Chapter two

Basic Concepts of Logic

By: Yohannes E. (Assi. Professor of Phil.)
 1.1.1 Definition and Purposes of Logic

 comes from a Greek word logos, which means

sentence, discourse, reason, truth and rule.
 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating
arguments.
 the science that evaluates arguments.
 Logic is a study that is supposed to help us
differentiate b/n good and bad kinds of reasoning.
In this sense, logic can be called a discourse to
inculcate critical thinking in us.
Cont.
• Logic is the science and art of correct thinking.
• Science- a systematized body of logical truths
and principles governing correct thinking.
• As an art, logic is a “techne” and it teaches how
to make a good argument.
o Reasoning: is a special kind of thinking in
which problems are solved, in which inference
takes place, that is, in which conclusions are
drawn from premises.
o Inference: is a process by which one
proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the
basis of some other proposition(s)
 Purposes of Logic
To effectively evaluate the arguments’ of others.
To construct good error free arguments that are
persuasive.
To avoid committing common types of mistakes in
reasoning.
 To effectively communicate our view points to
others.
1.2 What is an Argument?

• An argument is not: mere verbal fight

Cont.
Argument: group of statements, one or more of
which is/are intended to prove or support another
statement.
By argument we mean a process of supporting
a thesis (called the conclusion) with reasons
(called premises).
• Statement: a declarative sentence/utterance that
could be viewed as either true or false.
What is a sentence?

• A sentence is a collection of words with a

complete thought or meaning.
• Types of sentences that express our thoughts:
 interrogative sentences
 Imperatives
 declarative
Interrogatives (questions)

• Are sentences expressed to seek information.

1. Is she your mother?
2. Did Almaz travel?
3. Which group are you in?
4. Is it raining in Jimma?
5. Where is the professor?
Note: interrogatives are neither true nor false.
Imperatives(commands, request,
directive, instruction)
• Refer to sentences expressed to get someone
to perform an action.
1. Take off you cap. (command)
2. Raise your hand. (instruction, direction)
3. Pass me the marker. (request)
4. Could you direct me to the library? (request)
Note: imperatives have no truth value.
Declarative (statement, proposition,
assertion)
• A sentence that conveys information which can
be either true or false.
1. The exam has been cancelled.
2. A bachelor is sitting at the tree.
3. A bachelor is unmarried adult male.
4. The bachelor has a good conscience.
5. She is a good friend.
NB: only declaratives can be either true or false.
Types of declaratives:

• There are 3 different types of declarative

sentences:
 factual statements
 Value judgment and
 definitions
Factual statement
• Informs by objectively describe what is there
through sense observation.
1) That bachelor sitting under the tree is
sleeping.
2) The president is taller than his opponent.
3) The car knocked down the boy.
4) Almaz is a girl.
5) Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
NB. Being factual doesn’t mean it is true. It
means the truth or falsity of the statement doesn’t
depend on the subject’s viewpoint but on the
object itself.
Value judgment
• Informs by subjectively prescribing or
evaluating how something or someone should
or ought to be.
• They don’t state facts about the object but
rather expresses the view point of the subject.
1) That bachelor has a good conscience.
2) This knife has a good edge.
3) It is wrong to talk back at your supervisor.
4) The wicked driver knocked down the innocent
boy.
5) He is a good boxer.
VJ come in two forms

• Moral value judgments

• Non-moral value judgments
He is a good boxer.
 My phone has a good screen.
Definition

• A definition is a sentence that informs by giving

meaning (defining) to a word.
1) A bachelor is an unmarried man.
2) Pollination is the transfer of Pollen grains
from the anther to the stigma.
3) “even number is any number that is divisible
by two w/o a reminder.”
What is a statement/proposition?

oSome sentences contain more than one

statement and are complete arguments (premise
and conclusion).
With mortgage rates at 30- year lows, you owe it
to yourself to reconsider refinancing your home.
Tricky statements
• Some sentences that look like non-statements are
really statements
• Rhetorical questions: a sentence that has a
grammatical structure of a question, but is meant
to be understood as a statement.
• Don’t you know smoking will kill you? (means:
smoking will kill you).
 Premise and conclusion

• Every argument has premise and conclusion:

• Premises: statements in an argument offered
as evidence or reasons why one should accept
another statement
• Conclusion: the statement that the premises
support/prove
 Identifying premises and conclusion
• Explicit claims contain indicator words that provide clues
that premises or conclusions are put forward.
Premise indicators: as, because, since, for, in view of
that, in as much as, given that, provided that etc.
Conclusion indicators: therefore, thus, hence,
accordingly, it implies that, consequently, it follows that,
wherefore, so etc.
Example: Because the streets here in Jimma are
becoming ridiculously crowded, it is time for us to build a
light rail system.
Finding conclusions w/o indicators

• Implicit claims have implied relationships within the

argument, but don’t have indicator words. Here are some
tips for finding the conclusion.
Find the main issues; determine the author’s
position.
Look at the begging and end; it’s usually there.
See which statement “therefore” fits best in front.
The because trick (fill in the blank): the arguer
believes _(conclusion) because_(premise (s)_
Finding conclusions w/o indicators
• “The indiscriminate use of landmines in rural areas
has been devastating for many Ethiopian
communities. Fertile agricultural lands are turning
into “unusable and uninhabitable” landmine fields.
And the grazing of livestock and domesticated
animals become very dangerous for both the
animals and the people taking care of them- a
labor many often done by children. In addition, the
use of land mines make it very difficult for refugees
to go back to their villages and towns, and, as just
has been mentioned, to go back to their past
activities.”
The Use of Landmines, Alejandro Galindo
Statements that are neither premises nor
conclusion
• Passages that contain arguments sometimes
contain statements that are neither premises nor
conclusion.
• Only statements that are actually intended to
support the conclusion should be included in the list
of premises.
• If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion
or, for example, simply makes a passing comment,
it should not be included within the context of the
argument.
Example

• Socialized medicine is not recommended

because it would result in a reduction in the
overall quality of medical care available to the
average citizen. In addition, it might very well
bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the whole
case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.
1.3 Recognizing Arguments

• An argument is different from other types of

passages.
• Proving makes an argument what it is.
• If a passage doesn’t intend to prove that a
claim is true, then it is not an argument.
• To prove something, a passage must have a
premise and a conclusion showing inference.
 I. Passages Lacking Inferential Claims
• No inference, no argument. These are:
a. Warnings
Eg. Watch out you don’t slip on the ice.
o with a warning, there is no evidence provided to prove
anything.
b. Pieces of Advice
• You should keep a few things in mind before buying a used
car. Test drive the car at varying speeds and conditions,
examine the oil in the crankcase, ask to see service
records, and, if possible, have the engine and power train
checked by a mechanic
Cont.

c. Statements of Belief/opinion
Note: with these, you only have one or more
belief/opinion statements that are unsupported
by any argument and they are not intended to
support any conclusion.

