Logic and Critical Thinking 007

Logic & Critical Thinking {Reference Material} (Week No.
7 & on wards) 1
Fallacies
Concept :
In our daily life we use verity of words to convey our message. But we still needs
some comprehensive supporting statements as well.
A fallacy is counterfeit (fake, bogus) argument in support to conclusion, but infact
do not provide any support at all.
Definition
1. A mistake in reasoning; an argument that fails to provide adequate logical
support for the truth of its conclusion, yet appears convincing or persuasive in
some other way. Common examples include both formal fallacies (structural
errors in deductive logic) and informal fallacies (efforts to persuade by non-
rational appeals).
2. An argument whose premises do not support its conclusion is one whose
conclusion could be false even if all its premises were true, in such case,
reasoning is bad, and the argument is said to be fallacious.
3. Fallacy is the mistake arise commonly in ordinary discourse which in turn
destroys the argument.
4. Fallacy as a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves,
on examination, not to be so.
Types
Fallacies of Relevance
Concept :
A type of argument which clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the
truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade
people by non-logical means.
Definition
1. When an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion,
and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth, the fallacy committed
is on of relevance.
Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com
.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Logic & Critical Thinking {Reference Material} (Week No. 7 & on wards) 2
2. The conclusion is logically irrelevant to the premises, even if it is

psychologically or emotionally relevant. They key to spotting a fallacy of
relevance is to distinguish genuine evidence from emotional appeal.
There are 5 types of Relevance Fallacies.
• Appeal to Force
If someone "persuade" something by means of threats, without giving a

reason for thinking the proposition is true; by simply scaring to think, or at
least into saying, it is true.
Definition
1. A type of argument in which the reason to believe or follow the
recommendations of the arguer is to avoid harm or to gain some reward.
It replaces REASON with FEAR or DESIRE.
2. Trying to get someone to accept a proposition on the basis of a threat
3. The fallacy need not involve actual physical force or violence. It is
committed whenever any sort of threat is used, and nonphysical threats
are probably more common than physical ones.
For example :
Student said to examination incharge : "I deserve a good grade, wouldn't
you agree? If you don't agree, I'm afraid about what might happen: I just
can't control hands here".
Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Populum)

This fallacy is the attempt to persuade someone of a conclusion by an
appeal to emotion instead of evidence. A person who commits this fallacy is
hoping that his listeners will adopt a belief on the basis of a feeling he has
instilled in them--outrage, hostility, fear, pity, guilt, or whatever.
Definition
Trying to get someone to accept a proposition on the basis of an emotion it
induces.
For example :
Nobody have a common sense or believes that our President not politician
and truly an effective political leader. Therefore, the President is not an
effective leader.

Appeal to Pity
Tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that
will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then
feel sorry.
Definition
Arguing for reason to believe; to avoid harming others, or conversely to
cause them pleasure- at their request.
In this form of the fallacy, REASON is replaced with PITY.
(shame,crime,mercy)
For example :
I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my
children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be
unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become
homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this
traffic ticket.
The conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket)
even if the premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious.
OR
Trying to support a conclusion by evoking pity in the listener.
“I need to pass this class in order to graduate, if I don't graduate, my
parents will kill me.
Therefore, I should receive a passing grade in the class".
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is
supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion.
Definition
When appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in
the matter at hand on the basis of :
(a) an expert in the field,
(b) traditional wisdom,
(c) likeable figures (celebrities), or
(d) mass opinion.
For example :
Mr. Pervez Chairman Agriculture Science Board believes that spiders are insects.
Therefore, spiders are insects.

Argument from Ignorance

Supposing that a proposition must be true because there is no proof that it
is false.
Definition
A proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false,
or that it is false because it has not been proved true.
For example :
No one has conclusively proven that there is no life on the moons of
Jupiter. Therefore, there is life on the moons of Jupiter
Argument from Ad Hominem

The fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of
some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms (announce, verify) it.
Definition
1. Literary means “against the person”. A type of fallacy in which the
thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at person who asserts or
defends it.
2. This fallacy feeds off of the same psychological emotions that the
appeal to authority does, but in this case the argument consists of
an attack on the person instead of the ideas or position they are
defending.
3. Attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself.
4. Using a negative trait of a speaker as evidence that his statement is
false or his argument is weak.
For example :
Mr. Kamran sys that the legal month for annual examination should be
December instead of March.
But we all know that Mr. Kamran . . .
. . . goes to his village at March or
. . . never attends classes in winter or
. . . believes that the in winter we should rest
Therefore, the legal month for examination should be March instead of
December.
This fallacy can take one of three forms-
• Abusive- name calling: in this form the person attacks the character
of the person – Mr. Javed calling Noman a “Nomi”, “Chootoo”.etc

• Circumstantial- guilt by association: this one surfaces in political

circles often- usually the opposition argument is characterized as
`liberal' or `socialistic', etc.
• The Ad Hominem Fallacy of Tu Quoque
Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
critic is a infamous liar, you would probably be tempted to say, "Look
who's talking!"
This response is certainly understandable--no one enjoys being
censured by a moral inferior--but it is fallacious.
It's a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
argument. The fact that someone else is guilty of blame doesn't prove
that you are innocent. A related version of the ad hominem fallacy
occurs when we attack someone's position by claiming that it is
inconsistent with his or her practice or other positions
Appeal to Irrelevant Conclusion

The fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a
proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an
entirely different conclusion
Definition
Process of defending the truth of a proposition by appeal to an argument
that is actually concerned with something else
For example :
1. Parents with large incomes can buy lots of things for their children.
Therefore, the children of wealthy parents are happy.
2. All children requires attention from their parents. Parents who work
full-time cannot give attention to their children. Therefore, mothers
should not work full-time.
(truth of a conclusion focussed on women alone and not on men)

Fallacies of Ambiguity
The presence of two or more distinct meanings for a single word or
expression. In itself, ambiguity is a common, harmless, and often amusing
(funny) feature of ordinary language. When unnoticed in the context of
otherwise careful reasoning leads to fallacy.
Definition
When the meaning of words or phrase may shift as a result of inattention
It is called Fallacy of Ambiguity
For example :
"I'll give you a ring tomorrow." could signify either the promise of a gift of
jewelry or merely an intention to telephone. If says to girl friend.
Equivocation
An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one
of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in
another of its meanings in a second proposition.
For example :
Really exciting novels are rare.
But rare books are expensive.
Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.
Or
Where the conclusion of the argument depends on the fact that a word is
being used in two different senses due too semantic ambiguity.
For example :
Everyone wants to do what is right. Therefore, you have the right to do
what you want.
Amphiboly
Where the conclusion of the argument depends on the fact that a sentence
is syntactically ambiguous.
For example :
Norris said he operates a small car repair shop. Therefore, you can't take
your Corolla to him. This can be a real problem in legal documents.
A sentence is syntactically ambiguous when the grammar of the sentence
allows for more than one interpretation of its meaning.
Example: John attacked the man with a knife.

Accent
The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of
spoken or written emphasis.
For example :
"Joan said that she never wants to see another Demi Moore movie, so
we won't show her another one; we'll just play this same one over and
over again."
Composition
The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of
some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater
whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or
whole).
For example :
Every course I took in college was well-organized.
Therefore, my college education was well-organized.
Division
Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution
of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same
feature by each of its individual members (or parts).
For example :
Ocelots are now dying out. (name of sea animal)
Sparky is an ocelot.
Therefore, Sparky is now dying out
The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something
can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be
truly said of each of its individual parts

Comprehension Questions
1. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument. That is the best movie
ever. Why? Because I really liked it.
a) subjectivism b) appeal to majority

c) appeal to emotion d) appeal to force
2. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument. This is the right way to
do it because I am the boss.

3. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument. One million computer
users can't be wrong.

4. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument.

It is easy to see that abortion using the new abortion pill is wrong. What could be
more horrible that munching donuts while you flush the remains of your fetus down the
toilet?


Don’t criticize my country for having the KGB. Your country has the CIA.
a) appeal to authority b) tu quoque c) poisoning the well

Of course, the generals want a higher military budget. It's their jobs that are on the
line.

The new Tumbleweed truck was judged best by the NFL's Rookie of the Year,
defensive lineman Crusher Rockman. You know it has to be tough!
"Up to this point, his logic is absolutely impeccable."

