This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

Simple Formal Logic|Views: 301|Likes: 4

Published by Virgil Maslea

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/131056387/Simple-Formal-Logic

11/05/2013

text

original

- Section 1.4Classiﬁcation of Sentences
- Section 1.5Proofs, Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments
- Section 1.6Deductive and Inductive Validity
- Section 2.1Introduction to Propositional Logic
- Section 2.2Details about Negations
- Section 2.3Details about Conditional Sentences
- Reference Sheet for Conditional Sentences
- Section 2.4Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences
- Section 2.5Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments
- Section 2.6Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns
- Section 2.7Presentation of the Rules of Deduction
- Reference Sheet for the Propositional Rules of Deduction
- Section 2.8Making Deductions for Arguments
- Section 2.9Strategy in Deductions
- Twenty Sample Deductions
- MORE ADVANCED TOPICS IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
- Section 2.10The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof
- Section 2.11Further Uses of Deductions
- Section 3.1Introduction: New Perspectives
- Section 3.2Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic
- Section 3.3English Variations on Categorical Forms
- Section 3.4Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences
- Section 3.5Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences
- Section 3.6Equivalence Operations
- Section 3.7Deductions in Traditional Logic
- Reference Sheet for the Rules of Traditional Logic
- Section 3.8Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic
- Section 4.1Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic
- Section 4.2Types of English Simple Sentences and Other Details
- Symbolizing 100 Quantiﬁcational Sentences
- Section 4.3The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences
- Section 4.4Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic
- Reference Sheet for the Rules of Quantiﬁcational Logic
- MORE ADVANCED TOPICS IN QUANTIFICATIONAL LOGIC
- Section 4.5Deductions with Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof
- Section 4.6Demonstrating Invalidity
- Section 4.7Relational Sentences
- Section 4.8Deductions with Relational Sentences
- Section 4.9Working with Identities
- Section 5.2Fallacies of Irrelevance
- 1.Argumentum ad Baculum
- 2.Argumentum ad Hominem
- 3.Argumentum ad Populum
- 4.Argumentum ad Verecundiam
- 5.Argumentum ad Misericordiam
- 6.Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
- 7.Tu Quoque Fallacy
- 8.Guilt by Association Fallacy
- 8.Guilt by Association fallacy
- 9.Red Herring Fallacy
- Section 5.3Fallacies of Misconstrual
- 10.Straw Man Fallacy
- 10.Straw Man fallacy
- 11.Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
- 12.Fallacy of Special Pleading
- 13.Fallacy of Improper Generalization
- 14.Fallacy of Improper Instance
- 15.Complex Question Fallacy
- 15.Complex Question fallacy
- 16.Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity
- 17.Fallacy of Semantic Equivocation
- 18.Fallacy of Division
- 19.Fallacy of Composition
- Section 5.4Fallacies of Presumption
- 20.False Dichotomy Fallacy
- 21.Slippery Slope Fallacy
- 22.Fallacy of Ad Hoc Reasoning
- 23.Petitio Principii Fallacy
- 24.Fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses
- GLOSSARY AND INDEX OF TERMS

**SIMPLE FORMAL LOGIC
**

with Common-Sense Symbolic Techniques

**Arnold vander Nat
**

Loyola University Chicago

First published 2010 by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

© 2010 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Vander Nat, Arnold. Simple formal logic : with commn-sense symbolic techniques / Arnold vander Nat. p. cm. Includes index. 1. Logic. I. Title. BC71.V36 2009 160–dc22 2009001506

ISBN 0-203-87452-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0–415–99745–3 (hbk) ISBN13: 978–0–415–99745–4 (hbk)

CONTENTS

Preface

ix

**CHAPTER 1 BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
**

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Introduction Arguments Evaluating Arguments Classiﬁcation of Sentences Proofs, Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments Deductive and Inductive Validity

1

1 8 21 27 36 44

**CHAPTER 2 PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
**

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Introduction to Propositional Logic Details about Negations Details about Conditional Sentences Reference Sheet for Conditional Sentences Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns Presentation of the Rules of Deduction Reference Sheet for the Propositional Rules of Deduction Making Deductions for Arguments Strategy in Deductions Twenty Sample Deductions

52

52 61 69 76 80 85 93 103 113 116 125 131

**More Advanced Topics in Propositional Logic
**

2.10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 2.11 Further Uses of Deductions

135

135 141

vi

Contents

**CHAPTER 3 TRADITIONAL LOGIC
**

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Introduction: New Perspectives Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic English Variations on Categorical Forms Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences Equivalence Operations Deductions in Traditional Logic Reference Sheet for the Rules of Traditional Logic Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic

148

148 150 156 171 177 185 193 206 211

**CHAPTER 4 MODERN QUANTIFICATIONAL LOGIC
**

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic Types of English Simple Sentences and Other Details Symbolizing 100 Quantiﬁcational Sentences The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Reference Sheet for the Rules of Quantiﬁcational Logic

216

216 225 231 236 240 255

**More Advanced Topics in Quantiﬁcational Logic
**

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Deductions with Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof Demonstrating Invalidity Relational Sentences Deductions with Relational Sentences Working with Identities

259

259 263 266 273 279

**CHAPTER 5 LOGICAL FALLACIES
**

5.1 5.2 Introduction Fallacies of Irrelevance 1. Argumentum ad Baculum 2. Argumentum ad Hominem 3. Argumentum ad Populum 4. Argumentum ad Verecundiam 5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam 6. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam 7. Tu Quoque Fallacy 8. Guilt by Association Fallacy 9. Red Herring Fallacy

286

286 290 290 291 292 293 295 296 297 298 299

Contents 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual 10. Straw Man Fallacy 11. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy 12. Fallacy of Special Pleading 13. Fallacy of Improper Generalization 14. Fallacy of Improper Instance 15. Complex Question Fallacy 16. Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity 17. Fallacy of Semantic Equivocation 18. Fallacy of Division 19. Fallacy of Composition Fallacies of Presumption 20. False Dichotomy Fallacy 21. Slippery Slope Fallacy 22. Fallacy of Ad Hoc Reasoning 23. Petitio Principii Fallacy 24. Fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses

vii 301 301 302 303 304 305 306 308 309 311 312 314 314 315 316 318 319 325 345

5.4

Glossary and Index of Terms List of Symbols and Abbreviations

Of course. but which is artiﬁcial and unnatural. By contrast. of course. and includes a comprehensive presentation of the laws of logic and the method of logical deduction. together with the method of logical deduction that uses these laws. which is an elegant and efﬁcient technique. This book. The purpose of this logic course is to give students a comprehensive knowledge of the laws of logic. This is precisely the objective that this logic book is designed to achieve. and ironically. and readily usable. but the focus is on the laws and method of logic. to ordinary students across the curriculum. in such a manner that people can make use of this knowledge in their ordinary reasoning. is. and Quantiﬁcational Logic. such as the now commonly presented method of semantic (truth) trees with open or closed branches to determine logical validity. Teachers often ﬁnd themselves in a quandary about what logic text to use for their introductory course. by itself. symbolic system. all such as . This may sound like a truism that hardly needs to be stated. the very issue that creates the educational quandary. that treats the laws and the methods of logic. then. The nature of this symbolic system. and as the title suggests.PREFACE This logic book is designed for a ﬁrst course in logic. Our purpose requires that the symbolic system be formulated to correspond to the patterns and methods of ordinary reasoning. and an important tool for solving system-related theoretical questions. incapable of being used in ordinary reasoning. Traditional Logic. many other interesting and useful topics are covered as well (as the Table of Contents shows). Many introductory logic texts present logic systems that use special rules and formal techniques that do not correspond to ordinary reasoning. and the rules of logic will be ample. familiar. The symbolic techniques will be natural. makes this course a course in formal logic (in contrast to what is normally called informal logic). This focus. but naturally. but they do not want to teach a more advanced course in formal logic. our presentation of logic gives students exact formal tools that are readily used in ordinary reasoning. a course in formal logic. but that is not so. divided into the three areas of Propositional Logic. it is formal logic in another sense as well. presents logic as a formal. Logic is presented as a precise symbolic system. They want to teach a real course in logic.

and treated in a standard way. the students should be required to do many of these exercises on a daily basis. Traditional Logic Chapter 4. Our treatment of Traditional Logic trims off all the archaic detail and replaces it with a simple. There is more material in this book than what is needed to have a good introductory course in logic. the chapters on Propositional Logic and Traditional Logic are independent of each other. and Quantiﬁcational Logic are presented. It is also recommended that the daily lectures review the exercise material to some extent. More advanced topics in Quantiﬁcational Logic Chapter 5. then. and commonsense method of syllogistic deduction identical to the deductive methods of the other areas of logic. Propositional Logic Chapter 2. This new treatment integrates Traditional Logic into the deductive framework of modern logic as a partner on an equal footing with the other areas. comprehensive. typically of varying degrees of difﬁculty. of these exercises. All of the sections of the chapters include various sets of exercises. Here are some examples: . signiﬁcant ﬂexibility in how one may use this book. The book has been designed to make good use of many exercises spaced throughout the book. As a further alternative. and the desired pace of the course. which is something that many teachers of logic will ﬁnd to be a very satisfying result. Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Chapter 4. Basic logical concepts Chapter 2. as well as the correction. except for Traditional Logic. Logical Fallacies The order of the chapters is ﬂexible. or not at all. The material has been arranged so that the instructor can selectively choose various parts to achieve the desired content. There is. the desired level of difﬁculty. since the chapters on Propositional Logic and Quantiﬁcational Logic are complete treatments of logic. this chapter is highly recommended. The book has the following main divisions: Chapter 1.x Preface correspond to patterns of ordinary reasoning. The three areas of Propositional Logic. and from the viewpoint of application. But our treatment of that material is a much improved and useful version. There are specially designed worksheets on the Routledge Companion Website (see information below) for these exercises that facilitate the completion. one may simply opt not to do the chapter on Traditional Logic. Traditional Logic is standardly treated with much archaic detail and as an unserviceable truncated system. More advanced topics in Propositional Logic Chapter 3. and one may therefore reverse their order if desired. that has some rules but no method of deduction. Traditional Logic. In particular. and one may take it at any point after Chapter 1. To achieve the pedagogical goals of the book. The chapter on Logical Fallacies is a stand-alone chapter.

which are a great convenience for both the students and the teacher. and summary rule sheets. Veriﬁed teachers with authorized passwords will be able to access the Instructor’s Manual from the website. including the advanced sections. The website also contains printable study supplements. 2. also skip section 2. do the entire book. (2) For a more relaxed course. and skipping Chapter 4. and section 4. including the advanced sections. (3) For a more intense course. ﬂashcards for the deduction rules. This module also provides students with practice in learning the rules of deduction.routledge.8 (combined deductions of Propositional and Traditional Logic). but with Chapter 5 optional. and 4. The program tabulates a score for each problem as well as a score for the whole session. do chapters 1. or in entire chapter batches. and the student may download them one at a time. It is located at: http://www. with Chapter 3 optional. this website contains the Instructor’s Manual for this book. do chapters 1. and 5. (4) For a course in formal logic. do the material suggested for (1). 4. do all the chapters 1 through 5. section 3. 2. These worksheets are printable PDF ﬁles. The website contains all the Exercise Worksheets for each of the exercises in the book. Finally. In addition. 3. Arnold vander Nat Routledge Companion Website The Routledge companion website for this book contains important supplemental materials to aid students in their study of logic. with the advanced sections of Chapter 2 optional. All of these are downloadable PDF ﬁles. . Enjoy the book. 2. (5) For a course in applied logic. this website contains a special Deduction Strategy Module that helps students learn effective strategy techniques in building deductions for arguments in both Propositional and Traditional Logic. 3.Preface xi (1) For a more moderate course. but skip the advanced sections of both chapters 2 and 4. such as ﬂashcards for symbolizations. except. Throughout the book.6 (additional uses of truth tables). and skipping Chapter 5. the student is asked to use these Exercise Worksheets.4 (quantiﬁcational deductions).com/textbooks/9780415997454 Its key features are: 1. chapters 1 through 4.

.

What glory! And this argument has shown this to you.CHAPTER 1 BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS Section 1. Things are important to someone. and indeed you are now engaged in the most important study that human beings can undertake. logic is the most important study there can be. We also propose that the purpose of logic is to be an instrument in the achievement of that goal. as a goal. This applies also to areas of knowledge. importance is a relation. then the argument does not provide a reason for such gladness. Therefore.1 Introduction Logic is the study of correct reasoning. But. Things are never just important by themselves. Things are important only in relation to the goals that people have. There. There is a question that can be raised about the second premiss of the argument. What a ﬁne piece of reasoning. It is clear now that the above argument is not stated as precisely as it should be. the acquisition of knowledge. The study of physics is important for the achievement of such goals as ﬂying to the Moon. but it also produces. The study of physics is not important for the baking of pastry cakes. then the conclusion must be true. and even more. We propose that the intended importance is an epistemic importance. If the argument is correct. but one . Here is a more telling consideration: one can do logic without doing physics. and we will have to look elsewhere for such a reason. if the argument is not correct. The argument should make clear the kind of importance that is intended. Aren’t you glad you chose logic? Of course you are. many of which are later rejected by physics. for which the goal at issue is the attainment of truth. What kind of importance are we talking about? How do areas of knowledge gain their importance? Clearly. but should this argument give you a reason for such gladness? That will depend on whether the argument is correct. The study of correct reasoning is the most important study there can be. are important to someone for some goal. What ﬁeld of study is better suited to the attainment of that goal? What about physics? It is true that physics produces truths about our universe. tentative hypotheses.

and what the standards are for their correctness. This deﬁnition assumes that the reader has some knowledge of what a formal system is. The logic that we will study in this course will be formal logic. but addresses real cases more effectively. and it should now be apparent that the argument is entirely correct.1 Introduction cannot do physics without doing logic. We can even temporarily deﬁne . rules. 2. of all science. and logic does not really deal with everything that is involved in that activity. 1. 3. except to say that an excellent example of a formal system is one that most of us are already familiar with. the making of arguments. Formal logic is logic organized as a formal system. The study of correct reasoning is the most important study there can be. That is. and for now we can leave it at that. or whether it will not be organized as a formal system. the system of Euclidean Geometry. namely. Informal logic is logic not organized as a formal system. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. for the purpose of attaining truth. for the purpose of attaining truth. There is also a second issue regarding the focus of logic: whether this focus will be organized as a formal system. A Deﬁnition of Logic Logic is indeed the study of correct reasoning. specifying techniques. of all ﬁelds of knowledge.2 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. These considerations lead us to the following deﬁnitions: • • • Logic is the study of the methods and principles of correct argumentation. applied always to concrete cases of reasoning. logic is the most important study there can be. With this new understanding of the second premiss. Logic is a foundation of physics. Reasoning is a somewhat wide-ranging activity. Claims of knowledge in any ﬁeld of study depends on correct reasoning—on a knowledge of logic. and the latter kind of study is called informal logic and involves a lack of such precision and abstraction. Logic has a natural focus on a part of reasoning that can be called argumentation. but this deﬁnition can be made more precise. as these methods and principles are part of a formal system. we will study the methods and the principles (these are two different things) of correct argumentation. and applied to reasoning in general. we can restate the argument as follows. Therefore. The same is true for any ﬁeld of study. laws. The advantage of identifying logic with this focus is that we know exactly what arguments are. The former kind of study is called formal logic and involves great precision and abstraction.

We will use methods and rules here that we won’t introduce until later in the course. Is this just a fairy tale. apart from its content. We have to show either where such arguments go wrong. (You will soon become experts in generating such symbolic representations. here’s an argument that claims to prove that it is not a fairy tale. there really is a Tooth Fairy. Yet. Later.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. 1. We have an intellectual obligation to evaluate arguments that affect our views. So. 4. The ﬁrst question that must always be answered is whether the argument before us is correct. We note at the outset that whether the conclusion follows from the premisses does not depend on the content of the sentences but only on the abstract pattern that the argument has.1 Introduction 3 a formal system as a system that resembles Euclidean Geometry in its arrangement. John is in the house. it is customary to use capital letters both to abbreviate sentences and also to represent the patterns that sentences have. like “Oh. If John came in through the front door. or does the Tooth Fairy really exist? Well. In logic. the magical creature that collects the lost teeth of little children and gives them money under their pillows while they sleep. We can thus represent the argument as follows. Let’s start with a complicated argument. 2. It is not the case that someone saw John come in. then John came in through the front door. and you may not understand very much of what is going on. since there is an actual argument here that claims to have proved the exact opposite.) . and let’s go through this argument step by step. one step at a time. or how they are correct. even ones more complicated and more symbolic than this. If John is in the house. This is only an example to give you some idea of what we will be doing later on. You may have heard about The Tooth Fairy. then someone saw John come in. but that the Tooth Fairy really exists.” are worthless. we will construct the formal system of logic. The reason for this is simple: the laws of logic are themselves abstract patterns with a total disregard for particular content. slowly. I don’t believe in Tooth Fairies. One thing is clear: emotional responses. to see whether or not it is any good. 3. But that is OK. We must conduct a test. The Strange Argument Let’s start our study with a big bang.

4 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Amazing! (but harmless) Where are we now in our test? We have gotten as far as “S or T. there is a harmless way of bringing the Tooth Fairy into the picture. as all of you believed right from the start. Just say “or.” and D is now available. How can there be a connection? It seems. so.” 7. if D then S 3. and that it conforms to the rules and procedures of established logical theory. But how can one derive something T from items that use only H. so. Wait a minute. So. Again.1 Introduction 1.” For example. this introduction is harmless.” This is harmless. We can at least bring T into the picture. you don’t have to agree with both choices. this produces S. (Later in the course we can return to this argument to conﬁrm that our method is correct. don’t worry if you feel a bit confused at this point. that we cannot derive the Tooth Fairy conclusion after all. S? Hmm. because line 6 asserts S. H 5.” You must now also say “yes” to the question “Did either George or Queen Elizabeth score 100 percent?” You must say “yes” because that is the way “or” works. D. not S 4.” and H is also available. if H then D 2. One can always bring anything into any picture. this does seem to be a problem.) 1. not S 4. Well. this produces D. it seems that we are no closer to getting the conclusion than before.” Hmm. We have “if H then D. then. Hmm. D 6. if D then S 3. H So. S or T line 6 correctly produces line 7. We were able to derive steps 5 and 6 with great ease. Of course. S ﬁrst premiss second premiss third premiss fourth premiss lines 1 and 4 correctly produce line 5 lines 2 and 5 correctly produce line 6 Let’s assess where we are in the test. . you say “George scored 100 percent. because when you agree to an “or” sentence. T We will test this argument pattern. because all we have is “or. if H then D 2. And we have “if D then S. All one has to do is say “or.

techniques of argumentation. purpose. Informal Logic studies concrete cases of reasoning directly. There are two important areas of Informal Logic. the test did not prove that the Tooth Fairy really does exist. from our premisses. Inductive Logic is usually contrasted with . rules. deductions. “S or T” is right. The test only proved that this follows from our four premisses. Holy Cow! So. we must conclude. that means that T must be the right one! The test is ﬁnished. in a broad sense. that the Tooth Fairy really does exist. effect. So. So. We derived T from the premisses. We will not be studying this area of informal logic. but it is so effective psychologically that it has always been a standard form of popular reasoning. rules of inference. one we will tell at a later time. Critical Thinking is an area of Informal Logic that studies the reasoning process by addressing concrete cases of reasoning in terms of their content. Surprise. Main Areas of Logic We will ﬁnish this section with a brief review of the different areas of logic.” S is the wrong one. Formal logic is often characterized as deductive logic and is contrasted with another area of informal logic called Inductive Logic. An example of a topic taken up in Critical Thinking is something like this: “The type of reasoning known as argumentum ad hominem is a logical error. and techniques. known as logical fallacies. without presenting a formal system of laws.” but line 3 says “not S.” but it is now generally known in college curricula as Critical Thinking. We have “S or T. We also present a chart illustrating the relationships. 8.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. since our approach is a formal one.” Inductive Logic is a study of arguments whose conclusions are based not on laws of logic but on relations of probability in the real world. Surprise. Logic. and also to better understand how much of logic we will cover in this course. to better understand what logic is. Logic has a number of subdivisions. Formal Logic studies reasoning by organizing logic as a formal system that is characterized by items such as laws of logic. is the study of correct reasoning. T lines 7 and 3 correctly produce line 8. everything depends on whether the four premisses are OK. and they all call themselves logic. there is also an emphasis on mistakes in reasoning. One used to be called “Informal Logic. The other area is Inductive Logic.1 Introduction 5 Wait a minute. Still. These various subdivisions all belong to two main divisions of logic: Formal Logic and Informal Logic. But that is another story. Of course.

most likely. it is often incorporated to some extent in courses on Critical Thinking. and Syllogistic Logic. also known as Formal Logic. including Aristotelian Logic. We will study this logic in Chapter 2. he will pick a card that is not a face card. ordinary deck of playing cards. Categorical Logic. but it was not until about 1900 that this study was developed into a formal system of logic. This area of logic studies . we will not be studying this area of informal logic. Again. We will study this logic in Chapter 3. all A are C. This area of logic was developed by the ancient Greek philosopher.” Propositional Logic is the second main division of Formal Logic. Since about 1950 Traditional Logic has been in competition with Modern Symbolic Logic in college curricula.6 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. all B are C. Because of the natural and commonsense formulation of Traditional Logic.” Traditional Logic is the ﬁrst main division of Formal Logic. Aristotle. An example of a principle of this logic is: “All A are B. Traditional Logic is also known by other names.1 Introduction deductive logic. The type of problems studied in Traditional Logic always involve subject–predicate sentences that compare classes of things. Some parts of this logic were studied in earlier times. An example of an inductive argument is: “George is picking a card from a well-shufﬂed. so. So. and has continued from ancient times to the present.

but it was not taught regularly until about 1950. This logic is heavily symbolic and abandons any resemblance to commonsense language.” Exercise 1. so.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. so.” or symbolically.” Set Theory is a component of Mathematical Logic. An example of a principle of this logic is: “Either P or Q. whenever n has φ. Will the study of logic make you more logical? 2. There is no particular order here. “P ∨ Q. Start where you like. An example of a principle of this logic is: “Necessarily if P then Q. ᭛P ⁄∴ ᭛Q. An example of a principle of this logic is: “For all things x. then the set of all subsets of K is a subset of the set of all subsets of L. “K ⊆ L → {N: N ⊆ K} ⊆ {N: N ⊆ L}. We will study this logic in Chapter 4.” Quantiﬁcational Logic is the third main division of Formal Logic. and lies outside the scope of our course. Q. This area of logic lies outside the scope of topics selected for this course. This logic was developed about 1900 as an improvement to Traditional Logic. What are some advantanges of making things formal (symbolic)? 3. What are some disadvantanges of making things formal (symbolic)? 4. (But that doesn’t mean that they have no answers. This is an advanced study of logic. x is F. 1. and lies outside the scope of this course. so.) Just think about these issues. or symbolically.” or symbolically. and is an extention of Traditional Logic and Propositional Logic. n+1 has φ.” or symbolically. not P. Mathematical Logic is an advanced study of logic.1 Introduction 7 external relations of sentences (propositions) apart from their internal subject–predicate patterns. all numbers have φ”. possibly Q. possibly P.” Mathematical Logic is a study in which mathematical systems are reformulated as special systems of formal logic. m is F. “φ(0). so. “ٗ(P ⊃ Q) . ~P ⁄∴ Q.” Modal Logic is a formal system that extends systems of formal logic to include the ideas of necessity and possibility. and studies the existence and characteristics of special sets of things.1 Logic Questions Study questions. Is it true that logic is the most important study there can be for the purpose of attaining truth? . An example of a principle of this logic is: “0 has φ. “(∀x)Fx ⁄∴ Fm. (∀n)[φ(n) → φ(n+1)] ⁄∴ (∀n)φ(n).” or symbolically. These question do not have easy answers. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. An example of a principle of this logic is: “If K is a subset of L.

because unicorns have a single horn on their forehead.” 6. True or false? “Some things are settled issues. and such horns possess magical powers.2 Arguments 5. with a deﬁnition of what an argument is.” 8. then all right-thinking people will accept that position.8 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. So. then it is true.” Section 1. further arguments about them are pointless. People are. True or false? “If there is a completely correct argument for a position. people who are part of that discussion and wonder about the truth of that claim will certainly want to hear some reasons for thinking that the claim is true. Is it true that people have an intellectual obligation to evaluate all arguments related to their beliefs? 7. The sentences being offered as reasons are called the premisses of the argument. then. The fact that logic is one of the oldest systems of knowledge shows that people have always placed great importance on the science of reasoning. A simple example of an argument is: Unicorns are magical creatures. in this sense. What is an Argument? The idea of argument is the most central idea of logic. An argument is a group of given sentences such that: (1) (2) (3) Some of these sentences are being offered as reasons for one other of these sentences. much like in the way that the idea of number is the most central idea of mathematics.2 Arguments When someone makes a claim about some item that is being considered. True or false? “If there is a completely correct argument for a position. The one sentence for which the reasons are given is called the conclusion of the argument. We must analyze this argument as follows: two reasons are being offered for the . rational creatures: they want to hear arguments that support the claims that are being made. We must begin.

(Reason) So. You are a careless person. anyone can always offer anything as anything. what do we have. I am wrong about it. The study of Logic will enable us to better distinguish the two. Colleges have good enrollments. Consider the following: The weather is unusual lately. Unicorns have a single horn on their forehead. (Reason) Careless people can fall off large ﬂat material bodies.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Law school is so hard to get into. The famous city of Paris is located in Italy. as well as the conclusion. So. we have something that is indeed an argument. I made the claim. The deﬁnition allows that the premisses. and in addition. We may pause here to emphasize the difference between passages that are mere groups of sentences. Most people love music. then. We may analyze this argument as follows: Premiss 1: Premiss 2: Premiss 3: Conclusion: The earth is a large ﬂat material body. But now compare it to the next passage. of course. Of course. and passages that are arguments. (Reason) You are a careless person. just a list of facts. unicorns are magical creatures. listen carefully. but I did claim it. Some arguments are good arguments. and some arguments are bad arguments. Not a very interesting passage. We label these reasons as “Premiss 1” and “Premiss 2. What the deﬁnition does require is that the premisses must be offered or claimed to be reasons for the conclusion.” and we label the claim as “Conclusion. It is important to notice that the deﬁnition of what an argument is does not require that the premisses really are reasons for the conclusion.” and we arrange them as: Premiss 1: Premiss 2: Conclusion: Another example is: The earth is a large ﬂat material body. (Reason) So. Here is an example: “Dear reader. I want to tell you something. So. you can fall off the earth. are in fact ridiculous inventions.2 Arguments 9 acceptance of some claim. (Reason) Such horns possess magical powers. and even ones that have no relationship to each other. nothing controversial. You will feel compelled to object: . you can fall off the earth. Careless people can fall off large ﬂat material bodies. It will upset you.” You heard me say it. And. it is a bad argument. when we have an alleged argument with ridiculous premisses? The answer is.

because no . that one begins by carefully stating the argument.e. Law school is so hard to get into. For example. A formally stated argument may sometimes also be accompanied by a full or partial demonstration that provides a number of intermediate conclusions showing how the premisses are connected to the ﬁnal conclusion. and interjections of feelings. indeed. an inference indicator (“therefore”). omitting nothing that the argument proposes. A statement is a declarative sentence. Therefore. and the (declarative) sentence “The Sun is green” is a false statement. sentences that are true or false).. That is what we shall mean by the notion of a formally stated argument. and. in clear and unambiguous language. Most of us cannot tolerate that kind of irrational thinking. and hence a sentence that is true or false.10 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. • next.2 Arguments The weather is unusual lately. The addition of that one word. we must be sure that we have correctly understood the argument.” takes a passage that was a mere list of sentences. and turns it into a special construction of premisses and conclusion. • next. of course. Sorry. (4) Let us consider the four elements of this deﬁnition. An argument is a formally stated argument if and only if (1) (2) (3) all its sentences are statements (i. Colleges have good enrollments. then. (1) All the sentences of a formally stated argument must be statements. but the question “How could you say that ghosts exist?” is not true. because these do not declare anything to be the case. it has the format: • all the premisses are listed ﬁrst. “Ooops.” The evaluation process requires. Never mind. A Formally Stated Argument Before we can evaluate an argument. It would surely be a strategic blunder on our part to spend much time in criticizing an argument. and this has the additional effect of imposing on the audience a new obligation to evaluate that construction. all and only intended parts of the argument are explicitly stated. commands. A very remarkable process. and it is not false. This rules out questions. Most people love music. adding nothing that the argument does not propose. because we had misunderstood the original argument. It is literally neither true nor false. the conclusion is listed last. the (declarative) sentence “The earth is round” is a true statement. “therefore. only to discover later that it was all a waste of time.

. It is important to keep this in mind. you know. “Something is round. Based on these values. because the connection of the premisses to the conclusion will depend on those details.” or “if . doesn’t it? Well. and not everything is round. you know. and with this restriction in place. There are thus two truth-values that all statements have: true. such as “not.” or “either .” or “Well. In logic it is customary to say that a statement has the truth-value true.” or “Well. (2) The next condition for a formally stated argument is that nothing may be left unstated.” and so on. But if this argument is already in its formal form. walls are rigid.” somehow has a correspondence with the real world. But a formally stated argument must explicitly say these tedious things. If this is the informal version. and “The Great Pyramid at Giza is round” is F. (Such correspondence with the real world applies only to the basic sentences. because then we are allowed to “ﬁx it up” in the formal version.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. because it is wrong to say that grammatical complexity. with its four abstract grammatical operators. So. or false. The Correspondence Theory of Truth is the view that the truth-value of simple.” acquires the value T. basic sentences. that the people we are talking to already know those things. Consider the following argument: Every person makes mistakes. that depends on whether this a formally stated argument or an informally stated argument. or. The truth-value of complex sentences then depends in a functional way on the truth-value of the relevant simple. . you know. Why? Because the following argument is logically identical to the ﬁrst one: . and rightly so. then. . For example. Abe Lincoln makes mistakes. Looks like a good argument.) The Correspondence Theory has the beneﬁt of explaining in a simple way how sentences acquire their truthvalues. or has the truth-value false.2 Arguments 11 declaration has been made. or is false. basic sentences is determined solely by the situation of the real world. you know. “The Earth is round” is T. We do not tell people “Well. primarily because we assume. instead of saying that the statement is true. grandmothers are people. T. and so on. the complex sentence. F. Everything that is intended to be part of the argument must be explicitly stated in the argument. sandwiches are food. as we will study later on. because that corresponds to the real world. we can now use the terms “sentence” and “statement” interchangeably.” or “Well. . because that does not correspond to the real world. we can now mention that in regular logic one deals only with sentences that are statements. then it is an awful argument. pennies are money. Having made the distinction between sentences and statements. then it is a ﬁne argument. because in our everyday conversations we usually suppress a great deal of information.

and if this is what the ﬁrst argument has in mind. The most common inference indicators are the words “so. and both premisses are true. But neither does it interfere with that identiﬁcation. it begins the further process of evaluating the argument. and you end with the ending point. So. We forgot to state the intended premiss “Abe Lincoln is a person. we must add it to the formal version. Abe Lincoln makes mistakes. a pattern that is invalid: all P are M. Inference Indicators Inference indicators are words that indicate that an inference is being made. (3) The third requirement for formally stated arguments is that it must have the arrangement in which all the premisses are stated ﬁrst and the conclusion is stated last. as the Moon argument shows. So. thing X is M. But wait. Every person makes mistakes. Abe Lincoln is a person.” . This demonstration is not required for the mere identiﬁcation of what the argument is.” This extra premiss was certainly intended by the arguer. These two arguments have the same logical pattern. the Moon makes mistakes. This is something extra. that an argument is being given. So.12 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. it really is a terrible argument. that sometimes the arguer not only presents the argument in a formal manner. so. which must eventually be completed. and so. the arguer also provides the audience with a step-by-step demonstration of how the premisses are connected to the conclusion. such additional information at the outset is certainly acceptable. everything is becoming clear now. Why? This is just the most direct and the most simple way to represent arguments. the logical connection is crystal clear. This is just a superior way to present an argument for further analysis. (4) The fourth element for formally stated arguments is not so much a requirement as an observation. This is a terrible way to reason. Nothing wrong with this argument. This is not the pattern intended in the ﬁrst argument. Great. and in fact. When it is stated in this manner.2 Arguments Every person makes mistakes. You start with the starting point.

2. when an argument uses a premiss indicator. So. Premiss Since big ﬂat things are made ﬂat by powerful ﬂatteners. “so”] thus. it follows that it follows from premiss in consequence of premiss in light of the fact that premiss due to the fact that premiss we conclude that from this we infer that Our everyday arguments use both kinds of inference indicators.2 Arguments 13 “therefore. and the word “since” always introduces a premiss. it must have been God who ﬂattened the earth.” and “because. we required of formally stated arguments that a conclusion indicator must always be used in the last line of the argument. conclusion [Latin. very powerful. conclusion conclusion conclusion conclusion conclusion conclusion for premiss as premiss premiss given that consequently. it will be our task to rearrange the argument into its formally stated form. very powerful. conclusion therefore. and in general. conclusion premiss indicators since premiss because premiss ergo.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. when we analyze an argument. God is. But above. conclusion indicators so. The word “so” always introduces a conclusion. all inference indicators fall into one of those two categories. Premiss Premiss . The earth is a big ﬂat thing. Premiss This argument is not arranged properly. The earth is a big ﬂat thing. Conclusion God is. as we all know. And since big ﬂat things are made ﬂat by powerful ﬂatteners. since the conclusion is in the middle! We must rearrange the argument into a formally stated form: 1. So. Big ﬂat things are made ﬂat by powerful ﬂatteners. some care must be taken to give each part of the argument its proper function. hence. as we all know.” But these words do not all have the same function. Premiss it must have been God who ﬂattened the earth. The original argument here has the following order of parts: The earth is a big ﬂat thing.” “since.

2. this candidate for ofﬁce does not have a strong commitment to ﬁght gangs and drugs. when a candidate runs for public ofﬁce and makes a promise to do something. 1. and this claimed connection is one of two possible kinds. we claim that there is a relationship. We have already given examples of deductive arguments.14 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. It is obvious that the maker of this argument is not basing the inference here on laws . then the argument is a deductive argument. Very often. the maker of the argument. or inductive. a connection. 3. only the arguer. Strictly speaking then. God is very powerful. Premiss Conclusion Now. So. we make an inference from premisses to a conclusion. the arguer’s choice of words usually reveals what the arguer has in mind. then the argument is an inductive argument.2 Arguments 3. If we claim that the connection is a logical connection. that’s a nicely arranged argument! Deductive and Inductive Arguments When we reason. or we claim that the connection is based on empirical relationships that we have learned by experience to hold generally among things in the world. leading from the premisses to the conclusion. and we can then simply report the argument to be deductive. Here is an example of an inductive argument. relationships of probability. This candidate for ofﬁce has made a promise to ﬁght gangs and drugs. An argument is a deductive argument if and only if • the maker of the argument intends the connection to be based on the laws of logic. An argument is an inductive argument if and only if • the maker of the argument intends the connection to be based on probabilities. So. more than likely. In making such an inference. it was God who ﬂattened the earth. and if we claim that the connection is an empirical connection. can say whether the argument is deductive or inductive. the candidate does not have a strong commitment to fulﬁll that promise. Either we claim that the connection is based on the laws of logic. Nevertheless.

Let’s look more closely at inductive argument patterns. The conclusion is prefaced by the phrase “more than likely. In this example. there is a problem with Pattern III. of course. and has much less to say about inductive reasoning. the place where people live relates to various special factors. The conclusion is stated in a guarded way: the pattern claims a probable connection. the relevant relationships in the real world must be taken into account in evaluating the inference. Boris probably lives in a moderate climate.” It is this qualiﬁcation that makes the above stated argument about the politician (which has the form of Pattern III) a reasonable inference. because in each instance the premisses do not guarantee the conclusion—the quantity “most” just does not provide the required connection. Correct inductive reasoning does not depend primarily on laws of reasoning but rather depends primarily on a broad knowledge of the empirical facts pertaining to the topic of inquiry. That qualiﬁcation makes a world of difference. and it is a law of logic.” of “likelihood.” and the conclusion says “probably. that also uses Pattern III: Most people live in a moderate climate. This inference from the deductive point of view is. Consider a simpler argument. and the inference must take those factors . Let’s take a closer look. because it is recognizably defective. It claims that there is a relationship of “probability.” of “good chance. so that each instance makes a mistake. doesn’t it? The premiss says “most. and this pattern has no exceptions. thing x is B Pattern III most A are B thing x is A so. Still. Looks pretty good. Pattern II is also a deductive pattern.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. is not defective in this way. probably” makes a claim about relationships of probability in the real world. The study of logic usually focuses on deductive arguments and deductive reasoning. and it is an incorrect deductive pattern. But what about from the inductive point of view? There is not an easy answer. thing x is probably B Pattern I is a deductive pattern. The reason for this is that there are no formal laws for inductive reasoning. Pattern III does not claim that the conclusion follows from the premisses.” and so the inference seems to have the right proportion of connection. on the other hand. Compare the following: Pattern I all A are B thing x is A so.” and that shows that the arguer does not claim a connection of logic but only one of probability. Boris is a person. thing x is B Pattern II most A are B thing x is A so. So. and so. The inference “So.2 Arguments 15 of logic. But Pattern II presents no problem. Pattern III. Each instance makes a correct inference. incorrect.

Boris prob. and likewise the premisses can have any location. These examples make it clear that the correctness of an inductive inference depends not so much on the pattern used. and so on. deductive arguments will simply be referred to as “arguments. and a number of important rules have been formulated for the making of proper inductive inferences. requires that we ﬁrst spend a fair amount of time presenting the argument in a complete and orderly fashion. Inductive reasoning is very important. and one must always place the greatest weight on the available empirical evidence related to the topic of inquiry. Consider: Case 1: Boris is an Eskimo seal hunter Most people live in a moderate climate Boris is a person So. there can be no valid patterns in inductive reasoning. praise. or somewhere in the middle of a passage. in Case 1 the inference is unacceptable. or last. In this convenient way we can preserve the distinction between these two modes of inference. That makes a difference (a plus). Suppose he is an Eskimo seal hunter. Suppose that Boris is a tax accountant. and the arguments that are part of them are equally varied. but in a very strong way on the other factual evidence that is available regarding the item of inquiry. An evaluation of an argument. . That really makes a difference (a big minus). So. There is also no restriction on the type of language used: We argue by means of assertions. lives in a mod. understatement. ridicule. questions. For this reason. One can see now why the study of formal logic cannot include inductive reasoning. we will explicitly refer to them as such. The conclusion of an argument can come ﬁrst. unlike in deductive reasoning. both in everyday thought and in the sciences. Boris prob. exclamations. Most troublesome of all. And this means that. hints. therefore. The case where Boris is a tax accountant makes Boris a good match for inclusion in the stated generalization. we will not devote our attention to the topic of inductive inferences. lives in a mod. Throughout our discussions.” If on some occasion we want to refer to inductive arguments.16 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. climate The case where Boris is an Eskimo seal hunter makes the item of inquiry (Boris) a poor match for inclusion in the stated generalization. then. climate Case 2: Boris is a tax accountant Most people live in a moderate climate Boris is a person So. we argue by omitting to say what is taken for granted by the speaker or the audience. The claimed connection of inductive arguments must always be evaluated in conjunction with the empirical facts surrounding the case at issue. But these rules are not rules of logic. exaggeration. Informally Stated Arguments Our discourses are characterized by a wide variety of styles of expression.2 Arguments into account. In Case 2 the inference is much stronger.

Sentence 3 is not itself part of the argument. a question. McX: McY: McX: McY: Holy cow. Sentence 2. but the passage doesn’t say. and it goes like this: “Holy cow. Sentence 3. As such. and if these are not originally present. Accepting the challange. because there is no true/false assertion associated with that phrase. Oh. by conﬁscating McX’s observation as his own conclusion: “. Jones is strange! Of course. Jones is strange . in the form of an interjection and an exclamation. then the analyzer must reconstruct the argument so that these features are clearly displayed: • • • all the sentences of the argument are true/false statements all the intended parts are included among the sentences the order of the argument is: premisses ﬁrst.2 Arguments 17 presenting what we have called a formal statement of it. McX makes a simple observation. Sentence 4. McX and McY are having a back and forth discussion. everybody is mentally weird.” This discussion contains several arguments (six. Jones is strange! Of course. Here. therefore. everybody is mentally weird. And so. but also to express a conclusion. Perhaps this is a conclusion on McX’s part. We will look at the ﬁrst of these. Sentence 2. is always a phrase that indicates that some proposal follows in an obvious way from something obvious. then. is a reconstruction of the sentences listed: Every person is mentally weird So. This means that passages that are arguments must have the following features.. Of course. Of course? Yes.” when so asserted. McY supplies the premiss through Sentence 4. in fact).” The interjection “Holy cow” is simply deleted.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. McY has begun to state his argument. McY seizes on the moment not only to express his agreement. Sentence 1. Of course? Yes. Jones is strange. and the readers can attempt the remaining ones on their own. “Of course. conclusion last Let’s consider some examples. With Sentence 3. and I suppose. . First example. . to some extent. then. that those people that we know to be perfectly normal are mentally weird too? Of course. to some extent. and it is therefore deleted. McX challenges McY to actually state the reasons for this unexpected argument. Sentence 1. and so we leave it as an observation. You’re strange too. as is usually the case.

then he can’t be a bachelor. at ﬁrst glance. premisses ﬁrst. when the stronger version will automatically emerge to take its place. who is known to them. and McY also certainly intended that Jones is a person. and someone mentions that Bill. Sentences 1–4 contain something else. that order should be. Bill is not a bachelor This much comes directly from the initial wording of the argument. Every person is mentally weird Jones is a person Every person who is mentally weird is strange So. And this denial must be taken as a conclusion. that the argument order is inverted: conclusion ﬁrst. the conclusion is in disguised form. because all bachelors . namely. A premiss has been given. But there’s more. surprising because the initial wording given in the above sentences does not appear. If someone is a married man. and has been for a long time. to have much going on. Some people are talking. to whom these generalizations apply. because no one derives any worthwhile beneﬁt from defeating a weak version of an argument. this is an argument.2 Arguments But this is not the whole of McY’s argument. premisses last. secondly. Here is the second example. we must add these unstated intentions as extra premisses alongside the stated premiss. So. In a formal presentation. but the meaning is clear. then one should select that interpretation. conclusion last. Someone then responds with the following outburst: “How could you say that Bill is a bachelor? We all know that he’s a married man. And therefore. Notice. because a reason is being given for the denial. McY certainly intended that the mentioned weirdness accounts for the strangeness. whose presentation is clearly superior: Bill is a married man So. This argument is intentionally relying on an obvious relationship between the premiss and the conclusion. that Bill is a married man. is a bachelor. We should always use a principle of logical charity in presenting arguments: If the original statement of an argument permits a more favorable interpretation.18 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Jones is strange It must be admitted that this reconstruction is actually a surprisingly substantial piece of argumentation. What were you thinking?” First of all. in the form of a question. Even McX understands that and agrees with it. and a conclusion has been drawn. the orginal argument must be reconstructed as the following argument. Admittedly. The function of this question is to make a denial: Bill is not a bachelor.

2. You have a good deal here. 1. 2. They are bones. As you read the following passages. 5. determine whether or not it is an argument. then identity the premisses and conclusion of the argument. some intended premisses were unstated. Dogs always like bones. Please believe me. because carnivores have teeth. like a great many informally stated arguments. 6. his parrot has never bitten him. The item is not too expensive. Your Honor. if it is not an argument. For each passage. This additional relationship must be taken as an unstated but intended premiss. We are constantly trying to prove things to others and trying to convert others to our points of view.” For this exercise. not married. They are bones.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. If you lie to a parrot. and no earthworms do. and you can make good use of it. There can be a downside to this: because our discussions contain arguments. Susan’s dog will therefore like these items I have brought. it will bite you. violate all three of the requirements for being formally stated: some sentences were questions.2 Arguments 19 are. So. Earthworms are not carnivorous. write “Not an argument. Bill is not a bachelor Notice how these two examples of informally stated arguments. you idiot! Kapow!) Exercise 1. 3. do not try to add any missing premisses. our discussions can easily turn into arguments—of the nasty kind. For the most part. Dogs always like bones. (Take that. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. If it is an argument. I am telling the truth. the trafﬁc light was not red when I went through it. because we need the knowledge that others have to help us in our own lives. . 4. A. I have brought some items to Susan. and the argument order was listed in inverted form. interpret each in the ordinary way. this is beneﬁcial for us all. by deﬁnition.B Detecting Arguments Part A. and this relationship must therefore be added to the ﬁnal reconstruction of the argument: Bill is a married man All bachelors are not married So. George has never lied to his parrot. These examples also illustrate how our ordinary discussions are stuffed full of arguments.

because she said that she was free then. do not try to add any missing parts. So. But there is no way to reconcile these two points. And yet. then they won’t learn logic and won’t learn the basics. She’ll be there. 7. Otherwise. Since inﬂation is increasing. unless the problem requests it. and they are more difﬁcult. 3. So. identify the premisses and the conclusion (you may shorten them). We have observed this matter. These following problems are all arguments. and given that the party was a small one. Everybody fell asleep. it claims that on rare occasions certain people can be trusted. No one listened to anything that was said. Liz will certainly meet Bill if she goes there. and that wouldn’t be so if it were my book. they should learn the basics and learn logic. alarms do actually work. but it must be true that our minds are really always active. That is deﬁnitely not my book. Everybody fell asleep. 9. Liz really wants to meet Bill. For each of them. 6. Logic is so important. and she also knows that Bill will be there. 1. [Supply the missing parts. Life is short. They will make them.20 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. and Liz does.2 Arguments 7. it would be impossible for an alarm to waken us from such inactivity. You can rely on it. (Don’t forget to set your alarm clock. she will surely win the election. if they are in a position to do it. And no one can minimize her considerable administrative experience. 10.] 5. 9.) 8. We have observed this matter. If inﬂation increases. and in as much as her opponent advocates unpopular views. it’s fair to say the lecture was boring. 2. And we know she is not shy. I think she is coming to the party. It may appear that people’s minds are sometimes completely inactive. Since Bill went to the party in order to meet Liz. Part B. Since our candidate has a commanding lead in the polls. No one can lose with advantages like that. you can count on . After all. as we all know. and that book does not. and that’s why this position is impossible. For this exercise. because this position is based on the idea that people can never be trusted. then the price of gold will increase. But. because two people in those circumstances will meet each other. The lecture was very boring. because if they don’t learn the basics. You have to watch out for sneak attacks. people generally do what they want to do. Since people should learn logic. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 4. This position on human nature is impossible. 8. My book had my name on it. the price of gold is increasing too. if they want to. No one listened to anything that was said.

there are no better. [Supply what is missing. The ﬁrst criterion is the connection criterion. the better the burger. but instead they only attacked us. Here is a simple but unappreciated statistic: Most people do not know what it means to evaluate an argument. and these facts lead us to the conclusion. then one does not know whether agreement or disagreement with the conclusion is even allowed. all pigs can ﬂy All pigs are chess players All chess players can ﬂy So. argument #3. The burgers are bigger at Burger Barn. This argument is perfect: The premisses are simple facts. and the conclusion comes out of nowhere. Argument #2. you were born It is very obvious that argument #1 is a very bad argument. for example. But not all bad arguments are that bad. and they then explain that they agreed with the conclusion. the premisses are still ridiculous. Consider the following three arguments: Some cats are green The Earth is round So.3 Evaluating Arguments Now that we have a good understanding of what arguments are made of. but it is nevertheless logical.) Wait. Of course. And then there’s argument #3. You guessed it. 10. The second criterion is the truth criterion. They agreed to have an open debate. These three examples illustrate that there are two criteria for evaluating arguments. When asked to evaluate an argument.] Section 1. there is a better way: we can ﬁgure it out for ourselves. we are ready to begin the different process of evaluating arguments. It is easy to see why.) Should we ask our parents whether we were born? (Suppose they say no. But agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion is completely irrelevant to the evaluation of a given argument. Without a previous evaluation of the argument. namely: All the . Interestingly.3 Evaluating Arguments 21 that. obvious arguments that we can appeal to. most people turn their attention to the conclusion of the argument.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. You see. There’s a perfect argument for it. and they might even give some reasons.) Should we check some hospital archives to see whether it happened? (Suppose the records say no. all pigs can ﬂy All persons are born You are a person So. or that they disagreed with the conclusion. namely: There must be a correct connection leading from the premisses to the conclusion. it’s true. one does not know whether the argument is a good one or a bad one. And if one does not know whether the argument is a good one or a bad one. Let’s start from the beginning to see what is involved in the evaluation process. The premisses are completely ridiculous. The argument has a certain feel to it: it has the feel of a “very logical” argument. is much better. The bigger the burger. Do we ourselves remember that we were born? (No.

No connection—no support. all P are F valid pattern all P are C all C are F so. Valid and Invalid Arguments (Preliminary Version) The ﬁrst step in the evaluation of an argument is to see whether the conclusion is correctly based on the premisses. do not continue with an argument that has an unconnected conclusion. and so is the argument that used it. Sorry. the third pattern has the right connection. then the conclusion is just a wild. but this time look at their respective argument patterns: invalid pattern some C are G thing X is R so. Likewise.3 Evaluating Arguments premisses must be true to begin with. “Sorry. groundless claim. there is no connection to your conclusion. The matter is settled.22 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. The second pattern. Otherwise. on the other hand. Your response should be. all P are F valid pattern all P are B thing X is P so. We will give a more precise deﬁnition of conclusive connection later. Your premisses are completely irrelevant: they aren’t connected to the conclusion. It’s not even close. and of course. That is a pointless activity. So. Consider again the three arguments given above. but we can rely here on the intuitive idea that the premisses guarantee the conclusion: if the premisses are true. If there is no connnection.” So. The ﬁrst step is always to see whether the argument is valid: An argument is a valid argument if and only if • there is a conclusive connection leading from the premisses to the conclusion. that argument pattern is invalid. the argument pattern and the argument that uses it are valid. and we will learn various techniques to prove that they are valid. These two criteria are incorporated into the two deﬁnitions that follow. start over. It’s perfect. So. . has a wonderful connection. and we will also learn how to spot the invalid patterns. the argument is invalid. thing X is B The ﬁrst pattern has no connection at all. then the conclusion has to be true as well—no exception of any kind. The conclusion comes out of nowhere. and the pattern and the argument that uses it are valid. no one is obligated to pay any attention to a wild. Later we will see that there are very many valid argument patterns that we use on a regular basis. groundless claim.

[Wrong!] (a) (b) If an argument contains all true sentences. it is an invalid argument.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. but the next examples prove the matter. then it is wrong to use it as a rule. because they think those things sound logical when spoken. [Wrong!] If an argument contains false sentences. Sound and Unsound Arguments The second example above shows that a good argument requires more than just a pretty pattern. the second of the two examples proves that (b) is wrong. Falsehood is not Invalidity It is important to stress that the truth of the premisses (true in the real world) or their falseness (false in the real world) does not determine the validity or invalidity of the argument. All cats have tails All dogs have tails So. Merely having all true sentences is not a criterion for there being a correct connection. One must always begin with all true premisses and then continue with a valid pattern. but the truth criterion must be satisﬁed too. [Wrong!] These inventions are completely wrong. The ﬁrst of the two examples listed right above proves that (a) is wrong. And then a . There is no such rule as (b). No conclusion is ever proven to be true by using false premisses. all cats are artists • • • nice connection valid pattern valid argument =F =F =F When you ask people who have not been trained in logic to do some explicit logical analysis. no cats are dogs • • • no connection invalid pattern invalid argument =T =T =T All cats are sailors All sailors are artists So. Also. There is no such rule as (a). people don’t do such silly things in ordinary circumstances. Not only must the connection criterion be satisﬁed. There are invalid patterns with all true sentences. and there are valid arguments with all false sentences. it is a valid argument. So.3 Evaluating Arguments 23 Truth is not Validity. they often begin to invent little rules. (Luckily.) One of those invented “logical” rules is: A valid argument is an argument that contains all true sentences. These combinations of truth-values may seem surprising. Merely having false sentences is not a criterion for there being an incorrect connection. and patterns transcend the truthvalues that exist in the real world. don’t do it. Validity is a matter of having the right pattern. And this is important: If something is not a rule.

do not go to a part three in which you try to test the truth of the conclusion. We must wait till later for a full treatment of this matter. if there is a correct. because of their special arrangement. no exceptions. “What about the conclusion? Shouldn’t we test the truth of the conclusion?” The answer is: Of course. clearly. We will make four important comments about soundness. Comment: A sound argument guarantees that the conclusion is true. That is why the argument was given in the ﬁrst place! The whole point of giving the argument was to present a method (an argument) for showing that the conclusion is true. (2) Secondly. An independent test of the truth of the conclusion is never part of testing the goodness of an argument. (1) First of all. part two.D. as here presented. the argument is unsound. and there are exactly two parts to this test: part one. this deﬁnition provides us with a test for testing whether an argument is good. then the conclusion must also be true. “If the premisses are true.” And so. People sometimes ask. test the truth of the premisses. So. When this two-part test is done. These patterns are instruments of conclusive connection.E. inherently guarantee that if the premisses are true. There is nothing left to do. the test for goodness is ﬁnished. Otherwise. And here is where the argument patterns come into play: some special argument patterns. (3) The third comment continues the suggestion introduced in the previous one. then the conclusion must also be true. and if the premisses are in fact true. all the premisses are true. conclusive connection. But which patterns they are. then. no other criterion is relevant for the goodness of an argument. the conclusion must also be true. must wait till later .24 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Q.3 Evaluating Arguments wonderful thing happens: there is an absolute guarantee that the conclusion is true as well. but in the meantime we can say that it means. An argument is a sound argument if and only if both and (1) (2) the argument is valid. the idea of soundness. test the connection. In particular. and that method itself is tested for correctness by the two-part soundness test.” Nothing more is contained in the intuitive idea of a “good” argument than that the “therefore” connection is correct and that the premisses are in fact true. The matter becomes clearer when one considers what “conclusive connection” means. An unsound argument leaves the matter undecided. and how they are shown to be conclusive. is the ofﬁcial version of the intuitive idea of what it means for an argument to be “perfectly good. after doing part one and part two. This is the gift that is given by a sound argument.

all cats are furry All persons are born You are a person So. or one can satisfy part A and violate part B. we want to emphasize a consequence of the fact that soundness has a two-part requirement. Suppose the terms of an agreement specify that you must write a letter of apology and also pay $10. (pronounced by spelling the three letters) is the abbreviation of a nice Latin phrase.000 in reparations. you were born We will ﬁrst evaluate the pattern of the arguments.E. (4) Finally. or one can violate part A and violate part B. all cats are dogs All cats are dancers All dancers are furry So. One can violate part A and satisfy part B.000? yes no no yes Result: You’re ﬁred! You’re ﬁred! You’re ﬁred! Success! The moral of this story is that there are three different ways for an argument to be unsound. In general.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1.” You use this to proclaim success at the end of a complex proof of some kind. . and this time we will give them a complete evaluation. By the way. we are now able to give decisive evaluations of arguments. and only one way to be sound. which means “[which is] what was to be proved. Suppose the parts are A and B.D. there are three ways that one can violate any two-part requirement. quod erat demonstrandum. The respective patterns are: . All cats are dancers All dogs are dancers So. Q. arg valid? no yes no yes all prems true? yes no no yes arg is . . We will consider a few more examples of arguments. as we just did.? unsound unsound unsound sound bad bad bad BINGO!! With all these ofﬁcal ideas at our disposal. There are three ways that you can violate that agreement: Make the apology? no yes no yes Pay the $10.3 Evaluating Arguments 25 chapters. or else you will be ﬁred.

arg is UNSOUND so. arg is SOUND so. DUMP IT Summary : • • • • valid pattern not all prems are T so. All cats are dancers = F All dogs are dancers = F So. KEEP IT Chart of the Types of Arguments and their Relationships We can make a chart of the relationships of all the different types of arguments that we have discussed.3 Evaluating Arguments all C are D all O are D so. all cats are dogs All cats are dancers = F All dancers are furry = F So. Summary : • • • • invalid pattern not all prems are T so. We record their values right next to the premisses. thing X is B valid pattern Next. You should understand these ideas well enough to be able to give examples of arguments that ﬁt into the displayed slots.26 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. all C are O invalid pattern all C are D all D are F so. DUMP IT Summary : • • • • valid pattern all prems are T so. . you were born =T We now have available all the information that we need to give the status of each of the three arguments. all cats are furry All persons are born = T You are a person So. all C are F valid pattern all P are B thing X is P so. we evaluate the truth-value of the premisses of the arguments. arg is UNSOUND so.

So. No Athenians are Russians. All Egyptians are Africans. for the purposes of this exercise. So. All Russians are Spaniards. All Greeks are Russians. an Italian is only someone who was born in Italy. 6. determining what kinds of sentences the premisses are. all Egyptians are Africans. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.. So.3 Evaluating Arguments Instructions. All Greeks are Europeans. All Moscovites are Russians. all Europeans are Russians. All Londoners are Britons. empirical truths. the conclusions based on them remain unestablished and are subject to doubt. no Londoners are Russians. all Chinese are Egyptians. 2. 7. e. Section 1. So. 8. namely.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences 27 Exercise 1. it is also true that the practical value of arguments consists in the conclusions that are derived from the premisses. all Romans are Europeans. Is the argument valid? Question 2. So. Write the following arguments as abstract patterns. So. Are all of the premisses true? Question 3. 5. As we will see later. answer the following three questions with yes or no. We will devote this section to one part of the process of evaluating premisses. Then.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. So.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences We learned earlier that a key part of evaluating arguments is evaluating the premisses. All Romans are Italians. The four main classiﬁcations of sentences are: necessary truths. No Britons are Russians. All Europeans are Greeks. these different kinds of sentences are evaluated in different ways. All Hollanders are Greeks. But ﬁrst a story about possibilities. 4. All Chinese are Africans. no Greeks are Athenians. Also. and necessary falsehoods. All Athenians are Europeans. let us stipulate that a person is said to be a member of a certain regional group just in case that person was born in the speciﬁed region. Question 1. (base this on the pattern used) (base this on the real world) (base this on Q.1 and Q. All Egyptians are Chinese. unless we can ascertain the truth of the premisses.2) all A are E all G are E all A are G Is the arg valid? Are all prems true? Is the arg sound? no yes no 1. 2. So. No Greeks are Russians. All Chinese are Africans. So. Is the argument sound? Ex. So. all Hollanders are Europeans.g. All Italians are Europeans. 3. Use the obvious capital letters to abbreviate the regional groups. empirical falsehoods. All Moscovites are Europeans. all Athenians are Greeks. 1. . all Greeks are Spaniards. So. While it is true that logic has a strong emphasis on the study of logical connection.

our imagination. congratulations.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences Possible Truths and Possible Falsehoods There is a fundamental distinction in logic between sentences that must be true and sentences that can be true. (feelings) (permission) (evidence) (probability) (physics) The reason for listing these different sorts of possibilities is to distinguish all of them from the only kind of possibility recognized by logic. This is one: “Yes. unfortunately. = There’s a probability. It is true that one can’t imagine a world in which the laws of nature (biology. Logical possibility is the same as imaginability. • • • • • I can listen to that all day! You can have that.) are exactly the same as they are now. and we can put them to good use. But in what sense of “must” and “can”? In our everyday speech the word “can” is used in various ways. both that X is true and that X is false. Contradictions are not logically possible. Here is a rather interesting fact about our minds: We have a built-in possibility-orcontradiction detector. and in which pigs have exactly the same brains. namely.” What characterizes a contradiction is that it simultaneously asserts. but that’s OK. some of you did not get an A. It could be true. A contradiction is a sentence that asserts that two exactly opposite situations are both true. one can honestly say that there is really only one kind of possibility: logical possibility (and sub-distinctions are not useful). (1) First of all. Gray clouds. And. We all have very active imaginations. to decide logical possibilities. and that they can’t imagine things like pigs playing chess. . = You are permitted to. but everything else is logically possible. because none of those are contradictions. The only thing that is not logicially possible is a contradiction.28 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. The sofa can ﬁt through the door. but the bottom line is that it’s true. it’s also a very useful circumstance.” Try this one: “Good news. regarding something X. people sometimes say that they have a poor imagination. then it is not logically possible. and boy did that hurt. = I really like hearing it. logical possibility. Philosophers sometimes debate this point. There are several comments we should make about imaginable situations. neurophysiology. every single one of you got an A. it is. Here it seems that people are misanalyzing the situation. etc. It could rain. it didn’t bite me. the different sorts of possibility listed above all fall into the category of being logically possible. = It’s physically possible. By the way. If something is imaginable then it is logically possible. So. = For all we know. some dog bit me really hard. if you like. In logic almost everything is logically possible. We already possess a fairly robust understanding of what a contradiction is. We can rely on that understanding here. namely. and if something is not imaginable.

We imagined something that was also true. unless you lied. . An imaginary situation is one that is imagined. that the Moon is not round. Many sentences are both possibly true and possibly false. and in addition it is an imaginary situation. the sentence “Elephants exist” is a possible falsehood because we can imagine that it is false that elephants exist: we can imagine that elephants don’t exist. and possibly false. We imagined something that was not imaginary. and false in the real world. We can imagine that elephants do not exist on Earth. To imagine pigs playing chess one has to imagine a world that is different from the present world. and in which pigs are nevertheless playing chess. don’t confuse this double status with something that is impossible: “possibly both true and false. Didn’t you imagine that just now?) (2) The second comment is that “imaginable” and “imaginary” are not the same idea. We can imagine that it’s false that elephants exist. one in which pigs are more like people in their mental abilities. More generally. but there might be some confusion about it. maybe it was the day before. simply because we can imagine that they can. It is possibly true because we can imagine that elephants do exist. This is not a big point. and possibly false. that unicorns are not unreal. (3) The third comment concerns our ability to imagine that some things are not true. let’s imagine that elephants exist on planet Earth. So. Christopher Columbus imagined that the Earth was round. and then it is possibly true. There. Say instead that the sentence is possibly true and possibly false. Here’s the point: to imagine that a situation is not true is the same as imagining that the situation is false.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences 29 etc. It is imaginable that pigs can play chess. because that means that one can imagine one situation in which that sentence is simultaneously true and false. because in reality it was true. So. All together now. as they have now..” Don’t say that the sentence “Elephants exist” is possibly true and false.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. because in the real world it is false that they can. we say that a sentence is a possible falsehood (is possibly false) if we can imagine that the sentence is false. Most of the things we have said in our lives have this double status. (Weren’t the three little pigs playing chess when the big bad wolf came to blow their house down? Oh. a world in which pigs are different from what they are now. and which is false in the real world. On the other hand. (4) The last comment is related to the previous comment. By the way. and true in the real world. I love that movie!”—possibly true. This is not unusual. We are certainly able to imagine that. that human beings are not able to speak. If we can imagine something to be true and also imagine it to be false—if we can imagine it both ways—then the sentence in question is possibly true and also possibly false. and it is possibly false because we can imagine that elephants do not exist. “Oh. The sentence “Elephants exist” is possibly true and it is possibly false. these kinds of cases are examples of possible falsehoods. and his thought was not imaginary. But that’s not what it means to imagine pigs playing chess. and so on.

possibly false. is possible) if and only if • • one can imagine a situation in which p is true. A sentence p is both possibly true and possibly false if and only if • one can imagine a situation in which p is true. really false . and true in the real world not possibly true. and false in the real world possibly true. and true in the real world possibly false. possibly false. which equals: p does not contain a contradiction within it. but necessarily true Here are some sentences that are possible truths as well as possible falsehoods: • • • • The Earth is round The Moon exploded Elephants exist Unicorns exist possibly true. and false in the real world not possibly false. and false in the real world possibly false. and true in the real world possibly true. and one can also imagine a different situation in which p is false. A sentence p is possibly false if and only if • one can imagine a situation in which p is false. possibly false. Here are some sentences that are possible truths: • • • • • The Moon exploded Clinton ate 25 bananas for lunch Elephants exist on the Earth Unicorns don’t exist on the Earth Some square has 5 sides possibly true. and false in the real world possibly true.30 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences A sentence p is possibly true (is logically possible. really true possibly true. and true in the real world possibly false. really false possibly true. but necessarily false Here are some sentences that are possible falsehoods: • • • • • The Moon is round Clinton ate a hamburger Unicorns exist on the Earth Elephants don’t exist on the Earth All squares have 4 sides possibly false. possibly false. really true possibly true.

In order to imagine a triangle. but dogs don’t have to have four legs in order to be dogs. dogs all meow. Necessarily false sentences are sentences that are false in every imaginable situation. but it would not be a triangle. no matter what. “false in every possible world. (a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2 Everything is red or not red.” Let’s imagine the world to be anything whatsoever. and these limits give rise to necessary truths. for example. for example. “true in every possible world. The qualiﬁer “no matter what” means “no matter what the world is like. you would be imagining. All horses are horses All triangles have three sides. arrange it any way you like. trees never lose their leaves.” Here. Necessarily true sentences are sentences that are true in every imaginable situation. Now consider the similar sentence.” Now pick any imagined world. called synthetic apriori truths. or as we say. Consider. or a rectangle. there are limits to our imagination. Notice the difference with the triangle case. and so on. “Every triangle has three sides.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. All books have pages (Philosophers sometimes also distinguish a fourth group of necessary truths. These are sentences that must be false.” Consider. “Every triangle has three sides. Now. forcing the sentence to be false. “Every dog has four legs. no matter what you imagine the world to be like.” is not a necessary truth.”) In addition to necessary truths. let’s imagine the world to be anything whatsoever. The sentence in question has to be false in that world. elephants don’t exist. you are imagining a ﬁgure with three sides.” is a necessary truth (is true in every possible world). “Some person is a happily married bachelor.” or “Every event has a cause. you have to imagine a ﬁgure with three sides.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences 31 Necessary Truths and Necessary Falsehoods Some sentences are such that they must be true.” But how can there be something that is constant in that way? How can there be something that is true in no matter what we imagine? Aren’t our powers of imagination boundless? Can’t we imagine anything we want? Actually. These sentences are necessarily true. say it was born that way? Of course. say. as we say in logic. also imagine a triangle. you can. say. such as “All material bodies exist in space. Can you imagine the dog to have ﬁve legs. because “married bachelor” is a self-contradictory idea. Because necessarily . That means the sentence. Triangles must have three sides in order to be triangles. If you imagine something with four sides. the sentence. again. So.” Again. “Every dog has four legs. Now imagine a dog. A survey of necessary truths reveals that they fall into three main groups: (1) (2) (3) mathematical truths logical truths deﬁnitional truths 2 + 3 = 5. the imagination test comes into play. no matter what. there are necessary falsehoods. when you imagine a triangle. So. a square. or.

they must always be imagined to be false.” which means that some triangle does not have three sides. true in real world not neces. There is a nice relationship between necessary truths and necessary falsehoods. So. Here are some sentences that are necessary truths: • • • • • • • • All bachelors are unmarried All squares have four sides Four is two times two Two points ﬁx a straight line All green horses on Mars are green Either God exists or God does not exist The Sun is the center of our solar system All bananas are blue necessarily true (by deﬁnition) necessarily true (by deﬁnition) necessarily true (mathematics) necessarily true (mathematics) necessarily true (logic) necessarily true (logic) not neces. If you negate the one. The negation of a necessary truth is a necessary falsehood. We can actually prove this using our deﬁnitions. “Not all triangles have three sides” is a necessary falsehood. A necessary falsehood is a sentence that is false in every possible world. which equals: one cannot imagine a situation in which p is false. but that is false in all imaginable worlds. p is true. “Not all triangles have three sides. p is false. you get the other. There is also a relationship between necessary falsehoods and impossibilities. Whatever is necessarily false is impossible. “All triangles have three sides” is a necessary truth. Then we get. and vice versa. that is. it is an impossibility. true. One can prove that by using the deﬁnitions we have given for these two ideas. A sentence p is necessarily true (is necessary) if and only if • • in every imaginable situation. Let’s negate it.32 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. true.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences false sentences always contain a self-contradictory idea. but one can also see that relationship in particular examples. false in real world . A sentence p is necessarily false (is impossible) if and only if • • in every imaginable situation. So. They are one and the same thing. and the negation of a necessary falsehood is a necessary truth. whatever is impossible is necessarily false. which equals: one cannot imagine a situation in which p is true. That means that there is not some possible world in which it is true. it is not a possible truth.

Again. and the sentence will still be true.” There is a clear lack of content in this sentence. It is the third category that we focus on next. false. this sentence makes no claims regarding the world.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. It is because of the relationship between their content and the real world that the name “empirical” has been given to these sentences. empirical truths. regardless. But the left-overs. “All green horses are green. but God does not exist Earth is the center of our solar system Some bananas are yellow necessarily false (by deﬁnition) necessarily false (by deﬁnition) necessarily false (mathematics) necessarily false (mathematics) necessarily false (logic) necessarily false (logic) not neces. Accordingly. 35 displays this division. . The world can be what it wants. The world can be what it wants. say. true in real world Empirical Truths and Empirical Falsehoods Here is a really neat division. And it is this content that is responsible for their truth-value. say. indicating thereby their non-necessity status. empirical sentences make their claims about the world. there is no content. Sentences in this left-over group have two names. regardless.” Again. And so the three-fold division with which we began has expanded into a four-fold division: necessary truths. and the sentence will still be false. By means of this content. and depending on what the real world is like. depending on what the real world is like. false in real world not neces. false. Since they are not in the two “necessity” groups. there is no content. The chart on p. They are more than just the left-overs. consider a necessary falsehood. Their second name is empirical sentences. You see. they are called contingent sentences. and for a good reason. empirical falsehoods. Some empirical sentences will turn out to be true. This is airtight. Consider a necessary truth. What does the world have to be like in order for this sentence to be true.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences 33 Here are some sentences that are necessary falsehoods (impossibilities): • • • • • • • • Some bachelor is married Some square doesn’t have four sides Four is two times three Two straight lines cross twice Some green horse on Mars is not green God exists. they do have a content. Each sentence belongs to one of those three categories. and others will turn out to be false. or they are necessary falsehoods. they are assigned their rightful value. or false? This sentence makes no claims regarding the world. or they are whatever is left over (neither necessary truths nor necessary falsehoods). It turns out that these left-over sentences have a special character all of their own. “Some angry elephants are not elephants. and necessary falsehoods. Or. the empirical sentences. Sentences are necessary truths. the group of empirical sentences is divided into two subgroups: empirical sentences that are true and empirical sentences that are false.

A sentence p is empirical (is contingent) if and only if • • p is not necessarily true. but neces. Empirical sentences are sentences that you can imagine both ways. and one can imagine p to be false A sentence p is empirically true if and only if • p is empirical. one can imagine situations in which they are true. when we discussed possibility. one can imagine situations in which they are false. so they are both possibly true and possibly false. false not empirical. and p is true in the real world A sentence p is empirically false if and only if • p is empirical. That’s exactly what empirical sentences are like.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences A point about imaginability. Above. but neces. That is their special mark. true We have introduced a lot of categories in the above discussion. which equals: one can imagine p to be true. Since they are not necessarily false. we mentioned that most of the sentences we have said in our lives have the double status of being both possibly true and possibly false. Empirical sentences are ones that are neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. and p is false in the real world Here are some sentences that are empirical truths or falsehoods: • • • • • • • The Moon has exploded The Moon has not exploded Clinton ate 25 bananas for lunch Clinton did not eat 25 bananas for lunch The Sun is the center of our solar system Some square has 5 sides All squares have 4 sides empirically false empirically true empirically false empirically true empirically true not empirical.34 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. and since they are not necessarily true. You can imagine them both ways. That means something special in terms of imaginability. The following chart summarizes how all these different ideas relate to one another: . and p is not necessarily false.

empirically false (emp. TVs did not exist before the 20th century.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Classify each of the following sentences as being one of the following: necessarily true (nec. F). empirically true (emp. 8. Loyola U. 4. . There are people that own round cubes. Interpret these sentences according to their ordinary meaning. T).B Classifying Sentences Part A. 3.4 Classiﬁcation of Sentences 35 Exercise 1. one peach. Wherever you go. T).4. 11. and one plum add to six fruits. 10. Past events occur at some time before the present. or some cats do not. A. 6. The Earth is round. 12. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 1. All cats have tails. 5. Chicago is the world’s largest university. 9. The Earth is ﬂat. There are people that live on the Moon. Every banana on the Moon is located on the Moon. necessarily false (nec. 7. Either all cats have green tails. All cats are animals. 13. you are there. 2. One pear. F).

20. 17. An invalid argument with all the premisses and conclusion empirically false. 16. armed with a modest knowledge of . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. All bachelors who are married are both married and unmarried.36 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. A valid argument with all the premisses false and the conclusion true.5 Proofs. Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. So. There are lakes of water on the Moon. 4. then ﬁll in the pattern with English sentences. Silly ones will do. since that is the only kind of argument that guarantees the truth of the conclusion. 15. But there is a practical problem here. 3. 18. our ignorance. A ﬁgure’s perimeter is longer than any of its diagonals. and 6 faces. that is. 12 edges. Cows moo. 19. and (2) we must determine whether the premisses are true. Every cube has 8 corners. Section 1. A valid argument with one of the premisses necessarily false. The aim of argumentation is to produce a sound argument. Give an example of each of the following kinds of arguments. 6. Each of these arguments has two premisses. Boiling water (212°F) causes damage to human skin. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments We have already discussed the important distinctions between valid and invalid arguments as well as between sound and unsound arguments. Part B. the evaluation of an argument always has two separate parts: (1) we must determine whether the inference is valid. Ex. Start with a valid or invalid abstract pattern. If we are careful in our investigation. one that arises from our lack of knowledge. A valid argument with all the premisses and conclusion empirically false. 2.5 Proofs. The ﬁrst part of the evaluation is usually not a problem. A valid argument with all the premisses and conclusion empirically true. prem1: Some P are B : prem2: All B are G concl : All P are G : : Some persons are banana-shaped things All banana-shaped things are residents of Chicago All persons are residents of Chicago 1. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments 14. You don’t have to make these examples fascinating arguments. A valid argument with the conclusion necessarily false. A valid argument with all the premisses and conclusion necessarily true. 5.

and all the premisses are known to be true. what should our verdict be regarding the soundness of the argument? Consider the situation: Since all arguments must be either sound or unsound. The problem is that often we cannot determine whether the premisses are true or false. then of course. there are many cases where the argument is in fact sound. especially from mathematics. so that the argument is not a proof. if an argument is invalid. if we do not have sufﬁcient knowledge to know that all the premisses are true. but we don’t know that. Also. practice makes perfect. This is what a logic course is all about. that is. and there are two possible sources of error here: incorrect connection or incorrect premisses. Also.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Of course. . We introduce three new ideas into the evaluation process to make the process more clearly deﬁned. An argument is an erroneous (or false) argument if and only if the argument is known to be unsound. usually presents a problem. These new ideas handle the matter of our knowledge and ignorance. Consequently. to determine the truth of the premisses. The notion of proof is well known to us. we do not know that it is valid. But the second part of the evaluation. We simply do not have enough knowledge. we will be able to determine whether or not any argument placed before us is valid.5 Proofs. To know that an argument is sound we must know two things: (a) we must know that the argument is valid and (b) we must know that all the premisses are true. Whose knowledge are we talking about here? An argument has an audience. then. So in these cases. in this part. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments 37 logical technique. again. various groups of people are in fact the ofﬁcial experts on various matters.) It is also important to know which arguments make mistakes. and we may rely on their knowledge in these matters. An argument is a proof (of its conclusion) if and only if the argument is known to be sound. that is. and likewise there are many cases where the argument is in fact unsound. and it is the knowledge of the audience that counts here. and we don’t know that either. the argument is not a proof. (A comment here. (1) (2) the argument is known to be valid.

Our limited knowledge in most matters affects the outcome of the evaluation process. we know the argument is unsound. and the argument is erroneous. So.5 Proofs. If you know that you are not real. then you are not real. that is. although none of the premisses are known to be false. we may justly call the erroneous argument a false argument. and the argument is erroneous. So. and also the argument is not known to be unsound. but not all the premisses are known to be true. but we also do not know that a mistake has been made. OR some premiss is known to be false. Let’s turn to some examples to illustrate our three new classiﬁcations. . then we know it is unsound. except that there is a premiss that we are ignorant about. 2. then again. Sad to say. you cannot know that you are not real. an inconclusive argument turns out to be one that is correct in all respects. then you are real. Since the matter of validity can normally be determined. at least one of the premisses is questionable. most arguments do not yield an easy solution. When the only defect is a known false premiss. (1) (2) (3) the argument is known to be valid. Argument #1 You Cannot Know That You Are Not Real 1. that is. This premiss we do not know to be true.38 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. If you know that you are not real. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments (1) (2) the argument is known to be invalid. We do not have the knowledge to prove the matter. The premiss is questionable. it is unresolved. but we do not know it to be false either. if we know that an argument is invalid. it is debatable. An argument is an inconclusive argument if and only if the argument is not known to be sound. it is undecided. The argument has an unsettled status. most of the signiﬁcant arguments that people propose have this unresolved status: we just don’t know enough. Unfortunately. If we know that some premiss is false.

