1.4K views

Uploaded by Annbe Barte

- Types of Syllogism
- DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
- Chapter 1 Terms
- Hypothetical Syllogism (Full version)
- Logic (Immediate Inference)
- Mathematical Independence vs. Dependence
- Oppositional Inference Presentation
- OT in Philippines
- Argument Paper
- Types of ACADEMIC Writing
- Guide4BankExams_Syllogism
- Aristotle - Prior Analytics (Hackett, 1989)
- Logic Notes
- Venn Diagram
- Critical Reading
- PHL/410 Classical Logic Post Test CH 2
- HPHILOG
- Syllogism
- Position Paper
- text analysis and evaluation essayrevised again

You are on page 1of 30

CHAPTERONE

TERMS

CO-SIGNIFICANTWORD – awordwhichdoesn’t represent anythought.

PROPERTIESOFA TERM

COMPREHENSION – is thesumof the total notes implyingthe elementsmakinga thing

to be what it is.

COMPREHENSION EXTENSION

SPORT SOFTBALL

DESSERT MANGOFLOAT

SOAP SAFEGUARD

CLASSIFICATIONSOFTERMS

SINGULAR – stands for only one certain subject

Ex. all, every, each, any, anything, whatsoever, whatever, no, none, nothing

absolute extension

1

UNIVOCAL – things which have same sense.

Ex. The book is a reading material.

ANALOGOUS – things which are the same and somewhat different in sense

MATERIAL – a reference made to a term simply as a word which is not related to its

meaning

CONNECTED – terms are related wherein one either connote or denote the other.

NON – CONVERTIBLE – terms which are related wherein one includes the other in

its comprehension but the other is excluded in its comprehension.

STRICTLY OPPOSED

CONTRADICTORIES – two terms wherein one is the simple negation of the other

CONTRARIES – refers to terms which are opposite in nature

2

PRIVATIVE – two terms wherein one expresses the perfection while the other

expresses the absence of the perfection that should be possessed

DISPOSITIONS – easily changed perfections disposing the subject well or badly in its

operation

deficiency excluding its lack

ACTION – accident resulting from the action of the subject towards something else

Ex. in school, there

POSTURE – accident arising by the subject from the order of parts in a given space

3

Chapter 2: PROPOSITIONS

Proposition - is that which a judgment is expressed.

− it is always expressed in a declarative sentence and it is answerable by a yes or no

Judgment- a mental operation wherein two ideas are affirmed or negated

• Subject term

• Predicate term

• Copula- acts as a linker between the subject and the predicate

-indicates whether the term is denied or affirmed

-must be a linking verb and in a present form

Ex. Velez College students are beautiful.

S C P

Subject and Predicate

− Are material elements (matter) which are united by affirmation or separated by negation.

− Example: human beings are given the power of choice where one can decide for his/her own

granting he/she will be always ready to face all the consequences for every decision that has been

made.

Copula

− Links subject and predicate.

− Example: Velez College is the best school for students taking up medical courses.

The Types of Proposition

1.) Categorical Proposition-the predicate either affirms or denies the subject directly

2.) Hypothetical Proposition-has “If..then” antecedent

Ex: If it rains, the ground is wet.

3.) Single proposition- Has S, C and P whether negated or not

Ex: Benzelle is not happy.

4.) Multiple Proposition- has more than one subject and predicate

Ex: Kuya Kim will teach and the students will listen. 4

Categorical Propositions

Basic Aspects

Ex: His cat is fat.

Quality: negative proposition

Ex: Boys are not allowed to talk.

Ex: Every woman is cherished.

Quantity: particular proposition– particular subject term

Ex: Some students are studying.

Quantity: singular proposition – singular subject term

Ex: Naomi is my pet.

Ex: The class is energetic.

QUANTITY OF PROPOSITION

Example: All Pasay city residents are responsible.

No man is capable of doing everything he wishes to do.

2.) Particular Proposition- has a particular subject term.

Example: Some students are not responsible.

Not all children are intelligent.

3.) Singular- has a singular subject term.

Example: Saint Paul’s College is a Catholic school.

That woman is beautiful.

4.) Collective Proposition- has a collective term for its subject.

Example: The crowd is going wild.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PREDICATE TERM

a.) Universal Affirmative (A) proposition has a universal subject term and an positive copula.

Example: Every X is Y.

Every animal is a living thing. 5

b.) Universal Negative (E) proposition has a universal subject term and a negative copula.

Example: No X is Y.

No black is yellow.

c.) Particular Affirmative (I) proposition has a particular subject term and an positive copula.