Categorical Propositions
Now that we've taken notice of many of the difficulties that can be caused by
sloppy use of ordinary language in argumentation, we're ready to begin the more
precise study of deductive reasoning. Here we'll achieve the greater precision by
eliminating ambiguous words and phrases from ordinary language and carefully
defining those that remain. The basic strategy is to create a narrowly restricted
formal system—an artificial, rigidly structured logical language within which the
validity of deductive arguments can be discerned with ease. Only after we've
become familiar with this limited range of cases will we consider to what extent our
ordinary-language argumentation can be made to conform to its structure.
Our initial effort to pursue this strategy is the ancient but worthy method of
categorical logic. This approach was originally developed by Aristotle, codified in
greater detail by medieval logicians, and then interpreted mathematically by George
Boole and John Venn in the nineteenth century. Respected by many generations of
philosophers as the the chief embodiment of deductive reasoning, this logical system
continues to be useful in a broad range of ordinary circumstances.
Terms and Propositions
We'll start very simply, then work our way toward a higher level. The basic unit of
meaning or content in our new deductive system is the categorical term. Usually
expressed grammatically as a noun or noun phrase, each categorical term designates
a class of things. Notice that these are (deliberately) very broad notions: a
categorical term may designate any class—whether it's a natural species or merely
an arbitrary collection—of things of any variety, real or imaginary. Thus, "cows,"
"unicorns," "square circles," "philosophical concepts," "things weighing more than fifty kilograms,"
and "times when the earth is nearer than 75 million miles from the sun ," are all categorical
terms.
Notice also that each categorical term cleaves the world into exactly two mutually
exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: those things to which the term applies and
those things to which it does not apply. For every class designated by a categorical
term, there is another class, its complement, that includes everything excluded from
the original class, and this complementary class can of course be designated by its
own categorical term. Thus, "cows" and "non-cows" are complementary classes, as are
"things weighing more than fifty kilograms" and "things weighing fifty kilograms or less."

Everything in the world (in fact, everything we can talk or think about) belongs
either to the class designated by a categorical term or to its complement; nothing is
omitted.
Now let's use these simple building blocks to assemble something more interesting.
A categorical proposition joins together exactly two categorical terms and asserts
that some relationship holds between the classes they designate. (For our own
convenience, we'll call the term that occurs first in each categorical proposition its
subject term and other its predicate term.) Thus, for example, "All cows are mammals"
and "Some philosophy teachers are young mothers" are categorical propositions whose
subject terms are "cows" and "philosophy teachers" and whose predicate terms are
"mammals" and "young mothers" respectively.
Each categorical proposition states that there is some logical relationship that holds
between its two terms. In this context, a categorical term is said to be distributed
if that proposition provides some information about every member of the class
designated by that term. Thus, in our first example above, "cows" is distributed
because the proposition in which it occurs affirms that each and every cow is also a
mammal, but "mammals" is undistributed because the proposition does not state
anything about each and every member of that class. In the second example, neither
of the terms is distributed, since this proposition tells us only that the two classes
overlap to some (unstated) extent.
Quality and Quantity
Since we can always invent new categorical terms and consider the possible
relationship of the classes they designate, there are indefinitely many different
individual categorical propositions. But if we disregard the content of these
propositions, what classes of things they're about, and concentrate on their form,
the general manner in which they conjoin their subject and predicate terms, then we
need only four distinct kinds of categorical proposition, distinguished from each
other only by their quality and quantity, in order to assert anything we like about the
relationship between two classes.
The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of the relationship it

affirms between its subject and predicate terms: it is an affirmative proposition if
it states that the class designated by its subject term is included, either as a whole
or only in part, within the class designated by its predicate term, and it is a negative

proposition if it wholly or partially excludes members of the subject class from the
predicate class. Notice that the predicate term is distributed in every negative
proposition but undistributed in all affirmative propositions.
The quantity of a categorical proposition, on the other hand, is a measure of the

degree to which the relationship between its subject and predicate terms holds: it is
a universal proposition if the asserted inclusion or exclusion holds for every member
of the class designated by its subject term, and it is a particular proposition if it
merely asserts that the relationship holds for one or more members of the subject
class. Thus, you'll see that the subject term is distributed in all universal
propositions but undistributed in every particular proposition.
Combining these two distinctions and representing the subject and predicate terms
respectively by the letters "S" and "P," we can uniquely identify the four possible
forms of categorical proposition:
• A universal affirmative proposition (to which, following the practice of

medieval logicians, we will refer by the letter "A") is of the form
All S are P.
Such a proposition asserts that every member of the class designated by the
subject term is also included in the class designated by the predicate term.
Thus, it
distributes its subject term but not its predicate term.
• A universal negative proposition (or "E") is of the form
No S are P.
This proposition asserts that nothing is a member both of the class

designated by
the subject term and of the class designated by the predicate terms. Since it
reports that every member of each class is excluded from the other, this
proposition distributes both its subject term and its predicate term.
• A particular affirmative proposition ("I") is of the form

Some S are P.
A proposition of this form asserts that there is at least one thing which is a
member both of the class designated by the subject term and of the class
designated by the predicate term. Both terms are undistributed in
propositions of this form.
• Finally, a particular negative proposition ("O") is of the form
Some S are not P.
Such a proposition asserts that there is at least one thing which is a member of the
class designated by the subject term but not a member of the class designated by
the predicate term. Since it affirms that the one or more crucial things that they
are distinct from each and every member of the predicate class, a proposition of
this form distributes its predicate term but not its subject term.
Although the specific content of any actual categorical proposition depends upon the
categorical terms which occur as its subject and predicate, the logical form of the
categorical proposition must always be one of these four types.
The Square of Opposition
When two categorical propositions are of different forms but share exactly the
same subject and predicate terms, their truth is logically interdependent in a variety
of interesting ways, all of which are conveniently represented in the traditional
"square of opposition."
(A)- - - - - - -(E)
"All S are P." "No S are P."
| * * |
* *
| * * |
*
| * * |
* *
| * * |
"Some S are P." (I)--- --- ---(O) "Some S are not P."
Propositions that appear diagonally across from each other in this diagram (A and O
on the one hand and E and I on the other) are contradictories. No matter what their

subject and predicate terms happen to be (so long as they are the same in both) and
no matter how the classes they designate happen to be related to each other in fact,
one of the propositions in each contradictory pair must be true and the other false.
Thus, for example, "No squirrels are predators" and "Some squirrels are predators" are
contradictories because either the classes designated by the terms "squirrel" and
"predator" have at least one common member (in which case the I proposition is true
and the E proposition is false) or they do not (in which case the E is true and the I is
false). In exactly the same sense, the A and O propositions, "All senators are politicians"
and "Some senators are not politicians" are also contradictories.
The universal propositions that appear across from each other at the top of the
square (A and E) are contraries. Assuming that there is at least one member of the
class designated by their shared subject term, it is impossible for both of these
propositions to be true, although both could be false. Thus, for example, " All flowers
are colorful objects" and "No flowers are colorful objects" are contraries: if there are any
flowers, then either all of them are colorful (making the A true and the E false) or
none of them are (making the E true and the A false) or some of them are colorful
and some are not (making both the A and the E false).
Particular propositions across from each other at the bottom of the square (I and
O), on the other hand, are the subcontraries. Again assuming that the class
designated by their subject term has at least one member, it is impossible for both
of these propositions to be false, but possible for both to be true. " Some logicians are
professors" and "Some logicians are not professors" are subcontraries, for example, since if
there any logicians, then either at least one of them is a professor (making the I
proposition true) or at least one is not a professor (making the O true) or some are
and some are not professors (making both the I and the O true).
Finally, the universal and particular propositions on either side of the square of
opposition (A and I on the one left and E and O on the right) exhibit a relationship
known as subalternation. Provided that there is at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term they have in common, it is impossible for the
universal proposition of either quality to be true while the particular proposition of
the same quality is false. Thus, for example, if it is universally true that " All sheep are
ruminants", then it must also hold for each particular case, so that "Some sheep are
ruminants" is true, and if "Some sheep are ruminants" is false, then "All sheep are ruminants"
must also be false, always on the assumption that there is at least one sheep. The
same relationships hold for corresponding E and O propositions.

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS (2nd Options)
We make claims about certain classes or categories and their relations. These claims
illuminate the structure of thought. There are certain rules with a precise structure
that enable us to tell if an argument is valid or not.
A proposition is a sentence that is either true of false. A proposition is a categorical

proposition when it states or express a relationship between categories.
Propositions can be in standard and non-standard form. If you are a proposition in

standard form, you will be expressed in one of the A,E,I,O forms (more on that
later).
Standard categorical form is a form that propositions can be in or out of.

Propositions that are in this form have the following:
Quantifiers: all, no, some
Subject terms: s
Copula: the very linking the subject and predicate terms.
Predicate term: P
For example:

The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions A,E,I,O:
Letter Name Quantity Quality

A universal affirmative
E universal negative
I particular affirmative
O particular negative
A, E, I, O propositions are pictured by the following Venn diagrams:
THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

Contraries:
• At least one must be false (both are not true, but both could be false for A
and E propositions.
• Both A and E could be false (e.g., All animals are dogs).
Subcontraries:

At least one must be true. Both are not false, but both could be true.
Aristotelian Principles:
1) If one knows that A or E are true, then we can infer the value of every other
claim or proposition.
2) If one knows that I or O is false, then we can infer the value of every other claim
or proposition.
• If A or E is false, only the corresponding I or O claim is true.

