Categorical Logic 2-54-66

Categorical Logic 2
2016-10-04, 9*35 PM
Conversion
In conversion we switch the subject and predicate terms in a categorical statement. This is
only possible in Particular Affirmations (I-Statements) and Universal Negations (EStatements).
Some S are P
Converse
Some P are S
No S are P
Converse
No P are S
Example
No fish are mammals.
The converse is: No mammals are fish.
Example
Some potatoes are things with eyes.
The converse is: Some things with eyes are potatoes.
Example
No things with feathers are humans.
The converse is: No humans are things with feathers.
Example
Some games are fun.
The converse is: Some things that are fun are games.
Notice that truth is always preserved in conversion. If your original claim is true, then its
converse is also true. If the original claim is false, then its converse is also false. This is what
we should expect if we are making equivalent statements. Conversion is a matter of saying
something equivalent in a slightly different way. If you are saying something equivalent by
stating the converse, then the truth-value of the claim must remain constant.
Notice that if you try conversion with other kinds of categorical statements, truth is not
necessarily preserved. This is why conversion is invalid with A and O statements.
Example
All dogs are things with four legs.
If you tried conversion with this claim, which is an A statement, you would end up with:
All things with four legs are dogs.
The original claim is true but the converse is obviously false since cows and cats and plenty of
other animals have four legs aside from dogs. In this case the converse does not state
https://mylearningspace.wlu.ca/content/enforced/194127-692.201602lSessionVal=WHcwKHlwbQsoUZVSFJHvfyIjy&ou=194127&d2l_body_type=3
Page 1 of 2
Categorical Logic 2
2016-10-04, 9*35 PM
something equivalent to the original statement.
Page 2 of 2
Obversion
2016-10-04, 9*35 PM
Obversion
In obversion we change the statement to its opposite (affirmative or negative) and replace the
predicate term with its complement. This is valid for all forms of categorical statement
(A,E,I,O).
The complement of a class is made up of all things that do not fall within the identified class.
For instance, the complement of the class philosophers is non-philosophers. This includes
everything that is not a philosopher. Schematically we represent the compliment of a class P
by adding the prefix "non" to end up with non-P
Obversion can take the following forms:
All S are P
Obverse
No S are non-P
No S are P
Obverse
All S are non-P
Some S are P
Obverse
Some S are not non-P
Some S are not P
Obverse
Some S are non-P
Example
All frogs are reptiles.
Obverse: No frogs are non-reptiles.
Example
Some animals are appetizing.
Obverse: Some animals are not non-appetizing.
Sometimes the compliment class reads awkwardly, as it does above. In those cases it is
permissible to represent the compliment class using the prefix "un" instead. So one might
write:
Some animals are not unappetizing.
Either form is correct.
Example
No Pygmies are tall.
Obverse: All Pygmies are non-tall.
Example
Some boxer shorts are not comfortable.
Obverse: Some boxer shorts are uncomfortable (or non-comfortable).
Example
Page 1 of 2
Obversion
2016-10-04, 9*35 PM
All feathered animals are non-human.

Obverse:
Clue: The complement of non-humans is non-non-humans. When this happens, the two
"nons" cancel each other out.
No feathered animals are human.
Page 2 of 2
Contraposition
2016-10-04, 9*39 PM
Contraposition
In contraposition what we do is switch the subject and predicate terms and replace each with
its complement. This is permissible only with Universal Affirmations and Particular Negations
(A-Statements and O-Statements.)
All S are P
Contrapositive
All non-P are non-S
Some S are not P
Contrapositive
Some non-P are not non-S
Example
All logic students are brilliant.
Contrapositive: All non-brilliant people are non-logic students.
Example
Some Canadians are not hockey players.
Contrapositive: Some non-hockey players are not non-Canadians.
Example
All rain is wet.
Contrapositive: All non-wet things are non-rain.
Notice again that when these inferences are valid (in A and O statements) truth is preserved.
Let's see what happens when we try contraposition with an E statement.
Example
No cats are things that like dogs.
Contrapositive: No non-things that like dogs are non-cats.
This is extremely awkward. What it asserts is that there isn't anything that doesn't like dogs
that aren't cats. Although the original E statement was true, its Contrapositive is false. There
are all kinds of things (including some people) that don't like dogs but that aren't cats. Since
truth is not necessarily preserved (though it might happen to be sometimes), contraposition is
invalid for anything other than A and O statements.
Page 1 of 1
Mediate Inferences
2016-10-04, 9*46 PM
Mediate Inferences
Mediate inferences are ones where we need additional information (i.e., more than one nonequivalent categorical statement) to draw a conclusion. Mediate inferences occur in categorical
arguments (syllogisms).
Every categorical argument contains at least two premises and a conclusion. We will limit our
examination to categorical arguments with two premises.
Every categorical argument also contains the following three elements:
1. A major term: the predicate of the conclusion.

2. A minor term: the subject of the conclusion.
3. A middle term: a term that appears in both of the premises but not in the conclusion.
Example
Some dogs have fleas.
All dogs are cute.
Therefore, some cute things have fleas.
Major term: having fleas
Minor term: cute things
Middle term: dogs
Arguments of this form are said to be valid or invalid, sound or unsound.
Validity
An argument is valid if it has proper logical form. This means that if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
An argument is invalid if it lacks proper logical form. It is possible for the premises to be true
but for the conclusion to be false.
Soundness
An argument is sound if the premises are true and is unsound if any of its premises are false.
It is important to recognize that an argument can be valid but unsound.
Example
All men are potatoes
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is a potato.
Page 1 of 2
Mediate Inferences
2016-10-04, 9*46 PM
This argument is valid. If the premises were true, it would have to be true that Socrates is a
potato. However, it is unsound because the first premise is false. It is not true that all men are
potatoes.
Page 2 of 2
Testing Validity
2016-10-04, 10)04 PM
Testing Validity
There are three rules for evaluating the validity of categorical syllogisms. This is where the
ability to discern whether or not subject and predicate terms are distributed becomes
important.
1. At least one premise must distribute the middle term.

2. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in at least one of the
premises.
3. The number of negative claims must be the same in the premises and conclusion.
Example
All men are potatoes
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is a potato
First, identify the middle term.
Middle Term = men
Is it distributed in at least one premise?
Yes. In premise 1. All men are potatoes is an A statement (universal affirmation) and subject
terms are distributed in A statements.
Is a term distributed in the conclusion?
The conclusion is an A statement (remember, if a categorical statement is about a particular
individual, it is a universal statement. Since the conclusion is an affirmation, it must be an A
statement.
In the conclusion the predicate term is potato. Predicate terms are undistributed in A
statements.
The subject term is Socrates. It is distributed since subject terms are always distributed in A
statements.
Subject term = Socrates
Is the subject term distributed in at least one of the premises?
Yes. In premise 2, (Socrates is a man) the term is distributed (for the same reason above).
Now we can move on to rule three.
Do the number of negative terms in the conclusion equal the number of negative terms in the
premises?
Yes. There aren't any. The argument is therefore valid. If the premises were true, the
conclusion would have to be true.
Page 1 of 4
Testing Validity
2016-10-04, 10)04 PM
Example
All men are mortal
Socrates is smart
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
First, identify the middle term.
There is no middle term.
This argument fails to satisfy the first test of validity and is therefore invalid.
Let's try a few more examples.
Example
Some alligators do not make good wallets.
Nothing that makes a good wallet is delicious.
Therefore, some alligators are delicious.
Rule 1
Middle term = things that make good wallets
Yes. In fact, it is distributed in both premises. Both premises are negations and predicate
terms are always distributed in negations.
Rule 2
Is there a term that is distributed in the conclusion?
No. The conclusion is an I statement (particular affirmation). No terms are distributed in I
statements. We can therefore move on to rule 3.
Rule 3
Is there the same number of negative statements in the premises as in the conclusion?
No. The conclusion has none and the premises have two. The argument therefore fails the
third test and is invalid. The conclusion of the argument does not necessarily follow. It is
possible for the premises to be true but for the conclusion to be false.
Here's a useful tip:
There are two conditions under which it is really easy to see that a categorical argument is
invalid.
1. If the premises are all I statements. This is because if the premises are I statements no
2.
terms are distributed in them, meaning that the middle term cannot be distributed,
rendering the argument invalid.
If the argument contains negative premises and a positive conclusion, or positive
Page 2 of 4
Testing Validity
2016-10-04, 10)04 PM
premises and a negative conclusion. If either of these is true, the argument cannot pass
the third test.
Let's try a couple more examples.
Example
Some cows are not black at night.
All cows are herbivores.
Therefore, some herbivores are not black at night.
Rule 1
The Middle Term is: cows
Yes. In premise 2. All cows are herbivores is an A statement. Cows is the subject term and the
subject term is always distributed in A statements.
Rule 2
The conclusion is an O statement (a particular negation). Subject terms are not distributed in
O statements but predicate terms are.
Now we have to see if this term is distributed in at least one of the premises.
The term that is distributed in the conclusion is things that are black at night. The only place
this appears in the premises is as the predicate term of the first premise. The first premise is
also an O statement, so the term is distributed there as well. The argument passes the second
test.
Rule 3
Are there the same number of negative claims in the conclusion as there are in the premises?
Yes. There is one in the conclusion and one in the premises.
The argument is therefore valid.
Sometimes following the third rule can be tricky. Be careful when an argument employs
obverse statements.
The obverse of affirmations (A or I statements) are positive statements even though they
contain words we associate with negation.
Example
Some Friends fans are non-brainless people.
All people with brains are people with a good sense of humor.
Therefore, some Friends fans are people with a good sense of humor.
Page 3 of 4
Testing Validity
2016-10-04, 10)04 PM
Here it is more difficult to identify the middle term. In this case we want to use the obverse of
premise 1 to make the argument easier to evaluate.
Some Friends fans are non-brainless people is equivalent to the obverse:
Some Friends fans are people with brains.
Now, rewrite the argument with the first premise restated as it is above:
Some Friends fans are people with brains.
All people with brains are people with a good sense of humour.
Therefore, some Friends fans are people with a good sense of humour.
Rule 1
Middle term = people with brains
Yes. It is the subject term in the second premise, which is an A statement. Subject terms are
distributed in A statements.
Rule 2
No. The conclusion is an I statement. None of its terms is distributed. We can therefore jump
to rule 3.
Rule 3
Are there the same number of negative statements in the conclusion as in the premises?
Yes. There are none in the conclusion and none in the premises. The argument is therefore
valid.
Notice that if we had left the first premise the way it was, not only would we have had a
difficult time identifying the middle term, but we would have had trouble with the third test of
validity because it looks like a negative claim even though it is not.
Page 4 of 4

Categorical Logic 2-54-66

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorical Logic 2-54-66

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorical Logic 2

something equivalent to the original statement.

All S are non-P

Some S are not non-P

Some S are not P

Some S are non-P

All feathered animals are non-human.

All non-P are non-S

Some S are not P

Some non-P are not non-S

1. A major term: the predicate of the conclusion.

1. At least one premise must distribute the middle term.

You might also like