather elementary forms of argument.
In this connection, it is customary to distinguish between mediate and
immediate inference. Any inference is the drawing of a conclusion from
one or more premises. Where there is more than one premise involved,
as in syllogism, which has two premises, the inference is said to be
mediate because the conclusion is supposed to be drawn from the first
premise through the mediation of the second premise. Where a
conclusion is drawn from only one premise, there us no such mediation,
and the inference is immediate. The information embodied in the
Traditional Square of Opposition clearly provides a basis for a number of
immediate inferences. Thus, if an A opposition is taken as premise,
then according to the Square of Opposition one can vividly infer that the
corresponding O proposition is false. And from the same premise, one
can immediately infer that the corresponding I proposition is true. Of
course, from the truth of an I proposition, its corresponding A proposition
does not follow, but the falsehood of the corresponding E proposition
does. The Traditional Square of Opposition provides the basis for a
considerable number of such immediate inferences. Given the truth or
falsehood of any one of the four standard-form categorical propositions,
the truth or falsehood of some or all the others can be inferred
immediately. The immediate inferences based on Traditional Square of
Opposition may be listed as follows:

33
 A being given as true: E is false, I is true, O is false.
E being given as true: A is false, I is false, O is true.
I being given as true: E is false, while A and O are undetermined.
O being given as true: A is false, while E and I are undetermined.

A being given as false: O is true, while E and I are undetermined.

E being given as false: I is true, while A and O are undetermined.
I being given as false: A is false, E is true, O is true.
O being given as false: A is true, E is false, I is true.

We can systematically evaluate immediate inferences through certain laws.

1. Law of Contradictions
First Rule: Contradictories cannot be true together.
Second Rule: Contradictories cannot be false together.

2. Law of Contrariety
First Rule: Contraries cannot be true together.
Second Rule: Contraries can be false together.

3. Law of Subcontrariety
First Rule: Both subcontraries cannot be false together.
Second Rule: Both subcontraries may be true together.

4. Law of Subalternation
First Rule: The truth of the universal involves the truth of the particular.
But he truth of the particular does not involve the truth of the
universal.
Second Rule: The falsity of the particular involves the falsity of the
universal. But the falsity of the universal does not involve
the falsity of the particular.

34
EDUCTION: FURTHER IMMEDIATE
MODULE

INFERENCES
8
35
 Eduction is the process of immediate inference whereby, from any
proposition taken as true, we derive other implied in it, though differing from the
first in subject or predicate or both. We shall consider three kinds of formal
eduction: conversion, obversion, contraposition.

1. CONVERSION

It is the re-expression of a proposition by interchanging places of the

subject and predicate while preserving its quality. The original proposition is
called the convertend; while the new and resultant proposition is called the
converse.

Conversion is simple if the quantity of the converse is the same as the

quantity of the converted. Hence, in simple conversion, if the converted is
universal, the converse is also universal; if the converted is particular, the
converse is particular; and if the converted is singular, the converse is singular.

By simple conversion, we can convert E propositions, I propositions

and singular propositions whose predicates are singular terms. Thus, “No plant
is a stone” is converted to “Some red things are roses”; and “That pen on the
desk is Karl’s” is converted to “Karl’s pen in on the desk.”

A propositions cannot be converted by simple conversion. And O

propositions cannot be converted at all.

Conversion is partial if the quantity of the proposition is reduced from

universal to particular. Partial conversion is also called accidental conversion or
conversion by limitation. A is converted by partial conversion to I, and E is
converted to O.

The Rules for Conversion are as follows:

1. Interchange S and P.
2. Retain quality.
3. Do not extend any term. (Retain the quantity except for A proposition)

CONVERSIONS

Convertend Converse
A: All S is P. I: Some P is S (by limitation)
E: No S is P. E: No P is S. (valid)
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S. (valid)

36
O: Some S is not P. (cannot be converted)

Try these: State the converse of the following propositions:

1. Some cars are overpriced.
2. All lawyers passed the Bar.
3. Some teachers are strict.
4. No criminals are moral.
5. No organic compounds are metals.

2. OBVERSION

Obversion is the formulation of a new proposition by retaining the subject

and quantity of an original proposition, changing its quality, and using as
predicate the contradictory of the original predicate. “Every bird is an animal,” is
obverted to “No bird is a non-animal.” Notice that obversion involves either the
use or removal of two negatives: the use or omission of the one negative
changes the quality, the use or omission of the other negative changes the
predicate to its contradictory. The original proposition is called the obverted;
while the new proposition is called the obverse.

The Rules for Obversion are as follows:

1. Retain the subject and the quantity of the obvertend.
2. Change the quality. If the obvertend is negative, the obverse must be
affirmative.
3. As predicate, use the contradictory of the predicate of the original
proposition.
The following table gives a complete picture of all valid obversions.

OBVERSIONS

Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P. E: No S is non-P.
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P.

Try these: State the obverse of the following propositions:

1. Some college students are debaters.
2. All journalists are intellectuals.
3. Some books are not novels.
4. All abortionists are not religious.

37
 5. No organic compounds are metal.

3. CONTRAPOSITION

Contraposition id the formulation of new proposition whose subject is the

contradictory of the original predicate. It is a combination of obversion and
conversion. Like conversion, it involves either the use of or removal of negatives
affecting the copula and terms. The original proposition is called the
contraponend and the new proposition is called the contraposit or
contrapositive.

To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, we replace its subject

term by the complement of its predicate term and replace its predicate term by
the complement of its subject term. Thus, the contrapositive of the A proposition:

All teachers are graduates.

Is A proposition:

All nongraduates are nonteachers.

That these two are logically equivalent will be evident upon a moment’s
reflection, and from this, it is clear that contraposition is a valid form of nothing
new, for we can get from any A position to its contrapositive by first obverting it,
next applying conversion, and then applying obversion again. Thus, beginning
with “All S is P,” we obvert it to obtain “No S is non-P,” which converts validly to
“No non-P is S,” whose obverse is “All non-P is non-S.” Thus, the contrapositive
of any A proposition is the obverse of the converse of the obverse of that
proposition.

Contraposition also works in O propositions. Thus, the contrapositive of

the O proposition:

Some students are not radicals.

Is the O proposition:

Some nonradicals are not students.

Which is logically equivalent to the first. Their logical equivalence can be shown
by deriving the contrapositive a step at a time through obverting, converting, and
then obverting again, as in the following schemativ derivation: “Some S is not P”

38
obverts to “Some S is non-P,” which converts to “Some non-P is S,” which
obverts to “Some non-P is non-S.”

Contraposition is not, in general, valid for I propositions. This can be

seen by noting that the true I propositions: This can bee seen by noting that the
true I proposition:

Some consumers are nonvegetarians.

has its contrapositive the false proposition:

Some vegetarians are nonconsumers.

The contrapositive of the E proposition “No S is P” is “No non-P is non-

S,” which does not in general follow vividly from the original, as can be seen by
observing the E proposition:

No robots are humans.

Which is true, has its contrapositive the false proposition:

No nonhumans are robots.

Thus, we see that contraposition is a valid form of immediate inference

only when applied to A and O propositions. Contraposition is not valid at all for I
propositions, and for E propositions only by limitation. This may also be
presented in the form of a table:

CONTRAPOSITION

Premise Contrapositive
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S.
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S (limit)
I: Some S is P. (not valid)
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S.

39
 MODULE

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

Standard-Form Categorical Syllogisms

9
40
 A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred
from two premises. A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of
three categorical propositions that contain exactly three terms, each of which
occurs in exactly two of the constituents propositions. A categorical syllogism is
said to be in standard form when its premises and conclusion are all standard-
form proposition and are arranged in a specified standard order. To specify that
order, it will be helpful to explain the logician’s special names for the terms and
premises of categorical syllogisms. For brevity, in this chapter we shall refer to
categorical syllogisms simply as syllogisms, even though there are other kinds of
syllogism that will be discussed in later chapters.

The conclusion of a standard-form syllogism is a standard-form

categorical proposition that contains two of the syllogism’s three terms. The term
that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion is called the major term of the
syllogism, and the term that occurs as the subject term of the conclusion is called
the minor term of the syllogism. Thus in a standard-form syllogism:

All men are mortal.

All Greeks are men.
>All Greeks are mortal.

the term “Greeks” is the minor term and the term “mortal” is the major term. The
third term of the syllogism, which does not occur in the conclusion, appearing
instead in both premises, is called the middle term. In our example, the term
“men” is the middle term.

