PHILO 103 LOGICAL AND CRITICAL THINKING
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
MODULE 1
THE PRACTICE OF LOGIC
As a discipline, logic is defined as the study of the different
methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from
incorrect arguments (Copi and Cohen, 1998). With this
definition, it follows that logic tests the correctness of an
argument through formal methods, criteria, and techniques.
As a field of learning, logic is one of the major branches of
philosophy. The term philosophy comes from the Greek words
“philos”, meaning love, and “sophia”, meaning wisdom.
Philosophy, therefore, means love of wisdom.
Among the other branches of philosophy are:
1. Cosmology 5. Theodicy
2. Ethics 6. Epistemology
3. Metaphysics 7. Social Philosophy
4. Aesthetics
Scholars sometimes define logic as the “science of correct
reasoning” (De Leon, 2003) or the “science of law of
thought”. This is due to the idea that since it deals with the
correctness of arguments, it likewise deals with thought or
thinking, one way or another. Actually, etymologically speaking,
logic comes from the Greek word logike, meaning “thought”,
“reason”, or “discourse”. However, unlike Psychology--- a
discipline which also deals with thinking and reasoning--- Logic
is more prescriptive. It prescribes how people should think
and reason as opposed to Psychology being descriptive (it
describes how people do think or reason). Consider the
argument below:
“Regardless of culture, religion, or ideology, all
humanity, throughout the ages, believes that killing
an innocent human being is morally wrong. Now, who
could deny that a human fetus is an innocent human
being? Since abortion kills innocent human fetuses,
abortion, therefore, in the eyes of all humanity,
regardless of culture, religion, or ideology, is morally
wrong”.
In this argument, logic is concerned whether it is correct or
not, whether it is valid or sound, whether it follows the
correct rules or not. It is not in the interest of logic to find
out why the person uttered such argument. The question of
why falls in the domain of Psychology or Ethics or even Moral
Theology. Logic is only interested with the structure of
arguments.
IMPORTANCE OF LOGIC
Logic has very practical applications, touching on basically all
aspects of human life.
1. Logic contributes to the quality of human life. Logic aims to
develop the powers of intelligence, reason, and will necessary
for the cultivation and enrichment of the human condition.
2. Logic leads to the formation of a reasonable human being.
Being superior to other animals because of reason, logic helps
in the formation of truly reasonable human beings.
3. Logic tends to perfect man‟s gift of natural logic. Natural
logic (or common sense) is trained and sharpened to reach its
fullness by the science and art of logic.
MODULE 2
STATEMENTS AND PROPOSITIONS
Contrary to popular belief, an argument is not a quarrel or
dispute. It refers to a form of reasoning wherein one or more
propositions are offered as support, justification, grounds,
reasons, or evidence for another proposition.
Proposition refers to the meaning of a sentence that makes
a claim, that is, a statement that can either be true or false.
Arguments are made up of propositions. If words are the
basic elements of a sentence, propositions are the basic
elements of any argument.
A proposition is normally expressed in a declarative sentence.
This is so because declarative sentences are good for declaring
that things are so or not so. For example:
1. The current president of the Republic of the Philippines
is bald.
However, the following sentences do not express a proposition:
2. Is the current president bald?
3. Shut up and find me a short president.
4. Oh my, oh my! I really find bald presidents to be so cute.
Observe that Sentence 1 can either be true or false but not
Sentence 2, 3, and 4. Sentence 4 is a declarative sentence
but functions as expressive, that is, it conveys a value
statement which means it is highly subjective or personal.
Thus, interrogative sentences (i.e. questions), imperative
sentences (i.e. commands), and emotive/expressive sentences
(i.e. expressions) do not usually convey propositions because
they cannot be assessed to be either true or false.
Simply put, all propositions are sentences but not vice versa.
A question, exclamation, wish, command, or plea is a sentence
but does not express any judgement. Note: Judgement is the
act of the intellect by which the agreement or disagreement
of two ideas is pronounced.
For example, if the ideas “man” and “mortal being” are
compared and found to be in agreement with each other, the
mind pronounces “Man is mortal”. On the other hand, if it does
not, then the mind pronounces “Man is not mortal”.
STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS
A simple proposition has this structure:
SUBJECT COPULA PREDICATE
The SUBJECT of a proposition is the matter that is being
described by the PREDICATE. The COPULA connects or links
the subject with the predicate. A single proposition has
necessarily one subject, predicate, and copula.
Adoption is legal.
Subject Copula Predicate
There are two types of propositions according to quality:
Affirmative Proposition and Negative Proposition.
A proposition is affirmative if its copula is expressed as
affirmative, meaning it unites the subject and the predicate.
When the copula separates the subject and the predicate,
then, the copula is negative and the proposition is a Negative
Proposition. For example:
Affirmative Proposition – Man is a rational being.
Meanwhile, a particular proposition has a particular
quantifier. It has a subject that includes only a part or
portion of a whole class of things. For example:
Some green things are grass.
Certain cities are amazing
Several philosophers are geniuses
Few politicians are lawyers
Combining the quantity and quality, propositions can be
classified under the following with their corresponding
symbolic representation:
Universal Affirmative Proposition
(with universal quantifier and affirmative copula) – A
Universal Negative Proposition
(with universal quantifier and negative copula) – E
Particular Affirmative Proposition
(with particular quantifier and affirmative copula) – I
Particular Negative Proposition
(with particular quantifier and negative copula) – O