Again. this argument is a proof of the conclusion: No person can know that he is not real. But even now it is intuitively clear that the two premisses combine to give the result “if K is true. not K 39 In Chapter 3 we will demonstrate that this pattern of reasoning is logically correct. In fact. If God is omnipotent. The second premiss is also true. And since this was a demonstration. if you know something. we must conclude that K can’t be true. it is necessarily true. we have demonstrated that the argument is sound. and if you act. then God can do everything that is possible. if you know that you are not real. In fact. we all now know that the argument is sound. then evil things do not happen. then a contradiction follows. In other words. 2. you must exist. This follows from the very idea of what knowledge is: whatever is known to be so. the very idea of knowing something requires that there exists some kind of agent that has that kind of mental activity. then God is omnipotent. If God can do everything that is possible and knows everything that can possibly occur.5 Proofs. . So. If God exists. 4. The argument has the form 1. then God acts as good as anything can possibly act. then you thereby act. The ﬁrst premiss is true. then God knows everything that can possibly occur. Hence. • Summary. So. if K then not R 2. We have demonstrated both that the argument is valid and that the premisses are true. So. and acts as good as anything can possibly act. God does not exist. Argument #2 God Does Not Exist 1. 6. 3. Action requires agency. • Determination of the truth-status of the premisses. you must be real. it too is necessarily true. then that has to be so: you are not real. 5. So. If God is omniscient.” Since contradictions are impossible. if K then R So. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments • Evaluation of the argument pattern. the argument is valid. Could George know that the Earth is a cube? Of course not. and omnibenevolent. in fact has to be so.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. Knowledge requires truth. omniscient. evil things do happen. If God is omnibenevolent. But.

if S then K 4. since they merely state what each of the attributes means. and 4 are necessary truths. . The argument has the pattern 1. So. For example. Keep it in mind. whereas the contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that it is false (focusing on the fact that human beings have free will). or that it is known that Premiss 5 is false. since the indicated attributes are part of the very idea of “God. 3. 3. if (D & K & A) then not E 6.40 • Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. on the status of the remaining premiss. So. for example. not G This pattern is a valid one. a baby is killed. which says that if God is so perfect in all these ways. then. But even now we can reason this out as follows: Premisses 2. or a plane crashes. This sort of qualiﬁcation is important in debates. we get the intermediate conclusion “if G then not E. if G then (P & S & B) 2. The ﬁrst premiss is a necessary truth. if P then D 3.” and so we are forced to reject G as well. the early twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell argued for its truth (focusing on a commonsense understanding of God’s goodness). Premiss 5 has the status of an undecided proposition. Premiss 5. and so forth. there has been considerable debate about the matter. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments Evaluation of the argument pattern. E So. as it turns out. and 4 produce the intermediate conclusion “if (P & S & B) then (D & K & A). • Determination of the truth-status of the premisses. if B then A 5. and that is the ﬁnal conclusion. or is it false? Well.” But Premiss 6 rejects “not E.] Likewise.5 Proofs. what can we say about its status? Is it true. But all sides agree on the following: no one claims that it is known that Premiss 5 is true.” and when we combine that result that with premisses 1 and 5. premisses 2.” [This argument deals only with what may be called the traditional view. Premiss 6 is empirically true. In other words. Premiss 6 is a report of an empirical fact: some really bad things do happen every now and then. then he would see to it that evil does not occur. as we will learn later. The whole matter rests. or innocent people undergo great suffering. This argument has no relevance at all to positions that hold a different view of God.

So. Columbus also believed Premiss 1 to be false. (After all. without knowing at the time that the premisses were false! But as we learn more. and all inhabitants of Tomonia (no exceptions) drink banana beer. What is the point of a false argument? Well. • Summary. the argument is an erroneous argument. how could he have been sure?) But. ?” You know what to add here. and we stop using those false arguments. • Determination of the truth-status of the premisses. So. Any large material body is such that one can fall off it. So. as we have deﬁned these terms. and ﬁve of the six premisses are known to be true. and the argument is not an inconclusive argument. we call it a false argument. or. . material body. in fact. now that we know that the Earth is not ﬂat.5 Proofs. But Premiss 5 is not known to be true. 2. and not known to be false. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments 41 • Summary. ﬂat. it is one of the simplest valid argument patterns there is. So. • Evaluation of the argument pattern.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. The argument has been shown to be valid. All of us have made many inferences based on false premisses. x is B It is intuitively clear that this argument pattern is valid. Argument #3a Columbus. Premiss 1 is known to be false. The Earth is a large. not all of the premisses are known to be true. we recognize the errors. The argument has the pattern 1. the argument is not a proof. we have seen pictures of the Earth from outer space. all A are B So. So. but he was not sure. Therefore. sometimes people want to deceive others. let’s give it another try. and the argument is not a proof. x is A 2. one can fall off the Earth. Premiss 1 is false. But many arguments are false arguments because the makers of the arguments thought they had knowledge when in fact they were dead wrong. and these picture show the Earth to be round. Perhaps another example will help: “Harry is an inhabitant of Tomonia. Rather. because it uses a premiss that is known to be false. In fact. You’ll Fall Off The Earth! 1. perhaps they intend such an argument to be rhetorical. but rather an inconclusive argument. not ﬂat.

The Earth is a large. is a counter-example to Premiss 2. round. Any large material body is such that one can fall off it. so that something falls from the smaller body towards the center of gravity of the very large one. one can fall off the Earth. And since we know that there is no humongously large gravitational body near the Earth. since that part played no role in the production of the conclusion. Chart of the Types Of Arguments and their Relationships We can make a chart of the relationships of all the different types of arguments that we have discussed. And. we have removed the false part about the ﬂatness of the Earth. that the new argument is also a false argument. so this time Premiss 1 is known to be true. Premiss 2. material body.42 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. The real problem is. The problem was actually never the alleged ﬂatness of the Earth. It turns out. This argument has the same pattern as the other one. the ones that have a humongously large gravitational body near them. Question: Is the present argument a proof? No. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments Argument #3b Columbus. It is not true that one can fall off just any large material body—only off some of them. So. then.5 Proofs. That is what falling is. You should understand these ideas well enough to be able to give examples of arguments that ﬁt into the displayed slots. • Evaluation of the argument. * erroneous arguments that are valid but that have a premiss known to be false . the case of the Earth. 2. so this argument is also valid. and was. So. You’ll Fall Off The Earth! (Again) 1. since it also uses a premiss that is known to be false. we know that nothing can fall off the Earth. then.

All invalid arguments do not have a correct connection. 17.5 Proofs. 16. All proofs have a conclusion that is a proven truth. All unsound arguments are invalid. A. 23. All proofs are known to be sound. 1. consider whether changing the word “all” to “some” would make a difference. All unsound arguments have some false premisses. All sound arguments have only true premisses. All unsound arguments have a false conclusion. All proofs have a conclusion that is true. Inconclusive and Erroneous Arguments 43 Exercise 1. . 7. All proofs are valid. All proofs have true premisses. Determine whether the following assertions are true or false (use T or F). when these assertions mention true or false premisses or conclusions. 14. 18. if an assertion is false (F). 8. 13. All inconclusive arguments are not known to be sound. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 5. 21. that means premisses and conclusions that are true or false in the real world. All inconclusive arguments are not known to be unsound. 12. 10. All invalid arguments have a false conclusion. 11. You should be able to back up your answers to Part A with examples. 15. 6. All non-proofs have some false premisses. 2. All inconclusive arguments are invalid. For your consideration. 9. 24. All valid arguments have only true premisses. All inconclusive arguments have some false premisses.B Review of Terms Part A. 19. Remember. All valid arguments have a correct connection. 4. Also. All sound arguments are valid. 20. All sound arguments have a true conclusion. Part B. All inconclusive arguments are not proofs. All non-proofs are invalid. 3. 22. All valid arguments have a true conclusion.5. All invalid arguments have some false premisses.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1.

such as. But sometimes..” or “So.44 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. this intuitive notion is effective only for inferences that are simple. An important . it is important that we have such an intuitive idea at our disposal. Moreover. it must be that . Thus.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity We have so far relied on an intuitive notion of “correct connection. An argument is valid when one can’t even imagine a situation in which the premisses are true and the conclusion is false. “So. and so too for their negations. The deﬁnition says that an argument is deductively valid when the connection between the premisses and the conclusion is so strong that the connection cannot be broken. On the other hand. This is why the study of logic is important. the notion is imprecise.. indeed. This claim is often signaled by the use of special words when the conclusion is introduced. and the reader is expected to know that a deductive connection is intended. . We will enlarge and improve our understanding of “correct connection” by studying the laws of logic as well as a number of special techniques. since it is by means of it that we make many of our daily. special wording is not used.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity Section 1. . That is a powerful connection. It turns out that there are two different kinds of connection. we have already said. . and even at the simpler level it sometimes leads us to make mistakes. leaving us without a proper means to engage in more complicated reasoning. and we will begin this study with a precise. we give the following deﬁnition: An argument is deductively valid if and only if • it is not logically possible that (all the premisses are true and the conclusion is false) • it is not imaginable that (all the premisses are true and the conclusion is false) There are two deﬁnitions here for deductive validity. one in terms of logical possibility and the other in terms of imaginability. technical characterization of this idea of connection. it necessarily follows that .” or some phrase to that effect. is that the person making the argument claims that the connection from premisses to conclusion is a necessary one. We have given both because we want to emphasize that these two deﬁnitions are the same: what is logically possible is imaginable. . simpler inferences. not even in the imagination.” On the one hand. and vice versa: what is imaginable is logically possible. Deductive Connection What makes an argument a deductive argument.

and we call him “Sam. then the argument is invalid. let’s enter some possible (imaginary) world. Up to this point we have had no problem imagining all this. Let’s ﬁrst imagine Premiss 1 to be true: We line up all the horses. Sam is green To test whether this argument is valid. So. false conclusion) is not possible. We have to try to imagine the conclusion to be false. Now comes the last step. say. and we imagined Sam to be one of those green horses. World #233. that worked too.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. and we make each of them green. Question: Can we actually imagine this? . No problem imagining that. then arg is deductively invalid To test this. then arg is deductively valid if yes.” OK. Consider the following example: All horses are green Sam is a horse So. all the horses have been imagined to be green. we need to ﬁnd out whether it is possible (imaginable) for the premisses to be true while the conclusion is false.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity 45 consequence of this deﬁnition is that we now have a concrete method for testing whether an argument is valid. because that shows that the connection can be broken in the imagination. We need only consider what is and what is not imaginable about the argument. If that “bad” combination (true premisses. for that would show that the connection cannot be broken in the imagination. that was easy. Sam is green T T F if not. if that “bad” combination is possible. We will attempt this in stages. then the argument is valid. and let’s see whether we can actually imagine all the premisses to be true and yet imagine the conclusion to be false. Next. On the other hand. OK. we also imagine Premiss 2 to be true: We pick one of the horses. bad combo poss ? All horses are green Sam is a horse So.

and we make them green. Consequently.46 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. imagine the conclusion to be false? Yes. the argument is deductively valid. we also imagined Sam not to be a horse. Consequently. So. while we imagined all horses to be green. Sam is a horse T T F if not. our attempt to break the connection of the argument with our imagination was successful. then arg is deductively valid if yes. On the other hand. bad combo poss ? All horses are green Sam is green So. imagine Sam not to be green? No. at the same time. Inductive Connection What makes an argument an inductive argument. World #5012. imagined Sam to be green! That kind of automatic inclusion is the very mark of a valid argument. indeed. consider a different argument. When we imagined Sam to be a green leaf. say. a green leaf. We conclude that our attempt to break the connection with our imagination failed. . we pick another thing. Next. this argument is deductively invalid. we have said. can we now.” So. is that the person making the argument claims that the connection from the premisses to the conclusion is not a connection of logic. and we call it “Sam. let’s enter some other possible world.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity In other words. in this World #5012. the conclusion turned out to be automatically included: it turned out that we automatically. So this time. without intending to. of course not. Question: Can we now. we also imagine Premiss 2 to be true. in World #233. That’s because. let’s ﬁrst imagine Premiss 1 to be true: we line up all the horses. then arg is deductively invalid Again. and let’s see whether we can imagine the premisses to be true and yet the conclusion to be false. to test this. but rather a connection that is based on matters of fact or probability. and this time. and then imagined Sam to be one of those horses. we have successfully imagined both premisses to be true.

we can reliably conclude that . then we would not be surprised. in all likelihood . such as “So. and the reader is expected to know that an inductive connection is intended. in all likelihood. So.. Thus. the possible degrees of inductive strength cover the entire range of probabilities from 0 percent to 100 percent. So. a regular inference indicator. we might put the probability of getting cramps at 51 percent..6 Deductive and Inductive Validity 47 Such a claim is often signaled by using special words when the conclusion is introduced.” or “So. . The conclusion has some merit. Our inferences are often much stronger than somewhat strong. . If Alex got cramps. there are people in that room The probability of this conclusion is extremely high—99 percent would be a good estimate— but it falls short of 100 percent. Given the information in the premisses.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. But sometimes. .” or some wording to that effect. But there is no guarantee that he will get cramps. So.” is used. The inference is therefore inductively somewhat strong.. . Alex will probably get cramps. nor would we expect that he would. we would say that the inference is inductively very strong. We heard laughing voices coming from the classroom across the hall. . but the qualitative labels indicated are useful for ordinary purposes. . . such as. . say a VCR. we have the deﬁnition: An inductive argument has a connection whose degree of strength is deﬁned by the degree of probability (%) that the conclusion has relative to the premisses: a very weak inference (5%) a weak inference (25%) a somewhat strong inference (51%) a medium strong inference (75%) a very strong inference (99%) a conclusive inference (100%) Of course. Swimming after eating a meal often leads to cramps. Here are some examples. Alex just ate a sandwich and went swimming. since the voices could come from some device. “So.

the argument is uncogent. it was built by some intelligent beings Bill Clinton jumped off the top of the John Hancock Building. for example. especially when those relationships are less than conclusive. Otherwise. This happens when the connection is based on proven laws of nature. There is an additional. An inductive argument is cogent if and only if (1) (2) all the premisses are known to be true. The following argument.48 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. furiously ﬂapping his arms. had no ropes on him. because the conclusion is conclusively established (relative to the premisses). The label in question is that of cogent argument (with its opposite. We all make many inductive inferences that are cases of good reasoning. This is what the following deﬁnition says. and the conclusion has a strong degree of probability (51% or greater) relative to the premisses. For example. Sometimes the inductive connection is fool proof. (He was normally dressed. no attached jets. An inference is inductively valid if and only if the conclusion has a 100% probability relative to the premisses. in virtue of that fact that there are no exceptions to the connection. the next two arguments are inductively valid: There is a city on the Moon So. The purpose of this label is to capture the commonsense idea of good reasoning when inductive relationships are involved. this label agrees very well with the ordinary meaning of the word.) So. and as it turns out. etc. in the sense that it allows of no exceptions. In these cases it is appropriate to say that the argument is inductively valid.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity Sometimes inferences are even stronger than that. useful label to describe inductive arguments. and we all like to be rewarded for doing so with some ofﬁcial label of praise. Bill Clinton fell helplessly towards the ground. is a cogent argument: . uncogent argument).

For example.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. provided one is always clear about how labels are used when they are used. I will be able to buy food from my grocery store next week. teachers do not lie to their students). My grocery store has given no notice that it is closing down soon. this is an uncogent argument. A. In each test give an itemized description of the relevant items such that: (a) for the invalid arguments. the argument is uncogent. 49 Excellent reasoning. Therefore.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity Up to now I have always been able to buy food from my grocery store. The premisses are known to be true. and (b) for the valid arguments. Exercise 1. Use the possible world test to determine whether the following arguments are deductively valid. It must be said that there is not a consensus among philosophers and logicians about what labels one should use for the various inductive relationships that characterize inductive arguments. This is really bad reasoning.B Testing Validity Part A. and the conclusion has a very strong probability (95%) relative to the premisses. and use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. when an argument uses false information. Use the given capital letters to make the descriptions. This is a cogent argument. generally. just like so many other arguments we give every day. the description must show that having true premisses then means that you can’t have a false conclusion (annotate “= F?” with “can’t”). so that the arguments that we have here called “inductively valid arguments” must then be re-labeled as “inductively conclusive arguments. but they are unimportant. So. the next quiz will be very easy as well. But. as in the following example. we may plausibly restrict the lablel “valid” to apply only to deductive arguments. the description must show the premisses to be true and the conclusion to be false. . So. All the logic quizzes in the course have been very easy so far. A ﬁnal terminological point. The probability of the conclusion is very low (5%) given the information of the premisses (because.6. or when the connection is inductively weak. The teacher announced that the next quiz will be extremely difﬁcult.” And various logic books take that very approach. Semantic issues like this often arise in any discipline.

The following are all inductive arguments. some tall things are not bald. R. Is the argument cogent? (Base this on Q.50 Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. . such as cigarette smoking. So. he doesn’t want gun control. People generally vote for candidates that agree with their view of things. no ants are square. values = T ? yes = T ? yes = F ? yes possible world description: x1 D C x2 D C x3 D C x4 R F x5 R F x6 R C George (D = Democrat.) 1. C. Some Democrats are tall. (D. B. S = short) Part B. processed foods. fewer students are able to attend college now than two generations ago. B. (A. 2. F. the younger generation will succeed in achieving the “American dream. most college students today will vote for Senator Obama. R = Republican. G = green) 5.) Question 3. Despite some gloomy prospects. F = gun freedom. So. 3.” and they realize that achieving it will be more difﬁcult than it was for the previous generations. B. So. environmental pollution. Question 1. Is the inductive connection a strong one? (Use your best judgment. No Democrats are bald. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. All blue things are square. R = round) 3. B. Are all the premisses true? (Use your best judgment. Many people nowadays are aware of the various health hazards that exist in their everyday lives. No ants are blue. Some ants are round.2. So. 2. S = square. Most people think that Senator Obama has a platform that represents social responsibility and that Senator McCain has a platform that represents national security. (A.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity poss. substance abuse. All ants are blue. College tuition is much more expensive now than two generations ago. But they also have a hopeful outlook about the possibility of their own success. (D. H = has hair. the younger generation still seeks the “American dream.) Question 2. So. G = green) 6. (A. T. Most college students today have a strong sense of social responsibility. So. No blue things are square. So. S. no ants are square. So. All Democrats want gun control. George wants gun control. Determine whether these arguments are cogent by answering the three indicated questions with yes or no. Arg is invalid All Democrats want gun control. R = Republican) 4. George must be a Democrat. Some round things are blue. R = Republican) 1.” 4. S.1 and Q. C = gun control. Some ants are blue. George is not a Democrat.

Now. So. if they didn’t think that they needed health insurance. and they also know how best to avoid such hazards and have changed their lives accordingly.S. Some people have jobs that actually require them to meet speciﬁc goals. and if they do not meet those goals. So. while most people think that they will not actually undergo costly medical procedures in the near future. they usually worry more about the market performance of their retirement funds. Most people are conﬁdent about their present state of health. 6. if they are able to do so. 7. they buy health insurance. Some of your acquaintances have mentioned their concern about the poor performance of the stock market. these people will enjoy healthier lives. A number of American families are planning vacations in Europe next year. people wouldn’t do that. 8. they must be expecting that the value of the euro will go down substantially against the dollar next year. and yet. When people begin to consider their retirement.Basic Logical Concepts Section 1. So. So. they will lose their jobs. they are probably thinking about retiring soon. One of your friends has a job with speciﬁc performance recommendations. . 5. if he does not meet those recommendations. Americans now ﬁnd European vacations to be very expensive. most people do think that this is a real possibility.6 Deductive and Inductive Validity 51 lack of exercise. So. because the price of everything in euros when converted to dollars costs much more than in the U. your friend will lose his job.

the internal structure that the simple sentences themselves have.” “some people have souls. If some people have souls. So. An example can illustrate this point.” and “all people have souls. If George has a soul. and a compound sentence is a sentence that is grammatically constructed out of other sentences by means of sentential operators. we now consider these three sentences to be basic units that can in their entirety be represented by individual capital letters. This chapter will introduce various techniques for evaluating these kinds of patterns. . for the time being. Simple and Compound Sentences A simple sentence is one that is not grammatically constructed out of other sentences by means of sentential operators. In this part of our study we will ignore. then all people have souls. then some people have souls. so that we can represent the argument in the following way: If G then S If S then A So.” “some P are H. This argument is constructed out of the three simple sentences “George has a soul. if G then A G = “George has a soul” S = “some people have souls” A = “all people have souls” This pattern is easily recognized to be valid from a commonsense point of view.” Instead.CHAPTER 2 PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Section 2.” Presently. we ignore the fact that these sentences will later be analyzed as having the patterns “g is H. if George has a soul.” and “all P are H.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic Propositional Logic is the study of the argument patterns that are made by the various arrangements of simple sentences and sentential operators. then all people have souls.

and Bob likes to sing. Such a sentence is formed by applying a negative operator to the sentence that is being denied. If Bob sings. Symbolization S M P C Note that each of these sentences is not constructed out of any part that by itself is another sentence. Partial symbolization S and B not F P or Q If B then O Symbolization S&B ~F P∨Q B⊃O Negations A negative sentence is a sentence that is the explicit denial of another sentence. . Examples of simple sentences: Sue likes to dance. then the party is over. Some old books are made of solid gold.Propositional Logic Section 2. . Therefore. Symbolization Rule #2: Sentential operators are symbolized in the following way: Type negative operators conjunctive operators disjunctive operators conditional operators biconditional operators Example not p both p and q either p or q if p then q p if and only if q Symbolization ~p p&q p∨q p⊃q p≡q Examples of compound sentences: Sue likes to dance. each of these sentences is a simple sentence. or no one does. Z. Not all pigs can ﬂy. B. No pigs can ﬂy. . Everyone has a soul.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic 53 Symbolization Rule #1: All simple sentences are symbolized by a unique capital letter: A. All schools in Chicago have few students. And only simple sentences are symbolized in this way. . . C.

It is false that the Moon is inhabited.54 Propositional Logic Section 2. That frogs can sing is false. B∨O G∨E S∨H E∨H S∨F . she knew what to do. or else q p. English conjunctive operators p and q p and q both p and q not only p but also q p. we will ﬂy.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic Examples Chicago is not an exciting city. but maybe q p. Conjunctions A conjunctive sentence is a sentence that makes a double assertion. Not everyone is a sinner. Both Sue and Bob are exhausted. Not. Someone likes you. alternatively. Sue is at school. You have eyes. and Chicago is windy. alternatively. Symb. I am tired. but maybe it was hard. moreover q p. Loyola U. Symb. yet you see nothing. Not only is it hot. although q p. Liz was smiling. Such a sentence is formed by applying a disjunctive operator to the two sentences at issue. although they are selﬁsh. q Examples The box contains books or old records. English disjunctive operators p or q either p or q p. is good. Chicago is large. I want food. but q p. That unicorns exist is not the case. but it is also muggy. We will sail. L&W L&W S&B H&M G&E T&F C&S E&S S&K Disjunctions A disjunctive sentence is a sentence that asserts two alternatives. It is not the case that all pigs can ﬂy. No way that Joe is that smart. but it is expensive. yet q p. q Examples Chicago is large and windy. moreover. It is not true that some houses are red. Cats are cute. ~C ~S ~P ~H ~M ~U ~F ~J ~L English negative operators not p not p it is not the case that p it is not true that p it is false that p that p is not the case that p is false no way that p p. Not. Either God exists or things have an end. or else she is at home. The test was easy. Symb. Such a sentence is formed by applying a conjunctive operator to the two sentences being asserted.

1 Introduction to Propositional Logic 55 Conditionals A conditional sentence is a sentence that asserts that if one situation occurs [the condition].” When a conditional sentence is symbolized. and in any situation that requires spelling out in complete detail under what conditions some item under consideration will obtain or occur. Such a sentence is formed by applying a biconditional operator to the two sentences at issue. Sue’s going requires that she take a taxi.3. Biconditionals A biconditional sentence is a sentence that asserts that two sentences are equal conditions for each other. For the moment. in the event that p not p unless q not p without q p only if q p requires q Examples If Sue went out. Sue went out only if she took a taxi. or complex inheritance situations. provided p. there are many diffent kinds of conditional expressions.Propositional Logic Section 2. q. Sue didn’t go out unless she took a taxi. she took a taxi. Sue took a taxi. English conditional operators if p then q if p. science. Sue took a taxi. but we won’t give them right now. the condition is always listed on the left-hand side. In English. Biconditional sentences are especially important in mathematics. The two sides are equal in the sense that each side produces the other. [sometimes] in the event that p. We will discuss these later in Section 2. she took a taxi. Symb. Think of theorems of algebra. she took a taxi. q q. Provided Sue went out. q q. Sue didn’t go out without taking a taxi. O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T O⊃T The last four conditional forms are somewhat complicated and require expanations. without variation. Sue took a taxi. and law. If Sue went out. then another situation also occurs [the result. [sometimes] q. In the event Sue went. if she went out. . or what it takes to graduate and get a diploma. then she took a taxi. provided she went out. Such a sentence is formed by applying a conditional operator to the condition part and the result part. or engineering projects. in the event she went. just accept these translation rules exactly as stated. if p provided p. or consequent]. but they are all equivalent to the standard form: “if p then q.

Can you ﬁnd it? 1. Check the symbolizations of the following sentences. biconditional operators p if and only if q p when q. George smokes exactly when he is bored. We ﬁght if we are attacked. One of them is wrong. We can approach the symbolization in successive stages: (Bob will go and Sue will go) or (Bob will not go and Sue will not go) (B and S) or (not B and not S) (B & S) ∨ (~B & ~S) Here is another example: George will go if Alice goes. Usually the parts of our sentences themselves have sub-parts. If either David or Alice works tonight. Symb. It moves when and only when it is touched. and only when q p in case q. The sentence as a whole is a disjunction. Consider this example: Either both Bob and Sue will go. then the work order will be ﬁnished on time and the contract will be honored.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic Examples It snows if and only if it is real-cold-and-wet. yet it is false that Sue isn’t going. and only then p exactly when q p if q. The normal sentences of our discourses are more complex than the examples we have given so far. and those in turn have their parts. then such parentheses are optional). He get an A if he studies. (D ∨ A) ⊃ (W & C) Is it OK? . or neither will go. but not otherwise Symbolization Rule #3: If a compound sentence is a part of a larger sentence. (G if A) and not (not S) (A ⊃ G) & ~(~S) Why don’t you try some. if the part is a negative sentence ~p . but not otherwise. S≡W M≡T F≡A S≡B A≡S Eng.56 Propositional Logic Section 2. and only then. then that compound part must be enclosed in parentheses (except. but each of the two choices is a conjunction.

or . . Those tools belong only to natural languages. to indicate the word range of the operators. or Joe gets nothing. . . You will be glad that you are taking logic. written to the left. (2) Another device that ordinary language has is to collapse duplicated grammatical forms into single ones. and the mouse goes too. . . . dashes. Here is the donation rule that you are required to follow: “Liz gets $100. and. . and the cat goes. . luckily for you.. . is that a legal formula? Well.. semicolons. and Joe in any amount. . longer. (S & ~H) ⊃ ((D & W) ∨ K) Is it OK? ((D & C) & M) ⊃ Y Is it OK? Let’s do some more of this.. commas. These auxiliary words help to indicate word groupings: both. .Propositional Logic Section 2. either. but it must be in accordance with the donation rule that the Donations Committee has assigned to you. contain a grouping: “Liz is happy..1 Introduction to Propositional Logic 57 2. and . or. If only someone on that committee had taken some logic! However. and. then so do you. as a result of the contraction. and quotation marks. if they all go. then. or the killer cat is on the alert. Ordinary language has special tools of grammar and style for representing exact logical relationships. . .” L & D & S ∨ ~J ← That is the pattern that the rule speciﬁed. . . and Sue gets $100. and you certainly cannot be blamed for interpreting that stated rule in the way that is most advantageous to you—as long as the money you donate agrees with the rule as it is worded. . to separate the words of a written passage into smaller self-contained meaningful groups. For example. single sentences that. and . . The one and only tool that the language of logic has is the use of parentheses to create the groupings that are intended. . they didn’t. 3. .” “. if. These are periods. Both the dog goes. colons. . Sue. some general observations. . because you have been ordered by the Donations Committee to give donations to Liz. . . . . . nor. If the dog is sleeping and not a person is home. . double sentences can be collapsed into shorter. separated from the main operator word. ← Oops. . this donation rule was badly written. but you did. then either the doors are locked and the windows too. our new logical language does not have any of these tools. neither. but now we are going to start using your money. . First. and Dave is happy” = “Liz and Dave are happy” (3) Ordinary language has special punctuation marks. (1) Ordinary language has various grammatical operators that have duplicate auxiliary words. . . .. Dave. . Of course. and Dave gets $100..

Sentences are divided into certain types.⊃.} ∴ (The commas used here are not symbols of the logical language but are used only as visual separators for the convenience of the reader. or Joe gets $0. and Dave gets $100. 3.Z ~. either Sue gets $100. Liz gets $100. and we can write these in an exact manner by using any of the three above-mentioned tools (but the words “both” and “either” are especially helpful here): 1. The following expressions make up the language of Propositional Logic. = Liz and Dave each get $100.).B. = (L & (D & S)) ∨ ~J Yes! That will cost you nothing.[. let’s continue with the previous example about your ﬁnancial donations. and either both Dave gets $100 and Sue gets $100. or Joe gets $0. These symbols are: simple sentence symbols: operator symbols: grouping symbols: the infererence symbol: A. If a compound sentence occurs as a part of a larger sentence. or Joe gets $0. which we list separately below.≡ (.D. Both Liz gets $100. Either Liz gets $100. = L & ((D & S) ∨ ~J) Ouch! That will still cost you $100. these symbols may be combined into meaningful sequences called sentences and arguments.. and Dave gets $100.C. and Sue gets $100. or Joe gets $0.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic So. 2.Z ~p p&q p∨q p⊃q p≡q The only punctuation used in the symbolic language is parentheses. of any degree of complexity: simple sentences: negations: conjunctions: disjunctions: conditionals: biconditionals: A.&. there is a list of the individual symbols that may be used in the language.].. and Sue each get $100. Take that one! The Language of Propositional Logic Let’s review what we have presented so far and put it into a more focused form.{... or Joe gets $0. and either Dave and Sue each get $100. = Either Liz. and. First. = (L & D) & (S ∨ ~J) Ouch! That will cost you $200.∨. then that compound part must be written as a .. Dave.) Secondly.C. = Liz gets $100.D. and.58 Propositional Logic Section 2. either Sue gets $100... or Joe gets $0..B. In this description the variables p and q represent all sentences. There are three possible interpretations that we can give to the badly written donation rule.

. pn ∴q A⊃B B⊃C A∨M ~M ∴C One may also write arguments as a horizontal list. When an argument is symbolized and written as a horizontal list. the premisses are separated by commas. depending on the circumstance of their use. and thus may not be written: M. pn ∴q ∴D A ⊃ B . . . This is usually done when one only wants to identify an argument. A ∨ M . K & B ⊃D⊃G A&B∨R&W – was the intention to write: M & (K & B) ? – was the intention to write: D ⊃ G ? – was the intention to write: A & [B ∨ (R & W)] ? An argument is a list of sentences (called the premisses of the argument) followed by the inference indicator. .1 Introduction to Propositional Logic 59 unit by enclosing it in parentheses. B ⊃ C . followed by another sentence (called the conclusion of the argument). But. using no punctuation to separate the sentences. without devoting special attention to it at that point: p1 . Arguments may be written in two ways. ~M When an argument is written in English.Propositional Logic Section 2. expressions such as the following are well-formed. so that sentences are separated by periods. as shown here. According to these grammar rules. p2 . except that as a visual aid. . then no punctuation is used. One may write them as a vertical list. C ⊃ D . and thus qualify as sentences. ~~B ~(~B) D & ~G (S & Q) ∨ (R & W) but the following expressions are ill-formed. This is usually done when an argument is being presented for analysis or demonstration: p1 . . it is typically written as a horizontal list. using normal punctuation. negative sentences ~p are an exception: the parentheses are optional. A & ~B and A & (~B) are both correct.

next are very large parentheses. . Imagine that! Exercise 2. next are braces. . 4. next outermost are brackets.(. if not P. . next are large parentheses. Symbolize the following sentences. Either there is noise. . but it is harder to read: (A & ((~H & ~K) ∨ ~C)) ⊃ (~P ⊃ (F ≡ ((S & G) ∨ ~K))) Incidentally. . . .]. Although there was noise. etc. using just regular parentheses is also correct. The parrot won’t bite. or there is no noise.}. (Wait. . { A & [ (~H & ~K) ∨ ~C ] } ⊃ ( ~P ⊃ { F ≡ [(S & G) ∨ ~K] } ) Of course.{. First. . or there will be noise. next are large braces.1 Introduction to Propositional Logic There is an optional convention regarding the use of parentheses when they are nested within other parentheses. B although N. then. It is false that the parrot will not bite. then F if and only if either both S and G or not K. The parrot will bite. give a partial symbolization with capital letters and the original English operator expressions. the parrot will bite.60 Propositional Logic Section 2. Nested parentheses use brackets and braces in place of parentheses in the following manner: innermost are parentheses.[. . 5. 2. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 1.B Symbolizing basic sentences Part A.). If A but either neither H nor K or not C. .). the parrot bit. . if pigs don’t exist. then.[. not a goal. . 6. Please don’t worry right now about being able (unable) to symbolize sentences as complex as the one that will now appear before your very eyes. then farms exist if and only if both sheep and goats exist or cows don’t.]. If there is no noise. we will soon introduce a truth-value calculation method by which we can easily show that this last sentence is actually true. give a complete symbolization. Secondly. as it is called. .) If animals exist.1. either neither horses nor cows exist or chickens don’t. That sort of ability is an unintended by-product. The following far-fetched example illustrates this convention.(. B ~N ⊃ B N&B . but. if there is noise. . Write the sentences and the two results side by side for comparison. next are large brackets. if not N.}. 3. The only purpose here is to illustrate the method of nesting parentheses. .{. A.

There are. and we have shown how to represent them in our language of logic. It doesn’t bite if and only if there’s no noise. 14. The parrot did bite. 6.2 Details about Negations So far we have looked at ﬁve fundamental types of English sentences. 13. 3. and the parrot did bite. if there is no noise. There is an available Exercise Work Sheet. 16. Just some practice. 2. That the parrot did bite is deﬁnitely false. the parrot did not bite. 18. 16. compound symbolic sentence. 8. There was no noise. 11. 10. even though it didn’t. It bites if and only if there is noise. 9. 12. though it noised. 19. & C ~(A & B) (~A)(& B) (K ∨ M) ∨ ~P K ∨ (M ∨ ~P) M & (~P & ~M) ∨ P (M & ~P) & (~M ∨ P) ~(~A) & ((~B) & (~C)) ~(~(~M)) & ~~~P ~(B ∨ ~C) ⊃ (~B & C) Section 2. The parrot didn’t bite. 18.Propositional Logic Section 2. Yay. if you try to read these in English. 61 Part B. 15. 19. but some of them are incorrectly written. yet. 13. 14. there was noise.) It may help here. Each of the following expressions is intended to be a single. don’t worry about whether any of these are true or false. There was noise. Not only was there noise. A. 17. If the parrot didn’t bite. of course. Figure out which of these is a well-formed sentence. 4. there was no noise. 9. The parrot does not bite. Write “YES” or “NO. 15. it bit thee not. The choices are noise and a biting parrot. 10.” (Of course. A & ~M ~A ⊃ ~C K (& ~M) ⊃ A. That the parrot didn’t bite is deﬁnitely true. the parrot also bit. B. 17.2 Details about Negations 7. 20. 12. A = Apples are red B = Bananas are yellow C = Carrots are crunchy 1. B ~P & M ~A & B A⊃BC K ∨ (~M) A&B∨C (~A) & B K = Kangaroos are jumpy M = Monkeys are funny P = Parrots are noisy 11. There was noise. 7. 20. 5. very many English . but the parrot didn’t bite. 8.

then either Ken did not go. Well. if not both Ken and Sue went. but we can’t tell who. For the most part. both not K and not S (~K & ~S) Who went to the party? Did Ken? Deﬁnitely not. if not either Ken or Sue went. not both K and S ~(K & S) Who went to the party? Did Ken? Maybe.” which means “not either” as well as “both not. maybe not. not either K or S ~(K ∨ S) Who went to the party? Did Ken? Deﬁnitely not. as the next examples show: Not either Ken or Sue went. Neither of them went. it was either Ken who did not. Well. and we do on occasion get confused and make mistakes. neither) There is a difference between not both and both not. not either. On the other hand. Either Ken didn’t go or Sue didn’t go. we handle these complex sentences quite well. We can see now what the logical relationships are. there! We know what happened. Did Sue? Maybe. then both Ken did not go. We know what happened. Neither of them went. and Sue did not go. Somebody didn’t go. but there are difﬁculties here. either not K or not S (~K ∨ ~S) Who went to the party? Did Ken? Maybe. Did Sue? Deﬁnitely not. or it was Sue who did not. Not both of them went. At least one of them didn’t. both not. Not either of them went. Not either Ken went or Sue went.2 Details about Negations sentences that are complex cases of these ﬁve general patterns. On the one hand. And thrown into the mix is the operator “neither. either not.” All these relationships are called De Morgan’s Laws. that’s it then. maybe not. Did Sue? Maybe. or Sue did not go (and vice versa). as the following examples show: Not both Ken and Sue went. Both Ken and Sue did not go. and Sue did not go (and vice versa). We can’t tell who did and who didn’t. Ken did not go. Not both Ken went and Sue went. since somebody didn’t. There is also a difference between not either and either not. Details about Negative Combinations (Not both.62 Propositional Logic Section 2. . So. Either Ken or Sue did not go. Did Sue? Deﬁnitely not. Both Ken didn’t go and Sue didn’t go. Did both go? No! That much we know.

1 44 2 44 3 GOOD: De Morgan’s Laws Details about Multiple Negations There are all sorts of patterns that involve more than one negation. just cancel out.2 Details about Negations 1 44 2 44 3 not both p and q ≠ both not p and not q not either p or q ≠ either not p or not q ~(p & q) ≠ ~p & ~q ~(p ∨ q) ≠ ~p ∨ ~q not both p and q = either not p or not q not either p or q = both not p and not q ~(p & q) = ~p ∨ ~q ~(p ∨ q) = ~p & ~q 63 BAD: One can never just distribute negations (or collect them). what are they saying? Bob: Sue: Bob: not C not (not C) not (not (not C)) ~C ~(~C) ~(~(~C)) This looks like complicated stuff.” And the argument continues. The thoughts are complex. “Chicago is not an exciting city. but Bob and Sue don’t give it an extra thought. because they are each employing the Law of Double Negation. when they try to do formal analysis.Propositional Logic Section 2.” and offended. Double Negation The exception to the general rule is the case of double negation. someone (Sue) replies. Just always remember the following rule (that has only one exception): General Rule: Multiple negatives do not just cancel out—with one exception. Notice. that multiple negatives. somehow. Somebody (Bob) says. People tend to think. then one afﬁrms the sentence: ~(~p) = p . this law applies only to the denial of a denial: When one denies the denial of a sentence. “How can you say that? You’re wrong.” Whereupon Bob says. So. We must have a closer look. “That’s not true. And there is indeed one special rule to that effect—but it applies only to one special case. but they reduce to something very simple.

The next sentence is somewhat theatrical. because he knows that denying her denial of his denial keeps things as he said them. Or. so it would be. not both not B and not S ~(~B & ~S) It would be wrong to cancel out the negatives ~(~B & ~S) B&S . Negations of Negative Conjunctions (Not both not) Consider the sentence: It is not the case that both Bob does not go and Sue does not go.64 Propositional Logic Section 2. But in the realm of informal. It is actually incorrect to say. What this sentence (with four negatives. popular speech. ~(~(~C)). if the speaker were intending to negate a negation. count them) literally says is: Not at all times do I not to all peddlers not all the money not-give. that meaning is not the intention.” because if one does not talk to no strangers. Sue denied that Chicago is not exciting. but the intention is clear. Bob then questions Sue’s denial. single denial: not (I do sometimes give some peddlers some money). Instead. otherwise. ~(~C). “And don’t talk to no strangers. that is not the intention. because she thinks Chicago is exciting... then one does talk to some strangers. and what that means is not so easy to ﬁgure out. Emphatic Negation People are often criticized for not speaking proper English. In informal speech. But in any event.2 Details about Negations Bob was thinking that Chicago is not exciting.. negation can be emphatic. I don’t never give no peddlers no money. in the sense that any number of negative expressions can be used to express the meaning of a single denial. Phew! Good thing that we do these things on auto-pilot. ~C. ~C. the original assertion means the simple. especially when it comes to negations. C. we might actually get them wrong. DEAD WRONG . and he said so.

.” also called the exclusive sense.” also called the inclusive sense.Propositional Logic Section 2. In the weak sense. So. The inclusive sense is the ordinary sense of “or.. by De Morgan’s Law yes.2 Details about Negations Rather.. And so on.” In this special sense we mean to limit the alternatives to the cases where exactly one of the two choices is true. Negations of Negative Disjunctions (Not either not) Consider the sentence: It is not the case that either Bob does not go or Sue does not go. but not both p and q. what about the strong sense? Should we introduce a new logical symbol to represent this different sense of “or”? No. Exclusionary Disjunction (Either but not both) Normally when we assert alternatives. All these alternatives employ the weak sense of “p or q. not either not B or not S ~(~B ∨ ~S) ~(~B) & ~(~S) B&S (to cancel to B ∨ S would be DEAD WRONG) yes. by the Double Negation Law Again. The simplest way to symbolize sentences that use the strong sense of “or” is to explicitly write out the full form of what is intended (one should always make intentions explicit): p or q. by De Morgan’s Law by the Double Negation Law 65 You can see that the correct answer is quite different from the “cancellation” answer. the correct answer is altogether different from the “cancellation” answer.” and it is the default interpretation. This is known as the strong sense of “or. the correct analysis proceeds as follows: ~(~B & ~S) ~(~B) ∨ ~(~S) B∨S . we do not have anything special in mind: Do you drink coffee or tea? Do you have a brother or a sister? If you own either a dog or a cat then you are prohibited from renting the apartment. (p ∨ q) & ~(p & q) . But sometimes we have something special in mind when we say “or. “p or q” is true if at least one of the choices is true. We already know how to deal with the weak sense of “or”: use the symbol “∨”. and it is false if both choices are false.

then he is not a millionaire.) S or D. If not B then not S ~B ⊃ ~S What shall we do with these two negatives? First of all. the Law of Contraposition . . But. then not) Consider the negative conditonal sentence: If Bob did not go. the presence or absence of the word “either” does not determine whether the strong or weak sense of “or” is intended. • ~p ⊃ ~q ≠ p ⊃ q • ~p ⊃ ~q ≠ ~q ⊃ ~p • ~p ⊃ ~q = q ⊃ p CANCELLATION is DEAD WRONG CONVERSION is DEAD WRONG YES. This law is known as the Law of Contraposition. but not both S and D (S ∨ D) & ~(S & D) Please notice. In written English. Negative Conditionals (If not. Consider. P⊃M The second thing to notice is that there is an important law that governs how negations behave inside conditional sentences. ~P ⊃ ~M This sentence is a necessary truth. then Sue did not go. or he went drinking. The necessary truth is turned into a ridiculous falsehood: If Bob does have a penny to his name. the word “or” will receive a special intonation as well as a special emphasis. Only the presence or absence of special emphasis on “either .66 Propositional Logic Section 2. see what happens when one just cancels the two negatives. . all we can do is to underline or bold-face the expression at issue: Bob either went with Sue. note that there are many examples that show it is DEAD WRONG to just cancel out the negatives. let us also state what is not permitted.2 Details about Negations In spoken English. or” determines what sense is meant. then he is a millionaire. If Bob does not have a penny to his name. (She hates it when he drinks. And the same is true when the word “or” is used by itself. But.

If they can live on Mars. (V. J) .B Symbolizing Arguments Part A. M) Argument is: valid either R or M not R So. 1. regardless of whether any part is originally negated. if people can live on Venus. Write the results side by side for comparison. ﬁnish symbolizing the arguments by replacing the English operator expressions by the symbolic connectives. The law says that. I) 4. Either this painting is by Rembrandt or it is by Vermeer. If people can live on Venus. don’t reverse what was just said. and it applies to all conditional sentences. then the condition part is also wrong. then the insurance is in force.Propositional Logic Section 2. T) 3.2. So. use the suggested capital letters to abbreviate the simple sentences of the argument. (3) Optional: In your opinion. the insurance is not in force. (P. then they can live on Jupiter. A. (Be careful. (1) First. So. then they can live on Mars. it must be by Vermeer. (C. if the result part is wrong. It isn’t by Rembrandt. If the premium was paid. M. Analyze each of the following arguments in two stages. Coffee and tea both contain the drug caffeine.) Since the starting conditional sentence can already contain a negative. (R. Therefore. Exercise 2. M R∨M ~R ∴M 2. But the premium was not paid. tea contains the drug caffeine. there are four forms that the Law of Contraposition can take. This results in a partial symbolization consisting of capital letters connected by English operator expressions. for a given conditional sentence. then they can live on Jupiter. is the argument valid or invalid? Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (2) Next. up front or in back.2 Details about Negations 67 The Law of Contraposition is actually very general. So.

If this creature doesn’t have teeth. it must increase its tuition (in order to offset expenses). These sentences are a little more difﬁcult. V) [Note: “because”] 6. Use exactly the same instructions as for Part A above. Either Bo or Clyde is dancing. you can go on the adult rides. If George or Liz went to the party. They won the battle. therefore. So. if the child won’t scare it. because his license has been revoked. So. So. (R. T. (B. Rotterdam is not in Europe. If some number N is the largest possible number. the streets are wet or slippery. B) 8. S) Part B. and it is false that they did not win the war. (R. George did indeed go to the party. or it won’t be sold this year. (L. (T. didn’t go. It won’t be sold by August. It is not true that both you can’t go on the kiddie rides and also you can’t go on the adult rides. But he must have violated the law. L. (S. then he will introduce the speaker. W) 9. We must conclude. the dog won’t bark. The orchestra won’t play both Stravinski and Mozart tonight. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. it is not the case that it doesn’t have teeth. E) 8. So. (A. If Al isn’t singing then Bo isn’t dancing. But. If George is not late for the meeting. it won’t be sold this year. If it freezes. Y) 6. it is not the case that it doesn’t bite. I) 7. it can’t increase its tuition (so as to remain competitive). the streets are wet or slippery. (H. W. S) 10. Therefore. as we know. The house will be sold by August.2 Details about Negations 5. But. If this school is to survive. S) 2. The child won’t scare it.68 Propositional Logic Section 2. Liz. C) 9. B. If it rains. but Tom and Susan were still upset. play Mozart tonight. It is raining or freezing. then the streets are wet and slippery. then both N is the largest possible number (by hypothesis) and N is not the largest possible number (since you can add 1 to it). Therefore. if Clyde is not dancing then Al is singing. His driving license won’t have been revoked if he hasn’t violated the law. So. as it turned out. So. So. (K. naturally. it’s false that some number N is the largest possible number. So. Ouch! Well. W. (L) . that they will not play Stravinski tonight. F. (D. They will. then Tom and Susan were upset. he did not introduce the speaker. can’t go on the kiddie rides. (A. So. Rotterdam is in Holland or in Europe. this school is deﬁnitely not going to survive. Rotterdam is in Holland. 1. A) 5. (G. If it rains and freezes. (M. then it does not bite. C) 3. George was late for the meeting. It is raining or freezing. So. (R. You. then the streets are slippery. I) 7. S) 4. So. The dog won’t bark. they did win the war. if this school is to survive. then the streets are wet. F. and it is not true that they didn’t win the battle.

then Italian wines will win. we have at our disposal the Law of Biconditionals: p ≡ q = (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) Later. F. R. and Bob will go only if Sue will go (B ⊃ S) & (S ⊃ B) B≡S Since we have introduced the triple-bar symbol to abbreviate the longer version. If Paris does. or Rome will host the wine convention this year. so we will not say much more about them. then French wines will win. but equivalent ways. Double Thens [Double Consequents] Some conditional sentences express a double result. London. but equivalent symbolizations. Bob will go if and only if Sue will go Bob will go if Sue will go. If London does.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 69 10. Details about Doubly Conditional Sentences One large group of conditional sentences contains two conditional sentences. So. There are three subgroups here. either French wines or Italian wines will win this year. resulting in different. (P. I) Section 2. If Rome does. then British wines will win. At this point we turn to conditional sentences together with the various pitfalls that they pose. . when we do deductions. A biconditional sentence is a sentence composed of two conditional sentences with the one being the converse of the other: the condition of the one is the result of the other. and vice versa. we will give two separate rules for this law. The English form of these sentences can be analyzed in different.Propositional Logic Section 2.3 Details about Conditional Sentences We continue our analysis of the complex cases of the ﬁve basic types of English sentences. B. British wines will not win this year. Biconditional Sentences (If and only if) We have already introduced biconditional sentences. L. Paris.

if Sue went. later. If Bob went. and if q. then Sue will go. . Ooops! Nonsense This third English pattern. then r. not just conditionally. and Liz will go too. “if p. we will give two separate rules for this law. B. as the Law of Double Ifs indicates (this law is better known as the Law of Exportation): (p & q) ⊃ r = p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) There is yet a third way to say all this in English: if Bob went. then Liz also went. Double Ifs [Double Antecedents] When we want to say something. and if Sue went. the proper way to symbolize this third sentence is to pick one of the two preceding ways. then Liz also went. then. . (B & S) ⊃ L If Bob went. . we have a variety of ways to say that. So. These sentences mean the same thing. and the fact that these two sentences mean the same thing is recorded in the Law of Double Thens (we may also call it the Law of Double Consequents): p ⊃ (q & r) = (p ⊃ q) & (p ⊃ r) Again. but on a double condition. then Liz also went. This sentence may plausibly be analyzed in either of the following two ways: (B ⊃ S) & (B ⊃ L) B ⊃ (S & L) What makes this possible is that both sentences have the same condition part. and Sue went.70 Propositional Logic Section 2. when we do deductions. .” has no independent counterpart in the formal language. because it is a grammatical mixture of the two preceding sentences. and both sentences have the same double result.3 Details about Conditional Sentences If Bob goes. B ⊃ & (S ⊃ . B ⊃ (S ⊃ L) Both these sentences have each of B and S as a condition part. These sentences mean the same thing. S and L. and both these sentences have L as the result part.

They all have a condition part. otherwise. the kinds of English expressions that the speaker often uses are any of the following: If p then q If p. And they all share the same function: if the condition part is true. of all the different conditions that are sufﬁcient for him to be able to assert this one result. the speaker is trying to express that. This could be important. and they all have a result part. that is. and in particular the requirement that he states. the speaker has ﬁxed on a predetermined condition. for example. The Purpose of Stating a Sufﬁciency When a speaker intends that something is sufﬁcient.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 71 Details about Two Functions of Conditional Sentences All conditional sentences are the same. q When p. . (that is sufﬁcient for that) Sue did not go to the party. he is proposing one stated condition. required consequences. and nothing is asserted to be true or false. Still. When sufﬁciency is at stake. a predetermined end result is the focus of the discussion. then Sue did not go to the party. then the result part is being asserted. (that is sufﬁcient for that) Sue did not go to the party. q Provided p. q The Purpose of Stating a Requirement When requirement is the purpose. (that is sufﬁcient for that) Sue did not go to the party. there are two different purposes that one can have in mind when one utters a conditional sentence: the purpose of stating a sufﬁciency or the purpose of stating a requirement. If it was cancelled. If what? .Propositional Logic Section 2. If Bob went with Liz. q In the event that p. there is no commitment. if p In the case that p. If Sue had to work. if someone is trying to explain something that happened. and he is asserting that that condition has certain requirements. Here. q q.

then (it is required that) he took Liz along. But without such further qualiﬁcation. To go to the party. Bob went only if he did not have to work. he must have had transportation. Bob did not go unless Sue gave him permission. then (it is required that) he dressed up for it. then he did not go to the party.. Much better to use the idea of requirements.72 Propositional Logic Section 2. . If Bob did not dress up. But. And one must keep that in mind. B⊃S B⊃L B ⊃ ~W B⊃D B⊃T An important feature of requirement talk is that it lets you know what will happen if the requirement is not satisﬁed. then . (Logic and mathematics texts usually call these types of sentences “statements of necessary condition”. If Liz did not come along. then (it is required that) Sue gave him permission. If Bob went to the party. If Bob went. 4a. . then (it is required that) he had transportation. 1b. 2b.” as we have just done above. to refer to required consequences as being “conditions” creates confusion in ordinary speech. If Sue did not give him permission. 3b. If Bob did not have transportation. then he did not go to the party. 3a. then what? . If Bob went to the party. correctly. Bob did not go without taking Liz along.) One can certainly express a sense of requirement by using the conditional expression “if . . the ﬁve previous sentences may also be symbolized.” is used mostly to express sufﬁciency. dedicated forms of expression that always express the meaning of something that is required. That kind of negative thinking is generally the only point of using requirement talk. then he did not go to the party. 2a.3 Details about Conditional Sentences If Bob went to the party. If Bob had to work. then Bob did not go to the party. By contrast. then (it is required that) he did not have to work. These two versions.” if one adds the phrase “it is required that. there are special. q must be so. then Bob did not go to the party. the afﬁrmative one and the negative one. the expression “if . Not p unless q Not p without q p only if q p requires q if p. . by making the intended negations explicit. If Bob went to the party. which everyone understands very well. then . 5a. If Bob went to the party. are logically equivalent. 5b. Speakers mostly use these special forms to accomplish this purpose: 1a. . If Bob went to the party. And when that is indeed the case. So. . . it is quite appropriate to symbolize the original sentence in terms of the negative meanings. ~S ⊃ ~B ~L ⊃ ~B W ⊃ ~B ~D ⊃ ~B ~T ⊃ ~B . 4b. . Bob was required to dress up.

but as “and not. . 5. entire COMBO becomes “then” “not.” is a COMBO. it is very important that we be able to do this rare thing. Logical clarity is always important. without their help. not p without q = p “then” q 3.without” is a COMBO.” a conjunction with a negation on the right-hand side. we note that the above-listed correlations can be efﬁciently summarized by means of the following general recipes: not p unless q = p “then” q “not. Nevertheless. if ever. We have success. The alternative “negative versions” agree with 1. . K ⊃ M = ~M ⊃ ~K I ⊃ H = ~H ⊃ ~I D & ~M S & ~H Meaning Change Through Special Emphasis It is a plain fact about the spoken language. then “without” means “and not. without their help. . . without having the money. . Throughout this course we will have several occasions to note speciﬁc cases of this.unless” is a COMBO.only if. Here are some additional cases where the meaning of an English operator is changed by means of emphasis. and we have already examined this device in the case of exclusionary disjunction.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 73 Admittedly.” but if the without clause has the meaning of a potential negative outcome. . then “without” means “if not. and we are rarely. We cannot improve the situation. p only if q = p “then” q p unless q = p . asked to re-express any of them as afﬁrmative conditional sentences. all of the above requirement expressions have an independent existence in ordinary speech. George ordered the dinner. by Contraposition We should observe that the word “without” can be used in a second way. entire COMBO becomes “then” “. .” George can’t keep the store. “if not” q = “if not” q . One linguistic tool that achieves this effect is spoken emphasis. not as a conditional operation. . 3. that two people can speak the same worded sentence and yet mean two different things. entire COMBO becomes “then” left-hand side is AFFIRMATIVE. without having the money. And to everyone around it is perfectly plain what each uttered sentence means. 2. .Propositional Logic Section 2. 2. If the without clause has the meaning of an accomplished negative fact. “unless” is replaced by “if not” 1. In this regard. p 4.

but not otherwise. This emphasis signals that the speaker intends to say that studying is not only sufﬁcient.” Here are some examples illustrating the difference: #1. There is no hint here that “provided” also means requirement.” something that is sufﬁcient. This is indicated by the emphasis that is applied to the word “provided” by putting it in italics. Yes. provided that you go back to school. then the function has a value greater than 0. provided the number x > 1. who knows what he’d get. #3. But with special emphasis. that is just one of the listed solutions. #2. The intention is not to state a necessary and sufﬁcient condition for the function. if S = if S then A S⊃A In example #1. provided he studied a bit. provided he has studied hard. “provided” has the meaning of sufﬁciency. Bob will get an A. Maybe there are other values for x for which it has not yet been proven that the same relationship holds. the next example is different. Without special emphasis the word means a mere “if. the word “if” means “if . “provided” means that the condition is sufﬁcient to produce the result. But. #4. If the number x is greater than 1. The function f (x) > 0 . (S ⊃ E) & (~S ⊃ ~E) S≡E . if N then F N⊃F In example #2. Maybe he’d luck out and still get the A. but it is also required. studying a bit is enough to get the A. If Bob didn’t study a bit. “provided” has the strong meaning of both sufﬁciency and necessity.74 Propositional Logic Section 2. A if S. (S ⊃ A) & (~S ⊃ ~A) S≡A In example #3. . but not otherwise. I will pay your expenses. But. but not otherwise. . A. E if S.” so that with special emphasis it has the meaning of the biconditional operator “if and only if. Bob will get an A.3 Details about Conditional Sentences Different Meanings of “provided” The word “provided” is also capable of different meanings.

Joey: Mom: Joey: Mom: Joey: Mom: Mom. you’re grounded. written sentences have only their default meaning (again. to mean “if and only if. when we analyze sentences and symbolize them. how should one analyze and symbolize such sentences? The answer lies in distinguishing written sentences from spoken sentences. Mom. They stand together or they fall together. written sentences have a default meaning. create different meanings for them by using special intonation and emphasis.) But. the speaker can.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 75 Again. You need to take some logic.” with the right kind of emphasis and intonation. Mom.Propositional Logic Section 2. First of all. It is probably fair to say that this double meaning of the word “provided” is so ingrained in ordinary speech. with some exception). Wait. on such occasion. on some occasions. if you clean your room. But for formal. Even in colloquial speech this use is very misleading. lack those very tools that create the alternative meanings (with some exception). and under what conditions. like who inherits what. Gee thanks. Bye. and we should strive not to use such imprecise language. and libraries for them useful. Wait. the ones we ﬁnd in articles and books. In some sense they are both right. as the next example shows. Misusing the Word “if” It is worth mentioning that even the simple connective “if” can be used by some people. Consequently. By contrast. sentences that are not spoken but written. You proposed sufﬁciency. The two conditions are equal. “provided” has the strong meaning of sufﬁciency and necessity. So. when written sentences are spoken. I did require it. and because of that. and questions about . I emphasized the word “if”. Good thing you didn’t require it. A Closing Note about Determining Meaning With the possibility of sentences having alternative meanings. you may go and play. may I go out and play? Yes. in a last will and testament. And thanks. (This makes written books and written articles possible. Bye. I did take logic. we may only consider this default meaning. I said “if you clean your room!” I know. in example #4. public speech this is not acceptable. that it is not possible to dismiss the stronger uses as “sloppy” speech. Thank goodness that nothing important was at issue.

Of course. The exception mentioned is this. one in which some written passage is a transcript of some conversation. if p in the event that p. There are writing devices such as italicizing. whose purpose is to introduce some special meaning that the reader must determine. written sentences have only their default meaning.76 Propositional Logic Section 2. q (sometimes) p is sufﬁcient for q if p then q p⊃q Statements of requirement (a. must be dismissed as irrelevant. Such sentences were originally spoken with possible special meanings that we cannot now know with certainty. underlining. q q.a. statements of necessary condition) if p then what? p requires q if p then it must be that q not p unless q not p without q p only if q q is necessary for p if not q then not p if p then q ~q ⊃ ~p p⊃q . there is a different kind of case. the default meaning is available. q provided p. and for the rest. but possible alternative meanings must also be allowed. Reference Sheet for Conditional Sentences Statements of sufﬁcient condition if what? then q if p. But that effect is very limited.k. In this type of case. and scare-quoting. q in the case that p. then q if p.3 Details about Conditional Sentences possible alternative meanings when spoken in some special way.

Beth will go. So. (2) Give a complete symbolization. Matthew will have eaten.3. B. James ate only if Beth cooked. So. Beth will go. statements of necessary condition and sufﬁcient condition) p if and only if q p if q. So. R) 4.D Complex Symbolizations Part A. cond. (3) Optional: Say whether you think the argument is valid or invalid.a. consisting of the capital letters suggested and the original English operator expressions. for q p if and only if q (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) p≡q Statements qualiﬁed by condition (here p is often afﬁrmative) deﬁnitely p. (V. He does know Greek. provided q (sometimes) p. then it is not romantic. Analyze each of the following arguments in two stages. The music isn’t by Vivaldi unless the style is baroque. If James doesn’t ask her. then p is true ~q ⊃ p Exercise 2.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 77 Statements of equal condition (a. B.C. (G. 1. if Beth cooked.Propositional Logic Section 2. So. she did give the lecture.k. Robert doesn’t know Latin. but only if q p equals q p and q are equal conditions p is a nec. unless q unless q. consisting only of the capital letters and the symbolic connectives. If the style is romantic then it is not baroque. people did show up. So. (1) First. Beth will go also. (L. S) . Matthew did not eat unless James ate too. Laura will give the lecture unless no one shows up. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (M. J. if James asks her. and p only if q if p then q. (B. give a partial symbolization. Matthew will. M) 3. Robert knows Latin if and only if he doesn’t know Greek. p p. and if q then p p when and only when q p in case and only in case that q p just in the case that q p. J) 5. Luckily. If Matthew asks her. except if q if the qualiﬁcation q does not occur. and suf. if the music is by Vivaldi.B. A. is: valid L if and only if not G G So. G) Arg. not L L ≡ ~G G ∴ ~L 2. Write the results side by side for comparison.

The tenant has not satisﬁed the terms of the lease unless the rent is paid. So. or I have a good hand. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. either the price or the employment is not going up. then the price will go up. T) 16. Samantha will not run unless the weather isn’t hot. then E P⊃E 2. R. he knows algebra. if P. G. if it is a platypus. (L. But any fool knows it can’t be both round and not round. So. the demand hasn’t gone up at all. Write the results side by side for comparison.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 6. R) 10. If the hostess likes the senator. If the pressure is too low. this cylinder can’t be square. The budget will be either reduced or frozen. A. but he doesn’t know trigonometry. if the budget is reduced. S) 13. Provided Albert knows calculus. T. E) 11. First. But he doesn’t know calculus if he doesn’t know trigonometry. So. P) 8. However. he doesn’t know trigonometry unless he doesn’t know algebra. Symbolize the following sentences. (C. give a partial symbolization with capital letters and the original English operator expressions. or there won’t be a pay increase. the engine won’t run. So. So. T) Part B. This doesn’t lay eggs. They won’t sell the house only if they can pay the mortgage. if the engine runs. And. Also. (D. If the demand for these products goes up. (C. H) 14. L) 7. But. it still has to be round. give a complete symbolization. So. if the rent is not paid. I can take this trick. If the host knows the senator. Joe knows algebra. But neither does the host know him nor does the hostess like him. Either clubs were led or spades are trump. (C. even if the cylinder is square. he doesn’t know trigonometry without knowing calculus. If this is a platypus. There won’t be a pay increase unless the budget is not frozen. (R. R. some employees must be let go. Then. So. but he does know algebra. Unless clubs were not led. F) 12. the demand for these products will go up only if employment goes up. the presssure is neither too low nor too high. P. I have a good hand. then the senator will be invited. Joe does not know calculus. the senator won’t be invited. Pay special attention to what symbolization recipe you use for each of the conditional sentences. that she will run while the weather is hot isn’t going to happen. H) 9. either I can take this trick. The landlord may evict the tenant only if the tenant has not satisﬁed the terms of the lease. (S. they can’t pay the mortage. So. P) 15. S. But. (S. So. A. (K. Some employees must be let go. P.78 Propositional Logic Section 2. then it lays eggs. But they are selling the house. . (E. if spades are trump. then he will also be invited. the landlord may evict the tenant. the engine won’t run. This cylinder is square only if it isn’t round. I. So. Thus. (L. if the pressure is too high. 1.

49.3 Details about Conditional Sentences 3. A if and only if A. 4. 19. 16. A. B. so B. B. 11. 46. If this is not a platypus. 28. if A if not A then not B not B if not A not A unless B not A unless not B A unless B A unless not B A only if B 35. so C A. B. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 41. 32. This is a platypus. since C A and B A but B A but not B A even though not B A or B either A or B not not A that not A is not true it is not false that not A not both A and B not both A and not B both not A and not B neither A nor B not either A or B 18. 21. 37. 47. 10. 14. 11. 15. 5. 40. 29. 24. 34. 23. B. it is not a platypus. Being a platypus requires that it lay eggs. and C not all of A. 22. 16. This is not a platypus unless it lays eggs. 8. B. Symbolize the following constructions. It lays eggs if and only if this isn’t a platypus. This lays eggs unless it is not a platypus. 31. and C not one of A. 7. 2. Without it laying eggs. Provided this lays eggs. 38. since B and C A. 48. and C if A then B B. 9. 44. 43. 13. 1. Unless it lays eggs. 6. 25. 9. This is a platypus only if it lays eggs. 30. not A . 7. 10. This lays eggs without it being a platypus. 50. Only if this is a platypus does it lay eggs. or C one of A. 26. 51. 14. 45. It doesn’t lay eggs without being a platypus. 12. 5. it isn’t a platypus. 15. 39. 33. B. then not B unless B. and C A. 12. and C not any of A. 20. 4. It isn’t a platypus only if it doesn’t lay eggs. 8. 27. this is not a platypus. B. but only if it lays eggs. 79 Part C. either not A or not B not either not A or not B A. 3. 17. it doesn’t lay eggs. B A exactly when B if A and B then C if A and if B then C if A then if B then C if A then both B and C if A then either B or C if A or B then C not if A. not A only if B A only if not B not A without B A without B A if and only if B A but only if B Only if B. 36. 6.Propositional Logic Section 2. 13. 42.

. is not true. then Bill won’t go only if Alice does go. Hint: ﬁrst of all. unless Alice goes. then if George or Sam goes. Only if not both George and Sam won’t go. * 10. Unless Liz goes. unless George goes.” or F. 9. Unless Liz or Mandy goes. 8. 3. sentences that are true.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences Statements are sentences that have a truth-value. 1.” or T.” That approach would work very nicely here. if Bill goes. then Mandy will go without Liz going. after that. either Bill or Alice won’t go. even though Bill and Alice will not go without George and Sam not going. * A very weird sentence! Some logic books rightly recommend always treating “X unless Y” as “X or Y. Either Bill will go and not both Liz and George will. We will discuss here how we determine what the truth-value of a sentence is. Symbolize the following sentences. 5. If Bill and Alice go. 6. While both Liz and Mandy won’t go only if either George or Sam do go. unless Bill goes. symbolize it all. and if Liz doesn’t go. If and only if Liz goes is it true that if George goes. These are difﬁcult. unless Sam goes. Unless Liz or Mandy goes. or Alice will. Mandy goes only if Alice goes. then. 2. or that are false. will Liz and Mandy go. that is. 4. not both George and Sam will go. write a partial symbolization with capital letters that keeps the English operators as stated and that also adds parentheses as an additional tool for grouping. But replacing “unless X” by “if not X” works as well.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences Part D. neither George nor Sam will go. or either Bill will go and both Sam and Mandy won’t. If either neither Liz nor Mandy goes or neither George nor Sam go. It is false that both neither both Liz won’t go and either George won’t go or Mandy won’t go. Section 2. provided Bill goes but Alice doesn’t. nor Sam won’t go. and “being false. 7. that Bill and Alice will go while both Liz will and George won’t. we can say that there are two truth-values: “being true. but regardless. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Mandy goes.80 Propositional Logic Section 2. and also Alice won’t go. So.

These rules can be conveniently displayed here in the form of tables. and we are ignorant about everything else. Consequently. The Case of Simple Sentences We have spent a great deal of our lives observing what things are like and learning from other people things that we did not or could not observe ourselves.Propositional Logic Section 2. and the sentence “Some people own castles” has the truth-value T. That means that we know a great many things to be true. the sentence “Some people own Jeeps” has the truth-value T. we all know. one for each operator. we have never in our lives considered this sentence before. Because of our present knowledge. In the case at issue. we could say that the truth-value of simple sentences is a given starting point. Thus. Rather. This sentence.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences 81 CASE 1. and some people own castles. is calculated by us. so it is wrong to say that we observed or learned before that the sentence is true. . Some people own Jeeps. the conjunctive sentence “Some people own Jeeps. It is in this manner that we determine the truth-value of simple sentences. we start with the following (agreed upon) truth-values for the indicated sentences: Horses exist Some people own Jeeps All roses are red The Moon has lakes of water (5 + 5) − (15 − 5) = 0 Christopher Columbus once talked to the Beatles Christopher Columbus collected sea shells An earthquake will hit Los Angeles next year T (known by observation) T (known by observation) F (known by observation) F (known by education) T (known by arithmetic) F (known by education) unknown unknown CASE 2. and all compound sentences. as we say. then the conjunction of the two sentences also has the truth-value T. The Case of Compound Sentences The case is altogether different when it comes to compound sentences. the truth-value of this sentence. has the truth-value T. But. We calculate the value while we encounter the sentence. In general. and we know a great many things to be false. and some people own castles” has the truth-value T. It would be wrong to say that we have observed or learned all the truth-values of all the compound sentences. That means there are ﬁve such rules. and there is a rule for calculating truth-values that says that if two sentences have the truth-value T. we use precise rules to make all such calculations. Consider. on the ﬂy.

A negated sentence has the opposite value of the unnegated sentence. Negations. MEMORIZE. the sentence is F. calculated value cats and dogs eat = T cats and dogs purr = F cats and dogs bark = F cats and dogs sing = F cats eat = T cats purr = T cats bark = F cats sing = F basis dogs eat = T dogs purr = F dogs bark = T dogs sing = F [need two T’s] [Oops!] [Oops!] [Oops!] Disjunction. calculated value cats or dogs eat = T cats or dogs purr = T cats or dogs bark = T cats or dogs sing = F cats eat = T cats purr = T cats bark = F cats sing = F basis dogs eat = T dogs purr = F dogs bark = T dogs sing = F [need one T] [need one T] [need one T] [Oops!] . calculated value pigs do not exist = F not all dogs bark = F not no cats purr = T pigs do exist = T all dogs bark = T no cats purr = F basis [need opposite value] [need opposite value] [need opposite value] Conjuctions.82 Propositional Logic Section 2.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences conjunctions “and” p q p&q T F F F disjunctions “or” p q p∨q T T T F conditionals “if then” p q p⊃q T F T T biconditionals “if and only if ” p q p≡q T F F T negations “not” p T F ~p F T T T T F F T F F T T T F F T F F T T T F F T F F T T T F F T F F MEMORIZE THESE TABLES CAREFULLY. the sentence is F. otherwise. We will illustrate these rules in turn. Each of these tables displays the rule for calculating the truth-value of a given type of compound sentence. otherwise. MEMORIZE. A conjunctive sentence is T when both parts (the conjuncts) are T. A disjunctive sentence is T when at least one of the two parts (the disjuncts) is T.

But the method that one uses in logic must be absolutely foolproof. then the conditional is F. the end result has the character of an absolute proof. because a single error in any part of the process completely invalidates the entire process. Here is the procedure: Stage 1. For example. the sentence is F. Write these values directly beneath those simple sentences. Write the sentence to be evaluated. A conditional sentence is always T—except. and just beneath each of the simple components. and when these small pieces are done according to the rules. and anything less than that is 100 percent wrong. suppose that each of the simple components A and K happens to have the value T. and the reader may already be familiar with one or another of them. otherwise. calculated value if cats eat then dogs do = T if cats purr then dogs do = F if cats bark then dogs do = T if cats sing then dogs do = T cats eat = T cats purr = T cats bark = F cats sing = F basis dogs eat = T dogs purr = F dogs bark = T dogs sing = F [avoid T — F] [Oops!] [avoid T — F] [avoid T — F] Biconditionals. This tree is constructed in small pieces. as illustrated here: Stage 1: ~(A & M) ∨ (K & ~W) T F T F . and that each of the simple components M and W happens to have the value F. So. when the condition part is T and the result part is F.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences 83 Conditionals. A biconditional sentence is T when the two parts have the same value (2 T’s or 2 F’s). we will adopt a single method to eliminate the possibility of a confused mixture of methods when several methods are allowed. calculated value cats eat if and only if dogs do = T cats purr if and only if dogs do = F cats bark if and only if dogs do = F cats sing if and only if dogs do = T cats eat = T cats purr = T cats bark = F cats sing = F basis dogs eat = T dogs purr = F dogs bark = T dogs sing = F [same values] [Oops!] [Oops!] [same values] Using the Tree Method to Calculate Truth-Values Let us introduce a uniform procedure for determining the value of any compound sentence. write the given truth-value of that component.Propositional Logic Section 2. We call our method the “Tree Method” because the ﬁnished product has the appearance of a branched tree. Methods of logic must be 100 percent right. There are several recognized methods.

which is T. . Use the truth function rules to calculate the values of all the many subparts of the sentence. calculate the value of the next outermost sub-part(s). Then. and also the value of the entire right-hand side. so that throughout the entire process there is only one growing tree. calculate the innermost sub-parts. then the next ones. Here are the steps that were taken: Of course.4 Determining the Truth-Value of Sentences Remaining stages. one must progressively calculate the value of the entire left-hand side.84 Propositional Logic Section 2. each step is added on top of the previous steps. The whole sentence ~(A & M) ∨ (K & ~W) then receives the ﬁnal value T. Here are a few more ﬁnished examples. continuing until one has calculated the ﬁnal value of the sentence itself. working outwards. which is T. First. In the present example.

3. Recall that this deﬁnition was: An argument is valid if and only if: . 16. 6. 10. The capital letters have the indicated meanings and the indicated real-world values. 9. A. learn the rules ﬁrst.4.Propositional Logic Section 2. 20. 14. Do not skip any steps: show your work for every sub-calculation that you make.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments 85 Exercise 2. You should know the results here without looking at the rules. So. You are not allowed to use any rules other than the rules for calculating truth-values. 21. 13. 19. Use the Tree Method to determine the values of the following compound sentences. 8. A C M R T T F F (C ∨ R) ≡ ~M (M & A) ∨ (C ∨ ~R) (A ⊃ R) ∨ (A ⊃ ~R) ~(A & R) ⊃ (C & M) ~A ∨ [(M ⊃ C) ∨ R] (~A ∨ ~R) ⊃ (A ∨ ~M) ~(A ∨ (M ⊃ (C ∨ R))) ~((A ≡ ~A) & C) ⊃ (~M & ~(M & R)) ((~A ⊃ M) ⊃ (A ⊃ R)) ⊃ ((C ≡ M) ⊃ ~C) ~(~A & ~(~M & ~C)) ≡ ( A ∨ (M ∨ C)) (((C ≡ M) ≡ R) ≡ ~R) ≡ (C ≡ ~M) Section 2. ~A ∨ M R & ~M C ≡ ~M C & (A ∨ R) C ⊃ (R ∨ M) (A & R) ⊃ M ~A ∨ ~M ~R ⊃ ~C R ≡ ~(~C) (M ⊃ ~R) & A A ∨ (M & ~R) C = Cairo is a city R = Russia is a city 12. in Chapter 1.B Calculating Truth-Values Part A. T&F F∨T F≡F F⊃F F∨F T&T F⊃T F⊃F F&T T∨F T⊃F F≡T T∨T T≡T F⊃T F∨T F⊃F F≡F F&F F∨F T⊃T F&T T≡T T&F T∨F F&F T≡F T⊃F Part B. 17. 2. 15. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. we introduced a precise deﬁnition for the notion of validity. 5. This is just some practice to help you learn your T’s and F’s. 7. 22. 18. 4. A = Amsterdam is a city M = Morocco is a city 1. 11.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments Earlier.

neither the bananas nor grapes are fresh. then these grapes should be fresh too. First of all. we want to consider how many possible situations there are regarding the truth or falsity of these two simple sentences. but the grapes are not. we have to determine what the simple sentences are that make up this argument. we have to build a truth-table for it. What are the situations that we can imagine regarding the freshness of the bananas and the grapes? We can imagine four possible situations: that both are fresh. So. called the truth-table method. so that we can actually scrutinize what happens in each possible case. But these grapes are not fresh. that the bananas are fresh. but the grapes are. and from top to bottom.86 Propositional Logic Section 2. that neither are fresh. We scan the argument from left to right. and ﬁnally. This argument is symbolized as: B⊃G ~G ∴ ~(B ∨ G) To test this argument for validity. and we record the simple sentences that we encounter in the following manner: BG Next. Consider the following argument: If these bananas are fresh. that the bananas are not fresh. At the heart of this method is the idea that all the many possibilities regarding the simple components of an argument can be itemized in a list of possibilities. These four situations can be added to the table. We will now develop a special method for using this deﬁnition.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments the following combination is not a logical possibility – all the premisses are true and the conclusion is false. in the following way: BG TT TF FT FF .

we continue building the table we have just started. our task is to calculate the value of the expressions in each of the columns in each of the rows. So. row 4: F ⊃ F = T premiss 2: row 1: ~T = F. So. prem B⊃G prem ~G aux B∨G concl ~(B ∨ G) BG TT TF FT FF So. aux B∨G row 3: ~T = F. This is a tedious task. our task is simply to calculate the values of the premisses and the conclusion in each of these situations. row 3: F ⊃ T = T. and by also introducing auxiliary columns that display the compound parts whose values will be used to calculate the values in the main columns. So. let us proceed in that manner. it turns out that it is far more efﬁcient to calculate values column-by-column than row-by-row. The value of ~(B ∨ G) must be calculated from the value of (B ∨ G). . Every spot needs a value. Since we already know what the four possible situations are. row 2: T ⊃ F = F. we must ﬁrst calculate all the possible values in the auxiliary column. Now. Notice how each column has been labeled. concl ~(B ∨ G) row 4: ~F = T BG TT TF FT FF The values for the conclusion column cannot be determined immediately from the simple columns on the left. to see whether the invalid combination of true premisses and false conclusion can exist. but somebody has to do it. we must ﬁnd out whether or not it is logically possible that the premisses are true while the conclusion is false. The values in the two premisses columns can be calculated directly from the simple columns on the left: premiss 1: row 1: T ⊃ T = T.Propositional Logic Section 2.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments 87 Our purpose is to determine the validity of the argument. prem B⊃G T F T T prem ~G F T F T row 2: ~F = T. by constructing main columns for each of the premisses and the conclusion. So.

aux B∨G T T T F row 3: ~T = F. the truth-table.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments Aux. So. row 2: T ∨ F = T. we have no further need for the auxiliary values. Here is the symbolization of this argument. then that proves that the argument is invalid. If such a combination does exist. Let’s try another argument. Notice how we will cross out the auxiliary column. The test is to see whether there is an invalid combination (all true premisses and a false conclusion) amongst all the possible situations. a slight variation on the previous one. prem B⊃G T F T T prem ~G F T F T row 2: ~T = F. If these bananas are fresh. row 3: F ∨ T = T. and the validity test: . concl ~(B ∨ G) F F F T row 4: ~F = T BG TT TF FT FF It remains now to apply the test for validity. neither the bananas nor grapes are fresh. then that proves that the argument is valid. because there is no invalid combination [ T T F ] in any row. The values in the auxiliary column were needed only to calculate the values in a main column. then these grapes are fresh. but if such a combination does not exist. We also want to eliminate the auxiliary values from the test we are about to perform because they get in the way and cause confusion.88 Propositional Logic Section 2. But these bananas are not fresh. column: row 1: T ∨ T = T. But now that that part is done. row 4: F ∨ F = F Conclusion: row 1: ~T = F. Here she goes: T prem BG B⊃G ~G ∴ ~(B ∨ G) TT TF FT FF B⊃G T F T T T prem ~G F T F T aux B∨G T T T F F concl ~(B ∨ G) F F F T – ok – ok – ok – ok invalid combo ? This table shows the argument to be valid.

because there is an invalid combination [ T T F ] in row 3. using up all N rows. then how many possible situations must we write out for these simple components in order to test the argument for validity? The answer relies on a rule: For 2 simple components. using up all N rows. In the ﬁrst column.Propositional Logic Section 2. write half a column of T’s and half a column of F’s. For 4 simple components. for k simple components. (When you get to the last column. Step 3. Step 5.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments T prem BG B⊃G ~B ∴ ~(B ∨ G) TT TF FT FF B⊃G T F T T T prem ~B F F T T aux B∨G T T T F F concl ~(B ∨ G) F F F T invalid combo 89 ? – bad comb This table shows the argument to be invalid. perform the following steps: Step 1. there are 24 = 2×2×2×2 = 16 possible situations.) . there are 22 = 2×2 = 4 possible situations. There will be N = 2k rows in the table. Step 2. In general. begin the top line of a table. and list on the left side of the table all the simple sentences that occur in the problem. To automatically generate all of the possible cases for a given problem. each time cutting in half the size of the alternating blocks of T’s and of F’s. until the last column has been ﬁlled in. Step 4. Repeat Step 4. and cut the size of the blocks of T’s and F’s in half. there are N = 2k possible situations. More Complicated Cases We must now generalize the method. How does this method work for more complicated kinds of arguments? For example. there are 23 = 2×2×2 = 8 possible situations. there will be a perfect alternation of one T by one F throughout the entire column. if an argument is built up from three. and alternate such halved blocks. when there are k such simple sentences. or four. Move one column to the right. First of all. simple components. For 3 simple components.

and then we write the column TFTFTFTF under B. we ﬁrst write the column TTTTFFFF under S. SLB TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF As before. . we now add the main columns and the auxiliary columns in the top of the table. aux ~L F F T T F F T T prem S ⊃ ~L F F T T T T T T aux ~B F T F T F T F T prem L ≡ ~B F T T F F T T F concl S⊃B T F T F T T T T – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok S ⊃ ~L L ≡ ~B ∴S⊃B SLB TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF This table shows the argument to be valid. We must list these simple sentences in their natural order as they occur in the argument (left to right. top to bottom).5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments Let’s consider the following argument: S ⊃ ~L L ≡ ~B ∴S⊃B This argument contains 3 simple sentences. then we write the column TTFFTTFF under L. and we then calculate all the values in every column and every row. To generate the complete list of possible cases for the argument.90 Propositional Logic Section 2. because there is no invalid combination [ T T F ] in any row. and so there must be 8 possible cases (rows).