The major and minor terms of a standard-form syllogism each occur in a

different one of the premises. The premise containing the major term is called the
major premise, and the premise containing the minor term is called the minor
premise.

Principles of the Categorical Syllogisms

Now that we are familiar with the mechanics of the categorical syllogism,
we are ready to take up the principles underlying the logical movement of the
categorical syllogism. We shall endeavor to penetrate more deeply into the
nature of the syllogism by trying to grasp the principles that are operative every
time a minor and major term are united (or separated) through the intermediacy
of a middle term.

For instance, our previous example is clearly a valid syllogism. We can

see very clearly that it is valid because we clearly grasp that if all men are mortal
and that Greeks are men then it must follow that Greeks are mortal as well. On

41
reflection, we see that this argument fulfills certain basic conditions—that certain
basic principles underlie its logical movement—and that the fulfillment of these
conditions is the reason for its validity.

Aristotle defined a syllogism as “a kind of discourse in which certain

things being started, something other than what is stated follows of necessity
from their being so. “In essence, the nature if the syllogism is the
pronouncement of agreement or disagreement between the minor (S) and the
major (P) terms in the conclusion, due to their identity or non-identity with the
middle term (M) in the two premises.

If we examine the general axiom or principle which underlies the

syllogism, we find it expressed in what is called the Dictum de omni et nullo or
the Law of All and None:

Dictum de omni dictur de singulis.

Dictum de nullo negatur de singulis.

This axiom can be rendered as follows: “What is affirmed of a logical

whole may be affirmed of a logical part of that whole.” This sounds a little
mystifying, but the meaning is really quite simple. The middle term (M) in the
major premise is a “logical whole” or universal term “All men,” and the entire
comprehension of the major term “mortal” is affirmed of the middle term; and
since the minor term “all Greeks” is a “logical part” or member belonging to the
class-extension of the middle term “man,” therefore, the entire comprehension of
the major term “mortal” must also be affirmed of the minor term “All Greeks.” And
so the conclusion must be correct that “All Greeks are mortal.”

The application of the Dictum de nullo is equally clear:

No birds are quadruped.

__All ostriches are quadruped._
> No ostriches are quadruped.

Here we see that M (all birds) as a logical whole or universal, includes S

(all ostriches) in its extension as a logical part or member. But M (all birds) is
excluded from the extension of P (quadrupeds). Therefore, S (all ostriches),
since it falls as a logical part or member under the class-extension of M (all
birds), must also be excluded from P (quadrupeds); and the conclusion must be
correct that “No ostriches are quadruped”; and thus the axiom of the dictum de
omni et nullo is established.

42
The Principle of the Identifying Third

The principle of the identifying third is stated as follows: “Two things that
are identical with the same third thing are identical with one another.”

Every dog is an animal.

___Every hound is a dog.___
> Every hound is an animal.

What is presented to the mind under the formality of “hound,” is the very
same thing that is presented under the formality of “dog” and what is presented
under the formality of “dog” is the same as that presented under the formality of
“Animal.”

What is signified by “hound” has been shown to be identical with what is

signified by “animal” because what is signified by each of them is identical with
what is signified by “dog.” The very same reality is at once hound, dog, animal.
The middle term “dog” is the identifying third because, through it, the minor term
“hound” and the major term “animal” have been identified in the sense explained
above.

The Principle of the Separating Third

The principle of the separating this is stated thus: “Two things of which
one is identical with the same third but the other is not are not identical with one
another.”

Notice that one of the two things must be identical with the same third
thing and the other not. It is not enough if neither of the two is identical with the
same third thing. From the fact, for instance, that neither a cow nor a horse is a
man, it is impossible to tell whether or not a cow is a horse.

Every dog is an animal.

No animal is an angel._
> No dog is an angel.

What is presented to the mind under the formality of “dog,” is the very
same thing that is presented under the formality of “animal.” But what is
presented to the mind by “animal” is not the same as that presented under the
formality of “angel.”

43
 What is signified by “dog” has been shown not to be identical with what is
signified by “angel,” because it is identical with what is signified by “angel” is not.
The middle term “animal” is the separating third because, through its union with
the minor term “dog” and the major term “angel, “ “dog” has been separated from
“angel.”

MODULE

RULES AND FALLACIES

10
There are many ways in which a syllogism may fail to establish its
conclusion. And these can be detected by applying the established rules in logic

44
for evaluating syllogisms. Any given standard-form syllogism can be evaluated
by observing whether the rules are violated or not.

Rule 1: A valid standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly

three terms, each which is used in the same sense throughout the
argument.

The conclusion of a categorical syllogism asserts that a certain relation

holds between two terms. It is clear that the conclusion is justified only if the
premises assert the relationship of each of the conclusion’s terms to the third
term. Were these not asserted by the premises, no connection between the two
terms of the conclusion would be established, and the conclusion would not be
implied by the premises. Three terms must be involved in every valid categorical
syllogism; no more and no less. Any categorical syllogism that contains more
than three terms is invalid, and is said to commit the Fallacy of Four Terms.

Rule 2: In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle term must

be distributed in at least one premise.

Consider the following standard-form categorical syllogism:

All dogs are animals.

All cats are animals.
> All cats are dogs.

The middle term “animals” is not distributed in either premise, and this
violates Rule 2. Any syllogism that violates Rule 2 is said to commit the Fallacy
of Undistributed Middle. The conclusion of any syllogism asserts a connection
between two terms. The premises justify asserting such a connection only if they
assert that each of the two is connected with a third term in such a way that the
first two are appropriately connected with each other through or by means of the
third. For the two terms of the conclusion really to be connected through the
third, at least one of them must related to the whole of the class designated by
the third or middle term. Otherwise, each may be connected with a different part
of the class, and not necessarily connected with each other at all. This is what
obviously occurs in the example. Dogs are included in part of the class of
mammals, and cats are also included in part of the class of mammals. But
different parts of that class may be (and in this case, are) involved, so the middle
term does not connect the syllogism’s major and minor terms. For it to connect
them, all the class designated by it must be referred to in at least one premise,
which is to say that in a valid syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at
least one premise.

45
Note: In a standard categorical proposition, the extension of its subject term is
known through its quantifier (All, some, every, certain, etc.) while the extension of
its predicate is known through its copula (whether affirmative or negative). If the
copula is affirmative, the predicate term is undistributed or has a particular
extension. If the copula is negative, the predicate term is distributed or has a
universal extension.

Rule 3: In a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, if either terms is

distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the
premises.

A valid argument is one whose premises logically imply or entail its

conclusion. The conclusion of a valid argument cannot go beyond or assert any
more that is contained in the premises. If the conclusion does illegitimately “go
beyond” what is asserted by the premises, the argument is invalid. It is an “illicit
process” for the conclusion to say more about its terms than the premises do. A
proposition that distributes one of its terms says more about the class designated
by the term than it would if the term were undistributed by it. To refer to all
members of the class is to say more about it (apart from the question of
existence) than is said when only some of its members are referred to.
Therefore, when the conclusion of a syllogism distributes a term that was
undistributed in the premises, it says more about it than the premises warrant,
and the syllogism is invalid. Such an illicit process can occur in the case of either
the major or minor term. There are, then, two different ways in which Rule 3 may
be broken. Special names have been given to the two fallacies involved.

When a syllogism contains its major term undistributed in the major

premise but distributed in the conclusion, the argument is said to commit the
Fallacy of Illicit Process of the Major Term (or, more briefly, the Illicit Major).

All nurses are caring individuals

No doctors are nurses
> No doctors are caring individuals

The conclusion makes an assertion about all caring individuals , saying

that all of them are excluded from the class of doctors. But the premises make
no assertion about all caring individuals; so the conclusion illicitly goes beyond
what the premises assert. Since “caring individuals” is the major term, the fallacy
here is an Illicit Minor.

46
 When a syllogism contains it minor term undistributed in its minor
premise but distributed in its conclusion, the argument commits the Fallacy of
Illicit Process of the Minor Term or more briefly called Illicit Minor.

All communists are subversive elements.

All communists are critics of the present administration.
>All critics of the present administration are subversives.

The conclusion here makes an assertion about “all critics of the present
administration.” But the premises make no assertion about all such critics; so the
conclusion goes beyond the premises in what it says about the minor term, the
fallacy is an Illicit Minor.
Rule 4: No standard-form categorical syllogism having two negative premises is
valid.