• If I or O is false, we con only infer the values of A and E.
When drawing Venn Diagrams for categorical syllogisms, use the following form:
The middle term "M" goes on top. The subject or minor term "S" goes on the left.
The predicate or major term "P" goes on the right.
We diagram the argument above as follows:

This argument is valid (AAA-1). The diagram show that indeed all S's are P's.
Ordinary Language Arguments - How to turn our ordinary speech into standard-
form categorical syllogisms.
Step 1: Identify the conclusion. Remember conclusion indicators.
Step 2: Translate the conclusion/statements into standard-form propositions
Step 3: Test for validity.

Remember to eliminate synonyms. For example:
No wealthy persons are vagrants.

All lawyers are rich people.
Therefore no attorneys are traps.
How many synonymous words here? Wealthy persons = rich people; vagrants =
tramps; lawyers = attorneys. Once the synonyms are eliminated, we have:
No wealthy persons are vagrants. No W are V.

All lawyers are wealthy persons. All L are W.
Therefore no lawyers are vagrants. No L are V.
This argument is valid: EAE-1
Remember to eliminate compliments.
All mammals are warm-blooded animals. All M are W.

No lizards are warm-blooded animals. No L are W.
Therefore, all lizards are non-mammals. No L are M.
obverse = No lizards are mammals.
AEE-2 Valid

Definition
An explanation of the meaning of a word is called definition whareas meaning

is “The customary significance attached to the use of a word, phrase, or
sentence, including both its literal sense and its emotive associations”.
The five major kinds of definition (distinguished by the functions they may be
used to perform) include:
Stipulative definition
The arbitrary assignment of meaning to a term not previously in use. Although
it may be relatively inconvenient or useless, such a definition can never be
mistaken or incorrect.
Lexical definition
A faithful report of the way in which a term is used within a particular
language-community.
Precising definition
A careful effort to reduce the vagueness of a term by stipulating features
not included in its lexical definition
Theoretical definition
A proposal for understanding the meaning of a term in relation to a set of
scientificaly useful hypotheses
Persuasive definition
An effort to influence attitudes by surreptitiously attaching emotive significance to
the meaning of a term. According to stevenson, the most common instance is
an effort to change the descriptive meaning of an emotionally-charged
evaluative term.
Kinds/Types of definition
A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within
a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted
meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the
accuracy with which it captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of
technical terms of logic are lexical because they are intended to inform you about
the way in which these terms are actually employed within the discipline of logic.
At the other extreme, a stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a

completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the

goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are
no existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is always
correct (though it might fail to win acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless).
If i now decree that we will henceforth refer to presidential speeches delivered in
french as "glorsherfs," i have made a (probably pointless) stipulative definition.
Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the

vagueness of a word or phrase. These precising definitions begin with the lexical
definition of a term but then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits
on its use. Here, the lexical part must be correct and the stipulative portion should
appropriately reduce the troublesome vagueness. If the usps announces that "proper
notification of a change of address" means that an official form containing the
relevant information must be received by the local post office no later than four
days prior to the effective date of the change, it has offered a (possibly useful)
precising definition.
Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or precising definition,

distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context
of a broader intellectual framework. Since the adoption of any theoretical definition
commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are
rightly cautious in agreeing to it. Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and
"inertia" carried with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the
conditions in which physical objects move.
Finally, what some logicians call a persuasive definition is an attempt to attach

emotive meaning to the use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the literal
meaning of the term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.

Categorical Statements
Concept
Categorical statements express ideas in absolute terms, usually referring to or

implying "all," "none," "never," or "always." For example, the following are categorical
statements:
• You can always count on your friends.

• Everybody loves a good joke.
• Cats can never be trained.
• All indigenous people need protection.
It's a good idea to avoid categorical statements unless we have proof that what we
are saying applies to a whole class or category. Of course, some categorical
statements are universally true of the category, therefore acceptable, such as "All
living people must eat and drink to stay alive."
Some categorical statements are less obvious than the ones above. English grammar
includes some hidden categorical elements, just in the implications of certain forms
and verb tenses. Think about these:
• Human beings are social animals.

• Time is money.
• Dogs love people.
• Men don't cry.
• Women must take care of children.
Definition
The basic unit of meaning or content in deductive system is the categorical term.
Usually expressed grammatically as a noun or noun phrase, each categorical term
designates a class of things such as “COWS”
Examples
Look at the following statements and decide which are categorical and why. Remember
-- a categorical statement can be true, but it's still categorical. If it's a categorical
statement, add modifiers to make it acceptable.

Statement Categorical or not and why Suggested alternatives

All men may be created equal. Most
Categorical - it uses 'all' and people believe that all men are
All men are created equal.
the simple present. created equal. All men are believed to
be created equal.
Most animals will stop eating when
Animals will stop eating Categorical - it uses future
they get full. Animals normally stop
when they get full. and no modifiers.
eating when they get full.
Not clearly categorical - it
Computers are a wonderful Better: Computers can be a wonderful
uses 'a' - but 'wonderful' is
aid for teaching. aid for teaching.
strong
Most comics in the newspapers are
Comics in the newspapers Categorical - it uses 'just' and designed to make you laugh. Comics
are just to make you laugh. the simple present. in the newspapers are often just to
make you laugh.
Most Americans prefer action
Americans prefer action Categorical - it uses simple
movies. Americans tend to prefer
movies. present and no modifiers.
action movies.
Sustainable development of the
Sustainable development of Categorical - it uses simple rainforest is probably necessary.
the rainforest is necessary. present and 'necessary.' Sustainable development has been
recommended.
Categorical - it uses
Everyone deserves access Many people believe that everyone
'everyone' and simple
to health care. deserves access to health care.
present.
Students seem to learn more when
Students learn more when Categorical - it uses simple they study in groups. In many cases,
they study in groups. present and no modifiers. students learn more when they study
in groups.
It appears that countries with more
Countries with more guns Categorical - it uses simple guns have more gun crime. There is a
have more gun crime. present and no modifiers. link between more guns in a country
and more gun crime.
Not categorical - it uses the
Poverty is related to Milder: Poverty seems to be related to
mild 'is related to' rather than
violence. violence.
a strong connector.
A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument with two premises, in which the premises
and the conclusion are categorical propositions.

A categorical proposition, in turn, is a statement that makes a straightforward assertion

with no "ifs," "ands," or "buts." Categorical propositions are typically expressed by simply
structured sentences containing a subject and a predicate, but not conjunctions or the other
grammatical devices involved in more complex sentences.
1. Is the following a categorical proposition? A dog is a mammal, if it has hair.
a) yes b) no
2. Is the following a categorical proposition? Either that is a dog, or it is a funny

looking cat.
a) yes b) no
3. Is the following a categorical proposition? Amphibians breathe from their mouth,

except when they are under water.
a) yes b) no
4. Is the following a categorical proposition? Those who have the courage to dare will
succeed.
a) yes b) no
Components of Categorical Propositions

The parts of the proposition that refer to classes are called the terms of the proposition,
and there are two terms: the subject and the predicate, symbolized by S and P. Subjects
and predicates are not always single words.
In addition to the subject and predicate, there is a second component of categorical

propositions, indicated by the words "is" or "are." This is called the copula because it links
subject and predicate.
In terms of classes, we can make both the affirmative statement that S is included in P and
the negative statement that S is excluded from P. The affirmative or negative character of
a proposition is called its quality.
The fourth component of a proposition is called its quantity. A proposition with the form
"All S are P" is universal, as is the proposition "No S are P." A proposition with the form
"Some S are P" is particular. A proposition with the form "Some S are not P" is also
particular.