Example: I think a nation such as ours, with its moral

traditions and commitments has a further responsibility to
know how we became drawn into this conflict, and to
learn the lessons it has to teach us for future.
d. Loosely Associated Statements
• may be about the same general subject, but they lack a
claim that one of them is proved by the others;
Example: Not to honor men of worth will keep the people
from contention; not to value goods that are hard to come
by will keep them from theft; not to display what is
desirable will keep them from being unsettled of mind.
E. A Report: consists of a group of statements that
convey information about some situation
or event.
Example: “oil prices dropped today, and so did gas
prices”.
• Make no claim that they imply or support
anything(meaning there is no conclusion).
 An Expository Passage

• is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence

followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic
sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence
but only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no
argument.
• Example: There is a stylized relation of artist to mass
audience in the sports, especially in baseball. Each player
develops a style of his own- the swagger as he steps to the
plate, the unique windup a pitcher has the clean swinging
and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of
infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind
whatever is done.
 An Illustration
• Examples of a claim; their purpose is not to provide
evidence but simply to provide notable and representative
examples.
Example: many wildflowers are edible. For example,
daisies and day lilies are delicious in salads.
Whole numbers can be represented as fractions. Thus, 2
can be represented as 8/4 and 5 can be represented as
15/3
Be careful, though, because the phrases “for example”
and “for instance” are sometimes used when providing
actual evidence for a claim.
 Conditional statements:

• A conditional statement is an “If… then… “ Statement.

• They often use “if…….then…..” but NOT always
• For example:
When I am hungry, I eat something.
I will be early as long as I get the next sky train.
 Antecedent (another word for the condition).
 Consequent (another word for the outcome).
Arguments vs conditionals

• Conditional statements are not arguments,

• No claim that evidence supports something.
• no claim that either the antecedent or the consequent
presents evidence.
Conditional Argument
If A, then B A
Not claiming the Therefore, B
antecedent is true Premise is true and
implies conclusion
Turning conditional statements into arguments

• Taking the antecedent (first part) of a conditional

statement and saying it is true will make it into an
argument.

Conditional: If I was taller, then I could play basketball.

Argument: I am tall, so I would make a best basketball
player.
 Summery on conditional statements

1. A single conditional statement is not an

argument.
2. Arguments can contain conditionals.
3. The inferential content of a conditional
statement may be re-expressed to form an
argument
Conditionals really can capture
necessary and sufficient conditions.

Sufficient condition Necessary condition

• A is a sufficient • B is a necessary
condition for B condition for A
whenever the whenever A cannot
occurrence of A is that occur without the
is needed for the occurrence of B.
occurrence of B.
 Cont.
The antecedent is always a sufficient condition in a conditional.
The consequent is always the necessary condition in a
conditional.
If x is a square, then x is a rectangle.
If A(x), then B(x)- general structure.
A(x) is a sufficient condition for B(x).
i.e. x being a square is sufficient to conclude x is a rectangle.
it means:
Being a square is a sufficient condition for being a rectangle.
Being a rectangle is a necessary condition for being a square.
Examples
• Hydrogen is a __________condition for water.
• Being a dog is a ___________ condition for being an animal.
• Lighting a match is a _________ condition for creating a flame.
• Winning a lottery is a ________ condition for becoming rich.

If I have a driver’s license, then I passed a driver’s test.

means
Passing a driver’s test is a necessary condition for
having a driver’s license.
Something can be:

• Necessary but not sufficient (oxygen for water).

• Sufficient but not necessary (if red then it is a
color).
• Both necessary and sufficient (having a spine is
required to be a vertebrate & is all that is
required).
Why does it matter?

• Very important for clarifying philosophical

concepts (eg. Knowledge, in ethics- DNA for a
human person).

• Many fallacies arise because this distinction is

misunderstood(e.g, the fallacy of affirming the
consequent).
Explanations:
• Tries to show why something is the case (not argue that it is the
case).
• Usually offers up a causal explanation for something that
is already accepted as true.

oExplanandum: what is explained (the event)

oExplanans: the explanation (the cause).

Example: Almazgot sick because she ate too much

Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg.
Capital punishment is wrong because it is
murder. Argument
 Argument Vs Explanation
Argument
• Some claims (A) give a
justification for believing that
something (B) is the case.
1) You should wash your hands
before eating because
unwashed hands may carry
dangerous bacteria.
2) Global warming is probably
real b/c it is unlikely that such
a large portion of the scientific
community would be false.
Explanation
• Some claims (A) give
information about why
something (B) happened or is
the case.
1) He probably got sick b/c he
didn’t wash his hands
before eating.
2) Global warming is occurring
largely b/c greenhouse
gases block release of heat
from the atmosphere.
Con.

Argument Explanation

Premises Accepted fact Explanans

Claimed to shed
Claimed to prove light on

Conclusion Explanandum Accepted fact

 Arguments Vs explanation
(How to tell their differences)
• The common-knowledge test
If it points at something that is common knowledge, it is
probably an explanation.
Example: “the moon appears to rise and set in our sky
because it is actually revolving around the earth”
• The past- event test
If it points at a past event, it is probably an explanation.
Example: “the US entered to WWII largely because of
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor”
Note the following

• An explanation tells you why something happened.

• An argument tells you should believe in something.
• An argument has something to prove, explanation
doesn’t.
• An argument appeals to reason.
• explanations appeal to facts.
• Knowledge is to argument; understanding is to an
explanation.
 2.4 Types of Argument

Inductive: Is an
Deductive: an argument where the
argument in which truth of the premises
the truth of the gives good reason to
premises absolutely believe the
guarantees the conclusion, but
truth of the doesn’t absolutely
guarantee the
conclusion.
conclusion.
Misconception
• DAs go from the general to the specific/ particular.
• IAs go from the specific/particular to the general.
They can do that:
All males are mortals (general)
I am a male
Therefore, I am mortal (particular)
The last two winter days were cold (particular)
Therefore, all winter days were cold (general)
But they can also do the exact opposite

Lincoln was president from 18 61 – 1865 ( particular)