We can see that this rule be obeyed when we recall what negative
prepositions assert. Any negative proposition (E or O) denies class inclusion
asserting that all or some of one class is excluded from the whole of the other.
Where S, P and M are the minor, the major and middle terms, respectively, two
negative premises can assert only that S is wholly or partially excluded from all or
part of M, and that P is wholly or partially excluded from all or part of M. But
these conditions may very well obtain no matter how S and P are related,
whether by inclusion or exclusion, partial or complete. Therefore, from two
negative premises, no relationship whatsoever between S and P can be validly
inferred. Any syllogism that breaks Rule4 is said to commit the Fallacy of
Exclusive Premises.

Rule 5: If either premise of a valid standard-form syllogism is negative, the

conclusion must be negative.

An affirmative conclusion asserts that one class is either wholly or partly

contained in a second. This can be justified only by premises that assert the
existence of a third class that contains the first and is itself contained in the
second. In other word, to entail an affirmative conclusion, both premises must
assert class inclusion. But class inclusion can only be stated by affirmative
propositions. So an affirmative conclusion logically follows only form two
premises. Hence, if either premise is negative, the conclusion cannot be
affirmative but must be negative, too. Arguments breaking this rule are also
implausible that they are very seldom encountered in serious discussions. Any
syllogism that breaks Rule 5 may be said to commit the Fallacy of Drawing an
affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise.

47
 Some lists of syllogistic rules also include the converse of Rule 5: “If the
conclusion of a valid standard-form syllogism is negative, at least one premise
must be negative.” This additional rule is explained on much the same grounds
that were appealed to in discussing Rule 5. If the conclusion is negative, it denies
inclusion. But affirmative premises assert inclusion; hence they cannot entail a
negative conclusion. This additional rule is both necessary and sufficient to
complete the traditional or Aristotelian account of the categorical syllogism, which
paid no attention to the problem of existential import. But o the Boolean
interpretation, which pays particular attention to the problem of existential import,
a separate syllogistic rule—Rule 6—is required. And the usual formulation of
such a rule suffices—in the presence of the other rules—to prevent syllogisms
with affirmative premises and negative conclusion.

Rule 6: No valid standard-form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion

can have two universal premises.

To break this rule is to go from premises having no existential import to a

conclusion that does. A particular proposition asserts the existence of objects of
a specified kind, so to infer it from two universal premises that do not assert the
existence of anything is clearly to go beyond what is warranted by the premises.
An example of a syllogism that breaks this rule is:

All household pets are domestic animals.

No wolves are domestic animals.__
> Some wolves are not household pets.

On the traditional interpretation, which did attribute existential import to

universal propositions, such arguments were said to have “weakened
conclusions,” because the “stronger” conclusion ”No wolves are household pets”
might equally well have been inferred. But the latter is no stronger, it is simply
different. The syllogism with the same premise and the universal conclusion is
perfectly valid. But the given syllogism is invalid, because its conclusion asserts
that there are wolves whereas its premises do not assert the existence of wolves.
Being universal propositions, they are without existential import.

THE SIX RULES HERE PRESENTED ARE INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO

STANDARD-FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS. WITHIN THIS AREA, THEY
PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE TEST FOR THE VALIDITY OF ANY ARGUMENT. IF
A STANDARD-FORM CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM VIOLATES ANY OF THESE
RULES, IT IS INVALID, WHEREAS, IF IT CONFORMS TO ALL OF THEM, IT IS
VALID.

48
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
The six rules of categorical syllogism can also be further simplified with the
use of following four rules:

1. Three terms (3T)

 This is similar with rule number 1 that there should be three
terms only and each term must be used in the same sense
as it is used in two occurrences.

2. Universal Middle (UM)

 The middle terms should at least me universal once.
 Same with the violation of rule number 2 and 6.

3. Conclusion Not Wider than the premise (CONOWI)

 If the conclusion is universal, the premise should also be
universal. If either term(minor and major term) is distributed
in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.

4. Negative Premise and Conclusion (NEPRECON)

 If a syllogism has negative propositions, there should be only
one negative premise and a negative conclusion.
 Same with the violations of rule number 4 and 5

Valid: + + -- Invalid: + + -- -- --
+ -- + + -- + -- --
+ -- -- -- + + + --

MODULE

11
TESTING USING THE
VENN-DIAGRAM TECHNIQUE
49
 We have seen how to represent statements with “all,” “some” and no on
diagrams. We can use those same diagrams to test arguments. This does not
involve the learning of any new material; only the application of what has been
learned already in the previous chapter. We will work through several arguments
illustrating how to use the diagrams to test for validity.

The technique is simply to draw in the premises. If we find that we have

drawn in the conclusion follows, and the argument is valid.

Example 1:

Every mammal is warm-blooded. Every P is M.

No reptile is warm-blooded. Every S is not M.
> No reptile is a mammal. Every S is not P.

The first premise above is “Every P is an M.” We draw it in (diagonal

shading) on the diagram, in the way shown. (Remember that “Every P is an M”
means if anything is a P then it is an M” or, “Nothing is P and not .” The second
premise is that “Every S is not an M.” Nothing exist in the area of overlap
between S and M, so we shade out (vertical shading) the entire area of overlap
between them, as shown earlier.

Having transcribed what we were given in the premises on the diagram

we can, as used to be said in school, lay down our pens. If the argument is a
valid one, our drawing in of the premises should have drawn in the conclusion as
well. Has it? We look and see. The conclusion is “Every S is not a P” or “No S is
a P.” In the terms of the diagram, this is so when the overlap between the S and
the circle is fully shaded out. The area is fully shaded out, so the argument is
valid.

VALID

Another example:

Example 2:

All Greeks are men. Every S is M.

50
All men are mortal. All M is P.__
> All Greeks are mortal. Every S is P.

The first premise is shown in the usual way by shading the S circle lying
outside M (diagonally). By a parity of seasoning the second premise, “Every M is
P” is shown by shading (vertically) the part of M lying of P.

The conclusion “Every S is P” or “Nothing S is not P.” If it follows, then

all of S is lying outside of P should be shaded. We look and see that the relevant
is shaded out completely. The argument is valid.

VALID

These arguments could be contrasted with the following invalid one:

Example 3:

All journalists are writers. All S is M.

All intellectuals are not writers. All P is not M.
>All journalists are intellectuals. All S is P.

We depict the first premise by shading all of the SD circle outside M

(diagonal shading). We depict the second premise by shading (vertically) all of
the P is circle outside M. Notice that the area of shading overlaps, in part. Now
the conclusion is “Every journalist is an intellectual,” or “Every S is P.” Does this
follow? If it did, we would expect to find all of the S circle which lies outside P to
be fully shaded. But when we inspect the right-hand diagram, the relevant area is
not fully shaded; part has been left blank. The conclusion, therefore, does not
follow, and the argument is invalid.

51
 INVALID

Example 4:

All wealthy people are independent. All M is S.

Some wealthy people are miserable. Some M is P.
>Some independent people are miserable. Some S is P.

We draw in first premise “All M is S” in the usual way, shading out all of
the M circle lying outside S. The second premise is of a different kind, asserting
existence. It tells us that there is something which is both P and M. To represent
this on the diagram we must put an X in the areas of overlap between the M
circle and the P circle. Part of the area of overlap has already been shaded out,
as can be seen from the diagram. Part is left blank, and that part must therefore,
carry the X. Obviously, if something lies in the area of overlap between M and P,
but not in one part, then it must lie in the other. The conclusion is that some S is
a P; that there is something in the area of overlap between S and P. Does it
follow? We look and see that there is a tick in the overlap of S and P. The
argument is valid.

VALID

IMPORTANT NOTE IN DIAGRAMMING

1. To test a syllogism with one universal premise and one particular

premise, it is advisable to diagram the universal premise first.

52
 2. If an X mark is to be placed on an area divided into the regions, put the X
on the line dividing the two.

Example:

Some S is M. INVALID
Some M is not P.
>Some S is not P.

The first premise “Some S is M” tells us to draw an X in the area

overlapping S and M. But this area is divided into two areas, namely: SM which
are P’s and SM which are not P’s. Since we cannot know which of these areas
we should place an X mark, we need to place it on the line dividing the two
areas.

The same is true with the second premise, “Some M is not P.” We are
supposed to place an X mark on the area which is M but outside P, but that area
is divided into two areas. So we place the X mark on the dividing line.

The conclusion is “Some S is not” and we cannot find this in the diagram
because we do not know and are not certain where the X mark is really placed.
The argument is invalid.