Example: Some X is Y.

Some schools are progressive.

d.) Particular Negative (O) proposition has a particular subject term and a negative copula.

Example: Some X is not Y.

Some priests are not good.

Special Types of Proposition

1.) Single Categorical – has one subject and one predicate or complex.

Ex: (simple) Pearls are precious.

(complex) Fear of the Lord is the beginning of faith.

a) Copulative proposition- uses coordinate and correlative conjunction like and, not only, both

Ex: Clint and Xian are meant together.

Ex: Donna is still working, although she is already tired.

Ex: The guests will arrive before lunchtime.

d) Causal proposition- introduces reason or cause in a given statement like because, for, since

Ex: She left because she doesn’t belong to their group.

Ex: Stephanie is not as tall as kuya Ben.

-expresses 2 or more judgments

-judgments are called exponents

Example: Infirmary is only for Alyssa.

Exponents: Infirmary is for Alyssa.

There is no other room.

6

b.)Exceptive proposition- uses expression like except save

Example: All students, except three, have passed the project.

Exponents: Three students have not passed the project.

The other students have passed the project.

Example: As a teacher, Mr. Luther must be a role model to others.

Exponents: Mr. Luther is a teacher.

He must be a role model to others.

The reason for doing so is because he is a teacher.

3.) Hypothetical Proposition

Example: If I were you, then I would go after him.

Antecedent: if I were you

Consequent: then I would go after him.

1.) Proper disjunctive- terms that can’t be true and false at the same time

Ex: John is either straight or gay.

2.) Improper disjunctive- terms that cannot be all false but can be true at the same time

Ex. His sadness was due either to his accusations or to his failed project.

Ex: We cannot listen and study our lessons at the same time.

7

Chapter 3: INFERENCE

Inference in general

There are a lot of propositions which are ought to be true on the basis of the evidence of the sense. Statements

which are verified or falsified by direct seeing, hearing, feeling or by direct perceiving like “It is valentines

day,” “She is not feeling well” are some examples.

Some accept only by the basis of authority. Example, if we believe in the preaching of the priest, we accept his

teachings as true. It is the process where by from the truth-value of one or more propositions called inference.

Possible truths are obtained by inference.

Types of Inferences

− Immediate Inferences

− Mediate Inferences

In the first kind of inference, this proceed from one proposition directly to another proposition. On the other

hand, the mediate inferences proceed from two or more propositions to another which is implied in the given

propositions.

• No fish is a human. Therefore, no human is a fish.

• Boys are not allowed to enter the gate. My cousin is a boy.

So, he is not allowed to enter the gate.

Examples:

− No soft is a pillow. So, no pillow is a soft.

Following: No X is Y.

So, no Y is X.

Therefore, plastic is a non-conductor of electricity.

Following: M is P

S is M

So, S is P.

6.) The Principle of Contradiction

7.) The Principle of Excluded Middle

8

Chapter 4: OPPOSITIONAL INFERENCE

The Modes of Opposition

>> It involves a relation between one statement and its opposites. In terms of opposition of proposition,

we have the relation between two proposition having the same subject and predicate, but they’re differ in

quality, quantity or both quality and quantity.

Examples: No S is P -- Some S is P

Not all S is P -- Every S is P

2. Contrariety – universal proposition that differ in quality

Examples: No S is P -- Every S is P

3. Subcontrariety – two particular proposition that differ in quality

4. Subalternation – universal and particular proposition having the same quality

of the copula.

Examples: Some S is P -- Every S is P

Some S is not P -- No S is P

1. law of contradiction

A. if one is true, the other is false

Examples:

No cheater is honest is true

Some cheater are honest is false

B. if one is false, the other is true

Examples:

It is false that some rabbits are able to think

It is true that no rabbits is able to think

2. law of subalternation

A. if the universal statement is true, the subaltern is also true

Examples:

It is true that no benign tumors is incurable

It is false that some benign tumors are not incurable

B. if the particular statement is true, the subaltern is doubtful

Examples:

It is true that some artists are creative

Every artist is creative is doubtful

9

C. if the particular statement is false, the subaltern is likewise false.

Examples:

That some radicals are reactionary is false.

It is likewise false that every radical is reactionary.