So, every one born while he was president was born in
the 1800s ( general)
I have got A’s in all my classes so far (general)
Therefore, I will get an A in this class (particular)
Two features of DAs get to know
closer
• You can’t make any new mistakes.
• The only way for the conclusions of a DA to
be false is if one of your assumptions is false.
• If you believe sth false, then your conclusion
ends up false.
• If your assumptions are true, your
conclusions are guaranteed to be true.
• DAs never introduce falsehood, if they were
not already there.
Cont.
• The validity or invalidity of a deductive
argument is determined only by looking
at the form of an argument, ignoring its
content.
• We can see sth is a good argument w/o
any prior theoretical assumptions about
the content matter.
Inductive argument
• The truth of the premises make the
conclusion likely, but it doesn’t guarantee.
• In science we have some limited data and
draw a general conclusion from those data.
Make the conclusion likely, but never make
certain.
Induction and background theories
• In order to see whether IA is any good, you
always need to use background theories.
• We can’t use induction to drive theories
from neutral data.
• We are always already relying on
theoretical beliefs
• Scientific theories don’t just depend on the
observation, they also depend on some
presuppositions or even prejudices.
example

• I put 25 frogs in the freezer for a

week, and all of them died
so, all frogs die when they are put
in the freezer for a week
• No matter how many observations we
have done, it is still possible that the
next observation is going to be d/t.
• Induction involves some risk
Logical form
• I did A 25 times and every time B happened
so, every time I will do A, B will happen
I put my hand on a hot stove 25 times and
every time it hurts
So, every time I am going to put my hand on
a hot stove, it will hurt
• It is a fairly good argument
Example 2
I asked 25 people a question in Amharic and
every time they answered me in Amharic.
So, every time I will ask someone a question
in Amharic, they will answer in Amharic.
How to assess IAs
• There are several things we need to know
about the content of the argument.
Specifically, we need to know at least two
things:
1.How probable it is the things we are
interested in behave uniformly
2.Data that represent the subject matter as a
whole, and not just a special part of it.
implication
• IAs in which we draw general conclusions
from our observations can only be judged
based on certain background theories.
• We already need to know a lot about frogs,
human bodies, or linguistic communities
before we can decide whether our data are
good enough to draw a general conclusion
about any of this subjects
Induction & science
• Scientists can’t just take data and draw
conclusions from those data in a completely
neutral way that is acceptable to everyone.
• A scientist will always be a bit biased or
always be looking at the world from a certain
perspective.
• There is no such a thing as a completely
neutral scientist who doesn’t have any
background theory or opinions about the
world who looks only at the data.
Grounds to consider

• The occurrence of special indicator words

• The actual strength of the inferential link b/n
premises and conclusion
• Style of argumentation
Inductive reasoning indicator words

• Probable/improbable
• Likely/unlikely
• Plausible/implausible to suppose that
• Reasonable to conclude/assume that
• One would expect that
• Chances are that
• Odds are that
• It is good bet that
Deductive reasoning indicator words
• Certainly
• Necessarily
• Definitely
• Absolutely
• Conclusively
• It logically follows that
• It is logical to conclude that
• This logically implies that
• This entails that
NB: Arguers may use indicator words incorrectly.
Arguments may not contain any indicator words.
 The strict necessity test
• If an argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical
necessity from its premises, the argument should always be
treated as deductive
• Example: Ababe is a father. Therefore Ababe is male

• if an argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict logical

necessity from its premises, the argument should normally
be treated as inductive.
Example: Hellen is a six-year old. Therefore, Hellen cannot
run in one minute flat.
 Common patterns of DA.
• Arguments Based on Mathematics: except
statistics
• Arguments from Definition: meaning of a word
• Syllogism: 2 premises and a conclusion
oCategorical Syllogism: All, No, Some
oDisjunctive syllogism: 2 alternatives (either….or…)
oHypothetical Syllogism: conditional statements
 Inductive argumentation forms/styles

• Prediction: a claim talking about the future

• Reasoning by Analogy: comparison b/n 2 or more
objects or things
• Inductive Generalization: generalization from
sample
• Argument based on Authority: based on expert
opinion
• Arguments based on signs: based on a sign to a
claim about what it symbolizes
• Causal inference: causal to effect, and vise versa.
Concepts for Evaluating Arguments
Arguments are evaluated based on:
1. factual claim- a claim that evidence exists and
2. inferential claim- a claim that the alleged
evidence supports something (or that sth
follows from the alleged evidences).
• IC is more important
• Thus, we will always test the inferential claim first
Cont.
• While we intend to evaluate arguments, we
must raise two separate questions for both
deductive as well as inductive arguments.
• Do the premises support the conclusion-
concerns the correctness of an
argument’s reasoning
• Are all the premises true?
Three steps
for evaluating arguments
1. Test for Deduction and Induction
Do the Conclusion necessarily or probably
follow from the premise?

2. Test for Validity and Strength

Do the Premises really support the conclusion?

3. Test for soundness and Cogency

Are all premises true?
 A valid deductive argument
• it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. In other words:
If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the
truth of the premises.
The truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the
conclusion
One could not accept the premises and deny the
conclusion w/o contradicting oneself.
 Invalid deductive argument
• An invalid argument is a deductive argument
such that if the premises are true, it is possible for
the conclusion to be false.
• In these arguments the conclusion doesn’t follow
with strict necessity from the premises even if it is
claimed to.
Further considerations

• the terms “valid” and “invalid” are absolute

terms.
• There is no middle ground b/n valid and invalid.
• There are no arguments that are “almost” valid”
or “almost invalid”.
• There is only an indirect relation b/n validity and
truth
• Validity and invalidity are determined based on
an argument’s logical form
Valid argument may have…
• True premises and a true conclusion
P: All men are mortal
p: Haile G/sillasie is a man
C: Therefore, Haile G/sellasie is mortal
• False premises and true conclusion
P: The president of Ethiopia must be 35 years or age or
above
P: Haile G/sellasie is the president of Ethiopia
C: Therefore, Haile G/sellasie is 35 years of age or above
• False premises and false conclusion
P: The moon is made of green cheese
P: I am now standing on the moon
C: Therefore, I am now standing on green cheese
Soundness

• Sound= valid + all true premises

• Unsound= valid + at least one false premise
&
All invalid arguments
• A sound argument is a “good” deductive
argument in the strict sense of the term.
Examples of Valid
Sound vs Unsound
• All triangles have 3 side  All sharks are birds
• Isosceles is a triangle  All birds are politicians

 Thus, all Sharks are P.

