CHAPTER 5.

CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITIONS
Reported by: Reyjohn Lodias
Mary Therese Gabrielle Estioko
Law 1 – E
5.1 The Theory of Deduction
5.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions
5.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
5.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

Reported By: Reyjohn Lodias

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
It is one whose premises are
claimed to provide conclusive
grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. (copi and cohen,
2013)
The theory of deduction aims to
explain the relations of premises
and conclusion in valid
arguments. (copi and cohen,
2013)
TWO RELATED THEORIES OF DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

- Deals mainly with arguments based on the relations of
classes of objects to one another. (copi and cohen, 2013)

-is the method of representing logical expressions through

the use of symbols and variables.
 ***In order to achieve the greater precision by
eliminating ambiguous words and phrases from ordinary
language and carefully defining those that remain. The
basic strategy is to create a narrowly restricted formal
system—an artificial, rigidly structured logical language
within which the validity of deductive arguments can be
discerned with ease; - this strategy is the ancient but
worthy method of categorical logic.
 Categorical propositions are the fundamental
elements, the building blocks of argument, in the
classical account of deductive logic.
 A proposition that can be analyzed as being about
classes or categories, affirming or denying that
one class, S (subject) is included in some other
class, P (predicate), in whole or in part.
 The basic unit of meaning or content in the deductive
system. It is usually expressed grammatically as a noun or
noun phrase; each categorical term designates a class of
things.

Class (copi and cohen. 2013)

 The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
 Example: birds, fish, human etc.
EXAMPLE:
Dogs are friendly.
Joseph walks very fast.
Some men are not cheaters.
PARTS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
 SUBJECT
-It is the class that is being talk about
-It is usually the first term in the proposition
Example: Eastan lee is a gentleman.

 PREDICATE
-It is the term that is being said about the subject.
Example: Fernando is a gentleman.
 COPULA
- Any form of the verb “to be” that serves to connect the
subject term and the predicate term of a categorical
proposition.
Example: Eastan lee is gentleman.
 QUANTIFIERS
-the words which specify the quantity of the subject class which
is related to the predicate class.
Example: All men from block 1-e are thoughtful.
***Quantifiers are either Universal or Particular
a) Universal
-In categorical proposition, it is expressed by the word “all”
and “No”
-This would mean that each and every member of the
subject class is included or excluded from the Predicate
class/term.
Example: All men are pigs.
No men are pigs.
b) Particular
-In categorical proposition, it is expressed by the word
“Some”.
-It would mean that not all members of the subject
class is included/contained or excluded from the
Predicate class.
example: Some men are Pigs.
Some men are not Pigs.
 QUALITY
-The kind of affirmation made by the proposition.
-It is either “Affirmative” or “Negative” on whether it affirms or
denies class membership.
a) Affirmative
-the proposition affirms the Quality or membership of the
class.
Example: Daniel is a genius.
Some water are salty.
b) Negative
-the proposition denies the Quality or membership
of the class.

Example: No water are salty.

Some water are not salty.
 DISTRIBUTION
-is an attribute of the terms (subject and predicate) of
propositions.
-the quantity associated with either the subject or predicate
term of a categorical proposition .
-In categorical proposition, It is either Distributed or
Undistributed.
****Thus, the Subject of a proposition can either be distributed or
non, as well as its Predicate term.
a) Distributed
-A categorical term is said to be distributed if the categorical
proposition that contains it says something about all members of
that categorical term.
Example: Jestoni is a man of his word.
**subject: distributed (The proposition says something about all
parts of jestoni, It does not exclude)
**Predicate: Undistributed
b) Undistributed
-It is undistributed if the categorical proposition that contains it does not
say something about all members of that categorical term.
Example: Allen is a man of his word.
**subject: distributed
**Predicate: Undistributed (The proposition does not make a claim
about every member of a person who is a man of his word; It does not
claim that all person who is a man of his world is named Allen)
EXAMPLE
 No man is an island.
Subject: Man
Predicate: Island
Copula: is
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Negative
Distribution: subject: Distributed
Predicate: Distributed
I. UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITION / “A” PROPOSITION
-It is expressed in the standard form [All “s” are “P”].
-In these kind of proposition, we assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class

Example: All cats are animals.

-----This would mean that the whole class of Cats are
contained or included in the class of Animals.
 “A” Proposition’s Venn diagram.

***This diagram entails that there are no members of the subject class that
is not a part or member of the predicate class which is indicated by the
shaded portion.

