An argument consists of a conclusion (the

claim that the speaker or writer is arguing for)

and premises (the claims that he or she offers
in support of the conclusion). Here is an
example of an argument:

[Premise] Every officer on the force has been

certified, and [premise] nobody can be certified
without scoring above 70 percent on the firing
range. Therefore [conclusion] every officer on the
force must have scored above 70 percent on the
firing range.

The Structure of Argument: Conclusions

and Premises

When we analyze an argument, we need to

first separate the conclusion from the
grounds for the conclusion which are called
premises. Stating it another way, in
arguments we need to distinguish the claim
that is being made from the warrants that
are offered for it. The claim is the position
that is maintained, while the warrants are
the reasons given to justify the claim.
It is sometimes difficult to make this
distinction, but it is important to see the
difference between a conclusion and a
premise, a claim and its warrant,
differentiating between what is claimed and
the basis for claiming it.

We might make a claim in a formal argument.

For example, we might claim that teenage
pregnancy can be reduced through sex
education in the schools.
To justify our claim we might try to show the
number of pregnancies in a school before and
after sex education classes.
In writing an argumentative essay we must
decide on the point we want to make and the
reasons we will offer to prove it, the conclusion
and the premises.

The same distinction must be made in reading

argumentative essays, namely, what is the
writer claiming and the warrant is offered for
the claim, what is being asserted and why.
Take the following complete argument:
Television presents a continuous display of violence in
graphically explicit and extreme forms. It also depicts
sexuality not as a physical expression of internal love
but in its most lewd and obscene manifestations. We
must conclude, therefore, that television contributes
to the moral corruption of individuals exposed to it.

Whether we agree with this position or not, we

must first identify the logic of the argument to
test its soundness. In this example the
conclusion is television contributes to the
moral corruption of individuals exposed to it.
The premises appear in the beginning
sentences: Television presents a continuous
display of violence in graphic and extreme
forms, and (television) depicts sexualityin
its most lewd and obscene manifestations.
Once we have separated the premises and the
claim then we need to evaluate whether the
case has been made for the conclusion.

Has the writer shown that television does corrupt

society? Has a causal link been shown between
the depiction of lewd and obscene sex and the
moral corruption of society? Does TV reflect
violence in our society or does it promote it?

Since dissection is sometimes difficult

because we cannot always see the skeleton of
the argument. In such cases we can find help
by looking for indicator words. When the
words in the following list are used in
arguments, they usually indicate a premise has
just been offered and that a conclusion is about
to be presented.

Consequently
Therefore
Thus
So
Hence
accordingly

We can conclude that

It follows that
We may infer that
This means that
It leads us to believe that
This bears out the point
that

Example:
Sarah drives a Dodge Viper. This means that either
she is rich or her parents are.

The conclusion is:

Either she is rich or her parents are.

The premise is:

Sarah drives a Dodge Viper.

When the words in the following list are used in

arguments, they generally introduce premises. They
often occur just after a conclusion has been given.

Since
Because
For
whereas

In as much as
For the reasons that
In view of the fact
As evidenced by

Example:
Either Sarah is rich or her parents are, since
she drives a Dodge Viper.

The premise is the claim that Sarah

drives a Dodge Viper; the conclusion is
the claim that either Sarah is rich or her
parents are.

Indicator words can tell us when the theses

and the supports appear, even in complex
arguments that are embedded in paragraphs.
We can see whether the person has good
reasons for making the claim, or whether the
argument is weak. We should keep this in
mind when presenting our own case.
An argument that presents a clear structure
of premises and conclusions, without narrative
digressions, metaphorical flights, or other
embellishments, is much easier for people to
follow.

To help us make sense of our experience, we

humans constantly group things into classes or
categories. These classifications are reflected in
our everyday language. In formal reasoning the
statements that contain our premises and
conclusions have to be rendered in a strict form so
that we know exactly what is being claimed. These
logical forms were first formulated by Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.). They are four in number, carrying
the designations A, E, I, O, as follows:
All S is P (A).
No S is P (E).
Some S is P (I).
Some S is not P (O).

The letter "S" stands for the class designated

by the subject term of the proposition. The
letter "P" stands for the class designated by
the predicate term. Substituting any classdefining words for S and P generates actual
categorical propositions.
In classical theory, the four standard-form
categorical propositions were thought to be
the building blocks of all deductive arguments.
Each of the four has a conventional
designation: A for universal affirmative
propositions; E for universal negative
propositions; I for particular affirmative
propositions; and O for particular negative
propositions.

These various relationships between

classes are affirmed or denied by
categorical propositions. The result is
that there can be just four different
standard forms of categorical
propositions. They are illustrated by the
four following propositions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

All politicians are liars.

No politicians are liars.
Some politicians are liars.
Some politicians are not liars.

The first is a universal affirmative proposition. It is

about two classes, the class of all politicians and the
class of all liars, saying that the first class is included
or contained in the second class. A universal
affirmative proposition says that every member of the
first class is also a member of the second class. In the
present example, the subject term politicians
designates the class of all politicians, and the
predicate term liars designates the class of all liars.
Any universal affirmative proposition may be written
schematically as
All S is P.
where the terms S and P represent the subject and
predicate terms, respectively.