We then show that an invalid combination of values does not exist.D.? – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok – ok pqr TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF We conclude that this argument form is valid.q⊃r p&q p.E. This is signiﬁcant. We need not worry right now about learning these laws. we are able to prove in a comprehensive way that all these laws are in fact valid inferences. we would have to rely on mere intuition to determine whether some principle is a law of logic. By using this method. One group of laws belong to a type that are argument forms. We will study these laws in detail in Section 2. ~q p⊃q. and we leave it as an exercise for the reader to give the proofs for the others. prem p⊃q T T F F T T T T prem q⊃r T F T T T F T T concl p⊃r T F T F T T T T invalid comb.7 below.p p ⊃ q .Propositional Logic Section 2. That will come later.q p ∨ q .q⊃s /∴ q /∴ ~p /∴ p ⊃ r /∴ p /∴ p & q /∴ q /∴ p ∨ q /∴ ~p /∴ r ∨ s Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Hypothetical Syllogism Simpliﬁcation Conjunction Disjunctive Syllogism Disjunctive Addition Reductio ad Absurdum Complex Dilemma We illustrate how the proof is done for the Hypothetical Syllogism. They are all very easy. and they are nowadays usually presented as the following group: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) p⊃q.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments 91 Verifying the Laws of Logic The truth-table method just presented has an important application to the veriﬁcation of the laws of propositional logic.p⊃r. because without this method. Proof: We construct a complete truth-table for the argument form in question. From this it follows that the argument form in question is valid. Q. . To prove: The Hypothetical Syllogism is a valid argument pattern. ~p p p ⊃ q . p ⊃ ~q p∨q. but we take the opportunity here to illustrate the theoretical importance of the truth-table method with regard to these laws. We only want to test them now with the truth-table method.

5. G ⊃ (G & H) ~G ∴ ~H 9.” “prem. 4. 2. ~R ∨ ~S ~R ∨ S ∴ ~R 8. F ⊃ (G ∨ A) ~G ∴ ~F 5.C Truth-Tables to Test Validity Part A. Give complete truth-tables for them to show that they are valid. 6. such as the Law of Double Negation and De Morgan’s Laws.q⊃s p≡q p ⊃ (q & r) /∴ q /∴ ~p /∴ p ⊃ r /∴ p /∴ p & q /∴ q /∴ p ∨ q /∴ ~p /∴ r ∨ s /∴ (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) /∴ (p ⊃ q) & (p ⊃ r) Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Hypothetical Syllogism Simpliﬁcation Conjunction Disjunctive Syllogism Disjunctive Addition Reductio ad Absurdum Complex Dilemma Bicondition Double Consequents .” or “concl.” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.5 Truth-Tables to Test the Validity of Arguments All the proofs for the remaining argument forms proceed in a similar fashion.q p ∨ q .q⊃r p&q p. 10.92 Propositional Logic Section 2. Exercise 2. 1. Give complete truth-tables for these arguments to determine whether they are valid.p⊃r. 5.” or “concl. We will have an opportunity to continue the needed proofs for these additional laws in the very next section. 3. p ⊃ ~q p∨q. there is another group of laws of a different type. 9. Label the columns as “aux. In addition to this group of argument forms. 11. ~q p⊃q.” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. These are the laws of logic that we discussed above. S ≡ ~K K ~B ⊃ S ∴ ~B ∨ S Part B. 1. These laws are equivalence forms. p⊃q. 7. they too are valid. ~(A & B) ~A ∴B 6.p p ⊃ q . ~(Q & ~P) Q ∴Q&P 2. ~D ⊃ ~T D⊃T ∴T∨D 3. A. a few of which we have already met.” “prem. A∨W ~A ∨ ~W ∴ ~W ≡ A 10. So. 8. Label the columns as “aux. ~p p p ⊃ q .B. F ⊃ (G & A) ~G ∴ ~F 4. K∨M ~M ∴ K ≡ ~M 7.

A ⊃ (B & C) . E ∨ ~P . U ∨ ~E . sometimes we make an inference from P to Q. C ⊃ ~A /∴ ~A & B 8. for example. For example.Propositional Logic Section 2. ~T ⊃ ~Q . ~A /∴ ~B 2.” or “concl. (A ∨ ~B) ≡ (C & B) . (M ⊃ S) ⊃ (N & O) . 1. sometimes we can clarify the meaning of some complex assertion P by showing through a series of equivalent substitutions that P means the same thing as some simpler assertion S. then the one sentence may take the place of the other one in any process of inference. B ≡ ~C /∴ ~(A ≡ C) 4. P ⊃ T . O ⊃ S /∴ ~M Section 2. (4) the consistency of a set of sentences. ~S . (3) the logical status of one sentence. which is either logical truth (tautology). the Law of Double Ifs. Give complete truth-tables for these arguments to determine whether they are valid. by showing ﬁrst that P produces R and secondly that R means the same thing as Q. ~U ∨ ~E /∴ ~(P & E) 3. or logical falsehood (contradiction). and the Law of Double Thens.” “prem. And if they mean the same thing.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns 93 Part C. then: . Intuitively. the Law of Bicondition. Let’s develop this idea of sameness a bit. earlier we introduced De Morgan’s Laws. and ﬁnally. or logical contingency (neither of the above). Or. ~C ⊃ ~B . A ≡ (B & C) .” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. ~(~P & ~Q) /∴ T 7. ~G ∨ M /∴ M ∨ ~F 6. F ⊃ (G & A) . the Law of Double Negation.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns We have just seen how the truth-table method can be used to test (1) the validity of arguments. to give another example. two sentences are equivalent if they mean the same thing. The Equivalence of Two Sentences We have already used the idea that certain kinds of sentences are equivalent to each other. If two sentences mean the same thing. These are: (2) the equivalence of two sentences. Let’s turn to these other concerns. ~(A ∨ ~C) /∴ ~B 5. ~(A ≡ B) . Label the columns as “aux. the Law of Contraposition. There are several other matters that are the proper concern of logic and that can be tested by the truth-table method.

As an example. in each row the two sentences do have the same truth-value. let us test the two sentences: If Sue does not go. then. which in terms of possibilities means that. Two sentences are equivalent (in virtue of their connective structure) if and only if.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns • • • one cannot imagine any cases in which the two sentences have different truthvalues. • the truth-table columns for the two sentences are identical. First. the answer is yes: The two sentences ~S ⊃ B . then Bob will go = ~S ⊃ B Either Bob or Sue will go = B ∨ S. Secondly. the following criterion for determining whether two sentences are equivalent. (The values are always both true or both false. we apply the equivalence test: Do the two sentences have the same value in each row of the truth-table? The table indicates that.94 Propositional Logic Section 2. Next. The criterion can be put to work in the following way. —— same values? ٗ← —— ٗ ← sent 1 sent 2 ~S ⊃ B B∨S T T T F T T T F same? – yes same? – yes same? – yes same? – yes SB TT TF FT FF aux ~S F F T T . in every possible situation.) So. it is not logically possible for the two sentences to have different values. we make a list of all the possible situations regarding the two sentences. yes. or to put the matter afﬁrmatively. we test each of those possible situations to see whether the two sentences have the same truth-value. the two sentences have the same truth-value. in the truth-table for the two sentences. We ﬁrst set up a truth-table for the two sentences. We have shown in the preceding section how we can always do this for sentences that have a structure deﬁned by propositional operators. as given below. This suggests. B ∨ S are equivalent.

Propositional Logic Section 2. The criterion that we have proposed above can be put to work as follows. We also noted there that necessary truths fall into three subgroups: deﬁnitional truths. But there is no limit on the possible complexity of logical truths. one needs a testing mechanism to tell whether a given sentence is a logical truth. in the truth-table for the sentence • the truth-table column for the sentence contains only T’s. namely. there are three kinds of necessary falsehoods. and logical truths. We will now have a closer look at just those sentences that are what they are in virtue of their logical form. the violations of the just mentioned necessary truths. Next. more often than not. and empirical sentences. Let us test the sentence: . and by enumerating all the combinations of values that these simple sentences can have.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns 95 The Logical Status of a Sentence In Chapter 1 we discussed three types of sentences: necessary truths. And then there are all the other sentences. This characterization is the basis for the following criterion: A sentence is a logical truth (in virtue of its connective structure) if and only if. In our earlier discussion we characterized them as sentences that are true in all possible (imaginable) situations. We do this by writing a list of the simple component sentences that make up the sentence. As before. we make a list of all the possible situations regarding the sentence in question. the ones that are neither necessary truths nor necessary falsehoods. we check to see whether the original sentence has the value T in each of these possible situations. Logical truths are also called tautologies. There are logical truths that are well-known laws of logic: The Law of Excluded Middle: The Law of Contradiction: Laws of Implication Iteration: Simpliﬁcation: Addition: p ∨ ~p ~(p & ~p) p⊃p (p & q) ⊃ p p ⊃ (p ∨ q) These particular logical truths are relatively simple ones. and one can easily understand that these patterns must be true in all cases. mathematical truths. Logical Truths Logical truths are sentences that are necessarily true in virtue of their logical form. Similarly. and. necessary falsehoods.

for example. This characterization is the basis for the following criterion: A sentence is a logical falsehood (in virtue of its connective structure) if and only if. but she did not go to the party tonight. These sentences are conjunctions that assert two parts—the one part afﬁrms something and the other part denies that very thing.E. then both Bob and Sue will go. T ← ٗ — only T’s? SB TT TF FT FF aux B&S T F F F aux S ⊃ (B & S) T F T T aux ~B F T F T sent [S ⊃ (B & S)] ∨ ~B T T T T T? – yes T? – yes T? – yes T? – yes Logical Falsehoods Logical falsehoods are sentences that are necessarily false in virtue of their logical form. That is why it is impossible for contradictions to be true. yes. So. and yet they do not exist.E.96 Propositional Logic Section 2. Bob won’t go at all. On the other hand. Next. as given below. and he was not the Emperor of Rome in the year 238 C. in each row the sentence has the value T. . the answer is yes: The sentence [S ⊃ (B & S)] ∨ ~B is a logical truth. In Chapter 1 we characterized them as sentences that are false in all possible (imaginable) situations. we apply the logical truth test: Does the sentence have the value T in every row of its truth-table? The table indicates that. “Horses do exist. they are called explicit contradictions..6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns If Sue will go.” “Abraham Lincoln was the Emperor of Rome in the year 238 C. or else.” “Sue went to the party tonight. [S ⊃ (B & S)] ∨ ~B We ﬁrst set up a truth-table for the sentence. in the truth-table for the sentence • the truth-table column for the sentence contains only F’s. There is one group of sentences that can immediately be recognized to be necessary falsehoods.” These sentences have the form: p & ~p and because of this form. Logical falsehoods are also called contradictions.

as given below. and the bananas are not. yes. We can call such sentences implicit contradictions. in each row the sentence has the value F. . Next. the answer is yes: The sentence (G & ~B) & (B ∨ ~G) is a contradiction. So. We do this by writing a list of the simple component sentences that make up the sentence. we check to see whether the original sentence has the value F in each of these possible situations. either the bananas are fresh or the grapes are not. In terms of possibilities. Consider the example: The grapes are fresh. Next.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns 97 there are other contradictions that are not explicit in this way. their logical form does not immediately reveal that this is so. As before. and one can also imagine them to be false. we make a list of all the possible situations regarding the sentence in question. in the truth-table for the sentence • the truth-table column for the sentence contains both T’s and F’s. These are sentences that one can imagine to be true. and by enumerating all the combinations of values that these simple sentences can have. The criterion that we have proposed above can be put to work as follows. F ← ٗ ————— only F’s? sent (G & ~B) & (B ∨ ~G) F F F F F? – yes F? – yes F? – yes F? – yes GB TT TF FT FF aux ~B F T F F aux G & ~B F T F F aux ~G F F T T aux B ∨ ~G T F T T Logical Contingency Sentences are logically contingent when they are not logical truths and also not contradictions. we apply the contradiction test: Does the sentence have the value F in every row of its truth-table? The table indicates that. but in spite of that. it is logically possible that they be true and also logically possible that they be false. Even though they also make two contradictory assertions. This characterization is the basis for the following criterion: A sentence is a logically contingent (in virtue of its connective structure) if and only if.Propositional Logic Section 2. (G & ~B) & (B ∨ ~G) We ﬁrst set up a truth-table for the sentence.

6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns It is easy to see that most of the sentences that we encounter in our daily affairs are neither logical truths nor logical falsehoods. A set of sentences. truth The Consistency of a Set of Sentences Certainly. But contradictions. the sentence B & (F ∨ C) is a logical contingency. somewhat later. if anything. We would surely conclude that the person was confused or made some mistake. B & (F ∨ C) As the table shows. Consider the following example: We ordered green beans. if someone is inconsistent. ٗ ←————— what values? sent B & (F ∨ C) T T T F F F F F BFC TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF aux F∨C T T T F T T T F ←————— value = T. R. is consistent if the set does not contain a contradiction. The sentences P. not a log. not-S. Notice. Q. that person actually asserted. therefore.98 Propositional Logic Section 2. so. ←————— value = F. but not all cases of inconsistency need take that form. if we tested such sentences. for us to be able to detect contradictions. First of all. and ﬁsh. any set of sentences is consistent if . in what they say. so that we may eliminate them and their consequences from our discussions. an important logical concern is whether people are consistent. they also have the deductive power to validly introduce arbitrary conclusions (that can through subtlety destroy reasonable discourse and action). that all assertions “p and not-p” are cases of inconsistency. but maybe it was chicken. incidentally. S. But contradictions are false in all possible situations. when explicit. or inconsistent. then we must puzzle about what. It is important. Most concern empirical matters. form an inconsistent set. and are therefore logical contingencies. and we would not allow our discussion to continue until the matter was resolved. So. do not only generate utter incoherence. taken together. not a contrad. their truth-table column must contain both T’s and F’s. and says one thing S. and. So. also says the direct opposite. if Q then notP. so.

H We ﬁrst construct a truth-table for these four sentences.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns 99 the entire set is true in some possible (imaginable) situation. But taken together. If John is in the house. So. It is not the case that someone saw John come in.Propositional Logic Section 2. The negative side of this criterion takes the following form: A set of sentences is inconsistent (in virtue of its connective structure) if and only if. H form an inconsistent set. D ⊃ S . • no row in the truth-table has all the sentences of the set as T. 2. • one row of the truth-table has all the sentences of the set as T. in the truth-table for the set of sentences. ~S . ~S . Nor is the problem that we cannot deduce the conclusion from the premisses (because we did deduce it). The problem lies with the premisses. Consider again the Strange Argument we introduced in Chapter 1. as given below. 1. The problem with the argument is not that it has an obviously false conclusion. in the truth-table for the set of sentences. If John came in through the front door. John is in the house. the answer is: The four sentences H ⊃ D . This characterization is the basis for the following criterion: A set of sentences is consistent (in virtue of its connective structure) if and only if. then someone saw John come in. we apply the consistency test: Is there one row in the table such that in that row all four sentences have the value T? The table indicates that there is no row that has all four sentences as T. D ⊃ S . 4. 3. there really is a Tooth Fairy. . Taken individually. So. then John came in through the front door. each premiss is plausible enough. Yet. but not sound. Let us consider the four premisses by themselves: H ⊃ D . We showed in Chapter 1 that this argument is valid. Next. they form an inconsistent set.

The laws in question are usually presented as the following group: . George Bush cannot play golf. since our only objective is to show that the proposed equivalence forms are really equivalences. in which all four sentences are true: sent 1 sent 2 sent 3 sent 4 E M A ⊃ F ~G T T T T EMAFG TT TTF row #2 ← has all T’s Verifying the Laws of Logic In the previous section we showed how the truth-table method can be used to prove that the laws of logic that are argument forms are valid inferences. Now that we have explained how this method can also be used to show that two sentences are equivalent. E . and we can describe this situation in detail. Silly and false sentences easily combine to form consistent sets. M . mere consistency is also not good enough when it falls short of truth. we can easily identify one row. If apples are blue then ﬁre is cold. row #2. we need not worry about learning these laws right now. as: Elephants can ﬂy.100 Propositional Logic Section 2. Without presenting the entire 32-row truth-table needed for the ﬁve simple components of these four sentences. nevertheless the set is consistent.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns T ٗ sent 1 H⊃D T T F F T T T T T ٗ sent 2 D⊃S T F T T T F T T T ٗ sent 3 ~S F T F T F T F T T ←—— one whole row has all T’s? ٗ sent 4 H T T T T F F F F ←—— ←—— ←—— ←—— ←—— ←—— ←—— ←—— row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no row all T’s? – no HDS TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF It is worth mentioning that even though inconsistency is a very bad thing and must be avoided at all costs. we can use this method to prove that those proposed laws of logic that are equivalence forms are indeed equivalences in the deﬁned sense. Again. The Moon is a cube. A ⊃ F . because no contradiction is produced by the set! There is certainly an imaginable situation in which all four sentences are true together. ~G Even though these four sentences are all false in the real world. as in the table below.

and we leave it as an exercise for the reader to give the proofs for the others.E. Q. From this it follows that the two sentence forms are equivalent. They are all very easy. the ones that are usually presented). Now that we have veriﬁed all the proposed laws of logic (that is.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns (1) (2) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) (10) ~(~p) ~(p & q) ~(p ∨ q) p⊃q p⊃q p≡q (p & q) ⊃ r p&p p∨p p&q p∨q p & (q & r) p ∨ (q ∨ r) p & (q v r) p ∨ (q & r) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = p ~p ∨ ~q ~p & ~q ~q ⊃ ~p ~p ∨ q (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) p p q&p q∨p (p & q) & r (p ∨ q) ∨ r (p & q) ∨ (p & r) (p ∨ q) & (p ∨ r) Double Negation De Morgan’s Laws De Morgan’s Laws Contraposition Conditional Relation Bicondition Exportation Duplication Duplication Commutation Commutation Association Association Distribution Distribution 101 As before. To prove: The two sides of the Exportation law are equivalent in the deﬁned sense. Q. without being required to again provide a justiﬁcation for them. aux p&q T T F F F F F F sent 1 (p & q) ⊃ r T F T T T T T T aux q⊃r T F T T T F T T sent 2 p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) T F T T T T T T same value? – yes – yes – yes – yes – yes – yes – yes – yes pqr TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF We conclude that these sentence forms are equivalent in the deﬁned sense. the Law of Exportation.D. we may proceed to use these laws in any context. So.Propositional Logic Section 2.E. .D. they too are equivalences in the deﬁned sense. as it is called. All the proofs for the remaining equivalence forms proceed in a similar fashion. we illustrate how the proof works for one law. We then show that the two sentence forms have the same truth-value in all of the possible cases. Proof: We construct a complete truth-table for the two sentence forms in question.

((p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ r)) & (p & (r ⊃ ~p)) Part C. q ∨ p p ≡ q. Be sure to label the columns as “sent 1.6. p ⊃ q . ~q ~p . 8. p . ~p ≡ ~q p ≡ q .” “sent 2. ~p p ∨ ~q . 4. Be sure to label the columns as “sent 1. ~p ∨ (p & q) 4.” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 9. 12. Use complete truth-tables to determine whether the following equivalence forms are equivalent in the deﬁned sense. (p & q & r) ∨ ((p & ~q) ∨ (p & ~r)) Part B. p ≡ ~q 6. 6. Use complete truth-tables to determine whether the following sets of sentence forms are consistent. (p & q) ∨ (~p & ~q) 8. p ∨ q . ~(~(~p)) . ~p ∨ q p ⊃ ~q . (p ≡ q) ≡ (~p ≡ ~q) 12. ((p ⊃ q) & (r ⊃ q)) ∨ (p ∨ r) 14. ~(q ∨ r) . 1. p & ~q . 7. (p & q) & (p & ~q) 10. ~(q & r) .” or “aux. ~(p ∨ r) ~(p ≡ q) .” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 5. (p ⊃ q) & (~p ⊃ q) p ⊃ (q ∨ r) . 3.” “sent 2. ~(q ≡ r) . ~(p & q) ∨ p 3. A.” or “aux. 3. ~p & ~q ~(p & q) . (p ⊃ p) ⊃ (q & ~q) 7. q ~p . 2. (p ∨ q) ∨ (p ∨ ~q) 9. ~(p & r) ~(p ∨ q) . (p ⊃ r) & (q ⊃ r) (p ∨ q) ⊃ r . 10. p ∨ ~p 2. 14.C. 2. 5. ~p & ~q 8. (p ⊃ r) & (q ⊃ r) p . (p & q) ⊃ q 11.B. 9. ~p ⊃ q p ⊃ ~q . 1. [p & (~p ∨ q)] ⊃ (q ∨ r) 13. (p & r) ≡ q .” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. p ⊃ q . p ∨ r ~(p & q) .” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. p & ~q . . p ∨ q . Use complete truth-tables to determine the logical status of the following sentence forms. (p ⊃ q) ∨ (p ⊃ r) (p & q) ⊃ r . ~(p ≡ r) ((p & q) & ~(q & r)) & (p ⊃ r) Part D. 4. 7.102 Propositional Logic Section 2.D Other Uses for Truth-Tables Part A. p ⊃ ~q ~(p ∨ q) . 11. q ⊃ ~p ~(p & q) . Be sure to label the columns as “main sent” or “aux. p ≡ q p . p ⊃ (q ⊃ q) 6. These are the laws of logic we discussed above. Give complete truth-tables for these equivalence forms to show that they are equivalent in the deﬁned sense. 10. (p & q) & ~p 5. Be sure to label the columns as “sentence” or “aux. ~p ⊃ q p ≡ q . 13. 1.6 Truth-Table Tests for Other Logical Concerns Exercise 2.

P is occurring. and key examples. its concept. ~(p ∨ q) 3. and. This process consists of a series of step by step inferences that begin with stated premisses and end with a conclusion. The whole point of a conditional sentence is to infer the result part when the condition part has been satisﬁed. . take time to learn its English form. p ∨ p 8a. stating them both in regular English and in symbolic form. p & p 7b. p ∨ (q ∨ r) 10a. We will explain the deduction process in great detail in the following sections. p ∨ q 9a. p & (q & r) 9b. Modus Ponens (MP) The most basic rule for conditional sentences is the rule Modus Ponens. p & (q v r) 10b. We also give conceptual explanations and provide key examples. So. p ⊃ q 4. at the point where we can begin to study the real process of argumentation. p ≡ q 6.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 1. if p then q p so. but right now we will spend some time looking at each of the laws individually.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction We have arrived. It is convenient to illustrate these laws by means of events taking place. but in such a way that all the inferences are carried out by the laws of logic.Propositional Logic Section 2. We will introduce the laws one by one. p ∨ (q & r) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = p ~p ∨ ~q ~p & ~q ~q ⊃ ~p ~p ∨ q (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) p p q&p q∨p (p & q) & r (p ∨ q) ∨ r (p & q) ∨ (p & r) (p ∨ q) & (p ∨ r) Double Negation De Morgan’s Laws De Morgan’s Laws Contraposition Conditional Relation Bicondition Exportation Duplication Duplication Commutation Commutation Association Association Distribution Distribution 103 Section 2. p ⊃ q 5. ~(~p) 2a. (p & q) ⊃ r 7a. p & q 8b. its symbolic form. result Q must occur as well. ~(p & q) 2b. q p⊃q p ∴q P will result in Q. As you learn each law. now.

Again. then Chicago had a great celebration for them. since a conditional sentence states that a given condition will have a result. Hey. So. result Q did not occur. if p then q if q then r so. the White Sox won the World Series. If the White Sox won the World Series. Modus Tollens (MT) The rule Modus Tollens is also a fundamental law for conditional sentences. 2. they are paths that go from point A to point B. then all of Chicago will celebrate. 2. If the Cubs won the Series. Hypothetical Syllogism (Hyp Syll) (HS) Our logical thoughts are linear. So. 2.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 1. but. and Q in turn will result in R.104 Propositional Logic Section 2. So. Chicago had a great celebration. we always keep track of the fact that the last point reached is a consequence of the ﬁrst point with which we began. If the Cubs win all their games. the Cubs must not have won the Series. Chicago had a great celebration. if p then r p⊃q q⊃r ∴p⊃r P will result in Q. If the Cubs win the World Series. 1. P must result in R. if the Cubs win all their games. P must not have occurred. Chicago did not have a great celebration for the Cubs. we can immediately see that when the predicted result does not occur. not p p⊃q ~q ∴ ~p P will result in Q. But in addition. then the condition could not have occured either. and from point B to point C. So. then the Cubs win the World Series. . So. Wait. if p then q not q so. 1. The rule of Hypothetical Syllogism is devoted to precisely this kind of book-keeping. then all of Chicago will celebrate. and this is crucial.

then some city will have a celebration. and strategically. 1. If the Pirates win. If the Cubs win. and. Either the Chicago Cubs or the Pittsburgh Pirates are going to win. which is new information that could be useful to the argument. some city will have a celebration. again. 2. either Chicago or Pittsburgh is going to have a celebration. Either the Chicago Cubs or the Pittsburgh Pirates are going to win. An asserted conjunction may always be broken up into its two parts. r p∨q p⊃r q⊃r ∴r Either P or Q will occur. the one result R must occur. then Pittsburgh will have a celebration. Q will result in S. You must look at the results of those choices. but. 3. some city is going to have a celebration. Simple Dilemma (Dilem) The Simple Dilemma is a special case of the Complex Dilemma. then. then Chicago will have a celebration. Q will also result in R. and. 3. Simpliﬁcation (Simp) This rule (and the next) deﬁne the idea of conjunction. where the two choice results are one and the same. So. If the Pirates win. So. but. one of those results must occur 1.Propositional Logic Section 2. So. either r or s p∨q p⊃r q⊃s ∴r∨s Either P or Q will occur. If the Cubs win. . So. That’s what conjunctions are all about. such reduction is always recommended. deﬁnitely.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 105 Complex Dilemma (Dilem) The Dilemma rule tells you how to reason with given choices. either p or q if p then r if q then s so. P will result in R. so that you may infer the choice of those results. 2. P will result in R. either p or q if p then r if q then r so.

So. So. P is occurring. Aww gee.106 Propositional Logic Section 2. P is not occurring. Conjunction (Conj) As noted with the rule Simp. Two separate assertions may be combined into a conjunction. Disjunctive Syllogism (Disj Syll) (DS) The rule of Disjunctive Syllogism provides a very simple way of dealing with choices. the Cubs are going to win a game this year. Q is occurring. there you have it. both the Cubs and the Pirates won a game this year. with no change of meaning. The Cubs won a game this year. So. So. 2. but. 2. So. when we eliminate one choice. p so. Either the Cubs or the Pirates are going to win.” if the one case is true. So. 1. Q is occurring. p or q not p so. 1. this rule is part of the very idea of conjunction. “Is either of these cases true?” The answer is “Yes. p and q p q ∴p&q P is occurring. p and q so.” if the other case is . Disjunctive Addition (Disj Add) (Add) This rule is designed to mirror the inclusive nature of disjunction. the Cubs didn’t win. and the answer is “Yes.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction p&q ∴p ∴q Both P and Q are occurring. the other choice remains. q p∨q ~p ∴q Either P or Q will occur. Q must be the one to occur. p q so. And the Pirates won a game this year. the Pirates won. both P and Q are occurring. Given two choices. q 1. Both the Cubs and the Pirates are going to win a game this year. So. Also.

P will also result in not-Q. then Chicago is happy and Pittsburgh is sad. then Pittsburgh is sad. this result is false. p or q p ∴p∨q P deﬁnitely occurs. then q if p. So. 1. if p then q so. but it is nevertheless an important and constantly used principle in our reasoning. at least one of P or (any) Q occurs. without really being interested in which case it is. Also. If the Cubs win. then some number (N+1) is larger than N.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 107 true. If a number N is the largest number. P will result in Q. if the Cubs win. The Cubs are deﬁnitely going to win some game this year. if p then (q and r) so. not p p⊃q p ⊃ ~q ∴ ~p Hypothesis P will result in Q. this hypopthesis P is impossible. If a number N is the largest number. we are allowed to state those results together or separately. Since contradictions are impossible. So. either the Cubs or Queen Elizabeth will win some game this year.Propositional Logic Section 2. . When a certain condition has a double result. and the law of Modus Tollens forces us to conclude that the hypothesis p is false as well. Double Thens (Dbl Thens) C d This rule is not as fundamental as some of the other rules. there can be no number N that is the largest number. Sometimes people are interested in the general case where either is true. if p then r p ⊃ (q & r) ∴p⊃q ∴p⊃r P will result in both Q and R. Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) Sometimes a hypothesis p produces a contradictory result q and ~q. So. So. then no number is larger than N 2. then not q so. This kind of reasoning take the following form: if p. P will result in R. and. So. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. So. p so.

the Cubs will win. then Chicago is truly happy. then that is the same as afﬁrming the assertion. no. So. but is rather a combination of other connectives acting as a unit. if Chicago is truly happy. Problem #1. the other occurs. p ~(~p) ∴p The denial of a denial of a sentence = an afﬁrmation of the sentence. You ask whether either P or Q will happen. if one occurs. (not p) or (not q) ~(p & q) ∴ ~p ∨ ~q A double assertion is false = some part is false. if p then q so. Chicago is truly happy. You ask whether both P and Q will happen. So. no. Double negatives cancel when they have this unique arrangement. and only when. What does that mean? not (both p and q) so. and someone says. Law of Double Negation (Dbl Neg) (DN) C d When someone denies a negated assertion. What does that mean? Problem #2.108 Propositional Logic Section 2.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction Bicondition (Bicond) C d The biconditional connective represents an important conceptual relationship. This connective is not a basic connective. p if and only if q so. It is false that the Cubs will not win So. and someone says. De Morgan’s Laws (DeMorg) C d There are two similar kinds of problems. . when. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. the Cubs are winning. if the Cubs are winning. if q then p p≡q ∴p⊃q ∴q⊃p P and Q each result in the other. Also. This present rule reﬂects the deﬁnition of this relationship. then the Cubs are winning. not (not p) so.

Propositional Logic Section 2. if p then q so. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. Each can be re-expressed into the other. if the Pirates don’t lose. without change of meaning. if (not q) then (not p) p⊃q ∴ ~q ⊃ ~p P will result in Q = if Q is not occuring. Not either the Cubs or the Pirates will win. and then) the indicated result happens. if p then q so. and they can be in perfect agreement. then P is not occurring. either (not p) or q p⊃q ∴ ~p ∨ q A conditional sentence can be re-expressed as two choices: either the indicated condition is not met. then the Pirates will lose. or (it is. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. Law of Conditional Relation (Cond) C d There is a special relationship between “if then” sentences and “either or” sentences. there is a negative form of it that means the same thing. Not both the Cubs and the Pirates will win. This is similar to the law of Modus Tollens. So. (not p) and (not q) ~(p ∨ q) ∴ ~p & ~q A statement of choices is false = both parts are false. the one by using conditional relationships and another person by using disjunctive relationships. but with appropriate compensations. either the Cubs won’t win. So. If the Cubs win. both the Cubs won’t win.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction not (either p or q) so. just different means to the same end. and also the Pirates won’t win. So. 109 Comment: These rules also work in the reverse. or the Pirates won’t. Law of Contraposition (Contrap) C d For any conditional assertion. . An important consequence of this is that two people can be discussing some matter. then the Cubs will not win.

or (2) as a sequence of two separate conditions. . Law of Double Ifs (Dbl Ifs) (Exportation) (Exp) C d Many of our conditional sentences have a double condition. then Chicago will go wild. The four rules that follow are of a more technical nature.. So. Neither of these conditions by itself is sufﬁcient. There are two different ways of saying that something has a double condition. If the Cubs and the White Sox win. then. then Chicago will go wild. and so they are also presented here. A system of rules must be general enough to cover all possible uses. e. if p then (if q then r) (p & q) ⊃ r ∴ p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) A double condition can be expressed in two ways: (1) as a single conjunctive condition. but they might occur in technical proofs. (b) there has to be moisture in the air. Law of Duplication (Dupl) C d Duplicated ands reduce to one. either the Cubs win. there is a double condition for it to start snowing: (a) it must cold enough. So.110 Propositional Logic Section 2. then Chicago will be a depressing place. if the White Sox also win. Comment: This rule also works in the reverse. both p and p = p either p or p = p p&p = p p∨p = p There are only two choices: either the Cubs will win. if the Cubs win. for example. Note: A number of logic books inadvisably use the label “Tautology” to refer to this law. or Chicago will be a depressing place. the Cubs will win. if (p and q) then r so. or the Cubs will win. Doing so ignores the fact that in logic this label has always been reserved for a different purpose. They are not likely to enter into the thinking of ordinary arguments.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction If the Cubs lose.g. about which rules can be derived from other rules. Also. So. duplicated ors reduce to one. you need both.

7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 111 Law of Commutation (Comm) C d There is no preferred order to multiple conjunctions. So. the White Sox and the Cubs will win next week. the Cubs and the White Sox will win. the Cubs or the White Sox will win. there is no preferred order to multiple disjunctions. p and (both q and r) = (both p and q) and r p or (either q or r) = (either p or q) or r p & (q & r) = (p & q) & r p ∨ (q ∨ r) = (p ∨ q) ∨ r The Cubs will win. So. Also. p and q = q and p p or q = q or p p&q = q&p p∨p = q∨p The Cubs and the White Sox will win next week. or the White Sox and the Pirates will win. there is no preferred ranking in triple disjunctions. the Cubs or the Pirates will win. Law of Distribution (Dist) C d One disjunct can be distributed over a conjunction. the Cubs and the White Sox will win. . Also. and so will the White Sox and the Pirates. or. So. the Cubs and the Pirates will win. and so will the Pirates. The Cubs will win. p or (q and r) = (p or q) and (p or r) p and (q or r) = (p and q) or (p and r) p ∨ (q & r) = (p ∨ q) & (p ∨ r) p & (q ∨ r) = (p & q) ∨ (p & r) The Cubs will win. and the White Sox or the Pirates will win. So.Propositional Logic Section 2. Law of Association (Assoc) C d There is no preferred ranking in triple conjunctions. and. Also. one conjunct can be distributed over a disjunction.

. and they may consequently be used at any point in any form of argumentation. the logical form that these sentences have forces them to be true in every possible world. that is.. q. as well as any combination of any of these. ~C. etc. we list only seven logical truths that have a potential to be useful in the making of deductions. r. In logic these logical truths are also called tautologies. C. B. • • • • • • • p ∨ ~p ~(p & ~p) p⊃p (p & q) ⊃ p (p & q) ⊃ q p ⊃ (p ∨ q) p ⊃ (q ∨ p) Law of Excluded Middle Law of Non-contradiction Law of Implication Law of Implication Law of Implication Law of Implication Law of Implication An Important Note on Using the Rules Now that we have presented the rules of Propositional Logic. This means that the rules of logic apply to all sentences. Notice that all the rules were stated using the lower case letters: p. as well as all the other types of compounds. and while this seems obvious enough. this matter can sometimes be a little confusing. These letters are variables that represent all possible sentences. they also represent negative sentences. A. etc. ~A. ~B. then. we must also explain how they are to be used. logical truths are laws of logic in their own right. etc. as well as conjunctive sentences. so. for simple sentences.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction The Rule of Logical Truth (Taut) Logical truths are sentences that are necessarily true in virtue of their logical form. Because of this feature.. that the following three arguments are all correct instances of the rule of Modus Ponens: Modus Ponens p⊃q p ∴q M⊃U M ∴U p=M q=U ~G ⊃ ~H ~G ∴ ~H p = ~G q = ~H (R ∨ Q) ⊃ ~(W & A) R∨Q ∴ ~(W & A) p = (R ∨ Q) q = ~(W & A) . Rules are general instructions for doing something. We will have much to say about this in the coming sections. no matter what their complexity. (A & M). (C & S). it is natural to use the label “Taut” to refer to these laws. And that means. s.112 Propositional Logic Section 2. whether they are simple or compound. As a practical measure. but even now we can emphasize something that is implicit in the very idea of a rule. This means that they not only represent single capital letters.

then. BASIC ARGUMENT FORMS MP p⊃q p ∴q MT p⊃q ~q ∴ ~p Hyp Syll p⊃q q⊃r ∴p⊃r ∴r Dilem p∨q p⊃r q⊃r p∨q p⊃r q⊃s ∴r∨s Simp p&q ∴p ∴q Conj p q ∴p&q Disj Syll p∨q ~p ∴q p∨q ~q ∴p Disj Add p ∴p∨q ∴q∨p Dbl Thens p ⊃ (q & r) ∴p⊃q ∴p⊃r p⊃q p⊃r ∴ p ⊃ (q & r) Bicond p≡q ∴p⊃q ∴q⊃p p⊃q q⊃p ∴p≡q RAA p⊃q p ⊃ ~q ∴ ~p .Propositional Logic Section 2. This method is known as the Method of Deduction. a method that is devoted entirely to the use of these laws. Reference Sheet for the Propositional Rules of Deduction I. We turn now to the second method for demonstrating the validity of arguments. completes the presentation of the rules that we will be using when we prove that arguments are valid.7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 113 This.

14. 4. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. BASIC EQUIVALENCE FORMS Dbl Neg DeMorg DeMorg Contrap Cond Bicond Dbl Ifs Dupl Dupl Comm Comm Assoc Assoc Dist Dist p = ~ ( ~p ) ~(p & q) = ~p ∨ ~q ~(p ∨ q) = ~p & ~q p ⊃ q = ~q ⊃ ~p p ⊃ q = ~p ∨ q p ≡ q = (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p) (p & q) ⊃ r = p ⊃ (q ⊃ r) p&p = p p∨p = p p&q = q&p p∨q = q∨p (p & q) & r = p & (q & r) (p ∨ q) ∨ r = p ∨ (q ∨ r) p & (q ∨ r) = (p & q) ∨ (p & r) p ∨ (q & r) = (p ∨ q) & (p ∨ r) III. ~J (A ∨ S) ⊃ J .7. ~J (A ∨ S) ⊃ ~J . L ⊃ ~(B & E) /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ (A ∨ S) (A ∨ S) ~(A ∨ S) ~(A ∨ S) ~C ~E ~P ∨ ~A ~C ⊃ A T&B ~E ~C ⊃ B ~E ∨ (M & S) ~A ⊃ ~C ~P ∨ ~J ~L Is it MP? Is it MP? Is it MT? Is it MT? Is it Simp? Is it Disj Syll? Is it Dilem? Is it Hyp Syll? Is it Disj Syll? Is it Disj Syll? Is it Bicond? Is it Disj Add? Is it Hyp Syll? Is it Dilem? Is it RAA? . ~(~E) ~T ∨ ~E . ~I ⊃ ~J L ⊃ (B & E) . H ⊃ ~P . 13. 11. 5. 9. ~J J ⊃ (A ∨ S) . 3. 7.114 Propositional Logic Section 2. 2. ~T H ∨ ~I . determine whether the conclusion follows from the premisses by the rule listed. ~A ⊃ B H ∨ ~I . 10. A.10) p assump : q ∴ p ⊃ q CP p assump : q & ~q ∴ ~p IP Exercise 2. ~J A ⊃ ~C . LOGICAL TRUTHS (Taut) • p ∨ ~p • ~(p & ~p) • p⊃p • (p & q) ⊃ p • (p & q) ⊃ q • p ⊃ (p ∨ q) • p ⊃ (q ∨ p) IV. ~J ⊃ (A ∨ S) . ASSUMPTION RULES (§ 2. ~B & ~C T ∨ ~E .7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction II. 15. 6.B Practicing the Rules Part A. 8. 1. ~B ⊃ A (T & B) ∨ ~E . H ⊃ ~P . ~A ⊃ ~I ~B ⊃ ~C . 12. ~T A ⊃ Q . For each of the following inferences. ~C ≡ B ~E B ⊃ ~C .

24. 2. 17. 20. ~I ⊃ ~J J ⊃ (A ∨ S) . 17. ~A ⊃ B ~J ⊃ (A & S) . ~(A ∨ S) ~S & ~E T ∨ ~E . ~J ~(Q & P) ∨ A A ⊃ ~C .7 Presentation of the Rules of Deduction 16. 8. 11. 24. 15. 22. 23. 18. 22. 1. ~A ⊃ (B & E) (A ∨ B) ⊃ C A ∨ ~B . 19. 7. (A ∨ S) H ∨ ~I . 13. 9. D (B ⊃ ~C) & (~B ⊃ A) L ⊃ (~B & ~E) /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ /∴ ~A & ~(~B) ~(A ∨ S) ~C ⊃ (A ∨ B) ~J ~P ∨ ~J ~J ~(S ∨ E) ~E Q∨M T&B ~T & (~T ∨ ~E) ~C ⊃ B (B & E) ⊃ B ~E ∨ (M & S) Q ⊃ (B & E) ~A ⊃ ~C (A & S) (Q & P) ⊃ A ~C ~A ⊃ ~C ~(A ∨ B) ∨ C D & (A ∨ ~B) ~B ⊃ A L ⊃ ~E . 18. 12.Propositional Logic Section 2. 3. (B & E) ⊃ ~C . 21. 19. ~H ∨ I . name the rule that was used. In each case. 16. 14. ~(A ∨ ~B) (A ∨ S) ⊃ J . the listed conclusion follows from the premisses by one of the allowed rules. I ⊃ M (T & B) ∨ ~E . ~J ~(A ∨ B) ⊃ C (A ∨ S) ⊃ ~J . 4. H ⊃ ~P . 6. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 20. 10. ~B & ~C (B & E) ⊃ ~C . 5. 23. ~C ≡ B L ⊃ (B & E) ~E Q ⊃ [(B & E) & A] B ⊃ ~C . ~A ⊃ (B & E) ~(A ∨ B) ⊃ C ~(A ∨ B) ⊃ C ~(A ∨ B) ~(S & E) ~A ∨ ~B (Q & P) L ⊃ [(B & E) & A] L ⊃ (B & E) /∴ ~A ⊃ ~C /∴ (A ∨ B) ⊃ ~C /∴ ~C ⊃ (A ∨ B) /∴ ~A ∨ ~B /∴ ~S ∨ ~E /∴ A ⊃ ~B /∴ (~Q & ~P)∨ A /∴ L ⊃ (B & E) /∴ L ⊃ (~B ∨ L) Is it Hyp Syll? Is it Contrap? Is it Contrap? Is it DeMorg? Is it DeMorg? Is it Cond? Is it Cond? Is it Dbl Thens? Is it Taut? 115 Part B. For each of the following inferences. ~T A ⊃ B . ~(~E) ~T ∨ ~E . ~T ~H ⊃ Q . 21.

For example. the truth-table method is literally unnatural. Rather.8 Making Deductions for Arguments Section 2. we may infer line 3: 3. since there are ﬁve simple components and 2×2×2×2×2=32. that method is indeed cumbersome. the natural method is to deduce the conclusion from the premisses in a series of steps using the rules of logic. very simple. D & E . since that is not how we actually reason things out. Many simple examples can illustrate this point. p⊃q p MP ∴q ∴q p&q Simp and we can apply these rules to the given premisses to generate the desired conclusion. We start with lines 1 and 2: 1. we already know that the rules Modus Ponens and Simpliﬁcation are valid. Consider the easy argument: (A & B & C) ⊃ (D & E) A&B&C ∴E The truth-table method requires a truth-table with 32 rows (holy smokes!) to show that this easy argument is valid. rather unnatural. The truth-table method is very precise. line 1 matches the pattern p ⊃ q of the ﬁrst premiss of Modus Ponens. and completely comprehensive.8 Making Deductions for Arguments There is another important method for showing that arguments are valid. and this method is actually superior to the truth-table method. in view of the effort it takes.116 Propositional Logic Section 2. (A & B & C) ⊃ (D & E) 2. But more importantly. This rule now guarantees that the sentence that matches the pattern q of the conclusion of Modus Ponens may be validly inferred. A & B & C =p⊃q =p Here. but it is also extremely cumbersome and. So. well. and line 2 in the same way matches the pattern p of the second premiss of Modus Ponens. that is.

E We can put all this information into a compact arrangement that we call a deduction (or a derivation) for the original argument: 1. Notice that the two columns are perfectly aligned. that is. after the premisses. This means.) All the sentences in the sequence are properly displayed. 2. we may infer the ﬁnal conclusion: 4. All the premisses of the argument are listed ﬁrst in the sequence. that all of the individual steps in the deduction. we now give the ofﬁcial deﬁnition of what a deduction is: A deduction for an argument is a listed sequence of sentences such that 1. There is a left column consisting of the lines (steps) of the deduction. And notice that the lines on the left are numbered. citing only the numbers of the lines used together with the ofﬁcial abbreviation of the name of the rule used. recall that we already showed in sections 2. A & B & C 3. then. Notice also that the reasons are written in a very compact form. are derived from earlier sentences in the sequence by means of the rules of inference. see section 2. Simp ∴E Let’s pause a moment to notice some of the features of this display. 4. (A & B & C) ⊃ (D & E) 2.) With this understanding of how deductions are displayed. since lettering would make the deduction very difﬁcult to read. but also that every name in turn has an ofﬁcial abbreviation. (For a list of these rules. for ease of visual inspection.6 that all the rules of inference are valid argument and equivalences patterns in the truth-table sense.7. as described above.8 Making Deductions for Arguments 117 But line 3 in turn matches the pattern p & q of the premiss of the rule of Simpliﬁcation. E prem prem 1. and there is a right column consisting of the reasons for each of the steps on the left.5 and 2.Propositional Logic Section 2. How are deductions related to valid arguments? First of all. are subconclusions produced by valid patterns. MP 3. 2. The conclusion of the argument is listed last in the sequence. All sentences in the sequence. never lettered. (This requires not only that every rule has an ofﬁcial name. except for the premisses. 3. so that we can now validly infer the sentence matching the pattern q of the conclusion of the Simpliﬁcation rule. And that also . D & E 4.

4. 10. B ⊃ ~C 4. 7. Keep in mind that the deﬁnition of a deduction does not require that the steps are to be done in any special order. MP 6. we give a deduction for it. The rules of inference constitute the very heart of logic. 6. As a result of this kind of freedom. A ⊃ (C ∨ D) 3.118 Propositional Logic Section 2. one to replace the truth-table method. 9. Let’s try another example. 1. A&B A ⊃ (C ∨ D) B ⊃ ~C ∴ (D & A) & B To show that this argument is valid. Conj 9. 5. What is required is that you do not make any mistakes when you apply the rules to the given lines. MP 3. 5. you must know their conceptual content. then the argument is valid.8 Making Deductions for Arguments means that the overall pattern starting with the premisses and ending with the ﬁnal conclusion must also be a valid pattern. This all means that we have a new method. you must know their symbolic form. Disj Syll 8. Conj Notes on the Method of Deduction Note 1. by which we can demonstrate the validity of arguments.7. Method of Deduction: If a deduction has been given for an argument. there are always several deductions that one can construct to show that a given argument is valid. you must know their names. Simp 2. Simp 1. A B C∨D ~C D D&A (D & A) & B prem prem prem ∴ (D & A) & B 1. 8. You must know all these rules in their entirety: You must know their English form. A & B 2. 4. 5. you must be able to . The steps of a deduction are entirely your own creations.

and “s”. MEMORIZE. but that order is intended to be arbitrary. The reason for this is that a single sentence. we naturally have to write the steps in a certain chronological order. Note 3. A single sentence can use many different rules. This sentence obviously has the pattern p . Note 4. and biconditional ones as well. when it is compound. It also has the pattern p ∨ q . can be written in any of the following ways: p∨q p⊃r q⊃s ∴r∨s p⊃r q⊃s p∨q ∴r∨s p⊃r p∨q q⊃s ∴r∨s p⊃q r⊃s p∨r ∴q∨s The last version has not only changed the order of the premisses. Your ability to do deductions will be directly proportional to your knowledge of these rules. The rules of inference are so intended that the written order of the premisses of a rule is not signiﬁcant. “r”. Here we must remember that these labels represent all sentences of any kind: all the simple ones. as we list below. since it is just a sentence. and all these different patterns enable the sentence to use different rules. Note 2. and it has other patterns as well. can be viewed as having several different sentence patterns. all the negative ones. It is this inﬁnite variability that gives the rules the power to form deductions. Thus. for example. since it is a disjunction. and all the conjunctive. conditional.Propositional Logic Section 2. they are not examples of the rule of Modus Tollens (since the second premiss is not the opposite of the back part of the ﬁrst premiss). The rules are stated in terms of the meta-variables “p”. MEMORIZE. the following ﬁve arguments are all examples of the rule of Modus Ponens: (1) M⊃A M ∴A (2) R ⊃ ~S R ∴ ~S (3) (B & C) ⊃ (A & D) B&C ∴A&D (4) ~U ⊃ ~H ~U ∴ ~H (5) ~(K ∨ M) ⊃ ~~H ~(K ∨ M) ∴ ~~H p⊃q p ∴q → → → Even though some of these inferences contain negative sentences. We illustrate this matter with the sentence ~A ∨ ~B. When we list a rule. With each pattern come certain rules of inference that can be applied: . “q”. MEMORIZE. it has also changed which meta-variables were used to represent the parts of the rule. All of the rules of inference have an inﬁnitely large scope of application. disjunctive. The fact that one premiss is written before or after another premiss does not in any way affect what the consequences of these two steps are.8 Making Deductions for Arguments 119 give easy examples. The Dilemma rule.

~(~S) Prem 2. S 4. Equivalence Forms. ~W ⊃ ~S ~W ⊃ ~(~(~S)) ~(~W) ∨ ~(~(~S)) W ∨ ~(~(~S)) W ∨ ~S ~(~W) ∴ ~(~W) (An even more beautiful deduction can be given. S ⊃ W Prem ∴ ~(~W) 3. Dupl Disj Syll. DN 4. a practical value to working with deductions that are orderly and compact. The basic argument forms are rules that behave in the same way that arguments behave: you start with some given premisses. Comm. MT Argument Forms. Wow. of course. 5. W 5. DN 1. but it is not required. Disj Add. and correct! 1. The deﬁnition does require. and correct! 1. ~(~S) Prem 2. that’s ugly. however. (and the above) Cond (and the above) Comm (and the above) DeMorg (and the above) → → → → → Note 5. Deductions are free creations. that’s beautiful. 3. Can you think of it?) 2.120 Propositional Logic Section 2. or that the steps are as compact as possible. and Logical Truths The rules of inference fall into three different groups with respect to the manner in which they behave. There is. Cond 5. DN 6. 3. S ⊃ W Prem 3. Conj. DN. or that all the steps are necessary ones. Dilemma. You are not allowed to make even the smallest mistake. but that value has no logical signiﬁcance.8 Making Deductions for Arguments sentence ~A ∨ ~B pattern p p∨q ~p ∨ q p ∨ ~q ~p ∨ ~q candidate rules MP. a . Contrap 3. There is nothing in the deﬁnition of a deduction that requires that the steps be written in a certain order. ~(~W) 1. 7. 6. that all the steps are correct applications of the rules. Deductive elegance is really nice. DN 2. and then you infer a new conclusion. MP 4. These groups are: Group 1: basic argument forms Group 2: basic equivalence forms Group 3: logical truths Group 1. 4. DN Man. 8.

. 12. This includes. S & ~B 12..Disj Syll ?? ← whole line is p ∨ q ← whole line is ~p ← whole line is q . 12. 18. DN ← whole line is ~(p ∨ q) ← whole line is ~p & ~q .13. and never to parts of lines. but rather.13. without changing the content.Propositional Logic Section 2.Disj Syll . Bicond.8 Making Deductions for Arguments 121 conclusion that is different in content and form from the premisses. Hyp Syll. these are the rules that use “therefore. On the rule sheet. ~M & B ... ~M & ~(~B) 19.. This includes then the following ten rules: Dbl Neg. Consider the rule Disj Syll: 12. Cond. Comm. On the rule sheet. Assoc. 19. ~M & ~(~B) 20. Consider the two equivalence rules known as De Morgan’s Law and Double Negation: 18.. Contrap.” the triple dot inference indicator. the equivalence rules are the ones that use the equal sign between the equivalent sides. DeMorg. then. CORRECT USE ← part of line is ~(~p) ← same part of line is p .. . Dupl. the following eleven rules: MP. DeMorg . In particular. MT. Dilemma Simp. ~K 14... ~(M ∨ ~B) 19.. 13. Unlike the previous group of rules. . RAA What is important about these rules is that they apply only to whole lines of a deduction. The basic equivalences forms behave like rules for making substitutions with items that mean the same thing.Disj Syll ?? 12. there is no restriction on the context in which these rules may be used. CORRECT USE ← only part of line 12 is p ∨ q ← whole line is ~p ← WRONG: only part of 12 is p ∨ q ← WRONG: only part of 12 is p ∨ q and WRONG: only part of 15 is q Group 2. Dist Because these rules manipulate parts that are entirely equivalent in meaning. 14... Disj Syll..13. K ∨ (S & ~B) 13. Conj. these rules do not generate a new conclusion... they restate existing information in an alternate form. Bicond.. the equivalence rules may be applied both to whole lines of a deduction as well as to parts of lines.. 15.. Disj Add Dbl Thens. R & (A ∨ L) ~A L R&L . CORRECT USE . Dbl Ifs.

122 Propositional Logic Section 2.8 Making Deductions for Arguments Group 3. The rule for logical truths is a rule that makes no inference whatsoever. It simply permits someone to write down a sentence that in itself is a logical truth at any point in the deduction. (This rule agrees well with the common practice of writing any mathematical theorem at any point in a mathematical deduction.) The rule sheet gives a small list of logical truths that may be inserted into any deduction at any point. As a practical matter, this list includes only those logical truths that are likely to be useful in a deduction. The rule of logical truths may be cited simply as “Logical Truth,” or by the shorter abbreviation “Taut.” Logic books commonly refer to logical truths as tautologies, hence the abbreviation “Taut.” 10. H ⊃ (A & ~E) 11. (A & ~E) ⊃ ~E 12. H ⊃ ~E .... Taut 10,11,Hyp.Syll ← any line whatever ← any logical truth, CORRECT ← How about that! Perfect for Hyp Syll

A Sample Deduction

We are done with our general comments, and we are now eager to actually start doing deductions. We’ll walk through one and make some comments as we go. The premisses and the conclusion are as indicated: 1. (~A ⊃ D) & (A ⊃ I) 2. (I ⊃ Q) & (~S ⊃ ~D) 3. ? What do we do next? There is an important answer to this question, and it is called strategy. We will spend the entire next section on that idea, but for the moment, let’s just do what comes to mind. (Sometimes that’s the only strategy available.) What is immediately obvious is that the premisses are conjunctions, and that means there’s only one thing to do: break up the conjunctions into their individual pieces. 3. 4. 5. 6. ~A ⊃ D A⊃I I⊃Q ~S ⊃ ~D 1, Simp 1, Simp 2, Simp 2, Simp Prem Prem

/∴ Q ∨ S

What comes to mind next is that lines 4 and 5 have an easy connection by the rule Hyp Syll, and so we should deﬁnitely try that, and also, looking at line 6, we can see that the negatives can be eliminated by the rule Contrap, and that kind of reduction is always a good idea.

Propositional Logic Section 2.8 Making Deductions for Arguments 7. A ⊃ Q 8. D ⊃ S 4,5, Hyp Syll 6, Contrap

123

And now another new connection has appeared between line 3 and line 8, through another Hyp Syll, and so, we won’t hold back. We do it. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~A ⊃ D A⊃I I⊃Q ~S ⊃ ~D A⊃Q D⊃S ~A ⊃ S 1, Simp 1, Simp 2, Simp 2, Simp 4,5, Hyp Syll 6, Contrap 3,8, Hyp Syll

Well, the immediate connections have stopped, and we pause to check the conclusion, Q ∨ S. Hmm, now what? We must scan. We must scan what we have. Line 7 has Q in it, and line 9 has S in it. Hmm. Those are two “if thens,” and the conclusion is “or,” so that sort of looks like a Dilemma. But that means we also need an “or” sentence to start the Dilemma, and that sentence would be A ∨ ~A. Hmm, how can we get that one. . .? BINGO! The missing “or” sentence is a logical truth, so we can just write that logical truth wherever and whenever we want. Done. 1. (~A ⊃ D) & (A ⊃ I) 2. (I ⊃ Q) & (~S ⊃ ~D) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ~A ⊃ D A⊃I I⊃Q ~S ⊃ ~D A⊃Q D⊃S ~A ⊃ S A ∨ ~A Q∨S Prem Prem /∴ Q ∨ S 1, Simp 1, Simp 2, Simp 2, Simp 4,5, Hyp Syll 6, Contrap 3,8, Hyp Syll Taut 10,7,9, Dilem

Advanced rules: Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof. A closing comment. There are two other rules that are important deduction tools. They are more advanced and more powerful logical techniques than the rules presented thus far. These are known as the rule of Conditional Proof and the rule of Indirect Proof. We present these rules in section 2.10 below.

124

Propositional Logic Section 2.8 Making Deductions for Arguments

**Exercise 2.8. A,B Deductions, Supply Reasons
**

Part A. Supply the missing reasons in the following deductions. Use the standard method of annotating deductions, as in Problem #1. Always cite the line numbers used (if any), and cite the abbreviated name of the rule used. In all these problems lines 1 and 2 are premisses, and they are annotated as “Prem.” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. T ∨ (D & ~E) ~T D & ~E ~E ~(Q ∨ S) B ~Q & ~S B & (~Q & ~S) ~J ⊃ ~I (H ⊃ P) & (H ∨ ~J) H⊃P H ∨ ~J P ∨ ~I L ⊃ (B & E) ~E (B & E) ⊃ E ~(B & E) ~L (~S ∨ Y) ∨ ~A ~Y (Y ∨ ~S) ∨ ~A Y ∨ (~S ∨ ~A) ~S ∨ ~A ~(S & A)

1)

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A⊃B B⊃C A⊃C ~C ⊃ ~A (A ∨ B) ⊃ C (A ∨ B) & F A∨B C ~B & A (K & ~E) ⊃ B ~B ~(K & ~E) ~K ∨ ~(~E) L ⊃ (B & E) E⊃S L⊃B L⊃E L⊃S A ≡ ~B C ≡ ~B A ⊃ ~B ~B ⊃ C A⊃C ~C ⊃ ~A

Prem Prem 1,2, Hyp Syll 3, Contrap

2)

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

Part B. Supply the missing reasons in the following deductions. Use the standard method of annotating deductions, always citing both the line numbers used, and the abbreviated name of the rule used, in that order. In each deduction, the steps above the horizontal line are the premisses, and they are annotated as “Prem.” Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.

Propositional Logic Section 2.9 Strategy in Deductions 1) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 3) F≡G E ⊃ (F ∨ G) ~G & (A ∨ B) (B ⊃ E) & H ~G A∨B B⊃E F⊃G ~F ~F & ~G ~(F ∨ G) ~E ~B A 4) 2) 1. A ∨ (N ∨ W) 2. W ⊃ ~(~B) 3. K & ~S 4. (N ⊃ L) & ~A 5. (~S ∨ M) ⊃ Q 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ~S ~S ∨ M Q ~A N∨W N⊃L W⊃B L∨B Q & (L ∨ B) A ⊃ (B ⊃ C) D ⊃ (E & F) (B ⊃ C) ⊃ (A ⊃ D) (~A ∨ E) ⊃ (B ⊃ C) ~C A ⊃ (A ⊃ D) (A & A) ⊃ D A⊃D A ⊃ (E & F) A⊃E ~A ∨ E B⊃C ~B ~B & ~C

125

1. M ⊃ (~P ∨ T) 2. ~M ⊃ Q 3. (P ∨ A) & (~Q & ~A) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. P∨A (~Q & ~A) ~Q ~(~M) M ~P ∨ T ~A P ~(~P) T ~S ∨ T

**Section 2.9 Strategy in Deductions
**

The Method of Deduction is not a mechanical method, in the sense that the Truth-table Method is a mechanical method. One constructs a complete truth-table for an argument, that’s mechanical, and one applies the validity test, that’s mechanical, and the outcome is automatic. By contrast, making a deduction for an argument is a creative process that requires ability and insight: the reasoner must somehow ﬁgure out how the laws of logic can be used to deduce the conclusion from the premisses in a manageable number of steps. Maybe the reasoner will succeed; but maybe not, even if no mistakes are made. It is tempting to think that not being able to ﬁnd a deduction (while making no mistakes) is

126

Propositional Logic Section 2.9 Strategy in Deductions

actually a success of another kind: a demonstration that the argument is invalid. But that would not be true. Not being able to ﬁnd a deduction could mean that the argument is invalid, and that a deduction is impossible. It could also mean that the argument is valid after all, and a deduction can be found, but you have not succeeded in ﬁnding one. But there are positive aspects. (1) First of all, most arguments we are likely to meet are not so complex that we cannot demonstrate their validity, or invalidity. With some logic education, our creative abilities are well-suited to the task. And that is also the second point. (2) Practice will help us become better deduction makers. All skills are like that, and making deductions is a skill. So, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. (3) Thirdly, our creative abilities are helped not only by practice, we can also use strategy. We should never proceed randomly in deductions, because random steps usually produce nothing of interest. The strategy at issue is very general, and it can be applied to solving most problems. Of course, strategy is not a mechanical method that guarantees a result. But, like most strategy, it is effective. There are two main parts.

**Strategy #1: Simplify Complexity
**

Normally, we will not be able to construct a deduction unless we can see how the various sentences are related. But we can’t see those relationships if they are hidden from us by the complex structures of the sentences. So, in order to do a deduction, we must eliminate the complex structures that hide the relationships. As much as possible, we have to reduce complex sentences to simpler ones. We do have rules that will perform the needed reductions. In fact, many of our rules of deduction are also rules of reduction. The important ones are: Simp 5. p & q 6. p MP 5. p ⊃ q 6. p 7. q MT 5. p ⊃ q 6. ~q 7. ~p Disj Syll 5. p ∨ q 6. ~p 7. q DN 5. ~(~p) 6. p Contrap 5. ~q ⊃ ~p 6. p ⊃ q

Here the reduction results have been highlighted. What is important is that when sentences are simpler, we can better see the connections. And there is a matching negative strategy that goes along with this: DO NOT make simpler sentences more complicated! For example, the following is a strategic blunder: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~A ⊃ B ~B ⊃ ~(~A) ~(~B) ∨ ~(~A) ~(~B & ~A) B& A ...... 5, Contrap 6, Cond. 7, DeMorg 8, Dbl Neg ???

Strategy mistake: Should be: 6, Dbl Neg What a mess! ERROR. See what happens?

Propositional Logic Section 2.9 Strategy in Deductions

127

The above procedure is too complicated, and it’s unnatural (real people don’t do that), and such unnatural complexities will likely lead to error. Unless you happen to have a very good reason for introducing complexity (like when the desired conclusion itself is complex), don’t do it; otherwise, the best you can hope for is confusion. Here is an example of a series of typical reductions: 1. O & ~K 2. U & (R ∨ K) 3. R ⊃ (S & W) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. O ~K U R∨K R S&W S Prem Prem Prem

∴S = reduce line 1 = reduce line 1 = reduce line 2 = reduce line 2 = reduce line 7 = reduce line 3 = reduce line 9

1, Simp 1, Simp 2, Simp 2, Simp 5,7, Disj Syll 3,8, MP 9, Simp

**Strategy #2: Always Proceed in Accordance with Set Goals
**

The second strategy is perhaps more important than the ﬁrst, because it controls the direction that the construction of the deduction takes. There are so many things that the rules allow us to do—what should we do ﬁrst? The answer is: We should do those things that will accomplish the goal that we have set. Clearly, every problem sets the ﬁrst goal for us, which is to ﬁnd the solution, and in deductions that goal is to derive the conclusion. So, that is the starting point in our strategy (and the ending point in ﬁnishing the deduction). The ﬁrst question we ask is, Which one of the premisses is relevant to getting the conclusion, and exactly how will this premiss do this? For example, suppose the argument is: 1. ~A ⊃ (A ∨ B) 2. M ⊃ S 3. M & (S ⊃ ~A) .... x. A ∨ B Prem Prem Prem

∴A∨B

? Conclusion

← That’s the goal

The conclusion is A ∨ B. We look at the premisses, and we see that one of them is ~A ⊃ (A ∨ B). Bingo! That’s the premiss we focus on. That premiss gives us a strategy for deriving the conclusion. We need to use the rule MP, and, therefore, we need the additional, independent line ~A to match the condition part:

128

Propositional Logic Section 2.9 Strategy in Deductions Prem Prem Prem ? ? 1, x, MP

1. ~A ⊃ (A ∨ B) 2. M ⊃ S 3. M & (S ⊃ ~A) .... x. ~A x. A ∨ B

← That’s the new goal ← That’s the ﬁrst goal

This is real progress. We have set a new goal, to derive ~A , and when we have done that, we are all done. So, again, the question is, which one of the available lines is relevant to getting the new goal, and exactly how will this line produce it? The relevant line is Premiss 3. It is a conjunction, so we need to use the rule Simp to break it up. This produces the new line S ⊃ ~A , and this new line gives us a new strategy for getting what we want. What we need is the additional line S, and those two lines will produce ~A by means of the rule MP: 1. ~A ⊃ (A ∨ B) 2. M ⊃ S 3. M & (S ⊃ ~A) 4. S ⊃ ~A .... x. S x. ~A x. A ∨ B Prem Prem Prem 3, Simp ? ? 4, x, MP 1, x, MP

← That’s the new goal ← That’s the second goal ← That’s the ﬁrst goal

We are getting close to the end. Our goal is to derive S. We search for a relevant line, and we see that it is line 2. This gives us a new goal. We need to get M. We look and ﬁnd M in line 3. Bingo! The rule Simp completes the strategy. 1. ~A ⊃ (A ∨ B) 2. M ⊃ S 3. M & (S ⊃ ~A) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. S ⊃ ~A M S ~A A∨B

Prem Prem Prem 3, Simp 3, Simp 2, 5, MP 4, 6, MP 1, 7, MP

← That’s the last goal ← That’s the third goal ← That’s the second goal ← That’s the ﬁrst goal

by the rules Dbl Neg. You may well have to supplement these strategies with some cleverness of your own. Case 3. Bicond. Case 2. The conclusion is a disjunction p ∨ q : Case 1. At this point. 5. Our discussion here refers to the conclusion. 2. Dbl Thens. The conclusion is a conditional p ⊃ q : There are various rules that generate conditional sentences. The conclusion is a conjunction p & q : Here. Case 2.Propositional Logic Section 2. 3. Here are the speciﬁc cases. Contrap. The advanced rule CP is also a good rule to use here. 1. Here you must derive the line p and then use the rule Disj Add to get p ∨ q . Start with: p & ~q . and then do: ~(~p) & ~q . This is a bit tedious. then one will have to construct this line from pieces that are available or that still have to be derived. If the sought-after line (the ﬁnal conclusion or an intermediate conclusion) does not appear in the premisses. Cond. you must derive the two sentences p ⊃ q and q ⊃ p and then use the rule Bicond. you must derive two lines. Ordinary English does not have cases like this. but the same strategy points apply to any intermediate conclusions along the way as well. not all arguments fall so easily under the two main strategies. a thorough knowledge of the rules of inference is required. and then use the rule Conj. ~(p & q). respectively. ~(p ⊃ q). The conclusion is a negation of a compound sentence: Case 1. there are some special strategies for some special conclusions. as described next. ~(p ∨ q). One must start with: (p & ~q) ∨ (q & ~p). There are three other rules that generate p ∨ q: DeMorg. Only the rule Bicond will generate a biconditional sentence. The conclusion is a biconditional p ≡ q : Here. but in the symbolic language this could occur. Dilem. 4. Also. Use DeMorg to get it. The rule Hyp Syll is at the top of the list. we need these particular strategies to do what is asked by the second main strategy: to always proceed in accordance with set goals. q is an extra component that does not occur anywhere else in the premisses. Cond. ~(p ⊃ q) . ~(~p ∨ q) . one line p and the other line q.9 Strategy in Deductions 129 Of course. Case 4. Dbl Ifs. In fact. Ordinary English does not have cases like this. DeMorg. but in the symbolic language this could occur. and the advanced rule IP is a better rule to use for this case. Use DeMorg to get it. Other candidates to consider are: Cond. and then do: . Particular Strategies In addition to the two main strategies there are also more particular strategies that must be used. ~(p ≡ q).

from 3 need: A . Bicond. DeMorg . P ⊃ H 3. Disj Syll 8. 7. DeMorg. ~(~p ∨ q)∨ ~(~q ∨ p). DeMorg. to derive A ⊃ ~(C ∨ D) we should ﬁrst get its DeMorg equivalent A ⊃ (~C & ~D) . 6. get from 4 want: U . 12. MP 4. For example. from 3 want: P ⊃ ~M . 11. from 2 need: ~S .5. This is very tedious. Dbl Thens 6. Simp 2. After the strategies are ﬁnished. we begin to write the deduction steps by using the strategy steps in the reverse order. ~[(p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p)]. 7. 6. 6. M ⊃ ~H Prem 2. 4. from 1. Cond. P ⊃ ~M want: P ⊃ ~S .9 Strategy in Deductions (~~p & ~q) ∨ (~~q & ~p). an extended list of strategies was mapped out and recorded in the space on the right.130 Propositional Logic Section 2. 9. Conj want: U & W .7. Disj Syll 6.4. respectively. get from 1 want: A .2 reverse for deduction Prem 1.11. 3. Notice that in each of these problems. Hyp Syll 3.5. The strategy steps start with the ﬁnal conclusion and then grow more and more. a general strategy is to derive an equivalent form of the desired sentence. H ⊃ ~M P ⊃ ~M P ⊃ (~S & ~M) P ⊃ ~(S ∨ M) 1. beginning with the last strategy step. get from 3 need: W . 1. and the latter can be derived by the rule Dbl Thens from A ⊃ ~C and A ⊃ ~D . 10. Simp 10. Simp 3. ~(p ⊃ q)∨ ~(q ⊃ p) . use Conj need: U . get from 2 want: ~D . (A & B) ∨ D (~D & ~E) ∨ S A⊃U W & ~S ~S ~D & ~E ~D A&B A U W U&W Prem Prem Prem Prem ∴ U & W 4. P ⊃ ~S Prem ∴ P ⊃ ~(S ∨ M) 4. from 1 need: ~D . 5.9. using the rules Dbl Neg. For the remaining cases. Simp 1. and the advanced rule IP is a better rule to use in this case. 2. get from 4 reverse for deduction want: P ⊃ ~(S ∨ M) = P ⊃ (~S & ~M) get this by rule Dbl Thens from P ⊃ ~S . 5. ~(p ≡ q) . 8. as we try to push our goals deeper to where the original premisses can be used to give us what we need. You should momentarily cover up the deduction steps on the left and concentrate on the strategy steps on the right. We illustrate a couple of these strategies in the next two examples. Contrap 2.

DN 1.2 Hyp Syll 4. (~E ∨ P) ∨ U (~E ∨ P) ⊃ A U⊃B ~A Prem Prem Prem ∴ G 1.Propositional Logic Section 2. We have also reproduced these problems in the exercises for optional practice. D. Simp 2.Thens 2. G 1. ~B 5. 2. so that you can compare your own answers to the ones provided here. MT 5.4. the easier the deductions become.2.4. MT 8.4. ~B 3. Twenty Sample Deductions 1. DeMorg 1. We give these so that you can go through them at your leisure. F ⊃ G 4. E ⊃ G 3. Disj Add 3. A ⊃ M 5. MP Prem Prem Prem Prem ∴ B 1. D ⊃ G 3.3 Hyp Syll Prem Prem Prem ∴ ~H 1.3. ~M 4. B 1. 1. Conj Prem Prem ∴ ~A 1. A ⊃ (B & C) 2. E ⊃ F 3. 6. MT 3. ~O 6.3. O ∨ N 3. 1. MT Prem Prem Prem∴ ~A&~M 1. The better you know the rules. ~M ∨ ~O 2. A ⊃ (B & C) 2. ~R 3. ~A 6. D ⊃ E 2. A ⊃ B 4. 1. ~(B & C) 5. M 4. ~G 4. 4. E ∨ F 2. 1. ~F 4. ~B ∨ ~C 4. ~B & E 3. ~H 5. E 5. 4. We also give another reminder that you should master the rules of inference ASAP.4. ~A .5. ~(~M) 5. 2. 1. N 1. Disj Syll 2. And as you compare answers. Disj Syll 2.9 Strategy in Deductions 131 What follows is twenty sample deductions. ~A & ~M 7. you will not feel comfortable doing any of the deductions. Disj Syll 2. ~R ⊃ (A ⊃ M) 2. Most of these are not difﬁcult. ~F 5. H ⊃ F 3.2. remember that there is always more than one way to do any deduction.5. D ⊃ F 5.4. A ∨ B 6.3. Dilem 5. Disj Syll Prem Prem ∴ ~A 2. 3.4. MP 3. G ∨ ~F 2.4. Disj Syll Prem Prem Prem ∴ N 3. but until you have practiced doing some of these on your own. ~A Prem Prem Prem ∴ D ⊃ G 1.

(A ∨ B) ⊃ K 2.4. Conj Prem Prem Prem ∴ SV~E 3. Simp 3. DeMorg 4. Simp 5. 7. Cond 7. Conj 1. 7. B & ~C Prem ∴ E 3. S & ~O 4. 5. 7. Hyp Sll 3. Disj Add Prem Prem Prem ∴ Q ∨ A 1. 6. Simp Prem Prem Prem∴ ~K ⊃~D 2. 6. Comm 6. B C ∨ (D & E) ~C D&E E 2. Prem Prem ∴ ~U&~O 2. MT 6. 7. DN 4. 6.1. (M & H) ⊃ ~L 4.4. 5.5. ~(~L) ∨ U ~L ⊃ U ~L ⊃ C (M & H) ⊃ C 15. MP 3. B ⊃ [C ∨ (D & E)] Prem 2.9 Strategy in Deductions 1.5. Hyp Syll Prem Prem Prem ∴ D ⊃ K Taut 4. 1. A A&B C B&C 1. Contrap Prem Prem Prem∴ (M&H)⊃C 2. ~M ⊃ O 2.6.3. Dilem 16. Hyp Syll 3. Hyp Syll 3. Conj 10. 1. (A ∨ B) ⊃ K 2. 5. MP 3.1. Simp 2.3.1. U ⊃ ~M 3.2. 1. Dilem 5. ~U W∨S W⊃Q S⊃A Q∨A 1. 6. Hyp Syll 9. 8. 4.3. Simp 1. Bicond 5. 7. ~H ∨ ~E 3. Simp 4. C ⊃ (A ∨ B) 3. ~(A & ~H) 2. 5. 14. (A & B) ⊃ C 2. D ≡ C 4. A ~A ∨ ~(~H) ~(~H) ~E S ∨ ~E 1. N & A 4.7. 1. Cond 5. Disj Syll 7.5. ~B & ~U 2. L ∨ U 3. ~U ⊃ (W ∨ S) 3. B 4. 6.6. Disj Syll 6. Simp 1. Disj Syll 2. 7. C⊃K D⊃C D⊃K ~K ⊃ ~D 13. 6. 6.132 Propositional Logic Section 2. 5. A & D 3. 11. Hyp Syll 6. 5. 7. Simp 4. 8. Prem Prem Prem ∴ B & C 2. U ⊃ C 2. C ⊃ (A ∨ B) 3.5. C ∨ ~C (A ∨ B) ∨ ~D ~D ∨ (A ∨ B) D ⊃ (A ∨ B) D⊃K . MP 2. (W ⊃ Q)&(S ⊃ A) 4.6.6. U⊃O ~O ~U ~U & ~O Prem 12. 5. Simp 4.1. ~C ⊃ ~D 4. 6. 5. 7. 8.5.

