Logic

bls llb - logic (sem -1)
DEFINITION OF LOGIC and TYPES OF LOGIC

Logic is the study of valid reasoning.
Logic is a word that comes from the Greek word λογική pronounced as logikē that
means, the study of reasoning.
Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of
philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.
Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and
which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking.
In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do
we know what we know?"
In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.
Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including ancient India, China and
Greece.
Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who established its fundamental place
in philosophy.
The study of logic was part of the classical trivium.
Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false"
Richard Whately, defined logic as "the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning"
Frege, defined logic as "the science of the most general laws of truth".
Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive

reasoning.
The Inductive reasoning involves in drawing general conclusions from specific

examples. We can also say that Inductive Reasoning involves in deriving at unknown
conclusions from known facts. This is the reason why the conclusions of Inductive
reasoning are probable and not certain.
The Deductive Reasoning involves in drawing logical conclusions from definitions and
axioms. We can also say that deductive Reasoning involves in deriving known
conclusions from known facts. As a result, the conclusions of deductive reasoning are
certain.
TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS

Traditional logicians have divided propositions into singular and general.
Singular propositions have a single individual as a subject. This means, in a
singular proposition, the subject is a singular individual thing and predicate is a class of
individuals.

General propositions have a group of individuals as a subject. This means, in a
General proposition, we have a group of individuals as a subject as well as a group of
individuals as a predicate.
The general propositions are of two types, universal and general.

When the general proposition says something about the entire group indicated in
the subject, it is known as a universal proposition.
When the general proposition says something about a part of the group indicated in the
subject, it is known as a particular proposition.
Both singular and general propositions are either affirmative or negative. When we are
told that the subject has the quality indicated in the predicate, the proposition is said to
be affirmative. When we are told that the subject does not have the quality indicated in
the predicate, the proposition is said to be negative.
In case of affirmative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in the

group stated in the predicate is applicable to the individual indicated in the subject,
while in general proposition, it either is applicable to the entire group indicated by the
subject, as in universal propositions, or to a part of the group indicated by the subject, as
in particular propositions.
In case of negative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in the

group stated in the predicate is not applicable to the individual indicated in the subject,
while in general proposition, it is either not applicable to the entire group indicated by
the subject, as in universal propositions, or not applicable to a part of the group
indicated by the subject, as in particular propositions.
According to this, the general propositions are classified into four categories.
These are:
A = Universal affirmative
E = Universal negative
I = Particular affirmative
O = Particular negative
In the next post, we shall see the relationship between these four types of general
proposition types.
OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS AND VENN

DIAGRAMS
Traditional logicians classified propositions into two types, namely, singular and
general.
When the subject of a proposition represents one single individual, it is a singular

proposition.
When the subject of a proposition represents a group of individuals, it is a general

proposition.
General propositions are further classified into Universal and Particular.
When the subject tells something about the whole group represented by it, the
proposition is known to be universal.
When the subject tells something about some members of the group represented by it,
the proposition is known to be particular.
The propositions are also classified using another criteria of quality and this makes
them affirmative or negative.
So, both the singular as well as general propositions are either affirmative or negative.
As a result, we have four types of general propositions, as the general propositions have
both the quality as well as quantity.
The four types of general propositions are:
A, E, I, & O.
The quantity and quality of these are as follows:

Relation of opposition between these propositions is as follows:
When two universal propositions differ in quality, they are known as CONTRARY.

When two particular propositions differ in quality, they are known as SUB-
CONTRARY.
When two propositions with same quality, differ in quantity, they are known

as SUB-ALTERN.
When two propositions differ both in quality and quantity, they are known

as CONTRADICTORY.
The relation of truth values between these opposite propositions is as follows:
If a universal proposition is true, its contrary is false, its sub-altern is

true and its contradictory is false.
If a universal proposition is false, its contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern is

uncertain and its contradictory is true.
If a particular proposition is true, its sub-contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern

is uncertain and its contradictory is false.
If a particular proposition is false, its sub-contrary is true, its sub-altern is

false and its contradictory is true.
The general propositions represent the relation of two groups indicated by the subject
and predicate, and so, they can be represented symbolically using the venn diagram
method used in mathematics.
To do this, we use two intersecting circles.
The circle on the left represents the subject, and the one on the right, represents the
predicate.
To represent "A" proposition, we shade the part of the circle of subject, that is outside
that of predicate. This shows that the set of subject outside the predicate is empty.
To represent "E" proposition, we shade the part of the circle of subject, that is inside
predicate. This shows that the set of subject inside the predicate is empty.
To represent "I" proposition, we put a cross in the part of the circle of subject, that is
inside that of predicate. This shows that the set of subject inside the predicate is not
empty.
To represent "O" proposition, we put a cross in the part of the circle of subject, that is
outside that of predicate. This shows that the set of subject outside the predicate is not
empty.
Pl check the images for venn diagrams and opposition of proposition.

When these propositions are symbolized, we change them in a specific format so that we
can show the class membership of the subject and the predicate terms. This method is
known as the method of Quantification and the symbols used to indicate the quantity of
the subject are known as quantifiers.
Let us see how this is done:
Singular propositions:
Affirmative:
Ramu is a boy.
is symbolized as:
Br
Negative:
Sita is not a boy.
is symbolized as:
~Bs
General propositions:
These are of four kinds as we have seen earlier. They are symbolized as follows:
"A" proposition:
Subject-less:
Everything perishes.
will be written as:

Given any x, x is Perishable.
This is symbolized as follows:

(x)(Px)
With subject:
All S is P.
will be written as:

Given any x, if x is S, then x is P
(x)(Sx>Px)
[Since the implication sign cannot be put due to font limits of the portal, so, a similar
sign is put here]
"E" proposition:
Subject-less:
Nothing is Permanent.
will be written as:

Given any x, x is not Permanent.

(x)(~Px)
With subject:
No S is P.
will be written as:

Given any x, if x is S, then x is not P

(x)(Sx>~Px)
[Since the implication sign cannot be put due to font limits of the portal, so, a similar
sign is put here]
"I" proposition:
Subject-less:
Lions exist
will be written as:

There is an x, such that, x is a Lion.

(Ex)(Lx)
[Since the Existential quantifier sign that is actually reverse as a mirror image as actual
E, cannot be put due to font limits of the portal, so, E is put here]
With subject:
Some S is P.
will be written as:

There is an x, such that, x is S and x is P.

(Ex)(Sx.Px)
"O" proposition:
Subject-less:
Ghosts do not exist
will be written as:

There is an x, such that, x is not a Ghost.

(Ex)(~Gx)
With subject:
Some S is not P.
will be written as:

There is an x, such that, x is S and x is not P.

(Ex)(Sx.~Px)
When we symbolize, the first letter of the subject term is taken as a capital letter and
small x is written after it to indicate the singular variable that is quantified in the
beginning.
This is how we symbolize the general propositions in traditional classification.

ARISTOTELIAN SYLLOGISTIC DIVISION
Kinds of Division
• Logical division divides a class into its subclasses

– E.g., mammals into monotremes, marsupials & placentals
– Division is useful for
• determination of exact relationships among related things
• formulation of definitions
• Other kinds of division
– Physical division divides a whole into its parts
• E.g., a complex machine into its simple mechanical parts
– Metaphysical division divides an entity into its qualities,
• e.g.,a species into its genus & difference
– man into animality & rationality
• a substance into its attributes
– sugar into color, texture, solubility, taste, &c.
• a quality into its dimensions
– sound into pitch, timbre, volume
How to Divide
• Logical Division
– begins with a summum genus
– proceeds through intermediate genera
– ends at the infimae species
– NB: It does not continue to individuals
• The results of division should meet these criteria:
1. The subclasses of each class should be coextensive with the
original class.
2. The subclasses of each class should be mutually exclusive.
3. The subclasses of each class should be jointly exhaustive.
4. Each stage of a division should be based on a single principle.
Kinds of Classification
• Classification is the technique of inquiry in which similar individuals and classes are
grouped into larger classes.
– E.g., how are steam, diesel, & gasoline engines related to one another?
Natural Classification
• Natural classification is a scheme that provides theoretical understanding of its subject
matter
– E.g., classification of living things into monerans, protistans, plants, fungi and animals
• The concept “monerans” is now obsolescent because it does not provide sufficient
theoretical clarity.
Artificial Classification
• Artificial classification is a scheme established merely to serve some particular human
purpose
– E.g., classification of plants as crops, ornamentals, and weed
Classification and Division Compared
• The result of a classification will look like the result of a division.
• Classification begins with a individuals or small classes and works
towards a summum genus.
– i.e., it works in the direction opposite to that of division
• Classification begins with a set of apparently related things found in
the world (i.e., it is based on experience) and builds from there.
– Hence, it is well-suited to natural objects.
– But it will work with any kind of object.
Two Overly Ambitious Ideals
• Pure division
– begins with the summum genus and
– divides on the basis of a priori considerations
• i.e., it is based on logical possibility, not experience
• Dichotomous division
– divides on the basis of the presence or absence of a particular feature
• (NB: Classification can also be dichotomous.)
• Striving for these ideals
– works well with mathematical objects, &c.
– does not work well with natural objects (e.g., kinds of animals)
– guarantees a division that meets criteria (2) – (3)
– sometimes provides more insight than alternative divisions.
• But “ dichotomous division is often difficult and often impracticable”—Aristotle, Parts
of Animals I.2-3
• Sometimes, class Rules notification (a bottom-up approach) is more practical.
RULES OF DIVISION:
When we are using logical division, we need to follow certain rules. thesde are as
follows:
1. One division must follow only one criteria. It must be either physical or
metaphysical.
2. The division criteria must be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
3. All the parts of an entity being explained must be covered by the division.
4. No extra members must be suggested as parts of the entity explained during the
process of division.
FALLACIES OF DIVISION:
When we fail to follow the above rules, we end up in committing the following fallacies:
1. Division by cross criteria: When we divide something by using two or more
criteria at the same time, we commit this fallacy. e.g. when we divide Indians into
"Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikh, Rich, poor, Tall, short, Fair, Dark, introverts and
extroverts"; we are committing this fallacy as we are using many criteria, both of
physical as well as metaphysical divisions at the same time. at the same time.
2. Too narrow division: when we exclude some of the members from the group
or some qualities of the entity being explained, we commit this fallacy. e.g. Quadrilateral
into, square and rectangle. Here we exclude many other types of quadrilaterals and so
the division becomes too narrow as it leaves out many other members that actually
belong to this group.
3. Too wide division: when we include some members that actually do not belong
to the group as we are dividing, our division becomes too wide. e.g. birds into single
coloured & multi-coloured. Here, many other single coloured and multi-coloured things
and beings get indicated as part of the group of bired, so it is a too wide division.
DEDUCTION VERSUS INDUCTION

We cannot fully understand the nature or role of inductive syllogism in Aristotle
without situating it with respect to ordinary, “deductive” syllogism.
Aristotle’s distinction between deductive and inductive argument is not precisely
equivalent to the modern distinction.
Contemporary authors differentiate between deduction and induction in terms of
validity. (A small group of informal logicians called “Deductivists” dispute this
account.)
According to a well-worn formula, deductive arguments are valid; inductive
arguments are invalid.
The premises in a deductive argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion: if
the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The premises in an
inductive argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but it is
possible to have true premises and a false conclusion.
Although some commentators attribute such views to Aristotle, this distinction
between strict logical necessity and merely probable or plausible reasoning
more easily maps onto the distinction Aristotle makes between scientific and
rhetorical reasoning (both of which we discuss below).
Aristotle views inductive syllogism as scientific (as opposed to rhetorical)
induction and therefore as a more rigorous form of inductive argument.
We can best understand what this amounts to by a careful comparison of a
deductive and an inductive syllogism on the same topic.
If we reconstruct, along Aristotelian lines, a deduction on the longevity of
bileless animals, the argument would presumably run: All bileless animals are
long-lived; all men, horses, mules, and so forth, are bileless animals; therefore,
all men, horses, mules, and so forth, are long-lived.
Defining the terms in this syllogism as: Subject Term, S=men, horses, mules,
and so forth; Predicate Term, P=long-lived animals; Middle Term, M=bileless
animals, we can represent this metaphysically correct inference as: Major
Premise: All M are P. Minor Premise: All S are M. Conclusion: Therefore all S
are P. (Barbara.)
As we already have seen, the corresponding induction runs: All men, horses,
mules, and so forth, are long-lived; all men, horses, mules, and so forth, are
bileless animals; therefore, all bileless animals are long-lived. Using the same
definition of terms, we are left with: Major Premise: All S are P. Minor
Premise: All S are M (convertible to All M are S). Conclusion: Therefore, all M
are P. (Converted to Barbara.)
The difference between these two inferences is the difference between
deductive and inductive argument in Aristotle.
Clearly, Aristotelian and modern treatments of these issues diverge. As we
have already indicated, in the modern formalism, one automatically defines
subject, predicate, and middle terms of a syllogism according to their placement
in the argument.
For Aristotle, the terms in a rigorous syllogism have a metaphysical significance
as well. In our correctly formulated deductive-inductive pair, S represents
individual species and/or the individuals that make up those species (men,
horses, mules, and so forth); M represents the deep nature of these things
(bilelessness), and P represents the property that necessarily attaches to that
nature (longevity). Here then is the fundamental difference between
Aristotelian deduction and induction in a nutshell.
In deduction, we prove that a property (P) belongs to individual species (S)
because it possesses a certain nature (M); in induction, we prove that a
property (P) belongs to a nature (M) because it belongs to individual species
(S). Expressed formally, deduction proves that the subject term (S) is
associated with a predicate term (P) by means of the middle term (M);
induction proves that the middle term (M) is associated with the predicate term
(P) by means of the subject term (S).
Aristotle does not claim that inductive syllogism is invalid but that the terms in
an induction have been rearranged. In deduction, the middle term joins the
two extremes (the subject and predicate terms); in induction, one extreme, the
subject term, acts as the middle term, joining the true middle term with the
other extreme. This is what Aristotle means when he maintains that in
induction one uses a subject term to argue to a middle term.
Formally, with respect to the arrangement of terms, the subject term becomes
the “middle term” in the argument.
Aristotle distinguishes then between induction and deduction in three different
ways. First, induction moves from particulars to a universal, whereas deduction
moves from a universal to particulars. The bileless induction moves from
particular species to a universal nature; the bileless deduction moves from a
universal nature to particular species. Second, induction moves from
observation to language (that is, from sense perception to propositions),
whereas deduction moves from language to language (from propositions to a
new proposition).
The bileless induction is really a way of demonstrating how observations of
bileless animals lead to (propositional) knowledge about longevity; the bileless
deduction demonstrates how (propositional) knowledge of a universal nature
leads (propositional) knowledge about particular species.
Third, induction identifies or explains a nature, whereas deduction applies or
demonstrates a nature. The bileless induction provides an explanation of the
nature of particular species: it is of the nature of bileless organisms to possess
a long life. The bileless deduction applies that finding to particular species;
once we know that it is of the nature of bileless organisms to possess a long
life, we can demonstrate or put on display the property of longevity as it
pertains to particular species.
One final point needs clarification. The logical form of the inductive syllogism,
after the convertibility maneuver, is the same as the deductive syllogism. In
this sense, induction and deduction possess the same (final) logical form.
But, of course, in order to successfully perform an induction, one has to know
that convertibility is possible, and this requires an act of intelligence which is
able to discern the metaphysical realities between things out in the world. We
discuss this issue under non-discursive reasoning below.
LAWS OF THOUGHT
During the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Century, scholars who saw themselves as carrying
on the Aristotelian and Medieval tradition in logic, often pointed to the “laws of
thought” as the basis of all logic. One still encounters this approach in textbook
accounts of informal logic. The usual list of logical laws (or logical first principles)
includes three axioms: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of
excluded middle. (Some authors include a law of sufficient reason, that every event or
claim must have a sufficient reason or explanation, and so forth.) It would be a gross
simplification to argue that these ideas derive exclusively from Aristotle or to suggest (as
some authors seem to imply) that he self-consciously presented a theory uniquely
derived from these three laws. The idea is rather that Aristotle’s theory presupposes
these principles and/or that he discusses or alludes to them somewhere in his work.
Traditional logicians did not regard them as abstruse or esoteric doctrines but as
manifestly obvious principles that require assent for logical discourse to be possible.
The law of identity could be summarized as the patently unremarkable but seemingly
inescapable notion that things must be, of course, identical with themselves. Expressed
symbolically: “A is A,” where A is an individual, a species, or a genus. Although Aristotle
never explicitly enunciates this law, he does observe, in the Metaphysics, that “the fact
that a thing is itself is [the only] answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or
the musician musical.” This suggests that he does accept, unsurprisingly, the perfectly
obvious idea that things are themselves. If, however, identical things must possess
identical attributes, this opens the door to various logical maneuvers. One can, for
example, substitute equivalent terms for one another and, even more portentously, one
can arrive at some conception of analogy and induction. Aristotle writes, “all water is
said to be . . . the same as all water . . . because of a certain likeness.” If water is water,
then by the law of identity, anything we discover to be water must possess the same
water-properties.
Aristotle provides several formulations of the law of non-contradiction, the idea that
logically correct propositions cannot affirm and deny the same thing:
“It is impossible for anyone to believe the same thing to be and not be.”
“The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject
in the same respect.”
“The most indisputable of all beliefs is that contradictory statements are not at the same
time true.”
Symbolically, the law of non-contradiction is sometimes represented as “not (A and not
A).”
The law of excluded middle can be summarized as the idea that every proposition must be
either true or false, not both and not neither. In Aristotle’s words, “It is necessary for
the affirmation or the negation to be true or false.” Symbolically, we can represent the
law of excluded middle as an exclusive disjunction: “A is true or A is false,” where only
one alternative holds. Because every proposition must be true or false, it does not
follow, of course, that we can know if a particular proposition is true or false.
Despite perennial challenges to these so-called laws (by intuitionists, dialetheists, and
others), Aristotelians inevitably claim that such counterarguments hinge on some
unresolved ambiguity (equivocation), on a conflation of what we know with what is
actually the case, on a false or static account of identity, or on some other failure to fully
grasp the implications of what one is saying.
INDUCTION:
Induction is a type of inference where we go from known to unknown or from
less general to more general. Here, from the things that are known, we say something
about things that are not known. This is the reason why in induction we always say
something more than what we already know of. So, Induction, a form of argument in
which the premises give grounds for the conclusion but do not make it certain.
Induction is contrasted with deduction, in which true premises imply a definite
conclusion, the conclusion of Induction is always probable. The probability rate changes
as per strength of evidence. Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for
the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.
Induction is of two types, perfect and imperfect. Perfect induction takes
support of deduction in later stages to establish a certain conclusion, while imperfect
induction does not do this.
There are two main types of imperfect induction. they are, Simple
enumeration and Analogy.
Simple enumeration is a method of arriving at a generalization on the basis of
uniform uncontradicted observation of something. This conclusion can be disproved by
observing just one single contrary instance. Yet, the conclusion by simple enumeration
is highly probable when the number of observed instances is really high. But if
one is arriving at a conclusion on the basis of very limited observation, the
conclusion is less probable and hence, it is termed as hasty generalization or illicit
generalization.
Analogy is a type of imperfect induction where we are comparing two things,
persons, groups or classes. while doing so, we observe some similarities and on the basis
of these, we infer some further similarity, as we find an additional quality in one of the
two compared things, persons, groups or classes. Here, if the observed similarities are
relevant to the additional quality, then our conclusion is likely to be true and we may say
that Analogy is good Analogy. But if the observed qualities are not relevant to the
additional quality, then our conclusion about predicting the additional similarity is not
likely to be true, so, we say that such an analogy is Bad Analogy.
In law, we need to use simple enumeration and Analogy to infer things
from circumstantial evidence. Of them analogy is more useful in legal matters. Also,
while using precedent law, we use analogy to indicate the support of past decided
cases in our matter.
When we see a person following some pattern of behavior or thinking or actions,
while talking of the Modus Operandi of that person, we are using simple
enumeration as we talk of the generalized pattern of behavior of that person. This is
the method followed by criminal investigators quite often. They determine the Modus
Operandi of a criminal to find out the criminal and / or to track the criminals. This is a
very common practice used by the police in registering the crime record of certain
criminals while maintaining their files.
While contesting any matter, the lawyers use analogy in arguing about similar
matters, or actions done by an individual in similar situations, to infer about the truth of
the statement given by any witness. For example, if it is shown that the witness had
reacted in a particular way in the past in similar situations, or has reacted in a particular
way in similar situation created in court, then, one can infer that he must have reacted
exactly in same way when the actual event had happened that the witness was
witnessing. This type of inference adds to the weight-age in argument in court.
Similarly, when we are arguing any matter, we may come across previously
decided matters of same type in the same court, or higher court or another court. We
use the citation of these matters as case law or precedent law to lead the judge to the
conclusion we want, and the procedure of inductive argument that we use in this type of
matter is of analogy. This is why is is said that Analogy is of great use in legal arguments.
Proposition Relationships in EDUCTION @ glance
Relationship Changed Type Original