***shaded portion of the a Venn diagram (logic) indicates exclusion.

II. UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITION/ “E” PROPOSITION
-It is expressed in the standard form [No “s” are “P”].
-In this kind of proposition, we assert that No members of one
class is contained or included in another class.
Example: No cats are Animals.
----This would mean that the No member of the class of
Cats are contained or included in the class of Animals.
 “E” Proposition’s Venn diagram.

*****This diagram indicates that no member of the subject class

is contained or included in the predicate class as indicated by the
shaded portion.
III. PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITION/ “I” PROPOSITION
-It is expressed in the standard form [Some “S” are “P”].
-In this kind of proposition, we assert that some members of one
class are included in another class.
Example: Some cats are Animals.
----This would mean that at least one member of the class of
cats are contained or included in the class of animals.
**the Quantifier “Some” in Logic means “at least one”
 “I” Proposition’s Venn diagram.

*****This diagram indicates that at least one member of the subject class is also a
member or contained in the predicate class as indicated by the “x” mark.
*****”x”
mark symbolized “some” which denotes to “at least one”.
IV. PARTICULAR NEGATIVE CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITION/ “O” PROPOSITION
-It is expressed in the standard form [Some “S” are not “P”].
-In this proposition, we assert that some or at least one member of
one class is excluded from the whole of another class.
Example: Some cats are not Animals.
----This would mean that at least one member of the class of Cats
are not contained or it is excluded from the whole class of Animals.
 “O” Proposition’s Venn diagram.

******This diagram indicates that at least one member of the

subject class is not contained or included in the predicate class.
EXAMPLE:
 No bulldogs are dangerous.
 Light rays travel at a fixed speed.
 Some brotherhood organizations are not
united.
 All cakes are delicious.
 Some vegetables are green.
SUMMARY
 The Standard form of Categorical Proposition is expressed in
the form:
Quantifier-Subject-Copula-Predicate
Distribution of subject Distribution of
Form Type Quality Quantity
class predicate class

All S is P A Affirmative Universal Distributed Undistributed

No S is P E Negative Universal Distributed Distributed

Some S is P I Affirmative Particular Undistributed Undistributed

Some S is not P O Negative Particular Undistributed Distributed

Categorical Propositions Part II
5.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition
5.6 Further Immediate Inference
5.7 Existential Import and the Interpretation of Categorical Propositions

Reported By: Mary Therese Gabrielle B. Estioko

5.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition
 Graphically displays the relationshipe that exist bewteen the four
different standard form categorical propositions: A, E, I, O

 The four relations in the traditional square of opposition may be

characterized as follows:
1. Contradictories
2. Contraries
3. Subcontraries
4. Subalteration
 Contradictories
 Two propositions are said to be contradictories “…if and only if
they both cannot be true and they both cannot be false” (Hall, 2012:
73-74).

 A and O propositions are contradictories and E and I propositions are

also Contradictories
 “Thus, if a certain A proposition is given as true, the corresponding
O proposition is false, and vice versa, and if a certain A proposition is
given as false, the corresponding O proposition is true, and vice
versa. The same relation holds between the E and I propositions”
(Hurley, 2000: 226).
 Contradictories
 Example
 A proposition: “All executives are intelligent people.”
 O proposition: “Some executives are not intelligent
people.”
 If the A proposition is true, then I must follow that the O proposition is false.
 Contraries
 “Two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot
both be true – that is, if the truth of one entails the falsity of
the other” though they could both be false (Copi and Cohen, 2013: 194).
 Exists only between the two universal propositions, the
affirmative A proposition and the negative E proposition (Hall,
2012: 74).
 Contraries
 Example 1:
 A proposition: “All cats are animals”
 E proposition: “No cats are animals”
If the A proposition is true, then the E proposition is
false.
 Contraries
 Example 2: (note that corresponding A and E propositions, while
contrary are not contrdictory. While they can both be true, they
can also both be false.)
 A proposition: “All animals are cats”
 E proposition: “No animals are cats”
 Both the A and E propositions are false.
Subcontraries
 The corresponding particular affirmative and negative
propositions, namely, the I and O propositions are said to be
subcontraries.
 According to Hall (2012) “two propositions are subcontraries
if both propositions cannot be false, even though both can be
true” (p. 74)
Subcontraries
 Example:
 If we are given a false O proposition:“Some cats are not pets”
 The corresponding I proposition:
“Some cats are pets” must be true. One affirms and the other
denies.
 Subcontraries
 Note: that it is possible for both propositions to be true.
 Example:
 “Some nations are democracies,” and “Some nations are not
democracies” can both be true.
Subalternation
 According to Copi and Cohen (2013) “when two propositions
have the same subject and the same predicate terms, and agree in
quality…but differ in quantity…, they are called corresponding
propositions (p. 195).
 It is the relation between a universal proposition and the
corresponding particular proposition with the same quality
(affirmative or negative) (Hall: 2012: 74).
 The universal proposition is referred to as the superaltern
 The particular proposition is referred to as the subaltern
Subalternation
 In subalternation, the superaltern (A or E) implies the truth of the
subaltern (I or O).
 Consequently, the subaltern (I or O) implies the falsity of the
superaltern (A or E).
 However, the truth of the subaltern does not imply the truth of
the superaltern, nor does the falsity of the superaltern carry
downward to the subaltern.
Subalternation
 Example 1:
 If the A proposition “All human beings are mortal” is true, it
must follow that “Some (at least one) human being is mortal” is
also true.
 Example 2:
 If “No human beings are pigs” is true, then “Some (at least one)
human being is not a pig” is also true.
We see the that:
(1) Contradictories cannot both be false and cannot both be true;
(2) Contraries cannot both be true, but both may be false;
(3) Subcontraries cannot both be false, but both may be true and
(4) subalternation, if the superaltern is true, the subaltern must be
true; if the subaltern is false, the superaltern must be false
(Hall, 2012: 75).
Four relations in the traditional square of opposition