H ⊃ F . ~M ∨ ~O . S & ~O /∴ ~U & ~O . There is an available Exercise Work Sheet for these problems. 6. Dilem 18. D ⊃ E . ~D 4. Hyp Syll 4. DeMorg 7. Prem Prem ∴ ~B 1. 1. Dbl Thens 2. Disj Syll Prem Prem ∴ Q ∨ S 1. Simp 2. 9.Simp Prem Prem Prem ∴ ~(EVD) 1. 9. ~(A ∨ ~C) 3. 8. 1. E ⊃ (U ⊃ D) 2. E ⊃ F .5. 6. O ∨ N . A ≡ (B & C) 2. 19.8. MT 5. 4. B & ~C /∴ E 11. ~F /∴ G 4. E ⊃ G . 7. U ⊃ ~M . E ∨ F . 5.Propositional Logic Section 2. (~A ⊃ D)&(A ⊃ I) 2.5. 8. Cond 2. M /∴ N 7. 7. (B & C) ⊃ A ~A & ~(~C) ~A ~(B & C) ~B ∨ ~C ~(~C) ~B 133 17.3. Hyp Syll Taut 9. DeMorg 6. U ⊃ B . Simp 2. (M ∨ S) ⊃ (N&O) Prem 2. 5. (~E ∨ P) ∨ U .8. A & D . Simp 1. Simp 3. (M ∨ S) ⊃ O ~O ~(M ∨ S) ~M & ~S ~M 1. 10. ~M /∴ ~A & ~M 6. (~E ∨ P) ⊃ A . A ⊃ (B & C) . 6. ~B /∴ ~A 9. DeMorg 4. MT 4. 7. 10. ~G /∴ ~H 2. ~A ⊃ D A⊃I D⊃S I⊃Q ~A ⊃ S A⊃Q A ∨ ~A Q∨S 20. ~A /∴ B 5.9 Strategy in Deductions 1. Simp 3. B ⊃ [C ∨ (D & E)] . and compare your answers to the solutions given above.6. ~R . ~B & E /∴ ~A 8. double ifs 3. DeMorg 1. MT 6. 7.4. RAA 8. 8. 1. E ⊃ U 3. Conj 9. (A & B) ⊃ C .5.7. ~M ⊃ O . 5. ~R ⊃ (A ⊃ M) . (E & U) ⊃ D ~(E & U) ~E ∨ ~U E ⊃ ~U ~E ~E & ~D ~(E ∨ D) Practice the Twenty Previous Sample Deductions Practice these problems yourself. 8. Simp 7. DeMorg 4. A ⊃ (B & C) . 6. B /∴ B & C 10.3.7. G ∨ ~F . MT 6. F ⊃ G /∴ D ⊃ G 3. ~S Prem 3. Bicond 2. 4. 9. O ⊃ S Prem ∴ ~M 4. 5. (D ⊃ S) & (I ⊃ Q) 3.

~(A & B) . ~(A & ~H) . ~Q ∨ ~R /∴ B C ⊃ (A & S) /∴ ~S ⊃ ~C M ≡ ~O /∴ ~M ⊃ O F ⊃ (G ∨ A) . ~A . ~B & ~U . L ∨ U . N & A /∴ S ∨ ~E 15. (D ⊃ S) & (I ⊃ Q) /∴ Q ∨ S Exercise 2. 3. (~G) & M /∴ ~F S ⊃ ~M . 6. M ∨ T . 2. These are just a bit harder. (W ⊃ Q) & (S ⊃ A) /∴ Q ∨ A 19. Give deductions for the following arguments. 5. B ⊃ ~P /∴ A ⊃ ~T (A & B) ∨ (Q & R) . These are easy. Full Blast Part A. A . 7. ~B ⊃ D /∴ D ~(G & ~(~H)) .C. A ∨ D /∴ C & D ~A & ~B .9 Strategy in Deductions 12. U ⊃ C . ~H ∨ ~E . C ⊃ (A ∨ B) .B. ~S . (A ∨ B) ⊃ K . ~C ⊃ ~D /∴ D ⊃ K 18. ~R ∨ S /∴ ~R F ⊃ (G & A) . ~G . D ≡ C /∴ ~K ⊃ ~D 14. Give deductions for the following arguments. (~A ⊃ D) & (A ⊃ I) . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. ~D /∴ ~(E ∨ D) 17. B ∨ C /∴ C & ~A G ∨ ~H . ~M /∴ ~(~K ∨ M) ~R ∨ ~S . (A ∨ B) ⊃ K . 4. A ≡ (B & C) .134 Propositional Logic Section 2.9. ~P ⊃ ~T . ~U ⊃ (W ∨ S) . 8. ~A /∴ ~F Part B. ~G . 2. ~B . C ⊃ (A ∨ B) . B ∨ C . 7. 5. O ⊃ S /∴ ~M 20. E ⊃ (U ⊃ D) . 8. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 1. 4. (M & H) ⊃ ~L /∴ (M & H) ⊃ C 16. I ⊃ H /∴ ~I A ⊃ B . ~N /∴ ~(L ∨ N) ∨ Q . E ⊃ U .D Deductions. A. (M ∨ S) ⊃ (N & O) . ~(A ∨ ~C) /∴ ~B 13. S ⊃ ~T /∴ ~S F ⊃ A . G & ~A /∴ ~F ∨ X ~L . ~H ⊃ D /∴ G ⊃ D K ∨ M . 3. 6. 1.

M ⊃ D /∴ D ∨ B ~Q ⊃ E . (B & ~C) ⊃ (A & B) . 5. These are a bit harder yet. ~(A & B) . A ⊃ (B ∨ C) . ~Q ≡ S /∴ ~R & ~S 10. (K ⊃ L) & (G ⊃ H) . Suppose you have just taken the LSAT and are waiting for the results: . . ~(F ∨ C) . (P ⊃ Q) & (R ⊃ S) . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (E ∨ R) ≡ D . (E ∨ P) ⊃ ~N . ~A ⊃ E . Give deductions for the following arguments. 4. K . (A & P) ⊃ B /∴ ~A ∨ ~P (A & B) & ~(~C) . (~E ∨ L) ⊃ (D ∨ G) . (D ⊃ A) & (E ⊃ B) . ~N ⊃ ~F . T & (P ∨ R) . ~A ∨ ~W /∴ ~W ≡ A S ≡ ~K . The rule of Tautology may be useful here. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof Sometimes when people reason they make use of temporary hypotheses to investigate possible outcomes of some situation. C ⊃ D /∴ (A ∨ C) ⊃ (B ∨ D) 2. T ⊃ (Q & R) . . 1. S ⊃ (M & P) . A ⊃ M . G ⊃ F . ~(T & R) . ~A ⊃ B /∴ A ∨ C 6. Give deductions for the following arguments. (B ∨ P) ≡ ~(B & K) . N ⊃ J . A ⊃ B . B ⊃ C /∴ A MORE ADVANCED TOPICS IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Section 2. This is the well-known type of “what if .10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 135 Part C. K ≡ L /∴ Q ∨ ~L 9. ~(D ∨ L) /∴ E ∨ H 7. You may want to practice these ﬁrst on a separate sheet. (N & E) ∨ (N & H) . ~(~P & ~Q) /∴ T A ∨ (B & C) . A ∨ W . (K & L) ⊃ ~M . C ≡ B /∴ A ⊃ B 4. (A ∨ B) ⊃ (A ⊃ ~B) . 3. L & (S ∨ T) . (A ∨ B) & (A ∨ ~B) /∴ A & ~B 5.” thinking. 6. 8. ~T ⊃ ~Q . 7. (D ∨ D) & M /∴ (C & B) & D P ⊃ T . P ∨ S /∴ S 3. ~B ⊃ S /∴ B & K (S ∨ ~S) ⊃ ~B . P ⊃ (Q & R) . 1. ~E /∴ (A & Q) ∨ (A & E) U ⊃ R .Propositional Logic Section 2. ~U ⊃ ~J /∴ F ⊃ R Part D. These are difﬁcult. (Q ∨ R) ⊃ S . G ∨ (D ∨ E) . 2. H ⊃ B /∴ ~K 8.

P A D J&F F Premiss. and then I would have a great job [J] with a great future [F]. k. . Using this assumption and the . then my future is guaranteed. 2.. if this.136 Propositional Logic Section 2. This procedure then allows one to make an overall summary of the deductive relationship: “So. and then I would get a Harvard Law degree [D]. k—n. then that. . assertion of fact Premiss. and it receives the label assumption. assertion of fact Temporary “what if” assumption 1. q n+1. . MP 2. D ⊃ (J & F) 4. 6.” [F] Your friend asks you what you mean by that. .” Let’s have a closer look at this reasoning. “What if you got a perfect LSAT score?” [P] And you respond. deduces a corresponding temporary conclusion. . then I would be admitted to Harvard Law School [A]. The ﬁrst line in this box is any sentence that you select. ..10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof Your friend asks.5.. and this is something all of us do very often. CP The purpose of this new rule is to create conditional sentences.. “Well. . A ⊃ D 3.4. p ⊃ q Assumption . and you answer... P ⊃ F This is good reasoning. 5. “Because. The progression has the following format: 1. MP 7.6. n. The rule allows you to start a Conditional Proof Box at any point in a deduction.. 7. . in the presence of other known facts. assertion of fact Premiss..” This logical technique is known as the rule of Conditional Proof.. Simp “what if” summary 9.. 8. . and it takes the following form: The Rule of Conditional Proof (CP) 1.. P ⊃ A 2. .. p . MP 3. One begins with a temporary assumption and.

3. A ⊃ C Example #2. all the lines inside the box cease to exist. 6. Disj Syll 3–6. that you cannot derive later lines outside the box by using lines from inside the box—because those inner lines no longer exist. C ⊃ K 8. MP 2. CP 3—9.3.Propositional Logic Section 2.5. 5. 4. MP 2. nested CP-boxes. you also kill it. they may also be put one inside the other. MP 7—8. as well as the rule CP. A ⊃ ~B 2. you write a “summary” of what happened in the box. and outside the box as the next line. CP .10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 137 previous lines of the deduction. you may derive additional lines inside the CP-box. you simply make sure that the bottom border is drawn. 1.3. A ~B B∨C C 7. 5. (C ⊃ K) ⊃ K 10. of course.7. 1. One important restriction in using the rule CP is that when the CP-box is terminated and the conditional sentence has been derived. A ⊃ [ (C ⊃ K) ⊃ K ] Prem Prem ∴ A ⊃ [ (C ⊃ K) ⊃ K ] Assumption 1. MP 4. A ~B B∨C C Prem Prem ∴ A ⊃ C Assumption 1.3. A ⊃ (B ∨ C) 3. 4. Example #1. From that point on. 6. all the lines inside the box become de-activated. CP 7. and where q is the same sentence as was the last line of the box. A ⊃ ~B 2. as they are called. When you terminate it. A ⊃ (B ∨ C) 3. Disj Syll Assumption 6. Another point is that since CP-boxes may be introduced at any point. This new line is justiﬁed by citing the sequence of line numbers in the box.) That means. where p is the same sentence as was the assumption of the box. We illustrate the method with the next two examples. MP 4.5. K 9. You may terminate the CP-box whenever you wish. This summary is a conditional sentence p ⊃ q. (This gives that other meaning to the word “terminate”: you don’t just stop it.

A ⊃ ~B 2. Comm 5. One practical problem with RAA is that it is sometimes difﬁcult to derive the two conditional sentences containing the contradictory results. ~p ⊃ ~q ∴ p When a hypothesis produces a contradiction. And also. 5. 1. 4. 6. This deduction is entirely correct. the derivation is very technical and complex. Dupl The Rule of Indirect Proof (IP) Here is the second type of reasoning that uses temporary hypotheses. 9. the rule CP is not a necessary addition to the system. . 7. then we know that the hypothesis is WRONG. q and ~q . A ⊃ (~B ⊃ C) (A & ~B) ⊃ C (~B & A) ⊃ C ~B ⊃ (A ⊃ C) A ⊃ (A ⊃ C) (A & A) ⊃ C A⊃C Prem Prem 2. This type is known as the method (the rule) of Indirect Proof. Dbl Ifs 8.10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof The rule CP is a very powerful deductive technique. Cond 3. A ⊃ (B ∨ C) 3. But what is important here is that when you use the rule CP. and it is as short as possible using just the previous rules. Hyp Syll 7. If an assumption has the potential to produce contradictory results. but if you do not use this rule. p ⊃ ~q ∴ ~p . ~p ⊃ q . Dbl Ifs 6. at the deduction for the argument of Example #1 when it is done using Direct Proof. Recall that RAA is the rule: p ⊃ q . This is where the rule IP can help. 8. then the method of IP is the easiest way to bring the contradiction out in the open. and we must conclude the opposite of the hypothesis. results can often be derived in a very simple and natural manner. for example. Look. no human being has ever reasoned in this way. Admittedly. but. This rule is a more powerful version of the rule RAA that we introduced earlier.138 Propositional Logic Section 2. Dbl Ifs 4.1. because the previous rules are themselves adequate to achieve the same ﬁnal results.

q & ~q n+1. . . IP Again.5. k—n. you have a brain cloud. p Assumption .3. Today.10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 139 The Rule of Indirect Proof (IP) 1. n.. 4.. Now. 2. and outside the box as the next line. This new line is justiﬁed by citing the sequence of line numbers in the box. Conj 3—6.. k. ..3. here is where the rule IP begins to differ from the rule CP. 7. you must make sure the bottom border of the box is drawn.. perhaps. And again. you must write the opposite of the assumption that is at the head of the box. ~p . 5. . and you cannot ﬁnd direct proofs for these arguments: • • S ∨ M . .Propositional Logic Section 2. as before. and the rules CP and IP for the second problem. . When you terminate the IP-box. this rule allows you to start an Indirect Proof Box at any point in a deduction. Disj Syll 4. ~M ∨ S 3. ~M ∨ S ∴ S S ⊃ (A ∨ B) . Those lines cannot be used later by lines that lie outside the box.. all the lines inside the box are de-activated and cease to exist.. as well as the rule IP.. you may derive additional lines inside the IP-box. keep in mind that once a box has been terminated. Once you have derived any contradiction of the form q & ~q inside the IP-box. Again. S ~S M ~M M & ~M Prem Prem ∴ S = original goal Assumption (IP) ∴ q & ~q = new goal 1. 1. . Let’s look at some examples of deductions using Indirect Proof. CP-boxes and IP-boxes can be nested inside other CP-boxes and IP-boxes. Disj Syll 2. We will use the rule IP for the ﬁrst problem. S ∨ M 2. ... at that point you may terminate the IP-box.. . B ⊃ (S ⊃ A) ∴ S ⊃ A Not to worry. 6. IP .. . and it receives the label assumption. Using this assumption and the previous lines of the deduction. The ﬁrst line in this box is any sentence you select.

Conj 5−9. 3.3. M ⊃ (R & U) /∴ (P ∨ S) ⊃ ~M 9. 2. A ~A B S⊃A ~S S & ~S Prem Prem ∴ S ⊃ A Assumption (CP) ∴ A 1. C ⊃ (D ⊃ B) /∴ D ⊃ (~A ∨ ~C) 10.8. Disj Syll 2. (A & ~B) ⊃ E /∴ A ⊃ (C ∨ E) ~[A & (B ∨ C)] . 6. (A ∨ C) ∨ ~D /∴ D ⊃ C . Give deductions for the following arguments. (D & C) ⊃ (E & F) /∴ (A & D) ⊃ E 6.140 Propositional Logic Section 2. ~B /∴ C ⊃ (A ∨ D) 5. S ⊃ (~U & ~W) . ~(~A & ~B) /∴ C 8. (A ∨ B) ⊃ (A & B) /∴ A ≡ B 4. (A & B) ⊃ C .10 The Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 1.5. (A & ~B) ⊃ C .B Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof Part A. 7. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet for your work. A ⊃ ~B . B ⊃ C . A ⊃ (B & C) . A ⊃ B . Give deductions for the following arguments. ~A ∨ ~B /∴ ~(A ≡ B) (P ∨ Q) ⊃ (R & S) . 4. 8. 4. These are more difﬁcult. S ⊃ A Exercise 2. (A ∨ B) ⊃ (C & D) /∴ A ⊃ D 3. C ⊃ D ∴ A ⊃ D Part B.5. B ⊃ (S ⊃ A) 3. CP 11. IP 3−10. 1. D ⊃ B . A. S ⊃ (A ∨ B) 2. (P ∨ Q) ⊃ ~R . D ⊃ E /∴ ~E ⊃ B 2. 10. 1. B ⊃ D . using the rules CP and IP. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (T ∨ U) ⊃ (U & W) /∴ (P ∨ T) ⊃ (R ∨ W) (A & B) ⊃ C . MP 7. C ⊃ [A ∨ (B & C)] . MP Assumption (IP) ∴ q & ~q 4. 9. (A ⊃ B) ∨ (A ⊃ C) .10. S A∨B 5. A ∨ (B & C) . MT 3. 5.6. E ⊃ (A ⊃ B) /∴ E ⊃ [(A ∨ B) ⊃ B] 7. A ⊃ D . using the rules CP and IP. E ⊃ C /∴ ~[A & (D ∨ E)] A ∨ B .

We will look at these further concerns as they relate to the method of deduction. there is no better method available to demonstrate that a conclusion follows from its premisses. in every possible situation.11 Further Uses of Deductions 6. The main use of deductions is to produce the conclusions of valid arguments.4. 3. Simp 3. (3) the logical status of an individual sentence.6. we can now also demonstrate equivalence by the method of deduction: Two sentences p and q are equivalent if there are two deductions: one deduction that starts with p and ends with q. 3. 8. To demonstrate: P & (P ⊃ Q) is equivalent to P & Q Deduction #1 1. than to present a step-by-step deduction. (D & ~E) ⊃ B . p and q have the same truth-value. 5. (Q & ~C) ⊃ B /∴ ~C ⊃ [A ⊃ (Q ⊃ D)] Section 2. 7. in the following way: Two sentences p and q are equivalent if and only if. If we compare this with the deﬁnition of validity. Indeed. P Q ~P ∨ Q P⊃Q P & (P ⊃ Q) Prem 1. Conj . Conj Deduction #2 1. and (4) the consistency of a group of sentences. or a contradiction.5. 4. where we noted that in addition to (1) validity. with respect to it being a logical truth. We continue here the ideas that we ﬁrst introduced in Section 2. Simp 1. Simp 2. and the argument q ∴ p is valid Since we use deductions to demonstrate validity. P & Q 2. logic also has the following important concerns: (2) the equivalence of two sentences. We have ﬁnished our introduction to this method. Cond 2. 4.3. MP 2. 5. and we now turn to other applications that this method has. Simp 1. (~A ∨ C) ⊃ D /∴ B ⊃ D 141 (B ∨ C) ⊃ ~A . A ⊃ ~E /∴ A ⊃ ~D A ⊃ [B ⊃ (C ∨ D)] .Propositional Logic Section 2. and another deduction that starts with q and ends with p. Disj Add 4. P & (P ⊃ Q) 2.11 Further Uses of Deductions The Method of Deduction is very versatile. 6. we deﬁned the notion of equivalence. we see that equivalence means the following: Two sentences p and q are equivalent if and only if the argument p ∴ q is valid. Earlier. P P⊃Q Q P&Q Prem 1. (A & B) ⊃ (C ∨ D) .

This means that (1) the deduction contains no premisses.” What about other sentences that are different from the given seven patterns? How do we show that they are truths of logic? We may extend the situation in the following way: If a sentence can be derived in a deduction from nothing. 1.] The next logical concern is the logical status of a single sentence..142 Propositional Logic Section 2. derived sentence derived sentence derived sentence ← ← No premisses are allowed.. derived sentence . Hint: use the Dist Law. all these derived sentences have the status of being a Truth of Logic. We already have the Rule of Logical Truth that identiﬁes seven individual sentence patterns as being truths of logic. Such sentences may be introduced in a deduction at any point. or (whatever is left over) neither of these two. and it points out how special these kinds of deductions are. what can be the next step? A good question. and others.11 Further Uses of Deductions To demonstrate: P is equivalent to (P & Q) ∨ (P & ~Q) Deduction #1 [We leave this as an exercise. then that sentence is a Truth of Logic. (p & q) ⊃ p. and no rule is cited as their justiﬁcation. and (2) the sentence does not occur as an item inside a Conditional Proof box or an Indirect Proof box. for example. except that they are themselves laws of logic. Let’s start with the logical truths.] Deduction #2 [We leave this as an exercise. There are two ways to get the next step.. 3. 7.. They require no previous premisses from which they are derived. nor on any Assumption steps. so that we may write as their reason. Because all these derived sentences do not depend on any premisses. or a contradiction. 5. then how can there even be a deduction? Without any premisses. according to which a sentence is either a truth of logic. Hint: use the Dist Law. zero premisses 2. . . 4. because then the sentence would depend on the Assumption step that begins such a box. 6. “logical truth.. and they can therefore cite themselves as their own justiﬁcation. ← ← ← If a deduction starts with no premisses..

zero premisses start with nothing 2. Comm 5. DeMorg 7. 7. MP 4. Cond 143 Each of these lines by itself has the status of a Truth of Logic. Way #2. 5. But the last one is actually interesting. 4. ← Hey. 6. Just write one of the seven tautologies allowed by the Rule of Logical Truth. one that depends on nothing. 3. CP ← Lines 2–7 are inside the box. that’s a good one! Most of the logical truths generated in this deduction are boring. When the box is closed. But other contradictions are implicit ones.6. Cond 3. 7. they are nevertheless . and they are entered only to get to the next step. 6. (A ⊃ B) ∨ ~(A ⊃ B) (~A ∨ B) ∨ ~(A ⊃ B) ~A ∨ [B ∨ ~(A ⊃ B)] ~A ∨ [~(A ⊃ B) ∨ B] [~A ∨ ~(A ⊃ B)] ∨ B ~[A & (A ⊃ B)] ∨ B [A & (A ⊃ B)] ⊃ B start with nothing Tautology 2. Assoc 4. zero premisses 2. 1. Simp 2. What remains of the deduction is a deduction whose only line is a Truth of Logic. When the CP-box is closed. Simp 3. the sentence that is then introduced by the closure of the box is a sentence that depends on nothing. (K & R) & (K ⊃ S) K R K⊃S S R&S Assumption 2. and so. Conj 2—7. 1.11 Further Uses of Deductions Way #1. 8. The most explicit form of a contradiction is the form p & ~p. The next logical concern is how one shows that a single sentence has the status of being a contradiction. Start with an Assumption step in a CP-box or an IP-box. Assoc 6. Such a sentence is also said to be a self-contradictory sentence. 3. Simp 2. in the sense that even though they do not have that explicit form. [(K & R) & (K ⊃ S)] ⊃ (R & S) a Truth of Logic Notice that each of lines 2 through 7 is not a Truth of Logic because none of those lines have been derived from nothing.Propositional Logic Section 2.5. except that it is a single “if then” sentence. 5. are not Truths of Logic 8. 4. so that it has the status of a Truth of Logic. Line 2 is an assumption. and the other steps are all derived from that assumption. that box in effect disappears and is replaced by a conditional sentence. It looks just like the rule Modus Ponens.

one must start with all of the sentences in the group as the premisses and then derive an explicit contradiction as the conclusion. 5. Simp 1. 8. B B⊃G ~G ~B B & ~B Prem 1. Dist 3. 4. Inconsistency is simply a form of contradiction. So. 4.4. 5. To demonstrate: B & (B ⊃ G) & ~G is a contradiction. 7. Simp 1. So. p & ~p. that will be the criterion: Any sentence from which one can derive an explicit contradiction. Conj ← Start with the sentence ← End with a contradiction The last logical concern is how one can show that a group of sentences is inconsistent. the criterion is as follows: A group of sentences is inconsistent if one can derive an explicit contradiction from the sentences in the group. but rather.11 Further Uses of Deductions self-contradictory. B inconsistent set. 6. 3.4. A B∨C ~(A & B) ~(A & C) A & (B ∨ C) (A & B) ∨ (A & C) A&C (A & C) & ~(A & C) Prem Prem Prem Prem 1.6. So. ~(A & C) together form an ← ← ← ← Start with all of the sentences of the set as they are originally given ← End with a contradiction . one must start with that sentence as the only premiss and then derive an explicit contradition as a conclusion. it characterizes the group taken as a whole. ~(A & B). MT 2. when they are all asserted together. To demonstrate: The four sentences A.5. 3. 1. 6. has the status of being a contradiction. Disj Syll 7. B & (B ⊃ G) & ~G 2. So. Simp 3. 1. 2. but the contradiction does not characterize any individual sentence. because an explicit contradiction p & ~p can be derived from them. Conj ∨ C.144 Propositional Logic Section 2.2 Conj 5.

etc. some X are non-Z } Example set #3: { A . are called truth-functional validity. (because the connectives involved have a truth-functional character). A ⊃ ~B } . as in chapters 3 and 4. including both connective structures and subject–predicate structures. all Y are Z . A Terminological Distinction In this chapter we are studying Propositional Logic. various distinctions and relationships between and among the various characteristics. and they can more easily ﬁnd a home in our thoughts. then the various logical characteristics we have been studying. consistency. logical truth. There are. logical falsehood. equivalence. therefore. A ⊃ B . truth-functional equivalence. But implicit inconsistencies are hidden.11 Further Uses of Deductions 145 It is. etc. which is a study of logic with respect to the connective structure of sentences. some non-X are Y } Example set #2: { all X are Y . truth-functional and general. and consistency in the general sense. some X are non-Y . and we speak of validity in the general sense. including validity. If we consider only the connective structure of sentences (as in Chapter 2). In chapters 3 and 4 we will study more detailed structures. these logical characteristics are said to be characteristics in the general sense. When all types of logical structures are considered. Explicit inconsistencies are so obvious that no one is likely to embrace them. unless we are vigilant. the implicit nature of such contradictions that causes the concern. For example (here we abbreviate “truth-functional” as “t-f”): (a) (b) (c) (d) t-f valid arguments form one subgroup of generally valid arguments generally invalid arguments form one subgroup of t-f invalid arguments t-f inconsistent sets form one subgroup of generally inconsistent sets generally consistent sets form one subgroup of t-f consistent sets We illustrate (c) and (d) in the following diagram: Example set #1: { some X are Y . and inconsistency.Propositional Logic Section 2. of course.

6. 1. 3. (B ∨ S) ⊃ (~B ⊃ S) P ∨ (P ⊃ Q) (A & (B & C)) ∨ [A ⊃ (~B ∨ ~C)] (S & ~M) ⊃ (S ∨ M) (A & B & C) ⊃ (B ∨ Q) [(Q ⊃ U) & ~U] ⊃ ~Q [(P ∨ Q) & (P ⊃ R)] ⊃ (R ∨ Q) (A & B) ∨ (A & ~B) ∨ (~A & B) ∨ (~A & ~B) Part C.11 Further Uses of Deductions Exercise 2. 5. 7.C. 8. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 3.e.D Further Uses of Deductions In the deductions below. 5. Give deductions to show that the following listed pairs are equivalent. (A ∨ ~A) ⊃ S M . (P ⊃ S) & (Q ⊃ S) F ⊃ ~(G ∨ H) .146 Propositional Logic Section 2.. ~Q & (Q ∨ E) A ∨ (B & C) . 3.B. Dist. CP. Give deductions to show that the following sentences are truths of Logic. A. 2. 6. you will ﬁnd the following rules to be especially helpful: Taut.11. tautologies. 4. 1. i. 4. 7. [(M ∨ ~~M) & M] ∨ M ~Q & E . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. D ⊃ ~H S . 5. 4. ~K & [W ⊃ (H & ~H)] Part B. (B ∨ S) & (~B & ~S) (F ⊃ G) & (F & ~G) ~[P ∨ (P ⊃ Q)] (S & ~M) & ~(S ∨ M) ~[(A ∨ B) ∨ (~A ∨ C)] . 2. (F ⊃ ~G) & (F ⊃ ~H) ~(W ∨ K) . 1. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Part A. (~B ⊃ A) & (~C ⊃ A) (P ∨ Q) ⊃ S . IP. ~(D & H) . Give deductions to show that the following sentences are contradictions. 2. 8.

5. (B ⊃ A) ⊃ ~A ~(R & S) . 8. N ≡ ~O . B ≡ C . 4. ~B & ~C (A & B) . A ⊃ C . C ⊃ ~C . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (A ∨ ~A) ⊃ W A ∨ B . Give deductions to show that the following sets are inconsistent. ~M ≡ O (A ⊃ B) ⊃ A . 3. ~(S & T) . ~A ∨ C . 7. 6.11 Further Uses of Deductions 6. 2. 8. ~S W ≡ P . A ≡ ~A O & (O ⊃ P) & (P ⊃ R) & ~R (A ∨ B) & (~A ∨ C) & (~B & ~C) 147 Part D. M ⊃ D . ~P . [(A & ~B) ∨ (B & ~A)] M ≡ ~N . 1. S & (R ∨ T) (A ∨ B) ∨ C . (D ∨ ~M) ⊃ S . 7.Propositional Logic Section 2.

These patterns focus on the overall connective structure that sentences and arguments have. most of us are able. p ∨ q. ≡ . &. (Even now. consider the more revealing pattern: . Chapter 3 will investigate the low level logical structure that all sentences have. because these relationships lie at a deeper level: these relationships also involve the arrangements of the parts that are inside the simple sentences A. C.) But one can easily see that the connective structure of this argument is not what makes it valid. A = “all persons are moral agents” B = “no persons are moral agents” C = “some persons are not moral agents” D = “all persons are not moral agents” This pattern fails to capture the logical relationships that are at play in the argument. Connective structure is a high level logical structure. with some effort. for example. to ﬁgure out how this argument is valid. because two sentences can have the same connective structure. structures consisting of the connectives ~. As a preview of what we will study in this chapter. D. C ∴ D where. ∨. Let’s symbolize the argument with respect to its connective structure: 1. or no persons are moral agents. B. together with the symbols that represent simple sentences. Consider the argument: 1. A ∨ B 2. 2.1 Introduction: New Perspectives In Chapter 2 we studied the patterns of compound sentences and their arrangements in arguments. This argument is valid. without yet having studied this kind of pattern. all persons are not moral agents. Some persons are not moral agents. So. even though they have signiﬁcantly different logical structures at the low level.CHAPTER 3 TRADITIONAL LOGIC Section 3. Either all persons are moral agents. ⊃.

mainly because it is inherently limited with regard to what sentences can be represented in it. is still a favorite introduction to logic. We will study this system next. There is a problem with the customary way in which Traditional Logic is done. but it will also apply to all syllogistic arguments with any number of premisses.E. First of all. can be composed. Our purpose will be to present Traditional Logic as a commonsense system of deduction. our treatment is both unique and important.C. Such a simpliﬁed deductive system. This customary approach consists of making many technical distinctions regarding the various ways that permissible arguments. and in this regard. called categorical syllogisms. but the new symbolization already gives some good hints how this is to be done. technical distinctions are necessary to get the job done. This system now goes by different names: Aristotelian Logic. all of these distinctions are completely unnecessary for the purpose of developing an easy and efﬁcient system of syllogistic reasoning. Our treatment of Traditional Logic will not include these just-mentioned technical distinctions. Secondly. therefore. which. a system that is complete and formal in the style of the deductive system for Propositional Logic. in the new deductive approach that we take. has always been presented in a peculiar manner. In the fourth century B. But. We mention these things now. he introduced a system of formal logic that is still used to this day. remains a rather technical and even impractical system. Traditional Logic. and their employment. and as a corrective to it. Syllogistic Logic. would promise to be an uphill battle. Traditional Logic came under criticism. in spite of its limitations. all these complicated distinctions are completely unnecessary. to this day. We need to make an important clariﬁcation. . none of these distinctions are distinctions of common sense.” M = “moral agent” 149 We will have to wait to see how we can demonstrate that this argument is valid. for two important reasons. P = “person. everyday terms. This system will apply not only to all simple categorical syllogisms (with just two premisses and just three terms). Traditional Logic. to warn the readers that they should not expect to deal with these technical distinctions (see the note below). some P are not M ∴ all P are not M where. is absent from present-day treatments of Traditional Logic. right alongside Traditional Logic. But Quantiﬁcational Logic. from a more contemporary perspective. and in fact. and one presented in simple. even though other logic books require them to do so. In modern times. they have no role to play at all.1 Introduction: New Perspectives 1. for all its merits. and thus involving any number of terms. Traditional Logic. It is true that within this customary approach all these special. makes the system less desirable. then. and as a result.Traditional Logic Section 3. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was the ﬁrst formal logician. (all P are M) ∨ (no P are M) 2. By about 1950 another system of logic known as Quantiﬁcational Logic (also known as Predicate Logic) had become popular in university curriculums.

we made a distinction between simple and compound sentences.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic When we introduced the language of Propositional Logic. p & q. The Language of Traditional Logic In Traditional Logic. elegant. obeying ﬁve special design rules for syllogisms. dividing all categorical sentences into strict types.150 Traditional Logic Section 3. and the copula together with the second term constitute the predicate side of the sentence. Sentences are compound when they are grammatically constructed out of other sentences using special sentence operators.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic [Note. p ⊃ q. They are simple when they are not constructed out of other sentences using the special sentence operators. none of these ﬁve design rules are themselves laws of logic. similar to the distinction made in regular English. determined by the premisses’ term order. and efﬁcient system of deductive logic. involving these distinctions. with a great loss of opportunity to present a simple. The study of Traditional Logic has focused on these technical distinctions throughout its history. and they were simply represented by individual capital letters.] Section 3. p ∨ q. these parts are deﬁned very speciﬁcally as follows: . and categorical sentences must have the following general form: quantiﬁer + term + copula + term The quantiﬁer together with the ﬁrst term constitute the subject side of the sentence. and middle terms of a syllogism. ~p. ﬁnding the mood of a syllogism. simple sentences themselves were left unanalyzed. Here is an outline of the details. They are stated here for possible future reference and comparison purposes only. p ≡ q. minor. such as: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) identifying the major. including the present time. No longer. determined by its sentence types. In all of this. The customary approach for Traditional Logic makes many special distinctions regarding the composition of categorical syllogisms. This led us to distinguish the following six types of sentences: simple sentences. We now have a new purpose: to analyze the various complex structures that simple sentences themselves possess. In addition. ﬁnding the distribution of the terms of each sentence of a syllogism. ﬁxing the major/minor premiss order of a syllogism. Remarkably. ﬁnding the ﬁgure of a syllogism. simple sentences are usually called categorical sentences.

For example. (not C). .Traditional Logic Section 3.” “square. Such a group may consist of physical things. Examples are: Symbolization E P H N R O M B non-E non-S • • • • • • • • • • elephant poisonous book with hard covers even number greater than 10 red car red car owned by someone in Chicago red car in Chicago owned by Madonna billionaire that lives on the Moon non-elephant thing that does not swim or ﬂy One can see right away that term expressions in English have a considerable amount of structure. B. or it may consist of non-physical things. ideas. non-A. . . (not D).” But that is not how it is done in Traditional Logic. the expression “red and square box” is constructed out of three words that are themselves terms—“red. E. symbolized as: A. non-B. but in Traditional Logic there is not a corresponding logical structure for terms. non-E. . some. and feelings.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic 151 quantiﬁers: copula: terms: all. . (not A). and adjective phrases. afﬁrmative terms: negative terms: Some examples of categorical sentences are: All animals are living things Some red boxes are ﬂexible containers No bananas are made of gold Some people under 20 are not things that can dance = = = = all A are L some R are F no B are G some P are non-D The notion of a term is one that we have not used before. English expressions that count as terms are nouns. adjectives. . non-C. A term is a word or phrase that describes a group of things. . no are expressions that represent a group of items.” “box”—and one might have expected it to be symbolized something like “(R & S) & B. D. . . noun phrases. . like the group of all the cats that live in Paris. (not E). C. like numbers. (not B). non-D.

152 Traditional Logic Section 3. with the one exception of negative terms. term afﬁr. immortal. illegal. inactive. Just these twelve. enclosing it all in parentheses. as in: irresponsible. regardless of their complexity. these twelve sentences are the kinds of things that one can say in Traditional Logic. are symbolized by a single capital letter. All terms. There are actually twelve different types of these. unusual. then it must be construed as the negative term. Negations may never be hidden. It is important that we represent negative terms in an explicit manner. And it gets better: the logic of Traditional Logic is even simpler than these twelve patterns. except for negative terms. This is important. and so on. since there are three quantiﬁers. asymmetric. All the rules of Traditional . but negative terms are quite common in English. term + are + Άneg. term· afﬁr. they are symbolized by applying the term operator “non-” or “not” to a capital letter. and two types of predicate terms. non-T. When an expression has the meaning of being the negation of some afﬁrmative term. Some plants are inorganic Some items are non-electronic Some organizations are not-for-proﬁt Some customs are unusual Some foods are nonfattening Some books are not available some P are non-O some I are non-E some O are non-P some C are non-U some F are non-F some B are (not A) Types of Categorical Sentences The various simple sentences that can be constructed in this new logical grammar are called categorical sentences. and in the second case. term Here are examples of these types using the terms “A” = “apples” and “B” = “blue”: all A are B all non-A are B all A are non-B all non-A are non-B some A are B some non-A are B some A are non-B some non-A are non-B no A are B no non-A are B no A are non-B no non-A are non-B So. though they often use variations on the “non-” operator. That gives a total of 3 × 2 × 2 = 12 types of sentences: all some no · + Άneg. Sometimes these terms will sound artiﬁcial.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic Traditional Logic is not capable of analyzing the structure of complex terms. say T. This is a very manageable number of patterns. two types of subject terms.

there are ﬁve patterns here.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic 153 Logic are formulated with just four general sentence patterns. Strangely however. adding the extra copula “are not” adds an unacceptable degree of complication to the entire exposition of Traditional Logic. are (not P).” but it is permitted with the quantiﬁer “some. You can see that by using these variables we are able to represent all twelve patterns listed above. In particular. that our second way of writing negative terms. but identical in meaning to “some S are non-P.” with the following distinction: a sentence “some S (are not) P” is different in form. because here the letters “S” and “P” are used as variables and represent all terms whatsoever—both afﬁrmative terms and negative terms. the negative copula is not permitted with the quantiﬁers “all” and “no. also known as the Square of Opposition: [A historical note. .Traditional Logic Section 3.” So. but two are equivalent and are treated as the same). Contrary to our own approach. the customary approach for Traditional Logic actually recognizes two copulas instead of one. “some S (are not) P. These general categorical patterns are: all S are P all S are non-P = no S are P some S are P some S are non-P These patterns have a very wide range. as it turns out. (Actually. the customary approach adds to the list of categorical sentences. For this reason our own approach will not permit the addition of the negative copula. and it does so without any real beneﬁt. of course. “. generating thereby extra forms of categorical sentences. You may have noticed.” Well.] . all sentences of the form. These general categorical patterns are often displayed in the form of a square.” is a compromise of sorts. It counts both “are” and “are not” as copulas. the customary approach also considers some of these extra forms to be inferior and not permitted. on this very point. .

Here are some examples: • original sent. followed by a copula. for example.” “some. . If the original sentence is not in categorical form.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic Translating English Sentences into Categorical Form To help us better manage these new logical patterns.” “no. Step 1. Step 2.: • analysis: • symbolization: • original sent.” and English copulas like “were” or “will be” are just plain illegal. in that no deviations are permitted. Step 3. you must make sure that the copula “are” is the only “verb” in the reconstructed sentence.154 Traditional Logic Section 3. or All non-E are (not I) We will spend a lot of time in the next section learning how to turn ordinary English sentences. of a wide variety. But already here we must stress that the requirements of categorical form are unforgiving. or future. We ﬁrst make sure that the sentence in question is worded in such a way that it is in categorical form: a quantiﬁer. In the next exercise. the great beneﬁt of having commonsense symbolism (“all. because it invites people to blur the distinction between precise logical symbolism and everyday speech. followed by a term. And the quantiﬁers are equally strict. Ironically.” “are”) ﬁghts against itself to some extent. we will initially use a practical technique for analyzing and symbolizing English sentences with respect to their categorical form. In particular.: • analysis: • symbolization: • original sent. Superimpose brackets [ ] around the subject term expression and around the predicate term expression. The result will be: quantifer [term] copula [term]. sentences about the past. must be recast by using the logical copula “are. All [persons in the room] are [loud yellers and screamers] All R are L Some cat that was sitting on the sofa meowed. into sentences that are in categorical form. followed by a term. Some [cats that are sitting on the sofa] are [meowers] Some C are M All non-emplyees of SilCo are not insured by AllSafe.: • analysis: • symbolization: Every person in the room was yelling and screaming loudly. All [non-employes of SilCo] are [not insured by AllSafe] All non-E are non-I . then it is our task to reword the sentence in such a way that it is in categorical form. Replace the terms and brackets by an appropriate capital letter.

(2) put brackets “[ ]” around the subject term and the predicate term. A. No [animals in the Lincoln Park Zoo] are unable [to be set free] 8. . Some [students at Loyola] will get [their Ph. Some brightly colored snakes are poisonous. All bananas are unsalted. Some non-students are eligible for a loan. There are no people that can ﬂy.B Categorical Form Part A: For each of the following sentences. and (3) symbolize the sentence. None [who are naturalized citizens] can be [presidents of the U. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Some [old books] in the library are [dusty books] that no one reads 3. A): 1. (P. P all [ persons ] are [ artists ] . P) 3. Some students are ineligible for a loan. 0. Use the error codes “Q. F) Part B. H) 4. All ancient Greek philosophers were materialists. (B. Some of the [cars at the exhibition] were [made out of plastic] 6. Most. E) 10. No animals were injured in the making of the ﬁlm.] Q.Traditional Logic Section 3. (A. All trees are not inorganic. (P. . There are people that climb mountains. M) 5. in the copula (C). Remember to use the operator “non-” or “(not .S. C) 12. (B. all P are A .)” for English negative terms. With respect to the requirements for categorical form. Every automobile has an engine. (A. from Oxford] 4. E) 8. (C. but not all of the sentences make one or more errors. C. E) 9.” “C. E) 7.D. (1) rewrite the sentence so that it is in categorical form. No non-students are ineligible for a loan. (A. or in the predicate term (P). (S.2 Categorical Sentences in Traditional Logic 155 Exercise 3. (P.” “P” to indicate if an error is made in the quantiﬁer (Q). in the subject term (S). (S. (T. Some contestants will be happy winners. using the indicated capital letters for the bracketed terms. 0.2. (S. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. I) 6.” “S. ﬁnd the errors in each of the sentences below. O) 11. S) 2. Each [persons who take logic] are [careful thinkers] 2. No [visitors to Chicago] are [not people impressed by the view of the lake] 5. Each person is an artist. Any [persons that can sing well] are [not persons likely to get rich] 7. Many [cities] have [large skyscrapers] 1.

as long as they remain in such non-categorical form. we can rely to some extent on our commonsense understanding of our language to make the necessary adjustments.” and “no. But it remains a fact that Traditional Logic is just the right system for the bulk of ordinary reasoning.156 Traditional Logic Section 3. One problem. you’re P some snakes are pink some S are P at least one S is P there are P S there are S that are P P S exist S that are P exist something is a S and P A few S are P no snakes are pink no S are P all S are not P not any S are P there are no S that are P S that are P don’t exist nothing is a S and P none [of them] are P (where S refers to “them”) .) Our ﬁrst task.” These variations are more easily recognized and learned when they are presented in schematic English form. Traditional Logic is a system that focuses on certain kinds of patterns that are called categorical forms. but there are a number of very useful translation rules. it is P if something is S. and for those types of inferences we will need to go to another part of logic. all snakes are pink all S are P every S is P each S is P any S is P whatever is a S is P if anything is a S. and they cannot therefore be used in Traditional Logic—at least. is to learn how to re-write regular English sentences so that they will be in the required categorical form. Some Simple Variations The following lists are easy variations on the three standard quantiﬁers “all. then. and even beyond such rules. There is no precise translation list. presented in Chapter 4.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 9. and we have already dealt with sentences that are in categorical form. 1. No [books that] are [inexpensive do not cost a lot of money] 12. Many of the sentences we use can be reworded so as to turn them into categorical form. All [ﬁsh that are ﬁsh that are able to ﬁsh] are [ﬁsh that are ﬁshing ﬁsh] 10. Somethings [sitting in the attic] are [scary old skeletons] Section 3. it is P if you’re a S. But we can manage this obstacle. Such principles can then be used to guide and evaluate the inferences we make in our everyday discussions and writings.” “some.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms The aim of logic is to provide a set of formal principles for correct reasoning. [Students who take logic] are [students likely to get into law school] 11. (It must be admitted that there are some inherent limitations to Traditional Logic with respect to its ability to capture certain complex types of reasoning. Most of the sentences that we commonly use are not in categorical form.

All my cat’s kittens were born. In Traditional Logic the plural construction has been selected (arbitrarily) to be the standard form for representing sentences. Singular has no Logical Signiﬁcance One can easily observe that sentences that use the plural construction can be written in the singular construction without loss of meaning. B = born. all [kittens of my cat] are [mortal] = all B are M = all C are B = so. in the past. R = Romans. for what happens in history] So.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 157 2. some [Romans] are [shapers of history] all [shapers of history] are [resp. There is therefore no logical distinction between the singular and plural constructions. For the most part. one can correctly display the logical form of an argument without representing the tenses of the sentences that make up the argument. All shapers of history are responsible for what happens in history. C = kittens of my cat. S = shapers of history. M = mortal.Traditional Logic Section 3. some R are H . or in the future. the verb indicates an action in the present.” Consider the following examples: All things that are born are mortal. things that are born. all C are M Some Romans (such as Julius Caesar) were shapers of history. all [things that are born] are [mortal] all [kittens of my cat] are [born] So. But what is very useful in the analysis of arguments is that one can just ignore the tenses of sentences. In logic. H = responsible for what happens in history. sentences are considered to be stated in what is sometimes called “the eternal present. all my cat’s kittens are mortal. for what happens in history] = some R are S = all S are H = so. Past and Future Become Present Tense Most ordinary sentences are stated in the present tense. So. that is. or the future tense. the past tense. So. some Romans were responsible for what happens in history. some [Romans] are [resp. and the reverse is equally true. some person is smart every house is expensive no problem is difﬁcult = some persons are smart = all houses are expensive = no problems are difﬁcult = some P are S = all H are E = no P are D 3. Plural vs.

“sing” becomes “are singers.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 4. Verbs become Copulas with some Adjustment One of the most obvious differences between ordinary English sentences and sentences that are in categorical form is that ordinary sentences have verbs other than the copula “are.” This actually works! So.” or a little better. Some people do not like to spend money • Some people are [things that do not like to spend money] Some P are M • Some people are [do-not-like-to-spend-money-ers] Some P are M • Some people are [not things that like to spend money] Some P are (not L) • Some people are [non-things-that-like-to-spend-money] Some P are non-L • Some people are [non-likers-of-money-spending] Some P are non-L ??? WRONG ??? WRONG YES! GOOD YES! GOOD YES! GOOD . there are two ways to handle English verb phrases: Some people like to spend money = Some people are [likers of spending money] = Some people are [things that like to spend money] Regardless of which of these two rules one uses. and turn that monstrosity into a noun by appending the transformer “-ers.158 Traditional Logic Section 3. . . by using the negative term operator “non-” or “(not . one must always treat negative expressions in the required way.).” But there is an easy translation. For example.” All cats like to sleep No snails move fast All cars have wheels No books have no pages = = = = all cats are likers-of-sleep no snails are fast-movers all cars are wheeled no books are non-paged = = = = some P are L no S are C all C are W no B are non-P One can also use a second translation rule: Put the phrase “things that” in front of the English predicate expression So.” One may never “bury” a negation when it is available.” and “jumped over the fence” becomes “are jumped-over-the-fence-ers. “are jumpers-over-the-fence. even if it is grammatically frightening: simply put a hyphen between all the words of the entire predicate side of the sentence.

All snakes are poisonous All [snakes] are [poisonous snakes] All S are P Here the original adjective “poisonous” describes a very large group of things. Add the noun from the subject term to the adjective.” We are allowed to do this because these two expressions have exactly the same meaning. This change in meaning shows that there was a translation mistake. some S are (not G) .3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 159 5. But.Traditional Logic Section 3. These methods produce results that have exactly the same meaning. some S are (not G) Arg form has become invalid Some S are Q No G are R [can’t use Q again!] So. Adjectives are treated as terms. And this mistake will correspondingly assign an invalid form to many valid arguments: Method 2 (no changes) Some [snakes] are [poisonous] No [good pets] are [poisonous] So. Some [snakes] are [not good pets] Wrong method (repeat the subject) Some [snakes] are [poisonous snakes] No [good pets] are [poisonous pets] So. Method 2.” because a different noun will give the reworded phrase a more restricted meaning than the original meaning: Wrong method. by the same reasoning. we can see that it is a mistake to add a noun that is different from the noun “things. Adding the word “things” keeps the meaning the same. but the reworded phrase “poisonous snakes” describes a much smaller group of things. Method 1 All snakes are poisonous All [snakes] are [poisonous things] All S are P Method 2 All snakes are poisonous All [snakes] are [poisonous] All S are P Note that the same capital letter is used to symbolize both the phrase “poisonous thing” and the adjective “poisonous. and both methods are equally acceptable. and they are left unchanged. Method 1. Some [snakes] are [not good pets] Arg form is valid Some S are P No G are P So. Adjectives become Terms There are two methods that one may use to translate adjectives into term expressions. Add the noun “things” to the adjective.

” when the rest of the sentence also gives that information? Still. logic must be exact. nor in time. and logic must have its quantifers. then the missing quantiﬁer is replaced by the quantiﬁer “some.160 Traditional Logic Section 3. “surface” grammar. then the missing quantiﬁer is replaced by the quantiﬁer “all. The “A” Quantiﬁer There is a similar situation with the “a” quantiﬁer. The regular quantiﬁer is missing.” A bird sings A car has wheels An elephant has a trunk An airplane ﬂoats on air A bird sat on the fence A car hit the wall An elephant trumpeted A plane ﬂew overhead A bird is singing (now) = = = = = = = = = all birds are singers all cars are wheeled all elephants are trunked all airplanes are air-ﬂoaters some birds are fence-sitters some cars are the-wall-hitters some elephants are trumpeters some planes are ﬂiers-over-us some birds are singing now = = = = = = = = = all B are S all C are W all E are T all A are F some B are S some C are W some E are T some A are F some B are S . Birds sing Cars have wheels Elephants have a trunk Airplanes ﬂoat on air Pigs cannot ﬂy Birds sat on the fence Cars hit the wall Elephants trumpeted Planes ﬂew overhead = = = = = = = = = all birds are singers all cars are wheeled all elephants are trunked all airplanes are air-ﬂoaters all pigs are non-ﬂyers some birds are fence-sitters some cars are the-wall-hitters some elephants are trumpeters some planes are ﬂiers-over-us = = = = = = = = = all B are S all C are W all E are T all A are F all P are non-F some B are S some C are W some E are T some A are F An amazing difference! Did you ﬁgure it out? It’s all about the predicate.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 6. not of the deeper logical grammar. The Missing Quantiﬁer It is very normal for a sentence not to have a quantiﬁer.” If the action of the verb of the English sentence has no restriction in space. Here’s the rule (and you won’t ﬁnd this in other books): Rule of translation for the missing quantiﬁer: If the action of the verb of the English sentence has a restriction in either space or time. But we must consider this absence to be a feature of the customary.” 7. and in its place is the quantiﬁer “a. Missing quantiﬁers are a convenient shortcut: Why say “all” or “some.

one that is not spoken with a special meaning. although we have improved on (1) and (2). but care must be taken when the quantiﬁer is modifed by a negation operator. Amazing! It is quite unexpected that a natural grammar should behave in this way. Rule of translation for the “a” quantiﬁer: If the action of the verb of the English sentence has a restriction in either space or time.3. the special way that the sentences is spoken creates a special meaning for that spoken sentence. the written sentence. then one must supply both possible versions.” A word of caution. The “Any” Quantiﬁer The quantiﬁer “any” is a (super-duper) universal quantiﬁer. may be spoken in the following ways: (a) “Well.” Use the following rule: . does not in any way change the fact that a written sentence. of course! A bird sings. then the quantiﬁer is “some. But.” when spoken. can you hear it? A bird sings. then the “a” quantiﬁer is replaced by the quantiﬁer “some. nor in time. by the special way it is spoken. namely: some bird is singing here and now. do not just replace the word “any” by “all.” (2) if the sentence feels like a limited description. the special way that the sentence is spoken creates a special meaning for that spoken sentence. namely: all birds sing. When a negation is present.” If the action of the verb of the English sentence has no restriction in space. The mere fact that a spoken sentence can have a special meaning. listen. 8. We already addressed this issue at the end of Section 2. In part this is good advice. with the following possible outcomes: (1) if the sentence feels like a generic description. Logic books often recommend that we take an intuitive approach in reconstructing a missing quantiﬁer or the “a” quantiﬁer. then the “a” quantiﬁer is replaced by the quantiﬁer “all. has its default meaning. but part (3) is making a mistake. The sentence. What joy!” Here.Traditional Logic Section 3. as we have all experienced. then the quantiﬁer is “all.” Here.” has its (one-and-only) default meaning: all birds sing. “A bird sings. the rule that governs these cases is the same rule as before.” (3) if the sentence feels ambiguous. (b) “Oh. “A bird sings.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 161 Interestingly enough. where we noted that a written sentence has a default meaning.

] [Is this the same ? NO! Not even close!] Clearly. all novices are able to do this not all cars . . as we pointed out in Rule 1 above. . people. The “Only” Quantiﬁer The “only” quantiﬁer is more complicated. do not have trunks. etc. all elephants have ’em. Take your pick. all cars are wheeled all novices .” rewrite the sentence so that the ﬁrst word is “all. all cars are (not cheap) YES YES YES YES NO! NO! NO! WRONG YES YES Of course. Let’s compare the following two sentences to see whether they mean the same thing: • • Only elephants have trunks All elephants have trunks [Start here. Don’t take that one. not all cars are cheap all cars .” and then ﬁnish the sentence. .” See the difference? This tells us what the translation rule should be.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms Rule of translation for the “any” quantiﬁer: If a sentence contains the word “any. . and cats. for “not any” there are two correct translations you can choose from. . ants. 9. an alternative way to translate the phrase “not any” is to use the “no” quantiﬁer: Not any car is cheap = no cars are cheap This second way way of translating “not any” makes it very clear that “not all” is the wrong translation.162 Traditional Logic Section 3. Any car has wheels Any novice can do this Not any car is cheap Not any car is cheap = = =? = all cars . . because: Not all cars are cheap = some cars are not cheap So. . There is also one wrong translation. That was the whole point: only elephants have ’em. I wonder what else does. The ﬁrst sentence actually says that dogs. There are two good versions. But the second sentence says nothing about dogs and cats: “Yeah. . these sentences are not the same in meaning. . while preserving the meaning.

Clearly. “Look at that! That thing has a trunk! So. When this is done. we can see that the second version works. it must be an elephant.” “someone. you must use “P” for the group of persons.” so that throughout we are referring to persons. Consider the argument: original argument Everybody is born with a soul Things with souls are immortal So. in all these cases. everyone is immortal incorrect analysis all B are S all S are non-M So.” “nobody.” The translation rule is therefore as follows: Version 1: Only F are G = all non-F are non-G Version 2: Only F are G = all G are F WRONG: Only F are G ≠ all F are G [the “ﬂip” version] 10. because the deeper connection between the sentences was lost. All dogs and cats have tails = all D and C are T ?? [NO! No way!] .” abbreviated by “O.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 163 Version 1: Only elephants have trunks = all non-elephants are non-trunked Version 2: Only elephants have trunks = all trunked things are elephants The second version follows from the ﬁrst one by the Contraposition equivalence for universal-afﬁrmative sentences. all O are non-M valid pattern all P are S all S are non-M So.” So. the argument is easily seen to be valid. Consider. But even now.” as well as “everybody.” “anybody.” “no one. Combined Subjects Some sentences have a combined subject.” “anyone. 11.” all of which are used to refer to persons. these awkward terms will also break any connection the sentence has with other sentences containing the term “person. the term letter “P” should replace the letters “B” and “O. What groups could these terms possibly represent? The group of Ones? The group of Bodies? In addition.” “somebody. which is a grammatical subject that is a combination of two subjects.Traditional Logic Section 3.” because such an analysis would be conceptually confused.” or a subject term “body. all P are non-M The initial analysis was incorrect. You must be careful not to introduce a subject term “one. which we will study shortly.” abbreviated by “B. because only elephants have trunks. “One” and “Body” Subjects English has dedicated words such as “everyone.

Quantiﬁcation in the Predicate Many English sentences have patterns that are more complicated than the patterns of categorical form. but it is nevertheless inadequate for two reasons. The trick involves switching back and forth between. Terms are single capital letters. . This trick cannot be described by the ideas that deﬁne categorical form. The symbolized sequence is not a categorical sentence.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms The proposed analysis “All D and C are T” is not allowed.” Actually. (2) The original sentence clearly says that all dogs have tails. Here are some examples. the active and passive voice of a sentence. Combinations are superﬁcial approximations of a deeper level of complexity. All this would suggest the following analysis: = All Q are T ?? This representation is properly formed. what is known as. this last point suggests how the sentence should be analyzed. But neither of these clear assertions is represented by the proposed analysis “all Q are T. whether or not there are such strangely combined creatures in nature. it was surely not the intention of the original sentence to talk about them. It is not a permitted sequence of symbols (in Traditional Logic). (1) What meaning can the term “Q” have here? What group of things can this term represent? Could it be the group of all things that are both dogs and cats? Wait a minute! The group of all things that are simultaneously dogs and cats? Holy smoking tobacco! Now. and such results can then be reworded in categorical form. Good style and convenience have led us to combine longer. because the expression “D and C” is not permitted as a term. that original form is: All dogs have tails.164 Traditional Logic Section 3. separated thoughts into shorter abbreviations. and so we must appeal here to our intuitive understanding of these patterns. and it also clearly says that all cats have tails. a quantiﬁed expression that occurs in the predicate becomes the quantiﬁed subject. But in some cases we can handle this complexity by means of a certain trick. and all cats have tails Other examples now easily fall into place: Students and teachers learn all the time Broccoli and spinach are rich in vitamins Books and papers covered the desk = (all S are L) & (all T are L) = (all B are V) & (all S are V) = (some B are C) & (some P are C) = (all D are T) & (all C are T) 12. In the example at hand. It is the job of the analyzer to retrieve and to display the original logical form of our thoughts. When the switch is made.

if it is A Nothing is B. Separate the quantiﬁer from the word “thing. as is the case with “everything. reword as follows: Something is B A Nothing is B A Everything is B. that we separate the quantiﬁer from the subject term. absolute sentences. In (modern) English the quantiﬁer can also be combined with the word “thing” to form a single compound quantiﬁer-subject word.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 165 I ate some donuts Sue hates all cats Chicago has trees = some donuts are eaten-by-me = all cats are hated-by-Sue = some trees are in-Chicago = some D are E = all C are H = some T are C 13.” We call such sentences.” “nothing. When the English predicate is as indicated. . of course. All term expressions must be symbolized by a single term letter.) We can remedy the situation to some extent by restating the original English sentence as another English sentence that has the same meaning and that is in categorical form. Case 1. (The exception to this is that negative terms are also symbolized by using the negative term operator. Absolute sentences have a special logical status. and to display this status we will not symbolize the subject “thing” by a capital letter. Problems arise with English complex terms. Dealing with the Absolute Term “Thing” Some sentences have as their entire subject term the word “thing.” “something. We display this separation in Case 1 below. if it is A → → → → some A are B = some B are A no A are B = no B are A all A are B no A are B Consider now the following argument.” or “things. Four such sentences have an easy translation rule.” Categorical form requires. but we will leave the word in English and underline it.Traditional Logic Section 3. with the result that logical connections that exist at the level of regular English are lost at this simpliﬁed symbolic level. as given in Case 2 below.” Everything is A Nothing is A Something is A Something is not A → → → → all things are A no things are A some things are A some things are (not A) Case 2.

Good analysis Some [forces] are non-[destructible things] All non-[destructible things] are [eternal] So. then we can display the argument in a form that is very clearly valid. These combinations make their appearance at a surface level of grammar. completely misses the logical connections at work in the argument. some things are W It is pretty obvious that this analysis.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms Something is an indestructible force. 1. something is an eternal force. So. Another such case is combinations of quantiﬁers. while it makes no mistakes.” as well as some variations on the latter. . Since the terms are all different. “all and only” All and only elephants have trunks (all elephants have trunks) & (only elephants have trunks) (all E are T) & (all T are E) “some but not all” Some. some things are [eternal-forces] symbolization = some things are Q = all non-D are E = So. all different capital letters had to be used. and the resulting symbolic pattern is invalid. some [forces] are [eternal] symbolization = some F are non-D = all non-D are E = So. These combinations are “all and only” and “some but not all. but they correspond to uncombined items at the deeper level of logical grammar.166 Traditional Logic Section 3. but not all. For all combinations. Whatever is indestructible is eternal. our method of analysis is always to restate the combined expression in its original uncombined doubled form. Combined Quantiﬁers On previous occasions we have considered combined English expressions. But if we judiciously reword the argument using the above rules. students will graduate (some students will graduate) & not (all students will graduate) (some S are G) & not (all S are G) = (some S are G) & (some S are (not G)) 2. Inadequate analysis Some things are [indestructible-forces] All non-[destructible things] are [eternal] So. some F are E 14.

Traditional Logic Section 3. H = times when Alex gets a headache Sometimes Alex studies hard. it is dark When it rained. it was dark The Sun always shines Joe never says hello Sometimes Sue studies Over Places Where cows are. Whenever he studies hard he gets a headache So. We illustrate these quantiﬁcations in the following examples.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 167 3. sometimes Alex gets a headache.” “whenever. but not all Some.” “somewhere.” But apart from that deviation. S = times when Alex studies hard. When we analyze sentences with time quantiﬁers in this way.” “everywhere. we can easily demonstrate the validity of a whole class of arguments made up of such sentences. Variations on “some but not all” some. Over Times Whenever it rains. “Cats are never retrievers. but not all.” “wherever.” “never.” “sometimes. for example. and these words become both the quantiﬁer and the subject term of a categorical sentence. ﬂies are Where ants were.” which simply means “No cats are retrievers.” and some others. = some T are S = all S are H = so. people dance = some are. 1. and ones that are place quantiﬁers: “always. these words have the function of referring to times and places. some T are H . One complication: time quantiﬁer words are sometimes used as thing quantiﬁers rather than as time quantiﬁers. some don’t = a few are = A few people dance = only some are = Only some people dance = some are = Some people dance [special emphasis required] = Not all people dance [special emphasis required] = not all are 15.” “nowhere. T = times. Quantiﬁcation over Times and Places There are certain English words that are time quantiﬁers. as in. we sat You ﬁnd bugs everywhere Nowhere are there elves Somewhere stars explode Some places have junk = = = = = = = = = = = all [times when it rains] are [dark times] some [times when it rained] are [dark times] all [times] are [times when the Sun shines] no [times] are [times when Joe says hello] some [times] are [times when Sue studies] all [places with cows] are [places with ﬂies] some [places with ants] are [places we sat in] all [places you look] are [places with bugs] no [places] are [places with elves] some [places] are [places where stars explode] some [places] are [places with junk] 2. some aren’t = Some people dance.

These patterns involve a complex structure inside the subject term and inside the predicate term (like atoms inside molecules).3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 16. Admittedly. or the Disjunctive Syllogism: p ∨ q. ~p ∴ q . as we have done: If some animals talk. Sentences such as the following are easily symbolized. we have no formal way of demonstrating that the sentences we are introducing are in fact logical truths. Yet even here. the following sentence is a logical truth.168 Traditional Logic Section 3. then some animals have a mind = (some A are T) ⊃ (some A are M) Either every person has a mind. Consider the following argument. because that language is a foundational part of all the levels of logic. Some [persons] are [knowers-of-all-future-events] = some P are F So. we already have a special resource available—logical truths. and we do that in Chapter 4. To deal fully with these other patterns we have to go to a new part of logic. some [persons] are [knowers-of-tomorrow’s-events] = some P are T Even though we are not able to symbolize the internal structure of the two predicate terms. but we are not able to symbolize that relationship. and because it is. The entire language of Propositional Logic is available for our use. or no person has a mind = (all P are M) ∨ (no P are M) And of course. The predicate term of the premiss has a complex structure that relates to the predicate of the conclusion. Complexity Beyond Categorical Sentences We should not forget that there are patterns of inference that involve sentence connectives. Some person knows all future events. the ones we studied back in Chapter 2. These patterns are of a different kind than the categorical patterns we are studying now. So. we are allowed to enlist the aid of logical truths to display the implicit logical relationship. So. at this point. within the system of Traditional Logic. we are allowed to add it along with the premisses: . some person knows what will happen tomorrow. these sentences can be manipulated by such propositional rules as Modus Ponens: p ⊃ q. There are still other kinds of patterns that go beyond the patterns of Traditional Logic and Propositional Logic. But these extra patterns present no problem at all. We are relying here only on an intuitive understanding of the meaning of the sentences at issue. p ∴ q .

Whatever you do.B More Categorical Translations Part A. using the indicated capital letters for the bracketed terms. For each of the following sentences. Nothing round is square.B) 7. (C. (R. (2) put brackets “[ ]” around the subject term and the predicate term.3. (A. Whosoever loves gold. (M. V) 3. Some animals that have wings are birds that cannot ﬂy. you cannot stop time. R) 9. (G. Not any person knows the secret password. Ghosts roam these halls. (These are also more difﬁcult. Guys like to explore rugged places. 1. (G. (1) rewrite the sentence so that it is in categorical form. D) *2. (G. (2) put brackets “[ ]” around the subject term and the predicate term. For each of the following sentences.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 169 all [knowers-of-all-future-events] are [knowers-of-tomorrow’s-events] = all F are T [a logical truth] Now. (These are a bit more difﬁcult. (P.) Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (P. Some things that have wings cannot ﬂy. F) 6. loves death. Some artistic works have no value. some P are T original premiss added premiss (logical truth) conclusion Exercise 3. Only tigers have stripes. A very old map is quite valuable. (A. and (3) symbolize the sentence. R) 2. K) Part B. S) 12. and (3) symbolize the sentence. Non-philosophers always have a good time. V) 4. (1) rewrite the sentence so that it is in categorical form. G) 10. S) 11. A person who is angry is not rational. 1. using the indicated capital letters for the bracketed terms. S) .) Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Non-college students visited the campus yesterday. (W.V) 8. E) 5. we can see a pattern that is obviously valid: some P are F all F are T So.Traditional Logic Section 3. (T. (A. (P. when we symbolize the original argument and add this logical truth. A.

W) 11. (P. E) 19. (M. I) 4. 21.P) 23. Only professionals are ineligible. N) *7. No rare books are without value. (F. A group of people barged into the ofﬁce. 14. 7. There are people who think they are divine. All [actions] are [not able to stop time]. (S. (P. D) *14. Sometimes people are nasty. (B. 2. V) *17. No [physical things] are [un-detectable]. Well of course. (P. 20. All [havers of executive pension plans] are [senior executives]. Insects exist everywhere. A) 9. (C. All [persons] are [sometimes nasty]. Undetectable physical things do not exist. A picture is worth a thousand words. (P. (P. (P. Only non-professionals are eligible. Cars that do not use gasoline exist. B) 16. (R. Not anyone showed up. things get real quiet.170 Traditional Logic Section 3.P) 18. (F. Bureaucrats never work.3 English Variations on Categorical Forms 3. (G. W) 6. E) *20. (P. A statue of a sitting mermaid stands by the harbor.O) 15. A statue of a sitting mermaid is delightful. D) Answers to the starred problems of Part B. (M.S) 13. S) 10. N) 8. People are sometimes nasty. Forgeries are fake works intended for deception. P) 22. (T. (S. 24. No [bureaucrats] are [workers]. All A are (not S) No B are W All P are N Some non-B are O All P are S All T are Q ~(all S are P) No P are non-D . 17. T) *5. (B. (P. Forgeries were found in the Art Institute.W) 12. Only senior executives have executive pension plans. Some [things that do not breathe] are [oxygen needers]. There are no good deeds that go unpunished. All [times when the lights go out] are [times things get quiet]. Whenever the lights go out. (P. There are things that do not breathe that need oxygen. all snakes are not poisonous. (P. U) *24.Q) *21. 5. Not all [snakes] are [poisonous].

that means that the area is not empty. The star represents some unspeciﬁed thing. as in the ﬁgure on the left. as in the ﬁgure on the left. as in the ﬁgure on the left. they are located in its unshaded part.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences The formal structure of categorical sentences can be represented by certain diagrams known as Venn diagrams. that means that the sentence makes no assertion about whether the corresponding portion of the group is empty or occupied. So. If the group has any members at all. as in the ﬁgure on the left. So. So. it means that that part of the group is empty. the star remains located in one area only. (5) When an area contains no marks. as in the ﬁgure on the left. but that the area is occupied by something. like “Bill. and when a star is inside an area. but area #5 is now empty.”) (3) By placing a star in a choice of two areas of the diagram. There are four ways to mark up a diagram: (1) By shading some area of the diagram. A Venn diagram for a categorical sentence consists of two overlapping circles. There is a connecting bar for the one thing. We require that the circles will always represent afﬁrmative terms. The star represents some unspeciﬁed thing. that is. . as asserted by the categorical sentence. nothing is known about area #6. These overlapping circles are then marked up to represent the content and the logical relationship of the two terms. Each circle is a graphic picture of the group of things that the term in question stands for.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences 171 Section 3. and this thing is located either in area #4 or in area #5. (2) By placing a star in some area of the diagram. In this case area #2 is occupied. one for the subject term of the sentence and one for the predicate term. there is nothing in that part of the group.Traditional Logic Section 3. (The star may be labeled by some name. When some area is shaded. Here area #6 is entirely empty. (4) By placing a star in a choice of two areas of the diagram (for one premiss). area #4 is occupied. and by shading out one of the two choices (for another premiss). when it is not shaded and also not starred. either area #4 is occupied or area #5 is occupied. Either area #4 or #5 was occupied. After the shading.

Remember that all group circles represent only afﬁrmative subject and predicate terms.” This is symbolized as “all C are M. some S are P Let us consider a speciﬁc sentence like “some cats are mean.” The two groups C and M are related as follows: • • • No items in the C group are inside the M group. area #1 must be empty. So. 2.” The two groups C and M are related as follows: • • • All items in the C group are inside the M group. This is important. So.” This is symbolized as “some C are M. So. 3.” This is symbolized as “no C are M. these items are in area #2. So. 1. area #2 is starred.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences All categorical sentences will be diagrammed with this common template. no S are P = all S are non-P Let us consider a speciﬁc sentence like “no cats are mice.172 Traditional Logic Section 3. So. Violation of this requirement will destroy the ability to properly display the logical relationship between categorical sentences. So.” The two groups C and M are related as follows: • • • Some items in the C group are inside the M group. area #2 is empty. . all items in C are limited to area #2. all S are P Let us consider a speciﬁc sentence like “all cats are mellow. all items in C are limited to area #1.

So.” This is symbolized as “some C are non-M. It will be useful to keep in mind the expanse of the left-over areas for the negative terms: group non-C group non-M group non-C and non-M Here the backgrounds have been colored only to indicate the boundaries of the areas for the negative terms. area #3 is empty.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences 173 4.” The two groups C and M are related as follows: • • • • Some items in the C group are inside the non-M group. Four Additional Venn Diagram Patterns There are four additional Venn diagrams that make use of the two areas (#3 and #4).Traditional Logic Section 3. area #3 is starred. Some items in the non-C group are in the M group. • • • • • • • • No non-cats are meowers. Some non-cats are meowers. So. So. (This color here is not ofﬁcial “shading. We mention these additional diagrams only for the purpose of comparison. So. No non-C are M. Some non-C are M. these items are in area #1. these items in group C are outside group M. some S are non-P Let us consider a speciﬁc sentence like “some cats are not mean. No items in the non-C group are in the M group. unlike the four special categorical sentences that use only areas #1 and #2. area #1 is starred. .”) We can now illustrate the remaining possible diagrams with the following sentences. So.

• • • • General template for absolute sentences. the outside area #4 is empty.174 • • • • • • • • • • Traditional Logic Section 3. And here is where the “border” that we drew around the Venn diagrams comes into play. So. That border is the boundary of the entire universe. All non-C are M. Subject term is “things. and the predicate circle is a group circle that is completely inside the universe box. We can give Venn diagrams for absolute sentences in a similar way as we did for regular categorical sentences. All items in the non-C group are in the M group.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences All non-cats are mean. the outside area #4 is starred. Some items in non-C are also in non-M.3 above we introduced a special group of sentences that we called absolute sentences. Below is the general template for absolute sentences. For regular sentences. There was a reason for that. These are sentences whose entire subject term is the absolute term “things. Predicate term is represented by the group X. For absolute sentences. the set of all things that are real. and the various areas are marked up with shading or starring. The term thing cannot be represented by a group circle of things in the universe. . some items not in C are also not in M. but that we would symbolize it by the word “thing” underlined.” We mentioned there that we would never symbolize the absolute term by a capital letter. the subject “circle” is the entire universe box. Some non-C are non-M. and the two areas inside the box can be marked up with shading or starring. The term thing can only be represented by the diagram for the entire universe. The two areas X and non-X are shaded or starred.” represented by the universe. Non-Standard Venn Diagrams for Absolute Sentences In Section 1. So. Some non-cats are non-mean. followed by completed diagrams for the four types of absolute sentences. we have a subject circle overlapping the predicate circle. All items in non-C are limited to area #3. So.

“area decorations. Some things in the universe are not in the M group.” 2. So. All things are M. The Negation Correlation Let’s make some easy observations about the shading and starring that occurs in Venn diagrams for categorical sentences. Shading in an area means: “the area has been completely emptied out. All things in the universe are inside the M group. A star in an area means: “the area is occupied by something. the area M is empty. • • • • Something is made of matter. • • • • Nothing is made of matter. Some things are M. No things are M. So. So.Traditional Logic Section 3. let’s call the shading and starring.” . the area outside of M is starred. the area outside of M is empty. the area M is starred. Some things are non-M.” 1. No things in the universe are inside the M group. So. Also. Some things in the universe are inside the M group. • • • • Something is not made of matter.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences 175 • • • • Everything is made of matter.

E) 10. Some snakes are poisonous. W) 7. sentences with opposite area decorations are negation opposites.B Venn Diagrams for Sentences Part A. Observation #5 gives us the following Negation correlation: If a categorical sentence S has a Venn diagram D. no O are F not (no O are F) For second diagram. W) 5. Categorical sentences are correctly represented by their Venn diagrams. A. Some contestants are not winners. Remember that circles represent afﬁrmative terms only. (T. All animals are not writers. (B. O) 9.4 Venn Diagrams for Categorical Sentences 3. Symbolize the sentences. then its negation not (S) has the Venn Diagram that swaps the area decoration in D for its opposite. (P. Some students are ineligible. swap shade for star in the ﬁrst diagram. (C. 1. (P.4. swap star for shade in the ﬁrst diagram. (S. 5. (C. (S. (S. Some non-students are eligible. No philosophers are materialists. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. E) . All bananas are unsalted. (A. shading and starring are area decorations that are logical opposites. So. draw the Venn diagram for each sentence. P) 4. W) 8.176 Traditional Logic Section 3. 4. A) 2. All persons are artists. some W are not P not (some W are not P) For second diagram. Some non-cars are wheeled things. Also. M) 6. Exercise 3. All trees are not inorganic. S) 3. So.

all non-K are non-L 11. no non-U are non-E . and sometimes they are shown to be invalid. some non-A are W 6. not (no E are non-D) . as we will learn later on): All K are M All M are B So. all A are J No L are M No S are M Some L are S . not (all J are non-B) . all non-M are A 9. some B are non-H All non-J are non-B No B are non-A So. not (all S are B) . all S are B 3. (Some of the left-side diagrams are difﬁcult. not (no non-T are S) . all K are B Some B are A No A are H So. all these sentences are constructed out of (built up from) exactly three afﬁrmative terms. Sometimes arguments are merely stated. (S. not (some non-A are W) . E) 12. some non-W are non-P . 1. sometimes they are established by a deductive demonstration. (This description allows that a syllogism can contain negative terms. some G are H 2. E) 177 Part B.) Here are some examples of categorical syllogisms (some of which are valid and some of which are not. not (no non-U are non-E) 7. all J are non-B 5. No non-students are ineligible. Some non-students are ineligible. For each of the following sentence pairs. Arguments have premisses and a conclusion. Certain arguments in Traditional Logic are known as categorical syllogisms. These arguments have two premisses and a conclusion. not (no Q are K) .Traditional Logic Section 3. not (some non-W are non-P) Section 3. all of which are categorical sentences.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences 11. each occurring twice.) Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. not (all non-M are A) . no non-T are S 12. some U are non-R 4. In addition. since negative terms are themselves considered to be constructed out of the corresponding afﬁrmative terms. not (some G are H) . and then use the negation correlation method to draw the Venn diagram for the second sentence. no Q are K 8. give a Venn diagram for the ﬁrst sentence of the pair. (S. not (some U are non-R) . not (all non-K are non-L) .5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences Argumentation in Traditional Logic is much the same as in any area of logic. no E are non-D 10.

[syllogism goes here] prem1 prem2 so. and one can likewise see how the premisses fail to create the conclusion when an argument is invalid. (3) Finally. Each of these arguments has two premisses and a conclusion. What is important in this method is that each sentence has a picture of its own logical form. and it is called the middle term. the middle term is the term M. and in the third argument the middle term is the term B. The conclusion of the argument then states what that extra relationship is. one for the two premisses and one for the conclusion. for example. and the validity test is applied. and one can visually compare the results. the argument is valid. The General Method (1) The method begins with two Venn diagram templates. one can literally see how the premisses work together to create the conclusion when an argument is valid. A picture is worth a thousand words. In the preceding section we learned how to diagram all categorical sentences in this way. as they say. One of the three terms is special. This term is always the one that occurs in both of the premisses. because the middle term occurs in both premisses. each of which occurs twice. and these pictures can be added to (superimposed on) other pictures.178 Traditional Logic Section 3. and if it gets that relationship wrong. (We will not discuss the validity test until after we have discussed the details of constructing the diagrams. Now. What is especially important is that when this diagram method is applied to arguments. it creates an extra relationship between the other two terms. the template for the premisses is ﬁlled in with the diagrams for the two premisses. If the conclusion gets that relationship right. and the template for the conclusion is ﬁlled in with the diagram for the conclusion. and because of this. it connects the two premisses. In the ﬁrst argument. concl (2) Next. and each argument is built up from a total of three afﬁrmative terms.) . Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms We begin with the well-known method of representing categorical sentences and syllogisms by means of Venn diagrams. the resulting conclusion diagram is compared to the resulting premisses diagram. the argument is invalid.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences One can easily see the general character of categorical syllogisms (but we may focus on the ﬁrst example).

on the left. we superimpose the two diagrams for premiss 1 and premiss 2 on to this template. unless that is also the natural order.) So. with one at the top and two at the bottom.Traditional Logic Section 3. we want to focus on how one constructs the diagrams in the ﬁrst place. A comparison of the premisses diagram and the conclusion diagram show that the two premisses interacted to produce the diagram of the conclusion. We will consider another example. all K are B It is pretty clear that this way of arranging the diagrams does not show anything about the logical arrangement of the argument. This means that the argument is valid. The validity procedure used here is explained below. This is achieved by using three properly overlapping circles. don’t label these in alphabetical order. with the already known diagrams for its component sentences: Example 1 All K are M All M are B So. The information of the two premisses is isolated—it has not been allowed to interact. one for each of the three terms. Example 2 Some B are A No A are H So. some B are non-H . The diagrams for its component sentences are as indicated. Right now. and these circles are labeled by the terms letters in the natural order that these terms occur in the premisses. Let us consider the following syllogism. (So. and next. we start with the premisses template diagram below. This results in the ﬁnished premisses diagram on the right. What is needed is a single diagram that contains all the information.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences 179 The Details The Venn diagram for a syllogism directly incorporates the Venn diagrams for the sentences that make up the syllogism.