Summary
The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of the relationship it affirms
between its subject and predicate terms. (From Square consider the relashionships if “A” if
True
The quantity of a categorical proposition, on the other hand, is a measure of the degree to
which the relationship between its subject and predicate terms holds. It must consist the
words
“All” , “Some”, “No”, “Not”
Combining these two distinctions and representing the subject and predicate terms
respectively by the letters "S" and "P," we can uniquely identify the four possible
forms of categorical proposition:
A universal affirmative proposition (to which, following the practice of medieval
logicians, we will refer by the letter "A") is of the form
All S are P.
Such a proposition asserts that every member of the class designated by the
subject term is also included in the class designated by the predicate term. Thus, it
distributes its subject term but not its predicate term.
A universal negative proposition (or "E") is of the form
No S are P.
This proposition asserts that nothing is a member both of the class designated by
the subject term and of the class designated by the predicate terms. Since it
reports that every member of each class is excluded from the other, this
proposition distributes both its subject term and its predicate term.
A particular affirmative proposition ("I") is of the form
Some S are P.
A proposition of this form asserts that there is at least one thing which is a member
both of the class designated by the subject term and of the class designated by the
predicate term. Both terms are undistributed in propositions of this form.
Finally, a particular negative proposition ("O") is of the form
Some S are not P.
Such a proposition asserts that there is at least one thing which is a member of the
class designated by the subject term but not a member of the class designated by
the predicate term. Since it affirms that the one or more crucial things that they
are distinct from each and every member of the predicate class, a proposition of
this form distributes its predicate term but not its subject term

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
We make claims about certain classes or categories and their relations. These claims
illuminate the structure of thought. There are certain rules with a precise structure
that enable us to tell if an argument is valid or not.
A proposition is a sentence that is either true of false. A proposition is a categorical

proposition when it states or express a relationship between categories. Propositions
can be in standard and non-
standard form. If you are a
proposition in standard form, you
will be expressed in one of the
A,E,I,O forms (more on that
later). Standard categorical
form is a form that propositions
can be in or out of. Propositions
that are in this form have the
following:
Quantifiers: all, no, some

Subject terms: s Copula: the
very linking the subject and
predicate terms. Predicate term: P
The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions A,E,I,O:
Letter Name Quantity Quality

A universal affirmative
E universal negative
I Particular affirmative
O Particular negative
A, E, I, O propositions are pictured by the following Venn diagrams:

THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

Contraries:
• At least one must be false (both are not true, but both could be false for A
and E propositions.
• Both A and E could be false (e.g., All animals are dogs).
Subcontraries:
At least one must be true. Both are not false, but both could be true.

SubAlternation
1) If one knows that A or E are true, then we can infer the value of every other
claim or proposition.
2) If one knows that I or O is false, then we can infer the value of every other claim
or proposition.
• If A or E is false, only the corresponding I or O claim is true.

• If I or O is false, we con only infer the values of A and E.
Square of Opposition
Classical logicians described the various logical relations among the four standard forms in
terms of what they called the square of opposition, and identified four relations among the
four standard forms when placed in the square of opposition:
Contraries
An A proposition and an E proposition that have the same subject and predicate terms
cannot both be true, but they could both be false. We identify this relationship in logic by
calling A and E contrary propositions. "All S is P" and "No S is P" are contraries.
Example:
"All bread is nutritious" and "No bread is nutritious" are opposing statements. They cannot
both be true. However, they could both be false. If some types of bread are nutritious and
others are not, then both statements would be false
Contradictories
In some cases, there are propositions that cannot both be true and both be false.
Propositions that have this relationship are called contradictories.
Example: A and O:
If you accept the O proposition "Some bread is not nutritious," then you cannot also accept
the A proposition, "All bread is nutritious," and vice versa. They cannot both be true.
O and A cannot both be false. The only way for A to be false is for there to be at least one
S that is not P (some bread that is not nutritious), and in that case O is true. Similarly, the
only way for O to be false is for there to be not even one S that is not P (not even some

bread that is not nutritious), and in that case all S are P (all bread is nutritious) -- the A
proposition is true.
Example: E and I:
E and I are also contradictories. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. If
it is false that no bread is nutritious, that could only be because at least some bread is
nutritious, in which case I is true. On the other hand, if I is false, that means not even one
S is P, and thus it would be true to say that no S is P -- E would be true.
Subalternates
Both A and I are affirmative propositions; they differ only in quantity. A is the more
sweeping statement, because it makes a claim about all Ss -- that they are P.
I is more cautious. When we say that some S are P, we are not committing ourselves to any
claim about the whole class of Ss.
Example:
We can see that if A is true, I must be true as well. If all Ss are P, then it is safe to say
that some Ss are P -- though we usually wouldn't bother to say it.
For exactly the same reasons, the O proposition is subalternate to the E proposition. In this
case, both propositions are negative; still, the universal one always implies the particular.
This illustrates the concept of subalternates with true universals.
When we consider false statements, the tables are turned. If the I proposition is false,
then the A must be false as well. If not even one S is P, then it is certainly false that all S
are P.
In the same way, on the negative side of the square, if not even one S is not P, then it is
certainly false that no S is P; if O is false, E is false as well.
Example:
Suppose that A is false, Does that mean I must be false as well? No. Even if it isn't true
that all politicians are honest, it might still be true that some are. Similarly, the falsity of
an E proposition leaves the truth or falsity of the O undetermined. It would be false, for
example, to say that no natural substances cause cancer, but it is still possible that some do
not.

This illustrates the concept of subalternates with false particulars
Subcontraries
Let's look at the propositions, "Some S are P" (I) and "Some S are not P" (O). Propositions I
and O cannot both be false. This relationship is called subcontrary.
Can I and O both be true? Yes--that happens quite often. For instance, some animals are
mammals, some are not.
However, I and O can never both be false. Any given object in the class of Ss must either
be P or not be P. If it is P, that makes the I proposition true. If it is not P, that makes the O
proposition true. For instance, any given animal either is a mammal or is not.
1. In which relationship from the square of opposition is it true that both propositions
cannot be true and both cannot be false?
a) contradictory b) contrary
c) subcontrary d) subalternation
cannot be false, but they can both be true?
cannot be true, but they can both be false?
4. In which relationship from the square of opposition is it true that when the universal
is true the particular one of the same quality is true and when the particular is false
the universal one of the same quality is false?
5. Which propositions in the square of opposition are contradictories?

a) A and I b) A and E c) I and O d) A and O e) E and O

6. Which propositions in the square of opposition are subalternates?

a) A and I b) A and E c) I and O d) A and O e) E and I
7. Which propositions in the square of opposition are contradictories?

a) A and I b) A and E c) I and O d) E and I e) E and O
8. Which propositions in the square of opposition are subalternates?

a) A and E b) I and O c) A and O d) E and I e) E and O
Standard Form
Because there are two possible qualities and two possible quantities, there are just four
standard logical forms for categorical propositions, no matter how complex their subject
and predicate terms may be. These four forms are:
AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE
UNIVERSAL A: All S are P E: No S is P
PARTICULAR I: Some S are P O: Some S are not P

The letters A, E, I, and O are the traditional labels for the four standard forms.
1. Is the following proposition universal or particular? Not any of you came to my
assistance.
a) universal b) particular
2. Is the following proposition universal or particular? Not every cow is brown.

3. Is the following proposition universal or particular? Three out of four dogs prefer
DogTime Treats.
4. Is the following proposition affirmative or negative? All noble deeds are rare.
a) affirmative b) negative
5. Is the following proposition affirmative or negative? Some nondogs are cats.

6. Is the following proposition affirmative or negative? Some living things are

nonplants.

7. What kind of proposition is the following? No man is an island.

a) universal affirmative (A) b) universal negative (E)
c) particular affirmative (I) d) particular negative (O)
8. What kind of proposition is the following?Every general is fighting the previous war.
9. What kind of proposition is the following? Some liars can fool all of the people.
10. What kind of proposition is the following? Some who are famous are not infamous.
A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical

propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly
three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice.
One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the
syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term
of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The
third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be
employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.
Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that
affirms some relation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major
premise of the syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms,
we call the minor premise.
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:
No geese are felines.

Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.

Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major
term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No
geese are felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise.
Simlarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds," and "Some birds are geese" is
its minor premise. "geese" is the middle term of the syllogism.
Categorical Syllogisms
If an argument has two categorical premises and a categorical conclusion, and the
two categorical premises jointly support the conclusion, then this argument is a
categorical syllogism.
Example:
All mammals are animals that breathe by means of lungs.

All whales are mammals.
Therefore, all whales are animals that breathe by means of lungs.

1. What kind of propositions are the premises of a categorical syllogism?
a) hypothetical and categorical b) disjunctive and categorical
c) categorical only d) all of the above
2. A categorical proposition is
a) a proposition that makes an assertion about the relations of classes
b) a proposition that asserts that the truth of one proposition is sufficient for
the truth of another
c) a proposition which asserts that either one or another of two propositions is
true
3. How do the premises support the conclusion in a categorical syllogism?

a) jointly b) independently c) either jointly or independently
4. Is the following argument a categorical syllogism?

If you play with fire, you will get burned. You played with fire.
You got burned.
a) Yes b) No
5. Is the following a categorical syllogism?

No horned animal is a carnivore.

All moose are horned animals.
No moose is a carnivore.
a) Yes b) No

Either my book is in my bag or I left it in the library.
My book is not in my bag.
I left my book in the library.
a) Yes b) No

All supporters of the nuclear freeze want to preserve peace.
No conservatives support the nuclear freeze.
No conservatives want to preserve peace.
a) Yes b) No
Each syllogism has three propositions. Because every proposition has two terms,
there could be six distinct terms here. However, there are only three--the major
term, the minor term, and the middle term.
Example:
All whales are animals that breathe by means of lungs.