 Rules to remember:
1. Contradictory: opposite truth value
2. Contrary: at least one is false (not both true)
3. Subcontrary: at least one is true (not both false)
4. Subalternation: truth flows downward, falsity flows upwards
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Inferences from the Traditional Square
of Opposition
 A number of very useful immediate inferences may be readily drawn from the
information embedded in the traditional square of opposition. Given the truth or
falsehood of anyone of the four standard-from categorical propositions, it will be seen
that the truth or falsehood of some or all of the others can be inferred immediately.
 If A is true: E is false; I is true; O is false
 If E is true: A is false; I is false; O is true
 If I is true: E is false; A and O are undetermined
 If O is true: A is false; E and I are undetermined
 If A is false: O is true; E and I are undetermined
 If E is false: I is true; A and O are undetermined
 If I is false: A is false; E is true; O is true
 If O is false: A is true; E is false; I is true
 Table of Inferences
If true: A All men are wicked creatures. If false:
false E No men are wicked creatures. undetermined
true I Some men are wicked creatures. undetermined
false O Some men are not wicked creatures. true

If true: E No men are wicked creatures. If false:

false A All men are wicked creatures. undetermined
false I Some men are wicked creatures. true
true O Some men are not wicked creatures. undetermined
Table of Inferences
If true: I Some men are wicked creatures. If false:
undetermined A All men are wicked creatures. false
false E No men are wicked creatures. true
undetermined O Some men are not wicked creatures. true

If true: O Some men are not wicked creatures. If false:

false A All men are wicked creatures. true
undetermined E No men are wicked creatures. false
undetermines I Some men are wicked creatures. true
5.6. Further Immediate Inferences
 There are three other immediate inferences that are not directly
associated with the square of opposition that have to be
considered.
 These are:
1. conversion,
2. obversion, and
3. contraposition.
Conversion
 “In general, we say that the converse of a given proposition
is obtained by exchanging the S-term and the P-term” (Hall, 2012:
78).

Source: Hurley (2000)

Conversion
 Conversion is valid in the case of the E proposition and the I
proposition.
 An example of an E conversion: “No men are angels” is
converted to “No angels are men”
 An example of an I conversion: “Some politicians are liars,”
and “Some liars are politicians” are logically equivalent.
(either can be validly inferred from the other)
Conversion
 In general, the conversion of an O proposition is not valid (Copi and
Cohen, 2013: 199).

 Clearly if the O proposition “Some animals are not dogs” is true, it

does not follow that “Some dogs are not animals” is true.
 An O proposition and its converse are not, in general, logically
equivalent. The first proposition is true, but its converse is false.
 Conversion
 The converse of an A proposition is valid only by limitation.
 By a combination of subalternation and conversion, we can make the
converse of the A proposition valid by limitation.
 If we know that “All S is P,” then by subalternation we can conclude that the
corresponding I proposition, “Some S is P,” is true, and by conversion that “Some
P is S.”
 Example: “All dogs are animals”
by subalternation “Some dogs are animals”
by conversion“Some animals are dogs”
 the inference from an A proposition to its limited converse is valid, and without
this limitation, the inference is invalid
Source: Hurley (2000)
Table of Valid Conversions
Convertend Converse
A: All S is P I: Some P is S. (by limitation)
E: No S is P E: No P is S
I: Some S is P I: Some P is S
O: Some S is not P Conversion not valid
Complement
 According to Copi and Cohen (2013) it “…is the collection of all
things that do not belong to the original class.”
 For example, the complement of the class of dogs is the class of
everything that is not a dog.
 the complement term is usually formed by simply attaching the
prefix ‘non-’ to the term
 Thus, the complement of dog is non-dog
Complement

the circle represents the class of dogs, then everything outside

the circle represents the class of non-dogs (cats, fishes, trees,
and so on)