Negative Proposition – Man is not a rational being. Examples:

Universal Affirmative Proposition (A)
In special instances, copula modifiers or simply modifiers are All idiots are slow learners.
also included before the subject or after the copula. This could
change the function of the copula and therefore, the quality Particular Affirmative Proposition (I)
of the proposition. Some policemen are rich.

Composite Proposition: Universal Negative Proposition (E)

No transparencies are plastic.

MODIFIER SUBJECT COPULA PREDICATE Particular Negative Proposition (O)

Some honest people are not married.
Examples: No man is perfect.
Sometimes honesty is not the best policy. MODULE 3
A self-sufficing man is an island. OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS

Modal Proposition: Logical Opposition, otherwise known as Aristotelian Square or

the Square of Opposition refers to the agreement or
disagreement of the propositions in reference to quality and
SUBJECT COPULA MODIFIER PREDICATE
quantity. It refers to the relationship among A, E, I, and O
propositions.
Examples: Man is not necessarily mortal.
Figure 1. The Square of Opposition
Aside from quality, a proposition can also be classified
according to quantity. The two types of proposition based on
quantity are Universal and Particular propositions.

A universal proposition is a proposition having a universal

quantifier. It has a subject that includes all indefinite and
singular ideas. For example:

All my brothers are athletes.

An eagle is a flying bird.
Every vegetable is nutritious.
The wisest man here is me.
 TYPES OF LOGICAL OPPOSITION E is False
1. Contrary. Propositions having the same subject and the
same predicate, having the same universal quantity but they
differ in quality. (i.e. A and E) I is False O is True
All lawyers are dishonest: No lawyer is dishonest. A is False
All dogs are mammals: No dog is a mammal. E is True

2. Sub-contrary. Propositions having the same subject and O is True A is False

the same predicate, having the same particular quantity but E is Doubtful
they differ in quality. (i.e. I and O) I is Doubtful
Some CEFIzens are nice: Some CEFIzens are not nice
Some cars are red: Some cars are not red O is False A is True
3. Contradictory. Propositions having the same subject and E is False
the same predicate differ in quality and in they differ in I is True
quantity. (i.e. A and O or E and I)
All lawyers are honest : Some lawyers are not honest Examples:
No CEFIzen is patriotic : Some CEFIzens are patriotic 1. All robots are irrational. (True)
Contrary: No robot is irrational. (False)
4. Sub-altern. Propositions having the same subject and the Sub-Contrary: Not applicable
same predicate, having the same quality but they differ in Contradictory: Some robots are not irrational. (False)
quantity. (i.e. A and I or E and O) Sub-altern: Some robots are irrational. (True)
All lawyers are dishonest : Some lawyers are dishonest
No CEFIzen is patriotic : Some CEFIzens are not patriotic 2. Some cops are alert. (True)
Contrary: Not applicable
Rules Governing Oppositions Sub-Contrary: Some cops are not alert. (Doubtful)
1. Contrary Contradictory: No cop is alert. (False)
a. Can not be both true Sub-altern: All cops are alert (Doubtful)
b. May be both false
2. Sub-contrary MODULE 4
a. Can not be both false LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
b. May be both true
3. Contradictory Logical equivalence, also known as eduction, is the
a. Can not both be true formulation of a new proposition by interchanging the subject
b. Can not both be false and the predicate of a given proposition or by using or
4. Sub-altern removing negatives. It is a process of restating a given
a. If the universal is true, the particular is true proposition without changing its meaning. It is one of the
b. If the universal is false, the particular is doubtful major types of immediate inference, a process of reasoning
c. If the particular is true, the universal is doubtful wherein the mind derives a new proposition from an existing
d. If the particular is false, the universal is false proposition, with no new truth created.

