35 views

Uploaded by Leia Veracruz

Atty. Obieta logic reviewer

- Mill's proof of Utilitarianism
- Reasoning
- Principles of Logic
- Carl D'Souza - Logika. Thinking Fallacies Part1
- Rubrics2
- Philosophical Writing
- Irad Kimhi - Thinking and Being (2018, Harvard University Press).pdf
- Argumentative and Discursive Essay
- NASA [J Kolecki] - Introduction to Logic
- synopsys_systemverilog
- Logical and Critical Thinking
- Types of Essay Characteristics
- Deduction vs. Induction
- 17-writing-a-critical-review.doc
- Midterm Test
- Freud
- reading.doc
- Statement of the Problem
- J-0016 _P-I-Set-A
- ArgLab (Laboratório de Argumentação, IfL, FCSH, UNL) Manifesto

You are on page 1of 11

1 What Logic Is Logic: Study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct and incorrect reasoning; looks into form and quality 1.2 Propositions Proposition: An assertion that something is (or is not) the case; declarative sentence; either true or false a. Simple: only one assertion b. Compound: 2 or more assertions Disjunctive Proposition: if true, at least one of the components must be true (either/or); compound proposition Hypothetical Proposition: It is only false when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false (if/then); compound proposition 1.3 Arguments Inference: process that may tie a cluster of propositions together; process of affirming one proposition on the basis of one or more other propositions (1 inference = 1 argument) Argument: A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference. It is structured in a way that there is premise and conclusion. Must be a group or proposition; a single proposition cannot be an argument in itself Premise: proposition used in an argument to support some other proposition Conclusion: The proposition in an argument that the other propositions (premises) support Hypothetical proposition (not true/false): not an argument; different from hypothetical in 1.2 1.4 Deductive and Inductive arguments Deductive argument: claims to support its conclusion conclusively; either valid or invalid

Veracruz

If its premises are true, its conclusion must be true Validity of argument is applicable only in deductive argument Central task of deductive logic: discriminate valid arguments from invalid Cannot be better or worse; no additional premises could add strength to this argument

Inductive argument: claims to support its conclusion with some degree of probability; better/worse or weaker/stronger Probability: likelihood that some conclusion is true Additional information may weaken or strengthen it

1.5 Validity and Truth Validity: relation between arguments premise and conclusion; cannot apply to a single proposition Argument may be valid even when the one of the premises and its conclusion are false

Truth/Falsity: Attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case; attribute of individual propositions; cannot apply to arguments Truth or falsity of the arguments conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of that argument

Sound: argument is valid and all its premises are true Rule of thumb: It is impossible to have a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion CHAPTER 6: CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS 6.1 Theory of Deduction Deductive argument: claims to establish its conclusion conclusively Valid argument: a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true 6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions

Classical logic: arguments that are based on the relations of classes of objects to one another Class: A collection of all objects having some specified characteristic in common Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of another class Partially included: Some members of one class may be included in another class Excluded: no members in common

Predicate: undistributed

Categorical Proposition: Building blocks of arguments; asserts a relationship between one category and some other category 6.3 Four kinds of Categorical Propositions 1. Universal affirmative propositions = All S is P (A) Affirms inclusion of one class to another class completely

Subject distribution: determined by quantity Universal distributes the subject Particular do not distribute subject

Predicate distribution: determined by quality Affirmative do not distribute predicate Negative distributes predicate

2. Universal negative propositions = No S is P (E) Denies inclusion of one class to another completely

6.5 Square of opposition Opposition: logical relation among the kinds of categorical proposition Contradictories: Two propositions that cannot be both true and cannot be both false Contraries: Two propositions that cannot be both true but can be both false Subcontraries: Two propositions that can be both true but cannot be both false Subaltern: Opposition between a universal and particular proposition; universal proposition implies the corresponding the truth of its corresponding particular proposition

3. Particular affirmative propositions = Some S is P (I) Affirms inclusion of one class to another class partially

4. Particular negative propositions = Some S is not P (O) Affirms inclusion of one class to another class partially

6.4 Quality, Quantity and Distribution Quality: affirmative or negative Quantity: universal or particular Copula: verb to be; connects subject to predicate Distribution: A proposition distributes a term if it refers to ALL members of the class designated by that term A proposition: All S is P Subject: distributed