CHAPTER

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS

53
12
 Another kind of syllogism which we will now turn our attention to is the
hypothetical syllogism. They are totally different from categorical syllogisms.
They do no contain a direct, straightforward assertion of agreement or
disagreement between subject and predicate. They express the dependence of
the truth or falsity of one statement upon the truth or falsity of another statement.
The truth of a hypothetical judgment consists in the truth of its dependence, of
this logical relation, between one statement and the other; if this dependence
actually exists, the statement is true, and this dependence does not exists, the
statement false. Thus, when I state, “If it rains, the ground will be wet,” I am not
asserting that “It rained” or that “the ground is wet”; I am merely asserting the
dependence of the fact of it raining on the fact of the ground getting wet, and if
this relation of dependence of the latter on the former actually is stated, the
judgment as such is true.

It will be evident that a hypothetical proposition readily lends itself as the

major premise of a syllogism. If the minor premise can then definitely affirm or
deny one part of these connected statements, the conclusion may possibly affirm
or deny the other part. A hypothetical syllogisms as there are types of
hypothetical propositions, and these are three in number: conditional,
disjunctive, and conjunctive.

CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS

The conditional syllogism is defined as a syllogism which contains a

conditional proposition as the major premise. Conditional propositions are “if
statements. There are two parts to such proposition. The first part contains the
condition and is introduced by the article “if”; the truth of the second part depends
on the fulfillment of the condition expressed in the first part.
IF IT RAINS, THE GROUND GETS WET.

Only when the first part, or the antecedent, is true, can the truth
of the second part, or consequent, also be stated. The antecedent gives the
ground, the reason, the cause; the consequent gives result, the dependent, the
effect. This is the logical sequence of ideas in every conditional proposition.

Consider this:

If it rains, the ground gets wet. (conditional statement)

It rained. (categorical statement)
>The ground is wet. (categorical statement)

54
 A conditional syllogism, then, has this characteristic that the major
premise is the conditional statement, while the minor premise and the conclusion
are categorical statements. The logical relation between the two premises is
such that the major premise enunciates a general principle, which principle the
minor premise applies to the case in question. The major premise states
positively that the consequent will necessarily follow provided the condition
expressed in the antecedent is fulfilled. The minor premise will state one of two
things: it will either state that the condition is fulfilled, and then the conclusion will
assert the truth of the consequence; or it will state that the consequent did not
follow, and then the conclusion must assert that the condition on the antecedent
was not fulfilled.

There are two possible ways of drawing a valid conclusion from the
premises in this type of syllogism:

1. to accept the antecedent is to accept the consequent.

2. to reject the consequent is to reject the antecedent.

In other words, if I assert that the condition in the antecedent was

fulfilled, I must also assert that the truth of the consequent, because the truth of
the consequent is dependent on the fulfillment of the condition; reversely, if the
consequent did not occur, then I know that the condition in the antecedent could
not have been fulfilled, otherwise the consequent must also have occurred.
Consider the following:
Accepting the antecedent: (valid)

If he has cancer of the stomach, then he is seriously ill.

But he has cancer of the stomach;
Therefore, he is seriously ill.

Rejecting the consequent: (valid)

If he has cancer of the stomach, then he is seriously ill.

But he is not seriously ill.
Therefore, he has no cancer of the stomach.

Both these syllogisms are valid argumentation. The consequent (“he is

seriously ill”) depends entirely on the truth of the condition expressed in the
antecedent (“If he has cancer of the stomach”). There is relation of cause and
effect between the antecedent and the consequent: if the cause has operated
(“he has cancer”), the effect must follow (“he is seriously ill”); and if the effect did
not follow (“he is not seriously ill”), then the cause did not operate (“he has no
cancer”). From this we deduce the double principle: From the truth of the

55
antecedent follows the truth of the consequent; and from the falsity of the
consequent follows the falsity of the antecedent.

This leads us to the question: If we reject the antecedent, must we reject

the consequent? And if we accept the consequent, must we accept the
antecedent?

Rejecting the antecedent: (invalid)

If he cancer of the stomach, he is seriously ill.

He has no cancer of the stomach;
Therefore, he is not seriously ill.

Accepting the consequent: (invalid)

If he has cancer of the stomach, he is seriously ill.

But he is seriously ill.
Therefore, he has cancer of the stomach.

It take but little thought to realize that these syllogism are not valid. The
mere fact that “he has cancer” does not warrant the conclusion that “he is not
seriously ill,” he may be seriously ill from any other dangerous disease, even if
“he has no cancer.” For the same reason, the conclusion of the second syllogism
is inconsistent. The fact that “he is seriously ill” need not have as its cause that
“he has cancer of the stomach”; the cause could be some other disease.

Summing up, we find the law of the conditional syllogism to be:

From the truth of the antecedent follows truth of the consequent;

but from the falsity of the antecedent the falsity of the consequent does not
follow. From the falsity of the consequent follows the falsity of the
antecedent; but from the truth of the consequent the truth of the
antecedent; but from the truth of the consequent the truth of the
antecedent does not follow.

This law shows that there are two, and only two, valid modes of the
conditional syllogism. If the minor premise accepts or posits the antecedent, the
conclusion must accept or posit the consequent. And if the minor premise reject
or sublates the consequent, the conclusion must reject or sublate the antecedent.
No other syllogism of this type is valid. The antecedent and the consequent may
both be affirmative sentences; or both may be negative; or the one affirmative
and the other negative. When we accept or posit them, we must accept the

56
affirmative and as an affirmative and the negative as a negative. When we reject
or sublate them, we must change the affirmative into its contradictory negative
and negative into its contradictory affirmative. The mood in which the minor
premise posits the antecedent and the conclusion posits the consequent is called
the constructive mood; while the mood in which the minor premise sublates the
consequent and the conclusion sublates the antecedent is called the destructive
mood.

Constructive mood:

If socialism is a false system, it is dangerous. AB

It is a false system. A_____
Therefore, it is dangerous. B

If it rains, we will not go out. A  -B

It is raining. A_____
Therefore, we will not go out. -B

If you do not pass the subject, you will repeat it. -A  B

You did not pass the subject. -A_____
Therefore, you will repeat it. B

If you do not have a 160 IQ, you are not a genius. -A  -B

You do not have a 160 IQ. -A_____
Therefore, you are not a genius. -B

Destructive mood:

If it rains, then the ground is wet. AB

The ground is not wet. -B_____
Therefore, it did not rain. -A

If it rains, we will not go out. A  -B

We will not go out. -B_____
Therefore, it did not rain. -A

If you do not pass the subject, you will repeat it. -A  B

You did not repeat it. -B_____
Therefore, you passed the subject. A

57
 If you do not pass the board, you cannot be a nurse. -A  -B
You are now a nurse. B______
Therefore, you passed the board. A

The above syllogisms are all valid arguments. Syllogisms other than the
above are no longer valid ones. Like the ones below:

If it rains, the grounds get wet.

The ground is wet._________________________
Therefore, it rained.

If you study, then you will pass the exam.

You did not study.__________________________
Therefore, you will not pass the exam.

Try evaluating the following conditional syllogisms:

1. If the battery is low, then the light is dim. The light is dim. Therefore, the
battery is low.

2. If he becomes mayor, we will surely have concrete roads.

But we will surely have concrete roads.
Therefore, he will become mayor.

3. If there is no planet X, Neptune’s orbit would not have bulged.

But Neptune’s orbit bulged. Therefore, there is planet X.

4. If you have a weak heart, you can never make the team.
But your heart is strong. Therefore you will make the team.

5. If you are quiet, mark will not find you. But you are noisy.
Therefore, Mark will find you.

DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

The disjunctive syllogism is relatively simple. It is one whose major

premise consists of a disjunctive proposition. A disjunctive proposition is an
“either-or” statement: “The sun is shining or not shining.” Care must be taken to
distinguish clearly between the proper and improper disjunctive propositions,
because the significance of these two types is totally different and produces two

58
distinct kinds of syllogism. In some books, proper disjunction is sometimes called
strict disjunction while improper disjunction is called broad disjunct.
Proper or Strict Disjunction

It is the characteristic of the proper disjunction that its components,

called disjunct, can neither be true nor false together. If this disjunction consists
of only two components, the matter presents no difficulty. The general rule then
will be: If one is true, the other must be false; And if one is false, the other
must be true. As a result of this general, the two-part disjunctive syllogism will
have two valid moods: if one part is posited in the minor premise, the other part
must be sublated in the conclusion; and if one part must be sublated in the minor
premise, the other part must be positive in the conclusion and since both
components may be affirmative, or both negative, or the first affirmative and the
second negative, or the first negative and the second affirmative, we can readily
see that the positing mood and the sublating mood may each appear in four
possible forms.