Original = S-P All S is P No S is P Some S is P Some S is not
P
A E I O
Obverse = All S is non P A All S is non P
S-P No S is non P E No S is non P
Some S is non P I Some S is non P
Some S is not non P O Some S is not

non P
Converse = All P is S A X
P-S No P is S E No P is S X
Some P is S I Some P is S Some P is S X
Some P is not S O X
Obv Conv= All S is non P A All S is non P X
P-S No S is non P E X
Some S is non P I X
Some S is not non P O Some S is not Some S is not X

non P non P
Part Inv = All non S is P A X X
S-P No non S is P E X X
Some non S is P I Some non S is P X X
Some non S is not P O Some non S is X X

not P
Full Inverse = All non S is non P A X X
S-P No non S is non P E X X
Some non S is non I Some non S is X X

P non P
Some non S is not O Some non S is not X X

non P non P
Part Con +ve All non-P is S A X
P-S No non P is S E No non P is S X
Some non P is S I Some non P is S X Some non P is S
Some non P is not S O X
Full Con +ve All non P is non S A All non P is non X

S
P-S No non P is non S E X
Some non P is non I X

S
Some non P is not O Some non P is not X Some non P is not

non S non S non S
CONVERTING A STATEMENT INTO LOGICAL FROM

There are four standard forms of categorical propositions such as A, E, I and O-
propositions having the structure of the form, 'All S is P' 'No S is P’, 'Some S is P' and
'Some S is not P' respectively. Thus, we know that the logical structure of any categorical
proposition exhibits the following four items in the order as given below.
Quantifier (Subject term) copula (predicate term)
Here the first item is the 'quantifier' (or more precisely the words expressing the
quantity of the proposition). It is attached to the subject term only. The second item in
any logical proposition is the subject term. The predicate term, that expresses something
about the subject, comes after the copula. The copula is placed in between the subject
and predicate term.
Further, the quality of the proposition is expressed in and through the copula. The
copula and the predicate term are respectively the third and fourth logical elements of a
categorical proposition. Thus, a categorical proposition which is in standard form must
exhibit explicitly the subject, the predicate, the copula, its quality and quantity. Let us
call a categorical proposition regular if it is in its standard form, otherwise it is called
irregular.
In our ordinary language most of the categorical propositions are irregular in nature.
Even though there are irregular categorical propositions they can be put in their regular
form. It should be noted that while reducing an irregular categorical proposition into its
standard form, we should pay enough attention to the meaning of the proposition so
that the reduced proposition is equivalent in meaning to its irregular counterpart.
Before describing the method of reduction of irregular propositions into their regular
forms, it is profitable to understand the reasons for irregularity of a categorical
proposition: The irregularity of any categorical proposition may be due to one or more
of these following factors.
(i) The copula is not explicitly stated; rather it is mixed with the main verb which forms
the part of the predicate
(ii) Though the logical ingredients of a categorical proposition are present in the
sentence yet are not arranged in their proper logical order.
(iii) The quantity of a categorical proposition is not expressed by a proper word like 'all',
'no' (or none), 'some' or it does not contain any word to indicate the quantity of the
proposition.
(iv) All exclusive, exceptive and interrogative propositions are clearly irregular.
(v) The quality of the proposition is not specified by attaching the sign of negation to the
copula.
Keeping these factors in mind, let us describe systematically the method of reduction of
an irregular categorical proposition into its standard form (or into a regular
proposition). Below we describe the method of reduction.
I. Reduction of categorical propositions whose copula is not stated explicitly

In our ordinary use of language, very often the copula is not explicitly or separately
expressed but is mixed with the main verb. The main verb in such a case forms the part
of the predicate. The moment copula is identified; the other items of a logical
proposition are brought out in a usual manner. We know that the copula of any logical
proposition must be in present tense of the verb "to be" with or without the sign of
negation.
Now let us consider an example of an irregular proposition, where the copula is not
explicitly stated. "All sincere students deserve success". This is an irregular proposition,
as the copula is clearly mixed with the main verb of the proposition. The method of
reducing such irregular sentences into regular ones is as follows. The subject and the
quantifier of the irregular proposition should remain as they are, while the rest of the
proposition may be converted to a class forming property (i.e. term) which would be our
logical predicate.
In our above example 'All' is the quantifier attached to the subject 'sincere students'. We
should not touch the quantifier nor the subject term of the proposition, they should
remain where they are. On the other hand, the rest of the proposition 'deserve success'
should be converted into a class forming property 'success deserving'. This should be
our logical predicate. Then we link the subject term with the predicate term with a
standard copula. Thus,
"All sincere students deserve success." Irregular proposition.
"All sincere students are success deserving." A - Proposition.
"All people seek power." Irregular proposition.
"All people are power seekers." A - Proposition.
"Some people drink Coca Cola." Irregular proposition.
"Some people are Coca Cola drinkers." I – proposition
II. Irregular propositions where the usual logical ingredients are all present but are not
arranged in their logical order.
Consider the following examples of irregular propositions. "All is well that ends well"
and "Ladies are all affectionate." In these cases, first we have to locate the subject term
and then rearrange the words occurring in the proposition to obtain the regular
categorical proposition. Such reductions are usually quite straight forward. Thus we
reduce the above two examples as given below.
"All is well that ends well." Irregular proposition
"All things that end well are things that are well." A - Proposition
"Ladies are all affectionate." Irregular proposition
"All ladies are affectionate." A – Proposition
III. Statements in which the quantity is not expressed by proper quantity words. Some
propositions do not contain word like 'All', 'No', 'some' or contain no words to indicate
the quantity. We reduce such a type of irregular proposition into its logical form as
explained below.
Here we have to consider two sub-cases : sub-case (i) where there is indication of
quantity but no proper quantity words like 'All', 'No', on 'Some' are used and Sub case
(ii) where the irregular proposition contains no word to indicate its quantity.
Sub-case (i): Affirmative sentences that begin with words like 'every', 'any', 'each' are to
be treated as A-propositions, where such words are to be replaced by the word "all" and
rest of the proposition remains as it is or may be modified as necessary. The followings
are some of the examples of this type.
"Every man is liable to commit mistakes." Irregular proposition.
"All men are persons who liable to commit mistakes." A - Proposition.
"Each student took part in the competition." Irregular proposition.
"All students are persons who took part in the competition." A - Proposition.
"Any one of my students is laborious." Irregular proposition.
"All my students are laborious." A - Proposition.
A negative sentence that begins with a word like 'every', 'any', 'each', or 'all' is to be
treated as an O-proposition. Any such proposition may be reduced to its logical form as
shown below.
"Every man is not honest". Irregular proposition
"Some men are not honest." O - Proposition
"Any student cannot get first class." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not persons who can get first class." O - Proposition.
"All is not gold that glitters." Irregular proposition.
"Some things that glitter are not gold." O - Proposition.
Sub- Case (ii):
"Sentences with singular term or definite singular term without the sign of negation are
to be treated as A-proposition. For example, "Ram is mortal.", "The oldest university of
Orissa is in Bhubaneswar." are A-propositions.
Here the predicate is affirmed of the whole of the subject term. On the other hand,
sentences with singular term or definite singular term with the sign of negation are to be
treated as E-propositions. For example, "Ram is not a student" and "The tallest student
of the class is not a singer" are to be treated as E-propositions. These are cases where the
predicate is denied of the whole of the subject term.
IV. “Sentences beginning with the words like 'no', 'never', 'none' are to be treated as E-
propositions. The following sentence is an example of this type.
"Never men are perfect." Irregular proposition
"No man is perfect." E – Proposition
V. Affirmative sentences with words, like 'a few', 'certain', 'most', 'many' are to be treated
as I-propositions, while negative sentences with these words are to be treated as
O-propositions. Since the word 'few' has a negative sense, an affirmative sentence
beginning with the word 'few' is negative in quality. A negative sentence beginning with
the word 'few' is affirmative in quality because it involves a double negation that amount
to affirmation. The following are examples of above type.
"A few men are present." Irregular proposition.
"Some men are present." I - proposition.
"Certain books are good." Irregular proposition.
"Some books are good." I - proposition.
"Most of the students are laborious." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are laborious." I - proposition.
Here we may note that 'most' means less then 'all' and hence it is equivalent to 'some'.
"Many Indians are religious." Irregular proposition.
"Some Indians are religious." I - proposition.
"Certain books are not readable." Irregular proposition
"Some books are not readable." O - Proposition
"Most of the students are not rich." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not rich." O - Proposition
"Few men are above temptation." Irregular proposition
"Some men are not above temptation." O - Proposition
"Few men are not selfish." Irregular proposition
"Some men are selfish.' I
VI. Any statement whose subject is qualified with words like 'only', 'alone', 'none but', or
'no one else but' is called an exclusive proposition. This is so called because the term
qualified by any such word applies exclusively to the other term. In such cases the
quantity of the proposition is not explicitly stated.
The propositions beginning with words like 'only', 'alone', 'none but' etc are to be
reduced to their logical form by the following procedure. First interchange the subject
and the predicate, and then replace the words like 'only', 'alone' etc with 'all'. For
example,
"Only Oriyas are students of this college." Irregular proposition.
"All students of this college are oriyas." A - Proposition.
"The honest alone wins the confidence of people." Irregular Proposition.
"All persons who win the confidence of people are honest." A-proposition.
VII. Propositions in which the predicate is affirmed or denied of the whole subject with
some exception is called an exceptive proposition. An exceptive proposition may be
definite or indefinite. If the exception is definitely specified as in case of "All metals
except mercury are solid" then the proposition is to be treated as universal and if the
exception is indefinite, as in case of "All metals except one is solid", the proposition is to
be treated as particular.
"All metals except mercury are solid." is a universal proposition which means
"All non-mercury metals are solid."
Now let us consider an example where the exception is indefinite. For example, "All
students of my class except a few are well prepared", it is to be reduced to an I-
proposition as given below.
"All students of my class except a few are well prepared." Irregular proposition.
"Some students of my class are well prepared." I - proposition.
VIII. There are impersonal propositions where the quantity is not specified. Consider for
example, "It is cold", "It is ten O'clock". In such cases propositions in question are to be
reduced to A-proposition because the subject in each of these cases is a definite
description.
"It is cold". Irregular proposition
"The whether is cold." A - Proposition.
"It is ten O'clock." Irregular proposition.
"The time is ten O'clock." A - Proposition.
There are some propositions where the quantity is not specified. In such cases we have
to examine the context of its use to decide the quantity. For example, consider following
sentences (1) "Dogs are carnivorous", (2) "Men are mortal", (3) "Students are present."
In first two examples, the quantity has to be universal but in the third case, it is
particular. Thus, their reductions into logical form are as follows.
"Dogs are carnivorous." Irregular proposition.
"All dogs are carnivorous." A - Proposition.
This is so because we know that "being carnivorous' is true of all dogs.
"Men are mortal." Irregular proposition.
"All men are mortal." A - Proposition
Here 'being mortal' is generally true of men. But in the proposition "Students are
present", we mean to assert that some students are present". So the proposition "Men
are mortal" is reduced to "All men are mortal" But in the example "Students are
present", 'being present' is not generally true of all students.
So the proposition "Students are present" is reduced to "Some dents are present" which
is an I-proposition. Thus the context of use of a proposition determines the nature of the
proposition.
IX. Problematic propositions are particular in meaning. For example "The poor may be
happy" should be treated as a particular proposition, because what such a proposition
asserts is that it is sometimes true and sometimes false.
Thus, "The poor may be happy" is reduced to "Some poor people are happy", which is an
I-proposition
X. Similarly, there are propositions where the quantity is not specified but their
predicates are qualified by the words like 'hardly', 'scarcely', 'seldom'. Such propositions
should be treated as particular negative. For example, "Businessmen are seldom
honest", is an irregular proposition. It is reduced to "Some businessmen are not honest".
If such a proposition contains the sign of negation that these proposition is to be treated
as an I-proposition.
For example, "Businessmen are not seldom honest." is to be reduced to "Some
businessmen are honest", which is an I - proposition. This is so because it involves a
double negation which is equivalent to affirmation.
CHAPTER 1: NATURE OF LOGIC