Veracruz

Contraries A E

3. Contraposition: Interchange S and P and use the complement All S is P All non-P is non-S No S is P Some non-P is non-S (limitation) Some S is P not valid Some S is not P Some non-P is not non-S

I Subcontraries

NOTE: (ContrapositionEI and ConversionAO) Universal: Limited for Contraposition (E) and Conversion (A) Particular: not valid for Contraposition (I) and Conversion (O) 6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Proposition All S is P

Mediate Inferences: more than one premise is relied upon Immediate Inferences: Conclusion is drawn from only one premise A is True E is True I is True O is True A is False E is False I is False O is False E False, I True, O False A False, I False, O True E False, A and O unknown A False, I and O unknown E and I unknown, O True A and O unknown, I False A False, E True, O True A True, E False, I True,

No S is P

Some S is P 6.6 Further Immediate Inferences 1. Conversion: interchanging subject and predicate terms All S is P Some P is S (limitation) No S is P No P is S Some S is P Some P is S Some S is not P not valid Complement of a class: Collection of all things that do not belong to the original class S non-S Non-S non-non-S or just S 2. Obversion: change quality and replace predicate with complement; all is valid All S is P No S is non-P No S is P All S is non-P Some S is P Some S is not non-P Some S is not P Some S is non-P Some S is not P

CHAPTER 7: CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 7.1 Standard-form Categorical Syllogisms Syllogism: any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises Categorical syllogism: a deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two constituent propositions Standard-form Categorical syllogism: a deductive argument consisting of three standard-form categorical proposition (A, E, I, O) and arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise second and the conclusion last.

Veracruz

Major Term: Term that occurs as predicate of the conclusion (Contained in the major premise) Minor Term: Term that occurs as subject of the conclusion (Contained in the minor premise) Middle Term: Term that occurs in both the premises but never in the conclusion Mood of Syllogism: determined by the type (A, E, I, O) of the standard form categorical propositions it contains; contains the first letter names of the major, minor premise and the conclusion Figure of Syllogism: logical shape of a syllogism determined by the position of the middle term in its premises 1 MP SM 2 PM SM 3 MP MS 4 PM MS

7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies Can be applied to standard-form syllogism Rule Avoid four terms Fallacy Fallacy of Four terms: possible to have different words or same words but different meaning Distribute the middle term Fallacy of Undistributed in at least one premise middle term: middle term is not distributed in either premise Any term distributed in Illicit major: major term is the conclusion must be distributed in the distributed in the premises conclusion but not in the major premise Illicit minor: minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the minor premise Fallacy of Exclusive premises: no relationship can be established Fallacy of drawing affirmative conclusion from a negative premise Existential fallacy: inferring a particular conclusion from 2 universal premises

7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument Constituent propositions of a syllogism are all contingent: no one of those propositions is necessarily true or necessarily false Validity and invalidity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form (combination of mood and figure) Valid syllogism is formally valid argument, valid by virtue of its form alone o If a syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be valid o If a syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be invalid

Avoid two negative premises If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative From 2 universal premises, no particular conclusion can be drawn

7.5 Exposition of the 14 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. AAA-1 EAE- 1 AII- 1 EIO- 1 AEE- 2 EAE- 2 AOO- 2 EIO- 2 Barbara Celarent Darii Ferio Camestres Cesare Baroko Festino

7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism Plot the universal first then the particular Put x on the line if the premise do not determine which side of the line it should go (Particular) Valid if once youve finished plotting the premises, the conclusion can be seen from the diagram

Veracruz

12. OAO- 3 Bokardo 13. AEE- 4 Camenes 14. IAI- 4 Dimaris 15. EIO- 4 Fresison 7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogisms If the conclusion is an A proposition: only AAA-1 (Barbara) is valid If the conclusion is an E proposition: there are 4 valid forms 1. 2. 3. 4. EAE- 1 AEE- 2 EAE- 2 AEE- 4 Celarent Camestres Cesare Camenes

Standard form translation: ordinary language that is transformed into a classical syllogism Problems they overcome by transformation 1. Different order: overcome reordering the premises 2. More than 3 terms: overcome by reducing the number of terms without loss of meaning 3. Propositions may not be standard-form proposition: overcome by transforming components proposition into standard form 8.2 Reduction the number of terms to three 1. Eliminating synonyms Rich = wealthy lawyer = attorney