All whales are animals that breath by means of lungs.
The major term of this argument is "animals that breathe by means of lungs."
The major premise is the premise that contains the major term-- "All mammals are
animals that breathe by means of lungs."
The minor term is the term that occurs in the subject of the conclusion.
Example:


The minor term of this argument is "whales." The minor premise is the premise that
contains the minor term-- "All whales are mammals."
The middle term occurs once in each of the premises, and it serves to link together
the major and minor terms. In this case, the middle term is "mammals."
Example:

The minor term of this argument is "whales."
The minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term-- "All whales are
mammals."
The middle term occurs once in each of the premises, and it serves to link together
the major and minor terms.
Example:

In this case, the middle term is "mammals."
1. How many terms are there in a categorical syllogism?
a) 6 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4
2. Which term in a categorical syllogism occurs in the subject of the

conclusion?
a) the major term b) the minor term c) the middle term

3. Which term in a categorical syllogism occurs in the predicate of the

conclusion?
4. Which term in a categorical syllogism occurs in each premise and serves to

link together the other two terms?
5. What is the major term of the following categorical syllogism?
No horned animal is a predator
All moose are horned animals
No moose is a predator
a) horned animal b) predator c) moose
6. What is the minor term of the following categorical syllogism?

No Marxist advocates private property
All conservatives advocate private property
No conservative is a Marxist.
a) Marxist b) advocates private property c) conservatives
7.What is the major term of the following categorical syllogism?

All mammals are animals that breathe by means of lungs
All whales are mammals
All whales are animals that breathe by means of lungs
a) mammals b) animals that breathe by means of lungs c) whales
8. What is the middle term of the following categorical syllogism?

a) horned animal b) predator c) moose
- The Mood -
The premises and conclusion of a categorical syllogism can have any of the standard
forms: A, E, I, or O. A categorical syllogism is identified, in part, by reference to
this fact. We list the letters that identify the forms of the propositions in the
syllogism in the following order: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. This list is
called the mood of the syllogism.

Example:
The mood of the following argument is AAA:

Therefore, all whales are animals that breathe by means of lungs.
1. What kind of proposition is an A proposition?
a) universal affirmative b) universal negative

c) particular affirmative d) particular negative
2. What kind of proposition is an E proposition?

3. What kind of proposition is an I proposition?

4. What kind of proposition is an O proposition?

5. The letters that identify the forms of a proposition in a categorical

syllogism are arranged in what order?
a) conclusion, major premise, minor premise
b) major premise, conclusion, minor premise
c) minor premise, major premise, conclusion
d) major premise, minor premise, conclusion
6. What is the mood of the following categorical syllogism?
a) AAE b) EAE c) AEE d) AEO e) none of the above


No Marxist advocates private property

All conservatives advocate private property
No conservative is a Marxist
a) EAE b) AEE c) IOE d) EOO e) none of the above

Some crimes against property are fraud
All frauds are felonies
Some felonies are crimes against property
a) AII b) IAI c) IEI d) OEO e) none of the above
- The Figure -
The position of the middle term in the premises is called the figure of the syllogism.
Because there are two premises, and two possible positions in each premise, there
are four figures. They are identified by number as follows:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Major M P P M M P P M
Minor S M S M M S M S
Conclusion S P S P S P S P
Within each figure, the premises and the conclusion can have any of the standard
forms for categorical propositions. That is, within each figure, a syllogism can have
any mood.
1. The figure of a categorical syllogism is determined by the position of which
term?
2. In which figure of a categorical syllogism is the middle term the subject of

the major and the predicate of the minor?
a) first figure b)second figure c) third figure d) fourth figure

3. In which figure of a categorical syllogism is the middle term the subject of

both the major and the minor premises?
a) first figure b) second figure c) third figure d) fourth figure
4. In which figure of a categorical syllogism is the middle term the predicate

of both the major and the minor premises?
5. In which figure of a categorical syllogism is the middle term the predicate

of the major and the subject of the minor?
Venn Diagrams for Categorical Syllogisms
The technique of Venn diagrams for categorical syllogisms is based on the fact that
in a valid syllogism, the conclusion asserts no more than what is already contained,
implicitly, in the premises. If the conclusion asserts more than that, it does not
follow from the premises, and the syllogism is invalid. The technique is to diagram
the premises, and then see whether anything would have to be added in order to
diagram what the conclusion asserts. If so, the syllogism is invalid; if not, it is valid.
Example:

No M is P No horned animal is a carnivore

All S is M All moose are horned animals
No S is P No moose is a carnivore
The first step is to diagram the major premise, using the circles representing M
(horned animals) and P (carnivores). So we shade out the area of overlap between M
and P.
The second step is to add the minor premise to our diagram, using the circles
representing S and M. Since this is an A proposition, we shade out the region of S
outside M.
The final step is to examine the completed diagram of the premises and determine
whether it contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion
asserts that no S is P. Thus it requires that the overlap between S and P be shaded
out, and the premises taken together do shade out that region. So the syllogism is
valid.
For a syllogism to be valid, the combined diagram must contain all the information
asserted by the conclusion. It may contain more information, but it cannot omit
anything.
Now let's try a syllogism with a particular premise.
Example:

No M is P
Some M are S
___________
Some S are not P
First we diagram the major premise.
Second we diagram the minor premise.
Notice that we diagrammed the major premise first. This is not required logically,
but whenever there is a particular and a universal premise, it is best to diagram the
universal one first. By diagramming the universal premise first, we have shaded out
one of the subregions, so now we know that the X for the other premise must go
outside the P circle. And that's useful information, it means that at least one S is
not P. Since that is what the conclusion asserts, the argument is valid.
If a syllogism is invalid, a Venn diagram will reveal that fact in one of two ways. The
combined diagram for the premises will either fail to shade out an area excluded by
the conclusion, or it will fail to put an X where the conclusion requires one.
Example:
All P are M
All S are M

All S are P
The Venn diagram reveals the invalidity by failing to shade out the right areas.
In the combined diagram, the area of P outside M has been shaded to represent the
major premise, and the area of S outside M has been shaded to represent the minor.
But one area in the region of S outside P--the one indicated by the arrow--has not
been shaded. Thus, the premises leave open the possibility that some S are not P;
they do not guarantee that all S are P. So the conclusion does not follow; the
syllogism is invalid.
Now let's examine another case in which the invalidity is revealed by the placement
of Xs.
All P are M
Some S are M
Some S are P
Notice that the X is on the line between two subregions of the overlap between S
and M. Locating the X on the line means: I know something is both an S and an M, but
I don't know whether it is also a P or not. But the conclusion does assert that some

S are P. For the premises to justify this assertion, they would have to give us an X in
the area of overlap between S and P. But all they tell us is: there's an S that may or
may not be a P. The conclusion doesn't follow.
1. The technique of Venn diagrams is based on the fact that in a valid
syllogism the conclusion
a) asserts no more than what is already contained, implicitly, in the premises
b) asserts more than what is contained in the premises
2. For a syllogism to be valid, the combined diagram must

a) contain all information asserted by the conclusion
b) either fail to shade out an area excluded by the conclusion, or fail to put an x
where the conclusion requires one.
3. For a syllogism to be invalid, the combined diagram must
a) contain all information asserted by the conclusion

b) either fail to shade out an area excluded by the conclusion, or fail to put an x
where the conclusion requires one.
4. Which of the choices represent the Venn diagrams of the given categorical
syllogism?
All of Shakespeare's dramas are in blank verse
Some great plays are in blank verse
Some great plays are Shakespeare's dramas
a) c)

b) d)
5. According to the Venn diagrams, the previous syllogism is valid or invalid?
a) valid b) invalid
6. Which of the choices represent the Venn diagrams of the given
categorical syllogism?
All vertebrates reproduce sexually

All vertebrates are animals
All animals reproduce sexually
a) c)
b) d)
7. According to the Venn diagrams the previous syllogism is valid or invalid?
a) valid b) invalid
8. Which of the choices represent the Venn diagrams of the given categorical
syllogism?

No A is B
Some A are not C
Some C are not B
a) c)
b) d)
Summary
categorical syllogism may occur by stating its mood and figure. The mood of a
syllogism is simply a statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it
comprises, listed in the order in which they appear in standard form. Thus, a
syllogism with a mood of OAO has an O proposition as its major premise, an A
proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition as its conclusion; and
EIO syllogism has an E major premise, and I minor premise, and an O conclusion; etc.
Since there are four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood, however, we need to
supplement this labelling system with a statement of the figure of each, which is
solely determined by the position in which its middle term appears in the two
premises: in a first-figure syllogism, the middle term is the subject term of the
major premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in second figure, the
middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in third, the subject term of
both premises; and in fourth figure, the middle term appears as the predicate term
of the major premise and the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures
may be easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of the terms in
each of the premises:

M P P M M P P M
1 \ 2 | 3 | 4 /
S M S M M S M S
All told, there are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: four kinds of
major premise multiplied by four kinds of minor premise multiplied by four kinds of
conclusion multiplied by four relative positions of the middle term. Used together,
mood and figure provide a unique way of describing the logical structure of each of
them. Thus, for example, the argument "Some merchants are pirates, and All
merchants are swimmers, so Some swimmers are pirates" is an IAI-3 syllogism, and
any AEE-4 syllogism must exhibit the form "All P are M, and No M are S, so No S
are P.
When drawing Venn Diagrams for categorical syllogisms, use the following form:

The middle term "M" goes on top. The subject or minor term "S" goes on the left.
The predicate or major term "P" goes on the right.
We diagram the argument above as follows:
This argument is valid (AAA-1). The diagram show that indeed all S's are P's.