The name universal affirmative is

appropriate because the position affirms
that the relationship of class inclusion holds
between the two classes and says that the
inclusion is complete or universal: All
members of S are said to be members of P
also.

The second example

No politicians are liars.

Is a universal negative proposition. It denies

of politicians universally that they are liars.
Concerned with two classes, a universal
negative proposition says that the first
class is wholly excluded from the second,
which is to say that there is no member of
the first class that is also a member of the
second. Any universal proposition may be
written schematically as
No S is P
Where, again, the letters S and P represent
the subject and predicate terms.

The name universal negative is

appropriate because the proposition denies
that the relation of class inclusion holds
between the two classes and denies it
universally: No members at all of S are
members of P.

The third example

Some Politicians are liars.

is a particular affirmative proposition.

Clearly, what the present example affirms
is that some members of the class of all
politicians are (also) members of the class
of all liars. But it does not affirm this of
politicians universally: Not all politicians
universally, but, rather, some particular
politician or politicians, are said to be liars.
This proposition neither affirms nor denies
that all politicians are liars; it makes no
pronouncement on the matter.

The word some is indefinite. Does it mean at

least one, or at least two, or at least one
hundred? In this type of proposition, it is
customary to regard the word some as meaning
at least one. Thus a particular affirmative
proposition, written schematically as
Some S is P.
says that at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term S is also a member
of the class designated by the predicate term P. The
name particular affirmative is appropriate because
the proposition affirms that the relationship of class
inclusion holds, but does not affirm it of the first
class universally, but only partially, of some
particular member or members of the first class.

The fourth example

Some politicians are not liars
is a particular negative proposition. This example,
like the one preceding it, does not refer to politicians
universally but only to some member or members of
that class; it is particular. But unlike the third
example, it does not affirm that the particular
members of the first class referred to are included in
the second class; this is precisely what is denied. A
particular negative proposition, schematically written
as
Some S is not P.
says that at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term S is excluded from
the whole of the class designated by the predicate
term P.

Every categorical proposition has a

quality, either affirmative or negative. It is
affirmative if the proposition asserts some
kind of class inclusion, either complete or
partial. It is negative if the proposition
denies any kind of class inclusion, either
complete or partial.
Every categorical proposition also has a
quantity, either universal or particular. It is
universal if the proposition refers to all
members of the class designated by its
subject term. It is particular if the
proposition refers only to some members
of the class designated by its subject term.

Standard-form categorical propositions

consist of four parts, as follows:
Quantifer (subject term) copula (predicate
term)
The three standard-form quantifiers are
"all," "no" (universal), and "some"
(particular). The copula is a form of the verb
"to be."

Sentence

Standard Form

Attribute

All apples are delicious.

A All S is P.

Universal affirmative

No apples are delicious.

E No S is P.

Universal negative

Some apples are

delicious.

I Some S is P.

Particular affirmative

Some apples are not

delicious.

O Some S is not P.

Particular negative

Distribution is an attribute of the terms

(subject and predicate) of propositions. A term
is said to be distributed if the proposition
makes an assertion about every member of
the class denoted by the term; otherwise, it is
undistributed. In other words, a term is
distributed if and only if the statement assigns
(or distributes) an attribute to every member
of the class denoted by the term. Thus, if a
statement asserts something about every
member of the S class, then S is distributed;
otherwise S and P are undistributed.

 Here is another way to look at All S are P.

The S circle is contained in the P circle, which represents the

fact that every member of S is a member of P. Through
reference to this diagram, it is clear that every member of S is
in the P class. But the statement does not make a claim about
every member of the P class, since there may be some members
of the P class that are outside of S.

Translate the following sentences into

standard form categorical statements:
Each insect is an animal.
Not every sheep is white.
A few holidays fall on Saturday.
There are a few right handed first basemen.

Politicians

Liars

Anything in area 1 is a politician, but not a liar.

Anything in area 2 is both a politician and a liar.
Anything in area 3 is a liar but not a politician. And
anything in area 4, the area outside the two circles is
neither a politician or a liar.

Politicians

Liars

The shading means that the part of the politicians circle

that does not overlap with the liars circle is empty; that is,
it contains no members. The diagram thus asserts that
there are no politicians who are are not liars. All
politicians are liars.

Politicians

Liars

To say that no politicians are liars is to say that no

members of the class of politicians are members of
the class of liars that is, that there is no overlap
between the two classes. To represent this claim, we
shade the portion of the two circles that overlaps as
shown above. No politicians are liars.

Politicians

Liars

In logic, the statement Some politicians are lairs

means There exists at least one politician and that
politician is a liar. To diagram this statement, we
place an X in that part of the politicians circle that
overlaps with the liars circle.

Politicians

Liars

A similar strategy is used with statements of the form Some

S are not P. In logic, the statement Some politicians are not
liars means At least one politician is not a liar. To
diagram this statement we place an X in that part of the
politicians circle that lies outside the liars circle.