D. If the universal is false, the subaltern is doubtful

Examples:

It is false that no TV show is good for the children

It is doubtful whether some TV shows are not good for the children

3. law of contrariety

A. Cannot be true at the same time.

Examples:

If it is true that no hero is a coward

It is false that every hero is a coward

Examples:

It is false that no child is egocentric

We cannot be certain that every child is egocentric

4. law of subcontrariety

A. subcontraries cannot be false at the same time

Examples:

It is false that some obstacles are insurmountable

It is true that not all obstacles are insurmountable

B. subcontraries cannot be true at the same time

Examples:

It is true that some movies are purely for entertainment

It is false that some movies are not purely for entertainment

SUMMARY:

I is true I is doubtful

E is false E is doubtful

O is true O is doubtful

A is false A is doubtful

A is doubtful A is false

O is doubtful O is true

E is doubtful E is false

I is doubtful I is true

10

Chapter 5: EDUCTION

TYPES OF EDUCTION

A. Obversion – whose subject is the same as the original subject but whose predicate is the contradictory of

the given predicate.

Examples:

No fish is unable to swim (obvert)

Every fish is able to swim (obverse)

Obversion of A, E, I and O

1. E obverts to A

No S is P

Every S is P

2. A obverts to E

Every S is P

No S is P

3. I obverts to O

Some S is P

Some S is not P

4. O obverts to I

Some S is not P

Some S is P

B. Conversion – whose subject is the original predicate and whose predicate is the original subject.

Examples:

No sinner is a saint (obvert)

No saint is a sinner (obverse)

C. Contraposition – “partial” whose subject is the contradictory of the original predicate but whose

predicate is the same as the original subject; “full” whose subject is the contradictory of the given

predicate and whose predicate is the contradictory of the given subject.

Contraposition of A, E and O

A.

Given: every S is P

Obverse: No S is P

Converse: No P is S

Obverse: Every P is S

E.

Given: No S is P

Obverse: Every S is P

Converse: Some P is S

Obverse: Some P is not S

11

O.

Given: Some S is not P

Obverse: Some S is P

Converse: Some P is S

Obverse: Some P is not S

D. Inversion – “partial” whose subject is the contradictory of the given subject but whose predicate is the

same as the given predicate; “full” whose subject and predicate are the contradictories of the given

subject and predicate.

Inversion of A

Given: Every S is P

Obverse: No S is P

Converse: No P is S

Obverse: Every P is S

Converse: Some S is P (partial inverse)

Obverse: Some S is not P (full inverse)

Inversion of A

Given: No S is P

Converse: No S is P

Obverse: Every P is S

Converse: Some Sis P (partial inverse)

Obverse: Some S is not P (full inverse)

Examples:

A child is a person

A naughty child is a naughty person

2. The method of omitted determinants

Examples:

An actress is a woman

A good actress is a good woman

3. The method of complex conception

Examples:

A five-peso bill is money

A fake five-peso bill is fake money

4. The method of converse relation

Examples:

Jorge is the son-in-law of stella

Stella is the mother-in-law of jorge

12

INFERENCE – path to the truth

must follow the premises

Mammals eat

Arroyo is a politician.

TYPES of ARGUMENT

Therefore, all the ten nuns in the Augustinian Parish are modest.

Ex. No man without food can live.

Arman is a man.

13

Chapter 7: THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

The categorical syllogism is an argument proceeds from statements concerning the relationship of two terms

to a third term, to conclusion concerning the relationship of two terms to each other.

1. Minor Term ( S ) – subject of the conclusion

2. Major Term ( P ) – predicate of the conclusion,either the subject or predicate of

the major premise

3. Middle Term ( M ) – occurs in each of the premises but not in the conclusion

4. Major Premise – the proposition containing the major and middle terms

5. Minor Premise – the proposition containing the minor and middle terms

6. Conclusion – the statement being proved.

SM He is a voter.

SP Ergo, he is at least 18.

SM But all professionals are educated.

SP Ergo, some professionals are not honest.

MS Every philosopher is a thinker.

SP Some thinkers are not realistic.

MS All revolutionaries advocate reforms.

SP Ergo, some who advocate reforms are socialists

1. Principle of Reciprocal Identity: two terms that are identical with a third term are identical with each other.

2. Principle of Reciprocal Non-Identity: two terms, one of which is identical with a third, but the other of

which is not, are not identical with each other.

3. Principle of All (Dictum de Omme ) : What is affirmed universally of a term is affirmed of anything that

comes under that term.

4. Principle of None (Dictum de Nullo): Whatever is denied universally of any term is denied of anything that

comes under that term.

14

The Rules for a Valid Categorical Syllogism

Rule No.1 There must be three and only three terms – the major, minor & middle terms.