Ordinary Language Arguments - How to turn our ordinary speech into standard-form
categorical syllogisms.
Step 1: Identify the conclusion. Remember conclusion indicators.

Step 2: Translate the conclusion/statements into standard-form propositions
Step 3: Test for validity.
Remember to eliminate synonyms. For example:
No wealthy persons are vagrants.

All lawyers are rich people.
Therefore no attorneys are traps.
How many synonymous words here? Wealthy persons = rich people; vagrants =
tramps; lawyers = attorneys. Once the synonyms are eliminated, we have:
No wealthy persons are vagrants. No W are V.

All lawyers are wealthy persons. All L are W.
Therefore no lawyers are vagrants. No L are V.
This argument is valid: EAE-1
Remember to eliminate compliments.

All mammals are warm-blooded animals. All M are W.
No lizards are warm-blooded animals. No L are W.
Therefore, all lizards are non-mammals. No L are M.
obverse = No lizards are mammals. AEE-2 Valid

Symbolic Logic
Although traditional categorical logic can be used to represent and assess many of
our most common patterns of reasoning, modern logicians have developed much more
comprehensive and powerful systems for expressing rational thought. These newer
logical languages are often called "symbolic logic," since they employ special symbols
to represent clearly even highly complex logical relationships.
Five special symbols, the statement connectives or operators:
~
· (also symbolized as & or Ù )
Ú
É (also symbolized as ® )
º (also symbolized as « )
The syntax of using statement connectives to form new, compound statements can
be stated as a simple rule:
For any statements, p and q ,
~p
p·q
pÚq
pÉq and
pºq
are all legitimate compound statements.
Negation
The " ~ " signifies logical negation; it simply reverses the truth value of p ~ p
any statement (simple or compound) in front of which it appears: if the T F
original is true, the ~ statement is false, and if the original is false, the
F T
~ statement is true. Thus, its meaning can be represented by the truth-
table at right.

The English expression "It is not the case that . . ." serves the same function,
though of course we have many other methods of negating an assertion in ordinary
language—sometimes the single word "not" embedded in a sentence is enough to do
the job.
OR
Logical Connectives
There are four basic types of compound statement in propositional logic, and the
four connectives have special symbols, as indicated below.
Type Connective Statement Form
Conjunction (and) <> p q
Negation (not) ~ ~p
Disjunction (or) v pvq
Conditional (if-then) p q
A conjunction is a way of asserting two component propositions, called conjuncts, in a

single statement.
Example:
The rent is due, and I have no money.
For this to be true, both conjuncts must be true. And if the conjuncts are both true,
the conjunction is true.
The conjunction sign (called the "dot") represents this relationship between the
truth of the components and the truth of the compound statement as a whole.
It is useful to formulate this relationship graphically. The form of a conjunction is p

q. The propositions p and q can be any component statements, and each of them can
be either true or false (represented by T and F, as on a true-false test). So we have
four possibilities to consider, and we lay them out in a truth table:
p q p q
T T T
Conjunction F T F

T F F
F F F
The table shows that p q is true only in the first case, where each of the component
statements, p and q, have the truth value T. In all other cases, p q is false. This
connective may be indicated by other words in English besides "and." Consider the
following:
I want to go skydiving, but I have a sprained ankle.
Although steel rusts, it is often used in underwater construction.
Julie worked hard to pass the course; nevertheless, she failed.
In each case, the underlined word suggests some incongruity between the component
propositions, but the sentence still asserts both components; the sentence is true if
and only if the components are both true. Each of these sentences, therefore, has
the logical form of a conjunction
Negation
We represent the denial of a proposition by the negation sign, called the "tilde" (~).
Example:
If p is the statement, "The temperature is rising," then ~p could be expressed in any

of the following ways:
It's not the case that the temperature is rising.
It's false that the temperature is rising.
The temperature is not rising.
Because p and ~p are contradictory propositions, they cannot both be true, and they
cannot both be false. The truth table for negation, therefore, has just two lines:
p ~p
Negation T F

F T
If p is true, then ~p is false, and vice versa.
Because a negation sign reverses truth value, two negation signs cancel out.
Example:
The statements, "It's not the case that Larry will not come" and "Larry will come"
are equivalent.
In other words, a double negation has the same truth value as the original proposition.
Disjunction
Instead of asserting that p and q are both true, as in a conjunctive statement, we
can assert that either p or q is true. This is a disjunction. The components p and q
are called the disjuncts, and the connective "or" is represented by the wedge sign
(v). As with conjunction and negation, the truth value of p v q is determined by the
truth values of its components.
The truth table for disjunction, therefore, is as follows:
p q p v q
T T T
Disjunction F T T
T F T
F F F
If p and q are both false, then p v q is false. If only one of them is true (it doesn't
matter which one), then the disjunction is true. When both are true, then p v q is
true.
1. What is the proper symbolization of "p if q?"

a) q>p b) p>q c) ~q>p d)none of the above
2. What is the proper symbolization of "p only if q?"
a) p>q b)~q>p c)p>q d)none of the above
3. What is the proper symbolization of "p unless q?"
a) p>q b)~q>p c) q>p d) none of the above
4. Which of the following choices is the correct symbolization of the proposition below?
If you do not take the midterm, then either you must make it up or you fail the class. (T = you
take the midterm, M = you make up the midterm, F = you fail the class)
a)T > (M v F) b) ~T > (M v F) c) ~T > (M . F) d) T > (M > F)
Analogy
Analogies can be used for descriptive and explanatory purposes as well as for
arguing for a conclusion. Arguments by analogy are inductive.
Example:
The art of reasoning is a skill, like knowing how to play tennis; and you can't learn to
play tennis just by reading a book. No matter how much you know about the theory
of the game, you can't acquire the skill without actually playing; so you need to
practice.
In this argument, I am using an analogy as a premise; I am trying to prove a

conclusion.
Suppose, for example, that I am thinking about buying a new car. I'm very likely to
speak with other people who have recently bought new cars, noting their experiences
with various makes, models, and dealers. If I discover that three of my friends have
recently bought Geo Prizms from Burg and that all three have been delighted with
their purchases, then I will conclude by analogy that if I buy a Geo Prizm from Burg,
I will be delighted, too.

Appraising Analogies
Of course, this argument is not deductively valid; it is always possible that my new
car may turn out to be an exception. But there are several considerations that
clearly matter in determining the relative strength or weakness of my inductive
inference:
1. Number of instances. If five friends instead of three report their

satisfaction with the model I intend to buy, that tends to make it even more
likely that I will be satisfied, too. In general, more instances strengthen an
analogy; fewer weaken it.
2. Instance variety. If my three friends bought their Prizms from three
different dealers but were all delighted, then my conclusion is somewhat more
likely to be true, no matter where I decide to buy mine. In general, the more
variety there is among the instances, the stronger the analogical argument
becomes.
3. Number of similarities. If my new purchase is not only the same make and
model from the same dealer but also has the same engine, then my conclusion
is more likely to be true. In general, the more similarities there are between
the instances and my conclusion, the better for the analogical argument.
4. Relevance. Of course, the criteria we're considering apply only if the matters
with which they are concerned are relevant to the argument. Ordinarily, for
example, we would assume that the day of the week on which a car was
purchased is irrelevant to a buyer's satisfaction with it. But relevance is not
something about which we can be terribly precise; it is always possible in
principle to tell a story in the context of which anything may turn out to be
relevant. So we just have to use our best judgment in deciding whether or not
some respect deserves to be considered.
5. Number of dissimilarities. If my friends all bought Geos with automatic
transmissions and I plan to buy a Geo with a standard transmission, then the
conclusion that I will be delighted with my purchase is a little less likely to be
true. In general, the fewer dissimilarities between instances and conclusion,
the better an analogical argument is.
6. Modesty of conclusion. If all three of my friends were delighted with their
auto purchases but I conclude only that I will be satisfied with mine, then this
relatively modest conclusion is more likely to be true. In general, arguments by
analogy are improved when their conclusions are modest with respect to their
premises.