If the conclusion is an I proposition: there are 4 valid forms 1. 2. 3. 4. AII- 1 AII- 3 IAI- 3 IAI- 4 Darii Datisi Disamis Dimaris

If the conclusion is an O proposition: there are 6 valid forms 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. EIO- 1 AOO- 2 EIO- 2 EIO- 3 OAO- 3 EIO- 4 Ferio Baroko Festino Ferison Bokardo Fresison

8.3 Translating categorical propositions into standard form 1. Singular Propositions: a proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs (or does not) to a particular class; deals with classes and their interrelation All H is M, s is an H therefore s is an H All H is M, s is an H therefore s is an M To translate: no explicit translations have been provided 2. Categorical propositions that have adjectives rather than class terms To translate: replacing the adjectival predicate with a term designating the class of all objects of which the adjective may truly belong. Some flowers are beautiful > Some flowers are beauties

CHAPTER 8: SYLLOGISMS IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE 8.1 Syllogistic arguments Syllogistic argument: an argument that is a standardform categorical syllogism, or can be reformulated as a standard form categorical syllogism without change in meaning. Reduction to Standard form: putting into standard form a loosely put argument appearing in ordinary language

Veracruz

No warships are available for active duty > No warships are things available for active duty 3. Categorical propositions that has ain verbs are other than the standard form copula to be To translate: verbs can be replaced by a term designating the class determined by that class-defining characteristic and may be linked to the subject with a standard copula. All people seek recognition All people are seekers of recognition Some people drink Greek wine Some people are Greek-wine drinkers 4. Statements in which the standard form ingredients are present but not arranged in standard form order To translate: First decide which is the subject term and then rearrange the words to express a standard-form categorical proposition. All is well that ends well All things that end well are things that are well Racehorses are all thoroughbreds All racehorses are thoroughbreds 5. Quantities are indicated by words other than the standard form qualifiers All Some and No Every, any, everyone, anyone, whoever = All A, an, the = All/ Some (Depends on context) Not every = Some/ No (Depends on context) 6. Exclusive propositions: Asserting that the predicate only applies to the subject named To translate: usually depends on context Only citizens can vote All those who can vote are citizens None but the brave deserve the fair All those who deserve the fair are those who are brave 7. No words to indicate quantity To translate: depends on context Dogs are carnivorous

Veracruz

All dogs are carnivorous Children are presents Some children are beings who are present 8. Do not resemble standard form categorical propositions at all Not all children believe in Santa Claus Some children are not believers in Santa Claus There are white elephants Some elephants are white things Nothing is both round and square No round objects are square objects There are no pink elephants No elephants are pink things 9. Exceptive Propositions: proposition that makes 2 assertions rather than 1 To translate: cannot be translated into a single standard-form categorical proposition. Must be translated into an explicit conjunction of 2 standard categorical propositions. Testing for validity: must test two different standard form categorical syllogisms All but employees are eligible All nonemployees are eligible persons, and no employees are eligible persons Almost all students were at the dance Some students are persons who were at the dance, and some students are not persons who were at the dance 8.4 Uniform Translation To translate: introduce parameters and use the same parameters all throughout When: Time or cases Where: Places The poor always have with you All times are times when you have the poor with you Soiled paper plates are scattered only where careless people have picnicked

This place is a place where soiled paper plates are scattered therefore this place is a place where careless people have picnicked. 8.5 Enthymemes An argument containing unstated proposition that is understood or only in the mind; suppressed one of the premise to be valid First order enthymemes: propositions taken for granted is the major premise Second order enthymemes: proposition taken for granted is minor premise Third order enthymemes: proposition left unstated is the conclusion Rule on supplying suppressed premise: Proposition must be one that speakers can safely presume their hearers to accept as true Testing the validity: 1. Supply the missing argument 2. Test the resulting syllogism using Venn diagram or applying the rules 8.6 Sorites An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences Chain of syllogistic inferences: the first argument is connected to the second because the conclusion of the first argument is a premise of the second argument Test of validity: valid if and only if all its constituent syllogisms are valid 8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms Categorical: either they affirm or deny the inclusion or exclusion of categories or classes Disjunctive syllogism: One premise is a disjunct or alternative proposition and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts. Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid. Truth of the disjunct does not imply the falsehood of the other disjunct since both disjuncts can be true Either/Or

