Logic (from the Ancient Greek: , logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning.

Zeno the Stoic first coined the term logic

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone
of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. The general form of an argument in
a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences)
in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5]The structure of some arguments can also be set out in
a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language
arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science.
The Three Primary Elements of an Argument
1.

Claim (assertion, proposition)

1.
2.

2.

A statement affirming or denying something

the answer to the question "What are you trying to prove?" "What's your point?" Can be denied (in this context)

Grounds (Support, evidence)

1. material which will convince audience/opponent
2. not likely to be disputed (in this context) OR can be further supported.
3. usually more concrete, often narrower (or a general truth).
4. an answer to the question, "How so?" "Why do you think so?" "Prove it!"
5. It is appropriate for the claim because it is relevant and strong.

3.

Warrant: what links support/gr. to cl. Why the gr. is allowed to stand as proof
for the claim
1. A principle of logic or reasoning
2. a recipe or license
3. often a formal rule
4. generally unstated, an assumption that both rhetor and audience implicitly accept
5. the key is that a warrant can apply to many claims and grounds. It's not
specific to just this situation.

EXAMPLE:
Claim: Joe Smith is a good choice for the position of Appellate Court Judge
Grounds: The American Bar Association recommended Smith as well qualified.
Warrant: (usually unspoken) The ABA is an authority source known as competent to determine who
is a good choice for appellate judge positions.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is

said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.
Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
Most of the arguments philosophers concern themselves with are--or purport to be-deductive arguments. Mathematical proofs are a good example of deductive argument.
Most of the arguments we employ in everyday life are not deductive arguments but
rather inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are arguments which do not attempt to establish a
thesis conclusively. Rather, they cite evidence which makes the conclusion somewhat reasonable to
believe. The methods Sherlock Holmes employed to catch criminals (and which Holmes misleadingly
called "deduction") were examples of inductive argument. Other examples of inductive argument
include: concluding that it won't snow on June 1st this year, because it hasn't snowed on June 1st for
any of the last 100 years; concluding that your friend is jealous because that's the best explanation
you can come up with of his behavior, and so on.
It's a controversial and difficult question what qualities make an argument a good inductive
argument. Fortunately, we don't need to concern ourselves with that question here. In this class,
we're concerned only with deductive arguments.
Philosophers use the following words to describe the qualities that make an argument a good
deductive argument:

Valid Arguments
We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just "valid") when the conclusion is entailed by,
or logically follows from, the premises.
Validity is a property of the argument's form. It doesn't matter what the premises and the conclusion
actually say. It just matters whether the argument has the right form. So, in particular, a valid
argument need not have true premises, nor need it have a true conclusion. The following is a valid
argument:
1. All cats are reptiles.
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat.
3. So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.
Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is the conclusion. But the premises are of such a
form that if they were both true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Hence the argument
is valid.
To tell whether an argument is valid, figure out what the form of the argument is, and then try to think
of some other argument of that same form and having true premises but a false conclusion. If you
succeed, then every argument of that form must be invalid. A valid form of argument can never lead
you from true premises to a false conclusion.
For instance, consider the argument:
1. If Socrates was a philosopher, then he wasn't a historian.
2. Socrates wasn't a historian.
3. So Socrates was a philosopher.
This argument is of the form "If P then Q. Q. So P." (If you like, you could say the form is: "If P then
not-Q. not-Q. So P." For present purposes, it doesn't matter.) The conclusion of the argument is true.

But is it a valid form of argument?

It is not. How can you tell? Because the following argument is of the same form, and it has true
premises but a false conclusion:
1. If Socrates was a horse (this corresponds to P), then Socrates was warm-blooded (this
corresponds to Q).
2. Socrates was warm-blooded (Q).
3. So Socrates was a horse (P).
Since this second argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it must be invalid. And since
the first argument has the same form as the second argument (both are of the form "If P then Q. Q.
So P."), both arguments must be invalid.

Sound Arguments
An argument is sound just in case it's valid and all its premises are true.
The argument:
1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it.
2. The moon is made of green cheese.
3. Therefore, cows jump over the moon.
is an example of a valid argument which is not sound.
We said above that a valid argument can never take you from true premises to a false conclusion. So,
if you have a sound argument for a given conclusion, then, since the argument has true premises,
and since the argument is valid, and valid arguments can never take you from true premises to a
false conclusion, the argument's conclusion must be true. Sound arguments always have true
conclusions.
This means that if you read Philosopher X's argument and you disagree with his conclusion, then
you're committed to the claim that his argument is unsound. Either X's conclusion does not actually
follow from his premises--there is a problem with his reasoning or logic--or at least one of X's
premises is false.
When you're doing philosophy, it is never enough simply to say that you disagree with someone's
conclusion, or that his conclusion is wrong. If your opponent's conclusion is wrong, then there must be
something wrong with his argument, and you need to say what it is.

In philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas
can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images. Many philosophers have
considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity
to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature
of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without
thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.
Term is a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular
kind of language or branch of study.

SUPPOSITION OF TERMS
Supposition is the property by which a term stands for a definite one of the various things it
can stand for (Bacchuber, 1957, p.230). A term can stand as a material image, as a subject or
predicate of a sentence, as something pertaining a reality, or as pertaining to something or someone
in reality.
Consider these examples:
1.
Chair has five letters.
2.
Chair is an absolute concept.
3.
Chair is a furniture.
4.
A chair is used to block the pathway.
In Example 1, chair stands as a material image, the word itself. In Example 2, chair stands
for an essence or whatness that exists only in the mind; that is because the whatness of chair in
this example cannot be absolute concept except only in the mind. In Example 3, chair stands for
it real essence or whatness because it tells us what the chair really is. It must be noted that in this
example the supposition of chair does not actually imply an actual existence of a chair. In Example
4, however, chair stands for an actually existing chair. Yet in all four examples, chair has exactly
the same meaning, signification, and definition; that is, the examples do not indicate equivocal
meanings of the term chair.
Shift in suppositions of terms in reasoning will lead us into error. Thus, to avoid this kind of
error, it is important to be able to identify the supposition of a particular term in a particular
statement.
Consider this invalid argument:
Philosophy means love of wisdom. Existentialism is a philosophy. Hence, existentialism means love of
wisdom.
One who does not know anything about supposition will readily claim that this argument is
valid. However, deeper analysis will show that this argument is invalid. We will explain why this is so
after we discussed the kinds of supposition.
KINDS OF SUPPOSITION
A.
Material Supposition
It is the use of a term for the spoken or written sign itself, but not for what it signifies (Bacchuber,
1957, p.231). In the following examples, the supposition of chair is material: Chair rhymes with
hair, and Chair has R as its last letter. In all these usages, chair is really a furniture, but the fact
that chairs being a furniture has nothing to do with the fact chair rhymes with hair, or that its last
letter is R. Hence, in these examples we only consider the material makeup of the word chair.
B.
Formal Supposition
Formal supposition is the use of a term not for the sign itself, but for what it signifies. In the example
Chair is a furniture, chair has a formal supposition because it is not the word chair that is a
furniture but what the chair signifies that is a furniture.
Types of Formal Supposition
1.
Logical Supposition
It is the use of a term for what it signifies not as it exists in the real order but as it exists only in
the mind. For example, chair can signify as concept, as a subject of a sentence, as inferior to
the term furniture, etc., but in all of these significations, chair does not refer to the chair in
the real order but to the chair that is a product of mental construct.

Other examples:
Man is an absolute concept.
Elephant is the subject of the sentence No elephants are pink.
Monkey is inferior to the term mammal.
2.
Real Supposition
It is the use of a term for what it signifies in the real order. The supposition of chair is real in the
sentence, The chair is used to block the pathway because it refers to something in the real
order.
Other examples:
Man is a rational animal.
Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
This monkey is a primate.
Real supposition is on one hand, either absolute or personal, and on the other hand, either
essential or accidental.
Types of Real Supposition
a.
Absolute and Personal
A real supposition is absolute if it is used to refer to the whatness or essence as such and not
to something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. For example, in the sentence
Man is rational, man refers not to anyone but to the essence of man as such.
Other examples:
Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
Chair is a furniture designed as a single seat.
Kindness is the highest virtue.
A real supposition is personal if it is used to refer not to the whatness or essence as such but to
something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. In the sentence The man is
rational, man refers to someone who has the essence of man; hence, it is personal.
Other examples:
The elephant I saw yesterday has a very long proboscis.
A chair is used to block the pathway.
These persons are innocent.
It is very important to note that statements using terms with absolute supposition do not
assert the actual existence of the terms signified objects. For example, the sentence
Superman is a superhero does not imply the existence of Superman in reality. This is not
true, however, in statements using terms with personal supposition. For example, the
statement Superman saved Mary Jane implies the existence of Superman in the actual
order.
b.
Essential and Accidental
A real supposition is essential if the term is predicated of essential attributes, i.e., attributes
that make a thing or a substance what it is. In the sentence Man is rational, man has an
essential supposition because rational is an essential attribute that makes man as man.
Other examples:
The elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
Chair is a furniture.
All men are mortals.