A v B A v B
A -A
-B B

A v -B A v -B
A -A
B -B

-A v B -A v B
-A A
-B B

-A v B -A v B
-A A
B -B

It will be noticed in this type of syllogism, as in the conditional syllogism,

that if one part is posited, it must be posited just as it stands, whether affirmative
or negative; the part that us sublated must be turned into the contradictory of the
original, so that the affirmative part is changed into its contradictory negative and
the negative part into its contradictory affirmative. To fail to follow this essential
rule would make us guilty of a fallacy.

Improper or Board Disjunction

59
 The broad disjunctive syllogism is a hypothetical syllogism whose major
premise if a board disjunctive proposition.

A broad disjunctive proposition is a complete disjunctive proposition in

which one or both disjuncts must be true (A and/or B). The disjunction must be
complete. Otherwise, truth may be found in the missing disjunct.

The broad disjunctive proposition has this general form:

Either A or B (or both) A and/or B

(one or both disuncts must be true)
1. Accept one disjunct. Since one or both disjunct may be true, one may
deny or accept the other.
2. Deny one disjunct. One must accept the other disjun ct. Otherwise,
there is no truth.

Thus,

Either A or B (or both) Either A and B (or both)

Not A. Not B.
>B A

(valid) (valid)

Try evaluating the following syllogisms:

1. The choice is clear. Either the witness really saw the accused enter the
bank or he is a liar. That the witness is lying is not to be countenanced.
It follows that he really saw the accused enter the bank.
2. Either the order in nature is the result of an intelligent plan or it is the
outcome of pure chance. It does not result purely from chance.
Therefore, it is the result of an intelligent plan.
3. Either Hitler wanted peace or he wanted war. Hitler certainly didn’t want
peace. Therefore, he wanted war.

CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

The conjunctive syllogism presents the least difficulties among the

hypothetical syllogisms. The conjunctive proposition in the major premise states
that two or more things are impossible at the same time. It lies in the nature of
this statement that no two of the conjunctive members (called conjuncts) can be
true at the same time; but they may all, for that matter, be false together. Hence,

60
the general rule: From the truth of one member follows the falsity of the
others; but from the falsity of one member, the truth of the other (or others)
does not follow. Supposing we have the statement. “This thing cannot be a
plant and an animal at the same time.” If we are able to make the further
statement that “It is an animal,” we are certainly correct in including that “It is not
a plant.” But if we state that “It is not an animal,” we cannot necessarily conclude
that “It is a plan,” because the thing may neither be an animal nor a plant, but
merely a stone or something. Similarly, if we state that “It is not a plant,” we are
not warranted to state in our conclusion that “It is an animal,” for the same
reason. It is only when we are able to posit one member that we can sublate the
other; but the nature of a conjunctive proposition does not entitle us, when
sublating one member, to posit the other (or others), because they may all be
false together. The only valid mood, therefore, in the conjunctive syllogism is the
following: if the minor premise posits one member of the conjunctive major
premise, the conclusion must sublate the other (or others).

A man cannot be guilty and innocent at the same time. S. P

But he is innocent. _ P
Therefore, he is not guilty. > -S

He cannot have been in Manila and Baguio at

the same time. S . P
He was in Manila. S_____
Therefore, he was in Baguio. > -P

The above syllogism are valid. However, fallacies will enter into this type
of syllogism, when we sublate one member of the conjunctive major premise and
then posit the other member (or members) in the conclusion. Like the ones
below:

Not both S and P Not both S and P

-S -P_____
>P >S

Try evaluating the following syllogisms:

She cannot get married and finish law.

She wants to finish law._______________
>She will not get married.

He cannot be playing golf and watching TV.

He is not playing golf._________________

61
>He is watching TV.

CHAPTER

DILEMMAS
13
62
 The dilemma is a syllogism that is both conditional and conjunctive. The
major premise is a compound conditional proposition consisting of two or more
simple conditional propositions connected by “and” or its equivalent. The minor
premise is a disjunctive proposition that alternately posits the antecedents
(constructive dilemma) or sublates the consequent (destructive dilemma), of
each of these simple conditional propositions.

In the constructive dilemma the disjunctive proposition is commonly

placed first; in the destructive dilemma. However, the conditional propositions are
commonly placed first. The conclusion is either a categorical or a disjunctive
proposition.

If I work, I earn money; and if I am idle, I enjoy myself.

Either I work or I am idle.
Therefore, I earn money or I enjoy myself.

If I work, I don’t enjoy myself; and if I am idle, I don’t earn money.

Either I work, I am idle.
Therefore, either I don’t earn money or I don’t enjoy myself.

The dilemma has four forms. It is either constructive or destructive and

each of these is either simple or complex.

1. Simple Constructive Dilemma

In this type of dilemma, the conditional premise infers the same

consequent from all the antecedent presented in the disjunctive proposition.
Hence, if any antecedent is true, the consequent must be true. This form is
illustrated by a man trapped in a burning building.

I must either jump or stay (there is no other alternative).

If I jump, I shall die immediately (from the fall).
If I stay, I shall die immediately (from the fire).___________
Therefore, I shall die immediately.

Either A or B (disjunctive statement)

If A, then Z (conditional statement)
If B, then Z (conditional statement)
>Z (categorical statement)

2. Complex Constructive Dilemma

63
 In this type of dilemma, the conditional premise infers a different
consequent from each of the antecedents presented in the disjunctive
proposition. If any antecedent are posited disjunctively and since a different
consequent flows from each of them, the consequent must like be posited
disjunctively. The men who brought Jesus the woman caught in adultery had this
form of dilemma in mind.

Jesus will either urge that she be stoned to death or that she be released
without stoning.
But if he urges the first, he will make himself unpopular with the people
because of severity;
But if he urges the second, he will get into trouble with the Jewish
authorities for disregarding the law of Moses._______
Therefore, he will become unpopular with the people or get into trouble
with the Jewish authorities.

Either A or B
If A, the X
If B, then Y__
Either X or Y

4. Simple Destructive Dilemma

In this type of dilemma, the conditional premise infers more than one
consequent from the same antecedents. If any of the consequent is false, the
antecedent is false. Hence, since the disjunctive sublate the consequents
antecedent must also be false. This type is not distinct from a conditional
syllogism in which the consequent is sublated in the minor premise and the
antecedent is sublated in the conclusion.

If I am to pass the exam, I must do two things—I must study all night and
I must be mentally alert as I write.
Either I will not study all night or I will not be mentally alert as I
write.________________________________________________
Therefore, I will not pass the examination.

If A, then X and Y
Either not X or not Y
> not A

4. Complex Destructive Dilemma

64
 Here, the conditional premise infers a different consequent from each
antecedent. The disjunctive premise sublates these consequents alternatively,
and the conclusion sublates their antecedent alternatively.

If A then X and if B then Y

Either not X or not Y____________
Therefore, either not A or not B

Rules of the Dilemma, Answering a Dilemma

The dilemma is subject to the general rules of the conditional syllogism.

The minor premise, as in the conditional syllogism, must either posit the
antecedents of sublate the consequents of the conditional propositions. If the
minor premise has posited the antecedents, the conclusion must posit the
consequents, either absolutely or disjunctively—depending on the type. If the
minor premise has sublated the consequents, the conclusion must sublate the
consequents, the conclusion must sublate the antecedent, and so on as
explained above.

1. The disjunction must state all pertinent alternatives. The disjunctive

enumeration must be complete. Thus, a contradictory disjunction is the
best for the purpose because there can be no neutral middle ground
between contradictory ideas. The adversary cannot escape, he will be
gored by the two horns of the dilemma.

If I am rich, I must worry about losing my wealth.

If I am poor, I must worry about making a living.
But I must either be rich or poor.

Therefore, I must always worry.___________________

To this, one can rightly answer: “You may neither be rich nor poor but in
moderately comfortable circumstances, where there is neither danger of losing
great wealth not danger of starvation; therefore, you have no need to worry.”
Here one accepts a third possibility which does not involve the consequences
mentioned.