• Therefore, Iso. has 3 side

 All men are Ethiopians

• All Americans are Ethiopians
 Obama is man
• All Egyptians are Americans  Thus, Obama is Ethiopian.
• Thus, All Egyptians are
Ethiopians
 Table 1.1 Deductive Arguments
Valid Invalid
True All wines are beverages. All wines are beverages.
premises Chardonnay is a wine. Chardonnay is a beverage.
True Therefore, chardonnay is a beverage. Therefore, chardonnay is a
conclusion [sound] wine.
[unsound]

True All wines are beverages.

premises Ginger ale is a beverage.
False None exist Therefore, ginger ale is a
conclusion wine.
[unsound]
False All wines are soft drinks. All wines are whiskeys.
premises Ginger ale is a wine. Chardonnay is a whiskey.
True Therefore, ginger ale is a soft Therefore, chardonnay is a
Strong inductive arguments

• A strong IA is an IA such that if the premises

are true, then it is probable that the conclusion
is true
• If the premises are true, the conclusion is
probably true.
All recent US presidents have been college
graduates. It is likely that the next US
president will be a college graduate.
Weak inductive argument

• A weak IA is an IA such that if the premises are true,

then it is not improbable the conclusion to be true.
Cogent argument

• It is inductively strong argument with all true premises.

• If one of these conditions is missed, the argument is
uncogent. thus.:
• A strong argument with a false premise is uncogent.
• All weak inductive arguments are uncogent
Categorical Propositions
• To help us make sense of our experience, we
humans constantly group things into classes or
categories. They are four in number, carrying
the designations A, E, I, O, as follows:
• All S is P (A).
• No S is P (E).
• Some S is P (I).
• Some S is not P (O).
The components of CP

• A proposition that relates two classes, or categories, is called a

categorical proposition.
• The classes in question are denoted respectively by the
subject term and the predicate term, and the proposition
asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject
term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by the
predicate term.
Cont.• there are exactly four types of categorical propositions:(1)
those that assert that the whole subject class is included in
the predicate class, (2) those that assert that part of the
subject class is included in the predicate class, (3) those
that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the
predicate class, and (4) those that assert that part of the
subject class is excluded from the predicate class.
Cont.

• A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with

complete clarity is one that is in standard form. A categorical
proposition is in standard form if and only if it is a substitution
instance of one of the following four forms:
• All S are P.
• No S are P.
• Some S are P.
• Some S are not P.
• The words ‘‘all,’’ ‘‘no,’’ and ‘‘some’’ are called quantifiers
because they specify how much of the subject class is included
in or excluded from the predicate class.
Quality, Quantity, and Distribution
• Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical
propositions.
• The quality of a categorical proposition is either affirmative
or negative depending on whether it affirms or denies class
membership.
• The quantity of a categorical proposition is either universal
or particular depending
Categorical Propositions
• There can be just four different standard forms of categorical
propositions.
1. All politicians are liars.
2. No politicians are liars.
3. Some politicians are liars.
4. Some politicians are not liars.
Universal Affirmative
• The first is a universal affirmative proposition. It
is about two classes, the class of all politicians
and the class of all liars, saying that the first class
is included or contained in the second class. A
universal affirmative proposition says that every
member of the first class is also a member of the
second class.
Universal Negative Propositions
• The second example
• No politicians are liars.
Is a universal negative proposition. It denies of politicians
universally that they are liars. Concerned with two classes, a
universal negative proposition says that the first class is wholly
excluded from the second, which is to say that there is no
member of the first class that is also a member of the second.
Particular affirmative propositions
• The third example
• Some Politicians are liars.
is a particular affirmative proposition. Clearly, what the present
example affirms is that some members of the class of all
politicians are (also) members of the class of all liars. But it does
not affirm this of politicians universally: Not all politicians
universally, but, rather, some particular politician or politicians,
are said to be liars.
Particular affirmative propositions

• it is customary to regard the word “some” as

meaning “at least one.”
• says that at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term S is also a
member of the class designated by the
predicate term P.
Particular negative propositions
• The fourth example
• Some politicians are not liars

is a particular negative proposition. This example,

like the one preceding it, does not refer to politicians
universally but only to some member or members of
that class; it is particular. But unlike the third
example, it does not affirm that the particular
members of the first class referred to are included in
the second class; this is precisely what is denied.
says that at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term S is excluded from
the whole of the class designated by the predicate
term P.
General Schema of Standard-
Form Categorical Propositions
• Standard-form categorical propositions consist of four parts, as
follows:
• Quantifer (subject term) copula (predicate term)
• The three standard-form quantifiers are "all," "no" (universal),
and "some" (particular). The copula is a form of the verb "to
be."
 Sentence Standard Form Attribute

All apples are delicious. A All S is P. Universal affirmative

No apples are delicious. E No S is P. Universal negative

Some apples are I Some S is P. Particular affirmative

delicious.

Some apples are not O Some S is not P. Particular negative

delicious.
Distribution
• Distribution is an attribute of the terms (subject and predicate)
of propositions.
• A term is said to be distributed if the proposition makes an
assertion about every member of the class denoted by the
term; otherwise, it is undistributed.
• Thus, if a statement asserts something about every member of
the S class, then S is distributed; otherwise S and P are
undistributed.
All S are P
• Here is another way to look at All S are P.

The S circle is contained in the P circle, which represents

the fact that every member of S is a member of P.
Through reference to this diagram, it is clear that every
member of S is in the P class. But the statement does not
make a claim about every member of the P class, since
there may be some members of the P class that are outside
of S.
Distribution

• Thus, by the definition of “distributed term”, S is distributed and

P is not.
No S are P
• “No S are P” states that the S and P class are separate,
which may be represented as follows:

This statement makes a claim about every member of S and

every member of P. It asserts that every member of S is
separate from every member of P, and also that every member
of P is separate from every member of S. Both the subject and
the predicate terms of universal negative (E) propositions are
distributed.
 Some S are P
• The particular affirmative (I) proposition states that at least
one member of S is a member of P. If we represent this one
member of S that we are certain about by an asterisk, the
resulting diagram looks like this:

Since the asterisk is inside the P class, it represents something that

is simultaneously an S and a P; in other words, it represents a
member of the S class that is also a member of the P class. Thus,
the statement “Some S are P” makes a claim about one member (at
least) of S and also one member (at least) of P, but not about all
members of either class. Thus, neither S or P is distributed.
 Some S are not P
• The particular negative (O) proposition asserts that at least
one member of S is not a member of P. If we once again
represent this one member of S by an asterisk, the resulting
diagram is as follows:

Since the other members of S may or may not be outside of P, it is

clear that the statement “Some S are not P” does not make a claim
about every member of S, so S is not distributed. But, as may be seen
from the diagram, the statement does assert that the entire P class is
separated from this one member of the S that is outside; that is, it
does make a claim about every member of P. Thus, in the particular
negative (O) proposition, P is distributed and S is undistributed.
Venn Diagrams and the Modern
Square of Opposition

• an ambiguity exists in the meaning of A-type (and also E-type)

categorical propositions.
• When we say, ‘‘All S are P,’’ do we assume that S denotes
something that actually exists (as in the case of students), or do
we make no such assumption (as in the case of unicorns)?
• In response to this question, logicians have developed two
different interpretations of categorical propositions.
Aristotelian interpretation

• Aristotle restricted his theory to things that actually exist.