• There is a violation of this rule when there are four terms in the syllogism giving rise to what is

known as the “fallacy of four term construction” or “logical quadruped”.

• The following are examples of arguments with four terms:

A diligent man works hard.

A lazy man hardly works.

Therefore, a lazy man is diligent.

Rule No. 2 The middle term does not occur in the conclusion.

• This so because the function of the middle term is to compare the minor and major terms and this

comparison happens only in the premises.

The following arguments violate the 2nd rule and are therefore invalid.

Men have a spiritual nature.

Men have biological needs.

Therefore, men are spiritual beings with biological needs.

Rule No. 3 The major or minor term may not be universal in the conclusion if it is only particular in the

premises.

• This rule implies that if the major or minor term is particular in the premises, it must be taken as

a particular term in the conclusion, not as a universal term.

• If the major term is overextended in the conclusion, then there is a “fallacy of illicit major”. If

the minor term is overextended in the conclusion, then there is a “fallacy of illicit minor”.

• The following arguments are invalid due to an illicit process:

All philosophers are wise people. Mu + Pp

But all philosophers are men. Mu + Sp

Therefore, all men are wise people. Su + Pp

Plants are organisms. Mu + Pp

But animals are not plants. Su - Mu

Therefore, animals are not organisms. Su- Pu

Rule No. 4 The middle term must be used as a universal term at least once.

• This rule implies the role of the middle term in the reasoning process, which is to mediate

between the major and minor terms.

• If the middle term is used twice as a particular term, then there is a “fallacy of undistributed

middle term”.

• A violation of the above rule is illustrated in the following syllogism:

A Lutheran is a Christian.

A Seventh - day Adventist is a Christian.

Ergo, a Seventh - day Adventist is a Lutheran.

15

Rule No. 5 Two negative premises yield no valid conclusion.

• If both premises are negative, then the middle term is not identified with or does not agree with

the major and minor terms. In that case, the middle term does not really function as a mediating

term. As a result, no conclusion can be made. Thus, we cannot validly say—

A scholar does not have failing grades.

Mercy does not have failing grades.

Ergo, she’s a scholar.

• Some syllogisms have propositions which are only apparently negative and yield valid

conclusions. This is the case with the following syllogism:

No one who is uninspired is in love.

You are not inspired.

Therefore, you are not in love.

• The above syllogism does not violate the rule because the second premise is not really negative.

Rule No. 6 If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative.

• This rule follows from the fact that when both premises are affirmative, the major and minor

terms agree or are identified with the middle term.

• It is closely related to the reciprocal identity. This is expressed by the affirmative copula.

Therefore, the conclusion which expresses this identity must be an affirmative proposition.

• It would be wrong to argue that:

Anyone with an IQ of 141 is genius.

Alex has an IQ of 141.

Ergo, he is not a moron.

• Aside from violating rule no. 6, the first syllogism also violates rule no. 1 and the 2nd also

violates rule no. 4.

• This rule is justified by the principle of non-reciprocal identity. If one premise is affirmative, and

the other is negative, that mean s one of the two terms is identical with the middle term while the

other is not.

• The following argument is invalid due to the violation of this rule;

An astronaut possesses inalienable rights.

No child is an astronaut.

Ergo, a child possesses inalienable rights.

• To justify this rule, we need to show that of the possible combinations of premises of which one

is particular and the other is universal, the only valid conclusion that can be drawn is a particular

proposition.

• The 4 possible combinations of premises wherein one is particular and the other is universal are:

A and I E and I A and O E and O

* If the premises are A and I, the only universal term is the subject of A: all the others are particular

terms. Thus,

A Mu + Pp Mu + Sp Mu + Pp

or or

I Sp + Mp Pp + Mp Mp + Sp

Sp + Pp Sp + Pp Sp + Pp

16

• nd

The 2 pair of premises is that of E and I. E has a universal subject and predicate. I has a

particular subject and predicate. In this combination, there are 2 universal terms and 2 particular

terms. This is shown below:

E Mu – Pu E Pu – Mu

Or

I Sp + Mp I Mp + Sp

Sp – Pu Sp – Pu

• The 3rd set of premise is that of A and O. Here, there are again 2 universal terms and 2 particular

terms.

• The 4th combination is that of E and O. Because both premises are negative, no valid conclusion

can be drawn from them.

• Whenever rule no. 8 is violated, there is a violation either of rule no. 3, 4, or 5. This is seen in the

following examples:

Some rich men oppress the poor.

Mr. Katibayan is a rich man.

Ergo, Mr. Katibayan oppresses the poor.