2. The consequents in the conditional proposition must flow validly from

the antecedents, this means that the conditional statements and the
general conclusion drawn from then must really follow with consistency
and necessity. The very complexity of the dilemma, which makes it so
convincing and effective, if correctly constructed, is the greatest source

65
 of danger, because inconsistency may lurk in the incompleteness of the
disjunction or in the lack of real cogency in either of the conditional
statement based upon the members of the disjunction.

3. The dilemma must not be subject to be rebuttal. A dilemma is rebutted

when the same disjunctive members are accepted and conclusions are
drawn from them which are the very opposite of those made by the
opponent.

Argument of Protagoras:

If Euathlus loses this case, then he must pay me (by the judgment of the
courts); if he win this case, then he must pay me (by the terms of contract).
He must either lose or win this case. Therefore, Euathlus must pay me.

Argument of Protagoras:

If I win this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by judgment of the
court); if I lose this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by the terms of
the contract, for then I shall not yet have won my first case).
I must either win or lose this case.
Therefore, I do not have to pay Protagoras.

Try evaluating the following dilemmas:

1. Either I speak justly or I speak unjustly. If I speak justly then the gods will
love me. If I speak unjustly, then men will love me. So either the gods
will love me or men will love.

2. Either I work all the time or I play all the time. If I work all the time then I
shall be poor company. If I play all the time then I shall be a poor
scholar. Therefore, either I shall be poor company or I shall be a poor
scholar.

3. Either he walks or he catches the bus. If he walks then he will get wet. If
he catches the bus then he will arrive too early. Therefore, either he will
get wet or he will arrive too early.

4. If he was disloyal, then his dismissal was justified; and if he was

unintelligent, then his dismissal was justified. He was either disloyal or
unintelligent. Therefore, his dismissal was justified.

66
5. If people are good, laws are not needed to prevent wrongdoing, whereas
if the people are bad, laws will not succeed in preventing wrongdoing.
People are either good or bad. Therefore, wither laws are needed to
prevent wrongdoing or laws will not succeed in preventing wrongdoing.

CHAPTER

INDUCTIVE: CAUSAL REASONING

67
14
 Inductive is a reasoning process whereby the human mind proceeds
from particular instances to a universal/general truth. Causal reasoning and
hypothesis making are some of the areas wherein inductive reasoning finds its
applicability especially for correct thinking.

1. CAUSUAL REASONING – Francis Bacon once remarked that, “To know

truly is to know by cause.” He is just echoing what Aristotle once said
centuries ago: “that we do not know something we do not know the cause.”
The cause is the reason why something is the case, and the search fro the
cause is the search for a deeper explanation.

There are methods for finding the cause and these methods for finding
the cause of an event were formulated very carefully by John Stuart Mill and
were called Methods of Experimental Inquiry. David Hume had set forth
similar principles but it was Francis Bacon who first stated them in NOVUM
ORGANUM (1620). These methods of causal reasoning are, namely:

Method of Agreement – If two or more instances of the phenomenon

under investigation have only one circumstances in common, the
circumstances in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause
of the given phenomenon.” Suppose that we want to find out the
cause of X. To use this method we would need at least two
separate occurrences of X. Then we would check that antecedent
circumstances for agreement. For examples”

Antecedent Circumstances The Effect whose Cause is

Being Investigated.
abcd X1
defg X2

Since d is the only circumstance that the two occurrences

of X have in common, it must be the cause of X. The other
antecedent circumstances like “a” or “b” cannot be the cause
unless other instances of the phenomenon has its antecedent
circumstances either “a” or “b”.

68
Method of Differences – “If an instance in which the phenomenon under
investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur,
have every circumstances in common save for one, that one
occurring only in the former; the circumstances in which alone the
two instances differ. Is the cause of the phenomenon.

The use of this method requires a positive and a negative

instance, with antecedents differing in only one respect.

Antecedent Circumstances The Effect whose Cause is

Being Investigated
abcd X occurred
abc X did not occur

Since the antecedent circumstances are the same in

both instances in all respects except one, that one difference
must be what made the difference. Therefore, d caused X. The
antecedent circumstances, like “a” or “b” cannot be the cause for
they are there, X would have occurred in the second instance.

Joint Method of Agreement and Differences – Sometimes it is

possible to use the two methods simultaneously. We
need several positive instances of the effect (as the
method of Agreement does) and several instances of the
effect (suggestive of the method of difference). If among
the antecedent circumstances there is only one common
to all the positive instances (agreement) and absent from
all the negative instance (differences) there is good
reason to believe that the circumstances is the cause of
the effect.

Antecedent Circumstances The Effect whose Cause is

Being Investigated
acg X occurred
bcg X occurred
cdg X occurred
ceg X occurred

69
 cfg X occurred
xyz X did not occur
uvw X did not occur
xyc X did not occur

The Method of Agreement alone would not have given us

an answer from the above data, for there is more than one factor
common to the positive occurrences: c and g. The Method of
Difference alone would have failed to yield an answer, for there
are not two instances, one positive and the other negative, in
which the antecedent circumstances are alike in all respects but
one. By using the methods jointly, however, we get a good
result: g is the only factor that is common to all the positive
instances and absent from all the negative instances.

2. HYPOTHESIS – MAKING AND TESTING – a hypothesis is an

educated guess or a possible tentative explanation for a particular
phenomenon or event. In order to arrive at knowledge and truth,
which at the moment is not yet available because of so many data at
hand, it is sometimes necessary to formulate first a working
hypothesis from which one can start one’s investigation. Once made
and formulated, the hypothesis should be tested. If various tests
confirm and does not falsify the hypothesis, then we have the real
explanation for the event in question.

A hypothesis illuminates the facts while the facts support the

hypothesis. For examples, One night, Mr. Jose returns home. When
he approaches the door, he finds that the lock has been broken. He
enters the house and turns on the light. Muddy footprints are on the
floor. While pondering these unusual phenomena he begins to
prepare himself some midnight snack. He find to his dismay that the
silverware is gone. The factual situation has now become a problem
for him. He wants to know what happened; he wants to account for
the strange facts; he wants to understand them.

The obvious one, the one that occurs to him first, is that the
place has been burglarized. His argument takes this form:

The locks on the door has been broken. (observed fact 1)

There are muddy footprints on the floor. (observed fact 2)
The silverware is gone. (observed fact 3)

70
 _____________________________________________
Conclusion: The place has been burglarized. (Hypothesis)

This conclusion does indeed explain the facts. In view of a

burglary having taken place, these facts are quite appropriate. Mr
Jose’s thought has found a place to rest; his curiosity is satisfied.
Although the facts are still disturbing, they are not so intellectually
disturbing, for Mr. Jose now has an explanation for them.

A hypothesis must possess a number of very important

qualities to really explain certain events or phenomena. These are:

2.1. Testability – in light of the facts they explain, hypothesis

are more
or less probable. They still are tentative. But since any set
of facts have several possible explanations or hypothesis,
we need a criterion from choosing from among them. The
best criterion is the capacity to pass tests. Statements that
are not testable predictions can be made about the future.
It commits itself on what will be observed under given
conditions. As a result of the tests, the hypothesis is either
confirmed or disconfirmed.

2.2. Likelihood – when the choice from among rival hypotheses

cannot
be made on the basis of confirmation or disconfirmation,
we may appeal to the criterion of likelihood. Likelihood has
to do with how the hypothesis coheres with well-founded
scientific principles with the relative frequency of the type
of thing set forth in the hypothesis. For example: A man is
suddenly cured of lingering illness. The hypothesis that
man was healed by divine intervention is less likely than
the obvious hypothesis that the medication has begun to
have a cumulative effect. It coheres much better with
medical science.

2.3. Simplicity – if two hypotheses explain the same set of

facts, receive equivalent confirmation and seem equally
likely, we may, for practical reasons, choose the one that
contains briefer descriptions or posits fewer entities.

71
 There is no rationale for this procedure. There is
no reason why nature should choose the shorter route.
The long and complicated hypothesis is ruled out, if not for
unlikelihood, merely because it is long and complicated.

This is also somewhat expressed in the principle

of parsimory or Ockham’s Razor: Entities should not be
multiplied beyond necessity.

CHAPTER

72
FALLACIES
15
 The word “fallacy” is used in various ways. One familiar use of the word
is to designate any mistaken idea or false belief. But logicians use the term in
the narrower sense of an error in reasoning or in argument. And in this chapter,
we will treat the various common fallacies which we sometimes hear and
unfortunately, accept.