Claims about single individuals, such as

Aristotle is a logician, can be tricky to
translate into standard form. Its clear that
this claim specifies a class, logicians, and
places Aristotle as a member of that class.
The problem is that categorical claims are
always about two classes, and Aristotle isnt a
class. (We couldnt talk about some of
Aristotle being a logician.) What we want to
do is treat such claims as if they were about
classes with exactly one member.

One way to do this is to use the term people

who are identical with Aristotle, which of
course has only Aristotle as a member.
Claims about single individuals should be
treated as A-claims or E-claims.
Aristotle is a logician can be translated into
All people identical with Aristotle are
logicians.
Individual claims do not only involve people.
For example, Fort Wayne is in Indiana is All
cities identical with Fort Wayne are cities in
Indiana.

1.
2.

In categorical logic, some always means at

least one.
Some statements are understood to assert
that something actually exists. Thus, some
mammals are cats is understood to assert
that at least one mammal exists and that that
mammal is a cat. By contrast, all or no
statements are not interpreted as asserting
the existence of anything. Instead, they are
treated as purely conditional statements.
Thus, All snakes are reptiles asserts that if
anything is a snake, then it is a reptile, not
that there are snakes and that all of them are
reptiles.

Draw Venn diagrams of the following

statements. In some cases, you may
need to rephrase the statements slightly
to put them in one of the four standard
forms.
No apples are fruits.
Some apples are not fruits.
All fruits are apples.
Some apples are fruits.

Do people really go around saying things

like some fruits are not apples? Not

very often. But although relatively few of
our everyday statements are explicitly in
standard categorical form, a surprisingly
large number of those statements can be
translated into standard categorical form.

Every S is P.
Whoever is an S is a P.
is
Any S is a P.
Each S is a P.
Only P are S.
Only if something is a
dog
P is it an S.
The only S are P.
cheap seats.

Example:
Every dog is an animal.
Whoever is a bachelor
a male.
Any triangle is a
geometrical figure.
Each eagle is a bird.
Only Catholics are popes.
Only if something is a
is it a cocker spaniel.
The only tickets available
are tickets for

Pay special attention to the phrases containing

the word only in that list. (Only is one of
the trickiest words in the English language.)
Note, in particular, that as a rule the subject
and the predicate terms must be reversed if
the statement begins with the words only or
only if. Thus, Only citizens are voters must
be rewritten as All voters are citizens, not
All citizens are voters. And, Only if a thing
is an insect is it a bee must be rewritten as
All bees are insects, not All insects are
bees.

Example:
No S are P.
No cows are reptiles.
S are not P.
Cows are not reptiles.
Nothing that is an S
Nothing that is a
known
is a P.
fact is a mere opinion.
No one who is an S
No one who is a
Republican
is a P.
is a Democrat.
All S are non-P. If anything is a plant, then
it is
not a mineral.

Some P are S.
A few S are P.
are

Example:
Some students are men.
A few mathematicians

poets.
There are S that are P.
There are monkeys
that are
carnivores.
Several S are P.
Several planets in the
solar
system are
gas giants.
Many S are P.
Many students are hard
workers.
Most S are P.
Most Americans are
carnivores.

Example:
Not all S are P.
Not all politicians are
liars.
Not everyone who is Not everyone who is a
an S is a P.
politician is a liar.
Some S are non-P.
Some philosophers are
non Aristotelians.
Most S are not P.
Most students are not
binge drinkers.
Nearly all S are
Nearly all students
are not
not P.
cheaters.

The process of casting sentences that we find

in at ext into one of these four forms is
technically called paraphrasing, and the ability
to paraphrase must be acquired in order to
deal with statements logically.
In the processing of paraphrasing we
designate the affirmative or negative quality
of a statement principally by using the words
no or not. We indicate quantity, meaning
whether we are referring to the entire class or
only a portion of it, by using words all or
some. In addition, we must render the
subject and the predicate as classes of objects
with the verb is or are as the copula
joining the halves.

We must pay attention to the grammar,

diagramming the sentences if need be, to
determine the parts of the sentence, the group
that is meant, and even what noun is being
modified.
The kind of thing a claim directly concerns is
not always obvious. For example, if you think
for a moment about the claim I always get
nervous when I take logic exams, youll see
its a claim about times. Its about getting
nervous and about logic exams indirectly,of
course, but it pertains directly to times or
occasions. The proper translation of the
example is All times I take logic exams are
times that I get nervous.

Once our statement is translated into proper

form, we can see it implications to other forms
of the statement. For example, if we claim All
scientists are gifted writers, that certainly
implies that Some scientists are gifted
writers, but we cannot logically transpose the
proposition to All gifted writers are scientists.
In other words, some statements would
follow, others would not.
To help determine when we can infer one
statement from another and when there is
disagreement, logicians have devised tables
that we can refer to if we get confused.

Thus, by the definition of distributed

term, S is distributed and P is not. In
other words for any (A) proposition, the
subject term, whatever it may be, is
distributed and the predicate term is
undistributed.

No S are P states that the S and P class are

separate, which may be represented as follows:

This statement makes a claim about every member of S and

every member of P. It asserts that every member of S is
separate from every member of P, and also that every member
of P is separate from every member of S. Both the subject and
the predicate terms of universal negative (E) propositions are
distributed.