But now an interesting combination has occurred. We know that the area common to A and H is empty. The solution is to say that the unknown thing is either in #2 or in #3. (shaded). and #2 has a star in it. But in which of the two sub-areas should the star be placed? If we put it in area #2. the Venn diagram for the argument does not include all the intermediate stages that we have been presenting. the ofﬁcial Venn diagram for the argument is just the following: Example 2 Some B are A No A are H So. Premiss 1 presents a difﬁculty. when both the premisses are drawn in the premisses template. If we put the star in area #3. Of course. must have a star in it. That means that the two sub-areas #3 and #6 are both empty. and Premiss 2 says that #3 is empty. consisting of sub-areas #2 and #3. the result is that #3 and #6 are shaded. So. some B are non-H . Therefore. representing some unknown thing that is both B and A. then we are saying that the unknown thing is in B and in A but also inside of H. We can just leave it as a choice. That says too much. We ﬁrst consider how the individual premisses appear when they are drawn in the premisses template.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences Again let us consider how we will complete the premisses template below on the left. and again that says too much. Premiss 2 is drawn in the usual way. We only want the ﬁnished diagrams. Premiss 1 says that #2 or #3 has a star. then we are saying that the unknown thing is in B and in A but also outside of H.180 Traditional Logic Section 3. The way that we will draw the choice is to place the star in each sub-area connected with a choice bar. We know that the area common to B and A.

] Step 3. This means that the argument is valid. It turns out that the premisses can say one of three possible things about the claim-area: (a) (b) (c) this area is shaded. and the other half has not been eliminated.6. A Special Procedure for Checking for Validity The criterion for the validity of categorical syllogisms is the same as the criterion for the validity of any argument whatsoever.Traditional Logic Section 3. OR maybe this area is starred [The third case happens when a choice-bar is used. the conclusion information is actually a part of the premiss information. so that the choice is still active. One can use a special highlight procedure to see whether this criterion is satisﬁed: Step 1. highlight the same sub-area in the premisses template. and one half of it is in the claim-area. Highlight the sub-area of the conclusion template where the conclusion info is located.8.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences 181 A comparison of the premisses diagram and the conclusion diagram shows that the two premisses did indeed interact to actually produce the conclusion. OR this area is starred.”) The conclusion says one of two possible things about this claim-area: (a) (b) this area is shaded [= it is empty]. however. Criterion: a categorical syllogism is valid if and only if the information in the premisses diagram generates the information in the conclusion diagram. Next. remember how we deﬁned deductive validity in sections 1. Since there are some cases that are a little more complicated than others. what the conclusion says about the claim-area has to be guaranteed by what the premisses say about the claim-area. The general procedure for such a validity check is what we will turn to next. 2. (In this regard. and 2. In this case the syllogism is invalid. we can implement this criterion in a special pictorial way. Watch out! If the premisses .” or a “lens. (This area will be a “left moon. so that it can be easily understood. In a valid syllogism.” a “right moon. in fact.5.) With Venn diagrams. we will present this procedure in a very detailed way. Call this area the claim-area. OR this area is starred [= it is occupied] Step 2.

we again present Example 1. We then continue with additional examples. Here are some further examples of the Venn Diagram Method in action.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences say. and that uncertainty makes the argument invalid. because the premisses diagram does not contain all the information that the conclusion is claiming. empty. no S are C This syllogism is invalid. The conclusion asks for more than what the premisses can provide. that the entire claim-area is shaded. which is. “Maybe the claim-area is starred. because the premisses diagram agrees with the conclusion diagram that the claim-area “the entire K area outside of B” is shaded. . Example 3 no S are B All B are C So.” then that means the premisses do not guarantee that the claim-area is starred. resulting in a speciﬁc starred area. because the “choice” that was ﬁrst presented in the premisses was also later eliminated in the premisses. Example 1 All K are M All M are B So. some A are C This syllogism is valid. The premisses diagram agrees with the conclusion diagram that the claim-area is starred. Example 4 some A are B All B are C So. all K are B This syllogism is valid. this time using the highlight technique.182 Traditional Logic Section 3. First.

that is. because the conclusion diagram make the stronger claim that the claim-area is deﬁnitely starred. One simply diagrams each sentence. but using the same template: • Are the two sentences “Some B are non-H” and “some non-H are B” equivalent? The ﬁrst sentence says that some item in B is also in non-H. a star must be placed outside of H but inside B. So. and if the diagrams are different. a star must be placed in B. some K are B 183 This syllogism is invalid. So.” We must diagram these two sentences separately. The two diagrams are the same. The two sentences are equivalent. So. the star must be placed in area #1. Let us consider the two sentences “some B are non-H” and “some non-H are B. because the “choice” presented in the premisses has been left unresolved. The second sentence says that some item in non-H is also in B.Traditional Logic Section 3.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences Example 5 all K are M some M are B So. then the sentences are equivalent. If the two diagrams are the same. and then one compares the results. then the sentences are not equivalent. Venn Diagrams for Equivalences Testing the equivalence of two sentences by means of Venn diagrams is a straightforward matter. the star must be in area #1.” But that is not good enough. The premisses diagram only says that “maybe the claim-area is starred. Here is another example: • Are the two sentences “all K are M” and “all non-K are non-M” equivalent? . but outside of H.

all babies are not golfers. 7. which would mean the star was in non-K and inside M). Some costly items are famous. So. 1. and they are not equivalent. So. some thinkers are scholars. Some thinkers are not kings. the two sentences have different diagrams. 8. Label the circles with obvious letters in the order of their occurrence in the syllogism: the ﬁrst letter for the top circle. some star would be in #3. No vets are lawyers. Some wagons are cars. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 6. and say whether these diagrams show the syllogism to be valid. Let’s see how that turns out: All non-K are non-M. So. Some doctors are lawyers. So. no apples are oranges. No bananas are oranges. Some paintings are costly items. No apples are bananas. All babies are not athletes. Some writers are not artists. some writers are not poets. So.] . 3. the second letter for the left circle. All items not inside K are not inside M (area #3). The second sentence is more complicated. some paintings are famous.184 Traditional Logic Section 3. [Hint #8: First ﬁgure out the two-circle diagram for the second premiss. 4. 5. some doctors are not vets.5 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences We know that the ﬁrst sentence is correctly diagrammed by the ﬁrst diagram. No kings are scholars. some wagons are not planes. Exercise 3. No cars are planes. No non-artists are poets. So. 2. draw the premisses in the premisses diagram and the conclusion in the conclusion diagram. All artists are inspired. So. All poets are artists. So. All golfers are athletes. A. area #3 must be empty (otherwise. So. all poets are inspired. the third letter for the right circle. So.5.B Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms and Equivalences Part A: For each syllogism.

Symbolize the sentences. no monkeys are kangaroos 2. 7. Consider. The internal structure that simple sentences have is not relevant to this external structure. external in the sense that such logical relationships are created by the external arrangement of the connectives that form complex sentences. All wizards are non-roosters. All hats are gigantic. Remember that each circle represents an afﬁrmative term only. All non-spirits are bulky. In Propositional Logic we studied logical relationships that are external ones. no hats are non-gigantic. along with its complete symbolic analysis: All persons are free agents. All planets are spheres. Section 3. some dragons are not giraffes. for example. no persons are free agents. Some giraffes are not dragons. Consider. Some of these diagrams will make use of the “outer region.Traditional Logic Section 3. the following argument and symbolization: . 3. 4. all roosters are non-wizards. Some ants are monsters. 5. and in this case the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism applies: p ∨ q . But it is false that all persons are free agents So. The argument is valid only because it has the external form of a disjunctive argument. Draw a separate diagram for each sentence. on the other hand. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.” so be sure to draw the rectangular border. ~p . 9. some bugs are not non-ants. Some non-ants are non-bugs. some non-monsters are non-ants. all non-planets are non-spheres. All ﬁsh are swimmers. No kangaroos are monkeys. all swimmers are ﬁsh. 10. = = = (all P are F) ∨ (no P are F) ~(all P are F) ∴ (no P are F) What is immediately clear is that the internal categorical structure of the argument plays no role at all in making it a valid argument. Label the circles with the obvious letters. q . Some non-bananas are peaches. no non-spirits are non-bulky.6 Equivalence Operations We turn our attention now to the deductive relationships that exist among categorical sentences. or no persons are. some peaches are non-bananas.6 Equivalence Operations 185 Part B: Use Venn diagrams to determine whether the following sentence pairs are equivalent. 8. so. the following argument. 6. 1.

and so the Law of Double Negation cannot be used. some people are not ungrateful”). and in response to that. all B are P 2. It is sentences that are denied. A doubly negated predicate term is a term to which the negative term operator has been applied two times. All persons are moral agents. there are none. p = ~(~p). all P are M ∴ all B are M 1. The present case is similar to the previous one. We already dealt with double negatives back in Chapter 2. p 2. Rather it is valid because of the internal structure that each of the simple sentences has. all babies are moral agents. as the displayed propositional form indicates). Predicate Double Negation (Pred-DN) The ﬁrst rule is a very easy one. what is true is that these sentences have doubly negated predicates. Since we actually have two versions of the negative operator. Of course. The Double Negation Law concerns the denial of a sentence that is itself the denial of another sentence. This argument is valid. but not because of external relationships involving sentence connectives (in fact. not sentences. Doubly negated predicates typically arise in the course of some discussion when some negative predicate is used (“People are so ungrateful”). with precision. Here are other examples: Some topics are not inconsequential Each human being is not immortal Non-administrators are not ineligble = Some T are (not non-C) = All H are (not non-M) = All non-A are (not non-E) The symbolizations of these sentences show that none of them can be considered to have the form ~(~p). when we learned how to use the Law of Double Negation. What we shall do now is introduce the laws that govern the connections that exist between simple (categorical) sentences in virtue of their internal structure. the doubles can take the following forms: non-non-X (not non-X) non-(not X) (not (not X)) . So.6 Equivalence Operations 1. But the present case concerns predicates. It concerns double negatives. another predicate is introduced that negates the other negative predicate (“Well.186 Traditional Logic Section 3. 1. q ∴ r All babies are persons. but there is a technical difference. These are not doubly negated sentences.

as the ﬁgure shows. QN Law Traditional Logic has always presented the QN Laws as a “Square of Opposition. QN Law Premiss 1. This is a very useful way to illustrate these fundamental logical relationships. The Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws (QN) The most common logical inferences we make involve quantiﬁers and negations. Not all [persons here] are [paying the ﬁne] 2. . . perhaps we hear “Relax. . then.” and we say “Oh. This rule also hold for the other forms of doubly negated predicates.000 ﬁne. We can see. All [persons here] are [not taking the class] Premiss 1. . then it is not in the non-X group. that our previous examples reduce in the following way: Some T are (not non-C) All H are (not non-M) All non-A are (not non-E) = Some T are C = All H are M = All non-A are E 2. . . . We are told.Traditional Logic Section 3. are non-non-P Here the dotted notation represents any quantiﬁer and subject term.” Without reﬂection. and out of habit. “Not everyone here will have to pay the $1.6 Equivalence Operations 187 Of course. Some [persons here] are [not paying the ﬁne] 1. I hope that means me. . .” Or. are P = . These sentences are arranged so that the opposite corners are negation opposites.” whose corners are the four (ﬁve) main kinds of categorical sentences. 1. Lord. because if something is in the nonnon-X group. It won’t happen that someone here will have to take the 7:30 am class. .” and each of us says “Thank you. we use the Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws. these double negatives do cancel each other. Predicate Double Negation (Pred-DN) . and then it must be in the X group. both of which must be kept constant in the inference. Not some [persons here] are [taking the class] 2. . This reasoning also works in the reverse.

188 Traditional Logic Section 3. all [people who live on the Moon] are [not Earthlings] 2. but the number of negatives does not change. “not some are. QN .6 Equivalence Operations The Square of Opposition The negation of any corner equals what is at the opposite corner.” “non-. the total number of negatives remains constant. compensating with a change of quantiﬁer.” and the predicate either receives a negative or loses it.” as well as. not all [books that are not long] are [not interesting] 2. 1. As a summary we can say that the QN Laws allow us to move back and forth between an external negation of a categorical sentence and an internal negation on the predicate side. Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws (QN) not (all S are P) not (some S are P) no S are P no S are P = = = = some S are non-P all S are non-P all S are non-P not (some S are P) One way to remember these relationships is to think of it as follows: for the “all” and “some” sentences. the position of the negatives changes. not some [people who live on the Moon] are [Earthlings] 1.” There is one idea that holds for all of these relationships. some [books that are not long] are [not (not interesting)] premiss 1. the quantiﬁer ﬂips to the other one. QN premiss 1. or from back to front). QN 1. The quantiﬁer “no” is a different idea: “no” just means “all are not. as a negative operator “moves through” the quantiﬁer (either from front to back. The logical vocabulary has three negative words: “not. from “all” to “some” and from “some” to “all.” Here are the same relationships stated as equations.” “no. Plus there are some rules for re-expressing “no. The quantiﬁer changes.” When you use QN. no [people who live on the Moon] are [Earthlings] 3.

as the following deduction shows. sentences such as “Some persons are swimmers” can be reversed to say.Traditional Logic Section 3. not no [buildings that don’t have windows] are [safe] 2. some [books that are not long] are [interesting] 4. the rule that we are considering is that sentences of the form “some S are P” may always be converted. Conv 3. the sentence “Some S are P” means the same as “Some things are such that: they are S and they are P. There is no problem in this regard when we are dealing with sentences that have been symbolized.) The same is true of all sentences of the form “some S are P. no S are P not some S are P not some P are S no P are S premiss 1.” In Traditional Logic. p & q. “no S are P. QN 3. “Some swimmers are persons. some [buildings that don’t have windows] are [not non-safe] 2. and so. Universal negative sentences. 4. not no [books that are not long] are [interesting] 1. QN 2. QN 2. not all [buildings that don’t have windows] are [non-safe] 3. Intuitively. On the other hand.” The reverse would mean an entirely different thing. 2. Pred-DN 1.” can also be converted. 1. (To see the identity. it is easy to see why conversion works in this case. There is one extra form of Conversion. reversing the subject term and the predicate term of a sentence is called conversion. .” Such particular sentences always have the secret meaning of a conjunction.6 Equivalence Operations 189 3. Actually. just try to picture what is said in each case. We must make sure that the two terms being converted have been properly analyzed. 3. We may therefore also add this form to the Conversion Law (so that we never have to repeat this deduction).” and it will mean the same as the original. QN Conversion (Conv) some S are P no S are P = = some P are S no P are S We add a word of caution here about a possible misuse of the Conversion Law. and you will remember that conjunctions can always be reversed (by the Law of Commutation). one cannot reverse the order of a sentence like “All dogs are animals. QN premiss 1. The Conversion Law (Conv) Can the subject and the predicate of a sentence be reversed without changing the meaning of the sentence? Clearly.

Conv premiss 1.190 Traditional Logic Section 3.” and this relationship is true regardless of whether the terms involved are afﬁrmative or negative. as just noted. so that this provides a further equivalence to “if you are a non-mooer. “if you are a cow then you are a mooer. “All non-mooers are non-cows. Conv 2. some [fascinating puzzles] are [long hard problems] 1. both afﬁrmative and negative. some cold-blooded animals are not lizards 2. all sentences of the form “all S are P” are equivalent to the corresponding form “all non-P are non-S. QN NO!! BAD YES YES YES YES YES YES “not no non-achievable ends . some cold-blooded animals are not lizards 1. some [long hard problems] are [fascinating puzzles] 2. some [cold-blooded animals] are [non-lizards] 1. is the secret conditional structure of the categorical sentence. . 3. 4. Pred-DN 3.” This example demonstrates that. We use the notation opposite[X] to represent the term that is the negation opposite of the term X. then you are a non-cow. 1. • some [proper goals] are [non-achievable-ends] some [non-achievable-ends] are [proper goals] some [non-achievable-ends] are [not non-proper-goals] not all [non-achievable ends] are [non-proper-goals] not no [non-achievable ends] are [proper goals] premiss 1. 5.” But the latter. (Of course.” Wow! Now that is impressive! 4. Conv premiss 1. p ⊃ q. some lizards are not cold-blooded animals 1. some [non-lizards] are [cold-blooded animals] 1. The Law of Contraposition (Contrap) In earlier sections we had the opportunity to note that universal sentences such as “All cows are mooers” have a secret conditional structure. To state this law efﬁciently. . Conv?? premiss. opposite[“elephant”] = “non-elephant” opposite[“non-elephant”] = “elephant” . we introduce some special notation. where X represents all terms. which is captured by the corresponding sentence.) For example. premiss.” We also know that conditional sentences obey the Law of Contraposition.6 Equivalence Operations but error is very possible when sentences retain their English form. 2. QN 4. Here are some examples: 1. this notation is not a symbol in the symbolic language itself. according to the Law of Contraposition.

So.6 Equivalence Operations 191 Contraposition (Contrap) all S are P = all opposite[P] are opposite[S] Switch sides and take opposites But be careful. The law applies only to universal categorical sentences whose terms have been properly analyzed. all cats are non-dogs 1. not some non-A are (not M) all non-A are (not (not M)) all non-A are are M all (not M) are A Premiss /∴ all (not M) are A 1. GOOD 1. QN 2. 1. everything that is not made only of assembled pieces is an animal. 3. 2. all dogs are not cats 2. all medical-students are non-astronauts premiss. all astronauts are non-medical-students 3. Contrap Here are some examples of deductions with all these laws when the sentences are all symbolized. There is not a non-animal that is not made only of assembled pieces. Consider some examples: 1. Contrap YES premiss 1. 4. BAD premiss. Pred-DN 3. 1. not some astronauts are medical-students 2. all non-cats are not non-dogs Premiss. all dogs are not cats 1. Contrap ?? ERROR The correct method is to rewrite the premiss so that it is in categorical form: 1. QN 2. Contrap .” and that any negative on the predicate side is properly attached to the predicate term. all dogs are non-cats 2.Traditional Logic Section 3. This means that a sentence must have the universal quantiﬁer “all” and the afﬁrmative copula “are.

All non-blueberries are non-fruits /∴ Some tomatoes are vegetables /∴ All fruits are apples /∴ Some non-bananas are non-vegetables. Some pears are not non-apples 10. Some apples are non-vegetables 18. give the name of the rule used. QN As you can see. but keep them in the same form. All strawberries are fruits 14. No mangos are non-fruits 16. No peaches are blueberries 4. 20.6 Equivalence Operations And here is yet another deduction for the same argument. No tomatoes are fruits 9. /∴ All peaches are non-blueberries /∴ All non-fruits are non-oranges /∴ All bananas are non-green /∴ Not some peaches are blue /∴ All watermelons are fruits /∴ All non-tomatoes are fruits /∴ Some pears are apples /∴ Some tomatoes are not non-fruits /∴ All non-tomatoes are not non-apples /∴ Some non-vegetables are oranges /∴ All non-strawberries are non-fruits /∴ All apples are non-peaches /∴ All non-mangos are non-fruits /∴ Some cherries are non-apples /∴ Some vegetables are non-apples /∴ Some vegetables are non-apples /∴ No vegetables are oranges /∴ All fruits are blueberries . Not all cherries are apples 17. otherwise. in Traditional Logic (as in Propositional Logic) there is always more than one way to derive a conclusion from its premisses. Some non-apples are vegetables 19. Some oranges are non-vegetables 13. All apples are not tomatoes 12. All apples are fruits 2. If an inference is valid. 0. Not some bananas are green 6. No non-oranges are non-vegetab. Exercise 3. Conv 2. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. not some non-A are (not M) 2.192 Traditional Logic Section 3. Equivalences Symbolize each of the following inferences. Some bananas are vegetables 3.6. not some (not M) are non-A 3. All oranges are fruits 5. Some non-tomatoes are non-fruits 11. Not no watermelons are fruits 8. All peaches are non-blue 7. 1. say it is invalid. all (not M) are A Premiss /∴ all (not M) are A 1. All peaches are non-apples 15. Some vegetables are tomatoes 1.

2.Traditional Logic Section 3. these rules can be used to do deductions in Traditional Logic. 4. eight. six. such as: All A are B All B are C All C are D All D are E So. etc. ﬁve. terms. Thereafter. we can then use these two valid categorical syllogism patterns as ofﬁcial rules in our system of logic. 3. But we should not consider this method to be good for general use. all A are B all B are C all C are D all D are E Prem Prem Prem Prem 1. 2. The method is good for showing that certain basic patterns are valid. and there are no practical Venn diagrams for using four. but the limitations become clear when one considers extended syllogisms (sometimes called sorites from the Greek) that are obviously valid. seven. that can be repeatedly used in a deduction: 1.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 193 Section 3. all A are E Summary: The Venn Diagram methods can demonstrate that certain rules are valid. and that they can therefore be used as rules (and in this regard Venn Diagrams play a role similar to that of truth-tables in Propositional Logic). Univ Syll 6. But the method does show that the following two simple syllogisms (called Univ Syll and Part Syll) are valid: all S are M all M are P So. all S are P some S are M all M are P So.4. Univ Syll 5. because the method is limited.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic Certain arguments may be shown to be valid by the Method of Venn Diagrams. Univ Syll 5.. some S are P And. in exactly the same . all A are D 7.3. all A are C 6. all A are E This argument uses ﬁve terms.

But we note here that. while the equivalences merely restate in a different form what is already available. DeMorg. (In the next section. we combine these two parts of logic. So. whose operation we discuss below. and are therefore rules that apply only to entire lines of a deduction. and are therefore rules that apply to all kinds and sizes of expressions. whether whole lines or parts of lines. This is an important approach in the study of logic. however. MT. And without compound sentences. Elementary Equivalences We have already discussed the elementary equivalences of Traditional Logic in the previous section. the new deduction rules for Traditional Logic fall into two groups. we will focus our attention on arguments that use only categorical (that is. we can take that discussion for granted here. QN. the following seven sentences are all equivalent to each other: . (It makes you wonder.194 Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic manner that we did deductions in Propositional Logic. but. DN. rules such as MP. and conditional proof. Elementary argument forms: two special syllogisms: the Universal Syllogism and the Particular Syllogism. The argument forms create new conclusions. indirect. etc. never to parts of a line. unfortunately. simple) sentences. then. II. Conv. We note once more that there is a difference between the way that the elementary argument forms and the equivalences are applied. Contrap. These rules are: • • • • The Predicate Double Negation Law The Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws The Conversion Law The Law of Contraposition (Pred-DN) (QN) (Conv) (Contrap) For example..) The System of Deduction All the rules and methods of Propositional Logic continue to be available in the system of deduction for Traditional Logic. and the methods of direct. Elementary equivalences: the four equivalences we introduced above: Pred-DN. even though these rules are available. I. one that is inexplicably completely ignored in most other logic books and courses.) As was the case for Propositional Logic. Disj Syll. the rules of Propositional Logic have no role to play in these problems. This includes.

(Historically.Traditional Logic Section 3. QN] The equivalences laws are important for two reasons. the Particular Syllogism. Elementary Argument Forms There are many valid categorical syllogisms that are eligible to be rules in our system. 11. Barbara and Darii. (But now. QN 16. you are one of those rare people. Conv 13. the good and the bad. and (iii) are capable of doing the work of all the others. “It is false that no one who doesn’t like to dance isn’t non-athletic. these are called by people names. (This is a fact known throughout the history of logic. Conv 195 [12. there are two syllogisms that (i) are distinctly simple. It would be too confusing. as we shall see. say..) The Primary Categorical Syllogisms Univ Syll all S are M all M are P ∴ all S are P Part Syll some S are M all M are P ∴ some S are P . to distinguish them from all other valid syllogisms. and the second one.. 14.. and it isn’t that hard—go ahead. Consider. First of all. We will call the ﬁrst one the Universal Syllogism. 16. the equivalences are important because they are absolutely necessary for restating sentences into the proper form required by the primary categorical syllogisms. and together we can call them the primary categorical syllogisms. 15. QN] [13. (ii) are very intuitive.) We will select these two as our rules. not some I are (not non-E) not some I are E not some E are I all E are non-I all I are non-E no E are I no I are E .7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 11. Most syllogisms look alike. But that would be an inferior approach. the selected ones and the non-selected ones. Contrap 14. respectively. it is inherently important to be able to re-express complicated sentences in simpler form. which are the primary instruments available for making inferences. QN 14. and we could pick. 12. QN] [15. QN] [12. But more importantly. 17. half a dozen of these. Pred-DN 12. thanks to logic.” Few people are able to correctly restate this sentence in its simplest form. try it!) Secondly. 13.

some [people] are [non-prepared] [Improper form for inference. but we can’t use this form. This argument may be symbolized and demonstrated as follows: 1.” as required. The ﬁrst requirement for a correct sequence is that the starting quantiﬁer is either “all” or “some. One must make sure that the subject term and the predicate term have been properly analyzed. no A are F 4. Ready for further action!] (B) Correct copula.196 Traditional Logic Section 3. Only those who are responsible for their actions may be rewarded or punished for their actions. One premiss starts the inference with a subject . 6. no animals may be rewarded or punished for their actions.” So. So. Consider. Univ Syll 5. Ready for action!] (C) Correct continuation. all K are non-L .” and never the quantiﬁer “no. QN 4. The third requirement for a correct sequence is the presence of a universal continuation.1. an available sentence “no K are L” must be changed by the QN rule: 5. all A are non-F all A are non-R all A are non-M no A are M Prem Prem Prem ∴ no A are M 3. no K are L 6. no animals are free agents. 7.. for example. so that the copula of the sentence is “are. QN Bingo! Bingo! Correct Categorical Sequencing The primary categorical syllogisms require that there be a correct sequence of linked terms. The second requirement is more about inferences made directly with English sentences than with symbolic sentences. QN [OK. Univ Syll 6. all non-R are non-M 3. and any negative operator on the predicate side has been incorporated into the predicate term. 5. But. some people are not prepared 8.. in the following sense. and this means three things.] [Yes.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic The connection provided by these basic syllogisms lies at the heart of all categorical reasoning. 8. all non-F are non-R 2. (A) Correct quantiﬁers.] [Yes.2. the next argument: Only free agents are responsible for their actions. 6.

For example. Of course. another premiss continues the inference by making a universal assertion about M.. whenever possible. some A are C . . we should think about how one of the syllogism rules would generate it. all S are P Super Part Syll some S are M1 all M1 are M2 all M2 are M3 all M3 are P So. it must always be a universal-afﬁrmative statement that does the continuation.2. Consider the following argument: ... all A are E . We recommend. some S are P A New Deductive Strategy We can make some useful points about deductive strategy. Need universal continuation!] [NO! DEAD WRONG] Supersized Syllogisms A related point. When an inference is continued. How many universal continuations may there be? Actually. We can use the equivalences to put sentences into the right form for the application of the syllogisms. 5. all A are B 7.3. In other words. 6. For example. with this added proviso: that every continuation must always be universal... namely. . .4. all M are P.7.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 197 term S and a predicate term M that functions as a linking. . Then. middle term. the available premisses or the desired conclusion might not be in a form required by the syllogism rules.. any number of continuations.Traditional Logic Section 3. the ﬁrst argument that started this section can be demonstrated in a single step—go back and check it out: 4. The ﬁrst point. that you use the supersized versions of the two rules from this point on. The two syllogism rules are the only deductive tool we have for deriving new conclusions from premisses. but do not require.. and for that reason the equivalences are very important. Super Univ Syll Super Univ Syll all S are M1 all M1 are M2 all M2 are M3 all M3 are P So. some B are C 8. when we want a certain conclusion. 1. Part Syll ?? [Stop. . 6.. we could extend both of the syllogism rules into super syllogism rules.. The super syllogism rules follow the three requirements just listed. So.

198

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic

Some dogs are pets. No dogs are meowers.

So, not all pets are meowers It is immediately clear that the second premiss does not ﬁt the primary syllogisms, since the syllogisms do not allow the quantiﬁer “no.” So, we must change the second premiss. Also, the conclusion does not ﬁt the primary syllogisms, since the syllogisms cannot end up with “not all.” A little reﬂection tells us that the conclusion must be gotten from “some pets are non-meowers” by the rule QN. In addition, we need a universal continuation premiss, and that means that “dogs” has to be the middle term. This requires switching the sides of the ﬁrst premiss. So, the deduction goes as follows: 1. some D are P 2. no D are M 3. 4. 5. 6. some P are D all D are non-M some P are non-M not all P are M Prem Prem ∴ not all P are M 1, Conv 2, QN 3,4, Part Syll 5, QN

Bingo!

The second point concerns a special technique to use for deriving conclusions. When several premisses are involved, the equivalence rules provide many ways to modify the premisses, which, if all were performed, would produce a bewildering maze of related sentences. (You might ﬁnd it interesting to try creating the maze-effect some time.) But there is an excellent strategy for navigating through the complex relations, and just to give this strategy some name, we call it the chain technique. The nice thing about a chain is that it can be of any length, and for the rest, a chain is a sequence of linked items, consisting of term letters, going from left to right. The chain technique is a way of producing the conclusion we are after, and we should think of chains as being just that, a chain for the conclusion. Let’s suppose that the conclusion we want to produce is: all A are non-W Then, a chain for this conclusion could look something like this: start ↓ end ↓

A → M → non-C → non-B → E → Q → non-W

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic

199

Let’s have a closer look at how a chain is created. (1) Chains are instances of a supersized primary syllogism, in the sense that each link in the chain represents one of the lines used in the supersized syllogism rule, and the desired conclusion is then created by that supersized inference. (2) The ﬁrst term of the chain must be the subject term of the conclusion, and the last term of the chain must be the predicate term of the conclusion. That way, when the supersized rule is applied, the conclusion we are after will also be the conclusion generated by the supersized rule. (3) Since the primary syllogisms are allowed to contain only “all” and “some” sentences, all of the links of the chain must be such sentences, and the conclusion generated will be such a sentence. This means that the following constructions may not be any part of the chain: “no,” “not all,” “not some.” Such constructions must ﬁrst be transformed into the proper form by using the Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws. (4) This is important: Except for the ﬁrst link of the chain, all the other links in the chain must represent corresponding “all” sentences, because all continuations must always be “all”: all/some. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . all. . . . . These four features give the chain the following conﬁguration: subj. of concl. ↓ start ↓

123 123 123 123 123 123

pred. of concl. ↓ end ↓

**A → M → non-C → non-B → E → Q → non-W
**

line 2, line 5, line 3, line 6, line 4, line 8

So, inside the available lines of the deduction, we ﬁnd the subject term that is also the subject term of the desired conclusion, and thereafter, we move through the terms in the available lines in a sequence until we arrive at the predicate term that is also the predicate term of the desired conclusion. Once that is done, we may infer the desired conclusion in one fell swoop: 9. all A are non-W Let’s do an actual problem. 2, 5, 3, 6, 4, 8, Super Univ Syll

200 1. 2. 3. 4.

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic some K are B all A are M no B are M all non-A are P prem prem prem prem

= =

all non-M are non-A all B are non-M

So, some K are P Our goal is to map out the chain for the conclusion: some K → B → . . . . . . . → P • We start with “some K” • Continue with “B” • Continue with “non-M” • Continue with “non-A” • Continue with . . . Wait! – According to line 1, “B” is next. – Ln. 3 = “all B are non-M,” by QN. So, “non-M” is next. – Ln. 2 = “all non-M are non-A,” Contrap. So, “non-A” is next. – According to line 4, “P” is next. – Stop! We’re done. “P” was the last term we needed.

So, the chain for the conclusion is: some K → B → non-M → non-A → P With this pre-mapped strategy, we can now do the deduction, without getting lost in a maze of our own making. Our task is to do only what is needed to produce the lines that are the links of the chain (they have been starred here): 1. 2. 3. 4. some K are B * all A are M no B are M all non-A are P * prem prem prem prem

so, some K are P

5. all B are non-M * 6. all non-M are non-A * 7. some K are P

3, QN 2, Contrap 1,5,6,4, Super Part Syll

HURRAY! HURRAY!

**Expanding Traditional Logic to Include Names
**

One noticeable deﬁciency of Traditional Logic, but one that is easily remedied, is the lack of adequate and commonsense provisions for handling sentences and inferences about speciﬁc individual things. Traditional Logic is explicitly a logic of general terms, applied to groups, not individual things. By contrast, in everyday speech we readily discuss and make

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic

201

inferences about individual things, such as the Moon, the Sears Tower, Hillary Clinton, London, Europe, Donald Trump, and so on. These things are not groups, and therefore, the quantiﬁers “all,” “some,” and “no” do not apply to them. We need additional logical tools. When we focus on some speciﬁc arguments, we can readily see the pieces that are missing. All planets orbit a sun Earth is a planet So, Earth orbits a sun Mars is a planet Mars is not inhabited So, some planets are not inhabited All [planets] are [sun-orbiters] [Earth] is [a planet] So, [Earth] is [a sun-orbiter] [Mars] is [planet] [Mars] is [non-inhabited] some [planets] are [non-inhabited]

Intuitively, these are excellent inferences, and they indicate the way in which Traditional Logic must be augmented. First of all, we need a group of name expressions, that represent individual things. (These are also called singular terms, in contrast to the already available general terms.) Secondly we need one extra copula expression to accommodate name expressions. And thirdly, alongside the universal and particular categorical sentence forms, we need one extra categorical sentence form that incorporates these additional pieces into permissible sentences. All the elements that we are thus adding to the language of Traditional Logic are:

names: a, b, c, d, . . . [italicized lower case Roman letters, for English names: the Moon, the Sears Tower, Hillary Clinton, London, Europe, etc. ] singular copula: is singular categorical sentences: name + singular copula + general term

The sample arguments we gave above can now be symbolized in the obvious way: All planets orbit a sun Earth is a planet So, Earth orbits a sun Mars is a planet Mars is not inhabited So, some planets are not inhabited All P are O e is P ∴ e is O m is P m is non-I ∴ some P are non-I

202

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic

With this new addition to the language, it is also necessary to present additional rules of inference, to stipulate how these new sentences may be used in deductions. Again, the laws at issue are very simple and very intuitive, exactly what one would expect: Singular Univ. Syllogism all S are P n is S ∴ n is P Singular Part. Syllogism n is S n is P ∴ some S are P Name-Negation Law ~(n is P) = n is non-P

There are some commonsense restrictions built into the very wording of the rules. One restriction is that, while these rules may use any names whatsoever, each such application may only use one name at a time. When a name is used, it must be used in a consistent manner. A second restriction is that only name expressions may be used in these rules, and one cannot substitute some quantiﬁed expression for these names. These are obvious points, but symbolic sentences can sometimes confuse us. Here are some examples that violate these restrictions, and in each case it is totally obvious that an error was made. All [persons] are [thinkers] [Einstein] is [a person] So, [Chicago] is [a thinker] [Mars] is [a planet] [Einstein] is [smart] So, some [planets] are [smart] All [dinosaurs] are [humongous] [nothing] is [a dinosaur] So, [nothing] is [humongous] [some cat] is [a fast animal] [Some cat] is [without legs] So, some [fast animals] are [without legs] all P are T e is P so, c is T m is P e is S so, some P are S all D are H [nothing] is P so, [nothing] is T [some cat] is P [some cat] is S so, some P are S ERROR, the two names must be the same name

ERROR, the two names must be the same name

ERROR, “nothing” is not the name of an individual thing

ERROR, “some cat” is not the name of an individual thing

All these errors are just too obvious ever to be made by anyone, because we intuitively understand the error when ordinary language is used. But, in the symbolic language one can easily make mistakes by simply being careless. Here are some examples of deductions within the augmented system.

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic (1) All non-human beings are without human feelings. Soxtrox has human feelings. All earthlings are things born on Earth. Soxtrox was not born on Earth. So, some human beings are not earthlings. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. all non-H are non-F s is F all E are B s is non-B all F are H s is H all non-B are non-E s is non-E some H are non-E PREM PREM PREM PREM

203

/∴ some H are non-E

1, Contrap 5,2, Sing Univ Syll 3, Contrap 4,7, Sing Univ Syll 6,8, Sing Part Syll

(2) All realtors manage large sums of money. No managers of large sums of money are soft-hearted. Donald Trump is a realtor, and he is a likable person. So, some likable persons are not soft-hearted. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All R are M No M are S d is R d is L d is M all M are non-S d is non-S some L are non-S PREM PREM PREM PREM

/∴ some L are non-S

1,3, Sing Univ Syll 2, QN 6,5, Sing Univ Syll 4,7, Sing Part Syll

When Traditional Logic is expanded to include names, it may be called Augmented Traditional Logic. A few logic books use the augmented system in part.

**Other Traditional Rules, But Ones That Are Defective
**

If truth be told, there is something that we have omitted from Traditional Logic. Traditional Logic has traditionally included some rules that are now recognized to be incorrect rules. These purported rules all have one thing in common. They assume that universal categorical sentences, “all S are P,” have an existential commitment, a commitment to the

204

Traditional Logic Section 3.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic

existence of things described by the subject term of the sentence. For example, the sentence, “All persons are free agents,” is said to have this existential commitment, a commitment to the existence of persons. And, if such things do exist then the relationship asserted by the universal sentence must also apply to those things. Consequently, the existing persons are also free agents. So, the sentence, “Some persons are free agents,” seems to follow. The now rejected Rule of Subalternation is precisely this inference: • All persons are free agents. • All cars are wheeled. • No dogs are purple. So, some persons are free agents. So, some cars are wheeled. So, some dogs are not purple.

But there is a problem here. The quantiﬁer “all” does not work like that. The quantiﬁer “all” has the functional meaning of “all, if any,” and consequently, there are frequent exceptions to the conjectured correlation. In such cases, the “all” sentence is true, but the corresponding “some” sentence is false. Consider: • All green horses are green. (T) • All round cubes are round. (T) • No great-grandfathers here are without offspring. (T) So, some green horses are green. (F) So, some round cubes are round. (F) So, some great-grandfathers here are not without offspring. (F)

And these are not the only counter-examples to the existential viewpoint. In fact, 50 percent of all universal sentences do not have existential commitment. (Try to ﬁgure out why it must be 50 percent.) As a result of this, Modern Logic rejects the existential viewpoint for universal sentences, and likewise, so do we. With this rejection, nothing of common sense is lost, much simplicity is gained, and truth is preserved. But one important consequence is that one must also reject those traditional rules that are based on the existential viewpoint. A word of warning: some logic books continue to include, even if apologetically, these invalid rules alongside the valid ones. Just be very careful if ever you use them.

**Limitations of Traditional Logic
**

When Traditional Logic is presented in the simpliﬁed form that we have given it in the present chapter, the result is an easy and effective system of natural deduction, one that agrees well with our ordinary way of thinking and reasoning. But for all its goodness, Traditional Logic has signiﬁcant practical and theoretical limitations. One of these limitations was the inability to adequately deal with named individual things, but, as we saw, that deﬁciency was easily remedied by means of a slight expansion of the system. The other limitations cannot be solved by such easy patches. The most signiﬁcant of these limitations is the inability of Traditional Logic to deal with sentences that have complex

then. some P are C So. This is something we do at the outset.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 205 subject terms and predicate terms. In Traditional Logic only single capital letters are allowed to be used for the entire subject side and the entire predicate side. including intended logical relationships. In general. some P are C Intuitively this makes sense. and when such intentions are clear. This argument intuitively suggests some sort of analysis like the following: Some [H P] are [C K] Therefore.) In the initial stages of analyzing the argument. each of which creates relations to other sentences: H = hardworking. K = live in Kalamazoo. as in our example: Q = hardworking persons P = persons some Q are M Therefore. and such an analysis completely fails to capture whatever deeper logical relationships are at work in an argument. (But there will be other arguments for which this kind of a solution will not work.Traditional Logic Section 3. The following argument illustrates the problem: Some [hardworking persons] are [cow owners that live in Kalamazoo] Therefore. there may be a particular solution for particular arguments. P = persons. as part of analyzing and symbolizing the argument. the intended missing premisses are: M = cow owners that live in Kalamazoo C = cow owners . but it is drastic—jump over to a new logic. The kind of complexity at issue consists of the combination of several simple terms into a single larger complex term. we are in fact required to add such additional premisses to the argument. In fact. C = cow owners. but in Traditional Logic this is complete nonsense. At this early stage. But before we look at that general solution. there is a particular solution for the argument just presented. There is a general solution for this general problem. we should consider whether the argument as given contains intended premisses that are not explicitly stated. and one should always consider this possibility before taking the more drastic approach. a particular solution may be available to us: We may add to the stated premisses all relationships that are clearly intended. such arguments are also known as enthymemes. For our earlier example. we see that Traditional Logic does not have sufﬁcient resources to deal with arguments that contain complex terms. some [persons] are [cow owners] This argument contains four independent ideas.

is well suited to the task. some Q are M 2.3. as well as a variety of other kinds of complications. some Q are C some C are Q some C are P some P are C premiss intended missing premiss intended missing premiss 1. M are variables that represent both afﬁrmative terms and negative terms. all Q are P 3. . . P. all M are C 4. 1. Still. . and we must start over with a new system of logic designed speciﬁcally to deal with the problem of complex terms. . both of which must be kept constant in the inference. Part Syll 6. are P = . To deal with the complicated cases. Traditional Logic. This new system is the subject matter of the next chapter. .2.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic = all Q are P = all M are C All [hardworking persons] are [persons] All [cow owners that live in Kalamazoo] are [cow owners] When we add these extra premisses. that one worked all right. we are able to represent and prove the original argument. . . . . there must be a workable solution available for the complicated arguments as well. Conv ∴ some P are C Well. we need to abandon Traditional Logic altogether. and it is called Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic. Reference Sheet for the Rules of Traditional Logic S. Elementary Equivalences For Traditional Logic Predicate Double Negation (Pred-DN) . . 7.206 Traditional Logic Section 3. Conv 5. in as much as a very large part of our reasoning tends not to be extra complicated. and the approach is worth remembering. 6. with some such additions. . 5. Part Syll 4. are non-non-P Here the dotted notation represents any quantiﬁer and any subject term. So. and that will force us to take the drastic approach.

7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 207 The Quantiﬁer-Negation laws (QN) not (all S are P) not (some S are P) no S are P no S are P = = = = some S are non-P all S are non-P all S are non-P not (some S are P) Conversion (Conv) some S are P no S are P = = some P are S no P are S Contraposition (Contrap) all S are P = all opposite[P] are opposite[S] Elementary Argument Forms For Traditional Logic Univ Syll all S are M all M are P ∴ all S are P ∴ Part Syll some S are M all M are P some S are P One may also supersize these rules by adding the appropriate continuation premisses. .Traditional Logic Section 3.

2. TOO.B. some P are M 2.2. There are very mellow persons. all S are non-I 5.C Syllogistic Deductions Part A. There is an available Exercise Work Sheet to practice on. So. TOO. All who are endowed with free will are potentially very dangerous. all S are E Prem Prem 1. For some of these arguments. Prem Prem Prem 1. all non-I are E /∴ all S are E 3. Part Syll 5. So. Do not be alarmed if your answer is different—there are several ways to do these problems. some M are D 2. no I are S 2.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic Additional Rules for Traditional Logic Sing Univ Syll all S are P n is S ∴ n is P ∴ Sing Part Syll n is S n is P some S are P Name-Negation Law ~(n is P) = n is non-P Exercise 3. Conv 4. all I are non-S 4. Univ Syll YOU TRY IT YOURSELF. 1. all E are D /∴ some M are D 4. Part Syll YOU TRY IT YOURSELF. some M are E 6. All who are not introverts are extroverts. a solution has been provided so that you can compare your own answer to it. A. Everyone is endowed with free will. Here are some additional examples of deductions for syllogistic arguments. all P are E 3. 1.3. 1. QN 3. some very mellow persons are potentially very dangerous. . all socialites are extroverts. No introverts are socialites.208 Traditional Logic Section 3. some M are P 5. Contrap 4.7.

give your own deductions for the following three arguments. Not everyone can dance. all non-W are non-C /∴ no B are C . not everyone pays money to the Arthur Murray School of Dance. all M are S . Give deductions for the following arguments. No one who can manage a crocodile is despised. Univ Syll 4. So.2. all non-D are non-C /∴ no C are H 3. some P are non-M 8. QN YOU TRY IT YOURSELF. all A are C /∴ some non-B are C all K are non-S . All who are not depressed are not people whose candidate is losing. all non-D are non-T 3. all B are I . all C are non-H 6.7 Deductions in Traditional Logic 209 3. some P are non-D 5. all non-B are K /∴ all M are B Part B.6. all M are T /∴ not all P are M 4. not all P are D 2. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 6. use as many steps as you need. no one who has a candidate that is losing is a happy person. babies cannot manage crocodiles. So. all H are non-D 4. 1. Contrap 5. QN 3. Prem Prem 1. no C are H 4. 1. Only those who take lessons at the Arthur Murray School of Dance pay money to that school. TOO. Part Syll 7. Whoever cannot dance didn’t take lessons at the Arthur Murray School of Dance. 7. 1. So. not all P are M Prem Prem Prem 1. TOO. all H are non-C 5. all I are D /∴ all B are non-M None of my books are interesting. 5. Part Syll 3. no H are D 2. Illogical persons are despised. contrap 5. you are critical about none of my books. No one who is happy is depressed.Traditional Logic Section 3. So. no M are D . all W are I . • 2. Only your writings are criticized by you. Every one of your writings is interesting. all non-T are non-M 7. All babies are illogical. no B are non-C /∴ some A are C not all A are B . • no B are I . some P are non-T 6. some A are B . QN YOU TRY IT YOURSELF. QN 4. Now.2.

So. all non-R are non-W /∴ all K are non-S No one who cannot stir the hearts of men is a true poet. no non-S are A . use as many steps as you need. some Q are non-U (#3) 1. true poets are potentially very dangerous. Monkeys are bold. no K are non-M 2. Part C. all P are A /∴ not all A are L 4. Give deductions for the following arguments. • no non-S are T . one must be able to achieve everything that is really important to one’s life. no B are S .210 3. no R are F .7 Deductions in Traditional Logic No subscribers to the New York Times are not well-educated. So. (#1) 1. some people will not succeed in life. some A are G 3. all W are P /∴ all T are P People who are sane can do logic. No one in your family can do logic. So. Exceptional people are capable of wielding great power. • no S are non-W . all C are F . 7. no non-U are S . no K are R . All cats are felines. kangaroos do not subscribe to the New York Times. All boas are snakes. Those who are capable of wielding great power are potentially very dangerous. some P are non-M /∴ some P are non-S 8. Traditional Logic Section 3. all K are M . some P are B . no one in your family is allowed to be on a jury. Whoever cannot read is not well-educated. Some monkeys are unimaginative. all non-E are non-U . • all S are A . But. Only exceptional people truly understand human nature. • all S are L . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. no F are L /∴ no F are A All lions are cats. all E are W . no non-K are A . So. No reptiles are felines. all K are B 4. not everything that is not scared of a gigantic baby with a machine gun is imaginative. some A are M (#2) 1. So. b is non-M 2. No one who does not truly understand human nature can stir the hearts of men. 5. all G are S /∴ not all non-G are I To succeed in life. no E are non-S So. all S are R . • all M are B . So. not all cared for animals are lions. all W are K 3. all S are K So. not all Q are B 2. No one can achieve everything that is really important to one’s life if one does not know one’s shortcomings. No lunatics are allowed to be on a jury. All pets are cared for animals. Whatever is scared of a gigantic baby with a machine gun is scared of a baby. all S are M 3. not all non-M are R . 6. all B are S . Knowing one’s shortcomings means being able to admit that one makes mistakes. some people just can’t admit that they make mistakes. No kangaroos can read. • all L are C . All snakes are reptiles. all R are E 4. some M are non-I . Nothing bold is scared of a baby. Some pets are boas. not some non-W are U So. no non-S are G 4.

d is K 2.8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic We noted earlier that the system of Traditional Logic can be considered to also include the system of Propositional Logic. MT.8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic (#4) 1. 1.. when sentences have just the right connective structures. c is D 4.4. Disj Syll. QN . all B are Q 4..2. many ordinary arguments require that we use both propositional rules and syllogistic rules to validly derive their conclusions. But. no K are non-B 5. all non-Q are M 5. then some human beings are immortal. If some human beings are perfect. Pred-DN 3.. 1. some K are M 211 Section 3... ~(all K are M) 3. not no A are M (#5) 1. QN 1. . no A are B 2.. and so forth. . all D are non-Q 2.. (some K are G) 7. Disj Syll . no U are M 4. 1. Argument #1. (all H are non-non-M) ~(some H are non-M) ~(some H are P) no H are P Prem Prem ∴ no H are P 2. So. 6. 4. no human beings are perfect. no C are K (#6) 1. all non-A are M 5. Hyp Syll. and (2) the upper level involving connectives. (all K are M) ∨ (some K are G) 2.. not some P are Q 3. no non-U are K So. as in the following examples. DN. all human beings are mortal. (some W are P) 9. (some W are P) ⊃ (some H are A) 8. as the following three examples illustrate. we can apply rules such as MP. DeMorg. all H are M 3. Contrap. 5. 7. all C are B 3.8. (some H are A) . all non-M are P So.Traditional Logic Section 3.. This means that we can demonstrate the validity of arguments that have two levels of complexity: (1) the lower level involving quantiﬁers and terms. MT 5. no S are non-A So... all D are S 3.. MP As one might expect. So. (some H are P) ⊃ (some H are non-M) 2.

Dbl Neg 8.3. 7.9. 6. 4. 12. QN 8. 9. 2. (all P are S) ∨ (no P are S) (all P are S) ⊃ (all P are A) (all P are A) ⊃ (all P are G) (some P are W) & (all W are S) some P are W all W are S some P are S ~(~(some P are S)) ~(no P are S) all P are S all P are A all P are G Prem Prem Prem Prem ∴ all P are G 4. Simp 4. . 1. then all people should be concerned about an afterlife. Simp 5. 5. 8. If all people should be concerned about an afterlife. then all people should be concerned about what good they do in their present life. or no person has a soul. if some actions are good. Some people have willingly sacriﬁced their own lives to save others. So. QN 1. 1. 5. 9.4. 8.Dilemma 7. 10. and whoever willingly sacriﬁces his own life to save others must have a soul. If some persons have free will.8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic Argument #2. So. then some actions are good and some actions are evil. 11. 6. (some P are F) ⊃ [ (some A are G) & (some A are E) ] Prem 2. everyone should be concerned about what good he does in his present life. Dbl Thens Taut 5. MP By way of summary we present again all the rules that belong to the two systems of logic that we have studied thus far. QN 6. If no persons have free will. then also.212 Traditional Logic Section 3. 7.10. (no P are F) ⊃ [ (no A are G) & (no A are E) ] Prem ∴ (some A are G) ⊃ (some A are E) 3.6. Part Syll 7. MP 3. (some P are F) ⊃ (some A are E) (no P are F) ⊃ (no A are G) (some P are F) ∨ ~(some P are F) (some P are F) ∨ (no P are F) (some A are E) ∨ (no A are G) (some A are E) ∨ ~(some A are G) (some A are G) ⊃ (some A are E) 1. Disj Syll 2. Comm. Dbl Thens 2. If all people have a soul. 3. Cond Argument #3. some actions are evil.11. then no actions are good and no actions are evil. 4. Either all people have a soul.

Some multiples of four are also multiples of ﬁve (e. A. Simp. If all even numbers are non-quintuple reals. using the combined symbolic languages of Propositional Logic and Traditional Logic. some people are distinguished. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Dbl Thens. Bicond. If everyone likes to be active. 2. (2) 1. Symbolize the following arguments. then no one is completely lethargic.8. All who invent important new theories are famous. So. (3) 1. The Rules of Hypothetical Reasoning Propositional Logic: Conditional Proof (CP) Indirect Proof (IP) Exercise 3. (1) 1. Cond. Disj Add. Dist Pred-DN. If everyone likes to sing or dance. . Assoc. if everyone likes to sing or dance. Comm. Hyp Syll. Dbl Ifs. Bicond. DeMorg. MP.g. Disj Syll. then it is false that someone is completely lethargic. The Rule of Logical Truth Propositional Logic: Taut IV. then not all people are undistinguished. Some people invent important new theories. Sing Univ Syll. Contrap. MT. Name-Neg III.Traditional Logic Section 3. RAA Univ Syll. then all multiples of four are non-quintuple reals. So. then everyone likes to be active. 3. Conj. Contrap. If some people are famous. Part Syll. the number twenty). So. But. 2. 3.B Combined Logic—Symbolization and Deductions Part A. The Elementary Argument forms Propositional Logic: Traditional Logic: II. some even numbers are not non-quintuple reals.8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic 213 The Combined System of Rules I. Conv. no non-quintuple reals are multiples of ﬁve. QN. Dupl.. 2. Dilem. Sing Part Syll The Elementary Equivalences Propositional Logic: Traditional Logic: Dbl Neg.

then no material things are made of atoms. (6) 1. All beings that are perfect cannot be lacking in some feature that would make them greater if they had it than if they did not have it. So. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Also. 2. So. they must be omnibenevolent. [Hint: L = beings that lack some feature that would make them greater if they had it than if they did not have it. Either some physical things are atoms. or no persons have free will. and consequently. they must be omniscient. nor do they deserve to be punished. All actions performed out of physical necessity are not morally characterized actions. or it is not the case that some physical things are atoms. 4. (8) 1. and they must be eternal. then no actions are good and no actions are evil. ~(some P are A) ⊃ (no E are M) /∴ (all E are M) ∨ (no E are M) ⁄∴ (some E are M) ⊃ (all E are M) . 3. then all material things are made of atoms. Give deductions for the following arguments. or no actions are good. all I are F . 2. If some persons have free will. 1. all B are N ⁄∴ ~(all D are M) (some P are A) ∨ ~(some P are A) . and as are beings that are not eternal. If it is not the case that some physical things are atoms. or no material things are made of atoms. All actions performed through brainwashing are actions performed out of physical necessity. So. Either some persons have free will. some M are F . all perfect beings must be omnipotent. (some P are F) ⊃ ~(all P are non-D) ⁄∴ some P are D (all E are non-Q) ⊃ (all M are non-Q) . then all material things are made of atoms. All beings that are not omnipotent are clearly lacking in some feature that would make them greater if they had it than if they did not have it. Some things that people do are actions performed through brainwashing. no non-Q are F ⁄∴ some E are nonnon-Q all N are non-M . actions that are not morally characterized actions do not deserve to be rewarded. as are beings that are not omniscient. some D are B . (5) 1. 3. Actions that are good are morally characterized actions.8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic (4) 1. 3. If no persons have free will. actions that are evil are morally characterized actions. then some actions are good and some actions are evil. 5. (some P are A) ⊃ (all E are M) . So. Part B. 2. as are as beings that are not omnibenevolent. 2. So. 2. if some material things are made of atoms. 2. and they and only they deserve to be punished. 3. not all things that people do are morally characterized actions. (all P are L) ⊃ (all P are A) . If some physical things are atoms.214 Traditional Logic Section 3. either some actions are evil. (all P are A) ⊃ ~(some P are C) ⁄∴ (all P are L) ⊃ (no P are C) some P are I . all material things are made of atoms. and they and only they deserve to be rewarded.] (7) 1.

215 all P are non-L . (some P are F) ⊃ [ (some A are G) & (some A are E) ] .8 Combining Propositional Logic with Syllogistic Logic 6. 7. (no P are F) ⊃ [ (no A are G) & (no A are E) ] /∴ (some A are E) ∨ (no A are G) (all G are M) & (all G are R) & (all R are G) .Traditional Logic Section 3. (all E are M) & (all E are P) & (all P are E) ⁄∴ (all non-M are non-R) & (all non-M are non-P) . 8. (all non-O are L) & (all non-S are L) & (all non-B are L) & (all non-E are L) ⁄∴ (all P are O) & (all P are S) & (all P are B) & (all P are E) (some P are F) ∨ (no P are F) .

Singular terms are words or phrases that represent individual things. the following argument cannot be represented in Traditional Logic: Original argument Some (pink birds) are (long-legged) All (birds) are (winged) So. are different from the general terms that are provided in Traditional Logic: general terms represent groups of things. The result of this deﬁciency is that a great many logical connections among sentences cannot be represented.” “the Moon. Singular terms. But Traditional Logic does not distinguish between simple general terms and complex general terms. and the inability to deal with relational terms. comprehensive. then.CHAPTER 4 MODERN QUANTIFICATIONAL LOGIC Section 4. Because of this difference. What is needed is a new kind of analysis with the following two features: (1) all the simple ideas that occur in an argument are individually represented. arguments about individual things cannot be properly represented in Traditional Logic.” and so on. some P are S That is not even close. with the one small exception that afﬁrmative terms are distinguished from negative terms. For example. such as “Joe. Singular terms are more commonly called the names of individual things. The most important problems were the inability to deal with singular terms. whereas singular terms represent single things.” “the Sears Tower. and . The sentences of our everyday language usually contain complex descriptive phrases to represent groups of things. the inability to deal with complex terms.” “Chicago. Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic was created to ﬁx these problems in a ﬁnal.” “Santa. and not groups. some (pink things) are (long-legged and winged) Traditional Logic Some Q are L All B are W So.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic At the end of Chapter 3 we discussed several ways in which Traditional Logic was incomplete. and efﬁcient manner.

Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. c. Groups are no longer important. . Z. . the new language conceives of sentences in a new way. Singular terms (names): All singular terms are symbolized by unique lower case letters: a. Next. . Let’s Start at the Very Beginning We are going to replace the language of Traditional Logic with the signiﬁcantly different language of Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic. and it is intended only for advanced logical thinking. These terms are words or phrases that name single things. we will introduce terms to represent the simple ideas we have of the characteristics of things. y. . . C. Sentences function to express the characteristics that individual things have. (We will also call these simple predicates. . . z). This language is somewhat strange. . One is able to think of these terms as representing groups of things. . the sentence is about some individual thing: it has the characteristic of being a person. But a word of warning. and in their place are individuals with certain properties.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic 217 (2) all the simple ideas that occur in an argument can be combined or separated using familiar laws of logic. But no longer in the new language. b. In Traditional Logic categorical sentences are thought of as expressing a relationship between two groups of things. w (but not including the letters: x. Simple predicates: All simple general terms are symbolized by unique capital letters: A. d. but that turns out not to be a useful way of thinking about them. The ﬁrst thing we do is to ofﬁcially introduce singular terms into the language of logic. The sentence “all cows moo” is reworded as “all cows are mooers. Better just to think of these terms as representing the properties that things have. The sentence “some person is happy” is not taken to be about the intersection of two groups.” so that the relationship expressed is that the group of cows is included in the group of mooers. B. The fundamental ideas at play in the new logic are those of individuals and characteristics. And so too with all other simple sentences. and it also has the characteristic of being happy.) Thirdly.

simple predications. (The language is a little strange! Yes!) Sue is a painter George is a president Chicago is large Loyola is a university The Moon is round → → → → → Ps Pg Lc Ul Rm “is-a-painter: Sue” “is-a-president: George” “is-large: Chicago” “is-a-university: Loyola” “is-round: the Moon” Compound Name-Sentences A basic rule of analysis for the new language is that complex expressions must be broken up into single.” This sentence is now thought of as saying that the characteristic “is-a-painter” is true of the individual thing “Sue. called an . the language requires a new kind of expression. but in a special order: the simple predicate symbol is written ﬁrst. some individual things in general: “something scared me. The proper combinations can then be formed by applying the appropriate connectives to the simple name-sentences involved. but about some unspeciﬁed individuals. and the second part is a simple predicate that identiﬁes some characteristic. the symbols for the two parts are written next to each other.218 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. For this kind of sentence. When we symbolize this sentence.” This sentence is analyzed as having two parts: “Sue” and “is-a-painter.” Sentences such as these are analyzed in the new language as attributing some characteristic to some unspeciﬁed things. and the name symbol is written second. The Moon is not square ~ The Moon is square George is a sneaky president George is sneaky & George is president Chicago is large and beautiful Chicago is large & Chicago is beautiful Sue is a painter but not a writer Sue is a painter & ~ Sue is a writer Loyola is inexpensive or it is challenging ~ Loyola is expensive ∨ Loyola is challenging → → → → → ~Sm Sg & Pg Lc & Bc Ps & ~Ws ~El ∨ Cl Existentially Quantiﬁed Sentences Sometimes we make assertions not about speciﬁc individuals.” or “spirits exist.” or “there are things that have a great effect. Each idea gets one sentence. each of which is applied to the subject.” The ﬁrst part is a name and refers to some individual thing. mentioned by name.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic Name-Sentences (Singular Sentences) Consider the sentence “Sue is a painter.

x is a bird & ~ x is red → → → → (∃x)Sx (∃x)Ux (∃x)(Px & Rx) (∃x)(Bx & ~Rx) Universally Quantiﬁed Sentences We can make yet another kind of assertion about unspeciﬁed individual things. Variables (logical pronouns): Variables are the symbols: x . akin to the English pronouns “he. z . (∃y) . whose function it is to go through the entire list of things that exist and attribute to each of them some given characteristic.” etc.” or “everything is either physical or mental. and they occur in the remainder of sentences to continue the reference to the things introduced by the quantiﬁers. Again. x is a spirit for some x. Existential quantiﬁers: English expression for some x .” “they.” or “nothing is uncaused. x is a planet & x is red for some x. by means of which the unspeciﬁed thing(s) are referred to later in the sentence. with or without a subscript. x is a unicorn for some x.” “it.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic 219 existential quantiﬁer.” “she. and simple predicates combine to form simple existential sentences. y . These special pronouns are usually called variables. “all things are made of matter.” For these kinds of sentences the language has universal quantiﬁers. something is a spirit unicorns exist there are red planets there are non-red birds → → → → for some x. these quantiﬁers introduce a variable that shifts its reference one at a time to each thing that exists. For this reason a special logical pronoun is introduced. (∃z) Variables. and this variable is later used in the sentence to make some predication. Variables occur in quantiﬁers to begin a reference to unspeciﬁed things. An existential quantiﬁer introduces some unspeciﬁed thing(s) which will be referred to perhaps several times in the sentence.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.” or “each person is able to sing. . existential quantiﬁers. We can say that all things have a certain kind of characteristic. for example. for some y .. for some z symbolic form (∃x) .

.” and “them.” because in fact. for all z symbolic form (∀x) . For all x.” “y. Consider. For something in the universe [it is true that] . . for all y . .” “they. But that is more a matter of appearances than how things actually are.” and “z” are these very pronouns. (∀y) . For everything in the universe [it is true that] it is made of matter. . all things are spiritual everything is not magical everything is a red star nothing is a talking bird → → → → for all x. For all x. For some x. The strangeness of the new language is not that it uses variables. Variables make the sentences look like mathematical formulas. .” “she. the new language uses only the following quantiﬁer expressions: For everything in the universe [it is true that] . In fact. x is made of matter. (∀z) Variables.” “him. .220 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. rather than sentences of familiar English. single word. the variables “x.” “it. .1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic Universal quantiﬁers: English expression for all x . ~(x is a bird & x talks) → → → → (∀x)Sx (∀x)~Mx (∀x)(Rx & Sx) (∀x)~(Bx & Tx) The Need for Variables The strangeness of the new language is most evident in its use of variables in both the quantiﬁers and in the remainder of sentences. the strangeness comes from the fact that in place of regular. . ~ x is magical for all x.” “her. universal quantiﬁers. x is spiritual for all x. This sentence may be considered to be an easy variation of the longer and more cumbersome sentence. . and simple predicates combine to form simple universal sentences. . The latter sentence is a normal English sentence. . quantiﬁer expressions. albeit a somewhat stuffy one. variables are no stranger than the pronouns “he. x is red & x is a star for all x.

but don’t worry. and x painted y blue. The sentence is open to different interpretations. including both the types of quasi-English expressions that it recognizes as well . Just compare the next two sentences: Some cats are very aloof. and hex painted ity blue.” and in this way forcing a clear reference. So that’s the ﬁrst point—the awkwardness. whereby pronouns can be “tagged. and hex had a carz. like “he.) The new language goes one step further. it is enough to know that precise meanings require the use of quantiﬁers and variables. and x had a carz. and he painted it blue. the intended meaning of the previous sentence could have been: A manx had a dogy.” and “it. Instead of using tagged English pronouns. there are variables. Secondly. or.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic 221 These kinds of quantiﬁer expressions are not only awkward in themselves but they also force the remainder of the sentence to be correspondingly awkward. we won’t concern ourselves with that kind of complexity.” What did the man paint? Did he paint the car.” are too imprecise in their ability to refer to things. The Language of Quantiﬁcational Logic Our discussion so far has introduced all the basic elements of the language of Quantiﬁcational Logic. or did he paint the dog? Logic solves the problem of ambiguous reference by introducing variables. and ordinary pronouns are unable to make these references in a simple and unambiguous manner.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. (That’s done in the advanced sections). then the formal method requires that they are needed in all cases. the language just uses the tags themselves: A manx had a dogy. For now. And. Consider this easy assertion: A man with a dog had a car. using the new existential quantiﬁers: (∃x) x is a man & (∃y) y is a dog of x & (∃z) z is a car of x & x painted y blue Holy cow! That’s complicated! Yes it is. (Why not? That could happen. if variables are needed in some cases. For something in the universe [it is true that] it is a cat and it is very aloof. more precisely. People sometimes paint their dogs blue.” “she. A typical English sentence makes several different references. because of the ambiguous reference of the pronoun “it. For example. But why are variables necessary in all of this? The answer is that regular pronouns.

∨ . . these compound expressions are incomplete sentential fragments. These expressions are deﬁned and then divided into two groups. (S & T) . compound sentential expressions: ~S . (S ∨ T) ... ≡. 2. & .[.y.).222 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Wz .Z (∀x) . . (∃z) ~ . ∴ (..]. (A free variable is one not yet governed by a quantiﬁer.{. .C. where S and T are sentential expressions. Sd . simple-name sentences: Am . .d. Here is the complete list of all the symbols of the new language: name symbols: variable symbols: simple predicate symbols: quantiﬁer symbols: connective symbols: parentheses: a. (∀y) .. If these quantifed expressions do contain other free variables. . and a bound variable is one that is being governed by a quantiﬁer.. where the part S by itself must have the variable x free.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic as the symbols for those expressions. (S ≡ T) . Da . Aa ... (∀z) . and they consist of a simple predicate letter followed by a name letter. quantiﬁed sentential expressions: (∀x)S . (∃x) .w x.b. we may observe that the following rules describe how one may combine these symbols into correct expressions of the language. . ⊃ . and also not already bound. Mx .B. (S ⊃ T) . 4. These sentential expressions are complete sentences. these expressions are incomplete sentential fragments. (∃x)S .) 3.z A. . and incomplete sentential fragments: 1.c. Wb .. complete sentences. Let’s pull it all together.D. (∃y) .} Based on the examples that we have used in the previous section. My . simple sentence fragments: Ax . If these quantiﬁed expressions (with the indicated quantiﬁers added) contain no free variables. otherwise. We start with the idea of sentential expressions. then these quantiﬁed sentential expressions are complete sentences. Gx . and since this variable is free here. These compound expressions are complete sentences if both parts S and T are complete. these quantiﬁed expressions are still incomplete sentential fragments. namely. These sentential expressions consist of a simple predicate letter followed by a variable.

Something is old. An important consequence of this division is that complete sentences are fully meaningful.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. .1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic 223 These formation rules divide all sentential expressions into two groups: complete sentences and incomplete sentential fragments. the name letter “s” means “the Sears Tower” (that information is needed to determine the real-world value of some of these sentences). Symbolize the following sentences. If the Sears Tower is happy. Something runs. are not meaningful. 8. Further explanations are given in the paragraph that follows. and y is old.) Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. and the Sears Tower is tall. “x” free complete sentence complete sentence truth-value* true false nonsense true nonsense nonsense false true * If we give the preceding sentential expressions their full English wording. A. x is happy. using obvious letters for names and simple predicates. We give some examples. and something is old. and they therefore are incapable of having a truth-value. “x” free complete sentence incomplete. Here. “y” free incomplete. Expressions are complete if they contain no free variables. and everything sings. then x is round. 3. Incomplete fragments. 2. The Sears Tower is happy. and they are incomplete if they do contain a free variable. 1. 6.1. sentential expressions (∃x) x is happy s is happy & (∃x) x is old s is happy ⊃ x is round (∃x) x is red & s is tall (∃x) x runs & y is old x is happy & x is round (∃x) x is old & (∀y) y sings ~(∀x)(x is happy & x sings) symbolization (∃x)Hx Hs & (∃x)Ox Hs ⊃ Rx (∃x)Rx & Ts (∃x)Rx & Oy Hx & Rx (∃x)Ox & (∀y)Sy ~(∀x)(Hx & Sx) grammatical status complete sentence complete sentence incomplete. by contrast. (Watch out for hidden negatives. or false. 7. Something is happy. 5. Something is happy. George is not happy. then we can more clearly see why the symbolic versions have the grammatical status and truth-value that we listed for them. Not everything both is happy and sings = true = false = Who is x ??? = true = Who is y ??? = Who is x ??? = false = true Exercise 4.B Symbolizing Quantiﬁcational Sentences Part A. and x is round. and they therefore have a truth-value: true. 4. 1.

or nothing is good and nothing is bad. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Some things cannot be explained. Inexpensive automobiles don’t exist. Something is smart. 13. 4. sober. although not George. 1. including George. There are ghosts if and only if there is no matter. 15. Liz.] 10. then unique atoms with value exist. 11. Everything is either spiritual or not spiritual. 6. None of George. George is such that he is deﬁnitely not a person who is generally very capable but speciﬁcally not able to sing. and everything is unique. then. 6. or everything is not made of cement. 10. Some things are costly and trendy. Sue. These are harder. It is deﬁnitely false that nothing is both not alive and not made of gold. Not everything can be explained.1 Introduction to Quantiﬁcational Logic 2. If there are no ghosts. Not everything is immortal. 16. 5. Everything is mixed up. 3. silly Sally sits and Sophie sings. Symbolize the following sentences. but neither Liz nor George likes to sing. Either something is good and something is bad. 8. Some things don’t like to sing. or everything is not spiritual. . If there are unicorns. Expensive candy exists. [Keep all the negatives. if George is an atom. 12. and some things like that are useful as well. Everything is red and sweet or not red and not sweet. but some things do like to sing. using obvious letters for names and simple predicates. then either something is not alive. and something is a computer. 4. 8. 5. Carlos is smart. 7. If everything has value. George and Sue like to dance. 9. 3. If nothing is both alive and made of cement. Part B. then Carlos is not a ghost. but he is not rich. 2. Simple. 9. 14.224 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Nothing is greatest. Everything is spiritual. 7. then some things are magical. and Bill know how to paint.

The net result turns out to be a rather comprehensive package. and universal 7. categorical. categorical. absolute. x is P nothing is P everything is not P for all x. x is S ⊃ x is P no S are P every S is not P for all x. x is not P some S are P for some x. There are seven translation rules for seven very general types of English sentences.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 225 Section 4. to make these types more recognizable. x is S ⊃ x is not P Symbolization Pn (∃x) Px (∀x) Px 3. This problem is more pressing in Quantiﬁcational Logic than in Traditional Logic. Type 1. there is a general problem of how one goes about representing the sentences of English in this new language. and this raises the question of whether the new artiﬁcial language is adequate for all ordinary reasoning. because Quantiﬁcational Logic intends to be a comprehensive treatment of all logical inference. After we have ﬁnished with these seven types.2 Types of English Simple Sentences and Other Details The previous sections introduced all the basic ideas of the language of Quantiﬁcational Logic. The new language is. absolute. it will very useful to introduce some special terminology. absolute. and universalnegative (∀x) ~Px (∃x)(Sx & Px) (∀x)(Sx ⊃ Px) 5. x is S & x is P all S are P for all x. somewhat unnatural. x is P everything is P for all x. and these ideas are not difﬁcult to grasp. and universal 4. Still. and existential 6.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. categorical. as we have noted. and existential Form name is P something is P for some x. name-sentences 2. and universalnegative (∀x)(Sx ⊃ ~Px) . Because these types are so important. we can enlarge our procedures to include a number of variations on these seven types. Translation Rules We have a good place to start. and Traditional Logic never had such a goal.

When absolute sentences are translated. just something. (What did? I don’t know. The indicated relationships are mandatory and have no exceptions. We can highlight these relationships in the following display: some .226 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Name-Sentences Name sentences are the simplest of these seven types. Examples of such subject terms are: “cat. .” or “mean.) → (∀x) Bx Nothing is mental.” or “mean.) (∀x)( . . (What does? Everything. (Nothing? Yep. are . .) → (∃x) Nx Everything had a beginning.) The “SOME–AND” rule The “ALL–THEN” rule . and they can be propositionally simple or compound. Absolute Sentences Absolute sentences are sentences whose entire subject term is exactly the one word “thing(s)”—no additional words.” but is rather a word or phrase that describes a category. . . . . .” or “large cat. . which is captured by these translation rules. . are . . underlying logical structure. . . . . Categorical sentences have another important feature.2 Types of English Simple Sentences Type 1. . . partly because that’s what we called them in Chapter 3. on the other hand. • • • William sneezes a lot → Sw Victoria is real smart. the entire left side of the sentence (the subject side) becomes the quantiﬁer “for all x. that is. . The label absolute is appropriate because the group of things referred to by such a subject term is the entire universe. but she is not omniscient → Sv & ~Ov George and Ella are poor artists → (Pg & Ag) & (Pe & Ae) Types 2–4. large cat. • • • • • Something made a noise.” or “mean. no exception.” or “for some x. . but also because their subject term is not just the word “thing. large cat in Chicago. large cat in Chicago that hates watermelons. → → (∃x)( . . ⊃ . . .” Their predicate side. a limited group of things. . They have a secret. all . Name sentences do not contain any quantiﬁers. may be very simple or very complex. & .) → all things are not mental → (∀x) ~Mx Some things are either inconsiderate and illegal or expensive and frustrating.” or something like that. . whatever there is. Categorical Sentences We call the three remaining types categorical sentences. → (∃x)[(~Cx & ~Lx) ∨ (Ex & Fx)] Nothing is a green cow on the Moon → (∀x) ~ (Gx & Cx & Mx) Types 5–7.

No computers can think → all computers are not thinkers → (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~ Tx) No person on the Moon can talk or sing → all persons on the Moon are not talkers or singers → (∀x)[(Px & Mx) ⊃ ~ (Tx ∨ Sx)] Variations on These Seven Types By using the seven basic translation rules. In Chapter 3 we studied many English grammatical variations on the categorical forms.” and when the quantiﬁer is existential. emphasizes that the English quantiﬁer “no” has no direct counterpart in the the symbolic language. are not” construction. by replacing replacing it with an “all .” the subject term stays exactly the same. the middle connective must be the connective “⊃. the middle connective must be the connective “&.” no exceptions. a missing quantiﬁer: You must add it. Here we follow the same manuever as in Chapter 3: the quantiﬁer “no” changes to “all. . categorical universal-negative sentences. (Now would be a good time. . Instead. one can reduce a large part of English to the new logical language. especially when one combines these rules with the built-in capability to translate complex subject terms and complex predicate terms into their various simple components. that you should deﬁnitely refresh your memory about how these variations work. and a negation “not” is added to the predicate.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. this quantiﬁer must be eliminated. When the quantiﬁer is universal.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 227 These two rules concern the main connective that connects the subject side to the predicate side of a categorical quantiﬁed sentence. We can now go one big step further. Some people like to dance → (∃x) (Px & Lx) Some people who like to dance are nevertheless shy and clumsy → (∃x) [ (Px & Lx) & (Sx & Cx) ] Every cat is deep-down-lazy → (∀x) (Cx ⊃ Lx) All animals that can ﬂy are either not humans or not ﬁsh → (∀x) [ (Ax & Fx) ⊃ (~Hx ∨ ~Ix) ] The rule for Type 7. and what we can do now is simply apply those same variation rules to our present quantiﬁcational analysis. of course. . That means.) For example.

connect them together with the appropriate connectives. remember the following guidelines. and you may not collect them. Dogs and cats are pets → all dogs are pets. It is one thing to analyze the given form of an English sentence. the sentence is compound. and when that is done. All the old ways of putting sentences into categorical form must now be used as transitional stages in Quantiﬁcational Logic.” and you must re-introduce any missing quantiﬁers. especially in relation to negation operators.228 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. If. the rule is that the number of symbolic quantiﬁers must equal the number of English quantiﬁers. the case of a combined subject: You must divide it. as is “there are. and that is what symbolization is all about. the only quantiﬁer: You must exchange it. you get the idea. then symbolize all the simple parts in the way we just mentioned. 1. on the other hand. then use the seven translation rules together with the rules for variations to symbolize the sentence. If the sentence is simple. But this rule about numbers holds only for sentences that are already in standard form. Some Guidelines for Symbolization As you try to translate English sentences to the symbolic forms of Quantiﬁcational Logic. you must replace sentences with one quantiﬁer and combined subject. Be sure to write variations back in their original form before you count quantiﬁers. No exceptions. Only cats meow → all meowers are cats → (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Cx) Again. with two sentences. Regarding the position of quantiﬁers. You may not distribute them. Again. Regarding the number of quantiﬁers there are in a symbolic sentence. 2. the rule is that you must keep the position of a quantiﬁer exactly where it is in the English sentence. Count the quantiﬁers.2 Types of English Simple Sentences People can’t ﬂy → all persons can not ﬂy → (∀x)(Px ⊃ ~Fx) Or how about. and it is quite . Also a word of caution. 3. each with its own quantiﬁer. For example. Do not use the laws of logic in the place of practical symbolization rules. and all cats are pets → (∀x)(Dx ⊃ Px) & (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Px) Well. Start by determining whether a sentence is propositionally simple or propositionally compound. “exists” is a quantiﬁer.

a symbolic operator “~. That comes later. (∃x)(Mx & ~Px) & (∃x)(Px & ~Mx) . don’t use the law of double negation here to reduce the complexity. when the position of a negation operator is changed. Each part has its own quantiﬁer. there are two negation operators that have their own location.” Always remember the following: In quantiﬁed sentences. has a normal term meaning. Regarding the position of negation operators. so. but it is worth repeating: remember the “SOME–AND” rule and the “ALL–THEN” rule. 4. by itself. Some Examples to Illustrate These Guidelines Example 1.” Again. the rule is that the number of symbolic negation operators “~” must equal the number of English negative words. you have to make sure the sentence is in standard form before you apply this rule. the rule is that you must keep the position of a negation operator exactly where it is in the English sentence. and slice it with a vertical bar.” and the negative term operator “non-. 6. in particular. especially in relation to quantiﬁers. and there are physical things that aren’t mental. Keep these two matters separate. the meaning of the sentence also changes. We will get to deductions later. at a point where each part. Analysis: This is a conjunction p & q.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 229 another thing to worry about what logical inferences can be made. there are two quantiﬁers.” Everyone of these will require. With categorical sentences. in its proper way. Recall that English has the following kinds of negative words: the external sentence negation “not. Of course. 7. We just discussed this. Try breaking the sentence into two parts. you must replace the quantifer “no” right at the outset. Also. This is more difﬁcult when the subject term is complex. There are mental things that aren’t physical.” the quantiﬁer “no. 5.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. you must be sure that you have correctly identiﬁed the extent of the subject expression of the sentence.” the internal verb negation “not. Regarding the number of negation operators. as well as the quantiﬁer “only.

we ﬁnish the predicate side with two negatives. . which symbolically become “. Yes! Each part makes good sense. . and they always mean “and he. . .” Also. . And.” The overall result is: . . .) ~ (∀x) (Ex ⊃ ~(~Fx)) Example 3. complete idea.2 Types of English Simple Sentences Example 2. . Determine what the subject term is. the subject idea is incomplete. All green fruits that are picked too early will not ripen properly. No way! Stop! The second half is supposed to be an English predicate expression. & x .” “and it. The original sentence has three negative operators. we must use the “ALL–THEN” rule. . . Analysis: This is a categorical sentence with a complicated subject term.230 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. We must try again: All green fruits that are picked too early | will not ripen properly. Analysis: We need standard form. . the words “who. . so the symbolic sentence must have three negations as well. The predicate expression is “will not ripen properly. Eliminate the word “no” in the required way. The subject expression is “green fruits that are picked too early.” “and they.” and that too is a meaningful. complete idea. Further analysis: This is the external negation of “all . . ~ (∀x) . All green fruits | that are picked too early will not ripen properly. are . Not all elephants not do not ﬂy. ~ (∀x) (Ex ⊃ .” “that” are relative pronouns. Not no elephants do not ﬂy. Also. Also.” and this is a meaningful. and keep the rest constant. . Now use the “ALL–THEN” rule. but the expression “that are picked too early will not ripen properly” makes no sense at all. . Break the sentence into two parts.” “which. . .” “and she. without cancelling them.