Method of Deduction
The Method of Proof (Formal Proof of Validity)
The construction of truth-tables provides a reliable method of evaluating the

validity of arguments in the propositional calculus. We can always tabulate the truth-
values of premises and conclusion, checking for a line on which the premises are true
while the conclusion is false. Although this method always works, however, it isn't
always convenient, since the appropriate truth-table must have 2 n lines, where n is
the number of statement variables involved. Thus, an argument with six different
simple statements would require the construction of a truth-table with 64 lines.
Fortunately, there is another, shorter way to proceed, by constructing a formal

proof of the validity of an argument. The basic notion underlying this new method is
that since a chain of interrelated arguments is valid so long as each of its links is
valid, we can demonstrate the validity of an argument by starting with its premises,
taking one tiny valid step at a time, and finally reaching its conclusion. The only
limitations we need to impose on this procedure are that each of our tiny steps must
be a substitution-instance of some valid argument form and that we can discover a
seamless path leading from premises to conclusion.
Although any valid pattern of inferences could be used in this proof procedure, we
will make things easier by relying on a very short list of valid argument forms. Each
new step that we take in constructing a proof must then be a substitution-instance
of one of these rules of inference. You've already seen four of them:
M.P. M.T. H.S. D.S.
pÉq pÉq pÉq pÚq
p ~q qÉr ~p
_______ _______ _______ _____
q ~p pÉr q
We'll add just five more, making a total of nine elementary valid argument forms to
be used as rules of inference.

1st Premise 2nd Prem. Conc.
p q r s (pÉq)·(rÉs) pÚr qÚs
T T T T T T T
T T T F F T T
Constructive Dilemma T T F T T T T
T T F F T T T
The most complex of our rules of T F T T F T T
inference is Constructive Dilemma
T F T F F T F
(abbreviated as C.D.). Since it involves
four statement variables, the truth- T F F T F T T
table that shows its validity must take T F F F F T F
into account sixteen different F T T T T T T
combinations of truth-values.
F T T F F T T
The argument form of a constructive F T F T T F T

dilemma is: F T F F T F T
F F T T T T T
(p É q) · (r É s)
F F T F F T F
pÚr
F F F T T F T
_____________________
F F F F T F F
qÚs
The premises are true on lines 1, 3, 4, 9, and 13, and on each of these lines the
conclusion is also true. Thus, the inference is valid, and we can be sure that every
argument that is a substitution-instance of this
argument form must be valid. Premise Conclusion
p q pÉq pÉ(p·q)
Absorption T T T T
T F F F
Absorption (Abs.) has the simpler form:
F T T T
pÉq F F T T
_____________
p É (p · q)
The truth-table at the right shows the validity of all substitution-instances of this
argument form. Whenever its premise is true, the conclusion is true as well. (In fact,
you may notice that, in this unusual instance, it is also true that the premise is true
whenever the conclusion is. The two statement forms are logically equivalent to each
other.)

Premise Conclusion
Simplification p q p · q p
T T T T
The Simplification (Simp.) rule permits us to infer the
truth of a conjunct from that of a conjunction. T F F T
F T F F
p·q
_____ F F F F
p
Its truth-table is at right. Notice that Simp. warrants only an inference to the first
of the two conjuncts, even though the truth of the second conjunct could be also be
derived.
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion

Conjunction p q p · q
T T T
On the other hand, Conjunction (Conj.) permits
the derivation of a conjunction from the truth T F F
of both of its conjuncts. F T F
F F F
p
q
_____
p·q
As the truth-table at the right illustrates, this is a natural inference
from our definition of the connective. Premise Conclusion
p q p pÚq
Addition
T T T T
Finally, Addition (Add.) is the argument form: T F T T
p F T F T
_____ F F F F
pÚq
This rule warrants the inference from any true statement to its disjunction with
anything whatsoever. This is an amazingly powerful device, since it permits us to
introduce any new statement whatsoever into the context of a proof. Our challenge
in applying it will lie in discovering an appropriate or helpful substitution for q in

each specific case.
Constructing a Proof
Now let's see how to use these nine rules of inference in order to demonstrate the
validity of arguments in the propositional calculus. Consider, for example, the
argument:
A É (B Ú ~C)
DÉC
A
~B
______________
~D
In order to construct a formal proof of the validity of this argument, we begin by
numbering each of its premises and indicating that we are assuming their truth as
the premises of an argument:
1. A É (B Ú ~C) premise
2. D É C premise
3. A premise
4. ~B premise
Next, we notice that premise 1 has the form pÉq and that premise 3 is the
antecedent of that conditional. That is, premises 1 and 3, taken together, are the
premises of an argument that is a substitution-instance of the valid argument form
known as Modus Ponens. The conclusion of that argument would be the consequent of
the conditional, or B Ú ~C. Thus, we can take the tiny step of adding this conclusion to
our list of established statements, indicating at the right a simple justification that
explains exactly where it came from, by listing the previous statements used as
premises of an argument that follows one of the rules of inference.
2. D É C premise
3. A premise
4. ~B premise
5. B Ú ~C 1, 3 M.P.
In the same way, we can now use this new statement, together with statement 4, as
the premises of a substitution-instance of D.S., which justifies the further
conclusion ~C.
2. D É C premise
3. A premise

4. ~B premise
5. B Ú ~C 1, 3 M.P.
6. ~C 5, 4 D.S.
Finally, this new statement and statement 2 are the premises of a substitution
instance of M.T. which justifies the conclusion ~D.
2. D É C premise
3. A premise
4. ~B premise
5. B Ú ~C 1, 3 M.P.
6. ~C 5, 4 D.S.
7. ~D 2, 6 M.T.
But this was the conclusion of the original argument, so by proceeding step by valid
step, we have shown that if the premises of that original argument (1-4) are true,
then its conclusion (7) must also be true. Since each step in our proof relies only
upon a rule of inference and the supposed truth of earlier statements, the entire
chain of reasoning must be valid.
Rules of Replacement
Replacement
We complete our development of the proof procedure for the propositional calculus
by making use of another useful way of validly moving from step to step. Since two
logically equivalent statements have the same truth-value on every possible
combination of truth-values for their component parts, no change in the truth-value
of any statement occurs when we replace one of them with the other. Thus, when
constructing proofs of validity, we can safely use a statement containing either one
of a pair of logical equivalents as the premise for a step whose conclusion is exactly
the same, except that it contains the other one.
Although this would work for any pair of logically equivalent statement forms,
remembering all of them would be cumbersome. Instead, we will once again rely upon
a short list of ten rules of replacement in our construction of proofs, and we have
already examined five of them:
D.N. p º ~~p
DeM. ~(p · q) º (~p Ú ~q)
~(p Ú q) º (~p · ~q)
Impl. (pÉq) º (~p Ú q)

Equiv. [pºq] º [(pÉq) · (qÉp)]

[pºq] º [(p · q) Ú (~p · ~q)]
Trans. (p É q) º (~q É ~p)

We'll add just five more, making a total of ten tautologous biconditionals to be used
as rules of replacement.
Commutation
p q (p Ú q) º (q Ú p)
The rule of replacement called Commutation (Comm.) shows T T T T T
that statements of certain forms can simply be reversed. T F T T T
F T T T T
In one form, this applies to all disjuctions:
F F F T F
(p Ú q) º (q Ú p) p q (p · q) º (q · p)
T T T T T
In its second form, Commutation
T F F T F
establishes the same logical
equivalence with respect to F T F T F
conjunctions: F F F T F
(p · q) º (q · p)
The truth-tables for these two varieties of commutation show that we can safely
replace any disjunction or conjunction with another in which the component elements
of the original have been switched, since the truth values of the commuted
compound statements do not change under any of the possible conditions.
Association p q r [pÚ(qÚr)] º [(pÚq)Úr]

T T T T T T
Association (Assoc.) permits modification of the T T F T T T
parenthetical grouping of certain statements.
T F T T T T
Applied to disjunction, it has the form: T F F T T T
F T T T T T
[p Ú (qÚr)] º [(pÚq) Ú r]
F T F T T T
This shows that the grouping of a string of F F T T T T
disjuncts is irrelevant to the truth-value of the F F F F T F

p q r [p·(q·r)] º [(p·q)·r]
T T T T T T
T T F F T F
compound statement form.
T F T F T F
Applied to conjunction, it has the form: T F F F T F
[p · (q·r)] º [(p·q) · r]
F T T F T F
Used in tandem, the Commutative and Associative F T F F T F

replacement rules make it possible to rearrange any F F T F T F
series of disjunctions or conjunctions—no matter F F F F T F
how long and complicated—into any new order and
arrangement we wish to have.
p q r p·(qÚr) º (p·q)Ú(p·r)
T T T T T T
Distribution
T T F T T T
The rule called Distribution (Dist.) exhibits the T F T T T T
systematic features of statements in which both T F F F T F
disjunctions and conjunctions appear.
F T T F T F
F T F F T F
p q r pÚ(q·r) º (pÚq)·(pÚr) F F T F T F
T T T T T T F F F F T F
T T F T T T
In one of its two forms, a
T F T T T T
conjunct is distributed over a
T F F T T T disjunction:
F T T T T T
[p · (qÚr)]º[(p·q) Ú (p·r)]
F T F F T F
F F T F T F
F F F F T F In the other form, a disjunct is
distributed over a conjunction:
[p Ú (q·r)]º[(pÚq) · (pÚr)]
The truth-tables should make it clear that both forms p q r (p·q)Ér º pÉ(qÉr)
of distribution are reliable rules of replacement.
T T T T T T
T T F F T F
Exportation T F T T T T
Exportation (Exp.) is a rule of replacement of the form: T F F T T T