Summary of Logical Opposition Forms of Eduction

A is True E is False 1. CONVERSION. It is a form of eduction which consists of
I is True inter-changing the position of the subject and the predicate
O is False of the given proposition. The given proposition is called the
convertend and the resulting proposition as converse.
A is False E is Doubtful
I is Doubtful a. Simple Conversion. A form of conversion without changing
O is True the quantity of the convertend.

E is True I is False Rules for Simple Conversion

O is True Step 1. Retain the quantity
A is False Step 2. Transpose the subject (it becomes the
predicate of the resulting proposition)
E is False I is True Step 3. Retain the copula
O is Doubtful Step 4. Transpose the predicate (it becomes the
A is Doubtful subject of the resulting proposition)

I is True O is Doubtful Examples:

A is Doubtful (E) No man is honest. ---------> (E) No honest is man.
( I ) Some cats are furry. ---------> ( I ) Some furry things
are cats.
b. Accidental Conversion. A form of conversion which is done by
changing the quantity of the convertend, i.e., from universal,
it becomes particular. It can only be applied to Universal
Affirmative propositions or A.
Rules for Accidental Conversion
Step 1. Change the quantity (from universal to
particular)
Step 2. Transpose the subject (it becomes the
predicate of the resulting proposition)
Step 3. Retain the quality.
Step 4. Transpose the predicate (it becomes the
subject of the resulting proposition)
Example:
(A) All pregnant are females. -----------> ( I ) Some females
are pregnant.
Synopsis of Conversion
1. The conversion of E is E (Simple Conversion)
2. The conversion of I is I (Simple Conversion)
3. The conversion of A is I (Accidental Conversion)
4. There can be no conversion of O
2. OBVERSION. It is a form of eduction which consists in
changing affirmative proposition into negative proposition , or
vice versa. The given proposition is called obvertend and the
resulting proposition is called obverse.
Rules of Obversion
Step 1. Retain the quantity of the obvertend
Step 2. Retain the subject of the obvertend
Step 3. Change the copula (quality) of the obvertend
Step 4. Contradict or negate the predicate of the obvertend
Examples:
(A) All books are readable ---------> (E) No book is non-
readable.
(E) No fish is carnivorous ----------> (A) All fishes are non-
carnivorous
( I ) Some ladies are pretty -----------> (O) Some ladies are
not non-pretty
(O) Some dogs are not furry ----------> ( I ) Some dogs are
non-furry
Synopsis of Obversion
1. The obversion of A is E 3. The obversion of I is O
2. The obversion of E is A 4. The obversion of O is I
3. CONTRAPOSITION . It is a form of eduction which
requires a combination of obversion and conversion . The given
proposition is called the contraponend and the new formulation
is called the contraposit.
Rules of Contraposition
Step 1. Obvert the given proposition
Step 2. Convert the obverse
Step 3. Obvert the converse
Examples:
1. All females are emotional (A)
Obvert the given proposition: No females are non-emotional
Convert the obverse: No non-emotional is a female
Obvert the converse: All non-emotional are non-females
2. Some writers are not prolific (O)
Obvert the given proposition: Some writers are non-prolific
Convert the obverse: Some non-prolific are writers
Obvert the converse: Some non-prolific are not non-writers
Synopsis of Contraposition
1. Contraposition of A is A 3. Contraposition of O is O
2. Contraposition of E is O 4. No contraposition of I
4. INVERSION. It is form of eduction that goes through a
series of obversion and conversion. The original proposition is
called the invertend; the new formulation derived from the
invertend is called inverse. Among the four types of
propositions, only A or Universal Affirmative is qualified for
inversion.
Rules of Inversion
Step 1. Obvert the invertend
Step 2. Convert the obverse
Step 3. Obvert the converse
Step 4. Convert the obverse
Example:
All physicians are doctors (A)
Obvert the invertend : No physicians are non-doctors
Convert the obverse : No non-doctors are physicians
Obvert the converse : All non-doctors are non-physicians
Convert the obverse: Some non-physicians are non-doctors.
No aliens are voters (E)
Obvert the invertend : All aliens are non-voters
Convert the obverse : Some non-voters are aliens
Obvert the converse : Some non-voters are not non-aliens
Convert the obverse : INVALID / Not Applicable
Some politicians are religious ( I )
Obvert the invertend : Some politicians are not non-religious
Convert the obverse : INVALID / Not Applicable
MODULE 5
REASONING
Reasoning is a mental act by which the agreement or
disagreement of two ideas is inferred from their known
relation to a third idea. It is an operation of the mind by
which a judgement is explicitly inferred from two other
judgements in which it is implicitly contained.
Inference, on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusion
from one or more premises. It may be understood as the
mental process by which the intellect passes from one or more