4. Symbolizing 100 Quantiﬁcational Sentences Practice your symbolization skills. but not a green elephant. 2. 2. and then compare your own answers with the ones given here. 3.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 231 (∀x)[ x is a green fruit that is picked too early ⊃ x will not ripen well] (∀x)[ (x is green & x is a fruit & x is picked too early) ⊃ x will not ripen well] (∀x)[ (Gx & Fx & Px) ⊃ ~Rx] We ﬁnish this section with a list of 100 (yes. 8. Sam is not made of matter. 9. 11. 4. 5. Edgar is green. There are no unicorns. 7. 5. A green elephant exists. then Sam is a cow. Mickey is not a green hippo. 6. 1. 10. Cover up the answers with another sheet of paper. 3. 5. 7. There are no green camels. 8. There aren’t any unicorns. George is a purple camel. Group A. We invite you to review these sentences and their types and to even practice some of these yourself. 11. Something is not a hippo. 5. 8. 6. Some things aren’t purple. 7. 2. Unicorns do not exist. 100) symbolized sentences. 3. 6. 4. 7. 10. Elmo is a hippo. He ~Ms Pg & Cg Cg ∨ Hg ~(Gm & Hm) Ge & ~Ee Ge & ~(Ge & Ee) (Ge & He) ⊃ Cg Group B. grouped into the important types that sentences have. There are hippos. 3. If Elmo is a green hippo. Name Sentences 1. (∃x)Hx (∃x)Cx (∃x)Ax (∃x)~Hx (∃x)~Px ~(∃x)Dx ~(∃x)Ux ~(∃x)Ux ~(∃x)Ux (∃x)(Gx & Ex) ~(∃x)(Gx & Cx) . 8. It’s not true that something is divine.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. but not an elephant. Something is a camel. 9. 1. 2. Absolute Existential Sentences 1. George is a camel or a hippo. 6. Edgar is green. Angels exist. 4.

5. 4. Something that was not a camel did not moo. What is not a goat is not a hairy menace. The “No” Quantiﬁer 1. Nothing is a large green elephant. 2. 7. Every warm camel is hairy. 5. (∀x)(Gx ⊃ ~Px) 2. 11. 5. 2. 4. Some non-cows are not either purple or sick. 9. No polite goats are a menace. 1. 2. 2. Some camels are not hairy. Categorical Universal Sentences 1. All things are made of matter. 3. 4. Nothing is a green elephant. Some elephants that are green are sick. Some unpleasantries are also important. (∀x)Mx (∀x)(Sx & Tx) (∀x)~Sx ~(∀x)Mx (∀x)~Sx (∀x)~Mx (∀x)~(Gx & Ex) (∀x)~(Lx & Gx & Ex) ~(∀x)(Dx & Sx) Group D. 1. 8. Some goats are pushy. 6.2 Types of English Simple Sentences Group C. 1. Some goats are neither hairy nor polite. 2. 7. 5. Every goat is a menace. 10. 7. Not everything is a divine spirit. Some singing camels are funny entertainers. 1. 3. 6. 6. All camels that are hairy are warm. All hairy goats are not warm. 11. 8. Some camels that are purple are not sick. (∀x)(Gx ⊃ Mx) (∀x)[Gx ⊃ (Hx & Mx)] (∀x)[(Wx & Cx) ⊃ Hx] (∀x)[(Cx & Hx) ⊃ Wx] (∀x)[(Hx & Gx) ⊃ ~Wx] (∀x)[(Gx & Ex) ⊃ (Sx& Ax)] (∀x)[~Gx ⊃ ~(Hx & Mx)] Group F. 2. Some goats that are not hairy are polite. Every goat is a hairy menace. 8. 4. 4. 9. Categorical Existential Sentences 1. 6. Not anything is miraculous. Nothing is spiritual. Absolute Universal Sentences 1. 6. 5. 3. Not everything is made of matter. 7. 5. 7. 3. Everything is spatial and temporal. 4. 6. 9. 9.232 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 3. No goats are polite. Everything is not spiritual. (∀x)[(Px & Gx) ⊃ ~Mx] . 10. 7. Every green elephant is a sick animal. 3. 2. (∃x)(Gx & Px) (∃x)(~Px & Fx) (∃x)(~Px & Ix) (∃x)(Cx & ~Hx) (∃x)[(Sx & Cx) & (Fx & Ex)] (∃x)[(Ex & Gx) & Sx] (∃x)[(Gx & ~Hx) & Px] (∃x)[(Gx & Px) & ~Sx] (∃x)(~Cx & ~Mx) (∃x)[Gx & (~Hx & ~Px)] (∃x)[~Cx & ~(Px ∨ Sx)] Group E. 8. Some things that are impolite are also funny.

10. 11. Some cow is sick. 15. then George is purple. If smart hippos exist. then Sam is funny. If every cow is purple. Everything is sick or not sick. 18. Everything is sick. 4. Some cow is sick. or all things are not cows. 8. 14. 5. Something is sick or not sick. If some hippo is polite. (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Px) ⊃ Pg (∃x)(Hx & Px) ⊃ Wd (∃x)(Sx&Hx) ⊃(∃x)(Sx&Cx) (∀x)Cx ⊃ (∀x)Sx (∀x)(Rx&Cx)⊃(∀x)(Hx ⊃Rx) (∀x)[(Rx & Cx) ⊃ Fx] (∀x)[(Rx & Cx) ⊃ Fs]. 4. or no cow is sick. 14. 5. Not all hairy goats are polite. Something is sick. if red cows exist. 3. or ~(∃x)(Cx & ~Lx) 7. 13. 9. 18. or. Something is sick. 12. 10.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Some cows are not either sick or not sick. 2. then it is funny. 5. Some cow is sick. All things are cows. No green elephants are sick. or it is not a cow. or nothing is sick. 7. or no things are cows. Every cow is sick. or. 7. 2. Quantiﬁers and Choices 1. 6. or some cow is not sick. 13. then smart cows exist. 6. All things are cows. 3. or (∃x)(Rx & Cx) ⊃ Fs . If all things are cows. Not any camel is a graceful dancer. or not some cow is sick. Compound Sentences 1. or nothing is sick. 7. 7. 5. 11. 4. 6. 9. 3. 15. (∀x)~(Px & Hx & Gx) 9. or not all things are cows. 16. then Dumbo is weird. Each thing is a cow. or it is not sick. 6. 4. (∀x)[Cx ⊃ ~(Gx & Dx)] Group G.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 233 3. 4. (∃x)(Sx ∨ ~Sx) (∀x)(Sx ∨ ~Sx) (∃x)[Cx & (Sx ∨ ~Sx)] (∃x)(Sx ∨ ~Sx) (∃x)[Cx & (Sx V~Sx)] (∃x)Sx ∨ (∃x)~Sx (∃x)(Cx&Sx)V(∃x)(Cx&~Sx) (∀x)(Cx⊃Sx)V(∀x)(Cx⊃~Sx) (∀x)(Cx ∨ ~Cx) (∀x)Cx ∨ (∀x)~Cx (∀x)Sx ∨ (∀x)~Sx (∃x)Sx ∨ (∀x)~Sx (∀x)Cx ∨ ~(∀x)Cx (∀x)Cx ∨ (∀x)~Cx (∀x)Cx ∨ (∀x)~Cx (∀x)(Cx ∨ ~Cx) (∃x)(Cx&Sx)V~(∃x)(Cx&Sx) (∃x)[Cx & ~(Sx ∨ ~Sx)] Group H. 17. or it is not sick. All things are cows. Everything is a cow or everything isn’t a cow. 16. If all things are red cows. Something is sick. Some cow is sick or not sick. If anything is a red cow. 8. 9. or something is not sick. all things are smart. 12. No camels don’t like to sing. 8. Not all camels that are green are sick. 5. 6. all hippos are red. 2. 7. If anything is a red cow. 2. 1. not some camels don’t like to sing. 3. 5. 3. 17. ~(∀x)[(Hx & Gx) ⊃ Px] ~(∀x)[(Cx & Gx) ⊃ Sx] (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~(~Lx)) (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~(~Lx)). 6. (∀x)[(Gx & Ex) ⊃ ~Sx] 8. 1. 4. then Sam is funny. Nothing is a polite hairy goat. Everything is a cow or not a cow. There are no camels that don’t like to sing.

7.B. Camels are not hairy animals. 5. or. Combinations 1. or (∀x)[Px ⊃ ~(Rx & Cx)] Group J. Symbolize the following sentences. Be sure to symbolize each individual idea used in these sentences with a predicate letter. 2. (∀x)[~(Sx & Cx) ⊃ ~Px]. Goats and hippos are not polite. all polite things are not red cows. all goats that are non-hairy are polite. 2. all camels that are purple are sick. An elephant has a good-memory. 1. (∀x)[~(Px&Gx) ⊃ ~(~Hx)]. 6. or (∀x)[Px ⊃ (Sx & Cx)] 3. Only sick camels are purple. (∀x)[(Hx & Gx) ⊃ Mx] (∀x)[Cx ⊃ ~(Hx & Ax)] (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Bx) (∃x)(Cx & Mx) (∃x)[Gx & (Px & Bx)] (∀x)(Ex ⊃ Mx) (∃x)(Ex & Sx) Group K. 5. 7. some aren’t. 4. (∀x)(~Ex ⊃ ~Gx).234 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. or (∀x)[(Cx & Px) ⊃ Sx] 4. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 2. Only sick camels are purple. all purple things are sick camels. . Only elephants are green. (∀x)[(Cx & ~Sx) ⊃ ~Px]. Only things that are not red cows are polite. or (∀x)[(Gx & ~Hx) ⊃ Px] 6. or. all non-hairy things are polite goats. 3. 5. Goats pushed Clinton. 3. or (∀x)[~Hx ⊃ (Px & Gx)] 5. 3. 4.2 Types of English Simple Sentences Group I. Missing Quantiﬁers 1. (∀x)[~(~(Rx&Cx)) ⊃ ~Px]. and symbolize each negative word. Some. 7. Camels and eggplants are purple. Only polite goats are non-hairy. (∀x)(Cx ⊃Px)&(∀x)(Ex ⊃Px) (∀x)(Gx ⊃ ~Px) & (∀x)(Hx ⊃ ~Px) (∀x)[Cx ⊃(Lx&Fx)]&(∀x)(Hx⊃(Lx&Fx)] (∃x)(Cx & Mx) & (∃x)(Hx & Mx) (∃x)(Cx & Hx) & ~(∀x)(Cx ⊃ Hx) (∃x)(Cx & Sx) & (∃x)(Cx & ~Sx) (∃x)(Hx & Cx) & (∃x)(Hx & ~Cx) Exercise 4. An elephant stepped on my toe. or. A. and then bit him. all green things are elephants. The “Only” Quantiﬁer 1. but not all. 5. or. 6. 6. Cows and hippos are large and funny. 2. Only polite goats are non-hairy. or. Some cows are smart. or. Hairy goats are a menace. 6. 1. 4. Only a few hippos are clumsy. 2. 7.2. 6. camels are hairy. Cows and hippos were making noises. 3. 1. 3. 4. 4. 5. Camels will bite you. or (∀x)(Gx ⊃ Ex) 2. Camels were making a lot of noise.C Symbolizing Complex Sentences Part A. (∀x)[(Gx&~Px) ⊃ ~(~Hx)].

or no logicians have jobs. 5. everyone. A = is able to eat you) 9. 10. A = is allowed to sing) Part C. but all problems are unsolvable. A hungry tiger will eat you. 235 Part B. (E = will eat you. Broccoli and spinach are delicious and nutritious. 16. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Some unsolvable problems are incomprehensible. . don’t. 2. 6. 4. if it can. they are deﬁnitely not. (S = starts to sing. 3. No person is a professional logician. 7. Either problems exist. using the listed meanings of the predicate letters. Only graduate students are enrolled in graduate programs. These are harder. If all problems are difﬁcult. If someone is poisoned. All difﬁcult problems can be solved. Everything is tolerable. 15. 6. 7. No problem is unsolvable. Tired students can’t study very well. A great many metaphysical problems are both complex and unsolvable. 14.2 Types of English Simple Sentences 1. if he or she is very angry. 3. Symbolize the following sentences. No student is omniscient. and you will want to consult the translation rules back in Chapter 3. 8. all solutions are long. except the creepy insects. Some problems cannot be solved. Some answers are difﬁcult mathematical proofs. Some problems are difﬁcult. 8. 4. If difﬁcult problems exist then logicians exist. If anyone here starts to sing. Some easy problems can be solved. 12. All and only students with high GPAs are eligble for the award. Every person is irrational. No short answers are adequate solutions. please. 13. 9. All students are logical. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Not every person is a professional logician. Translate the following symbolic sentences into regular English sentences. Ella is a logician. So. 2. George will get upset and leave. (G = gets an antidote) 10. 1. 5.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. then he/she must get an antidote. 11.

9. 4. 1. S = square. such as: . In the present example. 14. 12. We take the symbolic language to be a direct abbreviation of a special part of the regular English language. but awkward. It is only through such stipulated abbreviations that symbolic sentences have a real-world truth-value. U = four-sided. B = blue. are true. O = solid. You already know how to do what we deal with in this section. 8. or are false. when the following temporary abbreviations are stipulated. 5. We will use the same technique for Quantiﬁcational Logic. 6.3 The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences Good news. t = Sears Tower. Let us begin by looking at the status of symbolic sentences. 16. and it is parked on the Moon. Something is such that it is red. In Chapter 2 we studied the technique for calculating the truth-value of sentences. 2.236 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 10. C = circle. 3. This part is a cumbersome. awkward part of English—but English it is. 15.” P = “parked on the Moon. the sentence (∃x)[ (Rx & Cx) & Px ] has the value false in the real world. M = matter. R = “red. English sentence. For example. G = green. 11. c = Chicago T = triangle.” the symbolic sentence (∃x)[ (Rx & Cx) & Px ] becomes an abbreviation of the actual. in the real world. stuffy.” C = “car. there are other more graceful sentences that we consider to be stylistic variations of these awkward sentences. 7. and it is a car. that is. In addition. (∀x)(Tx ⊃ Fx) ~(∀x)(Fx ⊃ Tx) (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~Ex) (∃x)~(Sx & Gx) (∃x)(~Sx & ~Gx) (∃x)[(Gx & Sx) & Ux] (∀x)(Gx & Sx & Ux) (∀x)[ Tx ⊃ (Ex & Fx)] (∀x)[ Tx ⊃ ~(Ux & Fx)] (∀x)[ Tx ⊃ (~Ux & Fx)] ~(∃x)[(Ex & Fx) & Cx] (∀x)Mx ∨ (∀x)~Mx (∀x)(Ox & Fx) & (∃x)~Mx Bt ⊃ (∃x)[(Ox & Fx) & Bx] (∀x)(Gx & Sx) ⊃ Sc (∃x)(Sx &~Fx) ⊃ (∀x)~Fx Section 4.3 The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences F = ﬁgure. 13. E = three-sided.

symbolic sentences not only represent English sentences but also themselves have a truth-value in the real world. then. In this way. (6) categorical universal sentences. and (7) categorical universal-negative sentences. 237 Because these are all equivalent variations. Step 2. (3) absolute universal sentences. our experience. or known deﬁnitions.” M = “married. Determine what English sentence the symbolic sentence represents. what then is the technique for determining the truth-value of the sentences of Quantiﬁcational Logic? As in Chapter 2. we must assign the value true to this symbolic sentence. the answer divides into two main cases.) Assign that truth-value to the symbolic sentence at issue. ogic. Let’s consider the next symbolic sentence. B = “bachelor.” So. (Here we may appeal to what we know through education. mathematics. with the stipulated term meanings. and it is parked on the Moon. Reﬂect carefully on what the truth-value of the English sentence is. Case 1. expert testimony. Step 3.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.3 The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences A red car is parked on the Moon Some red car is parked on the Moon There is a red car parked on the Moon There is a red car that is parked on the Moon A red car that is parked on the Moon exists Something is a red car that is parked on the Moon Something is red. (2) absolute existential sentences. . In each case the method is as follows: Step 1. the symbolic abbreviation of any one of them is also a symbolic abbreviation of all the others. because there are seven kinds of simple sentences: (1) name sentences. (∀x)[ Bx ⊃ (~Mx & Qx) ]. (4) absolute universal-negative sentences. and it is a car.” Q = “male” This symbolic sentence represents the English sentence Every bachelor is an unmarried male and we know that one to be true by deﬁnition of the word “bachelor. Simple Sentences We now know that there are seven subcases to consider. (5) categorical existential sentences. So.

Once the truth-values of some given simple sentences are known. Let’s suppose that these truth-values are the following: (∀x)(Tx ⊃ Bx) = T.” is indeed true. Later you tell the story and say. These rules were presented in Chapter 2. “All the planets in our solar system travel in elliptical paths. We have learned many “bits and pieces” about the world around us.3 The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences Case 2. The only difference between what we did in Chapter 2 and what we are doing now is that we are now writing simple symbolic sentences in a new style. For example.238 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Let’s consider the following four simple sentences: (∀x)(Tx ⊃ Bx). suppose you see this big tree falling over in a storm on top of your car. This method is not a ﬁxed. The “tree method” introduced in Chapter 2 is useful here: Back to Case 1. For example. (∃x)(Lx & Wx) = T Given these starting truth-values. but it does employ some logically valid rules. and we use that personal knowledge to ﬁgure out the truth-value of some simple quantiﬁcations. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Sx) = F. we can calculate the truth-value of the next two compound sentences. Section 4. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Sx). “Some big tree totalled my car. not so fast! You only saw a particular tree do this.” Hey. Where did that existential quantiﬁer come from? Clearly. You can hardly believe it. Tc = F. the truth-value of any propositional compounds of those sentences can be calculated using the ofﬁcial rules for calculating values. using quantiﬁers and the like. But sometimes we base these truth-values on some other facts that we know. Compound Sentences The case of compound sentences is familiar territory. Tc. we learned earlier that the sentence. well-deﬁned procedure. . (∃x)(Lx & Wx) Let’s suppose that we know the meanings of all these symbols. Working with Bits and Pieces Let’s have a closer look at step 2 of Case 1: “Reﬂect carefully on what the truth-value of the [corresponding] English sentence is. so that we also know (a) what English sentences these symbolic sentences represent. and (b) what truth-values these sentences have.” In some cases we need only remember what we learned earlier in life. there is some method at work here.

9. c = Chicago Part B. Since the entire range of relevant instances can be observed by us.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. those personal observations are sufﬁcient for a generalization to “all”: the observed instances exhaust and agree → “All A are B” = T. and then. “b is J” = F → “Some H are not J” = T. Exercise 4. 2. T = triangle. 1. “a is G” = T → “Some F are G” = T. U = four-sided. C = circle. T or F. 8. “Some C are D” = F But do keep in mind that. ~[ (∀x)(Bx ∨ Gx) & Tc ] 13. 4. G = green. ~(∀x)(Fx ⊃ Tx) ⊃ ~(∃x)(Sx & Ux) . state their truth-value. “No F are G” = F “b is H” = T. using the listed meanings of the symbols.3. a few personal observations are not sufﬁcient to determine correlations that require a knowledge of all the relevant cases. “All H are J” = F Sometimes (but mostly not) our personal observations are able to exhaust all of the relevant instances for some matter. Tc ⊃ (∃x)(Sx & Ux) 10. Calculate the truth-values of the sentences below. 3. B = blue. Translate each of the following sentences into a regular English sentence. (∃x)(Sx & Ux) ≡ (∃x)(~Sx & ~Cx) 12.3 The Truth-Value of Quantiﬁcational Sentences 239 Given some personal observations about some particular things a and b. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 7. (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Tx) (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~Sx) (∃x)(Sx & Ux) (∀x)(Sx & Gx) F = ﬁgure. A. (∃x)(~Sx & ~Cx) (∀x)(Bx ∨ Gx) (∀x)(~Bx ∨ ~Gx) Tc S = square. in most cases. ~Tc ∨ ~(∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~Sx) 14.C Calculating Truth-Values Part A. (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Tx) ∨ (∀x)(Bx ∨ Gx) 11. 6. we may use the following generalization rules: “a is F” = T. 5. such as when we talk about all the people in a room.B. “Some A are not B” = F with the indicated correlation “No C are D” = T. Use the Tree Method and the calculated truth-values from Part A.

∴ the Earth is ﬂat. As we have seen in the preceding sections. You must ﬁrst determine the values of the simple component sentences. Existential Instantiation (EI).240 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. {(∃x)[Fx & (Tx & ~Ux & ~Cx)] ∨ (∃x)[Fx & (~Tx & Ux & ~Cx)]} ⊃ ~(∀x)Gx 18. [(∀x)(Tx ⊃ Bx) ∨ (∀x)(Tx ⊃ ~Bx)] & (∀x)[Tx ⊃ (Bx ∨ ~Bx)] 19. ∴ (∀x) Fx Fa E. Existential Generalization (EG). (∀x)[(Sx & Bx) ⊃ (Fx & Ux & ~Gx)] ⊃ [(∃x)(Sx & Tx) ∨ (∃x)(Bx & Gx)] Section 4. 15. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Recall that one of the serious limitations of Traditional Logic was that there was no way to express the complexity of complex subjects and complex predicates. (∃x)(Fx & Cx) & (∃x)(Fx & ~Cx) & ~(∃x)[Fx & (Cx & ~Cx)] 17. concl = F This inference is VALID. ∴ the Earth is ﬂat. Here is a revealing preview of the four argument forms.I. and Universal Generalization (UG). There are four elementary argument forms: Universal Instantiation (UI). prem = T. [(∀x)(Cx ⊃ Bx) & (∀x)(Bx ⊃ Cx)] ≡ (∀x)(Cx ≡ Bx) 20. As in the previous divisions of logic. What is needed next are appropriate rules of inference to enable us to reason in this language. the rules of inference for Quantiﬁcational Logic are surprisingly natural and simple. Use the Tree Method and the symbol meanings from Part A. U. we have certainly overcome this limitation through the powerful expressive features of the language of Quantiﬁcational Logic. (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Sx) ≡ [(∀x)(Tx ⊃ Ux) ∨ ~(Bc & Tc)] 16. (∃x) Fx ∴ Fa everything is ﬂat. and one elementary equivalence: the Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws (QN). there is again the basic distinction between elementary argument forms and elementary equivalences.I. While the language of Quantiﬁcational Logic is itself somewhat unnatural. This inference is INVALID. something is ﬂat.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Part C. We will discuss each of these rules in detail below. Calculate the truth-values of the sentences below. Elementary Argument Forms There are only ﬁve new rules. . That is a welcome outcome.

UI 1. . The dots here indicate that the expression may be very simple or very complex. two of them are valid. . the Earth is round.) where n is any name. concl = F This inference is VALID. when four of these rules are stated in this very simple way. . . Everything is deep-down mental 2. Universal Instantiation (UI) The ﬁrst rule is very intuitive. prem = T. . Universal Instantiation UI (∀x)(. x .Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.” Suppose you have available the assertion “Everything is deep-down mental. and two are invalid.” That is quite a sweeping result. x . . 3. . 5. In stating this rule let us represent all universal sentences in the general way as (∀x)(. 4. This inference is INVALID.) that follows the universal quantiﬁer symbol is any symbolic sentential expression containing one or more occurrences of the variable x. all of them are valid. x. UI 1. when these rules are stated in a more careful way. . Luckily. ∴ everything is round. ∴ (. Wow! Everything! No exception! Well then. . UI Let’s look at the symbolic version of the rule UI. .). Fa ∴ (∃x) Fx UG Fa ∴ (∀x) Fx the Earth is round. 1. n/x . . you are entitled to now make this claim about any particular thing you wish to name. ∴ something is round. 241 As this preview indicates. .G.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic E.) . . UI 1. . . no restriction. The Moon is deep-down mental Chicago is deep-down mental The number 5 is deep-down mental George Bush is deep-down mental Prem 1. . It allows you to apply universal propositions to particular instances: “Whatever is true of everything is true of any particular thing. where the expression (.

which is just like the expression (. . UI Since the rule UI is a basic argument form. can’t on back Existential Instantiation (EI) This rule allows you to introduce a momentary name to refer to something that is completely unknown. Mmm-mmm good. can’t UI on front part of 25 . one is allowed to apply this rule only to universal sentences that constitute an entire line of a deduction. . 18..) except that all of the occurrences of the variable x have been replaced by the name n that was picked. you ﬁnd a big chunk missing from the cake.. . 45. UI?? WRONG. since there is no cake debris anywhere. Let’s see this in action. Rg ⊃ (Mg & Gg) . That’s how we talk about unknown things. You leave the cake on the table while you go to the store to buy some milk. . Let’s look at some examples. can’t on front. 13.. ~(Md & Ud) 23.242 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 18. During the discussion people start using the name “The muncher” to refer to the doer of this nasty deed. When you come back. Right away you think. and you explain the situation. 23. can’t UI on the part after “~” . people come running. (∀x)Sx ∨ (∀x)Hx 24. UI . UI?? WRONG.. This is actually something we do quite a bit in our conversations with others about the daily events in our lives. . “Something ate the cake!” You also notice that whatever did this made a clean swipe. and never to universal sentences that are a part of a line. The investigation thus took the following form: . Suppose you have just baked a yellow cake and have frosted it with chocolate frosting..... (∀x)[Rx ⊃ (Mx & Gx)] 46. . UI?? WRONG. 25. ~Sa 45. Mb ⊃ (∀x)Px 13. and not an equivalence.. You sound the alarm. n/x .. ..4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Here the allowed conclusion is the sentence (. Sb ∨ Hb . ~(∀y)(My & Uy) 14. (∀x)~Sx 19. (∀x)Mx ⊃ (∀x)Px 26. Hence the following applications are all DEAD WRONG: 25.. x .. . Everything that we can think of as a particular thing we can also refer to as such by some expression...).

In stating this rule let us represent all existential sentences as (∃x)(. . . and in this way we can come to some conclusion..) Selection 11. n/x . In addition. select name: n 16. n/x . . The justiﬁcation that one writes for the selection step will just be the one word “Selection.) where n is a brand-new name.” We will make this introduction of the selected name an ofﬁcial part of this rule of inference. n . Something ate the cake 2. 4. The muncher ate the cake So. .). Let’s call the thing that did this “The muncher” So. Existential Instantiation . EI where n is whatever name the writer has decided on. . The expressions (.) are as described before. x . . . . numbered line in the deduction be devoted to the introduction of this name. . (.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. . in precisely the following manner: 15. Let’s state the symbolic version of the rule of Existential Instantiation. we are able to start reasoning about that thing. x .) ∴ select name: n ∴ (. . Logic books never write out the selection step.. . We will require that a separate. By introducing a momentary name to refer to the unknown thing in question.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 243 1. . The muncher made a clean swipe So. . x . of course. the practice of writing out the selection step will greatly prevent name-selection mistakes that are otherwise usually made at this juncture. . .. . . . . . etc. This is always how one has to reason about “something. .” We note that our procedure here is not the customary one. . This is actually contrary to the custom in mathematics of explicitly writing out the selection steps in mathematical proofs: “Let n0 be such a number . 5. that must ﬁrst be introduced in the selection step . Whatever ate the cake make a clean swipe 3.) and (. they always leave it as a mental note. .. followed immediately by the line that makes the actual instantiation inference. . vary. .. Premiss Premiss name selection 1. and where the line numbers involved will. Existential Instantiation EI (∃x)(.” Regardless. this practice will also make the statement of the other rules easier. 6. ..

A brand-new name must satisfy the following two conditions: (1) It is not the name of a known individual. EI?? [this is you?] 1. (∃x)Mx (∃x)(Rx & Gx) select name: a Ma 1.” “George Bush.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic There is an important restriction that goes along with the special selection step. Here’s another example: 1. (2) It is a name that has never been used before (in the context of the argument and the deduction for the argument). m has tons of money 6. but doesn’t it feel nice. 4. From now on.244 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. We can illustrate why these restrictions are necessary with the following bit of reasoning. Simp Selection – Brand-new name? Yes. identity unknown. EI – Correct. unlike with the rule UI. “Chicago. Simp 1. Therefore.” “Loyola University. (∃x)Mx & (∃x)(Rx & Gx) Premiss 2. We will ofﬁcially call such names brand-new names. Conj [“Oh. 5. 3. . selection ?? 3. For this inference to be correct. since to pick a name that had been used before in some way would illicitly transfer the identity and signiﬁcance of that previous thing to the new thing being referred to.” “The Sears Tower. thank you!”] Thank me later.5. the name selected for EI is not permitted to be just any name. now that you have tons of money? We proved it by logic. select name: m 5. (∃x) x has tons of money 4.” We will also use the information that some people have tons of money. and we will abbreviate your name as “m. like those very rich people we hear about. m is always low on cash 3. m is a student 2. right? No. m is a student who has tons of money Premiss Premiss Premiss [this is you] [this is you] [maybe Bill Gates] 3.” “Plato. Every existential sentence claims the existence of something: something. We will use the information that you are a student who is always low on cash. One must always select a brand new name to replace any “some” quantiﬁer. one has to make sure that the name that is introduced has no signiﬁcance whatsoever. 1.” etc. It must be a name that has been invented on the spot to refer to the thing postulated by the existential sentence. It is easy to see where things went wrong. we will pay extra attention to this. and we didn’t do that here.” “The Moon.. such as. 2.

which can never be used later by EI. 245 A note about errors. – Correct. Conj – Brand-new name? NO.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Line 3 is about Alex. (∃x)~Px 3. 8. We have come to a DEAD END. (∀x)(Mx ∨ Px) 2. EI – Correct. things are not right here. 5. That is one possible source of errors. But that is not happening. So instead. select name: a Ra & Ga select name: b Rb & Gb Ma & (Rb & Gb) Selection 3. select name: b 5. 2. When you UI ﬁrst. But there is also another kind of error one can make: a strategic error. ~Pb Prem Prem ∴ (∃x)Mx 1. . but such a selection is illegal. We illustrated this in step 6 of this example. the correct way to do the problem is: . Something is not physical (e. you introduce a name. – NO. the number 2). That is a second possible source of errors.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 6. In addition. when you EI ﬁrst. .g. So. 1. Everything is physical or mental. EI 3.I. as in the next example. you can use that name again later by UI. – Brand-new name? Yes. . But. Pa ∨ Ma 4. Selection – Can’t use name: a. 6. These two lines have nothing to do with each other. that would have produced a nice Disj Syll interaction. the rule E. the rule EI may never be applied to parts of a line. We made no errors. We want the two premisses to interact to produce a conclusion. 7. UI – Automatic OK. BLOCKED by line 6. and line 5 is about Barb. because UI has no restriction on what names are used. ERROR. The strategy is this: Always EI before you UI You can see that this solves the problem we just got into. EI?? Selection 3. has a strong restriction on the choice of names that may be selected: the name must always be brand-new. but now there is no possibility of an interaction. As with the rule UI. 7. So. If the name a could have been selected. . The solution to this instantiation problem is to use a certain strategy in applying the quantiﬁcational rules. but yet. the name b was correctly selected.

Disj Syll 1. Let’s state the symbolic version of the rule EG. 4. So. select name: a ~Pa Pa ∨ Ma Ma ∴ (∃x)Mx – – – – Brand-new name? Yes. (∀x)(Px ∨ Mx) 2. n . and this maneuver works for any named individual. . something lived on the Moon and was 200 years old. U.) (. . x/n . So. Given some statement (. Chicago is large and beautiful and lies on the edge of a great lake. something is large and beautiful and lies on the edge of a great lake. 4. 1. E.5. It is intuitively clear that these inferences are perfectly correct. . something is a number greater than 10. but we need yet another rule to ﬁnish up the deduction.I. .” Here are some examples of this kind of inference: Tantumalop lived on the Moon and was 200 years old.) ∴ (∃x)(.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Prem Prem Selection 2. As it turns out. one generalizes the statement by replacing all of the occurrences of the name . this rule has a little more ﬂexibility than the other rules. x//n . Correct. 100 is a number greater than 10. . . BINGO! The desired conclusion. . must be true of something. . .) where n is any name ∴ (∃x)(.246 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. EI before UI. . n . . “Something is mental. n . . . So. .” is now staring us in the face.I. 5. (∃x)~Px 3. An automatic OK.) about an individual n. . . . . Existential Generalization EG (. .) The ﬁrst version is the more common of the two. Existential Generalization (EG) The third elementary argument form for Quantiﬁcational Logic is called Existential Generalization and it allows us to infer existential conclusions on the basis of concrete examples: “What is true of a particular individual. 6. no exceptions. . and there are two versions.

(∃y)(My & Uy) 21. .. E.. So. Hence the following inferences are all DEAD WRONG: 18.. EG 24. . (∃x)Gx 26. 21. one is not allowed to apply this rule to a part of a line in a deduction. 18.. . Conj 23. E. x/n .Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. on a part – Correct – WRONG. EG?? 18. EG .. Gb 23. E.. and not an equivalence. something is such that while it owns a boat. .. it owns a plane. Ba & Pa ∴ (∃x)(Bx & Px) The second version is the less common of the two. Ma & Ua 14.G. . . EG . 22. ~(Sa & Pa) 19. .) about an individual n.(∃x)(Rx & Gx) 24. Rg ∨ (Mg & Gg) 22. EG?? 13. (∃x)~(Sx & Px) 13. Al owns a plane. on two parts – Correct – WRONG. .. Conj – WRONG. 13. Ma ∨ Ua 14. 13. since the rule EG is a basic argument form.). (∃x)~Sx 13... . .. based on the more common version. EG?? 21. different names – Correct – Correct .. 21.G.. something is such that while Al owns a boat. 25.. Here are some other examples. For example.).. x//n . (∃x)Rx & (∃x)Gx . Ra & Gb 24. (∃x)(Mx ∨ Ux) 21. 18... For example.. (∃x)Mx ∨ (∃x)Ux 14. 18.. So. but it is nevertheless valid as well. ~Sa 19. Given some statement (. While Al owns a boat. (∃x)Rx 25.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 247 n by a variable x and adding a matching existential quantiﬁer up front: (∃x)(. EG 22. one generalizes the statement by replacing some of the occurrences of the name n by a variable x and adding a matching existential quantiﬁer up front: (∃x)(.G. .. While Al owns a boat. n . . it owns a plane. . .. (∃x)[Rx ∨ (Mx & Gx)] . Al owns a plane. ~(∃x)(Sx & Px) 19. . Ra 22. Ba & Pa ∴ (∃x)(Ba & Px) Again.

everything is a student The ﬁrst argument is a valid argument and is justiﬁed by the rule EG. We will employ a “box” technique. and no rule will justify it. And that’s the trick. there are special circumstances under which inferences similar to this invalid one are in fact valid. . At the outset it must be noted that any simple statement of the rule. Then the inference is valid.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Universal Generalization (UG) The fourth. elementary argument form is also the most complicated of the four rules. similar to the one we used for Conditional proof. (∀x)(. we will establish safeguards to insure that (2) only things that can be said about everything will be said about this selected thing. x. George would have to be a student? Well. to accomplish all these requirements. We will therefore always start with an explicit selection step. Yet. . This rule is known as Universal Generalization. Is George an absolutely arbitrary selected individual. Compare. a name that has never been used before. Next. (3) whatever we are able to conclude about this selected thing. and such steps always require that the name selected be a brand-new name. in general. and it allows the creation of universal conclusions. . The second argument is clearly an invalid argument. that based on the universal claims of the premisses. and last. .248 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. we will also conclude about everything. That will guarantee (1) that we are starting with an arbitrarily selected individual. would produce invalid inferences. for example. Is George someone whom you have heard about on the news? Then the inference is invalid. Finally. . something is a student George is a student So. according to the universal claims of the premisses. and that (2) what you are asserting to be true of this individual is completely representative of all individual things in the universe—at least. To derive a universal conclusion in this way. Sometimes these inferences do work—it all depends on who George is. such as we had for Existential Generalization.). and what we are saying about him. the following two simple inferences: George is a student So. that’s entirely different. and you were able to show. Is George your next-door neighbor? Then the inference is invalid. under these stringent conditions. you have to be able to show that (1) the individual thing you are starting with is arbitrarily selected.

. But when sentences are very complicated (such as the relational sentences discussed in the advanced sections). Here are some examples of arguments that use UG or that attempt to do so. . We give an ofﬁcial deﬁnition of this idea. One is required to start a UG-box. x/n . . n .Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. In such cases no special caution is required. . . and its name occurs in line k. Note that we have created a special method for employing the rule of Universal Generalization. We have done so because the danger of making invalid inferences with UG is extremely great. . . This is what the second condition is meant to control. Of course. which is the only way we can get information about the newly selected name—until one arrives at the kind of instance that one wants to universally generalize. things can go wrong. A line k in a UG box is un-representative if and only if some EI selection step occurs inside the UG box. The last line is not un-representative. . we stress that this matter may be ignored when one is dealing with ordinary simple sentences. 2. and caution is required. The ﬁrst line selects a brand-new name.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 249 Universal Generalization UG : select name n : : : (. steps that include one or more uses of Universal Instantiation. One then continues to infer other steps—necessarily. The last line instance may not become un-representative of all things in the universe.) ∴ (∀x)(. and the very ﬁrst step in the box must be a name selection step. which means that the line may not become contaminated with existential information that is not true of everything. At that point. but again. .) 1. the name selected must be a brand-new name. The last line instance used for the UG inference is usually an automatic result that requires little attention. the box is terminated and the UG inference is made.

6. – Correct. Disj Syll 6. 5. select name: a 4. (∀x)~Fx 3. (∀x)Hx Example #3. (∀x)Hx Example #2. (∃x)Hx 2. UI 2. Dead end. 4. 4.5.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Example #1. UG Bingo! 7.5. 1. UG Bingo! Premiss ∴ (∀x)Hx Selection for EI 1. Hg & Lg 2. Something is happy. UI 4. (∀x)Gx 3. UI 4. 5. 1. select name: b 5. 1. everything is happy. – Need: Hb . select name: g select name: a Hg ??? Premiss ∴ (∀x)Hx Selection for UG ?? Selection for UG 1. select name: a Fa Ga Fa & Ga Premiss Premiss ∴ (∀x)(Fx & Gx) Selection for UG 1. 7. 6. (∀x)Fx 2. 1.250 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 4. everything is happy. So. (∀x)(Fx ∨ Gx) 2. select name: a Fa ∨ Ga ~Fa Ga Premiss Premiss ∴ (∀x)Gx Selection for UG 1. So. – Need: Ha – Dead end. ??? 6. Conj 6. Simp BLOCKED – ERROR. 2. (∀x)Gx . UI 2. 3. EI Selection for UG ?? Selection for UG BLOCKED – ERROR. George is happy and lucky. – Correct. select name: a 3 Ha 4. (∀x)(Fx & Gx) Example #4. 5.

(∀x)Fx Elementary Equivalences We consider only one equivalence rule for Quantiﬁcational Logic.6. (∀x)(∃y)(Fx & Gy) 2. (∃y)(∀x)(Fx & Gy) Example #6. Yes. Simp 6. Conj 7. 5. 1. line 7 is un-representative. (∃y)Gy 3. UI Selection for EI 2. UG. Line 6 is not un-representative. 4. UI Selection for EI 3. 6. Because there is a distinction between absolute and categorical quantiﬁed sentences. 4. 7. But the next two examples do have additional selection steps inside the box. 6. (∀x)(Fx & Gb) 9. 5. because no additional selection steps were used inside the UG-box. 7.) Example #5. 3. EI 4. and you are not likely to run into them. this rule must be stated in two forms: QN for absolute sentences not everything is F = something is not F not something is F = everything is not F ~(∀x) Fx = (∃x) ~Fx ~(∃x) Fx = (∀x) ~Fx . We can rely here on our earlier knowledge of that rule. (∀x)Fx 2. 1. (You can take some comfort in the fact that the sentences in these examples are not ordinary English sentences.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 251 The previous examples were uncomplicated.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. EI 5. select name: a Fa select name: b Gb Fa & Gb Premiss Premiss ∴ (∃y)(∀x)(Fx & Gy) Selection for UG 1. so now one has to check for un-representativeness. select name: a (∃y)(Fa & Gy) select name: b Fa & Gb Fa Premiss ∴ (∀x)Fx Selection for UG 1. UG ?? ERROR. BLOCKED 8. It is actually the earlier Quantiﬁer-Negation rule that we studied in Traditional Logic.

17. since no argument-form rules may be applied to parts of sentences. and for that reason. that the new rules UI.. Selection 15.N. .) ln.. ~(∀x)(. . For example. ?? 14. line 14 is not universal Yes. . 15. . ~(∀x)(Mx ∨ ~Bx) ~(Ma ∨ ~Ba) (∃x)~(Mx ∨ ~Bx) select name: a ~(Ma ∨ ~Ba) .252 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. . laws to change their form. (∃x)(Wx & ~Kx) 4. only the “back” part of 7 is universal. when we infer from them or to them. . 16. Q. . . 9 is not existential.] 5. x . 15. x . in particular.g.N. QN When Do We Use the QN Laws? Sentences like ~(∀x)(. 4. . which in this case would be the un-negated part: e. that’s it Correct (the name is new) Correct . 7 is not universal. 7. x . then. and UG may not be applied to them. 9. That means. 14. the quantiﬁer mode switches to the other quantiﬁer mode. 14. . ERROR.. Also. . . .) ln. U. E. . only the “back” part of 9 is existential. should we work with these negation sentences? Answer: We must use the Q. the symbolic inferences are perhaps the most easily performed if one (1) understands what English form is being used. . with regard to these rules for categorical sentences. and then (3) converts that result into the symbolic form. EI.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic QN for categorical sentences not every F is G = some F is not G not some F is G = every F is not G ~(∀x)(Fx ⊃ Gx) = (∃x)(Fx & ~Gx) ~(∃x)(Fx & Gx) = (∀x)(Fx ⊃ ~Gx) A note about the mechanics of these rules.I. ~(∀x)(Wx ⊃ Kx) Premiss [step 4 = not all W are K = some W are not K = step 5. only laws for negation sentences may be applied..I. . then (2) performs the inference for the English form. x .) and ~(∃x)(. The QN laws for absolute sentences can be easily remembered if one remembers that as one moves a negation sign (left or right) through a quantiﬁer. ~(∃x)(. How.) have the form of negation sentences. EG. Here are some examples.

EG. UI 2. and QN. if this extra step is wanted Here is a problem that incorporates all these ideas. All things are squares. Nothing eternal is created. E. 9. (∀x)~Gx Mg Sg ~Gg ~Gg & Mg & Sg Prem Prem Prem ∴ ~Gg & Mg & Sg 3. (∀x)Sx 3.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Here are some more examples of quantiﬁcational deductions. More Examples of Quantiﬁcational Deductions (1) All things are mental. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Ax) 2. the Statue of Liberty is a force that was not created. So. 7. 5. UI 4. 7.. (∀x)(Mx & Fx) 2. Perfect. 4. 5. 6. QN 1. (∀x)Mx 2. So.. Correct. 6. MT 7. Not everything is agile. UG. (∃x)~Ax select name: a ~Aa Ma ⊃ Aa ~Ma (∃x)~Mx ~(∀x)Mx Prem Prem 2. 8. line 7 is not existential Yes. (∀x)(Ex ⊃ ~Cx) 4. 7. UI 7. Everything mental is eternal.G. 6. 1. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Ex) 3.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 6. ~(∃x)Gx 4. E. UI 5. EI was before UI We must do this to produce line 9. George is a non-green mental square.. 7. Ms & Fs 5. 3. simp (2) Everything is a mental force. ~(∀x)Ax 3.G. 8. 7.” 1.N. “All monkeys are agile. Conj Prem Prem Prem ∴ Fs & ~Cs 1. that’s it Correct. This last example illustrates what is actually a general fact about ordinary reasoning: cases of ordinary reasoning readily make use of all the rules for quantiers: UI. EI. Q. ?? 6. Correct.6. 8. 6. 253 ERROR. QN Selection. So. 5. EG 8. 1. not everything is a monkey. QN ∴ ~(∀x)Mx The only way to deal with line 2. ~(Gb & Ub) ~(∃x)(Gx & Ux) (∃x)~(Gx & Ux) ~(∀x)(Gx & Ux) . Fs . UI 4. EI 1. Not something is green.

6. 7. simp 6. select name: b Rb & Nb Gb & Fb Nb Fb Nb & Fb (∃x)(Nx & Fx) Prem Prem ∴ (∃x)(Nx & Fx) Selection for EI. 9. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Sx) . simp 2. 8. Cb ⊃ ~Bb ~Bb ~Bb & Cb (∃x)(~Bx & Cx) (∃x)Fx (4) All things are green fruits. Everything agile is fast. Conj 6. 10. Correct. (∃x)(Rx & Nx) 3. 5. Conj 8. 1. (∃x)(~Bx & Cx) ⊃(∃x)Fx 2. (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Sx) 4. UI 3. Everything fast is sneaky. 6. ﬂies exist. 1. 5. 11.Sup Hyp Syll 4-8. (∀x)(Gx & Fx) 2. 1.254 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Bill is a cow.6.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 6. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Fx) 3. EG 1. 8.7. So.4. MP (3) If unbathed cows exist then ﬂies exist. 9. 8. UI 2. all monkey are sneaky.2.7. So. UI 5. MP 5. 6. UI 2. Cb 3. 2.9. 7.8. Something is round and noisy. Conj Prem Prem Prem ∴ (∃x)Fx 3.7. EG Prem Prem Prem ∴ (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Sx) Selection. So. 7. UI 3. Ms Ms ⊃ Es Es ⊃ ~Cs Ms ⊃ ~Cs ~Cs Fs & ~Cs 4. something is a noisy fruit. UG (5) All monkeys are agile. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Ax) 2. MP 5. EI 1. 8. 4. UI 4. Yes.10. select name: g Mg ⊃ Ag Ag ⊃ Fg Fg ⊃ Sg Mg ⊃ Sg 9. Cows never bathe. 1. Hyp Syll 6. (∀x)(Cx ⊃ ~Bx) 4. UI 7. 7. 5. simp 5.

) No restrictions on the name n. . ∴ (∃x)(. . n must ﬁrst be introduced in a selection step Existential Generalization EG (. . .) ∴ select name n ∴ (. . . The Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws QN QN Cat. and α//β indicates putting α for some occurrences of β. x .) (.) Existential Instantiation EI (∃x)(. . .) 1.) No restrictions on the name n. . . . . . . n/x . . . . . n . .) ∴ (∃x)(. . . n is a name that has never been used before 2.QN ~(∀x) Fx = (∃x)~Fx ~(∃x) Fx = (∀x)~Fx ~(∀x)(Fx ⊃ Gx) = (∃x)(Fx & ~Gx) ~(∃x)(Fx & Gx) = (∀x)(Fx ⊃ ~Gx) Universal Instantiation UI (∀x)(. α/β indicates putting α for all occurrences of β. . . . n/x .) . x/n . x//n .QN Cat. . . .Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. x . . . . . .4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 255 Reference Sheet for the Rules of Quantiﬁcational Logic In what follows. ∴ (. n .

Fa & Gb Ma . ~(∀x)Fx Ma . 7. (∃x)Fx Ma .B. 8. . Fb & Gb U. 15. Fa & Ga Ma . (∃x)Fx Ma . 2. (Premiss “Ma” is listed only to make the name “a” already present in the deduction. . The last line is not un-representative. Fa Simp Fa & Ga . Fb Simp ∴ Fb ∨ Gb ∴ Fa ∨ Ga ∴ Fa ∨ Gb ∴ Fa ∨ (∀x)Gx ∴ (∃x)(Fx & Gx) ∴ (∃x)(Fx & Gx) ∴ (∃x)(Fx & Gx) ∴ ~(∃x)Fx ∴ Fb ∴ select name a ⁄∴ Fa ∴ select name b ⁄∴ Fb ∴ select name b ⁄∴ Fc ∴ (∀x)~Fx ∴ (∀x)~Fx ∴ ~(∀x)Fx ∴ (∀x)~~Fx ∴ (∀x)Fx ∴ (∀x)Fx ∴ (∀x)Fx ∴ (∀x)Fx Is it UI? Is it UI? Is it UI? Is it UI? Is it EG? Is it EG? Is it EG? Is it EG? Is it EI? Is it EI? Is it EI? Is it EI? Is it QN? Is it QN? Is it QN? Is it QN? Is it UG? Is it UG? Is it UG? Is it UG? . select name b. 17. 6. (∀x)(Fx ∨ Gx) Ma . determine whether the conclusion follows by the rule listed. (∀x)(Fx ∨ Gx) Ma . 11. select name a.) ∴ (∀x)(.D Quantiﬁcational Deductions Part A. 2. 1. Exercise 4.) 1. A. Fa Simp (∀x)(Fx & Gx).4. . .) Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. select name b. .. Fb & Gb Ma . ~(∃x)~Fx Ma . The ﬁrst line selects a name n never used before. (∃x)Fx Ma .256 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic Universal Generalization UG : select name n : (. 16. . . 5. Ma . 3. 4. 19. ~(∃x)Fx Ma . 12. 14. For each of the following inferences. Answer YES or NO. 20.C. Fa Fa & Ga . (∃x)~Fx Ma . (∀x)(Fx ∨ Gx) Ma . . (∃x)Fx Ma . ~Fb Ma . 9. n . 18. x/n . 10. (∀x)Fx ∨ (∀x)Gx Ma . 13.I.

P. and give deductions for them. R. Some wild horses are pink. So. Chicago is not green. 1–5. 4. and only dogs bark. Symbolize the following arguments. 5. and some cats are ferocious. Dogs are large animals suitable as pets. C. Data is a non-human machine. something funny had voice lessons. (D. All Lake viewers enjoy nature. 8. B) 13. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. (∀x)(Dx & Sx) . and ferocious things don’t back down. Fido requires no insurance. These problems are more difﬁcult. (D. and give deductions for them. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. W. some dogs don’t put up a ﬁght. (∀x)(Fx & Gx) . 11–15. All orators have had voice lessons. but Fido does bark. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Every person in Chicago views the Lake and worries a lot. So. All things are human or matter.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. If all dogs are potentially dangerous. All things are made of matter. So. P. Some pink horses are rare and expensive. 6. So. Queen Elizabeth is an orator. expensive horses exist. (D. Some people are smart and funny. So. [(∀x)Sx] ⊃ (Ra & Qb) ∴ (∃x)Rx [Use the rule UG] [Use the rule UG] Part D. All pink horses are rare. All matter is expendable. dogs are potentially dangerous yet suitable as pets. So. 7. F. some horses are rare. Symbolize the following arguments. then they all require insurance. f. L. Check the symbolization answers given below. 3. Data is expendable. and she is funny too. 6–10. Some dogs are wimpy. Everything is either green or red. Chicago is red and square. 9. Check the symbolization answers given below. 11. So. Part C. So. and give deductions for them. S. Check the symbolization answers given below. So. Beth is a person in Chicago. Symbolize the following arguments. some material things are smart funny persons. Allegro is a pink horse. and some cats don’t back down. some dogs are not potentially dangerous. All rare horses are expensive.4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 257 Part B. All pink horses are rare. some worriers enjoy nature. P) 12. A. 2. All large animals are potentially dangerous. Allegro is an expensive horse. So. So. B) . 1. but it is square. (∀x)(Ox & Px) ∴ (∀x)(Gx & Px) 10. Wimpy things don’t put up a ﬁght.

Betsy can’t sing. All kittens are felines. (∀x)(Dx & Sx) .4 Deductions in Quantiﬁcational Logic 14. So. M. (∀x)(Gx ∨ Rx) . Oe & Fe . then all felines are carnivores. (∃x)[(Px & Hx) & (Rx & Ex)] ∴ (∃x)(Ex & Hx) 7. ~Rf . If all kittens are whiskered. Betsy can’t sing. (∀x)(Ox ⊃ Vx) ∴ (∃x)(Fx & Vx) 5. (∀x)[(Lx & Ax) ⊃ Px] ∴ (∀x)[Dx ⊃ (Px & Sx)] ∴ (∃x)(Dx & ~Px) ∴ (∃x)Rx 12. (∀x)(Fx & Gx) . Pa & Ha ∴ Ea 4. W. (b. F. P) Symbolizations answers. (∀x)[Dx ⊃ ((Lx & Ax) & Sx)] . but she can certainly dance. (∀x)(Kx ⊃ Wx) ⊃ (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Cx) . ~Hd & Ad ∴ Ed 3. Others can’t climb mountains. (∃x)(~Mx & Dx) . ~Sb . (∀x)[Fx ⊃ (Wx & Ax)] . (∀x)(Wx ⊃ ~Px) . (You have to give the deductions too). (∀x)(Hx ∨ Mx) . Bf . (∀x)[(Px & Hx) ⊃ Rx] . A. (∃x)[(Wx & Hx) & Px] ∴ (∃x)(Hx & Rx) ∴ (∃x)(Wx & Ex) 8. D) 15. (∃x)(Cx & Fx) . all kittens are predators. (∃x)(Dx & Wx) . Pb & Cb 9. (∀x)(Fx ⊃ ~Bx) ∴ (∃x)(Dx & ~Px) & (∃x)(Cx & ~Bx) 14. Now. (∀x)(Kx ⊃ Fx) . (∀x)(Mx ⊃ Ex) . (∀x)(Bx ⊃ Dx)) 13. (∀x)Mx ∴ (∃x)[Mx & (Sx & Fx & Px)] For Part C: 6. (∀x)[(Px & Hx) ⊃ Rx] . All felines are whiskered animals. (∃x)[Px & (Sx & Fx)] . (∀x)(Dx ⊃ Px) ⊃ (∀x)(Dx ⊃ Rx) . (∀x)[(Px & Cx) ⊃ (Lx & Wx)] . S. [(∃x)Sx & (∃x)Dx] ⊃ ~(∃x)(~Dx & ~Sx) ∴ ~Sb & Db 15. [(∀x)Sx] ⊃ (Ra & Qb) For Part D: 11. So. (∀x)[(Rx & Hx) ⊃ Ex] . if both singers and dancers exist. (K. C. then no non-dancing non-singers exist. (∃x)(Sx & Mx) . For Part B: 1.258 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. (∀x)(Ox & Px) ∴ (∀x)(Gx & Px) 10. but they can dance. (∀x)[(Cx & Ax) ⊃ Px] ∴ (∀x)(Kx ⊃ Px) . ~Gc & Sc ∴ Rc & Sc 2. But some can sing and climb mountains too. All carnivorous animals are predators. (∀x)(Lx ⊃ Ex) .

EI 1. Both Propositional Logic and Quantiﬁcational Logic contribute to the solutions in these cases. 4. such as. . . ∴ (∀x)(Ux ⊃ Mx) ∴ (∃x)Ux ⊃ (∃x)Mx Since the conclusion is a conditional sentence. Then. x . x . x . So. The overall method of CP belongs to Propositional Logic. . For example: All unicorns are magical. Write the condition part as the assumption. . MP 6. 3. then magical things exist. such as.5. 6.P.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 7. in particular. . (∀x)(. we will use the rule CP to derive it. 4. . when we introduced the rule C. (∃x)Ux select name: e Ue Ue ⊃ Me Me (∃x)Mx Prem ∴ (∃x)Ux ⊃ (∃x)Mx Assumption for CP selection 2. by the rule CP. (∀x)(Ux ⊃ Mx) 2. in this example. . Trade in the CP-box for the entire conditional sentence. .). (∀x)(Ax ∨ Bx) ⊃ (∃x)(Cx & Mx) We discussed this method back in Chapter 2. 1. . (∃x)(. . x . in this example. for example: (∀x)(. .) ⊃ (∃x)(. 2. 5. . . (∃x)Ux ⊃ (∃x)Mx . but the detailed intermediate steps are performed by the special quantiﬁcational rules. if unicorns exist. The method is always as follows: 1.) . Start a CP-box.5 Deductions with Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof There are two main ways in which the rule of Conditional Proof is used in Quantiﬁcational Logic. . CP 8. EG 2-7. . derive the result part. 3.5 Deductions with Conditional Proof 259 MORE ADVANCED TOPICS IN QUANTIFICATIONAL LOGIC Section 4. UI 4. The ﬁrst way is the general method for deriving conclusions that are conditional sentences whose two sides involve quantiﬁers. .).

6. (∀x)[ (. all clever computers are machines that have a soul. . that always take the form.). All computers are machines. IP. 8.260 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. UI 2. Start a UG-box. . can also be used in Quantiﬁcational Logic. this rule is an overall method of Propositional Logic. . 7. . Let’s try this very method in the following example. . . C. MP 7. in particular. but when quantiﬁcational sentences . UI 4. Ka & Ca Ca ⊃ Ma Ka ⊃ Sa Ma Sa Ma & Sa (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Mx) (∀x)(Kx ⊃ Sx) ∴ (∀x)[(Kx & Cx) ⊃ (Mx & Sx)] Prem Prem ∴ (∀x)[(Kx & Cx) ⊃ (Mx & Sx)] ∴ (Ka & Ca) ⊃ (Ma & Sa) ∴ Ma & Sa selection (UG) Assumption (CP) 1. select name: a 4. x .) ⊃ (. UG 10.) ] . . (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Mx) 2. (∀x)[ (Px & Qx) ⊃ (Rx & ~Sx) ] and the method for deriving such sentences always uses both the rule UG and. Now. . Write the selection step for a name n. write a CP box inside the UG box. 1.5 Deductions with Conditional Proof The second way in which the rule CP is used in Quantiﬁcational Logic is to derive conclusions that are universal categorical sentences. . . 3. .8. All clever things have a soul. 2. . such as. 3—10. n . the rule CP in the following nested manner: 1. n . 5. 5. MP 4. . 6. . (∀x)(Kx ⊃ Sx) 3. So. Like the rule CP. (Ka & Ca) ⊃ (Ma & Sa) 11. and use CP to derive (. This conditional sentence is now the last line in the UG box. (∀x)[(Kx & Cx) ⊃ (Mx & Sx)] The rule of Indirect Proof. Simp. 4. . by the rule UG.P. . Conj 4—9. x . inside that one. Simp. 5. 9. Trade in this UG-box for the whole universal sentence.) ⊃ (.

UI 2. (∀x)[Px ∨ (Mx & ~Sx)] 3. 5. x . 7. say. Consider the following philosophical thesis. because when they are stated in this way. What conclusions can we derive from them? Everything is such that either it is physical or it is mental and spiritual. . and the rule IP is very handy here. (∀x)[Px ∨ (Mx & Sx)] 2. depends on the content of the quantiﬁed sentence and the premisses that are available. these proposals logically entail that everything is physical—contrary to what was intended. whether or not one actually succeeds in step 4. the question is. It is not always so easy to tell what the consequences are of some given proposals. whether or not one can derive that contradiction. . In logical terms. but the method is routine: 1. Suppose we are trying to derive a quantiﬁed line. (∃x)(. 5. . 2. about things being either physical or mental. and everything is such that either it is physical or it is mental and not spiritual. open-ended alternatives about how reality is divided. 6. with a quantiﬁer change. Trade in the IP-box for the orginal desired sentence. with some additional points about how mental things are related to spiritual things. proceed to derive a contradiction p & ~p as the last line. one would write: ~(∃x)(. Start an IP-box. . . then this is deﬁnitely the wrong way to say it. Here is an example. If that is indeed the intention of these proposals. by the rule IP. QN selection for EI 4.) .5 Deductions with Conditional Proof 261 are present. . 4. and in this example. Of course. ~(∀x)Px (∃x)~Px select name: b ~Pb Pb ∨ (Mb & Sb) Pb ∨ (Mb & ~Sb) Prem Prem ∴ (∀x)Px Assumption for IP 3. 4. This method will work only for sentences that are appropriately related to the original premisses. UI .). . It pays to know some logic. the intermediate steps make use of the special quantiﬁcational rules. that is. 3. The example could be a universal sentence instead. 8. Then. 1. Write the negation of the desired line as the assumption. x . . EI 1.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. It may originally seem like these are plausible. Use the rule QN to drive the negation inside.

B. try it yourself. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work.5. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 1–4. Exercise 4. procedure will not succeed with this premiss.10. 5. These are more difﬁcult. (∀x)Mx ∴ Ab ⊃ (∃x)(Bx & Mx) 7. Go ahead. (∀x)(Mx ≡ Sx) ∴ (∀x)~Mx ⊃ (∀x)~Sx Part C. IP The correct way to state the intended philosophical position is: everything is such that either (1) it is physical. (∀x)(Cx ∨ ~Bx) ∴ (∀x)(Ax ∨ Cx) 4. (∃x)Dx ⊃ (∃x)Ax ∴ (∃x)(Cx & Dx) ⊃ (∃x)Bx .) So.C Deductions with CP and IP Part A. the moral of this story is that complicated matters require a knowledge of logic. to show that the following arguments are valid.5 Deductions with Conditional Proof 9. or (3) it is mental and not spiritual (∀x)[ Px ∨ (Mx & Sx) ∨ (Mx & ~Sx) ] and the previous I. (∀x)Px 6. A. Use the rule I. 9–16.Simp. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. Mb & Sb 10. Disj Syll 9. 5–8. Mb & ~Sb 11. (∃x)(Ax & Bx) ∴ (∀x)Mx ⊃ (∃x)(Bx & Mx) 8. Disj Syll 6. 9.P. Sb & ~ Sb 12.7.262 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Use the rule CP to show that the following arguments are valid. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Bx) ∴ Ae ⊃ (∃x)Bx 6. (∃x)Ux ∨ (Ub ∨ Uc) ∴ (∃x)Ux 3.8. ~(∃x)Ux ∴ ~(∃x)(Mx & Ux) 2. Conj 3-11. Give deductions for the following arguments. (The needed contradiction cannot be generated. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Bx) . or (2) it is mental and spiritual. 1. (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (Bx & Cx)] . (∀x)Ax ∨ (∀x)Bx ∴ (∀x)(Ax ∨ Bx) Part B. (∀x)(Ax ∨ Bx) .P.

then the argument is invalid. how do we show that arguments are invalid? There is a different method for that. c. we used the full Truth-table Method to show that certain arguments are invalid. . this is only an imaginary world). . (∀x)[Fx ⊃ (Gx & (∀y)Hy)] 14. in Quantiﬁcational Logic. We ﬁrst introduced a method in Chapter 1. Secondly. one gives a list of things that exist in this possible world. b. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Cx) ∴ (∃x)(Ax & ~Bx) ⊃ (∀x)Cx ∴ (∀x)~Ex ⊃ [(∀x)Dx ⊃ (∀x)~Ax] ∴ (∀x)(∀y)[Fx ⊃ (Gx & Hy)] ∴ (∃y)(Ay & ~Dy) ∨ (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Ex) ∴ ~(∃x)(∀y)[(Ax & Cx) ∨ Cy] 15. One shows that it is logically possible to have true premisses and a false conclusion. in Chapter 2.” (The method we introduce here will also apply to the syllogisms of Traditional Logic. one gives a simple description of all these things. (∀x)(Bx ⊃ ~Cx) . (∀x)Cx ⊃ (∀x)Ex 12. And the way to do this is to give a description of one possible world in which the premisses are all true and the conclusion is false. Now. This deﬁnition gives the outline of a method for demonstrating invalidity. and we gave the following deﬁnition: An argument is valid =def.6 Demonstrating Invalidity We can always use the Method of Deduction to show that arguments are valid (when they are). (∀x)[(Ax ∨ Bx) ⊃ (Cx & Dx)] . Therefore. Call this list the domain of the possible world.) Basics In Chapter 1 we learned what it means for arguments to be valid or invalid. (∀x)Ax ∨ (∀x)Bx . in terms of all the symbolic predicates. . }. . (∀x)[(Cx & Dx) ⊃ Ex] ∴ (∀x)Ax ⊃ (∀x)(Ax & Ex) 263 11. (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (Bx & Cx)] . it’s only an imaginary world).6 Demonstrating Invalidity 10. It is not logically possible that all the premisses are true while the conclusion is false. C. First. Then. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Cx) . and we have had a lot of practice doing that. But. some arguments have invalid patterns that involve the interior parts of sentences. when we discussed deductive validity and invalidity. (∀x)[(Bx & Dx) ⊃ Ex] 13. . . if that is a logical possibility. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Bx) . resulting from an invalid external connective structure. the “subject sides” and “predicate sides of sentences. (∃y)By 16. A. (∀x)[(∃y)(Fx & Gy) ⊃ (Hx & (∀y)Jy)] ∴ (∀x)(∀y)(∀z)[(Fx & Gy) ⊃ (Hx & Jz)] Section 4. What does such a description look like? There are two parts. A rule of thumb here is to keep this list as simple and short as possible (remember. used in the argument at issue. . Call this description the state description for the domain (again. B. remember. . namely. D = { a.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.

This situation can be summarized in the following matrix: (1) D = { a. There are only two things here: a. Example #2. or it is not red. we must calculate the values of the quantiﬁed sentences as follows: (2) Sa = T Db = T Da = F Sb = F → → → → (∃x)Sx = T (∃x)Dx = T Sa & Da = F Sb & Db = F · → (∃x)(Sx & Dx) = F (3) So. everything is red. something can sing and dance (∃x)Sx (∃x)Dx ∴ (∃x)(Sx & Dx) Possible? =T =T =F Consider the possible world W31. but it can’t sing. That will prove that the argument is invalid. b. There are only two things here: a. in a world that contains only the listed individuals. we have found a possible world in which the premisses of the argument are true while the conclusion is false. but thing b is not red. b } Sa T Da Sb F F Db T [What precision! Impressive!] Using these initial values. but it can’t dance. This proves that the argument is invalid. b } Ra T Rb F [Amazingly simple!] . Thing a is red. This situation can be summarized in the following matrix: (1) D = { a. Thing a can sing. Everything is red. Something can sing Something can dance So.264 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. we then need to demonstrate that in this possible world all the premisses have the value T and the conclusion has the value F. b. Example #1.6 Demonstrating Invalidity Using this description of this possible world. or everything is not red (∀x)(Rx ∨ ~Rx) ∴ (∀x)Rx ∨ (∀x)~Rx Possible? =T =F Consider the possible world W57. So. Thing b can dance.

Can you ﬁgure this one out? Exercise 4. This proves that the argument is invalid. (∀x)[Gx ⊃ (Gx ∨ Ex)] (∀x)[Ex ⊃ (Gx ∨ Ex)] ∴ (∀x)(Gx ∨ Ex) Possible? =T =T =F Consider the possible world W17. So. Show that the following arguments are invalid. b. will give the same result. So.6. This proves that the argument is invalid. premiss 2 is T. with only one member. So. (it is a rock). and so. But c is not G or E. In each case give an appropriate domain and state description. b. Actually.6 Demonstrating Invalidity 265 Using these initial values.B Demonstrating Invalidity Part A. it is also G or E. . This situation can be summarized in the following matrix: (1) D = { a. in a world that contains only the listed individuals. we must calculate the values of the quantiﬁed sentences as follows: (2) Ra = T Rb = F Rb = F Ra = T (3) → → → → Ra ∨ ~Ra = T Rb ∨ ~Rb = T (∀x)Rx (∀x)~Rx =F =F · · → (∀x)(Rx ∨ ~Rx) = T (∀x)Rx ∨ (∀x)~Rx = F → So. Example #3. not everything is G or E. premiss 1 is T. thing b is evil and not good. Thing a is good and not evil. a domain { c }. it is also G or E. we have found a possible world in which the premisses of the argument are true while the conclusion is false. A. Just right!] (2) Only a is G. So. the conclusion is F. and thing c is not good and not evil. Use the indicated symbolic letters.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. (3) So. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. c. All things that are evil are good or evil. we have found a possible world in which the premisses of the argument are true while the conclusion is false. and so. Your answers should look like the ﬁrst answer. So. There are only three things here: a. All things that are good are good or evil. c } Ga Ea T F Gb Eb F T Gc Ec F F [Not too hot. Only b is E. everything is good or evil.

F) 10. Show that the following arguments are invalid. D) 6. All cats have tails. 8. So. (P. 5. So. T. (S. All things are smart. 4. George is a cat. T F T F 2. some people are funny. George has these properties without reference to other things. George is smart. George is a smart person.S. George is funny. (R. Relationships are also just called relations. 6. P. All of the properties in this list are non-relational properties.266 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. he weighs 180 lbs. Some cats dance. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. S. S. So. (C. (C. Some cats sing. he is a guy. he has short brown hair. (g. So. All cats have tails. So.7 Relational Sentences Our thoughts and reasonings are normally more complicated than the patterns that we have studied so far. all cats are funny. (g. Take George. So. Relations are properties that things have. Some people are not singers. S) 7. 1. This further complexity arises from our use of relational ideas. So. g) 9. (∀x)(Bx ∨ Cx) ∴ (∀x)(Ax ∨ Cx) ∴ (∃x)(Ax & Cx) ∴ (∀x)[(Ax ∨ Cx) ⊃ Bx) (∀x)(Ax ∨ Cx) . some things are not red. P) 3. P) D = { a. So. all non-cats do not have tails. T) 8. not all by themselves but in relation to something to else. b } Ra Pa Rb Pb This description makes the prems T and concl F. 3. (F. ideas that express relationships between things. 2. he is somewhat quiet. F. All cats are smart. Some smarties are funny. P) 4. but they are properties that involve a reference to other . In each case give an appropriate domain and state description. some cats sing and dance. F.7 Relational Sentences 1. George has other properties too. All funny cats are smart. So. for example.. he is six feet tall. g) 5. So. There are no funny people. he is smart. What things are true of George? What properties does the individual George have? Let’s say that he is a person. C) Part B. George is not funny. (∃x)(Ax & Bx) Section 4. some cats are funny. George has a tail. (C. Nothing is a red pig. some singers are not people. (C. (∃x)Ax & (∃x)Bx ∴ (∃x)(Ax & Bx) (∀x)(Ax ∨ Bx) (∃x)~(Ax & Bx) ∴ (∀x)Ax ∨ (∀x)Bx ∴ (∃x)~Ax & (∃x)~Bx (∀x)Ax ⊃ (∃x)Bx ∴ (∃x)Ax ⊃ (∀x)Bx (∀x)Ax ⊃ (∀x)Bx ∴ (∃x)Ax ⊃ (∃x)Bx (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Bx) (∀x)(Ax ∨ Bx) . 7.

you are in a relationship with that tree: you are looking at the tree. and George lives in Chicago. B. and George likes Liz. . whereas we use the convention of writing one blank on the left side and the other blank(s) on the right side. Symbolization: We use capital letters A. These three properties relate George to other things. . So. xAy. namely. And there are many more. and aBbc. Actually. they write Axy. Liz. What about the tree across the street that you are looking at? Precisely.) You are sitting next to that person. e. So. eRz. and Chicago. we will allow people to use both styles. and Babc. xBy. Here are some examples of how English relational expressions are symbolized.7 Relational Sentences 267 things: George owns a sailboat. so that the ﬁrst item listed is the thing that performs the action. Only name letters and variables are written in those blanks. Things enter into all sorts of relationships with other things. Relationships are everywhere. a sailboat. and the next things listed are the things on which the action is performed. but we do have a preference for our own convention.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.g. one blank for each item involved in the relation. these three properties are relations. These relation symbols always represent relations stated in the “active voice” (not “passive”). and we write xAy. aAx. English expression x sits next to y x likes y x is liked by y x was reading y x owns y x is taller than y x was looking at y x is between y and z x gave y to z x sold y to z x introduced y to z Relation symbol = _ sits next to _ _S_ = _ likes _ _L_ = _ likes _ _L_ = _ reads _ _R_ = _ owns _ _O_ = _ is taller than _ _T_ = _ looks at _ _L_ = _ is between_ and _ _B_ _ = _ gives _ to _ _G_ _ = _ sells _ to _ _S_ _ _I_ _ = _ introduces _ to _ Symbolization xSy xLy yLx xRy xOy xTy xLy xByz xGyz xSyz xIyz Many logic books adopt the convention of writing all the blanks of a relation on the righthand side of the the relation symbol... And what about the person sitting next to you? (This is too easy. .. with two or more blanks to represent relations. C.

Everything likes Elizabeth All things. English Sentences that State a Relation for a Named Thing 1. x likes Elizabeth (∃x)(x likes e) (∃x)(xLe) incorrect: (∃x)Le for all x. but the techniques for symbolizing them will remain the same. George likes something Some thing. they do not like Elizabeth 5. left or right. Relational sentences will automatically be more complex.N. We will look at three groups of relational sentences (and there is even some overlap). Quantiﬁers must always be written well in front of the relation symbol and never actually in any of the relation-blanks.268 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. George likes x (∀x)(g likes x) (∀x)(gLx) incorrect: gL(∀x) for all x. not George likes x (∀x)~(g likes x) (∀x)~(gLx) Equivalent by Q. x likes Elizabeth (∀x)(x likes e) (∀x)(xLe) for all x. because only names and variables may be written in the blanks that accompany the relation symbol. George likes Elizabeth 2. Nothing likes Elizabeth All things. not x likes Elizabeth (∀x)~(x likes e) (∀x)~(xLe) Equivalent by QN: ~(∃x)(xLe) for some x. . it likes Elizabeth gLe [ Use: L = _ likes _ ] for some x.7 Relational Sentences Symbolizing English Sentences All of the rules for symbolization that we introduced earlier in this chapter must be used with relational sentences as well. George does not likes them Notice how in the English sentences #5. and #7 a quantiﬁer occurs behind the verb. George likes nothing All things. George likes everything All things. George likes x (∃x)(g likes x) (∃x)(gLx) incorrect: gL(∃x) for all x. George likes it 6.: ~(∃x)(gLx) 3. #6. George likes them 7. But in the symbolic language one is not allowed to write that quantiﬁer behind the relation symbol. Something likes Elizabeth Some thing. they like Elizabeth 4.

x likes y) . x likes everything (∀x)(x likes everything) (∀x)(for all y. Everything likes something All things. x likes nothing (∃x)(x likes nothing) (∃x)(for all y. there would be no way of telling which quantiﬁer applied to which side of the relational expression. x likes something (∀x)(x likes something) (∀x)(for some y. x likes y) (∃x)(∀y)(x likes y) (∃x)(∀y)(xLy) for some x. Everything likes everything All things. not it likes them 11. so that two (or more) quantiﬁers are both being applied to the same relational expression: Clearly. they like it 12. Something likes nothing Some thing. they like something All things. it likes it 9. one in which each side of the relation is governed by its own quantiﬁer. it likes them 10. Something likes everything Some thing. Something likes something Some thing. this situation requires that the two quantiﬁers use different variables. it likes something Some thing. x likes something (∃x)(x likes something) (∃x)(for some y. some thing.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. not x likes y) (∃x)(∀y)~(x likes y) (∃x)(∀y)~(xLy) for all x. because if they both used the same variable. x likes y) (∃x)(∃y)(x likes y) (∃x)(∃y)(xLy) for some x. some thing. x likes everything (∃x)(x likes everything) (∃x)(for all y. 8. x likes y) (∀x)(∃y)(x likes y) (∀x)(∃y)(xLy) for all x. it likes nothing Something. it likes everything Something. they like everything for some x. all things.7 Relational Sentences 269 English Sentences With Both a Quantiﬁed Subject and a Quantiﬁed Predicate Relational sentences bring with them a new situation that we have not seen before. all things.