Source: Hurley (2000)

 Obversion
 “to obvert a proposition…change its quality…and replace the
predicate term with its complement” (Copi and Cohen, 2013: 201)
 The inference from any of the four standard-form propositions to
its obverse is valid (Hall, 2012: 80)

Source: Hurley (2000)

Obversion
 The obverse of an A proposition “All S is P” is the E proposition, “No S is
non-P.”
 The E proposition “No S is P” obverts to “All S is non-P.”
 The I proposition “Some S is P” logically implies its obverse “Some S is
not non-P.”
 The O proposition “Some S is not P” logically implies its obverse “Some
S is non-P.”
 Note, however, that the subject term remains the same, and so does the
quantity of the proposition being obverted.
Source: Hurley (2000)
 Table of Valid Obversions
Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P E: No S is non-P
E: No S is P A: All S is non-P
I: Some S is P O: Some S is not non-P
O: Some S is not P I: Some S is non-P
Contraposition
 There are two steps in order to derive the contrapositive of a
given standard-form proposition
(1) switching the subject and predicate terms and
(2) replacing the subject and predicate terms with their term
complements

Source: Hurley (2000)

Contraposition
 Contraposition is valid for both A propositions and O
propositions.
 An example of an A proposition: the contrapositive of the A
proposition “All students are wisdom seekers” is “All non-
wisdom seekers are non-students.”
 An example of an O proposition: from the O proposition
“Some pets are not cats” its contrapositive is “Some non-cats
are not non-pets”
 Contraposition
 In general, the contraposition of I propositions is invalid.
 The true I proposition, “Some citizens are nonlegislators” has its
contrapositive the false proposition “Some legislators are non-citizens.”
 The reason for its invalidity becomes evident when we try to derive the
contrapositive of the I proposition by successively obverting,
converting, and obverting
 The obverse of the I proposition “Some S is P,” is the O proposition
“Some S is not non-P.” The next step is to take the converse of the
obverse. However, we have discussed earlier that an O proposition and
its converse are not logically equivalent. Hence, in general, the
contraposition of an I proposition is not a valid form of inference.
 Contraposition
 The immediate inference of an E proposition to its contrapositive
is not a valid form of inference without an appropriate
qualification which is by limitation.
 Contraposition by limitation is done by obverting, then by
converting, and by obverting again.
 If we have the E proposition “No S is P,” and obvert it, we obtain
the A proposition, “All S is non-P.” Subsequently, we get the I
proposition “Some non-P is S.” Obverting this, we attain the O
proposition “Some non-P is not non-S.”
Source: Hurley (2000)
Table of Valid Obversions
Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P A: All non-P is non-S
E: No S is P O: Some non-P is not non-
S (by limitation)
I: Some S is P Contraposition not
valid
O: Some S is not P O: Some non-P is not non-
S
 Memory Aid
 To help remember when conversion and contraposition yield
logically equivalent results, note the second and third vowels of
the words.
C O NV E R S I O N
-conversion works for E and I
C O NT R A P O S IT I O N
-contraposition works for A and O
 5.7 Existential Import and the Interpretation of
Categorical Propositions
 A proposition is said to have existential import if it asserts the
existence of objects of some kind.
 The problem with existential import presents some problems for the
relationships suggested by the traditional square of opposition.
 Particular propositions, the I and O propositions, surely do have
existential import.
 The I proposition “Some flowers are roses” asserts that there exists at least one
flower which is a rose.
 The O proposition “Some dogs are not companions” says that there exists at least
one dog that is not a companion.
 Existential Import and the Interpretation of
Categorical Propositions