• Thus, according to the Aristotelian interpretation, the statement
form ‘‘All S are P’’ asserts that all members of the S class are
included in the P class, and it is assumed that members of S
actually exist.
Boolean interpretation
• The other interpretation of categorical propositions, which is
neutral about existence, arose in the nineteenth century
from the work of the logician George Boole.
• According to the Boolean interpretation, the statement form
‘‘All S are P’’ asserts that all members of the S class are
included in the P class, and it is not assumed that members
of S actually exist.
• Another way of expressing this concept is by saying that
nomembers of the S class are excluded from the P class.
Cont.

• The Aristotelian interpretation and the Boolean interpretation

differ from each other only with regard to universal (A and E)
propositions.
• The two interpretations are in agreement with regard to
particular (I and O) propositions.
• Thus, under both the Aristotelian and the Boolean
interpretations, I and O statements make positive claims about
existence.
 Cont.
• the Boolean interpretation of the four kinds of categorical
propositions:
• All S are P. = No members of S are outside P.
• No S are P. = No members of S are inside P.
• Some S are P. =At least one S exists, and that S is a P.
• Some S are not P. = At least one S exists, and that S is not a
P.
• Adopting this interpretation of categorical propositions, the
nineteenth-century logician John Venn developed a system of
diagrams to represent the information they express. These
diagrams have come to be known as Venn diagrams.
Cont.

• A Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles in

which each circle represents the class denoted by a term in a
categorical proposition.
• Because every categorical proposition has exactly two terms,
the Venn diagram for a single categorical proposition consists
of two overlapping circles.
• Each circle is labeled so that it represents one of the terms in
the proposition.
Cont.
• We can now use Venn diagrams to represent the
information expressed by the four kinds of categorical
proposition.
• To do this we make a certain kind of mark in a diagram.
• Two kinds of marks are used: shading an area and placing
an ‘‘X’’ in an area. Shading an area means that the shaded
area is empty, and placing an ‘‘X’’ in an area means that at
least one thing exists in that area.
• Shading
• is always used to represent the content of universal (A and
E) propositions, and placing an ‘‘X’’ in an area is always
used to represent the content of particular (I and O)
propositions.
Cont.
• Now let us compare the diagram for the A proposition with
the diagram for the O proposition.
• These two diagrams make assertions that are the exact
opposite of each other. As a result, their corresponding
statements are said to contradict each other.
• Analogously, the diagram for the E proposition asserts that
the area where the two circles overlap is empty, whereas the
diagram for the I proposition asserts that the area where the
two circles overlap is not empty. Accordingly, their
corresponding propositions are also said to contradict each
other
• This relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of
propositions is represented in a diagram called the modern
square of opposition.
Cont.
• If two propositions are related by the contradictory
relation, they necessarily have opposite truth value.
• Thus, if a certain A proposition is given as true, the
corresponding O proposition must be false.
• However, given the truth value of an A or O proposition,
nothing can be determined about the truth value of the
corresponding E or I propositions.
• Thus, from the Boolean standpoint, which is neutral about
existence, they are said to have logically undetermined
truth value.
Cont.

• Since the modern square of opposition provides logically

necessary results, we can use it to test certain arguments for
validity.
• We begin by assuming the premise is true, and we enter the
pertinent truth value in the square.
• We then use the square to compute the truth value of the
conclusion. If the square indicates that the conclusion is true,
the argument is valid; if not, the argument is invalid.
Cont.
• Some trade spies are not masters at bribery.
Therefore, it is false that all trade spies are
masters at bribery.
• Arguments of this sort are called immediate
inferences because they have only one premise.
Instead of reasoning from one premise to the next,
and then to the conclusion, we proceed immediately
to the conclusion.
• Note that the conclusion of this argument has the
form ‘‘It is false that all S are P.’’ Technically,
statements of this type are not standard-form
propositions because, among other things, they do
not begin with a quantifier. To remedy this difficulty
we adopt the convention that statements having this
form are equivalent to ‘‘‘All S are P’ is false.’’
Analogous remarks apply to the negations of the E, I,
and O statements.
Cont.

• It is false that all meteor showers are common

spectacles.
Therefore, no meteor showers are common
spectacles.
• We begin by assuming that the premise is true. Since the
premise claims that an A proposition is false, we enter ‘‘false’’
into the square of opposition. We then use the square to
compute the truth value of the corresponding E proposition.
Since there is no relation that links the A and E propositions,
the E proposition has undetermined truth value. Thus, the
conclusion of the argument has undetermined truth value, and
the argument is invalid.
Cont.

• We can also use Venn diagrams to test immediate inferences

for validity. To do so we begin by symbolizing the argument,
representing the terms by letters, and then we draw a Venn
diagram for the premise and a Venn diagram for the conclusion.
If the information expressed by the conclusion diagram is
contained in the premise diagram, the argument is valid; if not,
it is invalid.
The Traditional Square of Opposition

• Quality, quantity, and distribution tell us what standard-form

categorical propositions assert about their subject and predicate
terms, not whether those assertions are true. Taken together,
however, A, E, I, and O propositions with the same subject and
predicate terms have relationships of opposition that do permit
conclusions about truth and falsity. In other words, if we know
whether or not a proposition in one form is true or false, we can
draw certain valid conclusions about the truth or falsity of
propositions with the same terms in other forms.
Traditional Square of Opposition II

• There are four ways in which propositions may be opposed-as

contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, and subalterns.
• Like the modern square, the traditional square of opposition
is an arrangement of lines that illustrates logically necessary
relations among the four kinds of categorical propositions.
• Contradictory = opposite truth value
• Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)
• Subcontrary = at least one is true (not both false)
• Subalternation = truth flows downward, falsity flows upward
Contradictories

• Two propositions are contradictories if one is the denial or

negation of the other; that is, if they cannot both be true and
cannot both be false at the same time. If one is true, the other
must be false. If one is false, the other must be true.
• A propositions (All S is P) and O propositions (Some S is not
P), which differ in both quantity and quality, are contradictories.
 Contradictories
• all A and O propositions with the same subject
and predicate terms are contradictories. One is
the denial of the other. They can't both be true or
false at the same time.
Contradictories