CHAPTER 1. NATURE OF LOGIC
A) Traditional and Modern definitions of Logic
B) Basic features of Inductive and Deductive reasoning. Their uses in Law Courts
C) Some basic logical concepts –Form, Content, Truth , Validity, Inference, Implication.
Logic is a science of valid reasoning.
Logic is a word that comes from the Greek word λογική pronounced as logikē that
means, the study of reasoning.
All the places where reasoning is needed, logic is needed. The more accurately we use
our reasoning, the more effective is our work in that area. So all those who think, use
logic knowingly or unknowingly.
Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of
philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which
arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of
critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which
asks: "How do we know what we know?" In mathematics, it is the study of valid
inferences within some formal language.
Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including ancient India, China and
Greece. In west, Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who established its
fundamental place in philosophy.
The study of logic was part of the classical trivium. Averroes defined logic as "the tool
for distinguishing between the true and the false." Richard Whately, defined logic as
"the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning." Frege, defined logic as "the science of the
most general laws of truth."
The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an
argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian
syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logic.
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an
especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of Plato are good examples
of informal logic.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference
possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a
wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The
works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic
follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and
inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of
informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural
language.
Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of
logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches: propositional logic
and predicate logic.
Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to
the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.
A) Traditional and Modern definitions of Logic
Traditional Logic is the type of logic propagated by Aristotle. This is popularly known as
traditional formal logic. This is because here, the form of statements used in arguments is given
total importance. The traditional formal logic is general designation for the systems of
deductive logic that do not involve the use of formal languages, or the apparatus of
mathematical logic. The basis of traditional logic is syllogistic reasoning.
Traditional logic is defined as “a system of formal logic mainly concerned with the
syllogistic forms of deduction that is based on Aristotle and includes some of the
changes by contemporary logicians.”
Modern Logic on the other hand contains more form based relationships in the logical
thinking. So, the modern logic is not limited to syllogism based arguments, but it goes
much beyond them. It becomes mathematical and symbolic. This is the reason why after
the modern logic was developed, it started being used practically in every science where
thinking in the right way is needed.
Modern logic is defined as “logic where the subject developed into a rigorous and
formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used
in mathematics.” The development of the modern "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic is
the most significant in the history of logic, and in human intellectual history.
B) Basic features of Deductive and Inductive reasoning.
Logic is divided into two types, these are inductive and deductive reasoning.

The Deductive Reasoning is a reasoning where the conclusion stays within the scope of
its supporting statements. It is said that deductive reasoning involves in drawing logical
conclusions from definitions and axioms. We can also say that deductive Reasoning
involves in deriving known conclusions from known facts. As a result, the conclusions of
deductive reasoning are certain.
The Inductive reasoning is a reasoning where conclusion goes beyond the scope of its
supporting statements. Many say that inductive reasoning involves in drawing general
conclusions from specific examples. We also say that Inductive Reasoning involves in
deriving unknown conclusion from known facts. This is the reason why conclusions of
Inductive reasoning are probable and not certain.
Though induction and deduction are the two types of logical reasoning, they are not
watertight compartments. The general statements that we use as supporting statements
in deductive arguments, actually are result of inductive inferences.
So, we find that Induction is of two types, perfect and imperfect.
In perfect induction, we get conclusion from supporting statements, i.e. premises, this
conclusion goes beyond the scope of premises, and then we verify and test this
conclusion by using some methods that are similar to deduction.
In imperfect induction, we get conclusion from the supporting statements, i.e.
premises, this conclusion says something beyond the scope of premises, but then we do
not verify and test this conclusion. We just leave it as it is. So, the conclusion of
imperfect induction is always probable.
Deduction versus Induction
Aristotle used to classify the type of arguments using syllogism. But all arguments cannot be
fitted in the type of syllogism. We can use a simple test for inductive and deductive arguments.
The premises in a deductive argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion, so, if the premises
are true, the conclusion must be true. The premises in an inductive argument provide some
degree of support for the conclusion, but it is possible to have true premises false conclusion.
Aristotle views inductive syllogism as scientific induction and therefore as a more
rigorous form of inductive argument. The logical form of the inductive syllogism, after
the convertibility maneuver, is the same as the deductive syllogism.
In this sense, induction and deduction possess the same (final) logical form. But, of
course, in order to successfully perform an induction, one has to know that
convertibility is possible, and this requires an act of intelligence which is able to discern
the metaphysical realities between things out in the world. We discuss this issue under
non-discursive reasoning below.
Uses of logical reasoning in Law Courts:

In the field of law, we need reasoning in order to present the matter of any litigant
effectively, so that we can help him get justice in the existing frames of law. But even the
opposite side litigant who has a contrary view also wants justice, so the aim of a good
lawyer is always to disclose the truth and just situation. Logical reasoning is absolutely
necessary for this as without logical reasoning we cannot find out the truth behind the
stories told by the litigants.
C) Some basic logical concepts – Form, Content, Truth , Validity, Inference,
Implication.
Logic as we saw, is a science of valid reasoning. In order to know what is valid
reasoning, we must first have some concepts clarified. Also, Logic can be best best
understood if we understand the basic concepts of logic. So, let us see the definitions of
some basic concepts in logic:
Word, is a meaningful group of alphabets used in any language.
Syncatagormatic word, are the words that are used to enhance the meaning of words
that can stand on their own. So, the Syncatagormatic words do not make any meaning
on their own. They depend on other words for their meaningfulness.
Catagormatic word, is a word that has its own meaning, so it can stand on its own in
the process of expressing a meaningful concept.
Sentence, is a meaningful group of words used to convey any meaning.
Statement, is a sentence that asserts some affirmative or negative fact.
Proposition, is a statement used in logical arguments. This means, in logic, a
statement is called a proposition.
Form, stands for the relationship of various parts of a statement within itself and in a
set of statements called argument.
Content, is the matter of facts mentioned in the statement or argument.
Truth, is the agreement of facts mentioned in an argument with reality.
Validity, is the appropriateness of relationship between various parts of argument.
Inference, is a set of propositions or statements where, on the basis of one or more
statements one statement is obtained as a conclusion.
Implication, is a type of statement where the truth of one component is indicated or
suggested by the truth of another. Here, the component on which the truth of another
component depends is the first component called antecedent and the component that
follows from the first component is the consequent.
CHAPTER 2 TERMS
TERMS
a) Meaning of Terms- Connotation and Denotation of terms- Positive and Negative
terms, Contrary and Contradictory terms.
b) Distinctions between – Proposition and Sentence, Proposition and Judgment,
Proposition and Fact, Constituent and Component.
c) Distribution of terms- for universal, particular, affirmative and negative terms.
The TERM is a word that is independently used in logical arguments and term is word
that can stand on its own and express a meaning. Naturally, all words cannot become
terms. Let us see the meaning and types and classification of terms in details:
a) Meaning of Terms- Connotation and Denotation of terms- Positive and
Negative terms, Contrary and Contradictory terms.
Term is a “Word” that can stand on its own and so can become a subject or predicate of
proposition in logic. We know that “Word” is a meaningful combination of alphabets.
Words are classified into two types on the basis of their function of expressing or
enhancing the meaning. The types of words are, categormatic & syntacategormatic.
Let us see the definitions of the types of words:

Catergormatic are the words that can express some meaning or their own, so, they
can be used as terms in any proposition.
Syncategormatic are the supporting words that are used
to connect or enhance the catergormatic words. i.e. Terms.
The syncategormatic words cannot express any meaning on their own, so they do not
become Terms. Only categormatic words have capacity to become terms.
Any word or term differs in its meaning as per its use. Some times a word has one
dictionary meaning, but is used in a different sense. This time, if we do not understand
the correct meaning, we may get confused. So, we must note that the Terms have Two
senses, on the basis of the meaning indicated by them. These senses are
called Connotation & Denotation.
Let us see these types in details:

Connotation indicates the meaning of a word accepted by Custom or Community.
Connotation is a commonly understood association that a word or phrase carries, in
addition to the explicit or literal meaning of that word or phrase that is called
its Denotation. Connotation is either positive or negative.
Denotation indicates the Technical Meaning of a word accepted & listed in
a Dictionary. Denotation is the transition of a sign to its meaning that dictionaries try
to define.
Sometimes, denotation is contracted to connotation. e.g. “You are brilliant” in sarcastic
way means, “You are an Idiot!” So its Connotation becomes opposite to its Denotation,
i.e. actual meanings.
The terms are seen to indicate two things, quality and quantity. Quality indicates the
presence or absence of things stated while quantity indicates number of group member
that possess that quality.
The terms indicate either the presence or absence of something. According to their
function, they are classified in to positive and negative.
Let us see how:

Positive Term is the term which affirms some thing or quality in Something.
Negative Term is the term which denies something or quality in something.
The positive and negativeness of a term is called its quality.
The terms indicate either one individual, or a small part of group indicated by the word
or the whole group indicated by the word. According to the number of individuals
indicated in the term, we have singular, particular and universal terms.
Let us see how:

A singular term is a term that speaks something about one single individual person,
thing or entity. The fact stated here can be either positive or negative.
A particular term is a term that speaks about a small part of the group indicated by a
term. The thing spoken can be either positive or negative.
A universal term is a term that speaks about the entire group indicated by it. This
statement can be either positive or negative.
The singularity, particularness or universalness of a term is called its quantity.
Generally we find that in subject predicate class membership propositions that are used
in inferences, the predicate term is always universal, and we check the quantity of the
subject term to classify the proposition.
On the basis of the quality and quantity indicated in terms, the terms are classified into
three more types. These classifications depend on the difference in quality, or quantity
or both. When only the quality is different, the terms are called contrary, when only
quantity is different, the terms are called sub-alternate and when both the quality and
quantity is different, the terms are called contradictory.
Let us see this classification in details:

Contrary Terms are the Terms that have the same quantity. Generally, the contrary
relationship indicated the relation between two Universal terms. If the terms that are
same in quantity and differ in quality, but are Particular, the relationship is called sub–
contrary. In short, contrary relation exhibits the pairs of terms that are same in
quantity and different in quality.
Sub alternate or sub altern terms are the terms that have the same quality but
different quantity. This means, when a pair of affirmative or negative terms has one
universal and one particular term, the pair indicates a sub altern relationship. This
means, the universal affirmative and particular affirmative terms indicate a sub altern
relationship and so do the universal negative and particular negative terms.
Contradictory Terms are the terms that differ both in Quality & Quantity. Thisx
means, in a pair of two contradictory terms, if one is universal affirmative, the other will
be particular negative and if one is particular affirmative, the other will be universal
negative.
Table to explain opposition of terms at a glance
Type of term Quality Quantity
Contradictory X X
Contrary X same
Sub Contrary X same
Subaltern same X
b) Distinctions between –
Proposition and Sentence,
Proposition and Judgment,
Proposition and Fact,
Constituent and Component.
To classify the propositions and compare them further with sentence, judgment, fact
and so on, we must first note the basics of an expression.
Every time when we try to express some meaningful thing, we use a language. A
language is made up of alphabets and connecting punctuation symbols. The first thing
we get in any language is a basic meaningful combination of alphabets. A Word is a
meaningful combination of Alphabets. Then we combine these meaningful
combinations of alphabets to make more sense. This time we get a
sentence. Sentence is a meaningful Combination of Words. In a sentence, as per
the requirement of its meaning, we also use different punctuation marks. We have many
different types of sentences, but all do not have the capacity to be used in logical
arguments. Only the statements that state the presence of something or absence of
something, that means, only the assertive sentences, are the ones that can be used in
logical arguments. These are also called statements or propositions.
Statement or Proposition is any subject less or subject predicate, relational or class
membership. universal, particular or singular, simple or compound, Affirmative or
negative; assertive sentence.
i) Proposition and Sentence
As we have seen above, Sentence is a meaningful Combination of Words where

as, Statement or Proposition is any subject less or subject predicate, relational or
class membership. universal, particular or singular, simple or compound, Affirmative or
negative; assertive sentence.
So, any sentence has a power to make a meaning, but it does not have a power to be a
part of an argument. On the other hand, the sentences that can be used in an inference,
are called statements or propositions.
Proposition is a sentence that asserts some thing in positive or negative manner.
Propositions are of two types, simple and compound. Simple statements are either
subject-less or with a subject and predicate. In either case, the verb seen in simple
statements is only one. On the other hand, when two or more simple statements are
combined together & form a statement we get compound statement.
ii) Proposition and Judgment
Proposition is a statement that states a matter of fact. It does not carry any opinion or
view of the person making the statement. It just states what is. This means, a
proposition or statement states only pure undiluted non-tampered facts without and
smell of right and wrong, good or bad, proper or improper, desirable or undesirable,
nice or not nice etc. etc.
Judgment is a statement Expressing the Opinion or View of Someone about some
event or situation. This view may or may not indicate the fact or truth. Those who give a
judgment, state if something is good or bad, right or wrong, and desirable or
undesirable. This means, what they say, is not what is, but what they feel. In logic, we
value what is, and not what we feel. So, proposition is something that is used in logic
and not judgement.
Iii) Proposition and Fact.
Fact is the Actual Event or Things that can be objectively verified by any one. This

means, fact is never true or false, right or wrong. Fact is just fact. Just as we do not need
any one's opinion to check what is the time right now, watch in hand tells it to anyone,
we need not check whether fact is true or not. It is always true.
Proposition is statement that states something as a matter of fact. This means,
though the proposition is stating something, it may or may not be agreeing with actual
fact. Sometimes, a statement says something as a matter of fact, but is actually not so,
like, in a statement, “Chintu met a man who had a tail and two horns on his head.” here,
the proposition is stating something as a fact, but actually, it is an imagination that is
contrary to fact. The argument based on such statement may be logically correct, but
still may not be stating facts.
iv) Constituent and Component
This is like any other thing or class, every proposition has two main parts.
One is the part without which a statement cannot stand. This is the constituent.
The other is a part that enhances the statement, but the statement can still stand
without this part. Such part is called a component.
In short, constituent is like the vital parts of a person without which one cannot be alive,
while, components are like the body parts, without which, one may be disabled,
incomplete or handicapped, but still will be alive.
Exactly like that, a proposition can become a proposition just because a constituent, and
that proposition gets enhanced in the presence of its components.
So, a Constituent is the integral part of any proposition and gives meaning to the
proposition, without which the proposition cannot exist.
Component is the part of a proposition that enhances the proposition by adding itself
to the constituent, but which can be detached from the proposition without
extinguishing the existence of the proposition.
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSITIONS
PROPOSITIONS
a) Traditional classification of proposition into Categorical and Conditional
b) four- fold classification.
c) Reduction of sentences to their logical forms.
d) Distribution of terms in A, E, I, O propositions.
Propositions are sentences used in logic. These are of various types, as we can express
a matter of fact in any way. To convey any meaning, we may just use a subject less
statement like 'it rains.' or we may use just a subject predicate relational statement like
'India is larger than Japan in land area.' we may also use subject predicate class
membership statement like 'some subjects are easy,' or 'no subjects are easy to study for
exam.' These propositions are either simple, i.e. have only one subject and predicate, or
compound, i.e. having at least two subjects and two predicates and connecting words
that join the two or more simple propositions in a link to convey some meaningful
relationship between them.
In traditional logic, given by Aristotle, only one type of propositions were treated
useful in logical arguments. They were subject predicate class membership type of
statements. Aristotle had classified these subject predicate class membership
propositions that he used to call propositions; into two types on the basis of their
attributes. Attributes are characteristics that are basis of any piece of expression.
These attributes were, quality and quantity.
Quality states assertion or denial of information indicated in piece of expression.
Quantity states number of individuals indicated by subject term in a proposition.
Each attribute has two sub attributes.
So, quality is of two types, affirmative and negative.
Also, quantity is of two types they are, singular and general.
General propositions are further classified in two types, universal and particular.
Let us see this classification of traditional propositions at a glance:
Each proposition has to have at least one quality & at least one quantity. So, we have six
types of traditional propositions. These proposition types are as follows; singular
affirmative, singular negative, universal affirmative, universal negative, particular
affirmative, particular negative.
a) Traditional classification of proposition into Categorical and Conditional

in traditional logic given by Aristotle, we study Only the simple subject predicate
propositions that indicate class membership. Here, we have two types of relationships in
the subject and predicate. Depending on these relations, the propositions are classified
into categorical and conditional.
If the affirmation or denial in a proposition depends on any condition, then the
proposition is conditional. If it is not dependent on any condition, then it
is categorical.
According to some other definition, a categorical proposition, or categorical
statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of
one category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate term).
Categorical propositions can be simple or compound, but they are necessarily class
membership type propositions. In simple categorical proposition, we have one subject
and one predicate, in a compound, we have two subjects & two predicates.
A conditional proposition is a proposition that has only one affirmation in which
one part of the proposition depends on the other part.
Some others say that Conditional propositions are the compound propositions that
contain at least two subjects and two predicates, where we have two simple statements
such that the truth of one depends on the truth of another.
In either case, we must admit that conditional proposition is the proposition that talks
of some condition under which one part of the proposition is true.
So, when we go further to convert the traditional propositions into propositional form,
we may be able to say that the universal propositions are conditional in nature and
particular are categorical in nature.
b) Four- fold classification.