propositions to some other propositions consequently related
to the former. It is the process of combining propositions in
such a way that in their combination, some new proposition,
called conclusion may be drawn as a consequence.
For example, take this argument:
All heroes are brave.
Rizal is a hero.
Therfore, Rizal is brave.
The proposition “Rizal is brave”, which we call conclusion is
logically implied from the relationship of the two propositions
“All heroes are brave” and “Rizal is a hero”, which are called
premises.
Types of Inference
1. Immediate Inference . It is a process in reasoning in which
the mind passes immediately or directly from a single premise
to a conclusion. This includes logical opposition and logical
equivalence. Immediate inference derives a new proposition
with no new truth created.
Examples:
All men are rational.
Therefore, no men are irrational. (by obversion)
All rapists are criminals.
Therefore, no rapists are criminals. (by contrary)
2. Mediate Inference. It is a process in reasoning in which
the intellect derives a conclusion from two or more premises
taken jointly. It is a process of the mind whereby we pass
from one proposition to another. In mediate inference, the
mind
infers not only a new proposition but also a new truth.
However, the truth achieved in mediate inference must
necessarily follow from the previously asserted ones. Mediate
inference can either be deductive or inductive.
a. Deductive: reasons from general to specific.
All artists are creative
Picasso is an artist
Therefore, Picasso is creative
b. Inductive: reasons from specific to general.
Donna is a CEFIzen and she is clever.
Kathlene is a CEFIzen and she is clever.
Angel is also a CEFIzen and she is clever.
Therefore, all CEFIzens are clever.
MODULE 6
PREMISES AND CONCLUSION
We defined argument as a form of reasoning wherein one or
more propositions are offered as support, justification,
grounds, reasons, or evidence for another proposition. With
that in mind, in an argument, the proposition being supported
or affirmed is known as its conclusion while the propositions
that lend support to the conclusion or the statements which
aim to make the conclusion acceptable are called the premises.
In other words, the conclusion expresses or affirms the main
point of the entire argument while the premises endeavour
to justify the point made in the conclusion. Premises and
conclusion are the basic elements of an argument.
Example:
All primary colors are not dull. ------------> Premise 1
Red is a primary color ------------> Premise 2
Therefore, red is not dull. ------------> CONCLUSION
PREMISE INDICATORS CONCLUSION INDICATORS
• Since • Therefore
• Because • Hence
• For • Thus
• As • I conclude that
• In as much as • So
• For the reason that • Consequently
• First,… • It follows that
• In view of the fact that • One may infer that
• As evidenced by • One may conclude that
Can you identify the premises and the conclusion in this argument?
“Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that prevents
would-be criminals from committing crimes--- because we want to
protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals---
because no one want to waver in bringing back the peace and security
in our community’s streets--- and because the only way to deter
would-be-rapists, would-be-murderers, and many other would-be
brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of death--- ladies and
gentlemen, the death penalty law, must, therefore, never--- I
repeat, never be abolished”.
Answer:
“(P1) Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that
prevents would-be-criminals from committing crimes--- (P2) because
we want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the
criminals--- (P3) because no one want to waver in bringing back the
peace and security in our community’s streets--- and (P4) because
the only way to deter would-be-rapists, would-be-murderers, and
many other would-be-brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of
death--- (C) ladies and gentlemen, the death penalty law, must,
therefore, never--- I repeat,
never be abolished”.
Now, after identifying the premises and the conclusion, we remove all
the indicators and verbiages and present the argument in its bare
form:
P1 – We want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that prevents
would-be-criminals from committing crimes
P2 – We want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the
criminals
P3 – We want to bring back the peace and security in our community’s
streets
P4 – The only way to deter would-be-rapists, would-be-murderers,
and many other would-be-brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of
death
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
C – The death penalty must never be abolished.
Limitations of Indicators
Indicators are indeed helpful in recognizing premises and conclusions,
but they are not 100% accurate as a guide. Sometimes, premise and
conclusion indicators may be present in a sentence but they do not
really indicate that the sentence is a proposition (hence, not a
premise or a conclusion). For instance:

“My classmate is absent today because of severe diarrhea
compounded with dysmenorrhea.”
“My neighbour didn’t say that you are so happy.”
“We’ve been together since December of 2010”
REMEMBER:
1. Propositions are expressed by sentences but sentences are not the
same with propositions
2. There could be a proposition without an argument but there is no
argument without propositions
3. It is the function which a proposition serves in an argument that
determines whether it is a premise or a conclusion.
4. For something to be considered an argument, it should contain at
least three propositions (at least two premises and one conclusion)
5. To be considered a conclusion, the proposition should have
supporting
propositions
6. To be considered a premise, it should provide support to other
propositions as its conclusion
MODULE 7
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
The body of propositions, which is made up of premises and conclusion
is what we call an argument. The process of supporting conclusions
with premises or inferring the conclusion from a set of premises is
what we call reasoning or argumentation. Reasoning may be
deductive or inductive depending on whether it proceeds from the
particular to the universal or vice versa.
Deductive reasoning entails proceeding from universal data to a
particular and individual conclusion. Inductive reasoning involves
proceeding from individual or particular data to a general or universal
conclusion.
Likewise, when we say deductive reasoning, the claim or conclusion is
conclusively or absolutely supported by the premises. This is opposed
to inductive reasoning wherein the support may only be a matter of
probability.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
“All birds are animals. The parrot is a bird. Therefore, the parrot is
an animal”.
An argument is deductive if the premises claim to give conclusive
grounds for the truth of the conclusion, or if the premises claim to
support the conclusion with logical necessity, that is, we cannot deny
it without committing a logical contradiction. In the example above,
accept the first statement (premise) and you don’t have any choice
but to accept the conclusion
succeed, and if you succeed, then you will be happy; therefore,
if you work hard, you will be happy.
INDUCTIVE REASONING
“Pin sinks in water. Nail sinks in water. Door knob sinks in
water. Therefore, all materials made of metal sink in water.”
An argument is inductive if it makes the milder claim that its
premises support but does not absolutely guarantee its
conclusion. Validity and invalidity apply only to deductive
arguments. Inductive arguments are evaluated to be either
high (or strong) or low (or weak). They can range in
probability from very low to very high but always less than
100%. Unlike deductive arguments in which nothing can be
added to make the inference more certain, premises can be
added to inductive arguments to make them more probable.
Types of Inductive Arguments
1. Extrapolations – to infer unknown information from known
information. Example: If there is water, there is life. NASA
found water in the polar region of Mars. There is life in planet
Mars.
2. Predictions – to infer that the future will be like the past
Example: She had a relationship with Rafael and it didn’t work
out. She had a relationship with Romeo and it also ended after
a few months. Now, I heard she’s dating a guy named Ramon.
It also starts with the letter “R”. Give it two or three
months and they’ll probably call it quits.
3. Part to Whole – to infer that since some things are this
way, that all must be this way. Example: Juana’s shoes are
gifts from his suitor abroad, so are her clothes, ribbon, and
bag. I’m sure, Juana’s new pants is also from his suitor
abroad.
4. Analogies – to infer that the truth of one is shared by
another that is similar, or in some ways, like itself. Example:
The universe is a complex system like a watch. We wouldn't
think that a watch can come about by accident. Something so
complicated must have been created by someone. The universe
is a lot more complicated, so it must have been created by a
being who is a lot more intelligent.

Types of Deductive Arguments

1. Necessary Analytic Inferences – arguments that follow from the
truths of the meanings of words used.
Example: Leandro is Angelo’s father. Therefore, Angelo must be
Leandro’s son.

2. Mathematical Inferences – arguments that follow from

the truths of mathematics
Example: Since there are more people in the world that there
are hair strands on your head, the world population is greater
than the hair strands on your head.

3. Logical Inferences – arguments that follow from the

truths of logic. Example: If you work hard, then you will