1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to Force)

The argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed when one appeals

to force of the treat or force to cause acceptance of a conclusion. It is usually
resorted to only when evidence or rational arguments fail. The “ad baculum” is
epitomized in the saying “the might is right.” The use of threat of “strong arm”
methods to coerce political opponents provides contemporary examples of this
fallacy. Other appeals to non-rational methods of intimidation may of course be
more subtle than the open use or threat of concentration camps or “goon
squads.”

2. Argumentum ad Hominem

This translate literally as “argument directed to the man,” It is committed

when, instead of trying to disprove what is asserted, one attacks the character or
personality of the opponent. This includes name calling and mud slinging. This
argument is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically
irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what an individual says or the correctness
or incorrectness of that individual argument.

Example: Do not believe in what he is saying, his father is a criminal and his
mother never went to school.

3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument

that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there
are any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued
that a proposition is true simply on the basis that is has not been proved false, or
that it is false because it had not been proved true. But on our ignorance on how
to prove or disprove a proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the
falsehood of that proposition. This fallacy often arises in the connection with
such matters as psychic phenomena, telepathy, and the like, where there us no
clear-cut evidence wither for or against.

73
4. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

The argumentum ad misericordiam is the fallacy committed when pity is

appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted, where the conclusion
is concerned with a question of fact rather than a matter of sentiment. This
argument is frequently encountered in courts of law, when a defense attorney
may disregard the facts of the case and seek to win his client’s acquittal by
arousing pity in the jurors.

Example: “I killed him because I love him. He was suffering and I cannot imagine
the pain that he is experiencing.”

5. Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)

In attempting to make up one’s mind on a difficult and complicated

question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledge expert
who has studied the matter thoroughly. One may argue that such and such a
conclusion is correct because it is the best judgment of such an expert authority.
This method of argument is perfectly legitimate. For most of us, the reference to
an admitted authority in the special field of that authority’s competence may carry
weight and constitute relevant evidence. If none experts are disputing over some
questions of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the
matter, that testimony is relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it
certainly tends to support it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts, their
appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority
of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.

But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the

province of that authority’s special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of
argumentum ad verecundiam. If an argument about morality one of the
disputants appeals to the opinions of Darwin, a great authority in biology, the
appeal is fallacious. Similarly, an appeal to the opinions of a great physicist like
Einstein to settle a political or economic argument would be fallacious. The claim
might be made that people brilliant enough to achieve the status of authorities in
advanced and difficult fields like biology and physics must have the correct
opinions in fields other than their specialties. But the weakness of this claim is
obvious when we realize that, in this day of extreme specialization, to obtain
through knowledge of one field requires such concentration as to restrict the
possibility of achieving authoritative knowledge in others. Advertising
“testimonials” are frequent instances of this fallacy.

6. Petitio Principii (begging the question)

74
 In attempting to establish the truth of a proposition, one often casts about
for acceptable premises from which the proposition in question can be inferred as
conclusion. If one assumes as a premise for an argument the very conclusion it
is intended to prove, the fallacy committed is that of petitio principii or begging
the question.

Examples:
1. The soul can never die, for it is immortal.
2. Abortion is wrong because it is immoral.

It should be noted that the premise is not logically irrelevant to the truth
of the conclusion, for if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true also—
since it is the same proposition. But the premise is logically irrelevant to the
purpose of proving or establishing the conclusion. If the proposition is
acceptable without argument, no argument is needed to establish it; and if the
proposition is not acceptable without argument, then no argument that requires
its acceptance as a premise could possibly lead one to accept its conclusion. In
any such argument the conclusion asserts only what was asserted in the
premises, and hence the argument, though perfectly valid, is utterly incapable of
establishing the truth it conclusion.

7. Complex Question

It is told of King Charles II of England that he once asked the members of

the Royal Society to determine for him why is it that if you place a dead fish in a
bowl of water it made the water overflow, while a live one does not. Some
members thought about this a very long time and offered ingenious but
unconvincing explanations, until one of them finally decided to test the question.
He discovered, of course, that it did not make a bit difference whether one place
a dead fish or a live one on a bowl of water—in either case, the water either
flowered over or it did not. Whether the story is true or not, it conveys a rather
important lesson, namely, that before jumping in to answer a question, it is best
to question the question. For every question necessarily bring along which it is to
be answered. These may not lead to the required solution. To find such a
solution, an investigator may often have to struggle long and hard to liberate
himself from the misleading influence of the question.

Example: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Of course, one cannot answer such a question without incriminating

oneself. To say that one has not stopped is, of course, bad, for that means one
is still beating her; and say that one has stopped is to admit that one did it at one
time.

75
 What is wrong with all such questions is that they assume a particular
answer to a prior question—one that had neither been asked nor answered in the
way required by the subsequent question. Such questions, for example, as: “Why
is it that girls are more interested in religion than boys?” assume that girls are
indeed more interested has been asked and answered in affirmative, it does not
make sense, and it is fallacious, to inquire why.

8. Fallacy of Equivocation

It consists in basing an argument on words used in different meaning

since everything depends upon the meaning we give to terms, the use of words
in a different supposition in the course of an inference will naturally cause
confusion of thought and lead to a fallacious argument.

Example:

Spirits are immaterial substances, but whiskey and liquors are spirits.
Therefore, whiskey and liquors are immaterial substances.

Marriage is an institution and an institution is a place for insane people.

Therefore, marriage is for insane people.

A king is a ruler and ruler have 12 inches. Therefore, a king has 12

inches.

9. Fallacy of Accent

The name logicians have come to attach to those fallacies or deceptions

that arise from ambiguity or confusion as to emphasis. The fallacy can take three
forms: (1) it can result from confusion concerning the tone of voice a certain
statement was meant to be spoken in. (2) It can result from confusion where the
stress was meant to be placed in a remark. (3) And it can arise when a passage
is torn out of context and thus given an emphasis it was not meant to have.

Examples:

“You never looked better.” (Meaning what? That you always look that
way—namely, bad; or that you were never more beautiful?)

School sign: Slow Children Crossing

76
 Road sign: Slow Men Working
“I called him a liar. It is true. And I’m sorry for it.”

10. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Fallacy. (after this, therefore because of this)

It is no evidence that one event is caused by another event, simply

because the former follows the latter. It assumes that a conclusion is proven or
valid because it mistakes sequence in time or coincidence as a casual relation or
valid proof.

Example:
“After the fork dropped, a visitor arrived. Therefore, the dropping of forks
can tell the arrival of visitors.”

“Black cats are bad luck.”

“Breaking one’s mirror brings bad luck.”

“The Roman Empire declined and fell after the appearance of

Christianity. Therefore, the cause of the fall of empires is due to the
spread of Christianity.”

11. Non Sequitur (it does not follow).

It assumes that a conclusion is valid and proven even though there is no

logical connection between what is offered as proof and the conclusion being
proven.

Examples:

“Please give him the job. His mother is very sick.”

“Sir, please pass me in your subject. Y father will get mad at me.”

“She should be our class president. She looks great.”

12. Bifurcation

77
 This refers to a fallacy that presumes a certain distinction or classification
is exhaustive and exclusive when other alternatives are possible. This is also
called the “Either/or Fallacy” or the Black or White Fallacy.”

In some case of “either/or’ the situation is such that there is no middle

course between the two extremes noted. The two poles of the proposition
exhaust all the possibilities and therefore if one of them is true, the other must be
false and vice versa. “either it is your birthday today or it is not” is a valid
proposition.

GLOSSARY

DEFINITIONS OF IMPORTANT TERMS IN LOGIC

78
abduction: (1) a syllogism of which the major premise is true but the minor
premise in only probable. (2) the name given by C.S. Pierce to the creative
formulation of new statistical hypotheses that explain a given set of facts.

accident: an unessential property, that which may be attributed to a substance

without being essential to that substance. For instance, a girl may be blonde, but
she must be female; blondeness in this example is an accident, femaleness is
not.

a fortiori: (Latin for: from the stronger.) A phrase used to signify “all the more” or
“even more certain.” If all men are mortal, then a fortiori all Filipinos must be
mortal.

analogy: likeness or similarity. The positive analogy between the two terms of a
comparison—their likeness—may be contrasted with the negative—their
unlikeness. Argument by analogy infers that, because this is like that in some
respects, this and that must therefore be similar also in others. As deductions
such conclusions, do not follow. Yet they may sometimes be usefully suggestive,
because in fact true.

and: a connective used to join two simple statements so forming a compound

statement having the force of the joint assertion of its components statements. In
this case, reversal of the order of the statements makes no difference to what is
said. In the use of “and” to form conjunction of two statements, it is often claimed
to be a truth-functional connective or a truth-functional operator whose definition
is given by the truth-table.

p & q

T T T
T F F
F F T
F F F

atomic sentence: a sentence containing no logical operator, and which is thus

logically simple.

categories: a technical term used to refer to 10 classes, that together covered all
modes of being. A predicate in one category might, in certain conditions, and
account of its category membership, be thought inappropriate to apply to a
subject in another.