F T T T T T
Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui F Taz1316pk@yahoo.com
E-mail F T T T
.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics) F F T T T T
F F F T T T
[(p·q)Ér)]º[pÉ(qÉr)]
The truth-table at the right demonstrates that statements of these two forms are
logically equivalent.
Please take careful notice of the difference between Exportation as a rule of

replacement and the rule of inference called Absorption. Although they bear some
similarity of structure, the rules are distinct and can be used differently in the
construction of proofs.
Tautology
p º (p Ú p)
Finally, there are two forms of the rule called Tautology (Taut.): T T T
the first involves disjunction,
F T F
p º (p Ú p)
p º (p · p)
and the second involves conjunction: T T T

p º (p · p)
F T F
In each case, the rule permits replacement of any
statement by (or with) another statement that is simply the disjunction or
conjunction of the original statement with itself. Although such reasoning is rare in
ordinary life, it will perform a significant formal role in our construction of proofs of
validity.
Replacement in Proofs
Using the rules of replacement in the construction of proofs is a fairly

straightforward procedure. Since the rules are biconditionals, the replacement can
work in either direction—right side for left, or left side for right. What is more,
since the statement forms on either side are logically equivalent, they can be used to
replace each other wherever they occur, even as component parts of a line. (When
applying the nine rules of inference, on the other hand, we must always work with
whole lines of a proof.) Consider the following argument:
A Ú (B · ~C)
AÉD
~D É C
____________
D

As before, we begin by numbering each of the premises:

1. A Ú (B · ~C) premise
2. A É D premise
3. ~D É C premise
Next, notice that we can use our rules of replacement and inference to derive some
part of the information conveyed by the first premise:
2. A É D premise
3. ~D É C premise
4. (A Ú B) · (A Ú ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A Ú ~C) · (A Ú B) 4 Comm.
6. A Ú ~C 5 Simp.
So long as each step is justified by reference to an earlier step (or steps) in the
proof and to one of the nineteen rules, it must be a valid derivation. Next, let's work
with the third premise a bit:
2. A É D premise
3. ~D É C premise
4. (A Ú B) · (A Ú ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A Ú ~C) · (A Ú B) 4 Comm.
6. A Ú ~C 5 Simp.
7. ~C É ~~D 3 Trans.
8. ~C É D 7 D.N.
Again, each step is justified by application of one of the rules of replacement to all
or part of a preceding line in the proof. Now conjoin the second premise with our
eighth line, and we've set up a constructive dilemma:
2. A É D premise
3. ~D É C premise
4. (A Ú B) · (A Ú ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A Ú ~C) · (A Ú B) 4 Comm.
6. A Ú ~C 5 Simp.
8. ~C É D 7 D.N.
9. (A É D) · (~C É D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D Ú D 9, 6 C.D.
All that remains is to apply Tautology in order to reach our intended conclusion, so
the entire proof will look like this:
2. A É D premise
3. ~D É C premise
4. (A Ú B) · (A Ú ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A Ú ~C) · (A Ú B) 4 Comm.

6. A Ú ~C 5 Simp.
8. ~C É D 7 D.N.
9. (A É D) · (~C É D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D Ú D 9, 6 C.D.
11. D 10 Taut.
Don't worry if the intermediate stages of this proof were a little puzzling as we
went along; what matters for right now is that you understand the use of the rules
of replacement along with the rules of inference
Proving Invalidity
Constructing proofs is an effective way to demonstrate that an argument of the

propositional calculus is valid. If an argument happens to be invalid, of course, it
would be impossible to construct a proof of its validity. But that's not a very good
method of spotting invalid arguments, since my inability to devise an appropriate
proof on a particular afternoon is as likely to result from my own limitations as from
the general impossibility of doing so.
Of course, we could always fall back on truth-tables as a method of proving

invalidity. We simply inspect the truth-table columns for all of the premises and the
conclusion; if there is any line on which all of the premises are true while the
conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid (and if not, it is valid). In this sense,
truth-tables are a decision procedure: in a finite number of steps, they will provide
us with evidence of the validity or invalidity of any argument. But that finite number
of steps can become extremely large. (With seven propositional variables and five
premises, we would have to fill in 1,664 individual truth-values.)
Fortunately, we can often short-cut the process significantly when we suspect that
an argument may be invalid. Remember, it only takes one line with true premises and
a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. So we don't
really need to look at every line of the argument's truth-table; we can concentrate
on our effort to find just the right one. Consider, for example, the following
argument:
A É (B Ú C)
D É (E Ú F)
~B É (F Ú G)
(F É D) · (~E É ~D)

~G
_______________________
A É (D Ú F)
Instead of amassing a truth-table with 128 lines, let's see if we can focus in on just
a few lines from among those that would establish the invalidity of the argument.
Since the crucial line must be one on which the conclusion is false, let's begin by
assuming that A É (D Ú F) is false. Since the only way for a conditional statement to be
false is if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false, we know that A must be
true and D Ú F must be false, and since a disjunction is false only when both of its
disjuncts are false, we know that D and F must both be false on our crucial line of the
truth-table. Notice how far we've come already:
A É (B Ú C) A B C D E F G
D É (E Ú F)
~B É (F Ú G) T F F
(F É D) · (~E É ~D)
~G
_______________________
A É (D Ú F)
There are only sixteen lines of the truth-table on which the conclusion is false, and
those are the only ones we need to think about in our effort to prove the invalidity
of the argument.
Now, let's begin ensuring that we also look only at lines on which the premises are all
true. the fifth premise is easy: ~G is true if and only if G is false. And, since F and G
are both false, the consequent of the third premise is false; in order to make that
premise true, its antecedent, ~B must also be false, which entails that B must be
true. Thus, we've narrowed our search even further:
D É (E Ú F)
~B É (F Ú G) T T F F F
(F É D) · (~E É ~D)
~G
_______________________
A É (D Ú F)
Only four lines of the original 128 now matter, and as it turns out, the remaining
premises are all true on each of those four lines. Assign either truth value to C and

to E ; taken along with the values for the other statements as shown above, they will
be part of a line (one of four, in fact) on which the premises of an argument of this
form are all true but its conclusion is false.
D É (E Ú F)
~B É (F Ú G) T T T F T F F
(F É D) · (~E É ~D)
~G
_______________________
A É (D Ú F)
Thus, we have proven that the argument is invalid. When A, B, C, and E are true and
D, F, and G are false, the premises are true and the conclusion false. If the
inference were valid, that could never happen.

Logic and Critical Thinking 007

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Logic and Critical Thinking 007

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Logic & Critical Thinking {Reference Material} (Week No.

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

2. The conclusion is logically irrelevant to the premises, even if it is

There are 5 types of Relevance Fallacies.

If someone "persuade" something by means of threats, without giving a

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Populum)

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Argument from Ignorance

Argument from Ad Hominem

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

• Circumstantial- guilt by association: this one surfaces in political

Appeal to Irrelevant Conclusion

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

a) subjectivism b) appeal to majority

a) subjectivism b) appeal to majority

a) subjectivism b) appeal to majority

4. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument.

a) subjectivism b) appeal to majority

5. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument.

a) appeal to authority b) tu quoque c) poisoning the well

6. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument.

a) appeal to authority b) tu quoque c) poisoning the well

7. Identify the fallacy committed by the following argument.

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

a) appeal to authority b) tu quoque c) poisoning the well

"Up to this point, his logic is absolutely impeccable."

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Terms and Propositions

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Quality and Quantity

The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of the relationship it

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

The quantity of a categorical proposition, on the other hand, is a measure of the

• A universal affirmative proposition (to which, following the practice of

distributes its subject term but not its predicate term.

• A universal negative proposition (or "E") is of the form

This proposition asserts that nothing is a member both of the class

• A particular affirmative proposition ("I") is of the form

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

• Finally, a particular negative proposition ("O") is of the form

Some S are not P.

The Square of Opposition

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

Lecturer : Arshad Zia Siddiqui E-mail az1316pk@yahoo.com

.(M.Com, MCS, MA Economics)

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS (2nd Options)

A proposition is a sentence that is either true of false. A proposition is a categorical