• E propositions (No S is P) and I propositions

(Some S is P) likewise differ in quantity and
quality and are contradictories.
• Example: No presidential elections are
contested elections.
Some presidential elections are contested
elections.
• all E and I propositions with the same subject
and predicate terms are contradictories. One is
the denial of the other. They can't both be true
or false at the same time.
 Contraries
• Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both be true; that is, if
the truth of one entails the falsity of the other. If one is true, the other
must be false. But if one is false, it does not follow that the other has
to be true. Both might be false.
• A (All S is P) and E (No S is P) propositions-which are both universal
but differ in quality-are contraries unless one is necessarily (logically
or mathematically) true.
• These results are borne out in ordinary language. Thus, if we are
given the actually true A proposition ‘‘All cats are animals,’’ the
corresponding E proposition ‘‘No cats are animals’’ is false, and if we
are given the actually true E proposition ‘‘No cats are dogs,’’ the
corresponding A proposition ‘‘All cats are dogs’’ is false. Thus, the A
and E propositions cannot both be true. However, they can both be
false. ‘‘All animals are cats’’ and ‘‘No animals are cats’’ are both false.
Subcontraries
• Two propositions are subcontraries if they cannot both be false,
although they both may be true.
• I (Some S is P) and O (Some S is not P) propositions-which
are both particular but differ in quality-are subcontraries unless
one is necessarily false.
• Again, these results are borne out in ordinary language. If we
are given the actually false I proposition ‘‘Some cats are dogs,’’
the corresponding O proposition ‘‘Some cats are not dogs’’ is
true, and if we are given the actually false O proposition ‘‘Some
cats are not animals,’’ the corresponding I proposition ‘‘Some
cats are animals’’ is true. Thus, the I and O propositions cannot
both be false, but they can both be true. ‘‘Some animals are
cats’’ and ‘‘Some animals are not cats’’ are both true.
Subalternation
• Subalternation is the relationship between a universal proposition
(the superaltern) and its corresponding particular proposition (the
subaltern).
• The subalternation relation is represented by two arrows: a
downward arrow marked with the letter ‘‘T’’ (true), and an upward
arrow marked with an ‘‘F’’ (false).
• These arrows can be thought of as pipelines through which truth
values ‘‘flow.’’ The downward arrow ‘‘transmits’’ only truth, and the
upward arrow only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is given as true,
the corresponding I proposition is true also, and if an I proposition
is given as false, the corresponding A proposition is false.
Testing Immediate Inferences

• All Swiss watches are true works of art.

Therefore, it is false that no Swiss watches
are true works of art.
• To evaluate this argument, we begin, as usual,
by assuming the premise is true. Since the
premise is an A proposition, by the contrary
relation the corresponding E proposition is
false. But this is exactly what the conclusion
says, so the argument is valid.
Cont.

• Here is another example:

Some viruses are structures that attack T-cells.
Therefore, some viruses are not structures that
attack T-cells.
• Here the premise and conclusion are linked by
the subcontrary relation. According to that
relation, if the premise is assumed true, the
conclusion has logically undetermined truth
value, and so the argument is invalid. It commits
the formal fallacy of illicit subcontrary.
Cont.
• Illicit contrary
It is false that all A are B.
Therefore, no A are B.
It is false that no A are B.
Therefore, all A are B.
• Illicit subcontrary
Some A are B.
Therefore, it is false that some A are not B.
Some A are not B.
Therefore, some A are B.
• Illicit subalternation
Some A are not B.
Therefore, no A are B.
It is false that all A are B.
Therefore, it is false that some A are B.
Cont.

• What happens, it may now be asked, if the traditional square of

opposition is used (in a way that would normally yield a
determinate truth value) with propositions about things that do
not exist? The answer is that another formal fallacy, the
existential fallacy, is committed. In other words, the existential
fallacy is committed whenever contrary, subcontrary, and
subalternation are used (in an otherwise correct way) on
propositions about things that do not exist. The following
arguments commit the existential fallacy:
 Cont.
• All witches who fly on broomsticks are fearless
women.
Therefore, some witches who fly on broomsticks
are fearless women.
No wizards with magical powers are malevolent
beings.
Therefore, it is false that all wizards with
magical powers are malevolent beings.
• The first depends on an otherwise correct use of
the subalternation relation, and the second on an
otherwise correct use of the contrary relation. If
flying witches and magical wizards actually existed,
both arguments would be valid. But since they do
not exist, both arguments are invalid and commit
the existential fallacy.
Cont.

• Now that we have seen how the traditional square of

opposition, by itself, is used to test arguments for validity, let us
see how it can be used together with the operations of
conversion, obversion, and contraposition to prove the validity
of arguments that are given as valid. Suppose we are given the
following valid argument:
• All inappropriate remarks are faux pas.
Therefore, some faux pas are not
appropriate remarks.
Cont.

• To prove this argument valid, we select letters to represent the

terms, and then we use some combination of conversion,
obversion, and contraposition together with the traditional
square to find the intermediate links between premise and
conclusion:
• All non-A are F. (assumed true)
• Some non-A are F. (true by subalternation)
• Some F are non-A. (true by conversion)
• Therefore, some F are not A. (true by
obversion)
Subalternation

• For example: All bananas are fruit. Therefore, some bananas

are fruit.
• Or, no humans are reptiles. Therefore, some humans are not
reptiles.
• However, we can’t go in reverse. We can’t say some animals
are not dogs. Therefore, no animals are dogs.
• Or, some guitar players are famous rock musicians.
Therefore, all guitar players are famous rock musicians.
Conversion, Obversion,
and Contraposition
• Many statements expressed in ordinary English contain
negated terms that may obscure the meaning of the
statements. Consider the following example:
• Some employees who are not currently on the payroll are
not ineligible for workers’ benefits.
• As it stands, this statement is rather complicated, and its
meaning may not be immediately clear; but it may be shown
to be equivalent to the much simpler statement:
• Some of those eligible for workers’ benefits are not currently
on the payroll.
Conversion
• The first kind of immediate inference, called conversion,
proceeds by simply interchanging the subject and predicate
terms of the proposition.
• Conversion is valid in the case of E and I propositions. “No
women are American Presidents,” can be validly converted to
“No American Presidents are women.”
• An example of an I conversion: “Some politicians are liars,”
and “Some liars are politicians” are logically equivalent, so by
conversion either can be validly inferred from the other.
Conversion

• Note that the converse of an A proposition is

not generally valid form that A proposition.
• For example: “All bananas are fruit,” does not
imply the converse, “All fruit are bananas.”
Conversion
• The converse of “Some S is not P,” does not yield an valid
immediate inference.
• Convertend
O proposition: Some dogs are not cocker spaniels.
Converse
O proposition: Some cocker spaniels are not dogs.
• This example indicates why conversion of O prepositions does
not yield a valid immediate inference. The first proposition is
true, but its converse is false.
Conversion Table

Does not convert to A All men are wicked creatures.

A All wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to E No men are wicked creatures.

E No wicked creatures are men.

Does convert to I Some wicked men are creatures.

I Some wicked creatures are men.