Nothing likes everything All things. Nothing likes nothing All things. they are related to special kinds of things. x likes y) (∀x)~(∀y)(x likes y) (∀x)~(∀y)(xLy) equivalent by QN: (∀x)(∃y)~(xLy) for all x. they eat some bananas. not (all things. they drive some car. not x likes something (∀x)~(x likes something) (∀x)~(for some y. and so on. x likes nothing (∀x)(x likes nothing) (∀x)(for all y. they like them) 16. not they like them 14. all things. not (all things. not x likes y) (∀x)~(∀y)~(x likes y) (∀x)~(∀y)~(xLy) equivalent by QN: (∀x)(∃y)(xLy) 13. Recall the symbolization rules for working with categorical quantiﬁcations: After you select the quantiﬁer. they do not like something All things. not x likes nothing (∀x)~(x likes nothing) (∀x)~(for all y.270 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. they like nothing All things. they do not like nothing All things. Quantiﬁcations are normally restricted to certain categories. some pasta. some candy. not they like them) English Sentences Whose Predicates are Categorically Quantiﬁed Things are not related to just other things. This can be remembered as the “SOME-AND” rule and the “ALL-THEN” rule. and they don’t just drive something. Everything likes nothing All things. they like it) 15. Nothing likes something All things. all things. they do not like everything All things. x likes y) (∀x)~(∃y)(x likes y) (∀x)~(∃y)(xLy) equivalent by QN: ~(∃x)(∃y)(xLy) for all x. in this case a relation. you must use a connective (either “&” or “⊃”) to connect the stated category to the stated predication. not (some thing. they like them (∀x)(∀y)(x likes y) (∀x)(∀y)(xLy) for all x. not x likes everything (∀x)~(x likes everything) (∀x)~(for all y. . not x likes y) (∀x)(∀y)~(x likes y) (∀x)(∀y)~(xLy) equivalent by QN: ~(∃x)(∃y)(xLy) for all x. People don’t just eat something.7 Relational Sentences All things.

(∀x)[Ex ⊃ (∀y)(My ⊃ xBy)] 2. (∃x)[(Mx & Nx & Kx) & gBx] 2. All insects hate George All insects. they chew on them 20. So. it ate them for all x. Dumbo is deﬁnitely bigger than Mickey. George owns a kangaroo. You own what you have bought. we also use these translation rules when the predicate side of the sentence contains a relation with a categorical quantiﬁer. Every elephant is bigger than every mouse. of our everyday arguments. some bones. x is a bird & x ate all the frogs (∃x)(Bx & x ate all the frogs) (∃x)[Bx & (∀y)(y is a frog ⊃ x ate y)] (∃x)[Bx & (∀y)(Fy ⊃ xAy)] Arguments with Relational Sentences It goes without saying that the kinds of relational sentences we have been analyzing here form the premisses and conclusions of many. as in “George hates all insects. Every dog chews on some bone All dogs. George bought a mean and nasty kangaroo. they hate George 19. George hates them 18. and Mickey is a mouse. if not most. Some bird ate all the frogs Some bird. it ate all frogs Some bird.7 Relational Sentences 271 some CATEGORY PREDICATE ↔. Here is another. So. (∀x)( x is CATEGORY ⊃ x is PREDICATE) So. 1.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4.” 17. Consider. Ed & Mm ∴ dBm . (∀x)(∀y)(xBy ⊃ xOy) ∴ (∃x)(Kx & gOx) 1. x is a dog ⊃ x chews on some bone (∀x)(Dx ⊃ x chews on some bone) (∀x)[Dx ⊃ (∃y)(y is a bone & x chews on y)] (∀x)[Dx ⊃ (∃y)(By & xCy)] for some x. all frogs. George hates all insects All insects. (∃x)( x is CATEGORY & x is PREDICATE) all CATEGORY PREDICATE ↔. they chew on some bones All dogs. x is an insect ⊃ George hates x (∀x)(Ix ⊃ g hates x) (∀x)(Ix ⊃ gHx) for all x. Dumbo is an elephant. x is an insect ⊃ x hates George (∀x)(Ix ⊃ x hates g) (∀x)(Ix ⊃ xHg) for all x.

Romeo and Juliet is a book that has been read by every person. Symbolize the following sentences. 7. 13. 16. B = book . Whatever a person has writen. 3. Mickey is a mouse.B Symbolizing Relations Part A. 5. r = Romeo and Juliet 1. (C) 2. So. 11. 1. 2. Romeo and Juliet is a book. Something has written something. and name letters. Dumbo is bigger than any mouse. R = _ has read _ . Symbolize the following arguments. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet. using the indicated predicate letters. written by some person. 8. Shakespeare wrote some books. Some person has read all books. B) . 18. relation letters. relation letters. something has caused itself. There is something that caused everything. 12. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. written by Shakespeare.7 Relational Sentences In the next section we will show how to give deductions for these relational arguments as well as others more complicated. 4. m. Some person has written nothing. Romeo and Juliet is a book. Some people have read whatever Shakespeare wrote. using the indicated predicate letters. 17. and name letters.272 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. P = person . 6. (d. Some books have been read by every person. Exercise 4. So. Some person wrote Romeo and Juliet. No person has read all books.7. Dumbo is bigger than some mouse. he has also read. Romeo and Juliet has been read by every person. a book written by Shakespeare. Not any person wrote any book. s = Shakespeare . 14. 9. 10. A. W = _ wrote _ . Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 15. Some people have not read Romeo and Juliet. Some books have been read by no person. Some person wrote some book. Part B.

was replaced by . B. H) 9.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Ed 3. Dumbo is deﬁnitely bigger than Mickey. P. So. Bill does not shave George. H) 7. 1. P.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences 3. (C) 273 4. Nothing can cause itself. Ed ⊃ (∀y)(My ⊃ dBy) Prem Prem Prem 1. O. So. God can stop any event that is about to happen. Whatever is alive has some non-physical component. I) 6. Mickey is a mouse. (b. Whatever is non-physical is outside of time. God can stop all bad events that are about to happen. We can start with Dumbo and Mickey Mouse. all spiritual things are outside of time. So. S. Whoever pays someone has money. (A. S. Whatever is outside of time is eternal. including the x that occurred behind the second quantiﬁer. f. L. So. Nancy is a girl who loves all boys. but some things are not important. And the bad news— there is none. some important things are affected by some unimportant things. (∀x)[Ex ⊃ (∀y)(My ⊃ xBy)] 2. So. Dumbo is an elephant. whatever is alive has some eternal component. God knows all events that are about to happen. In all possible situations. So. UI was applied in the usual way: every occurrence of the variable x. Frank is a boy who hates all girls. (n. xOy = x is outside of time in situation y) Section 4. M. E. So. nothing can cause everything. All spiritual things in the actual situation are spiritual in all possible situations. some girl likes some boy who hates her. let’s just go through a few deductions to see how things are done. a = actuality. G. g) 5. C. K. E) 10. provided he knows of it. B. UI ∴ dBm d/x Since Premiss 1 is a universal sentence. A. So. George has no money. Bill the Barber shaves only those who pay him. Whatever. (Px = x is a possible situation. all spiritual things in the actual situation are outside of time in all possible situations. Mm 4. red things that have blue things are things that have things. So. xSy = x is spiritual in situation y.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences The good news is that deductions for arguments with quantiﬁed relational sentences are exactly the same as deductions for regular quantiﬁcational sentences. Who is bigger? Every elephant is bigger than every mouse. So. (A. (R. (g. Everything affects something important. B) 8.

UI 7. Mm ⊃ dBm 7. UI g/x b/y . Again we use UI. George bought a mean and nasty kangaroo. MP Again. an easy MP makes the second quantiﬁer accessible. Simp Done with Premiss 1. (∀y)(gBy ⊃ gOy) 8. Simp 4. again matching the name given in line 6. We have milked it for all it is worth. There are two universal quantiﬁers at the front of the sentence. Prem Prem ∴ (∃x)(Kx & gOx) Selection [name is correct] 1. UI m/y 3. 6. (∀x). Then we put the pieces back together again and add an existential quantiﬁer (∃x) with the rule EG. that the name d occurring in line 5. select name: b (Mb & Nb & Kb) & gBb Kb gBb . is at this point buried deep inside that whole line. but only the ﬁrst one. (∀y). and that always begins with a selection step. making sure that the name we pick matches the name in line 6 above. . line 5 is a universal sentence. and we picked the name d. 7. 1. since the second one. and the strategy is the same as it was earlier in the chapter. We will use UI on the ﬁrst quantiﬁer. (∀x)(∀y)(xBy ⊃ xOy) 3. . (∀y)(My ⊃ dBy) 6. of course. MP 5. (∃x)[(Mx & Nx & Kx) & gBx] 2.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences any name of our choosing. We must use the rule EI. 6. and UI was applied: every occurrence of the variable y was replaced by any name of our choosing. with the quantiﬁer (∀y). . 7. All that creates a new universal sentence. Notice.274 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. already became ﬁxed in line 4. This is a typical situation.) together with a universal premiss (∀x)(.. 5. . That means we pick the name g. We turn to Premiss 2. since it buried inside a larger sentence. This time we will try to derive an existential conclusion (∃x)(. gBb ⊃ gOb 2. The second quantiﬁer is not not yet in play. and this time we pick b.). so that it cannot be affected by the present use of UI. . . . George owns a kangaroo. and this time we picked the name m. 4. is accessible to us. 5.) from an existential premiss (∃x)(. So. But. dBm 2. EI b/x 4.4. Let’s try another one. You own what you have bought.

So. . George hates vegetables. we begin to derive the universal sentence (∀x)(bCx). the problem requires that. MP 5. gOb 10. UI a/x 2. Prem [Yeah. Hyp Syll 6. It’s an easy problem. 1.] . So. select name: a Va ⊃ gHa Ca ⊃ Va Ca ⊃ gHa Prem Prem ∴ (∀x)(Cx ⊃ gHx) [name is correct] Selection for UG 1.8. .8 Deductions with Relational Sentences 9. . George hates carrots. . For example. there is something that causes everything.5. the rule EI. One danger of having a lot of quantiﬁers hanging around is that it increases the likelihood that one will violate the instantiation and generalization restrictions on the quantiﬁcational rules. 6. starting in step 2.] [Whoa! Wait a minute!] ∴ (∃y)(∀x)(yCx) .]. Carrots are vegetables. 1. . 4. So. Conj 10. has a restriction on the included selection step. and the rule UG not only has a restriction on the included selection step but it also has a restriction on when one may terminate the UG-box. (Do check the deﬁnition for that). UI a/x 4. The rule UG requires that we use a UG-box that begins with a selection step and that ends with a representative line.9. this time one that requires the rule UG.y. (∀x)(Cx ⊃ Vx) 3. for some or other name b. Consider the following incorrect argument: Everything is such that something causes it. (∀x)(Vx ⊃ gHx) 2. EG x/b 275 Let’s try another argument. we may generalize the instance of line 6 into the universal assertion of line 7. .b. that instance must be (∀x)(bCx). we derived line 6. .4. Let’s see how these things might go. Speciﬁcally. UG x/a 7. (∀x)(∃y)(yCx) 2. 6 is representative] After we selected the name a. 5. ? The conclusion is (∃y)[. We begin with a UG-box and a selection step. (∃x) (Kx & gOx) 6. and that line does not violate the representativity restriction described earlier in Section 4. That’s good. (∀x)(Cx ⊃ gHx) [ln. . and that has to come by the rule EG from a corresponding instance [. So.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Kb & gOb 11.

10. 5. EI b/y 6. (∃y)(∀x)(yCx) 5. But the next argument does work. select name: a (∃y)(yCa) select name: b bCa Selection for UG 1. and the inference to line 7 is blocked. Pb ⊃ (∃x)(HX & bKx) 13.8. George. this argument does not work. (∃x)[Hx & (∀y)(Py ⊃ yKx)] 2. (∀y)[Py ⊃ (∃x)(Hx & yKx)] Truths about Relations Many relations are special in the sense that there are general truths speciﬁcally about them. EI s/x 3. So. So.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences Prem ∴ (∃y)(∀x)(yCx) [required. UI b/y 7. and correct] [required. because most of our ideas do have connections to other ideas.) There is a hero that everyone knows. On the one hand. so that line 5 is always unrepresentative. 3. This situation is not so unusual. Simp 3. 1. Pb Pb ⊃bKs bKs Hs & bKs (∃x)(Hx & bKx) Prem ∴ (∀y)[Py ⊃ (∃x)(Hx & yKx)] [name is correct] Selection for EI 1. 5 is un-representative BLOCKED So. 5. (It’s about Superman.9. Simp Selection for UG [name is correct] Assumption for CP 5. select name: b 7. and correct] [required. 11. but on the other hand. 9. Conj 10. line 5 is exactly what is needed to get line 6. and correct] [required. CP 12. MP 4. UI a/x Selection for EI 3.276 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. UG?? ERROR. 4. 3. 12 is representative] 12. 4. UG y/b [ln. select name: s Hs & (∀y)(Py ⊃ yKs) Hs (∀y)(Py ⊃ yKs)] 6. Consider the relation of being greater than something. and correct] 1. There is a hidden truth here: if one thing. EG x/s 7—11. because the move from line 5 to 6 is blocked. the inference to line 6 is illegal. 8. is greater . and these connections create general truths about such ideas. line 5 will always contain an EI’d name. and the required UG cannot be performed. (∀x)(bCx) 7. (∀x)(∃y)(yCx) 2. Ln. everyone knows some hero or other.

we must formally acknowledge that such general truths are being used. and Sally. (∀x)(∀y)(∀z)[ (xTy & yTz) ⊃ xTz ] 4. you are taller than Sally. later than. or. (∀x)(∀y)(∀z)[ (xGy & yGz) ⊃ xGz] The same rule would be true for other comparative relations as well. 8. the taller ones must stand behind the others. They are part of a hidden background. must be ﬁrst be stated as premisses for the argment. 6. To present this formally. UI g/x 4. UI s/y 5. and we then derive that George is taller than Harry and stands behind him. we ﬁrst add this general truth as Premiss 3. 7. MP ∴ gBh . Sally.9. Harry.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences 277 than another thing. So. This is clear and effective reasoning. George. you must stand behind Harry. then George must be greater than Harry. Sally. as we illustrate in the next example: All such general truths. these general truths are in fact always being used by us when we reason things out. when they are being used.6. but we almost never make an explicit acknowledgement of these facts. but it secretly uses a general truth about the tallness relation. and many more. and Sally in turn is greater than some thing. George. UI g/x 8. So.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. more educated than. (∀x)(∀y)(xTy ⊃ xBy) 2. 10. 9. UI h/y 7. 5. Many of these relations are mathematical comparisons of quantities. MP 1. for this photo. George. you are taller than Harry. 1. gTs & sTh 3. such as smaller than. alongside the other premisses. and Harry. more generally. UI h/z 2. richer than. Another example of such a mathematical truth is that the relation greater than is anti-symmetric: (∀x)(∀y) (xGy ⊃ ~(yGx)) How is this situation related to the process of reasoning? Clearly. when we do our logic. and the truths about these relations are actually basic mathematical (and necessary) truths. (∀y)(∀z)[ (gTy & yTz) ⊃ gTz] (∀z)[ (gTs & sTz) ⊃ gTz] (gTs & sTh) ⊃ gTh gTh (∀y)(gTy ⊃ gBy) gTh ⊃ gBh gBh Premiss Premiss Missing Premiss 3.

b = Barb. These arguments have the English meanings given in Exercise 4. (∀x)(Ox ⊃ Ex) ∴ (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (∃y)(Ey & yCx)] 10. N = really nice. m = Mike) 3. People can think with whatever heads they have. (∀x)[(xSa & Pa) ⊃ (∀y)(Py ⊃ xSy)] . Some are more difﬁcult. All those kinds of things are very hard to get. many people have heads that they do think with.8. There are things that everybody wants to have. if those heads are not full. (∀x)(Mx ⊃ dBx) . (∀x)~(xCx) ∴ (∀x)~(∀y)(xCy) 4. A. So. (∀y)[Py ⊃ (∀x)(xSy ⊃ xOy)] ∴ (∀x)[(xSa & Pa) ⊃ (∀y)(Py ⊃ xOy)] Part B. (P = person. George and Barb. R = x practices y) 2. L = x likes to do y. F = is full) 4. Bf & (∀x)(Gx ⊃ fHx) 8. (∀x)[(Ex & Ax & gKx) ⊃ gSx] . People who want things that they can’t afford are always miserable. Mm 3. So. (P = person. T = x thinks with y. (∀x)(∃y)(Iy & xAy) . Everybody loves a lover. (∀x)(~xPb ⊃ ~bSx) .7. Check the symbolization answers given below. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. and some require use of the rule CP. L’amour. You . G = x is good at y. (∀x)(~Px ⊃ Ox) . ~Mg 5. (∃x)(∀y)(xCy) ∴ (∃x)(xCx) ∴ (∃x)(Mx & dBx) ∴ ~bSg 2. are really nice people. c = Cindy. (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (∃y)(~Py & yCx)] . if they can. (∀x)[ (∃y)(xPy) ⊃ Mx ] . g = George. (∃x)~Ix 6. (P = person. Gn & (∀x)(Bx ⊃ nLx) . people like to do what they practice. People who don’t have a lot of money can’t afford very expensive things. People do think with whatever heads they have. Give deductions for these arguments. but Barb just doesn’t love George. Whatever is very hard to get is very expensive. and Cindy and Mike. C = x can think with y. H = x has y. H = head.B Deductions with Relations Part A.B.8 Deductions with Relational Sentences Exercise 4. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. L = x loves y. So. People are also good at something if and only if they practice it. 1. Symbolize and give deductions for the following arguments. These problems are difﬁcult. Many people have heads that are not full. p ∴ (∃y)[Iy & (∃x)(~Ix & xAy)] ∴ (∃x){Gx & (∃y)[(By & yHx) & xLy]} ∴ (∀x)[(Ex & Bx & Ax) ⊃ gSx] 7.278 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 1. that’s how one ﬁgures out that Cindy does not love Mike. People like to do what they are good at. (∀x)[(Ex & Ax) ⊃ gKx] ∴ (∀x){ [Rx & (∃y)(By & xHy)] ⊃ (∃y)(xHy) } 9. Well.

H = very hard to get. a. (∀x)[Px ⊃ (∀y)((Hy & xHy & ~Fy) ⊃ xCy)] . (∀y)[(∀x)(Px ⊃ xWy) ⊃ Hy] . b. W = x wants to have y. . and so are deﬁnite descriptions. but do try to ﬁgure these out for yourself ﬁrst. especially when the descriptions are made by different people or in different contexts. (∃x)[Px & (∃y)(Hy & xHy & ~Fy)] ∴ (∃x)[Px & (∃y)(Hy & xHy & xTy)] 4. (∀x)[Px ⊃ (∀y)(xGy ⊃ xLy)] . D = x deludes y) Symbolization answers. A = x can afford y. such as “George. (∀x)[(Px & ~Lx) ⊃ (∀y)(Ey ⊃ ~xAy)] . . but you think you are content. (∀y)(Hy ⊃ Ey) . So.” and we can also refer to the same person by the description “the ﬁrst person to walk on the Moon. L = has lots of money. Here are the symbolization answers for Part B. really. as it is called.” as one would use for all the other relations. (∃y)(∀x)(Px ⊃ xWy) . c. rather than some capital letter. . “Neil Armstrong. (∀x)[(Px & xCx & Mx) ⊃ xDx] ∴ aDa ∴ ~(cLm) Section 4. Regular proper names. for example.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. ~(bLg) 3. P = person. (∀x){[Px & (∃y)(xWy & ~xAy)] ⊃ Mx} . (a = you. “xIy. Pa & ~La & aCa . A singular term is any expression that represents a single thing. as opposed to a group of things.” to represent the identity relation.” In logic it is customary to use the mathematical equal sign. you are deluding yourself. M = miserable. “Neil Armstrong is identical to the ﬁrst person to walk on the Moon. Pg & Ng & Pb & Nb & Pc & Nc & Pm & Nm . C = x thinks y is content. such as “the ﬁrst prime number.9 Working with Identities The Identity Relation One of the most important relations is the identity relation. . (∀x){Px ⊃ (∀y)[(Py & (∃z)(Pz & yLz)) ⊃ xLy]} . d.” This leads to the identity statement. We can refer to someone by name. “x = y.” We may use the name letter symbols. (∀x){Px ⊃ (∀y)[(Hy & xHy) ⊃ (xCy ⊃ xTy)]}.” are singular terms.9 Working with Identities 279 are a person who does not have a lot of money. 1. to symbolize all singular terms. This is a relation that arises from the fact that a single thing can be uniquely described in different ways. . (∀x)[Px ⊃ (∀y)(xGy ≡ xPy)] ∴ (∀x)[Px ⊃ (∀y)(xPy ⊃ xLy)] 2. People who think they are content but are actually miserable are deluding themselves. E = very expensive.

but they nevertheless employ the identity relation in their meaning. Some person x will win.” There is no guarantee that two separate things are involved: maybe x and y are different. At least two people will win. at least one person will win. RIGHT. WRONG! Wrong. “some person x will win.” (At least one person will win) & (at most one person will win) (∃x)(Px & Wx) & (∀x)(∀y)[ ((Px & Wx) & (Py & Wy)) ⊃ x = y ] also: (∃x)[ (Px & Wx) & (∀y)((Py & Wy) ⊃ x = y) ] 4. (Also: more than one) (∃x)(Px & Wx) & (∃y)(Py & Wy) NO. not more than one. 1. Law) also: (∀x)(∀y)[ ((Px & Wx) & (Py & Wy)) ⊃ x = y ] 3. We list eight of these common English patterns. 2. and maybe not.9 Working with Identities a=w c=s s=c ~(s = m) 2=f Neil Armstrong is the ﬁrst person to walk on the Moon: Clark Kent is Superman: The Sun is the center of our solar system: Shakespeare is not the Archangel Michael: 2 is the ﬁrst prime number: There are some common quantity expressions in our ordinary language that do not explicitly mention the identity relation. At most one person will win. with emphasis) This means. and x and y are not equal. also: just one. What we need is: (∃x)(∃y)[ (Px & Px) & (Py & Py) & ~(x = y) ] YES. also: less than two) ~(∃x)(∃y)[ (Px & Wx) & (Py & Wy) & ~(x = y) ] (this is the negation of type #1) (by using the Q. and some person y will win. Only George in group F is happy. and some person y will win. plus no more than one will win. (Also: exactly one. (Also. also: one.280 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. also: not at least two. because this only says the same thing two times in a row. Fg & (∀x)[ (Fx & ~(x = g)) ⊃ ~Hx ] & Hg . Only one person will win.N. This means the existential quantiﬁer “at least one” is combined with the quantiﬁer “at most one.

This says exactly the same thing as #4 above. This sounds familiar. he is happy. This means that he is smarter than everyone in his class. Wait. 7. Exactly one person did win. He can’t be smarter than himself. Fg & (∀x)[ (Fx & ~(x = g)) ⊃ Hx ] & ~Hg This is similar to #5.9 Working with Identities 281 There are three elements in this kind of sentence. the group is the people at the party. First of all. The one and only person that did win is happy. and at most one person did win . in this case. 8. there are three elements. here George. “Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. the entire group F. This means. there is a reference to some group F. And thirdly. the entire group F. to which George belongs. belongs. And thirdly. There is a reference to some group F. and he is happy Some person did win. Secondly. Fg & (∀x)[ (Fx & ~(x = g)) ⊃ gRx ] George is the smartest in his class. being happy. just as with any use of the word “only. and he is happy. No one except George in group F is happy.” is also like this. he is not happy. all in the class. an “only George” sentence always refers to some group F to which the named thing. has the property in question: here. and George is one of those. So. 6. and it has the same symbolization. they are all unhappy. it is claimed that George does have the property in question: he is happy. 5.” that there is an exclusion: all in the group who are not George. The sentence. does not have the property in question. to which George belongs. there are three elements. First. being happy. Secondly. except for George. except for George. And thirdly. Fg & (∀x)[ (Fx & ~(x = g)) ⊃ ~Hx ] & Hg Again. George is the R-est in group F.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. this is similar to type #6 above. but not the same. except for George. except that it is the afﬁrmative version. where group F is all the mountains. George does have the property in question. Yes. George is the only one in that group that has the property in question. are not happy. All except George in group F are happy. Again. are such that George is smarter than them. George does not have the property in question. Secondly. Perhaps.

In stating these laws. and γ as variables to represent all name expressions. (Reﬂexivity) Ident2. α . . . . (Transitivity) α=β β=γ ∴ α=γ Ident4. a = b. Ident1 is also a tautology. There are ﬁve identity laws.) Ident5. as we did with the greater than relation. (Symmetry) Ident3. and Transitivity do not require much comment. . . We use the Greek letters α. . Fa ∴ Fb. . and neither does the see relation. we will use a new kind of notation. Fa & ~Fb. and yet. However. . and we use the notation “(. . . The Laws of Substitution and Difference are more substantial.)” to represent any simple or complex expression containing the name α. This would be an entirely adequate method. Let’s put some of these rules to work.) ∴ (. Difference: If two named things are different in some way. . and so forth. . One method for using these important truths is to simply list these truths among the premisses for an argument. called the Laws of Identity. discussed at the end of Section 4.) ∴ ~(α = β) α=β ∴ α=α ∴ β=α The Laws of Reﬂexivity. . .8. . β.α.) ~(. So. because it’s only one thing. in logic and mathematics. β . α . the love relation does not satisfy any of the identity laws. since non-identity relations do not satisfy all three of these laws. For example. .282 Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. (Difference) (. so there is not much to learn here.9 Working with Identities (∃x)[(Px & Wx) & Hx] & (∀x)(∀y)[ ((Px & Wx) & (Py & Wy)) ⊃ x = y ] also: (∃x)[ (Px & Wx) & Hx & (∀y)((Py & Wy) ⊃ x = y) ] The Laws of Identity The identity relation is governed by some important logical truths (rules) that must be employed when this relation is used in an argument. nor does the hit relation. . they show how special the identity relation is. Substitution: If two named things are one and the same thing. They state some extremely obvious truths about identity. Symmetry. it is customary to introduce special rules of logic. which are to be used in the same way that all the other rules are used: they are simply applied to the various lines in a deduction. . ~(a = b). These are all very intuitive rules. Ident1. these special facts need to be explicitly stated. then whatever is true of the ﬁrst named thing must also be true of the second named thing. . . β . then those named things must be two different things. (Substitution) α=β (. .

~Ps 4. 5. not even himself. MP 10. select name: a 5. 7. 1. 6. Sally is not a psychologist.9 Working with Identities 283 #1. 4. Hilda is a mathematician and not a philosopher. UI a/x 6. 11. Ua & Pa & Da & Aa & Sa Prem Prem ∴ Ag & Sg Selection 2. UG x/a 10. (∃x)(Ux & Px & Dx & Ax & Sx) 3.11.12. Pa ⊃ ~gTa 10. George will not talk to any psychologists. 7. Mg & Pg 2. So. (∀x)(gTx ⊃ x = s) 3.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 8.5. George was the only one who danced. MT 5—8. Conj 9. George is a mathematician and a philosopher. Difference 2.2. However. Pg ~Ph ~(g = h) Mg & Mh & ~(g = h) (∃y)[Mg & My & ~(g = y)] (∃x)(∃y)[Mx & My & ~(x = y)] Prem Prem ∴ (∃x)(∃y)[Mx & My & ~(x = y)] 1.Conj 6. EG x/g #2. So. EI a/x . CP 9. EG y/h 7. Simp 2. UI g/x 1. Difference 1. George was arrested too and had to spend the night in jail. 1. select name: a 4.Simp. 8. 12. and they had to spend the night in jail. (∀x)(Px ⊃ ~gTx) Pg ⊃ ~gTg ~gTg (∀x)(Px ⊃ ~gTx) & ~gTg #3.7. So.Simp.5.4. 13. and they were arrested. George is a psychologist who will talk only to Sally. 6. at least two different mathematicians exist. Pg 2. At the party. At some point some drunks at the party started to dance. (∀x)[(Px & Dx) ⊃ x = g) 2. 1. Simp 3. Mh & ~Ph 3. Pa ~(a = s) gTa ⊃ a = s ~gTa Prem Prem Prem ∴ (∀x)(Px ⊃ ~gTx) & ~gTg Selection for UG Assumption for CP 3.

Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. and name letters. Some skyscraper in Chicago has at least two occupants (they live there). 4.284 5. Some skyscraper in Chicago is taller than another skyscraper in New York. Substitution g/a Exercise 4. L H P E T S = likes to dance = hairdresser = person = exhausted = is in town = skater D = Dutchman g s h n = George = Sally = Harry = Sally’s neighbor F = _ is a friend of _ A = _ admires _ T = _ talks to _ K = _ knows _ (active voice) F = _ is faster than _ outskated = some skater is faster . 7. Simp 7. There are at least two skyscrapers in Chicago. 10 11 12 No skyscraper in Chicago can be identical to some skyscraper in New York. 8. Symbolize the following arguments. 9. 6. relation letters. using the indicated predicate letters. using the indicated predicate letters.B. S = skyscraper E = expensive to live in B = very big I = _ is in _ T = _ is taller than _ L = _ lives in _ s = The Sears Tower c = Chicago n = New York 1. The one and only skyscraper in Chicago is expensive to live in. relation letters. A. Symbolize the following sentences. Simp 1. The Sears Tower is one of at least two skyscrapers in Chicago. and it is very big.9.8. Every skyscraper except the Sears Tower is in Chicago. and name letters.6. 5. 7.9 Working with Identities Pa & Da (Pa & Da) ⊃ a = g a=g Aa & Sa Ag & Sg 4. 6. There is exactly one skyscraper in Chicago. 9. 8.C Working with Identities Part A. The Sears Tower is the tallest skyscraper there is. There is at least one skyscraper in Chicago. 2. UI a/x 5. There is at most one skyscraper in Chicago. Part B. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. MP 4. The Sears Tower is the only skyscraper in Chicago. Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. 3.

(∃x){ Dx & Sx & (∀y)[(Sy & ~(y = x)) ⊃ xFy)] } ∴ (∀y)[ (Sy & ~Dy) ⊃ (∃x)(Sx & xFy) ] . Harry is exhausted. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 5. (∀x)[~(x = s) ⊃ ~hKx] & hKs. Sally does not admire George. Sally is a friend of all hairdressers but not of George. Some people in town know Sally. Give deductions for the following arguments. So. Sally doesn’t admire anything except herself. Only Sally is known by Harry. no one outside of town knows Sally. gFs & gFh. and only Harry is known by Sally.Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic Section 4. Some people are known by both Harry and by Sally. George has at least two different friends. Sally sometimes talks to herself. who is her neighbor. 1. Sally likes to dance. So. her neighbor is not a hairdresser. So. Ds & ~Dh ∴ (∃x)(∃y)[ gFx & gFy & ~(x = y) ] ∴ ~Hn ∴ ~sAg 2. 3. Sally is exhausted. (∀x)(∀y)[ (Px & Py & xKs & yKs) ⊃ x = y] ∴ (∀x)[(Px & ~Tx) ⊃ ~xKs] 6. So. At most one person knows Sally. Part C. 4. sTs & ~sTg 4. (∃x)(Px & hKx & sKx). any skater who is not a Dutchman can be outskated. So. Es ∴ Eh 5. (∀x)[~(x = s) ⊃ ~sAx] & sAs. 2. (∀x)(Hx ⊃ sFx) & ~sFg & g = n 3. but she has never talked to George.9 Working with Identities 285 1. (∃x)(Px & Tx & xKs). but Harry does not. 6. George is a friend of Sally and also of Harry. So. The fastest skater is a Dutchman. (∀x)[~(x = h) ⊃ ~sKx] & sKh.

study.1 Introduction • Logical fallacy: A type of argument that is unsound but is often accepted as sound. for the present discussion. But. It is these common mistakes that are known as logical fallacies. From this perspective one can better appreciate the extent to which logical fallacies are a serious threat to rational thinking. Guilt by Association Fallacy 9. they do not fall prey to logical fallacies. Some of these mistakes are more common than others. Tu Quoque Fallacy 8. A note about our procedure in this chapter. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam 7. So. We will focus on the following 24 fallacies: Fallacies of Irrelevance 1. Argumentum ad Baculum 2. we will suppose the worst case scenario: a case in which both the giver of the argument (the arguer) and the audience of the argument (the listener) are careless and inconsiderate thinkers. When people are careful and considerate in their thinking. and are unaware of the criticisms that await them. people are not always careful.CHAPTER 5 LOGICAL FALLACIES Section 5. Argumentum ad Populum 4. Argumentum ad Misericordiam 6. Careful reﬂection. and observation help people avoid these common mistakes. Red Herring Fallacy . Argumentum ad Hominem 3. When people reason they do make mistakes: they make logical mistakes in their inferences and factual mistakes in their premisses. Argumentum ad Verecundiam 5. and they do not always consider matters fully.

Slippery Slope Fallacy 22.Logical Fallacies Section 5. then q is so. there will be trouble So. there was trouble. fallacy of afﬁrming the consequent: If p is so. there will be trouble But. Fallacy of Special Pleading 13. Straw Man Fallacy 11. if Sam doesn’t. p⊃q. then q is so. there won’t be any trouble. (1) Illicit modus ponens. So. q is also not so. they are often mistaken for valid ones. Fallacy of Ad Hoc Reasoning 23. there won’t be. Sam was there. p If Sam went. then q is so. These inferences use invalid argument patterns. but because of their similarity to certain valid patterns. q is so. (3) Illicit conditional contraposition: If p is so. Fallacy of Improper (Hasty) Generalization 14. ~p so. so. p is also so. And. Sam won’t go. False Dichotomy Fallacy 21. Fallacy of Division 19. p⊃q. Fallacy of Semantic Equivocation 18. we will not discuss them further here. then not q. Fallacy of Composition Fallacies of Presumption 20. . or. Therefore. Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity 17. Petitio Principii Fallacy 24. Therefore. ~q If Sam goes. Fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses Formal Fallacies Some fallacies are formal fallacies. So. p is not so. And. if not p. We list here the main formal fallacies. p⊃q. ~p ⊃ ~q If Sam goes. Complex Question Fallacy 16. (2) Illicit modus tollens. but since we have discussed these earlier. q so.1 Introduction 287 Fallacies of Misconstrual 10. Fallacy of Improper Instance 15. there was trouble. or fallacy of denying the antecedent: If p is so. But. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy 12. So.

Types (20) and (21) below use special kinds of premisses that are empirically false. because of the special content of the premisses. all capitalists are bank robbers. their mistake is a special kind of defect of the premisses. in fact. the premisses are nevertheless persuasive. on the other hand. Since these inferences are invalid.1 Introduction (4) Illicit universal contraposition: all S are P So. (5) Illicit negative conjunction: Not both p and q So. make a valid inference. Informal Fallacies that are Invalid Now. and types (10)—(19) below form a group called fallacies of misconstrual. Rather. The difference between formal and informal fallacies is the following: with formal fallacies. Informal Fallacies that are Valid Some informal fallacies. and whose simultaneous assertion forms a conjunction that is necessarily false. that is. people mistake an invalid pattern for a valid one: they think that certain patterns are rules when they are not rules. So. because the premisses are not sufﬁcient reasons to establish the conclusion. types (22)—(23) use premisses that are completely unsupported. that mistake does not happen. however. not p and not q That actor is not rich and famous. Their mistake is not the inference.288 Logical Fallacies Section 5. . which is Latin for “it does not follow. and it concerns the premisses. With informal fallacies.” Non sequiturs fall into two main groups: Types (1)—(9) below form a group called fallacies of irrelevance. We call these fallacies of presumption. invalid inferences. So. all who are not capitalists do not desire to become rich. But. all S are P All capitalists desire to become rich. there is a different kind of a mistake. all non-S are non-P All capitalists desire to become rich. each of these inferences is referred to as a non sequitur. So. they have the psychological power to fool the audience into accepting the conclusion anyway. as it turns out. (6) Illicit categorical syllogism: all S are M all P are M So. that actor is not rich and not famous. most informal fallacies are. and type (24) uses premisses that are inconsistent. All bank robbers desire to become rich. Informal Fallacies The remaining fallacies are called informal fallacies.

the inference is invalid). While there is a reasonable agreement about how individual fallacies are named and analyzed. One difﬁculty with these three families. the fallacy of Improper Generalization.1 Introduction 289 FORMAL FALLACIES INFORMAL FALLACIES Valid Arguments Fallacies of Presumption Invalid Arguments Invalid Arguments Non-rules Taken as Rules Fallacies of Irrelevance Fallacies of Misconstrual A Note about the Classiﬁcation of Fallacies There is signiﬁcant disagreement in the logic literature about how logical fallacies are to be classiﬁed. Examples are the Straw Man fallacy. One problem is to determine what characteristics of fallacies should be used to create classiﬁcations.Logical Fallacies Section 5. is the condition of whether the premisses are relevant to producing the conclusion. and a related problem is what characteristics will neatly divide all fallacies into a small number of distinct groups. One important characteristic. on which there is agreement. the fallacy of Special Pleading. the fallacy of Improper Instance. and this creates a family of Fallacies of Ambiguity. and a number of fallacies ﬁt very nicely in this group. This creates the family of Fallacies of Irrelevance. there is not the same kind of agreement about how they are to be grouped into families. is that there are a number of fallacies that are left over. These fallacies really ﬁt into none of these families (as deﬁned). the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. and the fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses. Fallacies in which the premisses are totally irrelevant to the conclusion belong to this family. These are fallacies in which the premisses are not relevant to the conclusion (and so. and this creates the family of Fallacies of Presumption. Also. and it accommodates all the logical fallacies: 1. We propose a solution. some authors propose a rather vague characteristic of using poor assumptions to generate the conclusion. as deﬁned. The classiﬁcation scheme that we use is a revision of the previously mentioned conditions. and these authors have to stretch their criteria in unacceptable ways in order to accommodate these left-over fallacies. the following obtain: . Where the premisses are relevant. Fallacies of Irrelevance. And what about the other fallacies? Some authors propose the characteristic of having premisses that are ambiguous in meaning.

Fallacies of Misconstrual [Misconstruction]. 1. these arguments would have to be invalid.) Section 5. the inference is invalid). 1. a promise of reward) to get the listener to agree with the conclusion. and Fallacies of Unestablished Premisses. with such a lack of connection. the conclusion does not follow from the premisses. Obviously. It is the best course of action for the company and its employees. but regardless of that. As a practical.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance The Fallacies of Irrelevance form one main division of informal fallacies. Those of you who don’t agree will probably be more comfortable in another job.” . Fallacies of Misconstrued Premisses. but not logical. the arguer in some way is using a threat (or sometimes.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 2. the premisses are totally irrelevant to the conclusion. but the premisses are nevertheless persuasive. Argumentum ad Baculum (Argument from force) An example of this fallacy is the following: “I urge you to accept Management’s moderate proposal. these families could also usefully be called Fallacies of Irrelevant Premisses. These are fallacies in which the premisses are misconstrued in order to produce the conclusion (and so. Fallacies of Presumption. the listener may have to acquiesce.” In this type of argument the arguer is making an appeal to force. although the inference is valid. 3.290 Logical Fallacies Section 5. that is. (By the way. These three families are represented in the diagram displayed above. matter. These types of fallacies are also called Fallacies of Relevance. The argument is a non sequitur. Argumentum ad Baculum The Latin name of this fallacy means “argument from the stick (club). In these types of arguments. These are fallacies in which the premisses are not established facts.

291 This argument is doubly erroneous. 2. But you do not want Y to happen. that also is not evidence for the correctness of what is being consented to. since consent can be given for the worst of reasons. . .. you consent to X. 2. Mere consent is evidence for nothing. 2. Argumentum ad Hominem The Latin name of this fallacy means “argument against the person. or an attack that presents some negative circumstances regarding the opponent.” as in “Argument from Pity.” or as “argument from [based on] .” In this type of argument the arguer is making a personal attack on the opponent in order to persuade the listener to reject the opponent’s thesis. such as that he can’t control his emotions or desires (an abusive ad hominem). Several fallacies have Latin names that begin with “argumentum ad . . 4. Secondly. or favor. such as that he did not attend the best law school (a circumstantial ad hominem). force. So.Logical Fallacies Section 5.. . 3. then Y will happen.” These can be translated equally well in two different ways. causal events (such as punishment or reward) are irrational reasons for giving consent. First of all. . If you do not consent to X. either as “appeal to . Consent should be based on evidence for the correctness of what is being consented to. . Translation note. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the person) An example of this fallacy is the following: .” This book favors the second version.” as in “Appeal to Pity.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance This argument has the structure: 1. The personal attack can take the form of an abusive attack on the character of the opponent. for example. the argument is a non sequitur. X is correct. even if consent is given. Since such matters are usually completely irrelevant to the conclusion. So. .

But why should we believe him? Everybody who knows him thoroughly dislikes him. disapproval of some characteristic F of a person is not a rational reason to have a general negative attitude towards that person. 3. Argumentum ad Populum The Latin name of this fallacy means “argument from the people. First of all. Here too. that fact has no connection to the correctness of a given view.” This argument has the structure: 1. Secondly. Person A has some characteristics F. 2. I’ve never met as rude and egotistical a person as him. [This causes the audience to have a general negative attitude towards person A. including A’s proposal X. So. The audience does not approve of F. Person A proposes X. the argument is doubly erroneous. Such sentiments are usually completely irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument.” In this type of popular argument the arguer makes an appeal to popular sentiments in an attempt to persuade the listener that the conclusion is correct. even when there is a general negative attitude towards a person. 3.292 Logical Fallacies Section 5.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance “The senator would have us all believe that cigarette smoking is a social evil that can only be eliminated by imposing a $10 tax on each package of cigarettes sold.] 4. even if that view happens to be proposed by that person. Argumentum ad Populum (Argument from the Masses) . 3. proposal X is not correct.

he has always followed the simple rule that if you want to get something done right. He is a man you can trust. Person A has some characteristics F.” This argument has the following structure (here person A can be the arguer himself or some person advocated by the arguer): 1. that fact has no connection to the correctness of a given view. Argumentum ad Verecundiam The Latin of this fallacy means “argument from reverence. The problem here becomes apparent when the source cited is irrelevant to the particular case at hand. 3. even when there is a general positive attitude towards a person. We all know him to be a man of great personal strength. Once again. So. the argument is doubly erroneous. then you have got to get in there and do it yourself. as is the case when the source is an expert in a different area only. He served this great country of ours with honor during the War. The audience approves of F. This fallacy is often called an appeal to an unqualiﬁed authority. proposal X is correct. approval of some characteristic F of a person is not a rational reason to have a general positive attitude towards that person. Secondly.” In this type of argument the arguer cites some sort of authoritative source to support the conclusion. [This causes the audience to have a general positive attitude towards person A. Person A proposes X. 4. even if that view happens to be proposed by that person. 2. First of all.Logical Fallacies Section 5. . We could say that this argument is the afﬁrmative counterpart to the negative ad hominem fallacy. he has spent most of his life in public ofﬁce on behalf of plain folk like you and me. There are clear similarities between this type of argument and the preceding type. using the highly favorable status of the source as a means to persuade the listener that the conclusion is correct.] 4. and he deserves our support on this bill. including A’s proposal X.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance An example of this fallacy is the following: 293 “The senator has proposed a bill that will allow oil exploration in federal parks.

the reasons that the unqualiﬁed authority had for making the proposal in the ﬁrst place. for example. gave as a reason for rejecting quantum level indeterminacy that God does not play dice with the universe. Person A supports position X. 2. they are non sequiturs. In the same way. So. (But notice that an argument like this is a fallacy when the only reason given for the conclusion is that an unqualiﬁed authority said so. position X is correct. good evidence in the sense that whatever a dentist says within the area of his or her expertise is likely to be true.” This argument has the structure: 1. A dentist’s opinion is not good evidence for legal issues. then that person’s expert opinion is good evidence for matters pertaining to that area. when someone is not an authority in a certain area. Arguments based in this way on expert opinions are inductively strong arguments. When someone is an authority in a certain area. A dentist’s opinion is good evidence for dental issues.) . Then the argument would be evaluated using those other reasons as well. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Argument from reverence) Consider the following example: “The view by various religious groups that we should not waste our money or time on gambling is actually correct. Person A is an authority in matters of area S. who is the greatest scientiﬁc genius of all time.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 4. Arguments based on people’s opinions outside their areas of expertise are without merit. then that person’s opinion is not good evidence for matters pertaining to that area. 3. Even Albert Einstein.294 Logical Fallacies Section 5. and it is not true that whatever a dentist says about legal issues is likely to be true. The argument is not a fallacy when it also gives other reasons. which is outside of area S.

speciﬁc areas of pity are not rational reasons for extending that sympathy to other areas.] 3. proposal X is correct. 2. person A can be the arguer himself or some person advocated by the arguer): 1. The audience is led to pity person A.” This argument has the structure (here. Argumentum ad Misericordiam The Latin name of this fallacy means “argument from pity. Life is really hard for me. Secondly.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 295 5. So. You know how difﬁcult it is when you go to school and work at the same time. and I should get a passing grade for the course. hoping thereby to gain the agreement of the listener. and I didn’t do that. [This causes the audience to have a general attitude of sympathy towards person A. and so I must have a job. This argument is doubly erroneous. The arguer presents various facts that have the effect of arousing feelings of sympathy. While such tactics often have their desired effect. I think that all that counts. including the proposal X about A. the reasoning used is fallacious.Logical Fallacies Section 5. But you have to understand that I have little money. Some proposal X favorable to some person A is proposed. including this really high tuition fee. 5. First of all. even when there is sympathy for a . because the factors that are cited are completely irrelevant to the conclusion.” In this type of argument the arguer tries to persuade the listener of the correctness of the conclusion by an appeal to pity. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Argument from pity) An example of this fallacy is the following: “I know that you expected us to study hard and come to class regularly. I have to work very long hours to pay for all my costs.

A lot of people don’t believe this. this view must be right. if the premisses also included a strong investigation of a testable issue. but there is one fact that decides the matter for me: No one has ever proved that this is not so. But that is not evidence that he did have a headache then. 2. even when that view concerns that person. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam The Latin name of this fallacy means “argument from ignorance.296 Logical Fallacies Section 5. Tomorrow the matter may change. This argument is clearly erroneous. Consider that no one has proved that George Washington did not have a headache on his 20th birthday. yet. is relevant only to what we know at this point of time. So. And so it is in general with this kind of argument. someone may prove it wrong tomorrow. 6. such as: Was there bacterial life on the Moon? Such arguments could be strong inductive arguments. You see. This is an appeal to ignorance.” The fact that it is not the case that someone has proved it wrong.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance person regarding any matter. to lack of knowledge. The weakness of this type of reasoning becomes clear when one adds the word “yet. proposal X is correct.) . Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance) An example of this fallacy is the following: “My view is that there is deﬁnitely a spiritual side to things. that is. (But note that some arguments of this type might not be fallacies.” In this type of argument the arguer claims that the conclusion is correct because no one has proved that it is wrong. No one has proved that proposal X is wrong. 6. The argument is therefore a non sequitur.” This argument has the structure: 1. that has no connection to the correctness of any view.

4. a person’s actions are not reliable indicators of what a person believes. person A does not believe X.Logical Fallacies Section 5. Secondly. 2. But you cannot trust what he says. [The arguer wants to discredit person A. Tu Quoque Fallacy The Latin name for this fallacy means “And you [do it] too!” In this type of argument the arguer discredits his opponent by pointing out that his opponent does not even believe his own position. Person A acts contrary to X. proposal X is not correct. 3. This pattern is doubly erroneous.] [“And you do it too!”] . the position could still be correct. why should anyone else believe it? The weakness of this kind of reasoning is obvious when one considers that we all do things that we should not do. Everybody knows that even he himself is a smoker!” This argument has the structure: 1.) 7. along with the abusive and circumstantial form. and inversely. So. too” fallacy) An example of this fallacy is the following: “The senator would have us all believe that cigarette smoking is a social evil that can only be eliminated by imposing a $10 tax on each package of cigarettes sold. Tu Quoque fallacy (The “You.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 297 7. So. First of all. fail to do things that we should do. So. Such irony is certainly possible. (This fallacy could also be considered to be another form of the ad hominem fallacy. Person A proposes X. even if the opponent did not believe his own position.

a lot of people would reject such a proposal outright. The structure of this type of argument makes it clear that the inference is invalid. and we could call it the Favor by Association Fallacy. (Still. these arguments are non sequiturs.) It is interesting to note that there is a positive version of the Guilt by Association Fallacy. The fact that Adolf Hitler once favored a certain proposal is irrelevant to its correctness. Proposal X is concretely associated in some manner with matter F. the fallacy is also called the Genetic Fallacy. Jones argued that the tax he proposed was fair to all the residents of the township. Because of this. So what do you think of this tax proposal now!” This argument has the following structure: 1. Guilt by Association fallacy In this type of argument the arguer aims to reject a proposal by using certain negative facts that are in some concrete way associated with the proposal. Guilt by Association Fallacy 8.) The associated matters are typically quite tangential. An example of this fallacy is the following: “When Mr.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 8. he conveniently forgot to mention that the idea of that tax originally came from the Township Clerk. Still. The audience rejects or disapproves of F. and are in no way evidence regarding the correctness of the proposal at issue. proposal X is wrong. as we all know.298 Logical Fallacies Section 5. who. 2. was convicted last year of embezzlement. Matters merely associated with a proposal cannot be evidence regarding its correctness. So. because of that matter. (When the negative facts refer to the arguer’s opponent. So. 3. But that kind of argument form is very . they can be quite persuasive. These negative facts could be about the origin of the proposal or about some other historical matters that involve the proposal in some way. this type of argument may also be considered to be an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

This transition is made possible by somehow relating in the digression to something that the opponent has said. proposal X is correct. 9. 9. 2.] . In this type of argument the arguer sneakily introduces an irrelevant matter to side-track the main point of the opponent. Red Herring Fallacy The name of this type of fallacy refers to the old practice of training bloodhounds to track missing persons by dragging stinky red herrings across the paths of the hounds to try to throw them off the scent. Person A presents proposal X. which was totally unnecessary and only shows how special interest groups can manipulate the political system. The audience accepts or approves of F. So. Proposal X is concretely associated in some manner with matter F. 3. It has the structure: 1. We need ﬁnance reform. 2. [X and Y have some point of slight similarity.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 299 similar to the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy discussed above. which produces the illusion that the digressed matter is what the argument is all about. Person B substitutes proposal Y for X. Red Herring Fallacy An example of this fallacy is the following: “The administration has argued strongly for a much larger budget for the military.Logical Fallacies Section 5. We do not need larger budgets for the military. But the admininstration also spent a lot of money on tax cuts for special interest groups. and so it needs no special category of its own. but they are different matters.” This argument has the structure: 1.

We should not listen to music composed by Richard Wagner. Q. After all. It was Lenin who claimed that it was unjust. It is possible that some passages contain more than one fallacy. 5. these countries acted only out of their own self-interest in this matter. 4. but it is worth every penny. he has written a dozen books on international law. proposal X is wrong [right]. Our product costs more than some people can afford. It is false that capitalism is an unjust institution. . Notice that there are actually two versions of this type of argument. Our product is very special. Wagner was Adolf Hitler’s favorite composer. Identify the fallacies that are committed in the following passages. Please open your hearts. one negative and the other afﬁrmative. and it has received a lot of attention lately. the one proposal. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. the reasons given against. 1. After all. 7. In each case it is rather obvious why this type of reasoning is erroneous. 2. I predict his views on the effects of electric shock therapy will be widely accepted. Exercise 5. Your contribution to our organization can help these needy children. are not reasons given against. So.2. 4. It is in no way important that countries like France and Russia strongly objected to our military action in Iraq. or for. If the Senator will not support my bill. 3. have no roofs over their heads. Since the two proposals X and Y are different matters. so we should take advantange of this new techology to produce large quantities of necessary foods.D. These poor children have no shoes. Many Hollywood celebrities have tried and liked it. 9.300 Logical Fallacies Section 5. This guy knows what he is talking about. degree from Harvard Law School. Proposal Y is unacceptable [acceptable] for reasons P. R. the other proposal. He received his J. The alarmists have not been able to show that hormone-enhanced foods are detrimental to our health. but he was a Red Communist. no one to care for them. he should be reminded that no other group has opposed my bill except for the Democratic Anarchists Union. have no food. or for. and makes tons of money on his international lecture tours.2 Fallacies of Irrelevance 3. 8. You want us to ban billboards on state land along public tollroads. Fallacies of Irrelevance Instructions. 6. You probably want to eliminate the tolls as well! But road tolls are a proper way for states to collect taxes.

10. but they are generally worthless. and that we should vote against it. They are relevant. Of course.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual 301 States have a constitutional right to collect money. The distorted position is truly a straw man. Straw Man Fallacy With this type of argument the arguer presents a distorted or exaggerated version of his opponent’s position. no one else does either. and concludes that the original position of the opponent has been refuted. 10. You say this bill illegally favors large. and many proposals. rich corporations and violates federal anti-trust laws. and no one. too. to recommend it. He then proceeds to criticize the distorted version. If we don’t pass this bill. these corporations will move to another state. You realize. but they are misconstrued into something unwarranted. Section 5. In these types of arguments. will have to be scrapped. the arguer begins with some information in the premisses that is then misconstrued into some unwarranted conclusion. The simplest truisms can be turned into absurdities: someone says.Logical Fallacies Section 5. the distorted position is not at all what the opponent wanted to assert. you mean then that eating fruit with enormous helpings of whipped cream and sweet sauces is good for you. having no substance and nothing. and your proposal is completely wrong. right?” Exaggerations can be funny.” and someone replies. including your own proposal to support local community businesses. 10.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual The Fallacies of Misconstrual form a second main division of informal fallacies. the implications of what you are saying. and often. “Eating fruit is good for you. These kinds of fallacies are different from the Fallacies of Irrelevance because the premisses in these cases are not totally irrelevant. “So. Straw Man fallacy It is always easy to distort a view. of course. and we will lose millions of tax dollars. .

Proposal Y is a distorted version of proposal X. Someone could spend his entire savings of $500. So. The argument then continues with further recommendations based on the noted causal relationship. I disagree. Proposal X is wrong. 2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (False Cause fallacy) The Latin name of this fallacy means “After this. The distorted version and the original version are two different positions.000 that way. B. It is clear why this kind of reasoning is erroneous. 3.” This argument has the structure: 1. it was caused by the other one. and that. by giving out dollar bills to the poor he meets on the streets. the general topic stays the same. but there is this difference: In the Red Herring fallacy. . the reasons given for or against the one are not reasons given for or against the other. C. therefore. and the distorted view is not so easily distinguished from the original view. Therefore. the new view is an unrelated position that shifts the focus of discussion to a substantially different matter. The Straw Man fallacy has some similarities to the Red Herring fallacy. In the Straw Man fallacy. you must agree.302 Logical Fallacies Section 5. the arguer notes that one situation came after another situation. 11. therefore. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy 11.” In this type of argument.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual A more typical example of the Straw Man fallacy is the following: “You say wealthy people should give more money to the poor. accomplishes absolutely nothing. Proposal Y is unacceptable. and that. for reasons A. because of this. In each case a new position is substituted for the original position.

And you can see it worked! After that effort. please. and also the post hoc fallacy (not to be confused with the ad hoc fallacy discussed below). no special praise is warranted. no.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual 303 It must be mentioned right away that there is nothing wrong with causal reasoning. So. Fallacy of Special Pleading In this type of argument. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is also called the false cause fallacy.” This argument claims that the increased enrollments were caused by the efforts of the admissions staff and the administration. F was caused by X. but the arguer presents . Rather. and our example used the ﬁrst: Positive version F occurred after X. 2. yes. So. One thing may come after another thing. This university owes its enrollment success to the heroic efforts of the admissions ofﬁce staff. these efforts are to be greatly praised. Our enrollments were low. And especially at our own university the increase has been quite dramatic. 1. X is good. So. This argument ignores the fact the increased enrollments were most likely caused by the demographic surge in eligible collegeaged students evident all over the country. and the admissions ofﬁce knew they had to come through. 2. So. F is bad. After the efforts. Applause. 1. 3. Negative version F occurred after X.Logical Fallacies Section 5. the fallacy here is claiming the existence of a causal relationship when in fact there is none. and that. because increased enrollments are so important. F is good. and ultimately to the leadership of the Administration. The Post Hoc Fallacy has two forms. So this dedicated staff worked extra hard to achieve better enrollments. In fact. Moreover. the applications came pouring in. 12. The staff and administration efforts probably had only little to do with the enrollments. 4. An example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning is the following: “Everyone has heard of the large increases in student enrollments at all colleges and universities all across the country these last two years. the desired conclusion is something that should be based on weighing the various pros and cons that are relevant to the case. in which case. because of the efforts. and they will tell you how much extra that effort was compared to all the previous years. X is bad. but that is not a good reason to conclude that the one thing was caused by the other thing. Moreover. 3. F was caused by X. 4. But that is no accident. to make conclusions based on causal relationships is an important and correct method of reasoning about what actions people should or should not take.

and all evidence to the contrary is just ignored. An example is the following: . Q there is no special form— only some reasons that favor the position are listed. Pk So. Such selectivity can never be the basis for making a correct inference. The fallacy occurs when the available facts cited do not justify a generalization of such a range.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual only some reasons that favor his point of view. This fallacy is also called Hasty Generalization.R. The following is an example of this fallacy: “But surely. (You can supply the reasons. for the city. Fallacy of Improper Generalization In these arguments. the premisses present some individual facts. and that list is actually quite long. with the caption: Chicago—the place of soaring opportunity. and relevant facts are ignored 13.304 Logical Fallacies Section 5.) Special pleading is unacceptable reasoning. . letting me skydive from the Sears Tower will be good P. and only some reasons that favor the position of the arguer are selected as premisses. Fallacy of Special Pleading Is that the reason? Some questionable public relations poster? The arguer is ignoring all the reasons why the permission should not be granted. You could make a poster of it. Their distinguishing feature is that the relevant facts are ignored. 1442443 P1 P2 . and the conclusion involves a generalization based on these facts.” 12. Special pleading arguments do not have any common form.

“Most of the student body is dissatisﬁed with the selection of food. then the entire city of Chicago will be eligible for these permits. P1 P2 P3 So. “Most people at the school.” When we compare improper generalizations to correct generalizations. The fallacy occurs when the inferred particular case is not a proper instance of the original general premiss. Here is an example of this fallacy: . Such improper. including administrators. are dissatisﬁed with the selection of food. Q1 P1 P2 P3 So. A different reason for the rejection should have been provided. Q2 13.Logical Fallacies Section 5. The answer is. If we give some people permits for this. For example. ‘Absolutely not. But the less general Q1 would have been correct. and what chaos there would be. but not for the reason given. when a wide selection of students at a school are asked whether they are satisﬁed with the selection of food available at the cafeteria. Mr. Fallacy of Improper Generalization (Hasty Generalization) 14. The proposed generalization is altogether implausible. we can see that the improper ones all share the same defect: correct generalizations In many cases. Q2 is more general than what is justiﬁed by the premisses. Fallacy of Improper Instance In this type of argument.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual 305 “No.” But it would be improper to generalize that conclusion still further to. improper generalizations In the fallacy cases. in which the concluded level of generality is in fact justiﬁed by the premisses. hasty generalizations must be distinguished from correct generalizations. Smith. we cannot give you a permit to skydive from the Sears Tower.’ ” The denial of the skydiving permit is warranted. Q1 is a general conclusion correctly inferred from the premisses. the arguer begins with a (correct) general premiss and then infers a particular case. and 60 percent respond that they are not satisﬁed. then one may correctly infer the conclusion.

No one has the right to take away what is yours. The instance is not an instance of the original premiss P1 but rather of the unacceptable premiss P 2. correct instantiations the generality of the premiss P1 is correct.” 14. P2. but he is merely acting on a founding principle of our great democracy. Complex Question Fallacy 15.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual “You say that my client is guilty of tax evasion. Fallacy of Improper Instance What the arguer has done is to erroneously expand the range of the original general premiss P1 to an unacceptable level of generalilty. in this case. Complex Question fallacy . which the founding fathers of our great country took such great pains to establish. Q1 P1 So. and the conclusion Q1 is an instance of P1 improper instantiations the generality of premiss P1 is correct. You claim the evasion is a violation of the law. from the right to private property to some right of absolute and unalterable possession of anything one has once owned. but the conclusion Q2 is not an instance of P1 but of a more general but incorrect P2 P1 So.306 Logical Fallacies Section 5. Q2 15. But my client is exercising his right to private property.

will you work harder?” The person answered “yes” to Q2. not for a short time at all. which we always suspected. Examples of complex questions are: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” “Of course not! Oops. the arguer makes a double proposal as though it were one. for a long time. you mean. for a short time. after all. Oops. So. No. uhm . . instead of asking a double question. I did not act alone. no. and the arguer uses that answer as an answer to Q1 and Q2.000 per hour. (Also. sir. . then?” “Oops.” “So.” “So. the argument is a non sequitur. for not noticing the arguer’s mistake. this time is not special. and in fact he never did.” “Was George Washington King of France for only a short time?” “No. he has made a mistake. you admit you had an accomplice.” “Oops. But.” “So.Logical Fallacies Section 5. .” “Oops. and his inference is a non sequitur. they may also be classiﬁed as a special case of the Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity. you said yes. the person never intended to answer “yes” to question Q1. this time is special?” “Oops. if the conclusion is not based on the premiss that was intended.” and Q2 is “If we paid you $1. you admit that you have not been working so hard.” Here Q1 is “You are not working hard.” “Ah.” In all cases of arguments involving complex questions. not for a long time. The arguer invented that answer. no.” “Who was your accomplice in this crime?” “I had no accomplice!” “So. Oops . but because of the wording. . We are going to have to increase your work load. .” “Are you always this late for your appointments?” “No. uhm . I mean. but the listener is to blame as well. Q1 and Q2.” “Oops.000 per hour. that means the arguer has made an intentional mistake. since such arguments involve ambiguity. right?. you acted alone.) The listener fails to notice the duplicity and gives a simple response to question Q2. yes. . (Sometimes. . no. I have.) An example of the Complex Question Fallacy is the following: “When you were asked whether you would work much harder if we paid you $1.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual 307 In this type of argument the arguer asks two questions. . they are confused as a single question Q. uhm . Of course. . but the arguer uses the response as an answer to both questions Q1 and Q2.

308

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual

**16. Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity
**

16. Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity

This fallacy occurs when the argument contain a grammatical ambiguity that permits two conﬂicting interpretations. Both interpretations are needed in the argument, the one interpretation being needed to make the premisses true, and the other being needed to make the conclusion follow from the premisses. Consider the following example involving the provisions of a last will and testament: The will stated, “The estate is to be divided equally between the two sisters, Lisa and Mandy. The distribution is to be as follows: To Lisa will go the art collection, to Mandy, the family jewels, and the three houses, to Lisa, also, all the company stocks.” The executor of the estate concluded that Lisa was to receive the art collection, the three houses, and all the company stocks, and Mandy was to receive the family jewels. (Mandy then sued the executor for violating the provisions of the will.) The two conﬂicting interpretations derive from the ambiguously written provision regarding the “three houses.” The wording can be taken to say that (1) to Mandy will go “the family jewels, and the three houses,” or that (2) “the three houses” are to go to Lisa. Interpretation (1) agrees with the equal distribution required by premiss 1, and interpretation (2) allows the executor to draw the conclusion that he did. We can now summarize the fallacy in the following way. The arguer presents an original argument, say with the two premisses A, B and the conclusion Q. But, one premiss, say B, is syntactically ambiguous in that it can mean B1 or B2. So, the original argument must be evaluated as two different arguments. The fallacy occurs because the argument appears to be sound, but it is not. Version B1 is required to make the premisses true, but then the conclusion Q does not follow. On the other hand, version B2 is required to make the conclusion follow, but then the premisses are not true. Either way, the argument is unsound.

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual ambiguous argument prem. B is ambiguous A B So, Q prems. A, B, seem true, argument seems valid, argument seems sound.

309

version #1 A B1 So, Q premiss B1 is true, argument is invalid, argument is unsound.

version #2 A B2 So, Q premiss B2 is false, argument is valid, argument is unsound.

**17. Fallacy of Semantic Equivocation
**

Equivocation occurs when one word is used with two different meanings at the same time. This situation easily occurs because most of our words have several different meanings. This means that when a word is used, it can represent any one of several ideas, the selection depending on the intention of the speaker and of the listener. So, when equivocation occurs, different ideas with different consequences are mixed together, as though they were one, and errors are likely to occur. A serious example of this fallacy is the following argument that derives from the notable philosopher David Hume: “It is commonly thought that the events of nature occur of necessity. But this is a mistake. For if something is necessary then the contrary is not possible. But any event may be imagined not to occur, which means that the contrary is indeed possible. Therefore, there is no necessity in nature.” Here, Hume aims to show that the commonsense view—that the events of nature occur with causal necessity—is a mistaken view. That is an astonishing claim, and if it were correct, it would turn much of our ordinary thinking into nonsense. So, this is deﬁnitely a very important argument. The argument may be reorganized as follows (and it is amazingly simple):

17. Fallacy of Semantic Equivocation

310

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual

original (ambiguous) argument 1. For any natural event, the event may be imagined not to occur. 2. If an event may be imagined not to occur, then it is not necessary that it occurs. 3. So, for any natural event, it is not necessary that the event occurs. The word “necessary” is ambiguous, and this gives the argument the appearance of being a good argument, because it fails to distinguish between the two meanings of this one word. The word can mean causally necessary, or it can mean logically necessary, with quite different results. So, the argument needs to be restated with this distinction in mind, resulting in two different versions of the argument. Since the conclusion is intended to deny that there is causal necessity in nature, each restated version of the argument will state the conclusion in that intended way. It is only Premiss 2 that will be restated with the two different meanings. As it turns out, in each case, the resulting argument is unsound. Version #1 1. For any natural event, the event may be imagined not to occur. 2. If an event may be imagined not to occur, then it is not logically necessary that it occurs. 3. So, for any natural event, it is not causally necessary that the event occurs. Version #2 1. For any natural event, the event may be imagined not to occur. 2. If an event may be imagined not to occur, then it is not causally necessary that it occurs. 3. So, for any natural event, it is not causally necessary that the event occurs. These reconstructions make the matter clear. In the ﬁrst version, the two premisses are true. But the argument is not valid. The argument makes an invalid inference, since Premiss 2 and the conclusion are talking about different senses of necessity. The connection is missing, and so the argument is unsound. In the second version, there is a clear connection between the premisses and the conclusion, so that the argument is valid. But this time, there is a different error: Premiss 2 is now false, because one can imagine oneself not falling down, and hovering instead, but it is not causally possible not to fall down, that is, to hover. Again, the argument is unsound. In general, the pattern of the Fallacy of Equivocation is very similar to the pattern of the Fallacy of Syntactical Ambiguity. The arguer presents an original argument, say with some premisses A, B, and the conclusion Q. But, some premiss, say the second premiss B, has an ambiguous word, so that this premiss can mean either B1 or B2. So, the original argument must be evaluated as two different arguments. The fallacy occurs when the original argument appears to be sound, but the two reconstructed arguments are unsound.

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual ambiguous argument prem. B is ambiguous A B So, Q prems. A, B, seem true, argument seems valid, argument seems sound.

311

version #1 A B1 So, Q premiss B1 is true, argument is invalid, argument is unsound.

version #2 A B2 So, Q premiss B2 is false, argument is valid, argument is unsound.

**18. Fallacy of Division
**

18. Fallacy of Division

In this type of argument, the premisses introduce a characteristic that applies to something considered as a whole, and the conclusion asserts that this characteristic, therefore, applies to the individual parts of that whole. The fallacy occurs when the characteristic in question does not have this dual application. An example of this fallacy is the following: “Faculty and students, we will be changing our Core Curriculum in a fundamental way. As you know, our Core Curriculum contains well over 100 different courses, of which each student must select 15. And as you also know, we have been mandated by the Board of Trustees to make sure that our Core Curriculum will promote values in the areas of social justice, human diversity, faith traditions, and civic leadership. In compliance with this mandate we will now require that all courses included in the Core Curriculum must incorporate into their design the promotion of those listed values. This is a large undertaking, but this is what we must do.” The reasoning here is clearly in error. The Core Curriculum as a whole is required to promote the stated values. But it does not follow that all the individual courses in the Core Curriculum are required to promote those values. For example, one possible way to satisfy the requirement is to have just one required course in the Core Curriculum, a Super-Saturated Value

312

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual

Course, that promotes all the values listed. And there are also other ways to implement the original requirement. Again, a note of caution. Not all cases of applying a characteristic of the whole to the parts are fallacies. Sometimes it is very appropriate to make such an application. Here is an easy one: Our entire body is located on Earth. So, each part of our body is located on Earth. There is nothing wrong with that inference. This one is correct as well: This book is made (entirely) of matter. So, each part of the book is made of matter. in some cases, division is correct 1. X as a whole has property F 2. So, all parts of X have property F in some cases, division is incorrect 1. X as a whole has property F 2. So, all parts of X have property F

**19. Fallacy of Composition
**

19. Fallacy of Composition

In this type of argument, the premisses introduce a characteristic that applies to the individual parts of some considered thing, and the conclusion asserts that this characteristic, therefore, applies to that considered thing as a whole. The fallacy occurs when the characteristic in question does not have this dual application. An example of this fallacy is the following: “Some of you are wondering whether the Perk Company is ﬁnancially sound enough to co-operate with us in this new venture. Let me put your minds at ease on this point. We know that all of the Perk’s top management people have incredibly huge salaries. Money is just not an issue for them. So, we may safely conclude that the Perk Company has strong cash reserves and will not be a risky partner.” The error is obvious. The ﬁnancial solvency of the individuals who manage Perk is also attributed to the Perk Company as a whole. We have seen especially in recent years that

Logical Fallacies Section 5.3 Fallacies of Misconstrual

313

things don’t work like that. A lot of money may go to management, and there may be little for the rest of the company. There are also many other examples where such composition is incorrect. Parts may be cheap, but the whole thing is expensive. Again, the parts may weigh less than a pound, but the whole thing weighs 100 pounds. But again, a word of caution. Sometimes the composition is correct, as for example, when the parts are multi-colored, and the whole is therefore multi-colored. Also, the parts can be made of recycled material, so that the whole is therefore made of recycled material. in some cases, composition is correct 1. All parts of X have property F 2. So, X as a whole has property F in some cases, composition is incorrect 1. All parts of X have property F 2. So, X as a whole has property F

**Exercise 5.3. Fallacies of Misconstrual
**

Instructions. Identify the fallacies that are committed in the following passages. It is possible that some passages contain more than one fallacy. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. 1. Everyone, including myself, has a right to speak freely, to express his opinions, without restrictions imposed by governmental rules. So, as presiding judge in this case, I can tell you that what the defendant has done is a great evil and violates God’s moral law. I urge you to keep this in mind as you begin your jury deliberations. 2. Studies have shown that students who are philosophy majors score signiﬁcantly higher on LSAT tests than other majors. You would do well to become a philosophy major. 3. If we had a National Health Insurance in this country, then the overall quality of health care in this country would be lowered. So, it is better not to have a National Health Insurance. 4. Peace negotiations always cause an increase in violence, because we have observed that each time when peace negotiations start, the violence on both sides increases dramatically. 5. You say that these records contain sensitive information, and that they should therefore be kept conﬁdential. But when people are sensitive in their dealings with others they should be commended for those actions; and so, we should make these records public. 6. Three out of four doctors recommend the healing ingredient in Moladilin. Use what most doctors recommend. Use Moladilin. 7. This war must stop. Our boys are getting killed every day. We cannot let such an evil situation continue any longer. 8. This war must continue until we win. Many of our brave soldiers have died for this cause. We must not let their deaths be in vain.

314

Logical Fallacies Section 5.4 Fallacies of Presumption

9. We have recently learned an important fact: Most people in this country are strongly opposed to the policies of this administration. We base this conclusion on the fact that almost all the people who answered this question on our political organization’s website were opposed to the policies. 10. And we should stop saying that all people are created equal. It just isn’t true. Some people are richer than others, some are smarter than others, some are stronger than others, some are more talented than others, some are more successful than others, and on and on. It’s a fact: We are deﬁnitely not equal.

**Section 5.4 Fallacies of Presumption
**

The Fallacies of Presumption form the third main division of informal fallacies. One thing that sets these fallacies apart is that they are deductively valid. So, with these, the problem is not the inference to the conclusion. Rather, the problem lies with the premisses. The premisses are presented as if they were established truths, but they are, in fact, not established truths at all. Unless the listeners are especially careful, they will be led by the arguer to accept the premisses and also the conclusion that validly follows.

**20. False Dichotomy Fallacy
**

20. False Dichotomy Fallacy

What is characteristic of this fallacy is that it makes crucial use of a premiss that asserts a false set of choices. The choices have their consequences, and so a conclusion does follow, but the assertion of choices is wrong. This typically involves the situation where the choices leave out other possibilities. An example of this fallacy is the following: “I know that Capitalism is a view rejected by some social thinkers, but that should not deter us from accepting Capitalism as the best economic system. Remember what a dismal failure Communism was in the former Soviet Union.”

Unfortunately.4 Fallacies of Presumption This argument has the structure: 1. X or Y [this premiss falsely omits other choices] 2. The problem here is that the premisses are false. The audience recognizes that these consequences are a disaster. and these two choices do not exhaust all the possible alternatives. not Y 3. The premiss is a false dichotomy. Slippery Slope Fallacy In this kind of argument the premisses claim that a certain matter X has a long string of consequences Y1. And that means that the conclusion has not been established. Y3. X 315 The choice presented is Capitalism or Communism in the Soviet Union. The conclusion then follows by a modus tollens. The consequences follow one another much like when one slides down some slippery slope: there is an inevitable sequence leading to an inevitable ﬁnal state. Flint produces. Slippery Slope Fallacy 21. The arguer is lying. 21. There are several different economic systems. or the totality of all the consequences is a disaster. the long-time editor of Hustler Magazine. or is himself deceived. in one of the following two ways: either the consequences are mild at the outset and disastrous at the end. it is not sound. . So. or exaggerating.Logical Fallacies Section 5. while the argument is valid. Y4. So. the real world does not produce such a causal sequence of events. The chain of conseqences just does not exist. a great debt. An example of this fallacy is the next passage (a reconstruction of an actual event): “This nation owes Larry Flint. Y2. and is led to accept the conclusion as well. etc. the audience accepts the wild claims of the arguer. But these are not logical opposites. Some people are highly offended by the kind of pornography that Mr.

This ﬁrst premiss is false.4 Fallacies of Presumption But Mr. Fallacy of Ad Hoc Reasoning 22. Flint is actually a champion of the most important of our liberties—Freedom of Speech. we need to explain that. are terrible things. etc. or how. Y3. Flint repeatedly fought the legal campaigns brought against him. Y2. Mr. some matter came about. art. Y3.” This argument has the following structure (here. The proposed explanation seems to do the job. Had he not won the legal battle to produce such pornography. The way I see it is that one of the .316 Logical Fallacies Section 5. the censorship of other popular magazines would have been inevitable. the arguer has simply invented an explanation. and the argument is unsound. 3. This argument pattern is valid. X = “Offensive pornography ought to be legally prohibited”): 1.. and next. So. Y4. An example of this fallacy is the following: “We know that somehow the money in the account went from one million dollars to one thousand dollars. and next. Flint will be honored tonight with this special award. Y2. etc. newspapers. in that the matter at issue is indeed explained by the proposal. 2.” This fallacy concerns a proposed explanation of why. X is wrong. and in this way he helped secure our freedom. except for one little problem—instead of using known facts to explain the matter at issue. For this effort. Y4. and he won. 22. But he did win. by using mere possibilities without any additional support. If X then Y1. but the slippery slope described in the ﬁrst premiss just doesn’t exist. So. Those results Y1. Mr. And what a victory that was. Fallacy of Ad Hoc Reasoning The Latin phrase literally means “[made] for this [matter]. the censorship of books. and all forms of free speech.

Q happened. Yes.Logical Fallacies Section 5. etc. 4.000 into some other account somewhere. Such is the nature of ad hoc reasoning. First of all. some crazy story about the cleaning staff tidying up the ofﬁce and. one that employs a correct inductive inference pattern and that is used on a regular basis by scientists in every area of science. You see. that’s what must have happened. for otherwise those reasons themselves would establish that the theory is true. It must be pointed out that ad hoc reasoning is similar in some respects to another type of reasoning. and. To explain why Q has happened. theory T is true. we may add. There are some important differences.) What ← Incredible!! . Theory T has no sources of support. So. the correct pattern includes an extra premiss that says that the theory was not merely invented: there are some speciﬁc reasons (A. If theory T is true. (These are not foolproof reasons. that would explain how the money disappeared. such as Detective Columbo. But the made-up stories happen to explain the event in question. If theory T is true. 3. Theory T is true. So. Q happened. by detectives. well.” This argument has the following structure: Purpose: Q has happened. 3. There is at least some (independent) evidence for theory T being true. 2. 4. B. 2. So. then Q happens. Purpose: Q has happened. What if someone invented another theory T2. 1. it is clear that this kind of thinking can never constitute an acceptable explanation of why something has happened. When stated in this form. To explain why Q has happened. and this inference pattern would then be pointless. [correct inductive inference] 5. [valid deductive inference] There are two differences between this correct pattern and the previous fallacious pattern. 1. if that happened. This other type of reasoning is known as inference to the best explanation. There is no other theory available for Q that is better than theory T.4 Fallacies of Presumption 317 computer maintenance programs probably malfunctioned and sent $999. then Q happens. you ﬁll in the story. These are just made-up stories. and there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that these theories are really true. C.) for thinking that the theory is true.

” and the fallacy is usually called “Begging the Question. and the listener expects an argument that will settle the matter once and for all.4 Fallacies of Presumption is important here is that a theory that is supported by evidence (A. with similar levels of plausibility. and whatever the Bible says must be true?” . the arguer presents premisses that validly produce a conclusion. have you considered that the Bible itself says that God exists. Petitio Principii Fallacy 23. C) becomes a stronger theory when it succeeds in also explaining other real events. The premisses are assuming for their own support the very conclusion that they are supposed to be supporting. then nothing can be concluded. it is not a logically valid inference. Clearly.” In this kind of argument. but it has not been conclusively established. even though there is no further evidence for the premisses themselves. Given the available evidence. the theory is probably true. The proposal X has been challenged. But that. is the very question that was supposed to be proved. we may conclude that the theory is true—with this qualiﬁcation: the inference is inductively correct only. So. of course. The second difference between the correct pattern and the fallacy is a second extra premiss that says that there is no other theory available that is better than the present one and that also explains the occurrence of the matter Q. The argument goes around in a vicious circle. the proposal X remains unsupported. The purpose of this argument is to establish (prove) a proposal X regarding some controversial matter. But. Petitio Principii Fallacy (Begging the Question) The Latin name of this fallacy means “a petition to the very principle at issue. if there are alternative theories available. B. when a theory meets these conditions. what is unique here is that the arguer presents premisses that are completely unsupported—except that the proposal X itself is secretly or explicitly made a reason to support the premisses. But there is something else that happens in this type of argument. 23.318 Logical Fallacies Section 5. An example of this fallacy is the following: “I know you question whether God exists. Now. and ultimately.

Fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses . 24. 3. X conclusion Background argument for premiss P2 1. So. What the Bible says is true. 2. 2. and so. The Bible says that God exists. So. proposal X is never established. Q2 premiss 4. etc. This argument and all cases of Question Begging have the general form: Main argument for proposal X 1. Fallacy of Inconsistent Premisses 24. The proposal X always remain unsupported. People who believe that what the Bible says must be true believe that because they believe that God exists. So. God is the author of the Bible. etc. 3. P1 premiss 2. X premiss = orig. God is infallible. So. God exists. 319 The arguer does not explicitly say why he asserts Premiss 2 to be true. as conclusion. Q1 premiss 3. Whatever the Bible says is true.4 Fallacies of Presumption 1. P3 premiss 4. 2. P2 premiss 3. but the background argument is certainly something like: 1. God most assuredly exists.Logical Fallacies Section 5. P2 This pattern makes it clear that the reasoning goes around in a circle. So. the argument originally proposed does indeed Beg the Question. concl.

C ⊃ D 7. ~E B ~D C ~C premisses that both Smith and Jones use here 1. Here is another. which means then that he lied about Liz being right. according to Bill. How does that happen? Actually. which means that she was not right. To use a simplistic example. Liz. then conﬂicts must eventually emerge as the discussion develops.7. and yet they end up with deep disagreement. 9. I conclude that: KAPOW!!! You can see that people could start with a set of premisses. 8. he contradicted himself.8. A 6. others of them deny. This situation will certainly arise when. and because they are not careful enough. MT 2. “You are such a jerk.6. in the course of further discussions.4 Fallacies of Presumption Sometimes when we reason about certain matters we are caught up in a debate of conﬂicting opinions. and later. so that she is actually saying that she is wrong! She is claiming to be both right and wrong at the same time. they could initially fail to notice a latent inconsistency. too! He said she was right. my friend.” “I’m sorry. People disagree with each other quite a bit. Clearly. The moral of this story is: Be careful with unrestricted claims.5. claims that are not properly qualiﬁed as to exceptions. but because of the content of her assertion.320 Logical Fallacies Section 5. MP 4. So. One easy way to get caught up in a contradiction is to make some unrestricted claims. unknown to the participants. A ⊃ B 2. What is unusual is the situation when people agree on the basic premisses. Liz is both right and wrong. the same thing happens even just with ourselves. 10. Smithy. be caught up in a contradiction. and I think: Smith: Then. That can get you into trouble.” Whoops! Liz just got trapped in a contradiction: In the act of making the assertion. the premisses that form the starting point are an inconsistent set. B ⊃ C 3. That is not unusual. she is claiming that Bill is wrong when he says that she is right. very much more serious example. Bill! You never tell me the truth. suppose Smith and Jones are having a discussion and they agree to start with the following six premisses: 1. 4. MP 3. let’s consider a more plausible case. We start with some basic premisses and we end up with conﬂicting results. You’re so right about that. And poor Bill. Such premisses are self-contradictory: what some of them assert. Liz is claiming that she is right. if people start with an inconsistent set of premisses. I have to conclude that: Jones: Wait you idiot. about the situation of September 11: . MT Smith: Jonesy. But. D ⊃ E 5. that is. I think that: Jones: Of course.

. search. form a set of inconsistent premisses. So. However.4 Fallacies of Presumption 321 “Our constitutional liberties must be safeguarded at all costs. 2. and therefore. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. we must sometimes violate our constitutional liberties. If our constitutional liberties may not be violated. So. to stop them from doing so. to stop them from doing so. we have arrived at an explicit contradiction by lines 1 and 5. because at least one of those premisses must be false. and if so. Pk.Logical Fallacies Section 5. and if so. So.A Fallacies of Presumption Part A. . Pk . Identify the fallacies that are committed in the following passages. no one is allowed to accept both premisses. no one is permitted to assert all of the premisses P1. then we must do everything we can to preserve our constitutional liberties. . an explicit contradiction can be derived from them. ~Q 14243 14243 The premisses do not have any typical pattern. lines 1 and 2. search. 4. It is possible that some passages contain more than one fallacy. This means that the original premisses.” 1. Our constitutional liberties may not be violated. So? So. and coerce various people to discover whether they intend to destroy our liberties. . . don’t ever do it. Q . we must detain. 3. In cases such as this. Clearly. we must do everything we can to preserve our constitutional liberties.4. and coerce various people to discover whether they intend to destroy our liberties. The arguments at issue here have the following structure: P1 P2 . Exercise 5. The further conclusion that also follows has been conveniently suppressed: 5. . We will therefore detain.

4 Fallacies of Presumption 1. 7. 8. because no individual being can create something like the universe. That’s impossible. Identify the fallacies that are committed in the following passages.322 Logical Fallacies Section 5. It is possible that some passages contain more than one fallacy. And especially at our own university the increase has been quite dramatic— double the usual number. you are either with us or against us. These fallacies include any of the fallacies of Relevance. But that assumption was clearly wrong given the increased enrollments. which in turn would lead to many radiation disasters. this proves that people are never free in their actions. Use the available Exercise Work Sheet to submit your work. and excessive adherence to older views have no place in a correct educational curriculum. We have to hold the line. which for years people have been incapable of doing. People necessarily act in accordance with what they desire. So. and that they must have secretly worked many hours of overtime. We must save the species of Yellowbacked Grand Valley Minnows at all costs. Abundant nuclear energy is not an acceptable goal. mind-numbing exercises. What dedication! They all deserve a big merit raise.B All Fallacies Considered Part B. This project will establish this ﬁeld as a science in its own right. In a previous book. or Presumption. 5. a project that analytically deﬁnes and substantially inter-relates all the major concepts that comprise this ﬁeld.4. 2. An atheist should believe that there is no distinction between right and wrong. of Misconstrual. and what they desire is necessarily beyond their control. 1. 4. you are against us in this war. This follows from the fact that either there is a God and what is right and wrong follows from divine laws. 3. In this war. or there is no God and there is no possibility of a basis for any moral distinction. because that would require thousands of nuclear facilities all over the country. and hundreds of thousands of deaths. 6. You say that a divine being created the universe. Exercise 5. Your objections to our strenuous efforts in waging this war show that you are not with us. We conclude that the admissions staff members must have doubled their efforts. Violations of ecological conservation measures such as this one will one day lead to disastrous global ecological consequences. We were surprised by this increase because we had all been assuming that our admissions ofﬁce had not been able to make additional efforts due to cutbacks in their staff. the same scholar was very . The project proposed by this scholar promises to be an analytical tour de force. Pointless accumulation of facts. Many colleges and universities have experienced large increases in student enrollments in recent years. We urge you to agree with our assessment that traditional methods of instruction need a complete overhaul. So.

because he is the only one in this whole primary of whom you can say this. and we can expect success for the overal project. Therefore. pornographic depictions on regular TV channels during family hours. People don’t want their children to see repulsive. degrading. So. But a new tax for that is inexcusable. In short. a great Country singer. We should deﬁnitely contribute money to the senator’s campaign. The following is a sound model regarding the relationship of morality and legal rights. and within a few days the price of oil fell 25 percent. such personal conviction .4 Fallacies of Presumption 323 successful in analyzing one of those concepts. and that she had to sell the memorabilia of her dear grandmother. We must not provide public funds to Public Television stations that show programs with sexual content. This candidate is not who you think he is. You must reconsider. Just look at the people that he deals with. contemporary music appreciation. He is a real winner. That is to say. So. One cannot say. That is what religion brings about. and on the other hand. for example. That is amazing. 10. 5. you are supporting them too. But. Please pay attention to what is happening. That is very important. and that is why we want to introduce him to the people of this state. inalienable right to life. and the National Enquirer said that the senator had almost no money left. 6. 9. My opponent said that we should provide state funds for new treatment programs for mental illness. Those people are against everything that you and I stand for and believe in. If you support this candidate. while many people personally believe that abortion is morally wrong. She is. Humanity can do much better without it. One need only consider the many horrors of the wars fought in the name of religion that have occurred throughout history. so he anounced that he was lifting the presidential embargo on off-shore oil drilling. just to keep the campaign alive. All human beings have an absolute. herself a great Hollywood actress. Our candidate is unknown to you all. that all human beings have an absolute. the death penalty must be abolished in this country.Logical Fallacies Section 5. I don’t know how he does it. My opponent is wrong. why should we spend their tax dollars to fund such programs? 7. 8. offensive. but the President obviously controls the entire oil industry. 2. one cannot have it both ways. The ﬁrst thing to notice is that no one has ever publicly said anything negative about our candidate. personal moral views cannot infringe on public. even if that means that we need to levy new taxes for that. we know. that elected or appointed ofﬁcials have the right and obligation to kill people in certain cases. inalienable right to life. We cannot go down that road. I suppose that means we should create new taxes to fund all sorts of programs. on the one hand. 3. The price per barrel of oil was going through the roof. legal rights. Religion should be abolished. All of them are radicals. 4. some of the analysis has already been done. Everyone else is being attacked on all sides—but not our candidate.

Well. 13. geological causes. But I think you understand how important it is for you not to look like you’re not a team player. But it is a known fact that the Earth’s temperature has risen in past ages through only natural. 12. and now it looks like you are not a team player. people have the right to have an abortion. for cars to have wheels. 11. There is a purpose for everything. But that is ridiculous. Therefore. there is a purpose for our existence. . Look around you: there is a purpose for birds to have wings. for pens to have ink. The Green movement is irresponsible. for ﬂowers to smell. The Mayor has always stressed the importance of being a team player. Commentators argue that the extreme violence in movies and television has caused a great increase in murders in our society. The Mayor is concerned about your disagreement with the rest of the Planning Commission regarding the upcoming proposal. and these advocates cannot prove that the present rise in temperature is not due to such natural geological causes. The Green advocates claim that the increased carbon dioxide emissions produced by our present technology and industry are causing the global temperature to rise. 14.324 Logical Fallacies Section 5. Movies don’t kill people—people kill people. according to law. Consider the matter of global warming. for the sun to shine. of course.4 Fallacies of Presumption may not infringe on the rights of other people. for ships to have sails. Well. I am glad we cleared that up. The moral convictions of others may not infringe on this right.

also be accompanied by a full or partial deduction that provides a number of intermediate conclusions. informally stated.” 8. Arguments that are inconclusive at one point in time can become erroneous arguments as we learn information that shows the premisses to be false. and (2) all the premisses are known to be true. If the probability is 100%. argument. many people have loved ones. if it is known to be unsound. that is. inconclusive. formally stated. 37–38. An argument is a proof. but there is a questionable premiss. and (3) the argument has the format in which all the premisses are listed ﬁrst. if either the argument is known to be invalid. An argument is informally stated. 47–49. the argument is inductively valid. An argument is inductively strong if this probability is high. proof. Otherwise. argument. 48. argument. (This is the same as saying: A proof is an argument that is known to . and such love gives people great happiness. if (1) the argument is known to be valid. An argument is inconclusive. An argument is a group of given sentences such that some of these sentences are being offered as reasons for one other sentence in the group. erroneous. argument. 48–49. For example. “Many people have great happiness. (2) all the intended parts of the argument are explicitly stated. and an argument is inductively weak if this probability is low. if (1) all its sentences are statements. deductive An argument is deductive. cogent An inductive argument is cogent. such as the laws of science. An argument is inductively valid. inductive strength of. 16. or false. or may not. A formally stated argument may. we do not know whether this premiss is true.GLOSSARY AND INDEX OF TERMS argument. 10. An argument is formally stated. 16. if the conclusive connection at issue is based not on conceptual necessity but instead on empirical relationships that are known to have no exceptions. argument. if the connection of the premisses to the conclusion is based on the laws of logic. 10. 14. whose status is unknown. If the connection is based on empirical relationships of probabilities then the argument is an inductive argument. An argument has an inductive strength corresponding to the degree of probability of the conclusion relative to the premisses. or some premiss is known to be false. 37–38. argument. argument. if it does not meet the criteria of a formally stated argument. and the (ﬁnal) conclusion is listed last. argument. and (2) the conclusion has a strong degree of probability (51% or greater) relative to the premisses. if it is valid. the argument is uncogent. After all. 10. inductively valid. if (1) all the premisses are known to be true. An argument is erroneous. that is. 14. argument.

it is logically invalid. q. connective. if there is a conclusive connection leading from the premisses to the conclusion. q is a required condition for p. 24–26. and the right side “p only if q” expresses that q is necessary for p. [Note that it is the same thing to say that p is sufﬁcient for q as it is to say that q is necessary for p. If an argument is not logically valid. valid (the preliminary version). if the conclusive connection at issue is a matter of conceptual necessity in the following sense: It is not logically possible that all the premisses be true while at the same time the conclusion is false. not p without q. argument. that there is a conclusive connection. conditions. q. argument. if p. in the event that p. 74. if not q then not p. p necessitates q. that kind of disagreement is not even imaginable. it is invalid. 58. and sometimes. but this one is easy: “All people are born. 150. if p. (Bonus! If an argument is sound. See: sentence. See: syllogism.) If an argument fails either of these two criteria. 22. All of these constructions are represented as: if p then q. q is a necessary condition for p. If an argument is not valid.” 8. sufﬁcient.326 Glossary and Index of Terms be sound. Thus. The set is consistent if there is such an interpretation that makes all these sentences have the resultant value T together. An argument is sound. The conclusion of an argument is that sentence in the argument for which the other sentences of the argument are given as reasons. then the conclusion will automatically be true as well. When a conditional sentence is used to state that a situation p is sufﬁcient for a situation q. A set of sentences is inconsistent if there is no possible interpretation of all the basic components of all these sentences that makes all these sentences have the resultant value T together. conditions. [Logical validity is also called deductive validity. All of these constructions are represented as: if p then q. 53. 77. if p then q must also obtain. if it satisﬁes the connection criterion. I am a person. categorical. the English conditional sentence typically uses one of the following special grammatical constructions: if p then q. concretely.” The left side “if q then p” expresses that q is sufﬁcient for p. and (2) the truth criterion.] 71–73. q is required for p. p is sufﬁcient for q. if it satisﬁes two criteria: (1) the connection criterion. See: sentence operator.) Examples are often complicated ones. but they are nevertheless inconsistent in the general sense. Aristotelian Logic. in virtue of the more detailed structures involving their quantiﬁers and terms. a biconditional sentence always expresses that one situation is both a necessary and sufﬁcient condition for another situation (and vice versa). argument. the English conditional sentence typically uses one of the following special grammatical constructions: p only if q. q is necessary for p. necessary. semantical version. 203. q. provided that p. and it is also called logical implication. q.” 37–38. not p unless q. An argument is valid. For . When a conditional sentence is used to state that a situation p requires a situation q. logically valid (conceptual version). Truth-functionally inconsistent sets are inconsistent in virtue of the structure of the sentence connectives involved. I was born. given that p. sound. p requires q. 69. consistency and inconsistency. See: Traditional Logic. This distinction means that some sets are truth-functionally consistent. So. 71–73. q. categorical. 201. categorical syllogism. or equivalently. conditions. then the argument is unsound. necessary and sufﬁcient. that all the premisses are in fact true. An argument is logically valid. and p only if q. that is. categorical sentence. conclusion. requirements. The conclusion is often introduced by the word “so” or “therefore. 195.] 44–46. A biconditional sentence “p if and only if q” asserts the conjunction “p if q.

“Some talking animals are not animals. 145. the three sentences “All pets are dogs. A sentence is an implicit contradiction. which in turn is the same as saying that a contingent sentence is the same as an empirical sentence. 96–97. semantical version. Obv) and the two basic syllogisms (Univ Syll. A sentence is contingently true if it is a contingent sentence that is true in the real world.” 31–32. Part Syll).] 96–97. A sentence is an explicit contradiction. deﬁnite description. but Tom is not married. and (b) a short label that identiﬁes the rule being used.10.” 150. Contrap. A deduction for an argument is a (vertical) sequence of sentences (1) beginning with the premisses of the argument. 96. but this set is truth-functionally consistent. contradiction. for an argument.” 31–32. 97.” [Truth-functional logical falsehoods form a smaller subgroup within the group of logical falsehoods. and (3) all the sentences in the sequence that come after the premisses (the intermediate conclusions and the ﬁnal conclusion) are derived from previous sentences in the sequence by the rules of inference. empirical sentence. This system consists of the four usual equivalences rules (QN.” 279. A sentence is contingently false if it is a contingent sentence that is false in the real world. A sentence is empirical. This deductive system provides easy deductions for all valid categorical syllogisms and for all valid extended syllogisms (sorites).” and “Some red apples in Chicago are not red. A logical falsehood is also called a contradiction. Conv. contradiction. 99. 201. 117–118.Glossary and Index of Terms 327 example. also called a contradiction. 33–35. All dogs are singers.” Augmented Traditional Logic includes singular categorical sentences that use the singular copula “is. any sentence that incorporates them cannot be true. if it results in asserting two contradictory parts. Conj. proper annotations of. deduction. For example. Such annotations consist of three vertically aligned and coordinated columns: (1) a column that numbers all the lines of the deduction. and will thus be a necessary falsehood. explicit. 153. for syllogisms and extended syllogisms. Some pets are not singers” form an inconsistent set. 194–196. A sentence is contingent if it is not necessarily true and it is not necessarily false. if it has the grammatical form “p and not p. An . “12. Our main treatment permits only the expression “are. For example. deduction. (2) a column of the sentences that make up the deduction. “Tom is married. 145.” 117. if it is either empirically true or empirically false. contradiction (logical falsehood). An expression that designates a single thing. 33–35. There is a deductive system for Traditional Logic that is never introduced to students (except in this course). copula.” For example. A sentence is a logical falsehood. if it is a contradiction but not an explicit contradiction. Deductions are to be properly annotated. This is the same as saying that a contingent sentence is one that is either true and possibly false or false and possibly true. “Tom is a married bachelor. not M and not S 2. See: contingent. These reasons list (a) the line-numbers of the previously listed lines involved in the step. contradiction. contingently false.” 31–32. See: contingent. The copula of a categorical sentence is the expression that links the subject terms to the predicate term. Since these parts cannot both be true. For example. implicit. 33–35. A sentence is a logical falsehood if for every possible interpretation of all the basic components of that sentence. for example. contingently true. and (3) a column of the reasons for each step. “the cat that chased you. For example. that sentence always has the resultant value F. and (2) ending with the conclusion of the argument. p and not-p. contingent sentence. symbolized either by a name symbol or a special quantiﬁed expression involving identity. deduction. “Yesterday Tom found a perfectly cubical sphere.

A general group of informal fallacies in which the premisses are presented as if they were established truths. 288. 287. but possibly true. Two sentences are equivalent if they mean exactly the same thing. and unless the listener is especially careful. if it is true in the real world. fallacies. fallacies. but they are. in fact. but they are misconstrued into something unwarranted. For example.. equivalence (the conceptual version). [Truth-functionally equivalent sentence-pairs form a smaller subgroup within the set of equivalent sentences-pairs.” “Some elephants can ﬂy. of irrelevance (relevance). The inference to the conclusion. Obviously. equivalence. A general group of informal fallacies in which the premisses are totally irrelevant to the conclusion. it is in fact false. but one can imagine it to be false. This gives the following criterion: it is not logically possible (imaginable) that either one of the two sentences is true while the other one is false. fallacy. formal. empirically true. semantical version. of presumption. e. A general group of informal fallacies in which the arguer begins with some information in the premisses that is then misconstrued into some unwarranted conclusion. They are relevant. Fallacies are classiﬁed as formal fallacies or informal fallacies. A main classiﬁcation of informal fallacies.328 Glossary and Index of Terms empirical sentence is one that can be imagined to be true and can also be imagined to be false. not established truths at all. 145. non sequitur. the resultant value of the one sentence is always the same as the resultant value of the other sentence. fallacies. For example. but possibly false. but the premisses are nevertheless persuasive. Informal fallacies are types of arguments that have defective premisses that nevertheless persuade the listener that the conclusion is correct. fallacies. 290. fallacies. and most fallacies are of the informal type.] 93–94. 288. “Some elephants can ﬂy. fallacies. These kinds of fallacies are different from the fallacies of irrelevance because the premisses in these cases are not totally irrelevant.. Fallacies make a typical mistake in the nature of the inference or in the truth of the premisses. 301. “Some people can dance. Hence.g. Ad hoc reasoning concerns a proposed explanation of why. “Some people can dance. Formal fallacies are arguments that employ invalid patterns. Nevertheless. Two sentences are equivalent if for every possible interpretation of all the basic components of the two sentences. if it is false in the real world. informal. A main classiﬁcation of informal fallacies. they succeed in persuading the listener that the conclusion is correct. but people mistake them for valid ones. on the other hand. the sentence “Not all dogs sing” is equivalent to the sentence “Some dogs do not sing” (not all D are S. fallacies. 286–289. A sentence is empirically true. with such a lack of connection.” 93–94. he will be led by the arguer to accept the premisses and also the conclusion that validly follows. regardless of the status of the premisses. For example. For example. e. or how. fallacy of. some matter .” Any kind of inference in which the conclusion does not follow from the premisses.” A fallacy of presumption. 314. these arguments would have to be invalid. it is in fact true. People think these patterns are rules of logic when in fact they are not rules at all. is valid. some D are not S).g. of misconstrual. Latin for “it does not follow.” 33–35. “Some women are astronauts” and “some astronauts are women. but one can imagine it to be true.” 33–35. A main classiﬁcation of informal fallacies. empirically false. Latin for “[something made] for this [matter]. the argumentum ad baculum fallacy. ad hoc reasoning. For example. A logical fallacy is a type of argument that is in fact unsound but yet is often accepted to be sound. Hence. A sentence is empirically false. the fallacy of denying the antecedent.” 33–35.

293. in that the matter at issue is indeed explained by the proposed premisses. 295. 291. The fallacy occurs when the listener fails to notice the duplicity and gives an answer that is then taken as an answer to the unsuspected question. A formal fallacy. fallacy. the premisses introduce a characteristic that applies to the individual parts of some considered thing. In this type of argument. Latin for “argument from ignorance. 316. 287. A fallacy of irrelevance. fallacy. fallacy of. A fallacy of misconstrual.” In this type of argument the arguer is making an appeal to force (or even some reward) to get the listener to agree with the conclusion. confused with the rule of modus tollens. instead of using known facts as premisses to explain the matter at issue. fallacy. argumentum ad ignorantiam. the argument is a non sequitur. afﬁrming the consequent. ambiguity (syntactic). by using premisses that are mere possibilities. Latin for “argument from the club [stick]. fallacy. complex question fallacy.” In this type of popular argument the arguer makes an appeal to popular sentiments in an attempt to persuade the listener that the conclusion is correct. fallacy. .” In this type of argument the arguer is making a personal attack on some opponent in order to persuade the listener to reject that opponent’s thesis.” In this type of argument the arguer cites a source that is “revered” in an attempt to persuade the listener that the conclusion is correct. through that. and the conclusion ends with the other meaning. A fallacy of irrelevance. A fallacy of irrelevance. In this type of argument. A fallacy of irrelevance. 292. to a lack of knowledge. one of the premisses has an ambiguous grammatical form that allows the sentence to be understood in two different ways. 290. except that. argumentum ad hominem. “If Tom went then Sue went. 296. Latin for “argument from the people. 306. argumentum ad populum. This is an appeal to ignorance. 312. the arguer asks two questions that are disguised as a single question. A fallacy of misconstrual. The error in this reasoning becomes clear when one adds the one word “yet”: the fact that no one has proved the conclusion wrong yet is irrelevant to the conclusion. that from a conditional sentence and from the denial of its antecedent part. The fallacy occurs when the argument has a shift in meaning. confused with the rule of modus ponens. that from a conditional sentence and from its consequent part. composition. fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the characteristic in question does not have this dual application.g. denying the antecedent. fallacy. fallacy. when the premisses start with the one meaning. A formal fallacy. agreement. 308. fallacy. argumentum ad verecundiam. The mistaken inference. In this type of argument. The proposed explanation seems to do the job. q ∴ p. when the source is an expert in a different area only.” In this type of argument the arguer claims that the conclusion is correct because no one has proved that it is wrong. fallacy of. 103. The fallacy occurs when the source cited is irrelevant to the particular case at hand.” pattern: p ⊃ q . This fallacy is often called an appeal to an unqualiﬁed authority.. e. So. the arguer has simply invented an explanation.Glossary and Index of Terms 329 came about. therefore. Tom must have gone as well. A fallacy of irrelevance. fallacy. A fallacy of misconstrual. fallacy. Latin for “argument from reverence.” In this type of argument the arguer makes an appeal to the listener’s pity to persuade the listener of the correctness of the conclusion. And we also know that Sue went. one may infer its antecedent part. So. argumentum ad baculum. and that have no other support. The mistaken inference. and the conclusion asserts that this characteristic. Latin for “argument against the person. Latin for “argument from pity. applies to that considered thing as a whole. The arguer arouses feelings of sympathy and. argumentum ad misericordiam. A fallacy of irrelevance.

fallacy of. but that does not require causation. ~p ∴ ~q.” pattern: p ⊃ q . the premisses. because of this. 287. “If Tom went then Sue went. One thing may happen after another thing. the proposed conclusion remains unsupported. 319. fallacy. In this type of argument. A fallacy of misconstrual. . the premisses introduce a characteristic that applies to something considered as a whole. So. 304. the arguer presents premisses that have no evidence to support them. applies to the individual parts of that whole. guilt by association fallacy. 309. In this type of argument. The fallacy occurs when the inferred particular case is not a proper instance of the general premiss. and so a conclusion does follow. because the negative facts may be about the origin of the proposal or about some other historical matters regarding the proposal. the arguer notes that one situation came after another situation. This typically occurs when the arguer leaves out other possible choices. therefore. A fallacy of misconstrual. Moreover. improper instance. therefore. In this type of argument. The argument continues with further assertions involving the noted causal relationship. The fallacy occurs when there is no evidence that such a causal relationship exists. the premisses are assuming for their own support the very conclusion that they are supposed to be supporting. fallacy. Also called the fallacy of hasty generalization. But. In this type of argument the arguer rejects some proposal on the basis of certain negative facts that are in some concrete way associated with the proposal. false dichotomy fallacy. inconsistent premisses. equivocation (semantic). 298. In this type of argument. not Sue went. 302. The fallacy occurs when the available. division. Therefore. post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 305. at ﬁrst glance. and the conclusion ends with using another meaning of that same word. further attention to the premisses reveals that the proposed conclusion is secretly or explicitly made a reason to support the premisses. and the conclusion asserts that this characteristic. but the assertion of choices is wrong. fallacy of. because many of our words have more than one meaning. and also the post hoc fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is also called the false cause fallacy. fallacy of. When the negative facts refer to the arguer’s opponent. and so. fallacy of. Clearly. A fallacy of misconstrual. the premisses present some individual facts. 311. fallacy. the premisses begin with using one meaning of a word. 104. Latin for “petition to the principle [at issue].330 Glossary and Index of Terms one may infer the denial of its consequent part. the argument is a non sequitur. although they do validly produce the conclusion. But on closer inspection it becomes clear that the premisses actually form a contradiction. do not seem to be problematic.” A fallacy of presumption. The choices have their consequences. In this type of argument. A fallacy of presumption. such premisses are unsupportable. improper (hasty) generalization. So. fallacy. fallacy. fallacy. the arguer begins with a (correct) general premiss and then infers a particular case. fallacy.” A fallacy of misconstrual. fallacy. Latin for “After this. What is characteristic of this fallacy is that it makes crucial use of a premiss that asserts a false set of choices. Equivocation can readily occur. This fallacy is usually called Begging the Question. The fallacy occurs when the associated matters are quite tangential and irrelevant to the conclusion. and they validly produce the conclusion. In this type of argument. and the conclusion involves a generalization based on these facts. A fallacy of irrelevance. individual facts cited do not support the proposed generalization. In this type of argument. this type of argument is also an ad hominem fallacy. 318. not Tom went. A fallacy of presumption. The argument goes around in a vicious circle. This fallacy is also called the Genetic Fallacy. and therefore was caused by it. fallacy of. petitio principii fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the characteristic in question does not have this dual application. fallacy. 314. A fallacy of misconstrual.

fallacy. c = s. below. identity. Some sentences (one or more) together imply another sentence if the corresponding inference from those sentences to that other sentence is a valid argument. See: contradiction.] Thus. 44. Y2. singular term. special pleading. fallacy. The faults of the irrelevant side issue are then illicitly transferred to the main proposal. We all do things that we should not do. “Clark Kent is identical to Superman. the distorted position is not at all what the opponent wanted to assert. for example. A singular term is a word or expression that represents (or purports to represent) exactly one thing. Fallacy of irrelevance. to recommend it. red herring fallacy. 315. 279. With this type of argument the arguer presents a distorted or exaggerated version of his opponent’s position. (This fallacy is a variety of the ad hominem fallacy. 85. and concludes that the original position of the opponent has been refuted. straw man fallacy. 282. A sentence is impossible if it is not possibly true. A fallacy of misconstrual.” or. The special relational predicate “__is identical to__.” “Chicago. possible falsehoods are ones that are not necessary truths. A fallacy of irrelevance. 31–32. Latin for “And you [do it] too!” In this type of argument the arguer discredits some opponent by pointing out that this opponent acts contrary to his own position. Examples are “Abraham Lincoln. fallacy. logical. no one else does either. and inversely. 31–32. Necessary falsehoods consist of mathematical falsehoods. necessary. A sentence is possibly false. The error in this reasoning becomes clear when one considers that truth and practice are two different things. fallacy. falsehood. laws of.” . fail to do things that we should do. See rules. For example. The name of this type of fallacy refers to the old practice of training bloodhounds to track missing persons by dragging smelly red herrings across the paths of the hounds to try to throw them off the scent. issue as a substitute for the proposal of the opponent. “Some people can dance. if the sentence is false in at least one logically possible (imaginable) circumstance. 299. falsehoods of logic. implication. Proper names are also called individual constants. A sentence is necessarily false. and hence. restricted quantiﬁers. “something other than the Moon is round. the premisses are false. 303. and that therefore we do not have to believe what the opponent is saying.Glossary and Index of Terms 331 fallacy. In this type of argument the premisses claim that a certain matter X has a long string of consequences Y1. it is a sentence that is necessarily false. He then proceeds to criticize the distorted version.” 281. fallacy of. See: possible. Such selectivity cannot be the basis for making a correct inference. falsehood. slippery slope fallacy. 96–97. Laws of logic that are true regarding the identity relation. individual constant. Y4. and often. 31–32. In this type of argument. identity. proper name. identity relation. [The real world counts as a possible circumstance. the sought-after conclusion is something that should be based on a weighing of the various pros and cons that are relevant to the case. 301. Of course.) 297. In this type of argument the arguer sneakily introduces some other. if the sentence is false in every logically possible (imaginable) circumstance. including the real world. and deﬁnitional falsehoods [and some other special falsehoods known as synthetic apriori falsehoods]. and they are a type of singular terms. tu quoque fallacy. irrelevant. and no one. but the arguer presents only reasons that favor his point of view.” 28–30. etc. A fallacy of presumption. The fallacy occurs when the alleged chain of conseqences in fact does not exist. with an inevitable disastrous ﬁnal state. falsehood. having no substance and nothing. Quantiﬁers that are limited by means of an identity restriction. A fallacy of misconstrual. impossible sentence.” as for example. Y3. The distorted position is truly a straw man. possible. contradiction.

” on the one hand. logical truth (tautology). Blanks are usually represented by specially selected letters.” “dance.” “person. possible falsehood.” etc. Sometimes commas are used as a practical visual aid to separate two or more symbolic formulas. This study also includes some important cases of incorrect reasoning. This study includes an introduction to a variety of special methods as well as a large number of principles known as the laws of logic. and precisely stated universal laws. Concrete application to everyday affairs receives a lesser emphasis than does the study of the formal techniques. A sentence is a logical truth if for every possible interpretation of all the basic components of that sentence.” [Truth-functional logical truths form a smaller subgroup within the group of logical truths. sentence. Singular terms are not properly represented within Traditional Logic. B . punctuation marks are used to indicate how the parts of our sentences and larger passages are grouped into units. except the left and right parentheses. 58. 145. 138. 13. 5–7. followed by an inference indicator (“therefore”).” “smart. b. For example. 28–30. See: conditions. 53.” on the other hand. 5–7. y. 217. . inference indicator.” but these commas are completely unnecessary. that indicates that an inference is being made. c. necessary conditions.] 95. 58. such as “not. Formally stated arguments always require the latter kind. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. For example. . rigorously drafted techniques.” “5. 119. followed by one other sentence pattern (the conclusion). or phrase. 71–73. “(A & B)⊃C . For example. For example. and their function is precisely to make a unit out of whatever is enclosed by them. parentheses. ~C. 56. singular terms are represented by lower-case letters: a.” “the Statue of Liberty. logic. Informal logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning with a special emphasis on concrete application to everyday affairs. Some inference indicators introduce a premiss (“since” or “because”). An argument pattern has an inﬁnite number of speciﬁc arguments as instances. semantical version. . An inference indicator is a word. 53. Formal logic is the study of correct reasoning with a special emphasis on representing correct reasoning as part of a comprehensive formal system consisting of well-deﬁned terms. w. punctuation. even without the commas.” “God. logic. method of direct proof in deduction. u. v. formal.” “the Solar System. the lack of operators and the lack of parentheses on the right-hand side of the sequence forces the sequence to break at the two places indicated. and z have a different function. and formal (or non-descriptive) words. 119. informal. All grammars make a distinction between content (or descriptive) words. possible. In natural language. and some introduce the conclusion (“so” or “therefore”). In logic there are no punctuation marks whatsoever. .” “and. 5–7. “All talking animals are animals. The study includes some laws of logic and a variety of logical fallacies. 60. 2. pattern (form). When the special rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof are not used in a deduction. 135.) 201. argument. the deduction is said to employ the method of direct proof. . (A & B) ∨ (~C & ~D). A sentence pattern has an inﬁnite number of speciﬁc sentences as instances. that sentence always has the resultant value T. such as “red. “some X are Y” and “if not p then not q” are sentence patterns. but a comprehensive formal system with universal laws and formal techniques is not introduced. (The letters x. 279. A logical truth is also called a tautology. pattern (form). In Quantiﬁcational Logic. A sentence pattern is an arrangement of formal words and blanks that act as place-holders for certain kinds of content words. An argument pattern is a small list of sentence patterns (the premisses). See: falsehood.332 Glossary and Index of Terms “the Earth.” “every.” “only. because. logic.

220. Traditional Logic was an incomplete introduction to this study.” “if something is S then it is P. The quantiﬁer contains a variable tag to indicate what individual variable will be used to continue its reference. 152. quantiﬁer. So.. B. the sentence “George is funny. and complex predicates must be represented in terms of these. 160. The existential quantiﬁers are the . “a.” “Not any person heard the music” becomes “all persons did not hear the music. Simple predicates are represented by capital letters A. .” 150.” 161. See: term.g.” The “a” quantiﬁer must be replaced by “all” or “some” in accordance with the predicate space-time restriction criterion. but not all people are funny” has the propositional form: p and not q.are not. 28–30. possible. All our reasonings. Quantiﬁcational Logic (Modern Logic). relational. . 150. “all” = “every” = “each” = “whatever.” English sentences often use the quantiﬁer “a.” “some.” 217. quantiﬁer. quantiﬁer.” “if you’re an S then you’re P.. . predicate term. quantiﬁer.] 216. predicates.” The latter is ungrammatical and has a confused meaning. [Quantiﬁcational Logic is also called Modern Logic. The internal structure of simple sentences themselves is ignored in this study. . Propositional Logic (Sentential Logic). 166. An existential quantiﬁer is an expression that makes reference to some unspeciﬁedmembers of the universe of discourse. alternative variations.” as in “A tiger is dangerous. 156. existential. C. all other English quantiﬁer expressions are considered to be variations on these three. and not all dogs are mean. “George is smart” is symbolized as “Sg. 222.” [But not: “if everything is an S then it is P. predicates. A quantiﬁer is a word that indicates the quantity of things under discussion. Propositional Logic is also called Sentential Logic.” English sentences often use the quantiﬁer “any.” (some D are M) & ~(all D are M).” “no” = “not any” = “there are no” = “all. pattern. Premisses are often introduced by the word “since” or “because. relations. for example.” “no. 52. E. 219.” and “George is a smart person” is symbolized as “Sg & Pg. See: truth.” or “A car smashed into the tree. For example. “any. Quantiﬁcational Logic is a comprehensive study of the detailed elements that make up the various structures of simple sentences.” “some” = “there are” = “a few. there are exactly three quantiﬁers words: “all. In Traditional Logic. as well as Predicate Logic. involve minutely structured patterns. For example.” 8. An English sentence whose quantiﬁer is a combination must be restated as two separate sentences with separate quantiﬁers. For example. “__lives on__.” This quantiﬁer is always translated as “all.” and others as described below. conditional. quantiﬁer. 267. A predicate is an expression that characterizes individual things.” “if anything is S then it is P.Glossary and Index of Terms 333 possible truth. gLm. We need a correspondingly detailed formal language to study these patterns and to assess their validity.” as in “George lives on the Moon.” or. “Some but not all dogs are mean” must be restated as the conjunction “Some dogs are mean. Propositional Logic is the study of the structure (form. An expression that describes an individual thing by relating it to some other thing.] 156. A premiss of an argument is a sentence that is offered in the argument as a reason for the conclusion. simple. quantiﬁer.” but the so translated sentence must always begin with the word “all. premiss. The sentence scheme “all S are P” has several conditional variations in English: “If it’s an S then it’s P. quantiﬁer. combined. In Traditional Logic only three quantiﬁers are allowed. both ordinary and advanced. arrangement) that sentences and arguments have in virtue of only the following components: simple sentences and sentential operators. A simple predicate is a predicate that is not grammatically built from other predicate expressions.

” “for every thing y. if true. but logically equivalent ways.” “for some thing y. this expression extends as far as there are occurrences of the variable x.” 222–223. The missing quantiﬁer must be reintroduced according to the predicate space-time restriction criterion: If the action of the verb is not restricted in space or time. “(∀z). .” “sometimes.” 160. “Only Seniors will graduate in June” means (1) “All who will graduate in June are Seniors. “Some things are physical and not eternal” is represented as “for some thing x.” Whether or not the reason is a conclusive reason is another matter. The scope of a quantiﬁer tagged with a variable x is the expression written after the quantiﬁer that is governed by the quantiﬁer. universal.” 219. and whenever George likes someone.” that is. quantiﬁer. For example.” 281. scope of. For example.” and are further symbolized as “(∃x).” “never. A universal quantiﬁer is an expression that makes reference to all the members of the Universe of discourse.” For example.” or. relation. that is. people shouted” must be reworded as “All places-whereGeorge-went are places-where-people-shouted. “people like ice cream” means “all people like ice cream.” and are further symbolized as “(∀x). times. restricted by identity.” as for example. A questionable premiss is one whose truth-value status is unknown.” that is. x is physical and x is not eternal.” Here. Many English sentences suppress their quantiﬁers.” “nowhere. For example. “something other than the Moon is round. for example. 167.” For example. makes it reasonable to think that the conclusion is true.g.” (all A are R). From a practical point of view. c = s. missing. The special relational predicate “__is identical to__. identity. For example.” “whenever.334 Glossary and Index of Terms constructions “for some thing x. “Everywhere George went.” and “people were dancing all night” means “some people were dancing all night.” or equivalently. “Clark Kent is identical to Superman. “(∃x)[Mx & (Ex ⊃ ~Px)]. the sentence “George likes Meg.. such as “everywhere. The quantiﬁer contains a variable tag to indicate what individual variable will be used to continue its reference. For example. “(∀x)(Px & ~Ex)” . “There once was life on Mars. 167.) 8. (For example.” that is.” “wherever.” (only S are G = all G are S = all non-S are non-G). 38. we do not know whether this premiss is true or false. quantiﬁer.” “(∃y). quantiﬁer. “All things are physical and not eternal” is represented as “for every thing x. x is mental and if x is eternal then x is not physical. 220. quantiﬁer. reason.” “for every thing z. “(∃x)(Px & ~Ex). he gives that person some ﬂowers” is a reason for the conclusion “George gives Meg some ﬂowers.” “(∃z). quantiﬁer. A sentence is a reason for a conclusion.” E. quantiﬁer. 279.” They must be put into categorical form. “only.” The “only” quantiﬁer can be interpreted in two distinct. Quantiﬁers that are limited by means of an identity restriction.” “somewhere. questionable premiss. “Whenever George is angry. “Something is mental. quantiﬁer. the scope of the quantiﬁer “(∃x)” is the expression “[Mx & (Ex ⊃ ~Px)]. and if it is eternal then it is not physical” is represented as “for some x. if action of the verb is restricted in space or time.” “(∀y)” .” They must be put into categorical form. if that sentence. then the missing quantifer is “some. then the missing quantiﬁer is “all”. (2) “all who are not Seniors will not graduate in June.” Arguments using this as a premiss would be inconclusive arguments. it was not stated that Meg is a person. for a conclusion. such as “always. or further if parentheses group the expression into a yet larger unit. he turns red” must be reworded as “All times-when-George-is-angry are times-when-George-is-red. The universal quantiﬁers are the constructions “for every thing x. x is physical and x is not eternal.” “for some thing z. 162. Some English sentences employ dedicated place quantiﬁers. places. Some English sentences employ dedicated time quantiﬁers.” (all W are S).

” Cond. conditional proof. for example. rules of inferences. and y is taller than z. 120–121. “for all x. Some relations are characterized by necessary relationships.” Bicond. q. rule. then x is taller than z.” CP. 108. “Tom went if and only if Sue went” equals “If Tom went then Sue went. also. for all z.g. Modus Ponens. by means of which one is permitted to derive certain sentences from already given sentences if those sentences satify the conditions speciﬁed in the rules. Assoc. for all y. When a deduction for an argument makes use of the rule of Conditional Proof. rule. 267. rule.g. association. a disjunction with multiple disjuncts that are grouped in one way is equivalent to that disjunction when its disjuncts are grouped in some other way. A conditional sentence is equivalent to a disjunctive sentence whose two choices are. . These rules permit one to infer a certain conclusion from some given premisses. These rules specify that some part of the premiss may be changed into an alternative form while the remainder stays ﬁxed. rules of inference.. relation. p ≡ q = (p ⊃ q) & (q ⊃ p). A sentence containing a relational predicate that relates individual things that are referred to explicitly by name or indeﬁnitely by quantiﬁers. These rules permit one to infer a certain conclusion from a given premiss. all forms. rule. 109. rule. the rule Double Negation. the opposite of that antecedent part and. There is an important division of these rules into the rules that are basic argument forms and the rules that are basic equivalence forms. 111. basic equivalence forms.” (∃x)(xHg). the deduction is said to employ the method of Conditional Proof. rule.” Such items are interchangeable. “If Tom went then Sue went” equals “either not Tom went or [in case he did. and Mary went. two. “something hit George. conditional relation. “Tom went. and that uses the rules of inference to derive some result. p & q = q & p . An expression that describes an individual thing by relating it to some other thing. “Tom or Sue went” equals “Sue or Tom went. p & (q & r) = (p & q) & r . p ∨ (q ∨ r) = (p ∨ q) ∨ r. This reserved portion of the deduction becomes de-activated and is replaced by a conclusion that is the conditional sentence: “if p then q. that same consequent part. already known to be valid. for example.” or. A conjunction with multiple conjuncts that are grouped in one way is equivalent to that conjunction when its conjuncts are grouped in some other way. Comm. relational predicate term.Glossary and Index of Terms 335 relational general truths. p ⊃ q = ~p ∨ q. one. basic argument forms. 120–121. relational sentence. A conjunction is equivalent to that conjunction when its conjuncts are switched. rules of inference. then] Sue went.” Similarly. commutation. for example. “Tom went. p ∨ q = q ∨ p. gLm.” Such items are interchangeable. and Sue and Mary went” equals “Tom and Sue went. p. 120–121. ~(~p) = p.. The rules of deduction for logic are a set of selected rules. rule. “Tom and Sue went” equals “Sue and Tom went. 111. also. A biconditional sentence is equivalent to the conjunction of the two conditional sentences formed from its two sides. These rules specify the pattern that the premisses must have and the pattern that the conclusion must have. These sentences are interchangeable. bicondition. 267. e. rule. These equivalent sentences are interchangeable. 136. e. a disjunction is equivalent to that disjunction when its disjuncts are switched.” as in “George lives on the Moon. “__lives on__. if x is taller than y. One may reserve a portion of a deduction for a special procedure that begins with an extra assumption. or Sue or Mary went” equals “Tom or Sue went.” Similarly. or Mary went.” 277. and if Sue went then Tom went.

From “Tom or Sue went” and from “Not Tom went” infer “Sue went. rule. and if Sue went. “Tom went. From “Either Tom or Sue went” and from “If Tom went then Liz went” and from “If Sue went then Matt went” infer “Either Liz or Matt went. rule. These equivalent items are interchangeable. and consequently also for universal-negative sentences. and either Sue or Mary went” equals “Tom and Sue went. or else Tom and Mary went. From a disjunctive sentence with two choices.S. “Some squirrels are well-trained animals” equals “some welltrained animals are squirrels. rule. complex conditional sentence in which the two conditions are stated as separate antecedent parts. and from two conditional sentences that assert the respective results of those choices. categorical version. A conjunctive sentence. or both Sue and Mary went” equals “Tom or Sue went. conjunction. one of whose components is a conjuction.” Conj. a disjunctive sentence. 105. D. rule. p ∨ q . 111. Syll or D.” Disj. distribution. A conditional sentence whose one antecedent is a double condition is equivalent to the single. some S are P = some P are S .” Likewise. p ⊃ r . one may infer a sentence that is the conjunction of those two sentences. one may infer the sentence that is the remaining choice. is equivalent to the conjunctive sentence that results when the one disjunct is disjunctively distributed over the two conjuncts. whereby one may simply switch the subject term and the predicate term. “If both Tom and Sue went then Mary went” equals “If Tom went.Ifs (also. DeMorg.” Such items are interchangeable. further. 106. All S are P = all non-P are non-S. one of whose components is a disjunction. p ∨ (q & r) = (p ∨ q) & (p ∨ r). and also. rule. 190. 110. “Not both Tom and Sue went” equals “Either not Tom went or not Sue went. no S are P = no P are S.” Conv. rule. p ⊃ q = ~q ⊃ ~p . then Mary went. rule. The opposite of the conjunction of two sentences is equivalent to the disjunction of the opposities of the two sentences.” Such equivalent complex sentences are interchangeable.” Contrap. The rule of Traditional Logic. p . and from a sentence that is the opposite of one of the choices. if Sue went. 169. conversion. Tom or Mary went. whereby one may switch the subject and the predicate terms if at the same time one takes the opposite of each. dilemma. rule. From“Tom went” and from “Sue went” infer “Both Tom and Sue went. 106. then Mary went” equals “If Tom went. Exp. From a disjunctive sentence with two choices. double ifs (exportation).” Likewise. “Not either Tom or Sue went” equals “both not Tom went and not Sue went. ~(p & q) = ~p ∨ ~q . propositional version. rule. q ∴ p & q.” Such equivalent items are interchangeable.336 Glossary and Index of Terms rule. then. “If Tom went then Sue went” equals “if not Sue went then not Tom went. 108.” Dilemma. 189. Distr. q ⊃ s ∴ r ∨ s. p ∴ p ∨ q. De Morgan’s Laws. “All cats are non-humans” equals “All humans are non-cats. also. ~(p ∨ q) = ~p & ~q. From “Tom went” infer “Tom or Sue went. one may infer the disjunctive sentence whose two choices are those results. “Tom went. p & (q ∨ r) = (p & q) ∨ (p & r) . restricted to universalafﬁrmative sentences. disjunctive addition. A conditional sentence is equivalent to the conditional sentence that results by switching the two sides and taking the opposite of each. From a given sentence. 106. From two sentences. or Add. one may infer the weaker disjunctive sentence in which the given sentence is one choice and any sentence is the other choice. . contraposition. is equivalent to the disjunctive sentence that results when the one conjunct is conjunctively distributed over the two disjuncts. disjunctive syllogism.” Contrap. permitted for particular-afﬁrmative sentences. p ∨ q . contraposition. The rule of Traditional Logic. ~p ∴ q.” Disj Add.) (p & q) ⊃ r = p ⊃ (q ⊃ r). also. the opposite of the disjunction of two sentences is equivalent to the conjunction of the opposites of the two sentences.

one may infer a sentence that is an instance of that sentence. also. a = b . Dupl. p ⊃ q . identity. where a is a name introduced here by a separate selection step.” D. one may infer the existentially quantiﬁed generalization of that sentence. rule. 243.” EG. rule. ~(~p) = p. identity. p ⊃ q . From a conditional sentence and from the sentence that is the opposite of its consequent part. p ∨ p = p. From “Something caused the universe” infer “unspeciﬁed thing A caused the universe. one may infer the sentence that is the opposite of its antecedent part. p & p = p . From “If Tom went then Sue went” and from “If Sue went then Mary went” infer “If Tom went then Mary went. The law that the relationship of being identical is transferred among its participants. IP. or H. 110. 139. rule. 282. These equivalent items are interchangeable.N. Fa . they are non-identical. “Tom went. hypothetical syllogism. law of difference of non-equals. EG. b = c ∴ a = c . the deduction is said to employ the method of Indirect Proof. The law that when two things are identical. modus ponens.” Such equivalent items are interchangeable. Syll. no restriction. From . The law that an identity relation is reversible. From “If Tom went then both Sue and Mary went” infer “If Tom went then Sue went. rule.I. This reserved portion of the deduction becomes de-activated and is replaced by a conclusion that is the negation-opposite of the assumption in question.S. One may reserve a portion of a deduction for a special procedure that begins with an extra assumption and that uses the rules of inference to derive an explicit contradiction. 282. and moreover. a disjunction consisting of a sentence disjoined with itself is equivalent to that sentence by itself. 107.Thens. p ∴ q. law of transitivity. identity. p ⊃ r. rule. From “Chicago is not a bird and Chicago is not a mountain” infer “for some thing x. one may infer a corresponding conditional sentence stating only one of those two results. From “If Tom went then Sue went” and from “Tom went” infer “Sue went. rule. one may infer the sentence that is its consequent part. a = b . Tom went” equals “Tom went.” Similarly. provided the name selected has no prior use and no prior signiﬁcance of any kind. rule. or else Tom went” equals “Tom went. From a sentence about any named individual (no restriction). one may infer the conditional sentence whose condition is the condition of the ﬁrst one. “It is not the case Tom didn’t go” equals “Tom did go. Fa ∴ Fb . 104.” This inference also works in the reverse.I. 246. 108. rule. From an existential sentence. “Tom went. From a conditional sentence and from another conditional sentence that is the continuation of the ﬁrst. law of symmetry. E. double thens. identity. ∴ a = a. “If Tom went then Mary went. law of reﬂexivity. rule. The law that when two things have different properties.” E. existential instantiation. 282.” Hyp. modus tollens. identity. (∃x) Fx ∴ (select name: a) . ~Fb ∴ ~(a = b). and whose result is the result of the second one. Fa ∴ (∃x) Fx . ∴ Fa .” MP. From a conditional sentence and from the sentence that is its antecedent part. law of substitution of equals. When a deduction for an argument makes use of the rule of Indirect Proof. From a conditional sentence stating a double result. p ⊃ (q & r) ∴ p ⊃ q. q ⊃ r ∴ p ⊃ r. rule. 103. D. The law that anything is identical to itself. duplication. indirect proof. rule. 282. existential generalization.a = b ∴ b = a. rule. double negation.Glossary and Index of Terms 337 rule.” and also. rule. 282. where a is any proper name. they have the same properties. The denialof a denial of a sentence is equivalent to just that sentence. A conjunction consisting of a sentence conjoined with itself is equivalent to that sentence by itself. x is not a bird and x is not a mountain.

338

Glossary and Index of Terms

“If Tom went then Sue went” and from “not Sue went” infer “Not Tom went.” MT. p ⊃ q , ~q ∴ ~p. 104. rule, name-negation law A rule for named things, by which an external negation is equated with a negative predicate, for example, “not (Alex is hungry)” equals“Alex is non-hungry.” Name-Neg. 202. rule, the particular syllogism. One of the two basic categorical syllogisms used in deductions in Traditional Logic. This rule is the following: Part Syll. Some S are M. All M are P. So, some S are P. The second premiss provides the universal continuation that is always required for syllogistic inferences. This rule is also known as the AII-1, Darii, syllogism. 195. rule, predicate-double-negation. A special version of the rule of Traditional Logic known as Obversion. When the predicate side of a sentence is doubly negated, one may simply reduce the predicate to the afﬁrmative form, and vice versa. “Some people are not uneducated” equals “Some people are educated.” Pred-DN. . . . . are (not non-P) = . . . . are P . 187. rule, the primary categorical syllogisms. These are the two basic argument forms in Traditional Logic that we call the Universal Syllogism, Univ Syll, and the Particular Syllogism, Part Syll. 195. rule, quantiﬁer-negation laws, categorical. The rule that changes the denial of a quantiﬁed sentence into a modiﬁed quantiﬁed sentence with a negated predicate, and vice versa. “Not all cats are docile” equals “Some cats are non-docile”; also, “Not some dogs are red” equals “All dogs are non-red.” QN not all S are P = some S are non-P; also, not some S are P = all S are non-P = no S are P. Also known as the square of opposition relations. 188. rule, quantiﬁer-negation laws, QN. The rule that changes the negation of an absolute quantiﬁed sentence into a modiﬁed absolute quantiﬁed sentence with a negated predicate, and vice versa. “Not everything is mental” equals “Something is not mental.” Also, “Not something is physical” equals “Everything is not physical.” QN ~(∀x) Fx = (∃x) ~Fx ; also, ~(∃x) Fx = (∀x) ~Fx. There are corresponding versions for restricted quantiﬁed sentences. 251. rule, reductio ad absurdum. If a hypothesis (a condition) leads both to one result and also to its denial, then one may infer that the hypothesis is false and that its opposite is true. From “If Tom went then Sue went” and from “if Tom went then not Sue went” infer “It can’t be that Tom went.” RAA p ⊃ q , p ⊃ ~q ∴ ~p. 107. rule, simpliﬁcation. From a conjunctive sentence that asserts two parts, one may infer a sentence that is one of those two parts. From “Both Tom and Sue went” infer “Tom went.” Simp. p & q ∴ p. 105. rule, the singular particular syllogism. A rule that infers a general categorical sentence from a pair of singular sentences. For example: From “Soxtrox is an ant” and “Soxtrox is noisy,” infer “some ants are noisy.” Sing Part Syll. 202. rule, the singular universal syllogism. A rule that applies a universal categorical sentence to a named thing. For example: From “all animals are active” and “Soxtrox is an animal,” infer “Soxtrox is active.” Sing Univ Syll. 202. rule, the super syllogisms. These are extensions of the universal syllogism and the particular syllogism by means of additional universal premisses to continue the connection. 197. rule, syllogism categorical. See: rule, universal syllogism, particular syllogism. 195. rule, tautology, logical truth. At any point in a deduction one may assert any sentence that is one of the allowed logical truths (tautologies). Assert “either Tom went or not Tom went.” Taut. p ∨ ~p. 122. rule, universal generalization, UG. From a sentence about a named individual (with strong restrictions), one may infer the universally quantiﬁed generalization of that sentence. From “George is not a synthetic astronomer” infer “for all things x, x is not a synthetic astronomer.”

Glossary and Index of Terms

339

UG (select name: a) , . . . , Fa ∴ (∀x) Fx , where a is a name introduced by a separate selection step. 248. rule, universal instantiation, UI. From a universal sentence, one may infer a sentence that is an instance of that sentence, without regard to what instance name is selected. From “Everything is an eternal mental thing” infer “Chicago is an eternal mental thing.” UI (∀x) Fx ∴ Fa , where a is any proper name, no restriction. 241. rule, the universal syllogism. One of the two basic categorical syllogisms used in deductions in Traditional Logic. This rule is the following: Univ Syll. All S are M. All M are P. So, all S are P. The second premiss provides the universal continuation that is always required for syllogistic inferences. This rule is also known as the AAA-1, Barbara, syllogism. 195. sentence, biconditional. A biconditional sentence is a sentence that asserts that two sentences are reciprocal conditions for each other, so that they have the same truth-status. A biconditional sentence is also called a biconditional. In regular English, biconditional sentences can take various forms, but in Propositional Logic one uses the complex operator expression “if and only if,” and the latter is always placed between the two sides. For example, “Dogs can think if and only if cats can think” (p if and only if q). 55. sentence, categorical. A categorical sentence is a simple sentence that has the form: quantiﬁer + term + copula + term, where these elements are of a required type. For example, “All snails are veryslow-movers,” where “all” is a quantiﬁer, “snails” and “very-slow-movers” are terms, and “are” is a copula. Traditional Logic can be augmented to include singular categorical sentences, such as “Earth is a planet,” and “Chicago is a non-planet.” 150, 201. sentence, compound. A compound sentence is a sentence that is grammatically constructed out of other sentences by means of sentential operators, such as “or.” For example, “George saw Liz, or the party was cancelled” (p or q). 52. sentence, conditional. A conditional sentence is a sentence that asserts that if one situation obtains (called the condition or the antecedent), then another situation also obtains (called the result, or the consequent). A conditional sententce is also called a conditional. In regular English, conditional sentences can take a wide variety of forms, but in Propositional Logic they take the standard form: “if condition then result.” A conditional sentence is always represented with the condition listed on the left-hand side. For example, “If Liz goes to at the party, then George will be happy” (if p then q). 55. sentence, conjunctive. A conjunctive sentence is a sentence that makes a double assertion. Such a sentence is formed by applying a conjunctive operator to the two sentences being asserted. A conjunctive sentence is also called a conjunction, and the two component sentences are called the conjuncts of the conjunction. In regular English there are many different conjunctive operator expressions. In Propositional Logic these are all represented by the one operator “and,” and the latter is always placed between the two sentences being asserted. For example, “Dogs bark, and cats meow” (p and q). 54. sentence, disjunctive. A disjunctive sentence is a sentence that asserts two alternatives (choices). Such a sentence is formed by applying a disjunctive operator to the two sentences at issue. A disjunctive sentence is also called a disjunction, and the two component sentences are called the disjuncts of the disjunction. In regular English there are several different disjunctive operator expressions. In Propositional Logic these are all represented by the one operator “or,” and the latter is always placed between the two sentences being asserted. For example, “Dogs bark, or cats meow” (p or q). 54. sentence, elementary. The smallest grammatical sentence structure by which other sentence structures are generated. This notion is relative to the level of logic being studied. In Propositional

340

Glossary and Index of Terms

Logic an elementary sentence is a simple sentence, in Traditional Logic it is a categorical sentence, and in Quantiﬁcational Logic it is a singular sentence (but not a quantiﬁed sentence). 52, 150, 222. sentence, negative. A negative sentence is a sentence that is the explicit denial of another sentence. Such a sentence is formed by applying a negative operator to the sentence that is being denied. In regular English there are many different negative operator expressions. In Propositional Logic these are all represented by the one operator “not” that is always placed in front of the sentence being denied. For example, “Not the Sun will shine tomorrow” (not p). 54. sentence, operator. A sentential operator is a grammatical operator that is applied to sentences to form more complex sentences. These are divided into the following types: the negative operator “not,” the conjunctive operator “and,” the disjunctive operator “or,” and the conditional operator “if.” Additional sentential operators may also be studied in Propositional Logic, such as the modal operators “necessary” and “possible.” Sentential operators are also called connectives. 53. sentence, quantiﬁed, absolute. A classiﬁcation of a sentence with respect to its English grammatical structure. This English structure is: quantiﬁer + subject + predicate, where the quantiﬁer is one of the words “all,” “some,” “no,” and where the subject is the one word “things.” For example, “all things are eternal mental stuff,” “some things can ﬂy.” Absolute sentences have a subject range that is the entire universe and have a mandatory symbolization of “(∀x)Px,” “(∃x)Px,” or “(∀x)~Px,” where “Px” is the symbolization of whatever was the original English predicate. Note that “nothing” becomes “(∀x)~.” 225. sentence, quantiﬁed, categorical. A classiﬁcation of a sentence with respect to its English grammatical structure. This English structure is: quantiﬁer + subject + predicate, where the quantiﬁer is one of the words “all,” “some,” “no,” and where the subject is an expression that is not the word “things.” For example, “All spirits are eternal,” “some old cars are expensive.” Categorical sentences have a subject range that is some smaller subset of the entire universe, and they have a required symbolization “(∀x)(Sx ⊃ Px),” “(∃x) (Sx & Px),” or “(∀x)(Sx ⊃ ~Px),” where “Sx” and “Px” are the symbolizations of whatever are the original English subject and predicate. 225. sentence, quantiﬁed, instance of. An instance with respect to the name a of a quantiﬁed sentence is the result of deleting the quantiﬁer of the sentence and at the same time replacing all the occurrences of the individual variable in question throughout the sentence by occurrences of the selected name a. For example, an instance of the quantiﬁed sentence “(∀x)[(Fx & Gx) ∨ ~Sx]” to the name “g” is: “[(Fg & Gg) ∨ ~Sg].” 241, 247. sentence, relational. A sentence containing a relational predicate that relates individual things that are referred to explicitly by name or indeﬁnitely by quantiﬁers, for example, “something hit George,” (∃x)(xHg). 266. sentence, singular (name sentence). A simple singular sentence is a sentence consisting of a simple predicate term applied to a singular term. Singular sentences therefore never contain any quantiﬁers. For example, “George is smart” is symbolized as “Sg.” The compound sentence “George is a smart person,” or “Sg & Pg,” is a conjunction of two simple singular sentences. 225. sentence, simple. A simple sentence is a sentence that is not grammatically constructed out of other sentences by means of sentential operators. For example, “Some people walked on the Moon.” 52. singular terms, proper names. A singular term is a word or expression that represents (or purports to represent) exactly onething. All proper names are singular terms. For example, “Abraham Lincoln,” “Chicago,” “the Earth,” “the Statue of Liberty,” “God,” “5,” “the Solar System,” etc. Traditional treatments of Traditional Logic do not include singular terms, with the result that

Glossary and Index of Terms

341

many arguments about speciﬁc individuals cannot be properly evaluated. When Traditional Logic is augmented to included singular terms in its grammar and deduction method, this deﬁciency is rectiﬁed. 201, 217, 279. singular categorical sentence. An additional sentence type that can be added to the grammar of Traditional Logic, having the form: n is S, where n is a singular term. For example, “The Moon is a non-planet.” 201. singular universal syllogism. An additional rule that can be added to the deduction method of Traditional Logic, having the form: Sing Univ Syll. all S are P. n is S. So, n is P, where n is a singular term. “All planets are sun-orbiters. Earth is a planet. So, Earth is a sun-orbiter.” 202. singular particular syllogism. An additional rule that can be added to the deduction method of Traditional Logic, having the form: Part.Univ.Syll. n is S. n is P. So, some S is P, where n is a singular term. “Earth is a planet. Earth is with life. So, some planet is with life.” 202. square of opposition. When the four main types of categorical sentences are arranged as a square, some important logical relationships are displayed, namely, that opposite corners are negation opposites, that is, contradictory sentences. (Left upper corner: all S are P; right upper corner: no S are P; left lower corner: some S are P; right lower corner: some S are non-P.) Now known as the Quantiﬁer-Negation Laws. 188. statements. A statement is a sentence that is true or false. This rules out questions, commands, and interjections of feelings. For example, the sentence “The earth is round” is a (true) statement, and the sentence “Bill Clinton ate an elephant for breakfast today” is a (false) statement. The truth or falsity of such simple, basic statements is determined by the situation of the real world. In ordinary logic one considers only sentences that are statements, and so, in ordinary logic the terms “sentence” and “statement” are used interchangeably. 10. subject term. See: term. 150. sufﬁcient conditions. See: conditions. 71–73. syllogism. “Syllogism” means “argument” in Greek. Hence, this term is used for a number of argument patterns in Propositional Logic (“hypothetical syllogism,” “disjunctive syllogism”) “conjunctive syllogism,” and is regularly used in Traditional Logic. 195. syllogism, categorical. A type of argument important in Traditional Logic. A categorical syllogism is an argument with two premisses and a conclusion. All the sentences are categorical sentences, and have a total of three terms, each of which is used (twice) in two different sentences. For example, “Some persons are singers. All singers are musicians. So, some persons are musicians.” 195. syllogism, extended, sorites. When syllogisms (consisting of only categorical sentences) have more than two premisses, they have more than a total of three terms. Such syllogisms, when they are valid, can be demonstrated to be valid by treating them as a linked series of valid categorical syllogisms. Such extended syllogisms are also called sorites (so-ri’-tes). For example, “Some A are B. All B are C. All C are D. All D are E. No E are F. So, some A are (not F).” 193. tautology. See: logical truth. 95. term, general term. A general term is a word or group of words that represents some group of things in the universe. If the term occurs on the “subject side” of a categorical sentence, then it is also called the subject term of that sentence, and if it occurs on the “predicate side,” it is called the predicate term. Examples of terms are: “person,” “book,” “smart cat,” “wild dancer,” “watcher of the sky.” Afﬁrmative terms are represented by capital letters A, B, C, etc. 150. term, negative. For every afﬁrmative term that represents one group of things, there is another corresponding negative term that represents the group of things that is the rest of the universe. Negative terms are constructed by attaching the negative operator “non-” to the afﬁrmative term.

342

Glossary and Index of Terms

Examples of negative terms are: “non-person,” “non-book,” “non-smart-cat” (non-P, non-B, nonS). 152. term, two combined subjects. An English sentence whose subject is a combination must be restated as two separate sentences with separate subjects. For example, “Dogs and cats have tails” must be restated as the conjunction “All dogs have tails; and all cats have tails.” (all D are T) & (all C are T). 163. Traditional Logic (Aristotelian Logic). Traditional Logic is the study of certain simple sentences, called categorical sentences, together with certain kinds of arguments involving them, called categorical syllogisms. E.g, “Some pets are lizards. No lizards are warmblooded. So, some pets are not warmblooded,” is a valid categorical syllogism, and is represented as “some P are L, no L are W. So, some P are (not W).” Traditional Logic is also known as Aristotelian Logic, Syllogistic Logic, and The Logic of Terms. From a modern perspective, Traditional Logic may be considered to be a more comprehensive system that also includes the laws of Propositional Logic. 149. Traditional Logic, augmented. The system that results when singular categorical sentences (“Earth is a planet”) are added to the grammar and deduction method of Traditional Logic. 203. truth, apriori. A sentence is an apriori truth, if the sentence is true in every imaginable circumstance. Such sentences do not depend for their truth on any observations of sensory experience, and hence are said to be knowable “prior to” experience. 31. truth, correspondence theory of. The correspondence theory of truth is the view that the truth-value of simple, basic sentences is determined solely by the situation of the real world. The truth-value of complex sentences then depends in a functional way on the truth-value of the relevant simple, basic sentences. [We restrict the real world correspondence to just basic sentences, since it is not correct to say that grammatical complexity, such as “if. . .then,” or “either. . .or,” or “not,” somehow has a correspondence with the real world.] Thus, “The Earth is round” is T, because that sentence corresponds to the real world, and “The Moon is a cube” is F, because that sentence does not correspond to the real world. Based on those values, the sentence “Some thing is round, and The Moon is not a cube” acquires the value T. 11. truth, deﬁnitional. A sentence is a deﬁnitional truth if the sentence is true in virtue of the definitions of the words in the sentence. For example, “All equilateral triangles have three equal sides.” Since nothing here depends on speciﬁc conditions of the real world, a deﬁnitional truth will be true in every logically possible (imaginable) circumstance, and hence, necessarily true. 31. truth, known. A sentence is known to be true, if (1) it is accepted or believed to be true, (2) this belief is based on adequate evidence, and (3) the sentence is also in fact true. For example, “The Earth is many millions of years old” is a known truth. 36–38, 81. truth, necessary. A sentence is necessarily true, if the sentence is true in every logically possible (imaginable) circumstance, including the real world. Necessary truths consist of mathematical truths, truths of logic, and deﬁnitional truths [and some other special truths known as synthetic apriori truths]. 31. truth, of logic. A sentence is a truth of logic, if the sentence is true in virtue of the logical form of the sentence. For example, “It rains, or it doesn’t.” Since nothing here depends on speciﬁc conditions of the real world, a truth of logic will be true in every logically possible (imaginable) circumstance, and hence, necessarily true. 31, 95, 142. truth, of mathematics. A sentence is a truth of mathematics, if the sentence is true in virtue of the mathematical relationships expressed in the sentence. For example, “3 is greater than 1+1.” Since nothing here depends on speciﬁc conditions of the real world, a truth of mathematics will be true in every logically possible (imaginable) circumstance, and hence, necessarily true. 31.

Glossary and Index of Terms

343

truth, possible. A sentence is possibly true, if the sentence is true in at least one logically possible (imaginable) circumstance. [The real world also counts as one logically possible (imaginable) circumstance.] Thus, possible truths are ones that are not necessary falsehoods. For example, “Some horses can ﬂy.” 28–30. truth-functional consistency and inconsistency. A set of sentences is truth-functionally inconsistent if there is no possible assignment of truth-values T and F to all the simple components of all these sentences that makes all these sentences have the resultant value T together. The set is truth-functionally consistent if there is such an assignment of values that makes all these sentences have the resultant value T together. For example, the three sentences “If cats sing, then dogs sing; Cats don’t sing; Dogs do sing” form a truth-functionally consistent set. 99, 145. truth-functional equivalence. Two sentences are truth-functionally equivalent if for every possible assignment of truth-values T and F to all the simple components of the two sentences, the resultant value of the one sentence is always the same as the resultant value of the other sentence. For example, the sentence “Not both dogs sing and cats sing” is truth-functionally equivalent to the sentence “Either not dogs do sing or not cats do sing” (not both p and q; either not p or not q). 93, 145. truth-functional implication. Some sentences (one or more) together truth-functionally imply another sentence if the corresponding inference from those sentences to that other sentence is a truth-functionally valid argument. 85, 145. truth-functional logical falsehood (contradiction). A sentence is a truth-functional logical falsehood if for every possible assignment of truth-values T and F to all the simple components of that sentence, that sentence always has the resultant value F. A truth-functional logical falsehood is also called a truth-functional contradiction. For example, “If cats sing, then dogs sing; but cats sing and dogs don’t.” (if p then q; and p and not q). 96, 145. truth-functional logical truth (tautology). A sentence is a truth-functional tautology if for every possible assignment of truth-values T and F to all the simple components of that sentence, that sentence always has the resultant value T. A truth-functional logical truth is also called a truth-functional tautology. Example, “If both dogs and cats sing then dogs sing” (if p and q then p). 95, 145. truth-functional validity. An argument is truth-functionally valid if for every possible assignment of truth-values T and F to all the simple components of all the sentences of the argument, it is never the case that all the premisses have the resultant value T while the conclusion has the resultant value F. 85, 145. truth-table for a group of sentences. A truth-table for a group of sentences is a table with columns and rows that lists the resultant truth-values of the given sentences for each of the possible combinations of truth-values to the simple sentences out of which the given sentences are constructed. The vertical columns are headed by the given sentences, and each of the horizontal rows begins with one of the possible combinations of truth-values to the simple components. Auxiliary columns are introduced to contain the intermediate resultant values of the subparts leading up to the resultant values of the given sentences. This kind of tabular display permits one to investigate the logical characteristics of the given sentences by an examination of their possible truth-value behavior. 86–90. truth-values. In logic, one refers to sentences being true, or being false, as sentences having the truthvalue true (T), or having the truth-value false (F). 10–11. truth-value conditions, rules for calculating truth-values. There are speciﬁc rules(with no exceptions) for calculating the truth-value of negations, conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals, and biconditionals, based on the truth-values of their component sentences. For example, “Some

344

Glossary and Index of Terms

dogs sing, or some cats sing” is false, because “Some dogs sing” is false, and “Some cats sing” is false. 82. validity, semantical version. An argument is valid in the semantical sense if for every possible interpretation of all the basic components of all the sentences of the argument, it is never the case that all the premisses have the resultant value T while the conclusion has the resultant value F. [Semantical validity is the formal version of the conceptual criterion of validity. Truthfunctionally valid arguments form a smaller subgroup within the group of (semantically) valid arguments.] 85. variable, bound. A bound occurrence of a variable is one that occurs within the scope of a matching quantiﬁer. For example, all occurrences of the variable x in the sentence “(∃x)(Px & Ex) ∨ (∃x)[(~Px & Ex) ∨ ~Ex]” are bound by a matching quantiﬁer. Also see: free variable. 222–223. variable, free. A free occurrence of a variable is one that does not occur within the scope of a matching quantiﬁer. For example, “[(∃x)(Px & ~Ex)] ∨ Mx” has the last occurrence of the variable x as free, because the brackets around the left-hand side of the expression force the scope to end with “~Ex.” This expression is nonsense from both a formal and an application point of view, since a free variable has no reference whatsoever. By moving the brackets, the expression becomes a meaningful assertion, “(∃x)[(Px & ~Ex) ∨ Mx].” The brackets may be dropped altogether under a special convention, namely, that the scope extends at least as far as the last occurrence of the variable at issue, “(∃x) (Px & ~Ex) ∨ Mx.” Under such a convention, all three occurrences of the variable x are bound by the quantiﬁer, but such a convention requires further conditions for more complicated cases. 222–223. variable, individual. An individual variable functions in logic in the way that a pronoun functions in English: it continues a reference to a previously introduced subject. In logic, an individual variable refers back only to a subject that was introduced by a quantiﬁer, and subjects introduced by a proper name continue to be referenced only by that proper name. Individual variables are represented by the three lower-case letters x, y, z, and if additional variables are needed by u, v, w as well. For example, “Something is mental, and it is eternal” is represented as “for some thing x, x is mental and x is eternal,” and is symbolized as “(∃x)(Mx & Ex).” 219, 222. universe of discourse, domain of discouse. The Universe (of discourse) is the set of everything that is real, everything that exists in the world. The Universe thus includes many things, including physical things and non-physical things (mental, or spiritual, or abstract). Logic presupposes that there is a Universe of discourse, but logic per se is indifferent as to what is actually real. 217, 220.

y. (not A). Quantiﬁers. Sentence negation operator. z Lower case letters symbolize proper names of single objects. b. no are a. with terms and copula generate categorical sentences. refer to unspecifed objects introduced by a quantiﬁer. .. “p ≡ q” means “p if and only if q. . Traditional Logic A. c. w is Capital letters symbolize general terms representing sets of things. . . all. These lower case letters are variables that represent all sentences. F Capital letters symbolize concrete English simple sentences. Alternative notation for negative terms. Modern Quantiﬁcational Logic a. non-A.” Parentheses. English negative copulas become negative general terms. C. q.SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Chapter 2. b. Truth-values of sentences: true. “non-apple. braces group complex items into units. r.. B. s ~ & ⊃ ≡ ∴ ( ). brackets. Copula. “p ∨ q” means “p or q. c. p. . ∨ Chapter 3. w x. “p ⊃ q” means “if p then q. C. [ ]. . Chapter 4. “p. Singular copula..” Sentence disjunction operator. Variables. B. Negative general terms. . “p & q” means “p and q. used only with proper names. Propositional Logic A. q ∴ r” means “p.” “non-bottle. { } T. some.” Sentence equivalence operator.” etc.. false. . . .” Argument inference operator. . . r. so. . .” Sentence conjunction operator. . . q. . Lower case letters symbolize proper names of single objects. “~p” means “not p.” Sentence implication operator.

” etc. Ax. .(∀y). . Advanced Topics: Relations and Identity xAy.. symbolize “for all things x..” Abbreviations of Rule Names Assoc Bicond Comm CP Cond Conj Contrap Conv DeMorg Dilem DP Disj Add Disj Syll Dist Dbl Ifs Dbl Neg Dbl Thens Dupl EG EI Hyp Syll Ident IP MP MT Name-Neg Part Syll Pred-DN QN RAA Association Bicondition Commutation Conditional Proof Conditional Relation Conjunction Contraposition Conversion De Morgan’s Laws Dilemma Direct Proof Disjunctive Addition (Add) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) Distribution Double Ifs (Exportation. .” etc. . symbolize “for some things x. Existential quantiﬁers....(∀z) (∃x).346 Symbols and Abbreviations Capital letters symbolize characteristics of things. . Universal quantiﬁers. . Exp) Double Negation (DN) Double Thens Duplication Existential Generalization Existential Instantiation Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) Identity Laws Indirect Proof Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Name Negation Law Particular Syllogism Predicate Double Negation Quantiﬁer Negation Reductio Ad Absurdum .(∃y). The equal sign symbolizes the relation “x is the same thing as y. . (∀x). Bx.(∃z) Chapter 4. x=y Capital letters symbolize relations between things. Cx. . . xBy.

Symbols and Abbreviations Simp Sing Part Syll Sing Univ Syll Sup Part Syll Sup Univ Syll Taut UG UI Univ Syll Simplication Singular Particular Syllogism Singular Universal Syllogism Super Particular Syllogism Super Universal Syllogism Tautology Universal Generalization Universal Instantiation Universal Syllogism 347 .

Carl Gustave Jung - Psihanaliza Fenomenelor Religioase

_Introducere in Psihologia Lui v.G. Jung. F. Fordham

4579b1039e82cf967a205d7eaf255637

Lumbar Disease

Copy of Curs 1 Psihomotricitate Spiru

Curs II psihomotricitate

Curs 4-psihomotricitate

SUPORT de CURS - Psihomotricitatea

The Glaciers of the Alps

Euripide - Orestes

Euripide - Alcesta

Aristotel - poetica

SUPORT de CURS - Psihomotricitatea

Curs TAM Ioana Gheorghe FEFS

Thoma de Aquino - Summa Theologiae

sail boat

Euripide - Helena

orar

Thoma de Aquino - Summa Theologiae

Aristotel - poetica

Heroes III Tutorial

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Faith and Reason

Church and Medical Ethics

Christian Philosophical Theology

The Nature of Nature

Always Ready (Greg Bahnsen)

Science's Blind Spot

Classical Mathematical Logic

If A, Then B

The End of Reason

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->