We have seen above that propositions have a quality and quantity. The quantity of a
proposition depends on its subject. It is this quantity that decides whether the
proposition is going to be just categorical or conditional.
When subject of proposition represents single individual, it is singular proposition.
When the subject of a proposition represents a group of individuals, it is a general
proposition. General propositions are further classified into Universal and Particular.
When the subject tells something about the whole group represented by it, the
proposition is known to be universal. When the subject tells something about some
members of the group represented by it, the proposition is known to be particular.
The propositions are also classified using another criteria of quality and this makes
them affirmative or negative.
So, both singular and general propositions are either affirmative or negative.
Aristotle in his classification used to count singular proipositions in the category of
universal propositions. Only difference they had with normal universal propositions was
that these did not have their particular counterparts.
As a result, we have four types of general propositions, on the basis of both the quality as
well as quantity.
This is how the four types of general propositions are; A, E, I, & O.
The quantity and quality of these are as follows:
Type S P
A Universal Affirmative
E Universal Negative
I Particular Affirmative
O Particular Negative
We can express any relationship of subject and predicate into these four ways.
The relationship between propositions having same subject and predicate but having
different quality and / or quantity is called as the relation of opposition of propositions.
Relation of opposition between these propositions is as follows:
When two universal propositions differ in quality, they are
called CONTRARY. When two particular propositions differ in quality, they
are SUB-CONTRARY. When two propositions of same
quality, differ in quantity, they are SUB-ALTERN. When propositions
differ both in quality and quantity they are CONTRADICTORY.
This relationship is also shown in a square of opposition.
The square of opposition of proposition shows two universals on the top and two
particulars at the bottom. On the left side of the square, we have affirmative type of
proposition and on the right side we have negative type of proposition. So, TOP
is universal, BOTTOM is particular, LEFT is affirmative, RIGHT is negative.
Since all 4 sides of square are connected, each side shows one quality & one quantity.
Each proposition is either true or false. So, if a given proposition is true, the proposition
having same subject and predicate and that differs in quality or quantity or both may be
true or false or uncertain. This relationship is called as the relation of truth value
between various propositions having opposition relation.
The relation of truth values between these opposite propositions is as follows:

If a universal proposition is true, its contrary is false, its sub-altern is
true and its contradictory is false.
If a universal proposition is false, its contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern is
uncertain and its contradictory is true.
If a particular proposition is true, its sub-contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern
is uncertain and its contradictory is false.
If a particular proposition is false, its sub-contrary is true, its sub-altern is
false and its contradictory is true.
The opposition relation of proposition is the foundation of all traditional logic,

syllogism, and various types of mediate and immediate arguments used in traditional
logic. The immediate inferences having relationship based on opposition of proposition,
is also called the relationship of EDUCTION where we can convert one type of
proposition into another maintaining its meaning and validity.
But to do all this, it is necessary to understand the relationship of subject and predicate
in a given proposition in a perfect way. This can be done easily by taking help of
mathematical logic and set theory.
The expression of proposition in such a format by using set theory to indicate the
relationship between subject and predicate is called venn diagram.
Venn Diagrams:
Venn diagram (also known as a set diagram or logic diagram) is a diagram that

shows all possible logical relations between a finite collection of different sets. Venn
diagrams were conceived around 1880 by John Venn.
The general propositions represent the relation of two groups indicated by the subject
and predicate, and so, they can be represented symbolically using the venn diagram
method used in mathematics.
To do this, we use two intersecting circles. The circle on the left represents the subject,
and the one on the right, represents the predicate.
To represent "A" proposition, we shade the part of the circle of subject, that is outside
that of predicate. This shows that set of subject outside predicate is empty.
ATo represent "E" proposition, we shade the part of the circle of subject, that is inside
predicate. This shows that the set of subject inside the predicate is empty.
E
To represent "I" proposition, we put a cross in part of the circle of subject, that is inside
that of predicate. This shows that set of subject inside predicate is not empty.
I
To represent "O" proposition, we put a cross in part of subject circle, outside that of
predicate. This shows that the set of subject outside the predicate is not empty.
O
When these propositions are symbolized, we change them in a specific format so that we
can show the class membership of the subject and the predicate terms.
c) Reduction of sentences to their logical forms.

We have four standard forms of categorical propositions A, E, I and O. They have
following structure & form.
A = 'All S is P'
E = 'No S is P’
I = 'Some S is P'
O = 'Some S is not P'
The method of symbolizing propositions using their quality and quantity is known as the
method of Quantification and the symbols used to indicate the quantity of the subject
are known as quantifiers.
Let us see how this is done:

Singular propositions:
Affirmative:
“Ramu is a boy” is symbolized as Br
Negative:
“Sita is not a boy” is symbolized as ~Bs
General propositions:
These are of four kinds as we have seen earlier. They are symbolized as follows:
"A" proposition:
Subject-less:
“Everything perishes” will be written as “Given any x, x is Perishable.”
Given any x = (x), x is perishable = (Px),
so whole proposition is, (x)(Px)
Subject-predicate:
“All crows are birds” will be written as
“Given any x, if x is a crow, then x is a bird”
Given any x = (x), If x is a crow = Cx, then = , , x is a bird = Bx
So, the whole proposition is,
(x)(Cx Bx)
"E" proposition:
Subject-less:
“Nothing is Permanent” will be written as Given any x, x is not Permanent.
This is symbolized as follows
Given any x = (x), x is not permanent = (~Px),
so whole proposition is, (x)(~Px)
Subject-predicate:
“No crows are red” will be written as
“Given any x, if x is a crow, then x is not red”
Given any x = (x), If x is a crow = Cx, then = , , x is not red = ~Rx
(x)(Cx ~Rx)
"I" proposition:
Subject-less:
“Lions exist” will be written as There is an x, such that, x is a Lion.
There is an x such that = (x), x is a lion = Lx
So, the whole proposition is, (x)(Lx)
Subject-predicate:
“Some roses are red” will be written as
“There is an x such that, x is a rose, and x is red”
Here, since both words begin with R, we take R for subject & D for predicate,
There is an x such that, = (x), x is a rose = Rx, then = ., x is red = Dx
(x)(Rx . Dx)
"O"proposition:
Subject-less:
Ghosts do not exist is be written as There is an x, such that, x is not a Ghost.
There is an x such that = (x), x is not a ghost = ~Gx
So, the whole proposition is, (x)(~Gx)
Subject-predicate:
“Some buses are not red” will be written as
“There is an x such that, if x is a bus, then x is not red”
There is an x such that = (x), x is a bus = Cx, and = . , x is not red = ~Rx
(x)(Bx . ~Rx)
When we symbolize, the first letter of the subject term is taken as a capital letter and
small x is written after it to indicate the singular variable that is quantified in the
beginning. This is how we symbolize general propositions in traditional classification
Thus, we know that the logical structure of any categorical proposition exhibits the
following four items Quantifier (Subject term) copula (predicate term) in order.
Here the first item is the 'quantifier' or more precisely the words expressing the quantity
of the proposition. This is attached to the subject term.
The second item in any regular logical proposition is the subject term.
The third item is copula, placed in between the subject and predicate term. The quality
of the proposition is expressed in and through the copula. .
The fourth item is predicate term, that expresses something about the subject. This
comes after the copula in a proposition that has a regular order.Thus, a categorical
proposition which is in standard form must exhibit explicitly the subject, the predicate,
the copula, its quality and quantity. Let us call a categorical proposition regular if it is in
its standard form, otherwise it is called irregular.
In our ordinary language most categorical propositions are irregular in nature. Even
irregular categorical propositions can be put in their regular form. It should be noted
that while reducing an irregular categorical proposition into its standard form, we
should pay enough attention to the meaning of the proposition so that the reduced
proposition is equivalent in meaning to its irregular counter-part.
Before describing the method of reduction of irregular propositions into their regular
forms, it is good to understand the reasons for irregularity. The irregularity of any
categorical proposition may be due to one or more of these following factors.
i. Copula is not clear or it is mixed with verb which forms part of predicate
ii. Logical ingredients are not arranged in their proper logical order.
iii. Quantity is not expressed by a proper word like 'all', 'no' (or none), 'some' etc.
iv. All exclusive, exceptive and interrogative propositions are clearly irregular.
v. Quality is not specified by attaching the sign of negation to the copula.
In light of this, let us describe systematically the method of reduction of an irregular
categorical proposition into its standard form (or into a regular proposition).
Let us see with examples the method of reduction.

I. Reduction of categorical propositions whose copula is not stated
explicitly.
Let us consider an example of irregular proposition, where copula is not explicit.
"All sincere students deserve success".
This is an irregular proposition. Here, the copula is mixed with main verb.
The method of reducing such irregular sentences into regular ones is as follows:
The subject and the quantifier of the irregular proposition should remain as they are,
while the rest of the proposition may be converted to a class forming property (i.e. term)
which would be our logical predicate.
In our above example 'All' is the quantifier attached to the subject 'sincere students'. We
should not touch the quantifier nor the subject term of the proposition, they should
remain where they are.
On the other hand, the rest of the proposition 'deserve success' should be converted into
a class forming property 'success deserving'.
This should be our logical predicate. Then we link the subject term with the predicate
term with a standard copula.
Thus, "All sincere students deserve success." Irregular proposition.
"All sincere students are success deserving." = A - Proposition.
"All people seek power." Irregular proposition.
"All people are power seekers." A – Proposition.
"Some people drink Coca Cola." Irregular proposition.
"Some people are Coca Cola drinkers." I – proposition
II. Irregular propositions where the usual logical ingredients are all present
but are not arranged in their logical order.
Consider the following examples of irregular propositions.
"All is well that ends well" and "Ladies are all affectionate."
In these cases, first we have to locate the subject term and then rearrange the words
occurring in the proposition to obtain the regular categorical proposition.
Such reductions are usually quite straight forward.
Thus we reduce the above two examples as given below.
"All is well that ends well." Irregular proposition
"All things that end well are things that are well." A - Proposition
"Ladies are all affectionate." Irregular proposition
"All ladies are affectionate." A – Proposition
III. Statements in which quantity is not expressed by proper quantity

words.
Some propositions do not contain word like 'All', 'No', 'some' or contain no words to
indicate the quantity. We reduce such a type of irregular proposition into its logical form
as explained below.
Here we have to consider two sub-cases :
(i) where there is indication of quantity but no proper quantity words like 'All', 'No', on
'Some' are used
(ii) where the irregular proposition contains no word to indicate its quantity.
These errors are of the following types:
(a) Affirmative sentences that begin with words like 'every', 'any', 'each' are to be treated
as A-propositions, where such words are to be replaced by the word "all" and rest of the
proposition remains as it is or may be modified as necessary. The followings are some of
the examples of this type.
"Every man is liable to commit mistakes." Irregular proposition.
"All men are persons who liable to commit mistakes." A – Proposition.
"Each student took part in the competition." Irregular proposition.
"All students are persons who took part in the competition." A – Proposition
"Any one of my students is laborious." Irregular proposition.
"All my students are laborious." A – Proposition.
A negative sentence that begins with a word like 'every', 'any', 'each', or 'all' is to be
treated as an O-proposition. Any such proposition may be reduced to its logical form as
shown below.
"Every man is not honest". Irregular proposition
"Some men are not honest." O – Proposition
"Any student cannot get first class." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not persons who can get first class." O – Proposition.
"All is not gold that glitters." Irregular proposition.
"Some things that glitter are not gold." O - Proposition.
(b) Sentences with singular term or definite singular term without the sign of negation
are to be treated as A-proposition.
For example, "Ram is mortal.",
"The oldest university of Orissa is in Bhubaneswar." are A-propositions.
Here the predicate is affirmed of the whole of the subject term. On the other hand,
sentences with singular term or definite singular term with the sign of negation are to be
treated as E-propositions.
For example, "Ram is not a student" and "The tallest student of the class is not a singer"
are to be treated as E-propositions. These are cases where the predicate is denied of the
whole of the subject term.
IV. Sentences beginning with the words like 'no', 'never', 'none' are to be
treated as E-propositions.
The following sentence is an example of this type.
"Never men are perfect." Irregular proposition
"No man is perfect." E – Proposition
V. Affirmative sentences with words, like 'a few', 'certain', 'most', 'many' are
to be treated as I-propositions, while negative sentences with these words
are to be treated as O-propositions.
Since the word 'few' has a negative sense, an affirmative sentence beginning with the
word 'few' is negative in quality. A negative sentence beginning with the word 'few' is
affirmative in quality because it involves a double negation that amount to affirmation.
The following are examples of above type.
"A few men are present." Irregular proposition.
"Some men are present." I – proposition.
"Certain books are good." Irregular proposition.
"Some books are good." I – proposition.
"Most of the students are laborious." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are laborious." I – proposition.
Here 'most' means less then 'all' and hence it is equivalent to 'some'.
"Many Indians are religious." Irregular proposition.
"Some Indians are religious." I – proposition.
"Certain books are not readable." Irregular proposition
"Some books are not readable." O – Proposition
"Most of the students are not rich." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not rich." O – Proposition
"Few men are above temptation." Irregular proposition
"Some men are not above temptation." O – Proposition
"Few men are not selfish." Irregular proposition
"Some men are selfish.'
VI. Any statement whose subject is qualified with words like 'only', 'alone',
'none but', or 'no one else but' is called an exclusive proposition.
Here, the term qualified by any such word applies exclusively to the other term.
In such cases the quantity of the proposition is not explicitly stated.
This is the reason why such statements are tricky and they can mislead or indicate a
contrary meaning if not reduced to correct form in the right way.
The propositions beginning with words like 'only', 'alone', 'none but' etc are to be
reduced to their logical form by the following procedure.
While converting such statements, first interchange the subject and the predicate.
Then replace the words like 'only', 'alone' etc with 'all'.
Now it will become a regular proposition.
For example,
"Only Oriyas are students of this college." Irregular proposition.
"All students of this college are oriyas." A – Proposition.
"The honest alone wins the confidence of people." Irregular Proposition.
"All persons who win the confidence of people are honest." A-proposition.
VII. Propositions in which the predicate is affirmed or denied of the whole

subject with some exception is called an exceptive proposition.
An exceptive proposition may be definite or indefinite. If the exception is definitely
specified as in case of "All metals except mercury are solid" then the proposition is to be
treated as universal and if the exception is indefinite, as in case of "All metals except one
is solid", the proposition is to be treated as particular.
"All metals except mercury are solid." is a universal proposition.
It means, "All non-mercury metals are solid."
Now let us consider an example where the exception is indefinite.
For example, "All students of my class except a few are well prepared".
This is to be reduced to an I-proposition as given below.
"All students of my class except a few are well prepared" is Irregular proposition.
"Some students of my class are well prepared." is an I – proposition.
VIII. There are impersonal propositions where the quantity is not specified.
Consider for example, "It is cold", "It is ten O'clock".
In such cases propositions in question are to be reduced to A-proposition because the
subject in each of these cases is a definite description.
"It is cold". Irregular proposition
"The whether is cold." A – Proposition.
"It is ten O'clock." Irregular proposition.
"The time is ten O'clock." A – Proposition.
There are some propositions where the quantity is not specified. In such cases we have
to examine the context of its use to decide the quantity.
For example, consider following sentences
(1) "Dogs are carnivorous",
(2) "Men are mortal",
(3) "Students are present."
In first two examples, the quantity has to be universal but in the third case, it is
particular. Thus, their reductions into logical form are as follows.
"Dogs are carnivorous." Irregular proposition.
"All dogs are carnivorous." A – Proposition.
This is so because we know that "being carnivorous' is true of all dogs.
"Men are mortal." Irregular proposition.
"All men are mortal." A – Proposition
Here 'being mortal' is generally true of men.
But in the proposition "Students are present",
we mean to assert that some students are present".
So the proposition "Men are mortal" is reduced to
"All men are mortal"
But in the example "Students are present",
'being present' is not generally true of all students.
So the proposition "Students are present" is reduced to
"Some dents are present" which is an I-proposition.
Thus the context of use of a proposition determines the nature of the proposition.
IX. Problematic propositions are particular in meaning.