The particular affirmative (I) proposition states that

at least one member of S is a member of P. If we
represent this one member of S that we are certain
about by an asterisk, the resulting diagram looks
like this:

Since the asterisk is inside the P class, it represents something that

is simultaneously an S and a P; in other words, it represents a
member of the S class that is also a member of the P class. Thus,
the statement Some S are P makes a claim about one member (at
least) of S and also one member (at least) of P, but not about all
members of either class. Thus, neither S or P is distributed.

The particular negative (O) proposition asserts that at

least one member of S is not a member of P. If we once
again represent this one member of S by an asterisk, the
resulting diagram is as follows:

Since the other members of S may or may not be outside of P, it is clear that
the statement Some S are not P does not make a claim about every
member of S, so S is not distributed. But, as may be seen from the diagram,
the statement does assert that the entire P class is separated from this one
member of the S that is outside; that is, it does make a claim about every
member of P. Thus, in the particular negative (O) proposition, P is
distributed and S is undistributed.

Unprepared Students Never Pass

Universals distribute Subjects.
Negatives distribute Predicates.
Any Student Earning Bs Is Not On
Probation

A distributes Subject.
E distributes Both.
I distributes Neither.
O distributes Predicate.

Quality, quantity, and distribution tell us what

standard-form categorical propositions assert
about their subject and predicate terms, not
whether those assertions are true. Taken
together, however, A, E, I, and O propositions
with the same subject and predicate terms have
relationships of opposition that do permit
conclusions about truth and falsity. In other
words, if we know whether or not a proposition in
one form is true or false, we can draw certain
valid conclusions about the truth or falsity of
propositions with the same terms in other forms.

There are four ways in which propositions

may be opposed-as contradictories,
contraries, subcontraries, and subalterns.

Two propositions are contradictories if

one is the denial or negation of the other;
that is, if they cannot both be true and
cannot both be false at the same time. If
one is true, the other must be false. If
one is false, the other must be true.
A propositions (All S is P) and O
propositions (Some S is not P), which
differ in both quantity and quality, are
contradictories.

All logic books are interesting books.

Some logic books are not interesting books.
Here we have two categorical propositions with the same
subject and predicate terms that differ in quantity and
quality. One is an A proposition (universal and affirmative).
The second is an O proposition (particular and negative).
Can both of these propositions be true at the same time?
The answer is "no." If all logic books are interesting, than it
can't be true that some of them are not. Likewise, if some
of them are not interesting, then it can't be true that all of
them are.
Can both propositions be false at the same time? Again, the
answer is "no". If it's false that all logic books are
interesting, then it must be true that some of them are not
interesting. Likewise if it's false that some of them are not
interesting, then all of them must be interesting.
Like this pair, all A and O propositions with the same
subject and predicate terms are contradictories. One is
the denial of the other. They can't both be true or false at
the same time.

E propositions (No S is P) and I propositions (Some

S is P) likewise differ in quantity and quality and
are contradictories.
Example: No presidential elections are contested
elections.
Some presidential elections are contested
elections.
Here again we have two categorical propositions
with the same subject and predicate terms that
differ in both quantity and quality. In this case, the
first is an E propositionuniversal and negative
and the second is an I propositionparticular and
positive.
Can both be true at the same time? The answer is
"no." If no presidential elections are contested,
then it can't be true that some are. Likewise is
some are contested, then it can't be true that none
are.

Can both be false at the same time? Again

the answer is "no." If it's false that no
presidential elections are contested, then it
must be true that some of them are.
Likewise if it's false that some are
contested, then it must be the case that
none are.
Like this pair, all E and I propositions with
the same subject and predicate terms are
contradictories. One is the denial of the
other. They can't both be true or false at
the same time.

Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both

be true; that is, if the truth of one entails the falsity
of the other. If one is true, the other must be false.
But if one is false, it does not follow that the other
has to be true. Both might be false.
A (All S is P) and E (No S is P) propositions-which are
both universal but differ in quality-are contraries
unless one is necessarily (logically or
mathematically) true.
For example:
All books are written by Stephen King.
No books are written by Stephen King.
Both are false.

Two propositions are subcontraries if they

cannot both be false, although they both
may be true.

I (Some S is P) and O (Some S is not P)

propositions-which are both particular but
differ in quality-are subcontraries unless
one is necessarily false.

For example:

Some dogs are cocker spaniels.

Some dogs are not cocker spaniels.

Subalternation is the relationship between a

universal proposition (the superaltern) and its
corresponding particular proposition (the
subaltern).

According to Aristotelian logic, whenever a

universal proposition is true, its corresponding
particular must be true. Thus if an A proposition
(All S is P) is true, the corresponding I proposition
(Some S is P) is also true. Likewise if an E
proposition (No S is P) is true, so too is its
corresponding particular (Some S is not P). The
reverse, however, does not hold. That is, if a
particular proposition is true, its corresponding
universal might be true or it might be false.

For example: All bananas are fruit.

Therefore, some bananas are fruit.
Or, no humans are reptiles. Therefore,
some humans are not reptiles.
However, we cant go in reverse. We
cant say some animals are not dogs.
Therefore, no animals are dogs.
Or, some guitar players are famous rock
musicians. Therefore, all guitar players
are famous rock musicians.