No pagan is a Christian.

Ergo, no pagan is a Christian.

Rule No. 9 From two particular premises, no valid conclusion can be drawn.

• To prove this rule, one need only show that of the possible combinations of premises both of

which are particular, not one will yield a valid conclusion.

• When this rule is violated, there is also a violation of rule no. 3, 4, or 5. Consider the following

examples:

Some fruits are rich in Vitamin A.

Some fruits are lemons.

Ergo, some lemons are rich in Vitamin A.

It is useful because it gives us a better understanding of the form or structure of this type of argument and also

provides us with another means of testing the validity of the categorical syllogism.

Every syllogism has 3 propositions and each proposition is either A, E I or O. By the mood of the categorical

syllogism, we understand the specific combination of the propositions that make up the syllogism.

The following are the 64 possible moods of syllogism. However, not all of them are valid syllogisms.

AAE AEE AIE AOE

AAI AEI AII AOI

AAO AEO AIO AOO

EAA EEA EIA EOA

EAE EEE EIE EOE

EAI EEI EII EOI

EAO EEO EIO EOO

IAE IEE IIE IOE

IAI IEI III IOI

IAO IEO IIO IOO

OAE OEE OIE OOE

OAI OEI OII OOI

OAO OEO OIO OOO

Most of the above combinations are immediately seen as invalid once we apply the general rules.

A careful inspection will yield the following tentatively valid moods:

AAI EAO IEO

AEE EIO

AEO

AII

AOO

The above moods, however, are not valid in each of the four figures. For example, mood AAA is only valid in

the first figure as shown in the analysis below:

I II III IV

A Mu + Pp Pu + Mp Mu + Pp Pu + Mp

A Su + Mp Su + Mp Mu + Sp Mu + Sp

A Su + Pp Su + Pp Su + Pp Su + Pp

AEA AEE AII ((AAI))

AII EIO IAI AEE

EIO AOO EIO ((EAO))

((EAO)) IAI

(EAO) (AEO) (AEO)

A Every fairy is a an immortal.

O Ergo, not all fairies are dead individual.

4 moods in enclosed in double parenthesis [(( ))] = syllogisms with strengthened premises

A All cats are four-legged animals.

I Ergo, some four-legged animals have furs. 18

Syllogistic Reduction

- code names are used in traditional logic of each syllogism figures that one value

Reduction - transformation of a syllogism

- first figure is considered as the perfect figure

figures:

I II III IV

bArbArA cEsArE dArApTI frEsIsOn

cEIArEnt cAmEstrEs dAtIsI brAmAntIp

dArII fEstInO dIsAmIs cAmEnEs

fErIo bArOcO fErIsOn fEsApO

fEIAptOn dImArIs

bOcArdO

- first letter of the code names signify the mood of the first figure into which it may be reduced

Example: cEsArE is reducible to mood cEIArEnt

Direct Reduction

Example:

dIsAmIs to dArII

Am All toys provide enjoyment.

Is Some toys that provide enjoyment are useful things. (to be converted)

(then premises are transposed)

dA All toys provide enjoyment.

rI Some useful things are toys.

I Ergo, some useful things provides enjoyment.

- cannot be reduced directly bOcArdO and bArOcO so we use the first figure, bArbAra, making it valid and

also it implies an indirect reduction.

Example:

cAr All flowers are watered plants.

dO Ergo, some watered are not fertilized plants.

Am All flowers are watered plants.

Is Ergo, some watered plants are unfertilized plants.

rI Some unfertilized plants are flowers.

I Ergo, some unfertilized plants are watered plants.

19

Testing the Validity by the Venn diagram Method

Some birds are penguins.

Ergo, some penguins are swift.

- we must first diagram the universal premise (i.e. major premise)

- major premise asserts that “ there are no birds who are not swift (MS = O).”

- so the B is shaded outside of S

- minor premise asserts that “there is at least one bird which are penguins (MR ≠ O)

- so X is placed in the appropriate area

Conclusion: “Some penguins are swift” meaning there is at least one penguin that can be swift

shown by the X in the area common to the circles representing “birds” and “swift”

- developed by Christian Ladd-Franklin

- it has 2 universal propositions and 1 particular propostion or 2 equations ‘=’ and 1 inequation ‘≠’

- 2 equations have common term which occurs once affirmatively and once negatively

- inequations will contain the other terms, identically as they occur in the equations

20

Example:

Antilogism:

All C are S. CS = O

All M are C. MC = O

21

Chapter 8: THE HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

The hypothetical syllogism is another form of deductive argument and is governed by a set of rules different

from those of the categorical syllogisms. In hypothetical syllogism, at least the first premise must be a

hypothetical or sequential position.

