BUSINESS LOGIC REVIEWER
 Logic does not investigate the truth as the
What is Logic?
Nominal Definition
- comes from the Greek word logos, which
means thought, word, speech, or science.
Real Definition
- order and consistency
The Formal Object of Logic
- the science and art of correct thinking
Elements in the definition of Logic
- is the science and art of correct thinking
Science- a body of organized methods of tried and
true knowledge which is concerned with the
rectitude of reasoning.
Art- argument in logic is done beautifully with
habitual validity, ease, clarity, correctness,
objectivity, and certainty.
Of correct thinking- it conforms to the rules of
correctness; in an argument, premises have
sufficient grounds as basis for conclusion.
Thinking
- is associated with some mental processes like
memorizing, simple recall and the like.
- is also the process of drawing out conclusions
from previously known data. We call it
reasoning or inference.
2 Criteria for a Mental Process to be Considered
Thinking (Cruz, 1995)
1. When the objective is truth
2. When the truth we have becomes the
nucleus of further knowledge
Correct Thinking
- a process of thinking or reasoning that
follows the right procedure. However, this
reasoning may not always be true.
certainty of the data but rather focuses on
the correct operation of thinking.
 Correct thinking and true knowledge are two
different things.
 True knowledge deals with knowledge
which conforms to reality.
 It leads man in the search for truth from the
known towards the unknown and from the
easiest towards the most difficult.
 An argument is sound when it is both valid
and true.
Ex.
1. All men are rational,
Christian is a man, correct and true
Christian is rational.
2. All men are rational,
Christian is a man, correct and false
Christian is rational.
 Logic deals with reasoning.
 The soundness of reasoning is the one that is
important.
 The first concern of logic is validity.
 An argument is sound when it is both valid
and true.
Ex.
1. All plants need water.
All flowers are plants.
Therefore, all flowers need water.
2. All lawyers are honest.
Some defenders of our rights are
lawyers.
Therefore, some defenders of our rights
are honest.
- The inference is not sound, but valid.
- Since not all lawyers are honest, the
proposition is not true.
A proposition is true when it describes an actual
state of affairs. Therefore, even though the
inference is valid, it is not sound, because it is
not both valid and true.
 In contrast, logic is generally interested only in
the correctness or validity of reasoning. It is not
concerned with the truth or falsity of the
premise or the conclusion.
Ex.
1. All men are rational beings.
Armand is a man.
Therefore, Armand is a rational being.
- sound
2. All animals are rational.
Dogs are rational.
Therefore, dogs are animals
- minor premise, false
3. All plants grow.
Ice factory is a plant.
Therefore, ice factory grows.
- major premise and a conclusion, both false
 All examples, are valid inferences, because
they satisfy the requirements of a correct or
valid inference.
The formal object of logic is the correctness or
validity of reasoning. It also refers to the inner
consistency of the reasoning process. For reasoning
to achieve consistency, it should be in accordance
with the principles and laws which logic teaches.
Importance of Logic
1. It develops a habit of clear thinking.
2. It is a guide in the process of drawing
conclusions.
3. It emphasizes the importance of definition.
4. It helps us interpret facts adequately.
5. It cultivates the habit of looking for the
assumptions presupposed in reasoning.
6. It trains us in the technique of determining
implications.
7. It helps us detect fallacies, avoid self-
deceptions or paralogisms and combat
sophisms.
8. It helps us persuade and convince others.
9. It stimulates scientific thinking and love of
truth.
10. It familiarizes us with terminology and
problems in Philosophy.
Types of Logic (Based on the Form and Content)
Formal Logic
- it is concerned with the aspects of form, its
structure, correctness, sequence, and the
following of the rules.
Ex. Peter is a student.
- our concern is how it is structured or built to
create a sound reasoning.
Material Logic
- it is concerned with the subject matter,
content or truth.
Ex. Peter is a man.
- we can ask: is Peter really a man as he exists
in reality? If so, then the statement is true.
 Reasoning is formally valid if it conforms
with all the rules of Logic; it becomes
formally not valid if one or many rules are
violated.
 Reasoning is materially true if there is
conformity with reality; it becomes materially
false when there is no conformity with
reality.
 A good and sound reasoning then is one that
is formally valid and at the same time,
materially true.
Inductive Logic
- it is one in which the arguments flows from
specific to general or particular to universal.
Ex.