Does not convert to O Some men are not wicked creatures.

O Some wicked creatures are not men.
Obversion
• Obversion - A valid form of immediate inference for every
standard-form categorical proposition. To obvert a proposition
we change its quality (from affirmative to negative, or from
negative to affirmative) and replace the predicate term with its
complement. Thus, applied to the proposition "All cocker
spaniels are dogs," obversion yields "No cockerspaniels are
nondogs," which is called its "obverse." The proposition
obverted is called the "obvertend."
Obversion
• The obverse is logically equivalent to the obvertend. Obversion is
thus a valid immediate inference when applied to any standard-
form categorical proposition.
• The obverse of the A proposition "All S is P" is the E proposition
"No S is non-P."
• The obverse of the E proposition "No S is P" is the A proposition
"All S is non-P."
Contraposition

• Contraposition is (1) switching the subject and the predicate

terms (2) replacing the subject and predicate terms with their
term complements.. Contraposition yields a valid immediate
inference for A propositions and O propositions. That is, if the
proposition
• All S is P is true, then its contrapositive
All non-P is non-S is also true.
 Chapter 6
 Categorical Syllogisms
 Objectives
 You will be able to :
 Describe a standard form categorical syllogism
 Recognize the terms of a syllogism
 Identify the mood and figure of a syllogism
 Use the Venn Diagram technique for testing
syllogisms
 List and describe the syllogistic rules and
syllogistic fallacies
 List the 15 valid forms of the categorical syllogism
 Standard Form, Mood, and
Figure
 Provisionally we shall define a categorical
syllogism as a syllogism consisting of three
categorical propositions and containing a total of
three different terms, each of which appears
twice in distinct propositions.
 Syllogisms
 A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion
is inferred from two premises.
 Every syllogism has three terms: a major term, a minor
term, and a middle term.
 The major term is the predicate of the syllogism; the minor
term is the subject; and the middle term appears in both
premises but not in the conclusion.
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting
of 3 categorical propositions that together contain exactly
3 terms, each of which occurs in exactly 2 of the
constituent propositions.
 Cont.
 A categorical syllogism is said to be in standard
form when the following four conditions are met:
1. All three statements are standard-form categorical
propositions.
2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.
3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout
the argument.
4. The major premise is listed first, the minor
premise second, and the conclusion last.
 Cont.
 A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument
consisting of three categorical propositions that is
capable of being translated into standard form.
 Categorical Syllogisms Examples
 No heroes are cowards
 Some soldiers are cowards
 Therefore, some soldiers are not heroes

 A categorical syllogism is in standard form when

its propositions appear in the order major
premise, minor premise, and conclusion
 Identification of terms
 To identify the terms by name, look at the
conclusion:
 Some heroes are not soldiers

 Major term – term that appears as the predicate (heroes)

 Minor term – term that appears as the subject (soldiers)
 Middle term – term that never appears in the conclusion
(cowards)
 Terms, continued
 Major premise
› Contains the major term (heroes)
› No heroes are cowards
 Minor premise
› Contains the minor term (soldiers)
› Some soldiers are cowards
 Order of standard form
› The major premise is stated first
› The minor premise is stated second
› The conclusion is stated last
 Cont.
 After a categorical syllogism has been put into
standard form, its validity or invalidity may be
determined through mere inspection of the form.
The individual form of a syllogism consists of
two factors: mood and figure.
 Mood of the Syllogism
 The mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the
letter names of the propositions that make it up.
 Its mood is determined by the three letters identifying
the types of its four propositions (A, E, I, and O).
There are 64 possible different moods.

› No heroes are cowards (E proposition)

› Some soldiers are cowards (I proposition)
› Therefore, some soldiers are not heroes (O propostion)
› Mood - EIO
 Figure of the Syllogism
 The figure of a syllogism is determined by the position of
the middle term in its premises.
 There are four possible figures:
 First Figure - middle term is the subject of the major
premise and the predicate term of the minor premise
 Second Figure – middle term is the predicate term of major
and minor premises
 Third Figure – middle term is the subject of both premises
 Fourth Figure – middle term is the predicate term of the
major premise and the subject term of the minor premise
 Figure of the Syllogism

First Figure Secod Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

M—P P—M M—P P—M

S—M S—M M—S M—S
.:S—P .:S—P .:S—P .:S—P
 Figure of the Syllogism
 Back to our example
› No heroes are cowards (E)
› Some soldiers are cowards (I)
› Therefore, some soldiers are not heroes (O)

› Middle term (cowards) appears as predicate in both premises – this

makes it a 2nd figure

› Figure and mood together determine a categorical syllogism’s logical

form.

› The logical form of this syllogism is EIO-2

 Cont.
 Once the mood and figure of a syllogism is known, the
validity of the syllogism can
be determined by checking the mood and figure against a list of
valid syllogistic forms.
The syllogistic forms presented in the list that follows are
called unconditionally valid,
because they are valid from both the Boolean and the
Aristotelian standpoints. In
other words, they are valid regardless of whether their terms
denote actually existing
things.
 Figure of the Syllogism
 Since all 64 moods can appear in all four figures,
there are 256 standard form categorical
syllogisms. Only 15 are valid.
 Unconditionally valid
 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4
 AAA EAE AEE AEE
 EAE AEE AII IAI
 AII EIO OAO EIO
 EIO AOO EIO
 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic
Logic
 A valid syllogism is valid by virtue of its form
alone
› AAA-1 syllogisms are always valid
 All M is P
 All S is M
 Therefore, all S is P
They are valid regardless of subject matter
All Greeks are human
All Athenians are Greek
Therefore, all Athenians are human
 Cont.

All AAA-1 syllogisms are valid.