The first kind of immediate inference,

called conversion, proceeds by simply
interchanging the subject and predicate
terms of the proposition.
Conversion is valid in the case of E and I
propositions. No women are American
Presidents, can be validly converted to
No American Presidents are women.
An example of an I conversion: Some
politicians are liars, and Some liars are
politicians are logically equivalent, so by
conversion either can be validly inferred
from the other.

One standard-form proposition is said to

be the converse of another when it is
formed by simply interchanging the
subject and predicate terms of that other
proposition. Thus, No idealists are
politicians is the converse of No
politicians are idealists, and each can
validly be inferred from the other by
conversion. The term convertend is used
to refer to the premise of an immediate
inference by conversion, and the
conclusion of the inference is called the
converse.

Note that the converse of an A proposition is

not generally valid form that A proposition.
For example: All bananas are fruit, does not
imply the converse, All fruit are bananas.
A combination of subalternation and conversion
does, however, yield a valid immediate
inference for A propositions. If we know that "All
S is P," then by subalternation we can conclude
that the corresponding I proposition, "Some S is
P," is true, and by conversion (valid for I
propositions) that some P is S. This process is
called conversion by limitation.

Convertend
A proposition: All IBM computers are things that use electricity.
Converse
A proposition: All things that use electricity are IBM computers.
Convertend
A proposition: All IBM computers are things that use electricity.
Corresponding particular:
I proposition: Some IBM computers are things that use electricity.
Converse (by limitation)
I proposition: Some things that use electricity are IBM computers.
The first part of this example indicates why conversion applied
directly to A propositions does not yield valid immediate
inferences. It is certainly true that all IBM computers use
electricity, but it is certainly false that all things that use
electricity are IBM computers.
Conversion by limitation, however, does yield a valid immediate
inference for A propositions according to Aristotelian logic. From
"All IBM computers are things that use electricity" we get, by
subalternation, the I proposition "Some IBM computers are things
that use electricity." And because conversion is valid for I
propositions, we can conclude, finally, that "Some things that use
electricity are IBM computers."

The converse ofSome S is not P, does

not yield an valid immediate inference.

Convertend
O proposition: Some dogs are not cocker
spaniels.
Converse
O proposition: Some cocker spaniels are
not dogs.

This example indicates why conversion of

O prepositions does not yield a valid
immediate inference. The first proposition
is true, but its converse is false.

Does not convert to

A
A

All men are wicked creatures.

All wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to

E
E

No men are wicked creatures.

No wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to

I
I

Some wicked men are creatures.

Some wicked creatures are men.

Does not convert to

O
O

Some men are not wicked creatures.

Some wicked creatures are not men.

Obversion - A valid form of immediate

inference for every standard-form
categorical proposition. To obvert a
proposition we change its quality (from
affirmative to negative, or from negative
to affirmative) and replace the predicate
term with its complement. Thus, applied
to the proposition "All cocker spaniels are
dogs," obversion yields "No
cockerspaniels are nondogs," which is
called its "obverse." The proposition
obverted is called the "obvertend."

The obverse is logically equivalent to the

obvertend. Obversion is thus a valid
immediate inference when applied to any
standard-form categorical proposition.

The obverse of the A proposition "All S is P"

is the E proposition "No S is non-P."

The obverse of the E proposition "No S is P"

is the A proposition "All S is non-P."

The obverse of the I proposition "Some S is P" is the O

proposition "Some S is not non-P."

The obverse of the O proposition "Some S is not P" is

the I proposition "Some S is non-P."

Obvertend
A-proposition: All cartoon characters are fictional
characters.
Obverse
E-proposition: No cartoon characters are non-fictional
characters.

Obvertend
E-proposition: No current sitcoms are funny shows.
Obverse
A-proposition: All current sitcoms are non-funny
shows.

Obvertend
I-proposition: Some rap songs are lullabies.
Obverse
O-proposition: Some rap songs are not nonlullabies.
Obvertend
O-proposition: Some movie stars are not
geniuses.
Obverse
I-proposition: Some movie stars are nongeniuses.

As these examples indicate, obversion always

yields a valid immediate inference.

If every cartoon character is a fictional

character, then it must be true that no cartoon
character is a non-fictional character.

If no current sitcoms are funny, then all of

them must be something other than funny.

If some rap songs are lullabies, then those

particular rap songs at least must not be
things that aren't lullabies.

If some movie stars are not geniuses, than

they must be something other than geniuses.

Contraposition is a process that involves

replacing the subject term of a
categorical proposition with the
complement of its predicate term and its
predicate term with the complement of
its subject term.
Contraposition yields a valid immediate
inference for A propositions and O
propositions. That is, if the proposition
All S is P is true, then its contrapositive
All non-P is non-S is also true.

For example:
Premise
A proposition: All logic books are
interesting things to read.
Contrapositive
A proposition: All non interesting things
to read are non logic books.

The contrapositive of an A proposition is

a valid immediate inference from its
premise. If the first proposition is true it
places every logic book in the class of
interesting things to read. The
contrapositive claims that any noninteresting things to read are also nonlogic bookssomething other than a
logic bookand surely this must be
correct.