All Filipinos are industrious. (general)
Peter is a Filipino. (particular)
Therefore, Peter is industrious. (particular)
These are all human beings. (Universal)
Deductive Logic
- it is one in which the premise flow logically
into the conclusion.
Ex. This chalk falls. This book…This pen.. This
eraser.. Therefore, bodily objects fall.
All humans are mortal. (Universal)
Socrates is human. (Particular)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (Particular)
Simple Apprehension
- It is the process through which the mind
grasps the objective reality as it is outside the
mind.
Example of terms
man, mortal, Peter
Judgement
- It is the process through which the mind can
assert or deny something.
Example of proportions
Every man is mortal.
Peter is a man.
Reasoning
- It is the process through which the mind
arrives at a conclusion from previously
possessed judgements.
Example of reasoning
Every man is mortal.
But, Peter is a man.
Therefore, Peter is mortal
Identifying Arguments
- An argument in the logical sense is a piece
of reasoning in support of a conclusion.
PREMISE- AND CONCLUSION-INDICATORS
- (conclusion) since (premises)
- (conclusion) for (premises)
- (conclusion) because (premises)
- (conclusion) as (premises)
- (conclusion) for the following reasons
(premises)
- (premises) therefore (conclusion)
- (premises) so (conclusion)
- (premises) hence (conclusion)
- (premises) thus (conclusion)
- (premises) consequently (conclusion)
- (premises) it follows that (conclusion)
Ad Hominem Fallacy
- An attempt to undermine a claim or position
by appealing to negative or seemingly
prejudicial features of the character, views,
interests or circumstances of one or more
persons who support that claim or position
when those factors are of little or no
relevance to its truth or falsity.
Fallacy of Irrelevant Appeal to Authority
- The argument appeals to a possible
“authority,” it advances its conclusion on the
strength of the claim that X accepts or
endorses the proposition concerned (or
something that supports that proposition).
Fallacy of Irrelevant Appeal to Popular Opinion
- The argument advances its conclusion on the
ground that popular opinion agrees with, or
tends to favor, the proposition concerned.
Thus the argument is a variation on “Most
people think that P; therefore P.”
Fallacy of Irrelevant Emotional Appeal
- The emotions concerned are not relevant to
the question of whether the conclusion is true
or false.
Argument from Ignorance Fallacy
- In the circumstances, the absence of a proof
of the proposition opposed to the conclusion
does not favor the truth of the conclusion.
Fallacy of Ambiguity
- The argument involves an ambiguous word
or expression that is used in different ways at
different points.
 - This ambiguity makes a difference, i.e., any
appearance of strength or validity disappears
when the argument re-expressed without the
use of ambiguous words or expressions.
Fallacy of False Dilemma
- The argument depends on a “dilemma,” i.e., a
premise or background assumption that one
of a certain set of alternatives is or must be
the case. In the simplest examples this takes
the form of an explicit “Either ... or ...”
premise.
Straw Man Fallacy
- An attack on someone’s position that depends
on a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of
that position which makes it easier to
criticize, or an attack against a merely
apparent opponent with an easily refutable
position.
Fallacy of Circular Argument
- An argument in which the conclusion is
presupposed by one or more premises in such
a way that anyone who understood those
premises and the conclusion could not accept
the premises without accepting the
conclusion independently.
Deductive Validity and Non deductive Strength
An argument is deductively valid if EITHER
 if its premises were all true then its
conclusion would have to be true; OR
 it is not logically possible for all its premises
to be true and its conclusion false.
We can describe an argument as a deductive
argument if it is deductively valid or is intended to
be deductively valid.
Possible Patterns of Valid Argument
- All premises true, conclusion true.
- One or more premises false, conclusion
false.
- One or more premises false, conclusion true.
An argument is invalid (i.e., deductively invalid) if
it is not valid
Possible Patterns of Invalid Arguments
- All premises true, conclusion true.
- One or more premises false, conclusion
false.
- One or more premises false, conclusion true.
- All premises true, conclusion false.
False Cause Fallacy
- Argument for a causal relationship on the
basis of a correlation between the relevant
factors that is too limited or might be
accidental.
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
- Inductive projection based on a sample that
is too unrepresentative to make the
conclusion probable.
Only Explanation Fallacy
- Argument to the effect that a proposition is
true because it gives the only available
explanation of one or more states of affairs
specified by its premises
Fallacy of Insufficient Similarity
- Analogical argument in which there is
clearly not enough relevant similarity
between the object of the analogy and the
analogue to provide reasonable support for
the conclusion.