The hypothetical argument is an argument whose 1st premise is a sequential or hypothetical proposition, one

member of which is affirmed or denied in the second premise, and the other member of which is consequently

affirmed or denied in the conclusion.

In all its types, it always has a conditional proposition for its major premise.

1.) Simple conditional argument – has a conditional proposition for major premise and categorical propositions

for minor premise and conclusion.

Examples:

a) If man were God, then he would be all-knowing.

But man is not all- knowing.

Ergo, he is not God.

The rules for a valid simple conditional syllogism are based on the very nature of the conditional proposition

which asserts that there is a necessary sequence between its elements – the antecedent A and the consequent C.

I. .The truth of the antecedent necessarily implies the truth of the consequent. So, if we posit,

affirm, or accept the antecedent in the minor premise, the we necessarily posit, affirm or

accept the consequent in the conclusion.

II. The falsity of the consequent implies the falsity of the antecedent. So, if we sublate, deny or

reject the consequent in the minor premise, then we necessarily sublate, deny or reject the

antecedent in the conclusion.

III. The falsity of the antecedent does not necessarily imply the falsity of the consequent. Thus, it

would not be correct to proceed from the negation of the antecedent in the minor premise to

the negation of the consequent in conclusion.

IV. The truth of the consequent does not necessarily imply the truth of the antecedent. So, it

would not be valid to argue from the affirmation of the consequent in the minor premise to

the affirmation of the antecedent in the conclusion.

In the light of the above rules, there can only be 2 valid forms of the simple conditional syllogism

and these are:

If A, then C. If A, then C.

But A. But not C.

Ergo, C. Ergo, not A.

The two forms below are invalid:

1) If A, then C. 2) If A, then C.

But not A. But C.

Ergo, not C. Ergo, A

22

The following arguments illustrate the valid forms:

Bernard is nearsighted.. + A

Ergo, he needs glasses. + C

b) If a person is nearsighted, then he needs glasses.

Abelard does not need glasses. - C

Ergo, he’s not nearsighted. –A

Alice is not nearsighted. – A

Ergo, she does not need glasses. – C

b) If a person is nearsighted, then he needs glasses

Agnes needs glasses.

Ergo, she is nearsighted.

A simple conditional argument may have a valid form but its major premise may be a false conditional

statement. Such a syllogism is formally correct but materially incorrect.

Mr. Roces is wealthy.

Ergo, he is happy.

2.) The reciprocal conditional syllogism has for its major premise an “only if…then…” proposition.

Example: Only if a student has a general average of at least 1.2 would he

graduate summa cum laude.

This student has a general average of 1.2.

Therefore, he would graduate summa cum laude.

3.) The biconditional syllogism has for its major premise a statement containing the expression “if and only if”.

Example: If and only if one gets a perfect score in all quizzes will I

exempt him from the final exam.

Mario got a perfect score in all quizzes.

Ergo, he’ll be exempted from the final exam.

4.) The pure conditional statement has a conditional proposition for premises and conclusion.

Example: If A is B, then C is D.

If X is Y, then A is B.

Ergo, If X is Y, then C is D.

To be a valid argument, the common element in the argument must be taken once as antecedent and once as

consequent

The following examples illustrate invalid forms of this syllogism:

If a being is created, then it has a beginning.

Ergo, if being is created, then it is material.

23

5.) The conditional sorites is a syllogism with 3 or more simple conditional propositions for premises. In testing

the validity of this argument, we apply the rules of pure conditional syllogism.

Example : If you don’t pay your accounts, you won’t be given an admission slip.

If you don’t have your admission slip, then you can’t take the exam.

If you don’t take the exam, then you’ll get IE.

Ergo, if you don’t pay your accounts, you’ll get an IE.

- It is an argument in which the major premise is a disjunctive proposition and the minor premise and

conclusion are categorical propositions.

The alternatives presented in the major premise are such that they cannot be both affirmed or

denied. There are two valid forms of the argument.

a) Positing Mood – minor premise posits or accepts one member of the Disjunction and the

conclusion sublates or rejects the other.

b)

Example: This argument is either valid or invalid.

This argument is valid.

Ergo, it is not valid.

c) Sublating Mood – minor sublates or rejects one of the members of the disjunction and the

conclusion affirms or posits the other.

Example: You are either a Catholic or not.

You are not a Catholic.

Ergo, you are a non- Catholic.