For example "The poor may be happy" should be treated as a particular proposition,
because what such a proposition asserts is that it is sometimes true and sometimes false.
Thus, "The poor may be happy" is reduced to "Some poor people are happy", which is an
I-proposition.
X. Similarly, there are propositions where the quantity is not specified but
their predicates are qualified by the words like 'hardly', 'scarcely', 'seldom'.
Such propositions should be treated as particular negative.
For example, "Businessmen are seldom honest", is an irregular proposition.
It is reduced to "Some businessmen are not honest".
If such a proposition contains the sign of negation that these proposition is to be treated
as an I-proposition.
For example, "Businessmen are not seldom honest." is to be reduced to "Some
businessmen are honest", which is an I - proposition.
This is so because it involves a double negation which is equivalent to affirmation.
d) Distribution of terms in A, E, I, O propositions.
Distribution of Terms : When we state something about the entire group indicated
by the Terms, the Term is distributed. In a universal proposition Subject is Distributed
and in a negative proposition Predicate is Distributed.
Quantity of Proposition : It is the quantity of the group of the subject of a

proposition. This is of two types. Universal & Particular. The Universal quantity
distributes the subject not the particular.
Quality of Proposition : - It is the quality of the Predicate of the proposition. This is

affirmative or negative. Affirmative says that subject or its group belongs to the group of
predicate. Here the predicate terms is not distributed. Negative quality says that the
subject or its group does not belongs to the group of predicate. Here the predicate is
distributed.
TABLE explaining the DISTRIBUTION of terms
Type S P
A Universal Affirmative X
I Particular X Affirmative X
O Particular X Negative
Distribution of terms - universal, particular, affirmative, negative terms.
Distribution of Terms : When we state something about the entire group indicated
by the Terms, the Term is distributed. In a universal
proposition Subject is Distributed and in a negative
proposition Predicate is Distributed.
Quantity of Proposition : It is the quantity of the group of the subject of a

proposition. This is of two types. Universal & Particular. The Universal quantity
distributes the subject not the particular.
Quality of Proposition : - It is the quality of the Predicate of the proposition. This is

affirmative or negative. Affirmative says that subject or its group belongs to the group of
predicate. Here the predicate terms is not distributed. Negative quality says that the
subject or its group does not belongs to the group of predicate. Here the predicate is
distributed.
TABLE explaining the DISTRIBUTION of terms
Type S P
A Universal Affirmative
I Particular Affirmative
O Particular Negative
 For the proposition types:

A SX
E SP
I X X
O X P
CHAPTER 4. MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS

CHAPTER – 4
MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
a) Aim of Modern classification, kinds of Simple and Compound propositions
b) Basic Truth Tables for Compound propositions.
Traditional logic deals with limited types of propositions. So, it was difficult to deal with
many types of propositions. This is the reason why Modern Logic or formal logic came
into existence. It follows and expands on Logic given by Aristotle.
This logic simplifies the way in which we reason. It also makes difference between form
and content of propositions and arguments. This logic has introduced mathematical
formal methods in logic and with the help of these methods, we can test the valid
relationships between terms and propositions in no time.
Let us see the modern classification and its details:
a) Aim of Modern classification,.

Modern logic aims at re-organizing the logical concepts and expanding the boundaries
of logical thinking. While doing so, we look at the statements used in logic with a
different perspective.
This is the reason why we classify them a bit differently here on the basis of terms, verbs
and connectives used in them. This way to classify the propositions makes it easy to
understand the relationship between parts of the propositions in an argument as here
we make them have objective and mathematical appearance.
Modern classification tries to simplify our thinking and also organize it more effectively
so that more types of reasoning can be included in the classification.
Kinds of Simple and Compound propositions & basic Truth Tables
In modern logic, simple proposition is defined as one with only one verb in it. Such a
proposition has no connective in it. The simple proposition have no connective. They
have only one verb and do not indicate any complicated meaning.
The Simple propositions are classified into two types,
a) subject-less propositions, b) subject-predicate propositions,
The subject-predicate propositions are further classified into
i) relational propositions and ii) class membership proposition.
Let us see the simple proposition types in details:
a) Subject-less propositions, are propositions that have only predicate and no
subject. These are symbolized by using single alphabet that stands for predicate.
b) Subject-predicate propositions, are the propositions that have a subject, a
predicate and a verb. The subject-predicate propositions are further classified into two
types. Relational and class-membership. Let us see these types:
i) Relational propositions are the propositions that show some type of relationship
between the term of subject and that of predicate. This means in this type, both the
subject and predicate are singular terms.
ii) Class membership proposition shows that the subject term belon gs to the class
indicated by predicate. So, here, predicate term is general.
Modern logic also defines a compound proposition that has one or more components
connected using one or more connectives.
The compound propositions have at least one connective used in them. They have one
or more component that connectives join meaningfully.
When we express these propositions in an objective way, we can explicitly state whether
the given compound proposition is true or not on the basis of truth or falsity of the
components it connects and the type of connective used.
In modern logic the connecting words, commonly called as connectives, are classified
into two types, viz. Monadic and Diadic.
Monadic connective is a connective that works on only one proposition.
The class of monadic connectives has only one connective in it.
This is negation.
This means in modern logic, negative proposition is no more with different quality.
It is a compound proposition.
A negation is expressed by words like 'no, never, not' etc.
While symbolizing a negation, we use the symbol ' ~ ' that is called curl or tilde.
A negation is true when the component to which it is attached is false.
Diadic connectives are connectives that work on two propositions. We have four diadic
connectives. They are; conjunction, disjunction, implication and equivalence.
Conjunction is expressed by words like 'and, but'.
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' . ' called a dot.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are true.
Dis-junction is expressed by words like 'either, or.'
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' v ' called a vedge.
A proposition with disjunction is false only when both its components are false.
Implication is expressed by words like 'If...then, unless...'
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' ' called a horse-shoe.
A proposition with implication is false only when its antecedent, i.e. the first component
is true and the consequent, i.e. the second component is false.
Equivalence is expressed by words like 'if and only if... then.'
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' ' called a dot.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are true.
Let us see this classification at a glance:
Proposition
Sentence that asserts
|
||
Simple Compound (with connective)

No connective one or more components
||
||||
Subject-less Subject-predicate Monadic Diadic
No subject | one component two component
| | …........................|
| | Negation 1 = Conjunction = .
Relational Class-membership =No, Not 2 = Dis junction = V
= ~ 3 = Implication =
4 = Equivalence=
b) Basic Truth Tables for Compound propositions

We saw the connectives and their symbols. Now let us see how the propositions are
symbolized in modern classification.
Compound propositions are symbolized in modern classification by taking a capital
alphabet for the first letter of the predicate of first component simple statement, and a
capital alphabet for the first letter of the predicate of the second component simple
statement.
Between these two alphabets, we put the symbol for the connective that is connecting
these two components.
This means, if we have a proposition,
'If Logic is easy, then many will learn it.'
we take 'E' for 'logic is easy' and ' L' for 'many will learn it'.
The connective here is implication. The symbol for it is, .
We write this in between E and L. This reads as 'E L'
This is how we can symbolize any given proposition in modern logic.

So, if we take standard alphabets P for first component and Q for second, we can express
all compound proposition types as follows:
Negation: ~P
Conjunction: P . Q
Dis-junction: P v Q
Implication: P Q
Equivalence: P Q
The method we use to check the validity of their relations is called the method of
constructing truth tables. While doing this, we check the possibilities of truth and falsity
in both the components.
We arrange these possibilities here using the 2n method of calculating the possibilities.
Here 2 stands for the two truth value options, viz. True and false. The alphabet 'n' stands
for number of variables present in the compound proposition.
If a proposition has only one variable, that means only one simple proposition, even if it
is repeated, then we have 21 = 2 possibilities of truth value combinations.
If a proposition has two different simple statements as components, then we have 22 = 4
possibilities of truth value combinations.
If a proposition has three different simple statements as components, then we have 23 =
8 possibilities of truth value combinations.
If a proposition has four different simple statements as components, then we have 24 =
16 possibilities of truth value combinations.
Of course, for learning the basic truth-functional tables, we need to see only the first two
options, i.e. the statements with 2 and 4 combination options.
When we have a single component as in ~P, we write the truth table as:
P ~P
TF
FT
When we have two components as in P . Q, P v Q, P Q, P Q, we make the truth tables by

using the terms of validity of each connective as follows:
Let us write possibilities for all proposition types together for easy understanding.
PQP.QPvQPQPQ
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T F T F F T T F T F F T F F
F T F F T F T T F T T F F T
F F F F F F F F F T F F T F
On the basis of the above table, we can pick up the table for any relavent proposition
type to be symbolized and form a truth table for it.
While doing this, follow the following steps:
Write the first part of 'P Q' and the truth values under it
then write the proposition type as per the connective.
Like,
Negation: ~P
Conjunction: P . Q
Dis-junction: P v Q
Implication: P Q
Equivalence: P Q
Then form the relevant truth table for it.
Suppose we have a proposition like, 'Law is useful and Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U . P' Then we form a truth table for it as:
UPU.P
T T T T T
T F T F F
F T F F T
F F F F F
Suppose we have a proposition like, 'Law is useful or Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U v P' Then we form a truth table for it as:
UPUvP
T T T T T
T F T T F
F T F T T
F F F F F
Suppose we have a proposition like, 'If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U P' Then we form a truth table for it as:
UPUP
T T T T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F F T F
Suppose we have proposition, 'If & only If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U P' Then we form a truth table for it as:
UPUP
T T T T T
T F T F F
F T F F T
F F F T F
CHAPTER – 5
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL AND

MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
a) Distinction between the Traditional and Modern General propositions.
b) Meaning of prediction with special reference to the Copula.
c) Failure of Traditional classification of propositions.
a) Distinction between the Traditional and Modern General
propositions.
According to Traditional Logic general propositions are classified in four categories.
These are:
We have already studied them in details in earlier chapters.
General Propositions in modern Logic are similar to those in traditional logic.

‘All mobile phones are electronic gadgets’ is simple proposition. In such
proposition we find the relation of different classes.
In the above proposition the subject term refers to a class of objects ‘mobile
phones’ & the predicate term refers to another class of objects ‘electronic
gadgets’.
So, a general proposition is a proposition which asserts that one class is wholly or
partly included in or excluded from another class.
A general proposition, therefore, makes an assertion about all or about some of
the members of a class.
The method of symbolizing with Quantifiers, seen in chapters above is actually

the method used in Modern Logic, after the concept of symbolizing the
propositions became popular.
b) Meaning of prediction with special reference to the Copula.

Traditional logicians have divided propositions into singular and general.
Singular propositions have a single individual as a subject. This means, in a
singular proposition, the subject is a singular individual thing and predicate is a
class of individuals.
General propositions have a group of individuals as a subject. This means, in a
General proposition, we have a group of individuals as a subject as well as a
group of individuals as a predicate.
The general propositions are of two types, universal and general.
When the general proposition says something about the entire group indicated in
the subject, it is known as a universal proposition.
When the general proposition says something about a part of the group indicated
in the subject, it is known as a particular proposition.
Both singular and general propositions are either affirmative or negative. When
we are told that the subject has the quality indicated in the predicate, the
proposition is said to be affirmative. When we are told that the subject does not
have the quality indicated in the predicate, the proposition is said to be negative.
In case of affirmative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated
in the group stated in the predicate is applicable to the individual indicated in the
subject, while in general proposition, it either is applicable to the entire group
indicated by the subject, as in universal propositions, or to a part of the group
indicated by the subject, as in particular propositions.
In case of negative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in
the group stated in the predicate is not applicable to the individual indicated in
the subject, while in general proposition, it is either not applicable to the entire
group indicated by the subject, as in universal propositions, or not applicable to a
part of the group indicated by the subject, as in particular propositions.
According to this, the general propositions are classified into four categories.
These are:
c) Failure of Traditional classification of propositions.
The problem of multiple generality names a failure in traditional logic to

describe certain intuitively valid inferences. For example, it is intuitively clear
that if:
“Some cat is feared by every mouse”
then it follows logically that:
All mice are afraid of at least one cat
The syntax of traditional logic (TL) permits exactly four sentence types:
"All As are Bs",
"No As are Bs",
"Some As are Bs" and
"Some As are not Bs".
Each type is a quantified sentence containing exactly one quantifier.
Since the sentences above each contain two quantifiers; 'some' and 'every' in the
first sentence and 'all' and 'at least one' in the second sentence, they cannot be
adequately represented in TL.
The best TL can do is to incorporate the second quantifier from each sentence
into the second term, thus rendering the artificial-sounding terms 'feared-by-
every-mouse' and 'afraid-of-at-least-one-cat'. This in effect "buries" these
quantifiers, which are essential to the inference's validity, within the hyphenated
terms.
Hence the sentence "Some cat is feared by every mouse" is allotted the same
logical form as the sentence "Some cat is hungry". And so the logical form in TL
is:
Some As are Bs
All Cs are Ds
which is clearly invalid.
The first logical calculus capable of dealing with such inferences was Gottlob
Frege's Begriffsschrif, the ancestor of modern predicate logic, which dealt with
quantifiers by means of variable bindings.
Modestly, Frege did not argue that his logic was more expressive than extant
logical calculi, but commentators on Frege's logic regard this as one of his key
achievements.
Using modern predicate calculus, we quickly discover that the statement is
ambiguous.
Some cat is feared by every mouse
could mean
Some cat is feared by every mouse, i.e.
For every mouse m, there exists a cat c, such that c is feared by m,
in which case the conclusion is trivial.
But it could also mean Some cat is (feared by every mouse), i.e.
There exists one cat c, such that for every mouse m, c is feared by m.
This example illustrates the importance of specifying the scope of quantifiers

as for all and there exists.
CHAPTER 6. INFERENCE
INFERENCE
a) Kinds of inference- Immediate and Mediate.

b) Opposition of proposition- Types of opposition- inference by opposition of
propositions- opposition of Singular propositions.
AN INFERENCE is a mental process by which we pass from one or more statements to
another that is logically related to the former.
a) Kinds of inference –
Inferences are classified on the basis of their scope into Deductive and Inductive.
Deductive Inference have a conclusion that stays within the scope of premises. Inductive
Inferences are the ones that go beyond the scope of the premises.
The Deductive Inferences are of two types, Mediate and Immediate.
Inductive Inferences are of two types, perfect induction and imperfect induction.
Immediate & Mediate
We are studying the Immediate and mediate inferences here.
Based on the number of their premise, inferences are basically classified into two types,
immediate and mediate:
Immediate Inference consists in passing directly from a single premise to a conclusion.