All sticking with HUM200 are smart

All M is P.
people.
All S is M.
All reading this are sticking with HUM 200.
.:All S is P.
.:All reading this are smart people.
 Cont.
 Deductive logic aims to discriminate between
valid and invalid arguments.
 The validity or invalidity of a syllogism is
entirely a function of its form or structure.
 At times, mere inspection is enough to determine
that an argument is valid.
 Venn Diagrams
 When mere inspection will not reveal whether an
argument is valid or invalid, Venn diagrams can be
used to test for validity.
 Venn diagrams provide the most intuitively evident
and, in the long run, easiest to remember technique
for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms
 The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms
usually requires a little practice before it can be
done with facility. Perhaps the best way of
presenting the technique is through illustrative
examples, but a few preliminary pointers are
needed:
 CONT.
 1. Marks (shading or placing an ‘‘X’’) are entered only for the premises. No
marks are made for the conclusion.
 2. If the argument contains one universal premise, this premise should be
entered first in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either one can
be done first.
 3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should
concentrate on the circles corresponding to the two terms in the statement.
While the third circle cannot be ignored altogether, it should be given only
minimal attention.
 4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see whether it supports a particular
conclusion, one should remember that particular statements assert two things.
 ‘‘Some S are P’’ means ‘‘At least one S exists and that S is a P’’; ‘‘Some S are
not P’’ means ‘‘At least one S exists and that S is not a P.’’
 5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shade all of the area in
question.
 6. The area where an ‘‘X’’ goes is always initially divided into two parts. If one
of these parts has already been shaded, the ‘‘X’’ goes in the unshaded part.
Venn Diagrams
 Venn Diagram for all M
are P
 You black out/shade out
all the M that is not in the
P since it only exists in
the P
 Mp=0
Venn Diagrams
 Diagram the universal
premise first if the other
premise is particular (ii)
 All artists (M) are egoists
(P)
 Some artists (M) are
paupers (S)
 Therefore, some paupers
(S) are egoists (P)
Venn Diagram
 (i) All great scientists (P)
are college graduates (S)
 Some professional
athletes (M) are college
graduates (S)
 Therefore, some
professional athletes (M)
are great scientists (P)
 Rules and Fallacies
 The idea that valid syllogisms conform to certain
rules was first expressed by Aristotle.
 If any one of these rules is violated, a specific
formal fallacy is committed and, accordingly, the
syllogism is invalid.
 Conversely, if none of the rules is broken, the
syllogism is valid.
 Rules and Fallacies
Fallacy: Undistributed middle.
 Rules and Fallacies
 Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once.
 Fallacy: Undistributed middle.
 If the middle term is not distributed into at least one premise,
the connection required by the conclusion cannot be made.
 Fallacy of the undistributed middle:
› All sharks are fish
› All salmon are fish
› Therefore, all sharks are salmon

› The middle term is what connects the major and minor terms. If the
middle term is not distributed, then the major and minor terms might
be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common
ground between the S and P.
 Rules and Fallacies
 Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion,
then it must be distributed in a premise.
 Fallacies: Illicit major; illicit minor.
 When the conclusion distributes a term that was
undistributed in the premises, it says more about
the term than the premise did.
All tigers are mammals
› All mammals are animals
› Therefore, all animals are tigers
 Rules and Fallacies
 Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed.
 Fallacy: Exclusive premises.
 2 premises asserting exclusion cannot provide the linkage that the
conclusion asserts.
 Fallacy of the exclusive premises
› No fish are mammals
› Some dogs are not fish
› Some dogs are not mammals

› If the premises are both negative then the relationship between P and S is
denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive
manner. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises.
 Rules and Fallacies
 Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion,
and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.
 Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise.
 or
 Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.
 Class inclusion can only be stated by affirmative propositions
› All crows are birds
› Some wolves are not crows
› Some wolves are birds
 Rules and Fallacies
 Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion
cannot be particular.
 Fallacy: Existential fallacy.
 Universal propositions have no existential import
 Particular propositions have existential import
 Cannot draw a conclusion with existential import from
premises that do not have existential import
 Existential fallacy
› All mammals are animals
› All tigers are mammals
› Some tigers are animals
Rules and Fallacies
Rule Fallacy Avoided

Rule 1. Avoid four terms. the fallacy of four terms

Rule 2. Distribute the middle in at least

the fallacy of the undistributed middle
one premise.

the fallacy of illicit process

Rule 3. Any term distributed in the illicit process of the major term (illicit
conclusion must be distributed in the major)
premises illicit process of the minor term (illicit
minor)

Rule 4. Avoid two negative premises. the fallacy of exclusive premisses

Rule 5. If either premise is negative, the the fallacy of drawing an affiermative

conclusion must be negative. conclusion from a negative premiss

Rule 6. From two universal premises no

the existential fallacy
particular conclusion may be drawn.
 15 Valid Forms
 There are 64 possible moods
 There are 4 possible figures
 There are 64x4 = 256 possible logical forms
 Only 15 are valid
 It is possible, through a process of elimination, to
prove that only these 15 forms can avoid
violating all six basic rules.
 The 15 Valid Forms
First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

M-P P-M M-P P-M

S-M S-M M-S M-S

1. AAA-1 5. AEE-2 9. AII – 3 13. AEE-4

Barbara Camestres Datisi Camenes

2. EAE -1 6. EAE -2 10. IAI – 3 14. IAI-4

Celarent Cesare Dismasis Dimaris

3. AII-1 7. AOO – 2 11. EIO-3 15. EIO – 4

Darii Baroko Ferison Fresison

4. EIO -1 8. EIO -2 12. OAO -3

Ferio Festino Bokardo
 Questions for Discussion

 1. “All good stereos are made in Japan, but no good stereos are inexpensive;
therefore, no Japanese stereos are inexpensive.” Rewrite this syllogism in
standard form, and name its mood and figure.
 2. Come up with a random list of four possible moods; then, pick one of the four
figures and use it to produce four different syllogisms. Are any of the syllogisms
valid?
 3. What is the method of logical analogies? Apply it to this argument to see if it is
valid: “No logic professors are successful politicians, because no conceited
people are successful politicians, and some logic professors are conceited
people.”
 4. Write out AOO-3 using S and P as the subject and predicate terms and M as the
middle term. (You may need to refer to the chart of the four syllogistic figures.)
 5. Using the syllogistic form in question #4 (or any other form, if you like)
construct a Venn diagram to test it for validity.
 Essay
 1. Take a current editorial from a major newspaper (such as The New York Times) and
find a categorical syllogism in it. Then, decide what its form is, and (using one of the
methods for testing validity) label it as valid or invalid.
 2. Describe how Venn diagrams can be used to test the validity of a standard form
categorical syllogism. Then, give an example of one valid and one invalid form and
show how the diagram makes the status of each clear. (Be sure to mark the premises in
the right order!)
 3. Explain the steps in one of the cases of the deduction of the 15 valid forms of the
categorical syllogism.
 4. Two of the six essential rules for the formation of the standard-form syllogism
concern themselves with the distribution of terms. Explain what distribution means and
why these two rules are necessary. What fallacies result, for instance, when these rules
are broken?
 5. Two of the six essential rules for the formation of the standard-form syllogism
discuss the quality of categorical propositions. What are these two rules, and which
fallacies result when they are broken?
Existential Import and the Interpretation of Categorical
Propositions IV

• The Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions

solves this dilemma by denying that universal
propositions have existential import. This has the
following consequences:
• I propositions and O propositions have existential
import.
• A-O and E-I pairs with the same subject and predicate
terms retain their relationship as contradictories.
• Because A and E propositions have no existential
import, subalternation is generally not valid.
• 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 both be false when the subject
class is empty.