The major premise presents alternatives that cannot be denied but can be affirmed of one and the

same subject at the same time. For this reason, there is only one valid mood for an argument in this

type, and this is the sublating mood wherein the minor premise negates one alternative and the

conclusion accepts or affirms the other.

You won’t try. –

Ergo, you won’t succeed. + Valid

You will try. +

Ergo, you will succeed. – Invalid

24

The Conjunctive Syllogism

The major premise expresses alternatives that cannot be true at the same time; its major premise affirms or

denies one of the alternatives and the conclusion consequently affirms or denies the other.

The rule of this syllogism is simply to affirm one alternative in the minor and to deny the other in the

conclusion.

Example: You cannot study properly and watch a TV show at the same time.

You are watching a TV show. +

Ergo, you are not studying properly. – Valid

You cannot study properly and watch a TV show at the same time.

You are not watching a TV show. –

Ergo, you are studying properly. + Invalid

25

Chapter 9: VARIATIONS OF THE SYLLOGISM

The Enthymeme

3 forms:

Example: A murderer is guilty at court.

Therefore, he should be imprisoned.

2. Second Order: Minor premise is omitted.

Example: What is guilty at court should be imprisoned.

Therefore, a murderer should be imprisoned.

3. Third Order: Conclusion omitted.

Example: What is guilty at court should be imprisoned; and a murderer is guilty at court.

- not necessarily an abbreviated categorical syllogism. It may also be an abridged hypothetical syllogism.

Example: Since the paper was torn, the students threw the paper away.

- at least one of the propostions is an exclusive statement; it contains the expressions “only,” “solely,” “alone,”

or “none but.”

Only Aesop is excellent in the field of fables.

Therefore, only Aesop is the father of fables.

1. Consists in drawing the components of the given syllogism and testing the validity of each.

If both are valid, the whole argument is valid; otherwise, it is invalid.

Example:

I

The excellent in the field of fables is the father of fables. Mu + Pp

Aesop is excellent in the field of fables. Su + Mp

Ergo, Aesop is the father of fables. Su + Pp

II

The excellent in the field of fables is the father of fables. Mu + Pp

Who is not Aesop is not excellent in the field of fables. Su - Mu

Ergo, who is not Aesop is not the father of fables. Su - Pu

26

Given: The excellent in the field of fables is the father of fables.

Only Aesop is excellent in the field of fables.

So, only Aesop is the father of fables.

The excellent in the field of fables is Aesop. Mu + Pp

So, who is the father of fables is Aesop. Su + Pp

The Epichireme

Examples:

Cats are not rational (because they are incapable of forming ideas).

Ergo, cats are essentially different from man.

The Polysyllogism

The Sorites

- an abbreviated polysyllogism.

2 forms:

1. Aristotelian sorites - subject of the preceding premise is used as predicate of the following premise

- conclusion which is composed of the subject of the last premise and the predicate of the

first premise

2. Goclenian sorites - subject of the preceding premise is used as the predicate of the following premise

- conclusion which is composed of the subject of the last premise and the predicate of the

first premise

Aristotelian SA Goclenian AP

Sorites AB Sorites: BA

BC CB

CP SC

SP SP

27

The Dilemma

4 forms:

Premises: If A, then C

If B, then C

either A

But

or B

Conclusion: Ergo, C

Premises: If A, then C

If B, then D

either A

But

or B

Conclusion: Ergo, C or D.

either not C

But

or not D

Conclusion: Ergo, not A

Premises: If A, then C

If B, then D

either not C

But

or not D

Conclusion: Ergo, either not A or not B

28

Summary

Chapter 3 Inference 8

Chapter 5 Eduction 11 – 12

Allocation of Topics

Bachelor in Science of Occupational Therapy – 1A. All Rights Reserved © 2010.