 In Aristotelian logic, I and O propositions follow validly from A

and E propositions by subalteration. Hence, Aristotelian logic
requires A and E propositions to have existential import.
 As a rule, “…a proposition with existential import cannot be
derived validly from another that does not have such import” (Copi and
Cohen, 2013: 210).
Review
 Rules to remember:
1. Contradictory: opposite truth value
2. Contrary: at least one is false (not both true)
3. Subcontrary: at least one is true (not both false)
4. Subalternation: truth flows downward, falsity flows upwards
 A and E propositions in the traditional square of opposition are
contraries. We discussed earlier that contraries cannot both be
true, but can both be false. However, if both A and E propositions
have existential import, then both propositions can be true. Take a
look at the example given by Hall (2012):
 Example:
 A proposition: “All the money in my wallet is yours.”
 E proposition: “No money in my wallet is yours.”
 If we assume that the A and E propositions have existential import – that is, that
there is money in my wallet – then both the A and the E propositions are true
when there is no money in my wallet.
 A and O propositions with the same subject and predicate terms
are contradictories, and so they can neither be true or false at the
same time. However, if A and O propositions do have existential
import, then both contradictories could be false.
 Example:
 A proposition: “All inhabitants of Mars are blond.”
 O proposition: “Some inhabitants of Mars are not blond.”
 If they have existential import, we assert that there are inhabitants in Mars, then
we say that both these propositions are false if Mars has no inhabitants.
 Boolean Interpretation
 In the late 19th Century, mathematician and logician George Boole
proposed a resolution to this dilemma by denying that universal
propositions have existential import.
 This had the following effects:
1. I and O propositions have existential import;
2. A and O propositions and E and I propositions with the same subject and
predicate terms retain their relationship as contradictories;
3. Since A and E propositions have no existential import, subalternation is
generally not valid;
4. Contraries are eliminated because A and E propositions can now both be
true when the subject class is empty. Similarly, subcontraries are eliminated
because I and O propositions can now be both false when the subject class is
empty;
5. Some immediate inferences are preserved: conversion for E and I
propositions, contraposition for A and O propositions, and
obversion for any proposition. However, conversion by limitation
and contraposition by limitation are no longer generally valid.
6. Any argument that relies on the mistaken assumption of existence
commits the existential fallacy (Copi and Cohen, 2013: 213).
7. The result is to undo the relations along the sides of the traditional
square of opposition but to leave the diagonal, contradictory
relations in force.
The Modern Square of Opposition
5.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions

Reported By: Reyjohn Lodias

RATIONALE:
FOR CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF MODERN
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION.
BOOLEAN INTERPRETATION OF
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
Notion and Assumption:
Depends heavily on the notion of an empty class.
Where:
An empty class is represented by the symbol Zero
(0).
*****“S” has no member/empty (S=0); otherwise (S≠0)
*****“P” has no member (P=0); otherwise (P≠0)
IT’S APPLICATION TO CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION:
-Where each of two classes is already designated by a symbol, the class of all things that
belongs to them can be represented by placing their symbol together to show their
relationship.

Example:
Pretty (p)
Pretty Woman (product)
Woman (w)
SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF “E”
PROPOSITION
Form: “No S is P”
Assertion:
No members of the class “s” are
members of the class “P”
Symbolic representation: SP=0
Example: No man (m) are Pigs(p). mp=0
SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF “I”
PROPOSITION
Form: “Some S is P”.

Assertion: At least one member of the class “s” is also a

member of the class “p”.

Symbolic representation: SP≠0

Example: Some men (m) are pigs (p). mp≠0

SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF “A” AND
“O” PROPOSITION
******in order to symbolize the “A” proposition and “O”
proposition, we must use the method of class complement (which
are utilized in obversion).

****All S is P --------- No S is non P (“E” FORM)

****Some S is not P ---- Some S is non-P (“I” FORM”)

“A” PROPOSITION

Obverted form: No S is non P .

Assertion: There are no member of class S that
are not a member of the class P.
Symbolic representation: SP=0
Example: No man (m) are non-pigs (p). mp=0
“O” PROPOSITION
Obverted form: Some S is non P .
Assertion: At least one member of class S does not
belong to the class of P.
Symbolic representation: SP≠0
Example: Some men (m) are non-pigs (p). mp≠0
DIAGRAM
 References
Cohen, I. M., & Cohen, C. (2013). Introduction to Logic (13th Edition ed.).
Philippines: Pearson Education South Asia PTE. LTD.
Hall, R. L. (2012). Logic: A Brief Introduction. DeLand, Florida: Stetson
University.
Hurley, P. (2000). A Concise Introduction To Logic (7th Edition ed.). Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Hurley, P. (2012). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th Edition ed.). Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Parsons, T. (2012, August 21). The Traditional Square of Opposition. Retrieved
January 4, 2015, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/