Hypothetical syllogism: Contains at least one conditional premise. If (antecedent) /Then (consequent) 1. Pure: all premises are conditional Any pure hypothetical syllogism whose premises and conclusion have their component parts so related is a valid argument If the first native is a politician, then he lies. If he lies, then he denies being a politician. Therefore if the first native is a politician, he denies being a politician. 2. Mixed: only one of the premises is conditional Modus Ponens: valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the antecedent and the conclusion affirms the consequent. (CP = A; C = C)

Fallacy of affirming consequent: categorical premise affirms the consequent (instead of the antecedent) Modus Tollens: valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the consequent and the conclusion denies its antecedent. (CP =/ C; C =/A)

Fallacy of denying antecedent: categorical premise affirms the antecedent (instead of the consequent) 8.8 The Dilemma A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it is claimed that a choice must be made between 2 (usually bad) alternatives Ways of evading this kind of argument: 1. Going between the horns Rejecting the disjunctive premise 2. Taking it by the horns Rejecting the premise that is a conjunction 3. Rebutting it by means of a counter dilemma Constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed to the conclusion of the original CHAPTER 9: SYMBOLIC LOGIC 9.1 Modern Logic and its Symbolic Language Modern Logic: uses symbols

Veracruz

9.2 Symbols for Conjunction, Negation and Disjunction Simple statement: does not contain any other statement as a component (Charlies neat) Compound statement: contains another statement as a component; components can also be compound (Charlies neat and Charlies sweet) Categorized into W/N the truth value of the compound statement is: 1. Determined wholly by the truth value of its components; or 2. Determined by anything other than the truth value of its components Requisites to be a component: 1. The part must be a statement in its own right; and 2. If the part is replaced in the larger statement by any other statement, the result of that replacement must make sense Truth value (True/False) Every statement is either true or false Every statement has a truth value 1. Conjunction () Truth functional connective meaning and Conjuncts: two component statements that are combined Truth value of this compound statement can be determined wholly by the truth values of its conjuncts o If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true o If one is false, the conjunction is false p T T F F T F T F q T F F F pq

Refers to the compound statement A compound statement whose truth function is wholly determined by the truth values of its components

Truth functional connective: dot symbol ( ) Symbolizes and, but, yet, also, although, however, moreover, nevertheless 2. Negation ( ~ ) Denial or negation of a statement Often formed by the insertion of a not in the original statement Negation of a true statement is false and the negation of a false statement is true p T F F T ~p

3. Disjunction ( ) Formed by inserting the word or between two statements Asserts that at least one of the disjuncts is true Disjunct: component statements Always inclusive o True if both or one of the disjuncts are true o False if BOTH disjuncts are false p T T F F T F T F q T T T F pq

Punctuation: Parenthesis, brackets and braces used in symbolic language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning 9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implications Conditional statement: A compound statement of the form if p then q Relationship asserted to hold between its antecedent and consequent Asserts that if antecedent is true, its consequent is true also Antecedent: component If p Consequent: component Then q

Truth-functional component Refers to the conjuncts Any component of a compound statement whose replacement by another statement having the same truth value would not change the truth value of the compound statement Truth-functional compound statement

Veracruz

Implication: plausibility appears to have more than one meaning a. Logical implication: If all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, then Socrates is mortal. b. Definition: If Leslie is a bachelor, then Leslie is unmarried. c. Causal: If this piece of blue litmus paper is placed in acid, then this piece of blue litmus paper will turn red. d. Decisional: If State loses the homecoming game, then I will eat my hat. Material Implication ( ) p q = ~(p ~q) Introduces a 5th kind of conditional: No real connection Only the truth function of the antecedent and the consequent, not their content, are relevant False only if antecedent is true and its consequent is false True if antecedent is false (at all times)