A real supposition is accidental is the term is predicated of accidental attributes, i.e., attributes
that do not make a thing or substance what it is. In the sentence, A man took his seat,
man has an accidental supposition because taking a seat is not what makes man as man.
Other examples:
Elephants can be used in circuses.
The man has a dirty face.
Birds migrate from one continent to another.

THE PREDICAMENTS AND PREDICABLES

This part is given as an introduction to the next topic on definitions. Whenever we attempt to define
things, we try to find out what is the feature that the thing has in common with other objects so that
we may readily disclose the nature of the thing from such common feature. Then when we proceed to
look for the feature that distinguishes the thing from other objects and manifests the specific nature
that is proper to the thing.
A predicament is a difficult, confusing, and unpleasant situation.
THE TEN PREDICAMENTS
The first predicament is that of Substance. The other nine predicaments are classifications of the socalled metaphysical accidents, which are non-essential modification of the substance.
1. SUBSTANCE is a being that exists by or for itself and does not need any other subject in order to
exist. Ex. Man; house. It answers the question who or what is this thing?
ACCIDENTS is anything that cannot exist by itself and must be attached to a substance. The
following as the accidents:
2. Quantity an accident which determines the spatial extension of a thing in the form of magnitude
or multitude. Ex. The pole is 10 feet long. It answers the question how much or how big?
3. Quality is an accident which specifies or characterizes a thing. Ex. Intelligent; brave. It answers
the question what sort of a thing it is?
4. Relation is an accident which logically or really connects one thing with another. Ex. Fatherhood;
taller than. It answers the question to what or to whom does it refer to?
5. Action is the motion of the substance commonly inducing a result on doing something in another
time. Ex. Painting; running. It answers the question what hr is doing?
6. Passion is the reception of an effect from another. Sometimes, it is called reaction. Ex. Being
heated; being killed. It answers the question what does it do to another?
7. Time is an accident that measure the duration of mobile beings. Ex. Yesterday; at 8:30 am. It
answer questions, when?
8. Place is an accident that determines the location. Ex, in Calbayog; in the air. It answer the
question, where?
9. Posture - is an accident which tells the position of part of the body. Ex. Standing; to sit down.
10. Habit is an accident signifying the coverings of the things that are placed around the body. Ex.
Clothed; armed. It answers the question how surrounded, equipped or conditions?

THE PREDICABLES
Predicable is a term applied to a classification of the possible relations in which a predicate may
stand to its subject.
The predicables are the different kinds of logical universals, that is, universal concepts that may
applied to many subjects. Taken as classifications, they are universal concepts bearing different kinds
of logical relationship to the subject.
1. Genus a universal term that expresses the essential feature which things has in common with
other species; e.g., man is an animal. The predicate animal is the genus or generic feature which man
shares with the brutes.
2. Specific Difference a universal tern that expresses the essential feature which distinguishes the
essence of the subject from the essence of other things with which the subject shares the same
genus; e.g., man is a rational being. Rationality is the essential feature which distinguishes the
essence or nature of man from that of brutes.
3. Species a universal term that expresses the whole essence or nature of the subject. It embodies
both the genus and the specific difference as constituent or essential features of the subject; e.g.,
man is a RATIONAL ANIMAL.
4. Property a universal term that expresses a feature that does not form part of the essence of the
subject, but necessarily derives from its essence in an exclusive and distinctive manner; e.g., man is
a being capable of education, of wonderment, of religious sentiment, etc.
Logically considered, property is not any attribute that derives from or goes with the nature of man,
e.g. three fold dimension, mortality, etc.; but only a feature that is exclusive of the essential nature
of man and hence derives primarily from his specific constituent feature (specific difference).
5. Accident a universal term that expresses a feature which is not part of the essence of the subject,
not necessarily connected with it, but is found in the subject only in an accessional or contingent
manner; e.g., Pedro is healthy, handsome or virtuous. Contingent means that the feature may be
present or may be absent from the subject.