79
concept: that which a person has when he understand or is able to use some
portion of his language. Criteria for processing a concept may be weak, requiring
only an ability to pick out or distinguish that to which an expression applies. For
example, to possess the concept “cow” could require no more than the ability to
say “cow” in the presence of cow. Stronger criteria might involve the grasp of the
logical of grammatical behavior of the expression, factual knowledge or ability to
define the essence of cow.

conditional: describing a statement in which it is claimed that something is, or

will be the case, provided that, or on the condition that, some other situations
obtains. The symbolic representation of “If p, then Q” is pq is defined by the
truth table.

p  q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F T F

confirmation: the relation between propositions when one supports or adds

credence to another.

consequence: If S is a set of statements, the statement A is said to be

consequence of S if the truth of A follows from the joint truth of members of S.

contradiction, principle (or law) of: the same attribute cannot at the same time
belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect. It is also
stated more concisely as “it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be.”
In modern logic, “it is not the case both that p and not p” (where p is a
proposition).

contrary: either of two propositions so related that both may be false but only
one can be true.

deduction: a valid argument in which it is impossible to asset the premises and

to deny the conclusion without thereby contradicting oneself. The word is not
confined within the restrictions of traditional syllogistic form.

definition: a process or expression that provides the precise meaning of a word

or phrase.

80
denotation: the denotation of a word refers to the particulars to which the word
can be correctly applied, while the connotation is the abstract or dictionary
definition of the word.

differential: that part of the essence of a thing that distinguishes its species from
all other species in the same genus.

distributed: denoting an assertion that is made of all members of a class. An

undistributed assertion is made of less than all the members of a class.

double negation: the principle that any proposition implies and is implied by the
negation of its negation.

enthymeme: a syllogism with a suppressed premise.

equivocal: having two meanings.

fallacy: an argument involving an invalid, rather than valid, form of reasoning.

hypothetico-deductive method: the method of creating scientific theory by

making a hypothesis from which results already obtained could have been
deduced, and which entails new experimental predictions that can be verified or
refuted.

idea: the term “idea” is equivalent to the term “eidos” (from). Both are connected
with the Greek word “idein” (to see); an idea is something that is seen—but seen
by a kind of intellectual vision.

illicit major: a fallacy associated with the categorical syllogism in traditional

logic. It is committed when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not
in the premise.

illicit minor: it is committed when the minor term is distributed in the conclusion
but not in the premise.

liar paradox: a paradox traditional attributed to Epimenides the Cretan and

supposedly strengthened by Eubulides. The statement, “I am lying,” is true only if
it is false, and false if it is true. This was an example by Russell in developing
the theory of types, showing that certain formulation of words, though
grammatically correct, are logically nonsensical.

logical form: the form of an argument expressed in a symbolical representation

from the structure of which the reasoning procedure is apparent. It is by

81
reference to this structure that the argument is judged to be formally valid or
invalid according as the reasoning procedure adopted is or not such that, in
general and given true premises, it will lead to a true conclusion.

major premise: in a categorical syllogism, the premise containing the major

term.

major term: the predicate term of the conclusion of a categorical syllogism.

masked man fallacy: the mistake of arguing that because someone knows (or
does not know) something under one description, they must therefore know it (or
they, therefore, cannot know it) as the same thing when it appears under another
description. From instance, from facts that my father knew Lloyd George, and
that my father did not know who the masked man was, it does not follow that the
masked man was not Lloyd George.

minor premise: the premise containing the minor tem.

minor term: the subject term of the conclusion of a categorical syllogism.

modus ponens: (Latin for: mood that affirms.) In its basic form, an argument that
runs “if p, then q. p therefore, q.”

modus tollens: (Latin for: mood that denies). In its basic form, an argument that
runs: If p, then q. But not q. Therefore, not p.

negation: the denial of a proportion. In logic it is assumed that every proposition

has a unique negation and that to assert the negation of the proposition is p is in
effect to deny p.

non sequitur: (Latin for: it does not follow.) The expression is usually applied
only to the drawing of conclusions without even an appearance of valid
argument, rather than to those drawn invalidly by argument that happens to be
fallacious.

operator: that which effects an operation. In logic, it is usually expressed as a

symbol.

or: another connective used in compound statement whose symbolic

representation is defined in the truth table.

p v q

82
 T T T
T T F
F T T
F F F

premise: in any argument, one of the statements from which another statement
(the conclusion) is deduced or of which the conclusion is presented as a
consequence. These statements, from which the conclusion is claimed to follow,
are the suppositions on which the conclusion rests.

proper names: a particular class of referring expressions, such as “Manila” or

“Jose Rizal.”

proposition: whatever that can be asserted, denied, contended, maintained,

assumed, supposed, implied or presupposed. In other words, it is that which is
expressed by a typical indicative sentence. The same proposition may be
expressed by different sentences in the same language or by sentences of
different languages.

quiddity: the real nature or logical essence of a thing. The term is derived from
the Latin noun “quidditas,” translating the Greek for “that-which-it-is-to-be” of
something.

reduction ad absurdum: (Latin for: reduction to absurdity.) Refutation by

displaying absurd consequences following as a matter of logical necessity.

referent: to which a word refers. Cows are thus the referents of the word “cows.”

square of opposition: In medieval texts, a diagram summarizing the logical

relations between the four categorical propositions each having the same subject
and predicate terms. These propositions are traditionally represented by A, E, I,
and O.

subaltern: a statement q is a subaltern of the statement p if and only if q is true

whenever p is true p is false whenever q is false.

subcontraries: a pair of statements that can be simultaneously true but which

cannot be simultaneously false.

sui generis: (Latin for: or its, or his, own kind.) Of a thing believed to be unique,
and not a member of a class with other fellow members. God is often said to be
sui generis.

83
suppositio: in medieval logic, the thing or things for which a noun or substantive
stands. For non-substantives, for example, adjectives or verbs, there was a
corresponding copulation. A variety of types of suppositio was distinguished.
Thus, suppositio simplex meant the class concept to which a common noun
refers, for example, “Man is an animal.”

syllogism: as defined by Aristotle, a “kind of discourse in which, certain things

being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their
being so.”

syncategorematic: in traditional logic, denoting a word that cannot stand on its

own, but must be joined to a categorematic term in order to enter a categorical
proposition, for example, “all,” “and,” and “some.” In modern logic, the sense has
been extended to apply to any symbol that has no independent meaning.

tautology: a term that has acquired a specialized use in logic, signifying a truth-
functional compound that is true for all assignments of truth-values to its
component proposition. The truth-table for a tautology thus contains only Ts in
the final column entered. For example:

(p V q) V - p

T T T T F T
T T F T F T
F T T T T F
F F F T T F

is a tautology since it is true no matter what the actual truth-values of p and q.

For this reason one can say a tautology is an empty, or vacuous, proposition,
that says nothing about how things are in the world, since its truth-value is
independent of the way things are. It is a logical and not a factual truth; true
because of the logical nature of the operators used to construct it rather than
because things are in the world as they are said to be in the statement.

Truth-table: a device, sometimes also known as a matrix, for exhibiting the

conditions under which a truth-functional compound is true or false. A truth-table
may thus be used to define a truth-functional connective or operator by exhibiting
the truth-function to which it corresponds, but it may also be used for testing the
validity of arguments. The idea of a truth-values for the component propositions
of the compound, and that there be sufficient rows to cover all possible
combinations.

univocal: having only one meaning.

84
valid or invalid: terms that may be applied to argument or patterns or forms of
argument. Arguments may be assessed as valid or invalid, whereas statements,
the components of arguments, are assessed for truth or falsity. An argument is
valid when it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false; it
is invalid otherwise.

venn diagram: a pictorial representation of logical statements, useful for

clarifying and checking logical arguments. In 1880, the English logician John
Venn presented a method, using circles that greatly improved on previous
attempts.

85
86