Premise:
I-proposition: Some humans are non-logic
teachers.
Contrapositive
I-proposition: Some logic teachers are not
human.
As this example suggests, contraposition
does not yield valid immediate inferences
for I propositions. The first proposition is
true, but the second is clearly false.

E premise:
No dentists are non-graduates.
The contrapositive is: No graduates are
non-dentists.
Obviously this is not true.

The contrapositive of an E proposition does not

yield a valid immediate inference. This is because
the propositions "No S is P" and "Some non-P is
non-S" can both be true. But in that case "No non-P
is non-S," the contrapositive of "No S is P," would
have to be false.
A combination of subalternation and
contraposition does, however, yield a valid
immediate inference for E propositions. If we know
that "No S is P" is true, then by subalternation we
can conclude that the corresponding O proposition,
"Some S is not P," is true, and by contraposition
(valid for O propositions) that "Some non-P is not
non-S" is also true. This process is called
contraposition by limitation.

Premise:
E-proposition: No Game Show Hosts are Brain
Surgeons.
Contrapositive
E proposition: No non-Brain Surgeons are non-Game
show hosts.
Premise:
E proposition: No game show hosts are brain
surgeons.
Corresponding particular O proposition: Some game
show hosts are not brain surgeons.
Contrapositive
O proposition: Some non-brain surgeons are not
non-game show hosts.

The first part of this example indicates why

contraposition applied directly to E propositions does not
yield valid immediate inferences. Even if the first
proposition is true then the second can still be false. This
may be hard to see at first, but if we take it apart slowly
we can understand why. The first proposition, if true,
clearly separates the class of game show hosts from the
class of brain surgeons, allowing no overlap between
them. It does not, however, tell us anything specific
about what is outside those classes. But the second
proposition does refer to the areas outside the classes
and what it says might be false. It claims that there is
not even one thing outside the class of brain surgeons
that is, at the same time, a non-game show host. But
wait a minute. Most of us are neither brain surgeons nor
game show hosts. Clearly the contrapositive is false.

Contraposition by limitation, however, does

yield a valid immediate inference for E
propositions according to Aristotelian logic.
By subalternation from the first proposition
we get the O proposition "Some game show
hosts are not brain surgeons." And then by
contraposition, which is valid for O
propositions, we get the valid, if tonguetwisting O proposition, "Some non-brain
surgeons are not non-game show hosts."

O proposition.
Premise:
Some flowers are not roses.
Some non-roses are not non-flowers.
This is valid. Thus we can see that
contraposition is a valid form of inference
only when applied to A and O propositions.
Contraposition is not valid at all for I
propositions and is valid for E propositions
only by limitation.

Table of Contraposition
Premise

Contrapositive

A: All S is P.

A: All non-P is non-S.

E: No S is P.

O: Some non-P is not

non-S. (by limitation)

I: Some S is P.

Contraposition not
valid.

O: Some S is not P.

Some non-P is not nonS.

Aristotelian logic suffers from a dilemma

that undermines the validity of many
relationships in the traditional Square of
Opposition. Mathematician and logician
George Boole proposed a resolution to this
dilemma in the late nineteenth century. This
Boolean interpretation of categorical
propositions has displaced the Aristotelian
interpretation in modern logic.

The source of the dilemma is the problem of

existential import. A proposition is said to have
existential import if it asserts the existence of
objects of some kind. I and O propositions have
existential import; they assert that the classes
designated by their subject terms are not empty. But
in Aristotelian logic, I and O propositions follow
validly from A and E propositions by subalternation.
As a result, Aristotelian logic requires A and E
propositions to have existential import, because a
proposition with existential import cannot be derived
from a proposition without existential import.

A and O propositions with the same

subject and predicate terms are
contradictories, and so cannot both be
false at the same time. But if A
propositions have existential import, then
an A proposition and its contradictory O
proposition would both be false when
their subject class was empty.
For example:

Unicorns have horns. If there are no unicorns,

then it is false that all unicorns have horns and
it is also false that some unicorns have horns.

The Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions

solves this dilemma by denying that universal
propositions have existential import. This has the
following consequences:
I propositions and O propositions have existential
import.
A-O and E-I pairs with the same subject and predicate
terms retain their relationship as contradictories.
Because A and E propositions have no existential
import, subalternation is generally not valid.
Contraries are eliminated because A and E propositions
can now both be true when the subject class is empty.
Similarly, subcontraries are eliminated because I and O
propositions can now both be false when the subject
class is empty.

Some immediate inferences are preserved:

conversion for E and I propositions,
contraposition for A and O propositions, and
obversion for any proposition. But
conversion by limitation and contraposition
by limitation are no longer generally valid.
Any argument that relies on the mistaken
assumption of existence commits the
existential fallacy.

The result is to undo the relations along the

sides of the traditional Square of Opposition
but to leave the diagonal, contradictory
relations in force.