- Types of SyllogismUploaded bybabi1003
- DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMUploaded byStephen Bueno
- Chapter 1 TermsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Hypothetical Syllogism (Full version)Uploaded byroy_dubouzet
- Logic (Immediate Inference)Uploaded byviper
- Mathematical Independence vs. DependenceUploaded byJoel Herr
- Oppositional Inference PresentationUploaded byErold Gutierrez
- OT in PhilippinesUploaded byBernardCarpio
- Argument PaperUploaded bytaramoullet
- Types of ACADEMIC WritingUploaded byYmmij Lape
- Guide4BankExams_SyllogismUploaded byShiv Ram Krishna
- Aristotle - Prior Analytics (Hackett, 1989)Uploaded byMatheus M. Dos Reis
- Logic NotesUploaded byPatty Nicolas
- Venn DiagramUploaded byJordan Tagao Colcol
- Critical ReadingUploaded byZarah Kay
- PHL/410 Classical Logic Post Test CH 2Uploaded byHurricane2010
- HPHILOGUploaded byHarumiJane
- SyllogismUploaded bykoratikere
- Position PaperUploaded byMariel Olarte
- text analysis and evaluation essayrevised againUploaded byapi-242283882
- Of the Neutrality Question in Science and TechnologyUploaded byalloyihuah
- multicultural perspectives public speakingUploaded byapi-217979861
- dbq-alexanderluongUploaded byapi-305328011
- year 10 essay rubric essay qUploaded byapi-278259854
- wp2finaldraftUploaded byapi-311658629
- presentation rubric1Uploaded byapi-335570406
- Hints and Tips About TextUploaded bytradehouse
- f4 07 Probability iUploaded byIdda Ck
- educ 555 annual plan part 11-pdfUploaded byapi-364124618
- sebastien-faure-does-god-exist.pdfUploaded byEp.Aptithiva

- OT6 - Multiple Sclerosis2Uploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Occupational Therapy - Adolescence and executive skillsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Occupational Therapy - Play, SIs and BMTsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Teaching - Instructional Planning and Conducting ClassesUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Teaching - Clinical Education and LearningUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - TUS Group ProcessUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Teaching - In the Clinical AreaUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Teaching - ComaUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - FORs for Group TreatmentUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - Seven Step FormatUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- Teaching - Activity EvaluationUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- PAMS - Ultraviolet RadiationsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - Types of Theoretical GroupsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - PlayUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- PAMS - ThermotherapyUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- PAMS - Cancer ChemotherapyUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT10 - Principled Ot PraticeUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT9 - Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Energy ConservationUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT9 - Business PlanUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT8 - Thumb Immobilization SplintUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7- Group ElementsUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - Therapeutic Use of SelfUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT7 - Outcome of Occupational Therapy GroupUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6- Functional Independence MeasureUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6- Alzheimer's DiseaseUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - Vital Signs and Eval of Emotional EdjustmentUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - Valsalva ManeuverUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - Parkinson's DiseaseUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - Multiple SclerosisUploaded byAnnbe Barte
- OT6 - Methods of Sensory TestingUploaded byAnnbe Barte

- forall x_ Cambridge Version, Solutions Booklet - P.D. Magnus, Tim Button.epubUploaded bygreatguns2k
- Espinosa v PeopleUploaded byJNMG
- Philo 1 Basic LogicUploaded byremark
- Categorical SyllogismsUploaded byashish0
- Predicate Logic (Simplified for LSAT) - V2Uploaded byRyan Lee
- skyrms_choice_and_chance.pdfUploaded bySiarah Emmerich
- Section 1.2Uploaded byapi-25926918
- 2_Lecture 27 First Order Logic Chs. 8 9 2Uploaded byRobert Robinson
- Legal OpinionUploaded byFarhan Farizky
- Von Wright, Truth-LogicsUploaded byEzequiel Monti
- Ben Ari Ans1to4Uploaded byjaijohnk
- Logical Equivalence, Logical Truths, and ContradictionsUploaded byteachopensource
- Contemporary College Maths Logic II Euler DiagramsUploaded byGemstone Dangel Nduka
- PHIL 1110 Term AssignmentUploaded bymaminuddin_22
- 2002 ReedUploaded byStanciu Elena
- Inference Rules 08Uploaded bykrissellp
- Solution Manual 3eUploaded byjaijohnk
- A Hypothetical Proposition is a Conditional Statement Which Takes the FormUploaded byArlie Lacson
- Problem solving.docxUploaded byAnonymous DcjuYH
- People v RegalarioUploaded byLexcela Casana
- Logic solution chapter 1Uploaded byliveandlearnandtry
- Chapter 4 - Mathematical Reasoning Form 4Uploaded byCikgu Shaiful Kisas
- Case Briefing Assingment#1Uploaded byPuruda Amit
- Criminal Law OutlineUploaded byThomas Jefferson
- PH101 Logic LT WK 3 ClassUploaded byKeisha Ong
- Šest Lica Traži Autora - ProslovUploaded byMerimerino20
- Section1.3Uploaded byKaly Rie
- Seminar 15 NecessityUploaded byAzizul Kirosaki
- AdequateUploaded byhqthang19952602
- CRIMINAL LAW IUploaded byAtty. April Lynn Ursal