Substitution instance: any argument that results from the substitution of statements for statement variables in an argument form Specific form of argument: In case an argument is produced by substituting consistently a different simple statement for each different statement variable in an argument 9.5 Precise meaning of invalid and valid Valid argument form: argument form that has no substitute instances with true premises and false conclusion Invalid argument form: has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion 9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables Truth Table: array in which the validity of an argument form may be tested, through the display of all possible combinations of the truth values of the statement variables contained in that form 4 rows = 2 variables = (2) 8 rows = 3 variables = (2) How to make a truth table: 1. Make rows for every argument form 2. Make a row for every negation 3. Make a row for every parenthesis 4. Make a row for the statement P T T T T F F F F T T F F T T F F Q T F T F T F T F R

p T T F F T F T F

q T F T T

9.4 Argument forms and refutation by logical analogy Method of logical analogy: one way of proving invalidity Refutation by logical analogy: exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another argument with the same form whose premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is known to be false Based on the assumption that validity is purely formal characteristic Arguments: abbreviated by Capital letters Statement variables: A letter lower case for which a statement may be substituted Argument form: array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an argument, it contains statement variables (p, q) but no statements

Veracruz

9.7 Common Argument Forms A. Common valid forms 1. Disjunctive syllogism (or) Valid argument in which one premise is a disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the disjunct At least one of the two disjuncts must be true

pq ~p :. q 2. Modus Ponens (if then) Antecedent is affirmed by categorical proposition Consequent is affirmed by conclusion p p :. q q

Specific form: given statement results when a different simple statement is substituted for each different statement variable in an argument B. Tautologous, Contradictory, and Contingent Statement forms Tautologous statement form: has only true substitution instance a tautology Self- contradictory statement form: has only false substitution instance a contradiction Contingent statement form: has both true and false substitution instance C. Material Equivalence ( ) A truth functional connective like disjunction and material implication; Asserts that the statements it connects have the same truth value Two statements are materially equivalent when they are either true or both false. (If and only if) Every implication is a conditional statement. If the truth of A B also entail the truth of B A it is called biconditional. Biconditional: implication goes both ways D. Arguments, Conditional Statements and Tautologies An argument form is valid if and only if its expression in the form of a conditional statement is a tautology (always true) 9.9 Logical Equivalence Material equivalence: same truth value but cannot be substituted for one another; Logical equivalence ( ): two statements for which the statement of their material equivalence is a tautology they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one another (p is logically equivalent to ~~p) Not a mere truth functional connective but it expresses a relation between two statements that is not truth functional De Morgans Theorem Disjunction: one cannot assert that only at least one is false; we must assert both disjuncts are false ~(p q) is logically equivalent to ~p ~q

3. Modus Tollens (if then) Antecedent is denied by conclusion Consequent is denied by categorical proposition p q ~q :. ~p 4. Hypothetical syllogism (if then) p q :. p q r r

B. Common invalid forms Fallacy of affirming consequent: categorical premise affirms the consequent (instead of the antecedent) Fallacy of denying antecedent: categorical premise affirms the antecedent (instead of the consequent) C. Substitution Instances and Specific Forms An argument form that is valid can have only valid arguments as substitution instances. All the substation instances of a valid argument form must be valid. Invalid argument form can have a substitute instance that is a valid argument or an invalid argument 9.8 Statement Forms and Material Equivalence A. Statement forms and statements Statement form: any sequence of symbols containing statement variables but no statements Substitution instance: any statement of a certain form is said to be a substitution instance of that statement form

Veracruz

Conjunctions: we need merely assert that at least one is false ~(p q) is logically equivalent to (~p ~q) Material implication: p materially implies q means either q is true or p is false p q is logically equivalent to (~p q)

9.10 Three Laws of Thought Principles that may not deserve honorific status assigned to them but they are indubitably true. Principle of identity: if any statement is true, it is true Principle of non-contradiction: No statement can be both true and false Principle of excluded middle: Every statement is either true or false CHAPTER 10: METHODS OF DEDUCTION 10.1