The relationships among classes in the Boolean

interpretation of categorical propositions can
be represented in symbolic notation. We
represent a class by a circle labeled with the
term that designates the class. Thus the class
S is diagrammed as shown below:

To diagram the proposition that S has no

members, or that there are no Ss, we shade all
of the interior of the circle representing S,
indicating in this way that it contains nothing
and is empty. To diagram the proposition that
there are Ss, which we interpret as saying that
there is at least one member of S, we place an x
anywhere in the interior of the circle
representing S, indicating in this way that there
is something inside it, that it is not empty.

To diagram a standard-form categorical

proposition, not one but two circles are
required. The framework for diagramming any
standard-form proposition whose subject and
predicate terms are abbreviated by S and P is
constructed by drawing two intersecting
circles:

Claims about single individuals, such as

Aristotle is a logician, can be tricky to
translate into standard form. Its clear that
this claim specifies a class, logicians, and
places Aristotle as a member of that class.
The problem is that categorical claims are
always about two classes, and Aristotle isnt a
class. (We couldnt talk about some of
Aristotle being a logician.) What we want to
do is treat such claims as if they were about
classes with exactly one member.

One way to do this is to use the term people

who are identical with Aristotle, which of
course has only Aristotle as a member.
Claims about single individuals should be
treated as A-claims or E-claims.
Aristotle is a logician can be translated into
All people identical with Aristotle are
logicians.
Individual claims do not only involve people.
For example, Fort Wayne is in Indiana is All
cities identical with Fort Wayne are cities in
Indiana.

1.
2.

In categorical logic, some always means at

least one.
Some statements are understood to assert
that something actually exists. Thus, some
mammals are cats is understood to assert
that at least one mammal exists and that that
mammal is a cat. By contrast, all or no
statements are not interpreted as asserting
the existence of anything. Instead, they are
treated as purely conditional statements.
Thus, All snakes are reptiles asserts that if
anything is a snake, then it is a reptile, not
that there are snakes and that all of them are
reptiles.

Draw Venn diagrams of the following

statements. In some cases, you may
need to rephrase the statements slightly
to put them in one of the four standard
forms.
No apples are fruits.
Some apples are not fruits.
All fruits are apples.
Some apples are fruits.

Do people really go around saying things

like some fruits are not apples? Not

very often. But although relatively few of
our everyday statements are explicitly in
standard categorical form, a surprisingly
large number of those statements can be
translated into standard categorical form.

Every S is P.
Whoever is an S is a P.
is
Any S is a P.
Each S is a P.
Only P are S.
Only if something is a
dog
P is it an S.
The only S are P.
cheap seats.

Example:
Every dog is an animal.
Whoever is a bachelor
a male.
Any triangle is a
geometrical figure.
Each eagle is a bird.
Only Catholics are popes.
Only if something is a
is it a cocker spaniel.
The only tickets available
are tickets for

Pay special attention to the phrases containing

the word only in that list. (Only is one of
the trickiest words in the English language.)
Note, in particular, that as a rule the subject
and the predicate terms must be reversed if
the statement begins with the words only or
only if. Thus, Only citizens are voters must
be rewritten as All voters are citizens, not
All citizens are voters. And, Only if a thing
is an insect is it a bee must be rewritten as
All bees are insects, not All insects are
bees.

Example:
No S are P.
No cows are reptiles.
S are not P.
Cows are not reptiles.
Nothing that is an S
Nothing that is a
known
is a P.
fact is a mere opinion.
No one who is an S
No one who is a
Republican
is a P.
is a Democrat.
All S are non-P. If anything is a plant, then
it is
not a mineral.

Some P are S.
A few S are P.
There are S that are P.
Several S are P.
Many S are P.
Most S are P.

Not all S are P.

Not everyone who is
an S is a P.
Some S are non-P.
Most S are not P.
Nearly all S are
not P.

The process of casting sentences that we find

in at ext into one of these four forms is
technically called paraphrasing, and the ability
to paraphrase must be acquired in order to
deal with statements logically.
In the processing of paraphrasing we
designate the affirmative or negative quality
of a statement principally by using the words
no or not. We indicate quantity, meaning
whether we are referring to the entire class or
only a portion of it, by using words all or
some. In addition, we must render the
subject and the predicate as classes of objects
with the verb is or are as the copula
joining the halves.

We must pay attention to the grammar,

diagramming the sentences if need be, to
determine the parts of the sentence, the group
that is meant, and even what noun is being
modified.
The kind of thing a claim directly concerns is
not always obvious. For example, if you think
for a moment about the claim I always get
nervous when I take logic exams, youll see
its a claim about times. Its about getting
nervous and about logic exams indirectly,of
course, but it pertains directly to times or
occasions. The proper translation of the
example is All times I take logic exams are
times that I get nervous.

Once our statement is translated into proper

form, we can see it implications to other forms
of the statement. For example, if we claim All
scientists are gifted writers, that certainly
implies that Some scientists are gifted
writers, but we cannot logically transpose the
proposition to All gifted writers are scientists.
In other words, some statements would
follow, others would not.
To help determine when we can infer one
statement from another and when there is
disagreement, logicians have devised tables
that we can refer to if we get confused.

Does not convert to

A
A

All men are wicked creatures.

All wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to

E
E

No men are wicked creatures.

No wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to

I
I

Some wicked men are creatures.