It is reasoning, without the intermediary of a middle term or second proposition, from
one proposition to another which necessarily follows from it.
Ex: No Dalmatians are cats. Therefore, no cats are Dalmatians.
All squares are polygons. Therefore, some polygons are squares.
Mediate Inference consists in deriving a conclusion from two or more logically

interrelated premises. Involving an advance in knowledge, it is reasoning that involves
the intermediary of a middle term or second proposition which warrants the drawing of
a new truth.
Ex: All true Christians are theists.

Paul is a true Christian.
Therefore, Paul is a theist.
Let us see the various types of inferences and their sub classes:
The following outline serves as a guide in understanding the different types of inference
according to various classifications.
I. Induction
A. Perfect Induction
B. Imperfect Induction
II. Deduction
A. Immediate Inference
1. Oppositional Inference
a. Contrary Opposition
b. Contradictory Opposition
c. Subaltern Opposition
d. Subcontrary Opposition
2. Eduction
a. Obversion
b. Conversion
c. Contraposition
d. Inversion
3. Possibility and Actuality
B. Mediate Inference
1. Categorical Syllogism
2. Hypothetical Syllogism
a. Conditional Syllogism
b. Disjunctive Syllogism
c. Conjunctive Syllogism
3. Special Types of Syllogism

a. Enthymeme
b. Epichireme
c. Polysyllogism
d. Sorites
e. Dilemma
b) Opposition of proposition –
Opposition of propositions is the traditional way to classify general propositions into

four types on the basis of their quality and quantity. We have already discussed this in
details in earlier chapters.
Types of opposition –
The opposition relation is of three types.

And we have the oppositions on the basis of
quality = Contrary [ A-E] & sub-contrary [I-O], or

quantity = sub-altern [A-I, E-O] or
both = contradictory [A X O, E X I]
Inference by opposition of proposition –
Opposite or Opposed Propositions Are propositions that cannot be simultaneously true

or that cannot be simultaneously false, or that cannot be either simultaneously true or
simultaneously false.
This impossibility of being simultaneously true, or false, or either true or false is the
essential note of logical opposition.
Propositions are opposed if they have the same subject and predicate but differ from one
another in quality or quantity, or both in quality and quantity.
When we draw the opposite of any type as a conclusion on the basis of a proposition that
is known, we have an inference by opposition of proposition.
The truth functional relationship between oppositions can help us know how this
relation can be effective.
Let us see the table of truth and falsity of opposition relations:
Original || Result → A E I O
V
A T/F F/T T/? F/T
E F/? T/F F/T T/?
I ?/F ?/T T/F ?/T
O F/T ?/F ?/T T/F
Using the above table, we can infer the valid conclusions for the inferences based on the
opposition relations of propositions.
Opposition of singular propositions
Singular proposition is the proposition having a singular term as its subject. In the four
fold classification, this is treated as a universal proposition.
But the only difference is that unlike the general propiositions, the singular propositions
do not have subalterns and contradictories. They have only contraries.
So, when we have an opposition relation of an affirmative singular proposition, taken as
A, we get an E proposition. But we do not have any other variations in it.
Similarly, when we have an opposition relation of a negative singular proposition, taken
as E, we get an A proposition. But we do not have any other variations in it.
This is known as opposition of singular propositions.
CHAPTER 7. EDUCTIONS
EDUCTIONS
a) Conversion and Obversion and other Immediate inferences.
b) Laws of Thought as applied to propositions.
a) Conversion and Obversion and other Immediate inferences.

A proposition that falls in the category of traditional classification, i.e. that is either
universal affirmative, or universal negative or particular affirmative or particular
negative, has seven more types of relations or ways to express the same subject and
predicate terms. These relationships are called Eduction relations.
The concept of Immediate inferences or Eduction relations like obversion conversion
etc. is based exactly on this. Let us see how this works:
Here, we are writing the original term relation in a proposition as S==P. To show that
we are using the term that is opposite to the original one we are drawing a line above the
term. So, when the negative of subject term is used, we write S. Similarly, when we are
using the term that is negative of predicate term we write P.
by using the mathematical combination rule, we can get total eight combinations where
subject term and predicate term appears once in a statement and each one is either
affirmative or negative. This means, if we have s-p as original, it is one of the eight
combinations. Rest seven are its relations. This can be written as follows:
S – P – – – P – S
S – ~P – – – P – ~S
~S – P – – – ~P – S
~S – ~P – – – ~P – ~S
The table below can explain these relations & names of each relation at a glance.
S==P ORIGIONAL P==S Converse

S== P Obverse P==S Obverted Converse
S==P Partial Inverse P==S Partial Contrapositive
S==P Full Inverse P==S Full Contrapositive
To understand how this is done, we must see how to check validity of proposition used
in any relation of above types by taking example of each type of proposition and
converting it in all the above relationships.
The conversion method and understanding of the meaning of the converted statements
itself can explain why in some cases no conversion is possible.
Remember, for accepting any type as an equivalent expression of any type of
proposition, it must follow the basic Logic rules.
1. It must clear the distribution test
2. It must not distort the original meaning.
Let us take A proposition;

e.g. let us say “All study is a useful thing”
We write it as 'S a P'
Let us see Eduction relations of this.
Here, we need to check for all the four proposition type options for each relation.
Original : All study is a useful thing S a P
Obverse: = S e P
All study is a non-useful thing. A
No study is a non-useful thing. E
Some study is a non-useful thing. I
Some study is not a non-useful thing. O
Converse: P i S
All useful thing is a study. A
No useful thing is a study. E
Some useful thing is a study. I
Some useful thing is not a study. O
Obverted Converse: P o S
All useful thing is non-study. A
No useful thing is non-study. E
Some useful thing is non-study. I
Some useful thing is not non-study. O
Partial Inverse: S o P
All non-study is a useful thing. A
No non-study is a useful thing. E
Some non-study is a useful thing. I
Some non-study is not a useful thing. O
Full Inverse: S i P
All non-study is a non-useful thing. A
No non-study is a non-useful thing. E
Some non-study is non-useful thing. I
Some non-study is not non-useful thing. O
Contra-positive (partial): P e S
All non-useful thing is a study. A
No non-useful thing is a study. E
Some non-useful thing is a study. I
Some non-useful thing is not a study. O
Contra-positive (full): P a S
All non-useful thing is a non-study. A
No non-useful thing is a non-study. E
Some non-useful thing is non-study. I
Some non-useful thing is not non-study. O
Let us take E proposition;

e.g. let us say “No study is a useless thing”
We write it as 'S e P'
Original : No study is a useless thing S e P
Obverse: = S a P
All study is a non-useless thing. A
No study is a non-useless thing. E
Some study is a non-useless thing. I
Some study is not a non-useless thing. O
Converse: P e S
All useless thing is a study. A
No useless thing is a study. E
Some useless thing is a study. I
Some useless thing is not a study. O
Obverted Converse: P a S
All useless thing is non-study. A
No useless thing is non-study. E
Some useless thing is non-study. I
Some useless thing is not non-study. O
Partial Inverse: S i P
All non-study is a useless thing. A
No non-study is a useless thing. E
Some non-study is a useless thing. I
Some non-study is not a useless thing. O
Full Inverse: S o P
All non-study is a non- useless thing. A
No non-study is a non-useless thing. E
Some non-study is non- useless thing. I
Some non-study is not non-useless thing. O
Contra-positive (partial): P i S
All non- useless thing is a study. A
No non- useless thing is a study. E
Some non- useless thing is a study. I
Some non- useless thing is not a study. O
Contra-positive (full): P o S
All non-useless thing is a non-study. A
No non-useless thing is a non-study. E
Some non-useless thing is non-study. I
Some non-useless thing is not non-study. O
Let us take I proposition;
e.g. let us say “Some study is a useful thing”
We write it as 'S i P'
Original : Some study is a useful thing S i P
Obverse: = S o P
All study is a non-useful thing. A
No study is a non-useful thing. E
Some study is a non-useful thing. I
Some study is not a non-useful thing. O
Converse: P i S
All useful thing is a study. A
No useful thing is a study. E
Some useful thing is a study. I
Some useful thing is not a study. O
Obverted Converse: P o S
All useful thing is non-study. A
No useful thing is non-study. E
Some useful thing is non-study. I
Some useful thing is not non-study. O
Partial Inverse: S x P
All non-study is a useful thing. A
No non-study is a useful thing. E
Some non-study is a useful thing. I
Some non-study is not a useful thing. O
Full Inverse: S x P
All non-study is a non-useful thing. A
No non-study is a non-useful thing. E
Some non-study is non-useful thing. I
Some non-study is not non-useful thing. O
Contra-positive (partial): P x S
All non-useful thing is a study. A
No non-useful thing is a study. E
Some non-useful thing is a study. I
Some non-useful thing is not a study. O
Contra-positive (full): P x S
All non-useful thing is a non-study. A
No non-useful thing is a non-study. E
Some non-useful thing is non-study. I
Some non-useful thing is not non-study. O
Let us take O proposition;

e.g. let us say “Some study is a not useless thing”
We write it as 'S o P'
Original : Some study is not a useless thing S o P
Obverse: = S i P
All study is a non-useless thing. A
No study is a non-useless thing. E
Some study is a non-useless thing. I
Some study is not a non-useless thing. O
Converse: P x S
All useless thing is a study. A
No useless thing is a study. E
Some useless thing is a study. I
Some useless thing is not a study. O
Obverted Converse: P x S
All useless thing is non-study. A
No useless thing is non-study. E
Some useless thing is non-study. I
Some useless thing is not non-study. O
Partial Inverse: S x P
All non-study is a useless thing. A
No non-study is a useless thing. E
Some non-study is a useless thing. I
Some non-study is not a useless thing. O
Full Inverse: S x P
All non-study is a non- useless thing. A
No non-study is a non-useless thing. E
Some non-study is non- useless thing. I
Some non-study is not non-useless thing. O
Contra-positive (partial): P i S
All non- useless thing is a study. A
No non- useless thing is a study. E
Some non- useless thing is a study. I
Some non- useless thing is not a study. O
Contra-positive (full): P o S
All non-useless thing is a non-study. A
No non-useless thing is a non-study. E
Some non-useless thing is non-study. I
Some non-useless thing is not non-study. O
Let us see EDUCTION at a glance in brief:

Original Obverse Partial Full Converse Obverted Partial Contra- Full Contra-
Inverse Inverse Converse positive positive
S-P S-P S-P S-P P-S P-S P-S P-S
S a P SeP SoP SiP PiS PoS PeS PaS
S e P SaP SiP SoP PeS PaS PiS PoS
S i P SoP S x P S x P PiS PoS P x S P x S
S o P SiP S x P S x P P x S P x S PiS PoS
In detail:
Relation Changed Type Original
Original All S is No S is P Some S Some S is
= S-P P is P not P
A E I O
Obverse All S is non A All S is non
P P
S-P No S is non E No S is
P non P
Some S is I Some S is
non P non P
Some S is O Some S is
not non P not non P
Converse All P is S A X
P-S No P is S E No P is S X
Some P is S I Some P Some P is X
is S S
Some P is O X
not S
Obv All S is non A All S is non X
Converse P P
P-S No S is non E X
P
Some S is I X
non P
Some S is O Some S Some S is X
not non P is not not non P
non P
Part All non S is A X X
Inverse P
S-P No non S is E X X
P
Some non S I Some non S X X
is P is P
Some non S O Some X X
is not P non S is
not P
Full All non S is A X X
Inverse non P
S-P No non S is E X X
non P
Some non S I Some X X
is non P non S is
non P
Some non S O Some non S X X
is not non P is not non P
Part All non-P is A X
Contra S
+ve
P-S No non P is E No non P X
S is S
Some non P I Some non P X Some non P
is S is S is S
Some non P O X
is not S
Full All non P is A All non P X
Contra non S is non S
+ve
P-S No non P is E X
non S
Some non P I X
is non S
Some non P O Some non P X Some non P
is not non S is not non S is not non S
b) Laws of Thought as applied to propositions.
In 18th, 19th, & early 20th Century, scholars who followed the Aristotelian and Medieval
tradition in logic, spoke of the “laws of thought” as the basis of all logic.
The usual list of logical laws includes three axioms:
The law of identity,
The law of non-contradiction, and
The law of excluded middle.
The thinking in logic must have a solid base and these three laws provide this base. They
are the foundation of logical thinking.
The law of identity could be summarized as the patently unremarkable but seemingly
inescapable notion that things must be, of course, identical with themselves. Expressed
symbolically: “A is A,” where A is an individual, a species, or a genus. Although Aristotle
never explicitly enunciates this law, he does observe, in the Metaphysics, that “the fact
that a thing is itself is [the only] answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or
the musician musical.”
This suggests that he does accept, unsurprisingly, the perfectly obvious idea that things
are themselves. If, however, identical things must possess identical attributes, this opens
the door to various logical maneuvers.
One can, for example, substitute equivalent terms for one another and, even more
portentously, one can arrive at some conception of analogy and induction. Aristotle
writes, “all water is said to be . . . the same as all water . . . because of a certain likeness.”
If water is water, then by the law of identity, anything we discover to be water must
possess the same water-properties.
Aristotle provides several formulations of the law of non-contradiction, the idea that
logically correct propositions cannot affirm and deny the same thing:
“It is impossible for anyone to believe the same thing to be and not be.”
“The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject
in the same respect.” “The most indisputable of all beliefs is that contradictory
statements are not at the same time true.” Symbolically, the law of non-contradiction is
sometimes represented as “not (A and not A).”
The law of excluded middle can be summarized as the idea that every proposition
must be either true or false, not both and not neither. In Aristotle’s words, “It is
necessary for the affirmation or the negation to be true or false.” Symbolically, we can
represent the law of excluded middle as an exclusive disjunction: “A is true or A is false,”
where only one alternative holds. Because every proposition must be true or false, it
does not follow, of course, that we can know if a particular proposition is true or false.
Despite challenges to these so-called laws, Aristotelians inevitably claim that such
counterarguments have unresolved ambiguity equivocation, on a conflation of what we
know with what is actually the case, on a false or static account of identity, or on some
other failure to fully grasp the implications of what one is saying.
In short, we can say that our thinking naturally follows some thumb rules that are listed
as the three main laws. They are called as laws of thought. These are, law of identity,
law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.
Let us see these laws in a simple way:
1. LAW OF IDENTITY: This law says that something is what it is. In short, we

