LOGIC AND

CRITICAL
THINKING
TERMS:
1. Logic - is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and
criteria of valid inference and demonstration. It attempts to
distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.
2. Proposition - is any declarative sentence that expresses something
that is either true or false but NOT BOTH.
Ex. The moon is made of green cheese.
Manila is the capital of Philippines.
5 is a prime number.
2. Premise - is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a
conclusion
3. Infer/Inference - is a process of drawing conclusions based on the premise.
Ex. All men are mortal (Major premise – predicate (states about the subject) of the
conclusion)
Socrates is a man (Minor premise – subject of the conclusion)

therefore, Socrates is mortal (Inference/Conclusion - combination)

All Philosophers are wise. (Major premise)
Confucius is a Philosopher. (Minor premise)
Therefore, Confucius is wise. (Conclusion)
 ARGUMENTS CAN REACHED THERE
CONCLUSIONS THROUGH EITHER: INDUCTION
DEDUCTION
A deductive argument establishes a
conclusion to be true by stating two
or more true premises that lead to
the conclusion being true.)
Deductive Reasoning – consist of using
general proposition (IDEA) to infer
specific propositions (OBSERVATION)
P1. Mr. Mark always wears
black shoes to work
P2. Mr. Mark will be coming to
work on Friday.
Therefore,
C. Mr. Mark will wear black
shoes on Friday.
a logical process in which multiple
premises, all believed true or found true
most of the time, are combined to obtain a
Differences specific conclusion.
- Structure
- Strength of Inductive Reasoning – consist of using
conclusions specific proposition (OBSERVATION) to
infer general proposition (IDEA)
propositions
P1. Mr. Mark wore black shoes to work on Monday.
P2. Mr. Mark wore black shoes to work on Tuesday.
P3. Mr. Mark wore black shoes to work on Wednesday.
P4. Mr. Mark wore black shoes to work on Thursday. Therefore,
C. Mr. Mark always wears black shoes to work.
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my
backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF
REASONING..
All dogs have four legs, John's pet is a dog, therefore John's pet has four legs.
MP – All dogs have four legs
MP – John's pet has four legs. DEDUCTIVE
C - John's pet has four

The 10 post-men I have met have had a beard. Graham is a postman.

Therefore, Graham must have a beard too.
DATA – 10 post-men I have met have had a beard. Graham is a post man INDUCTIVE
HYPOTHESIS – Graham must have a beard too
CONCLUSION
1. STRUCTURE
Deduction – Moves from general to specific
Induction – Moves from specific to general

II. STRENGTH OF CONCLUSION

Deduction – conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true.
(What is true to all may become true to some)
Induction – conclusions only are probabilistic. Good induction has
high probabilsity and bad induction has a low or highly unlikely
probable. (what is true to some cannot always become true to all)
FALL ACIES
MOTIVATION

Why is it important to evaluate a

statement?
WHAT?????
• A deceptive, misleading, false
notion argument
• Having false premise
• invalid premise

VALID PREMISE - If the

premises are true, would we be
locked in to accepting the
conclusion
APPEAL TO PITY (ARGUMENTUM AD
MISERICORDIAM)
• Winning an argument by exploiting your
opponents feelings of guilt and pity.
Example:
I know we don’t love each other. But, if
we don’t get married it will crush my
mother. You know she has a weak heart.
Do you really want to do that to her?
No right? let us get married then.
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
(ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM)
• Winning an argument simply because
there is no proof that you should lose.
Example:
Him: C’mon, hook up with me tonight
Her: Why should I?
Him: Why shouldn’t you?
Him: You cant tell, can you. hook up
with me now.
EQUIVOCATION
• Illegitimate switching of meaning of the terms
use twice during the argument.
• Use of one word which can be taken in two
ways (2 meanings)
Example:
Brad is nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad
must be perfect too.
COMPOSITION
• Winning an argument on the basis that what
is true to some parts, true to all.
Example:
- Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules
do not have consciousness. Therefore, your
brain cannot be the source of consciousness.

- A point does not have a length; lines are

made of points; therefore, a line does not have
any length.
DIVISION
• Winning an argument on the basis that what
is true to all, true to some parts.

Example:
- The ocean when see as a whole is blue in
color. Therefore, each drop of water must also
be blue in color.

- Your family is weird it means you are weird

too.
AGAINST THE PERSON
(ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM)
• Winning an argument using your opponents
personal life as an attack to him.
Example:
What she says about Darwin’s survival of the
fittest must be so much garbage. Do you realize
she’s only 12 years old?
APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM AD
BACULUM)
• Winning an argument through intimidation.
Example:
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to wear this goofy-
looking hard hat?
Boss: Company policy. No hat, no job!
The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider
the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the
simple reason that if they do not, their departmental
budget for the Department of Transportation will be cut
by 25%.
APPEAL TO PEOPLE (ARGUMENTUM
AD POPULUM)
• Winning an argument because the claim is what
everybody believes or does.
Example:
Everyone is switching to iPhone phones, so should I.

Surigaonons believed that CRSHS produces

successful professionals, so I need to enroll my son
in this school then.
FALSE CAUSE (POST HOC)
• Improper concluding that one
thing is cause of another.
Example:
The more fireman that are fighting
the fire, the bigger the fire will be.
Therefore firemen causes fire.
All wounds cannot be healed today
because its Good Friday.
Did you observe that cities with
high crime rates, have Mcdonalds?
Therefore, Mcdonalds causes the
crime.
HASTY GENERALIZATION
• Making assumption about a whole group or range
of cases based on a sample that is inadequate.
Example:
My roommate said her philosophy class is hard,
and the one I’m in is hard too. Therefore, All
philosophy classes must be hard!.

Last year a group of CRSHS students won the

world debate competition. Therefore, all students in
CRSHS must be good in debate.
 BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITION
PRINCIPII)
• The opinion to be proved is already is given as if it were
already proved.
• When you use the point you’re trying to prove as an
argument to prove that very same point. Rather than
proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it.
Example:
I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have the
right to say whatever I pleased.
Murder is always morally wrong. therefore, abortion is
morally wrong.
Happiness is the highest good for a human being, since all