Some wicked creatures are men.

Does not convert to

O
O

Some men are not wicked creatures.

Some wicked creatures are not men.

Syllogism a deductive argument in which a

conclusion is inferred from two premises.
In a syllogism we lay out our train of reasoning in an
explicit way, identifying the major premise of the
argument, the minor premise, and the conclusion.
The major premise consists of the chief reason for the
conclusion, or more technically, it is the premise that
contains the term in the predicate of the conclusion.
The minor premise supports the conclusion in an
auxiliary way, or more precisely, it contains the term
that appears in the subject of the conclusion.
The conclusion is the point of the argument, the
outcome, or necessary consequence of the premise.

Example in an argumentative essay:

In determining who has committed war crimes
we must ask ourselves who has slaughtered
unarmed civilians, whether as reprisal, ethnic
cleansing, terrorism, or outright genocide.
For along with pillaging, rape, and other
atrocities, this is what war crimes consist of .
In the civil war in the former Yugoslavia,
soldiers in the Bosnian Serb army committed
hundreds of murders of this kind. They must
therefore be judged guilty of war crimes along
with the other awful groups in our century,
most notably the Nazis.

The conclusion to this argument is that soldiers in

the Bosnian Serb army are guilty of war crimes.
The premises supporting the conclusion are that
slaughtering unarmed civilians is a war crime, and
soldiers in the Bosnian Serb army have slaughtered
unarmed civilians. The following syllogism will
diagram this argument.
All soldiers who slaughter unarmed civilians are
guilty of war crimes.
Some Bosnian Serb soldiers are soldiers who
slaughter unarmed civilians

Some Bosnian Serb soldiers are guilty of war crimes.

Enthymeme - An argument that is stated

incompletely, the unstated part of it being
taken for granted. An enthymeme may be the
first, second, or third order, depending on
whether the unstated proposition is the major
premise, the minor premise, or the conclusion
of the argument.
Enthymemes traditionally have been divided
into different orders, according to which part
of the syllogism is left unexpressed.

A first order enthymeme is one in which the

syllogisms major premise is not stated.
For example, suppose someone said, We
must expect to find needles on all pine trees;
they are conifers after all. Once we recognize
this as an enthymeme we must provide the
unstated (major) premise, namely, All conifers
have needles. Then we need to paraphrase
the statements and arrange them in a
syllogism, indicating by parentheses which
one we added was not in the text:
(All conifers are trees that have needles.)
All pine trees are conifers.
All pine trees are trees that have needles.

A second - order enthymeme is one in which

only the major premise and the conclusion are
stated, the minor premise being suppressed.
For example, Of course tennis players arent
weak, in fact, no athletes are weak.
Obviously, the missing premise is Tennis
players are athletes, so the syllogism would
appear this way.
No athletes are weak.
(All tennis players are athletes.)
No tennis players are weak.

A third order enthymeme is one in which both

premises are sated, but the conclusion is left
unexpressed.
For example, All true democrats believe in
freedom of speech, but there are some
Americans who would impose censorship on free
expression. The reader is left to draw the
conclusion that some Americans are not true
democrats. The syllogism:

All true democrats are people who believe in freedom of

speech.
Some Americans are not people who believe in freedom of
speech.
(Some Americans are not true democrats.)

No certainty should be rejected. So, no selfevident propositions should be rejected.

Some beliefs about aliens are not rational, for

all rational beliefs are proportional to the
available evidence.

John is a member of the police force and all

policemen carry guns.

No matter how diligent we are in constructing

our argument in proper form, our conclusion
can still be mistaken if the conclusion does not
strictly follow from the premises, that is, if the
logic is not sound.
For example,
All fish are gilled creatures.
All tuna are fish.
All tuna are gilled creatures.

This seems correct.

But suppose we want to claim that all tuna are

fish for the simple reason that they have gills
and all fish have gills. Our syllogism would
then appear in the following form:
All fish are gilled creatures.
All tuna are gilled creatures.
All tuna are fish.

Of course, this syllogism is problematic. The

mistake seems to lie in the structure itself.
From the fact that tuna have gills we cannot
conclude that tuna must be fish, because we
do not know that only fish have gills.

Another example:
John is pro-choice, therefore John is a
Democrat. Some Republicans or Libertarians
are pro-choice. Just because John is pro-choice
does not mean that he is necessarily a
Democrat. An argument of this kind, where
the conclusion fails to follow from the
premises, is considered invalid. That is, the
form of the argument is flawed so that the
reasons that are given do not support the
claim that is made.

Suppose we were to argue the following:

All trees are reptiles.
All rocks are trees.
All rocks are reptiles.
It is true that if all trees are reptiles, and all
rocks are trees, then it logically follows that all
rocks are reptiles. The obvious problem is that
trees are not reptiles and rocks are not trees.
The logical structure of an argument can be
sound. Given the premises, the conclusion
follows necessarily from them, but the premises
are untrue.

Truth is correspondence with reality. A statement

is true if it describes things as they are. Validity,
on the other hand, applies to the structure of an
argument, not to the statements that make up its
content. As we have seen, an argument is valid
if, given the premises, the conclusion is
unavoidable.