can say, “A is A”. That means, to prove or state the existence of something that already
is, we need not have any other proof. The presence of anything is self-proven. This is
where we say, “If I am, then I am. Or, I am existing, therefore I am existing. Or, I am
myself.” Another common way of expressing law of identity is, “Sun is Sun”, “Moon is
Moon”, “Tree is Tree” and so on.
2. LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION: This law is also written as and called
as Law of Contradiction by some people. This states a simple thing, a thing cannot be
true and false at the same time at the same place. If someone is saying so, he is telling a
lie. If a thing is existing, then it cannot be absent from the same place at the same time
when and where it is claimed to exist. This means, two contradictory statements cannot
be true together. For example, if I say, “I have Logic book in my hand” I cannot say at
the same time, in the same place, “I do not have Logic in my hand.”
3. LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE: This law states that there is no third option
between a statement and its contradiction. This means, when we give two contradictory
options for anything, there is no third way possible. This law is useful especially when
we have to categorically state some options about something. Use of this law removes all
ambiguity & vagueness of expression. For example, when I say, “Either I believe in what
you say or I do not.” there ios no third way. The person to whom I am talking cannot say
that I believe in him and both believe at the same time, he cannot talk of any third
possibility.
This is how we describe the laws of thought. We must remember that these are the
foundation of logical thinking and all of us have been using them in our thinking much
before we learned that they are the basis of thinking. They form the basic foundation of
any logical activity. Experiments may show that even animals and insects use these laws
in their thinking when they think and choose to do anything.
CHAPTER 8. DEFINITION
DEFINITION
a) Its purpose- rules and fallacies as per Traditional Definition
b) Modern Definitions-kinds.
A definition is a statement which explains what a thing is. It is a statement that answers
the question “What is this thing?”
In giving the definition of the term, it is presupposed that the comprehension of the
term is understood, because the definition is based on its comprehension.
Real definition is one which explains & reveals complete nature of thing or object.
However, this is quite impossible since, we do not usually have a full grasp of the nature
of things.
It therefore explains the normal acceptance of a simple description as definition of an
object.
“Definition is an explanation of a thing, word, phrase or symbol that is used in order
to explain the defined thing clearly.”
By using a definition, we explain actual things as well as abstract concepts. We can see
that there are two parts in any definition. The first part consists of thing that is defined
and second consists of words used to explain this thing.
These two parts have specific names in a definition.
The part of definition that is explained by rest of words is called the definindum.
The part of the definition that explains the definindum is called the definiens.
So, “a definindum is a thing, word, phrase or symbol that is defined in a
definition.” whereas, “the set of words that are used to explain something, or some
word or phrase or symbol are called the definiens.”
The term “definition” came from the Latin word “Definire” means, “to lay down the
markers or limits.”
Definition is a conceptual manifestation either of the meaning of the term or of the
formal features of an object. “ definire” meaning “ to lay down”
Thus, etymologically, to define means: Real Definition. A real definition is one which
explains and reveals the complete nature of a thing or object.
However, this is quite impossible since, we do not usually have a full grasp of the nature
of things. It therefore explains the normal acceptance of a simple description as
definition of an object.
Purposes of Definitions
We use the method of definition in order to know things better. Yet, whenever we
define, we always define anything with a purpose.
In order to understand a definition, we must first know why we define.
Let us understand the purposes of a definition. We define anything in order to;
1. Increase Vocabulary.
2. Explain anything clearly.
3. Reduce Ambiguity of word.
4. Eliminate ambiguity of any word.
5. Explain a word theoretically.
6. To Influence attitudes.
Let us see these purposes in details:
1. Increase Vocabulary.
When we are learning any new language, we need to define new words in order to know
more words in the language and increase our vocabulary.
2. Explain anything clearly.
When we use any language, some words are not clear enough. At times just listening a
word is not enough to understand it. So we need to define them.
3. Reduce vagueness of word.
Some times the meaning of a word depends on the context and without clearity about
context, the word appears vague. Definition is necessary at such times.
4. Eliminate ambiguity of any word.

Some words have many meanings and at times are used ambiguously and one does not
understand which meaning to use. At such times, definition is of help.
5. Explain a word theoretically.
We have a number of technical terms and words that cannot be understood without
definition. It is a correct and clear definition that can help us understand these words
and symbols and phrases correctly.
6. To Influence attitudes.
Definition also plays a very important role in the society where people gain by
influencing the attitudes of others. At times for social good or for personal good, people
define some words or terms in order to influence attitudes.
Rules of Definition:
definition has the power to explain something effectively only and only when the
definition is perfect and complete and faultless.
Such a perfect complete faultless definition is called a good definition.
Whenever we want to define anything, we always want to give such perfect definitions,
but we seldom know the basic rules of a good definition.
A good definition must follow certain rules in order to be effective.
These rules state that, a definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing
defined.
A Definitions should avoid circularity. This means, a definition must not repeat same
things in different ways without any meaning where we find that we cannot define
"antecedent" without using the "consequent", nor conversely.
The definition must not be too wide or too narrow.
It must be applicable to everything to which it applies.
It must not miss anything out. Also, it must not include any things to which the defined
term would not truly apply. The definition must not be obscure.
Definition is used to remove obscurity, so using obscure words in definition is
meaningless. A definition should not be negative where it can be positive.
These Rules of Definition can be listed as follows:
1. The definition must be clearer than the term that is being defined. The purpose of the
definition is to explain and must, therefore be easy to understand. It must not contain
terms which will only make it less intelligible.
2. The definition must not contain the term being defined. The definition must use other
terms in defining. It is supposed to explain a particular term and is not supposed to use
the same term in the explanation.
3. The definition must be convertible with the term being defined. The purpose of this
rule is to make sure that the definition is equal in extension with the term being defined.
The definition must not be too narrow nor too broad. If the term and the definition are
equal in extension, then, they are convertible.
4. The definition must not be negative but positive whenever possible. The definition is
supposed to explain what a term or object is, and not, what it is not. Only when a tern is
negative should the definition be negative.
Types of Definitions
Definitions are classified into various types by various logicians. At times, some of these
types differ from each other so much that they appear to be contradictory to each other.
Let us see some of these types classified by these logicians.
One classification is:
1. Nominal Definition is definition which speaks about a term but not declaring
anything about it. This is done by considering the origin of the term, by describing the
term, by giving the synonym of the term or by citing an example that will represent the
term
Classification of Nominal Definition:
a.Nominal Definition by Etymology
– attained by tracing the origin of the term.
Ex.: Fraternity came from “frater”, which means “brother”.
b. Nominal Definition by Description
– attained by describing the term.
Ex.: A rose is a flower.
c. Nominal Definition by Synonym
– it is done by giving a word equivalent to the term.
Ex.: Being kind is being benevolent.
d. Nominal Definition by Example
– it is done by citing anything that will represent the term.
Ex.: Our Chief Executive is Benigno Simeon Aquino III.
2. Real Definition declares something about the term. This kind of definition serves
to explain about the nature and to distinguish it from other terms.
Classification of Real Definition
a. Real Definition by Genus and Specific Difference
- a definition that explains the essence of a term by considering the intelligible elements
that make up the term.
Ex.: A triangle is a figure with three sides.
“figure” – genus, “three sides” – specific difference
b. Real Definition by Description
- It is done by stating the genus of the term but altering the specific difference by giving
the logical property, which belongs to the term to be defined.
Ex.: A Police Officer is a man bestowed with authority to enforce a law.
“man” – genus, “bestowed with authority to enforce a law” – logical property
c. Real Definition by Cause
-It is attained by stating the genus of the term but altering the specific difference by
tracing its cause. A cause could be its purpose, function, reason for existence, make-up
or origin.
Ex.: A book is a written material made-up of several pages and is a source of
information.
“written material”– genus, “source of information”– cause or reason for existence
Second classification of definitions is as follows:

DENOTATIVE DEFINITIONS try to explain the meaning of a word by mentioning at
least several objects it denotes.
Although we might not view these strictly as definitions, they are, nevertheless,
frequently called "denotative definitions."
Among connotative definitions, two different kinds are worth mentioning,
1. Ostensive definition,
2. Definition by partial ennumeration
Among denotative definitions, ostensive definitions stand out as especially common
and useful.
1. Ostensive definitions are definitions by pointing.
When a young child wants to know the meaning of the word “dog" we are apt to point to
a dog and call out the word "dog."
This is an example of an ostensive definition.
2. A second type of denotative definition worth mentioning is a definition by partial
enumeration.
Definitions by partial enumeration are simply lists of objects, or types of objects, to
which the word refers.
The list, "beagle," "cocker spaniel," "dachshund," "greyhound," "poodle," provides an
example of a definition of dog is by partial enumeration.
While denotative definitions might not really seem much like definitions, they do
ultimately attempt to convey the meaning of a word, at least indirectly.
For the hope is that by citing the objects the word refers to, the people we are talking
with will come to see what that word means.
However, let's turn now to definitions in the more ordinary sense of the term.
CONNOTATIVE DEFINITIONS are usually formulated in the following three ways:
1. X is Y. Example: A bachelor is an unmarried man.
2. The word "X" means Y. Example: The word "Bachelor" means unmarried man.
3. X =DF. Y. As an example: Bachelor =DF. unmarried man.
In all these cases the term on the left "bachelor" in the above examples is the one being
defined, and we call it the "definiendum."
While we refer to the terms used to define this word "unmarried man" in our example,
collectively as the "definiens."
Among connotative definitions, perhaps five different kinds are worth mentioning,
(1) persuasive definitions,
(2) theoretical definitions,
(3) precising definitions,
(4) stipulative definitions, and
(5) lexical definitions.
Let us see these definition types in details:
1. Persuasive Definitions: The purpose of a persuasive definition is to convince
us to believe that something is the case and to get us to act accordingly. Frequently
definitions of words like "freedom," "democracy," and "communism," are of this type.
(E.g., taxation is the means by which bureaucrats rip off the people who have elected
them.) While these sorts of definitions might be emotionally useful, we should avoid
them when we are attempting to be logical.
2. Theoretical Definitions: Theoretical definitions explain by a theory. Whether
they are correct or not will depend, largely, on whether the theory they are an integral
part of is correct. Newton's famous formula "F = ma" (i.e. Force = mass x acceleration),
provides a good example of such a definition.
3. Precising Definitions: Precising definitions attempt to reduce the vagueness
of a term by sharpening its boundaries. For example, we might decide to reduce the
vagueness in the term "bachelor" by defining a bachelor as an unmarried man who is at
least 21 years old. We often encounter précising definitions in the law and in the
sciences. Such definitions do alter the meaning of the word they define to some extent.
This is acceptable, however, if the revised meaning they provide is not radically different
from the original. Sometimes by providing précising definitions we can reduce the
potential for verbal disputes that are based on a term's vagueness. When A and B begin
argue about whether a bicycle is a vehicle we try to get them to recognize that term
"vehicle" contains vagueness. Once they have seen this, we can make them agree to
reduce it by providing a précising definition.
4. Stipulative Definitions: Stipulative definitions are frequently provided when
we need to refer to a complex idea, but there simply is no word for that idea. A word is
selected and assigned a meaning without any pretense that this is what that word really
means. While we cannot criticize stipulative definitions for being incorrect, and so, the
objection, "But that isn't what the word means" is inappropriate); we can criticize them
as unnecessary, or too vague to be useful.
5. Lexical Definitions: Unlike stipulative definitions, lexical definitions do
attempt to capture the real meaning of a word and so can be either correct or incorrect.
When we tell someone that "intractable" means not easily governed, or obstinate, this is
the kind of definition we are providing. Roughly, lexical definitions are the kinds of
definitions found in dictionaries. Frequently words that are first introduced in the
language as stipulative definitions become, over time, lexical definitions. (Consider, for
example, Winston Churchill's famous use of the expression "iron curtain.") Besides
synonymous definitions, definitions by genus and difference are perhaps the most
common type of lexical definition. The essential characteristic of these definitions is we
are defining the definiendum by using two terms in the definiens. For example, in the
definition, "a bachelor is an unmarried man," we are defining the word "bachelor" in
terms of "unmarried" and "man." In this definition the term "unmarried" is the
difference, while term "man" is the genus. (The difference, or difference term, qualifies,
or says what kind of thing, the genus is.)
Third classification of definition is as follows:
This list has seven kinds of definitions.
1. Stipulative Definitions stipulate, or specify, how a term is to be used.
Sometimes stipulative definitions are used to introduce wholly new terms, othertimes to
restrict (or narrow) a meaning in a particular context.
The former use may be seen in the immediately preceding example, where the new term
"oxycodone" is being introduced as an abbreviation (mercifully) for the mouthful
"dihydrohydroxycodeinone".
2. Lexical definitions, or dictionary definitions, are reports of common usage.
Such definitions are said to be reportive or reportative definitions.
They are true or false depending on whether they do or do not accurately report
common usage.
In addition, if the dictionary is published by a prestigious firm and is compiled by
competent and respected lexicographers, then the definitions are normative.
The definitions both report and regulate common usage. It thus becomes possible to say
of a given person that s/he is misusing a particular term.
If a person's use of a term is at great variance with how that term is regularly used, and
if that person does not stipulate that the term is being used in a specialized nonstandard
way, then she is using that term incorrectly.
3. Precising definitions are used to refine the meaning of an established term whose
meaning is vague in a context and which needs improving.
4. Theoretical definitions is unique to science and philosophy and do not occur in
ordinary prose. This is an overly restrictive analysis; theories are not unique to science
but characterize virtually all our thinking.
5. Operational definitions explain the way in which a scientific function works. This
type of definitions have disappeared in physics; occasionally, however, one will still find
instances of them in psychology.
6. The definiens in a recursive definition is typically in two parts: a so-called 'basis'
clause in which the definiendum does not occur, and a so-called 'inductive step' in which
the definiendum does occur. At first the definition may appear to be circular since the
definiendum explicitly occurs in the definiens. But the circularity is only apparent, since
the basis clause offers a non-circular entry to – not a circle – but a 'chain' of an
indefinite number of 'links'.
7. Persuasive definitions are simply intended to influence attitudes and generally do
violence to the lexical definitions. When people begin to cite definitions in a heated
argument, it is a good bet that they are making them up.
Fourth and all exhaustive classification:
In short, we can classify the definitions in the following manner:
1. Real ==== a) Ostensive, b) Extensive
2. Nominal = a) Lexical, b) Bi-verbal, c) stipulative, d) per genus et differentium
These types can be seen in details as follows:
1. Real definition: A Real definition is the definition of something that exists. This
means, we can use the real definition for explaining things that exist and that can be
objectively studied.
We have two sub classes of this definition type.
These are, a) Ostensive and b) Extensive. Let us see them in details:
a) Ostensive Definition is the method of defining any thing by pointing it out. When
we show some object in order to define it, we use the ostensive definition.
b) Extensive definition is the definition where we give examples in order to explain
something. When we want to define anything, we list out some of the members or things
or types that belong to the group indicated by that word.
2. Nominal definition: A nominal definition is a definition of a word, phrase or
symbol. When we wish to define or explain any word, phrase or symbol, we use this type
of definition. This means, we use nominal definition when we are defining any concept
created by human beings in any language of humans.
The nominal definitions have four sub-classes. These subclasses are, a) Lexical, b) Bi-
verbal, c) stipulative, d) per genus et differentium.
Let us see these sub-classes in details.
a) Lexical definition gives a dictionary meaning of a word, or defines a word as it is
used by any community or group of people.
b) Bi-verbal definition defines a word by using another word or a phrase by using
another phrase. But if while doing this, the definition is not making the actual meaning
adequately clear, the definition commits fallacy of synonymous definition.
c) Stipulative definition is given when someone is assigning a meaning to a word in
order to influence attitudes of twist the actual meaning of the word. This definition may
or may not tell the real nature of the word defined.
d) Per genus et differentium is the type of definition where we define a word by
stating the group to which it belongs, i.e. the genus; and the factor that still
differentiates the given word from rest of the group, i.e. the differentia. We use this
definition when we are classifying something that is being defined and also showing that
though this thing belongs to that group, it is still different from rest of the group
members because it possesses some quality that makes it stand out.
Fallacies of definition.
When a definition is not appropriate, it commits a fallacy. Fallacies of definition are
the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to
suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy. "Definitions that fail to have merit because
they are overly broad, use obscure or ambiguous language, or contain circular reasoning
are called fallacies of definition."
The major fallacies are; overly broad or Too Wide, overly narrow or Too Narrow,
Mutually exclusive definitions, Synonymus definitions, Obscure definitions, Self-
contradictory definitions & circular definitions.
Fallacies in definitions are listed as follows:
1. Too Wide definition is the definition that applies to things or members to which
that word actually does not apply.
2. Too Narrow definition is the definition that excludes many things to which the
word being defined actually applies.
3. Mutually exclusive definitions are the definitions where we find some qualities
that do not belong to the word defined. The definiens of mutually exclusive definitions
list characteristics which are the opposite of those found in the definiendum. e.g. a cow
is defined as a flying animal with no legs.
4. Synonyms definitions are the definitions where one word is defined by another
without explaining any of them clearly.
5. Obscure definitions are definitions using inappropriate language or the language
that feels odd, but does not explain anything about the word in question..
6. Self-contradictory definition occurs when the definindum used two contradictory
qualities together in explaining the definiens.
7. Ambiguous definition is the definition where a word has many meanings & we are
using an inappropriate meaning while defining it in some situation.
8. Figurative definition is the way to define something using decorative language.
Such a language may or may not explain the word appropriately.
9. Circular definitions If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by
the first, this is known as a circular definition where neither defenins nor definindum
offers enlightenment about what one wanted to know
Limitations of definition
Given that a natural language such as English contains, at any given time, a finite
number of words, any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or rely
upon primitive notions.
A question naturally arises when we start defining things. This is, if every term of
every definiens must be defined, by itself, where at last should we stop?
A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive list of lexical definitions, must
resort to circularity
Many philosophers have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The scholastic
philosophers claimed that the highest genera; the so-called ten generalissima cannot be
defined, since a higher genus cannot be assigned under which they may fall.
Thus being, unity and similar concepts cannot be defined.
John Locke supposes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding that the names of
simple concepts do not admit of any definition. More recently Bertrand Russell sought
to develop a formal language based on logical atoms.
Other philosophers, notably Wittgenstein, rejected the need for any undefined simples.
Wittgenstein pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that what counts as a
"simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another.
He rejected the very idea that every explanation of the meaning of a term needed itself
to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless supported by another
one", claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed to avoid
misunderstanding.
Locke and Mill also argued that individuals cannot be defined.
Names are learned by connecting an idea with a sound, so that speaker and hearer have
the same idea when the same word is used. This is not possible when no one else is
acquainted with the particular thing that has "fallen under our notice".
Russell offered his theory of descriptions in part as a way of defining a proper name, the
definition being given by a definite description that "picks out" exactly one individual.
Saul Kripke pointed to difficulties with this approach, especially in relation to modality,
in his book Naming and Necessity.
There is a presumption in the classic example of a definition that the definiens can be
stated. Wittgenstein argued that for some terms this is not the case.
The examples he used include game, number and family. In such cases, he argued,
there is no fixed boundary that can be used to provide a definition.
Rather, the items are grouped together because of a family resemblance.
For terms such as these it is not possible and indeed not necessary to state a definition;
rather, one simply comes to understand the use of the term.
CHAPTER 9. DEFINITIONS IN LAW

Definition and law
Precise definition with special reference to any specific definition- disablement, industry
(Labour Law), Private and Public Nuisance (Laws of Torts), consent (Law of Contract),
Medical- intervention, physician, terminally- ill
Law has definitions of concepts codified in various legal acts. Knowing these helps us
understand the basics of law. Let us see some of these definitions.
Disablement is something that reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any

employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the
disablement,where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as
reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking
at that time.
Partial disablement means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such
disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which
he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and, where the
disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity
in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time : Provided that
every injury specified in Part II of Schedule I shall be deemed to result in permanent
partial disablement;
Total disablement means such disablement, whether of

a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work
which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such
disablement Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from
every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or from injuries specified in Part II.
Medical intervention: Intervention is act of intervening, interfering or interceding

with the intent of modifying the outcome. In medicine, intervention is usually
undertaken to help treat or cure a condition. Such intervention by a registered medical
practitioner in health condition of patient is Medical Intervention.
Physician is a person who is legally qualified to practice medicine, especially one who
specializes in diagnosis and medical treatment as distinct from surgery. A physician is
a professional who practices medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining
or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease,
injury, and other physical and mental impairments.
Terminally ill person is a person who is sick and is diagnosed with a disease that
will take their life. Such a person is usually told by doctors that they only have several
months or years to live. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such
as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma.
Consent is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

According to Indian Contract Act, Two or more persons are said to consent when they
agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent mentioned in the defition is
assumed to be a free consent.
Free consent: Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue

influence, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it
would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence,
fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian
Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the
prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into
an agreement.
Undue influence defined:
(1) A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence” where the relations subsisting
between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate
the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair
advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a
person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another (a) where he holds a
real or apparent authority over the other or where he stands in a fiduciary
relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental
capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or
mental or bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a
contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence
adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not
induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will
of the other.
Fraud means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract,
or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto of
his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be
true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Misrepresentation means and includes –
(1) The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person
making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true
(2) any breach, of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the
person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his
prejudice or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(3) Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the
substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
NUISANCE: Substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, which may
be intentional, negligent or ultrahazardous in origin, and must be a result of defendant's
activity. This word means literally annoyance; in law, it signifies, according to
Blackstone, " anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage." Nuisances are
either public or common, or private nuisances.
A public or common nuisance is such an inconvenience or troublesome offence, as

annoys the whole community in general, and not merely some particular person. To
constitute a Public nuisance, there must be such 'a number of persons annoyed, that the
offense can no longer be considered a private nuisance. The concept of nuisance is
relative. A thing may be a nuisance in one place, which is not so in another; therefore
situation or locality of the nuisance must be considered.
A private nuisance is anything done to cause hurt or annoyance of the lands,
tenements, or hereditaments of another.
Industry means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an

employer and his workmen for the production ,supply or distribution of goods or
services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which
are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,
(i) any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on such activity; or
(ii) such activity is carried on with a motive to make any gain or profit, and includes (a)
any activity of the Dock Labour Board established under section 5-A of the Dock
Workers ( Regulation of Employment)Act,1948( 9 of 1948); (b) any activity relating to
promotion of sales or business or both carried on by an establishment,
but does not include any agricultural operation except where such agricultural operation
is carried on in an integrated manner with any other activity (being any such activity as
is referred to in the foregoing provisions of this clause) and such other activity is the
predominant one.
CHAPTER 10. DIVISION

DIVISION
Logical division - rules and fallacies of division - division by dichotomy.

Logical division:
Logical division is a simple method of dividing a class into its sub-classes in order to

explain the or describe any class. This type of division is useful in explaining many
concepts and making the understanding clear.
Division is useful for;
a] determination of exact relationships among related things,
b] formulation of definitions
When we divide, we use two main criteria. These are, Physical division and metaphysical
division.
Physical division divides a whole into its parts

• e.g., a complex machine into its simple mechanical parts
Metaphysical division divides an entity into its qualities,
• e.g.,a species into its genus & difference

– man into animality & rationality
• a substance into its attributes

– sugar into color, texture, solubility, taste, etc.
• a quality into its dimensions

– sound into pitch, timbre, volume
Understanding Division:
Division is another way to explain any class by talking about its sub-groups and dividing
the class into its sub groups. Here are its basic qualities:
• Logical Division
– begins with a summum genus
– proceeds through intermediate genera
– ends at the infimae species
– NB: It does not continue to individuals
• The results of division should meet these criteria:

1. The subclasses of each class should be coextensive with original class.
2. The subclasses of each class should be mutually exclusive.
3. The subclasses of each class should be jointly exhaustive.
4. Each stage of a division should be based on a single principle.
Kinds of Classification
Classification is the technique of inquiry in which similar individuals and classes are
grouped into larger classes.
e.g., how are steam, diesel, & gasoline engines related to one another?
Natural Classification:
• Natural classification is a scheme that provides theoretical understanding of its subject
matter e.g. classification of living things into monerans, protistans, plants, fungi and
animals
• The concept “monerans” is now obsolescent because it does not provide sufficient
theoretical clarity.
Artificial Classification:
• Artificial classification is a scheme established merely to serve some particular human
purpose e.g. classification of plants as crops, ornamental, and weed
Classification and Division Compared
• The result of a classification will look like the result of a division.

• Classification begins with a individuals or small classes and works
towards a summum genus. It works in the direction opposite to that of division
• Classification begins with a set of apparently related things found in
the world based on experience and builds from there. Hence, it is well-suited to natural
objects. But it will work with any kind of object.
Two Overly Ambitious Ideals

the divisions by a few things can never encounter any fallacy.
In logic as well as in any reasoning, if we are using division to explain something, we all
aim at making divisions that will have no fallacies. In order to have a perfect flawless
division we must divide using one of the following methods.
• Pure division
– begins with the summum genus and
– divides on the basis of a priori considerations
• i.e., it is based on logical possibility, not experience
• Dichotomous division
– divides on the basis of the presence or absence of a particular feature
• Classification can also be dichotomous.
• Striving for these ideals
– works well with mathematical objects,
– does not work well with natural objects
– guarantees a division that meets criteria
– sometimes provides more insight than alternative divisions.
• But “ dichotomous division is often difficult and often impracticable”
• Sometimes, class Rules notification is more practical.
RULES OF DIVISION:
When we are using logical division, we need to follow certain rules. thesde are as
follows:
1. One division must follow only one criteria. It must be either physical or
metaphysical.
2. The division criteria must be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
3. All the parts of an entity being explained must be covered by the division.
4. No extra members must be suggested as parts of the entity explained during the
process of division.
FALLACIES OF DIVISION:
When we fail to follow above rules, we end up in committing following fallacies:
1. Division by cross criteria: When we divide something by using two or more
criteria at the same time, we commit this fallacy. e.g. when we divide Indians into
"Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikh, Rich, poor, Tall, short, Fair, Dark, introverts and
extroverts"; we are committing this fallacy as we are using many criteria, both of
physical as well as metaphysical divisions at the same time. at the same time.
2. Too narrow division: when we exclude some of the members from the group
or some qualities of the entity being explained, we commit this fallacy. e.g. Quadrilateral
into, square and rectangle. Here we exclude many other types of quadrilaterals and so
the division becomes too narrow as it leaves out many other members that actually
belong to this group.
3. Too wide division: when we include some members that actually do not belong
to the group as we are dividing, our division becomes too wide. e.g. birds into single
coloured & multicolored. Here, many other single coloured and multicolored things and
beings get indicated as part of the group of bird, so it is a too wide division.
CHAPTER 11. INDUCTION
INDUCTION
a) Simple Enumeration as a form of induction.

b) Analogy – characteristic of a good and bad analogy.
4. c) Use of simple enu,eration and analogy in law – circumstantial evidence.
5. Induction is a type of inference where we go from known to unknown or from less
general to more general. Here, from the things that are known, we say something about
things that are not known. This is the reason why in induction we always say something
more than what we already know of.
6. So, Induction, a form of argument in which the premises give grounds for the
conclusion but do not make it certain. Induction is contrasted with deduction, in which
true premises imply a definite conclusion, the conclusion of Induction is always
probable. The probability rate changes as per strength of evidence.
7. Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the
conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.
8. Induction is of two types, perfect and imperfect. Perfect induction takes support of
deduction in later stages to establish a certain conclusion, while imperfect induction
does not do this.
9. The two types of imperfect induction are, Simple enumeration and Analogy.
10. a) Simple Enumeration as a form of induction.

11. Simple enumeration is a method of arriving at a generalization on the basis of
uniform uncontradicted observation of something.
12. While using this method, we observe a number of instances that agree in some quality.
During our observation, we do not find any contrary instance. So, we arrive at a
conclusion that as far as that thing is concerned, there are no contrary instances. Then
we get a general proposition as a conclusion.
13. We do not verify our conclusion further or try to analyze the events in order to find any
logical relationship in these common similar events.
14. This is the reason why even when our observation is wide, it still stays imperfect. This is
because our method is a method of SIMPLE enumeration and not COMPLETE
enumeration. In complete enumeration, since we have observed all instances from a
group about which we are talking, there is no chance of coming across a contrary
instance. But this is not the condition of simple enumeration.
15. In simple enumeration, conclusion can be disproved by observing just one single
contrary instance. So, wider the observation, greater is the probability of an inference by
simple enumeration.
16. The conclusion by simple enumeration is highly probable when the number of
observed instances is really high.
17. But if one is arriving at a conclusion on the basis of very limited observation, the
conclusion is less probable and hence, it is termed as hasty generalization or illicit
generalization.
18. Many times we find that people arrive at hasty generalizations in determining some vital
things in their daily life.
19. b) Analogy –
20. Analogy is a type of imperfect induction where we are comparing two things, persons,
groups or classes. while doing so, we observe some similarities and on the basis of these,
we infer some further similarity, as we find an additional quality in one of the two
compared things, persons, groups or classes.
21. Many times, we observe or compare two things, events, groups, individuals, things, etc.
etc, observe some similarities, and then, infer some further similarity. We have no
logical reason why we get such a conclusion, but we simply rely on our observation. This
is how analogy works.
22. Characteristic of a good and bad analogy.
23. Here, if the observed similarities are relevant to the additional quality, then our
conclusion is likely to be true and we may say that Analogy is good Analogy.
24. But if the observed qualities are not relevant to the additional quality, then our
conclusion about predicting the additional similarity is not likely to be true, so, we say
that such an analogy is Bad Analogy.
25. c) Use of Simple Enumeration and Analogy in law:

26. in circumstantial evidence & getting precedents.
27. In law, we need to use simple enumeration and Analogy to infer things from

circumstantial evidence. Of them analogy is more useful in legal matters. Also, while
using precedent law, we use analogy to indicate the support of past decided cases in
our matter.
28. When we see a person following some pattern of behavior or thinking or actions, while
talking of the Modus Operandi of that person, we use simple enumeration as we
talk of the generalized pattern of behavior of that person.
29. This is the method followed by criminal investigators quite often.
30. They determine the Modus Operandi of a criminal to find out the criminal and / or to
track the criminals. This is a very common practice used by the police in registering the
crime record of certain criminals while maintaining their files.
31. While contesting any matter, the lawyers use analogy in arguing about similar matters,
or actions done by an individual in similar situations, to infer about the truth of the
statement given by any witness.
32. For example, if it is shown that the witness had reacted in a particular way in the past in
similar situations, or has reacted in a particular way in similar situation created in court,
then, one can infer that he must have reacted exactly in same way when the actual event
had happened that the witness was witnessing.
33. This type of inference adds to the weight-age in argument in court.
34. Similarly, when we are arguing any matter, we may come across previously decided
matters of same type in the same court, or higher court or another court. We use the
citation of these matters as case law or precedent law to lead the judge to the conclusion
we want, and the procedure of inductive argument that we use in this type of matter is of
analogy. This is why is is said that Analogy is of great use in legal arguments.

Logic

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

Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bls llb - logic (sem -1)

DEFINITION OF LOGIC and TYPES OF LOGIC

In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.

The study of logic was part of the classical trivium.

Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive

The Inductive reasoning involves in drawing general conclusions from specific

TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS

The general propositions are of two types, universal and general.

In case of affirmative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in the

In case of negative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in the

OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS AND VENN

When the subject of a proposition represents one single individual, it is a singular

When the subject of a proposition represents a group of individuals, it is a general

General propositions are further classified into Universal and Particular.

The four types of general propositions are:

The quantity and quality of these are as follows:

A = Universal affirmative

Relation of opposition between these propositions is as follows:

When two universal propositions differ in quality, they are known as CONTRARY.

When two propositions with same quality, differ in quantity, they are known

When two propositions differ both in quality and quantity, they are known

The relation of truth values between these opposite propositions is as follows:

If a universal proposition is true, its contrary is false, its sub-altern is

If a universal proposition is false, its contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern is

If a particular proposition is true, its sub-contrary is uncertain, its sub-altern

If a particular proposition is false, its sub-contrary is true, its sub-altern is

To do this, we use two intersecting circles.

Pl check the images for venn diagrams and opposition of proposition.

Let us see how this is done:

Sita is not a boy.

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

will be written as:

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

Ghosts do not exist

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

will be written as:

This is symbolized as follows:

This is how we symbolize the general propositions in traditional classification.

• Logical division divides a class into its subclasses

DEDUCTION VERSUS INDUCTION

Proposition Relationships in EDUCTION @ glance

Relationship Changed Type Original

S-P No S is non P E No S is non P

Some S is non P I Some S is non P

Some S is not non P O Some S is not

Some P is S I Some P is S Some P is S X

Obv Conv= All S is non P A All S is non P X

Some S is not non P O Some S is not Some S is not X

Part Inv = All non S is P A X X

Some non S is P I Some non S is P X X

Some non S is not P O Some non S is X X

Full Inverse = All non S is non P A X X

S-P No non S is non P E X X

Some non S is non I Some non S is X X