Veracruz

- Mill's proof of UtilitarianismUploaded byScott Simmons
- ReasoningUploaded byjprgg24
- Principles of LogicUploaded byameriqo-1
- Carl D'Souza - Logika. Thinking Fallacies Part1Uploaded byMomir Miric
- Rubrics2Uploaded byDinalyn Villamangca
- Philosophical WritingUploaded bynitk11
- Irad Kimhi - Thinking and Being (2018, Harvard University Press).pdfUploaded byMari Vojvodovic
- Argumentative and Discursive EssayUploaded bypumpkinroar
- NASA [J Kolecki] - Introduction to LogicUploaded byekhahn3
- synopsys_systemverilogUploaded byravindarsingh
- Logical and Critical ThinkingUploaded byhistoric_instruments
- Types of Essay CharacteristicsUploaded byKaren Andrea
- Deduction vs. InductionUploaded bybikash
- 17-writing-a-critical-review.docUploaded byruselli
- Midterm TestUploaded byGalih Youngest
- FreudUploaded bynguyenquyhoang
- reading.docUploaded byMaria Victoria Padro
- Statement of the ProblemUploaded byRobynne Lopez
- J-0016 _P-I-Set-AUploaded byvineethkmenon
- ArgLab (Laboratório de Argumentação, IfL, FCSH, UNL) ManifestoUploaded byalainremy
- Logical FallaciesUploaded byLeogen Tomulto
- Logic-8.8-8.10Uploaded byLen-Len Cobsilen
- FALLSEM2019-20 MAT1014 TH VL2019201000547 Reference Material II 10-Jul-2019 Introduction to Propositional CalculusUploaded byVatsa Adarsh
- btsa lesson 5 revisedUploaded byapi-333586079
- Social Science writing rubricUploaded byAdam Neblock
- Critical Reasoning Questions Typically Involve an ArgumentUploaded bygvspavan
- 2Uploaded byBenjaminFigueroa
- PHILO 1 SyllabusUploaded byKinneth Padrones
- coverletterdraftUploaded byapi-383931200
- grade12publicpolicysupportingquestion4 docxUploaded byapi-295721496

- Digest of Terrorist CasesUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- RMC No 57-2013Uploaded bySebastian Garcia
- BIR Rul. 23-02Uploaded byLeia Veracruz
- BIR Rul. 9-04Uploaded bystillwatersvanisha
- BIR Ruling No. 006-00Uploaded byglg-ph
- Dolar vs. SundiamUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- 3 BIR Ruling 103-96Uploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Duty of DiligenceUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Study Group OverviewUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Reducing terrorist use of the InternetUploaded byStefan Herkel Vlahovich
- Heirs of Protacio v GoUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Silverio v. RPUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Al-Qadea Online - Understanding Jihadist Internet InfrastructureUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Heirs of Canas v DabatosUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCUploaded byJr Dungca
- DFA v. FalconUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- IRR PD 1866.pdfUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Csc vs. JavierUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Comm of Immig vs. FernandezUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Buklod vs. ZamoraUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- P.O. Ailmall v. MacondrayUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- 1 Vargas v. FM YapticoUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Muslim CodeUploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Vat Ruling 06-07Uploaded byLeia Veracruz
- Getting StartedUploaded byXenogenic Medusa
- 4Uploaded byFrederick Barillo
- 2. Sicad v. Court of AppealsUploaded byLeia Veracruz

- Bhatia Review GenreUploaded bystylistics
- Arabic-English Qur'Anic 2008Uploaded byTabitha Sanders
- Ob VersionUploaded byVideo Time
- 2016 AI Summer Lectures @DeMaCS (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at the University of Calabria, Italy)Uploaded byFrancesco
- Leipzig Glossing RulesUploaded bydarypark
- sjani 13Uploaded byTamar
- UNIT 1. Defining Pragmatics by Pilar PalmaUploaded byPILAR PALMA
- English Basics1387205228Uploaded byDavid
- Elementary Russian Grammar v1 1000018678Uploaded byDulasirisen
- Conditional Sentences.pptUploaded byJoshua Fernandez
- VLP-NewUploaded byLe Anh Nhat
- SOU1121.pdfUploaded byYasmeen El-Kholy
- PHL 2 LectureUploaded byKiara De Leon
- EnglishUploaded bydachex
- Gerunds and Infinitives.pptUploaded byLeo
- Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational InformationUploaded byeroteme.thinks8580
- RPT Bahasa Inggeris Tahun 6 (Lengkap)Uploaded byAzhar Haji Ahmad
- Ryszard Lipczuk - Fremdwortbezogene Wörterbücher des DeutschenUploaded byJames Brown
- AdjectivesUploaded bysanzy_s
- Morphological Typology Group 2Uploaded byArief Baskoro
- s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s Master TraductologieUploaded byOana Barbu
- Conditionals.pdfUploaded byMAR
- musashi_dokkodo_translation.pdfUploaded byxazgardx
- CHAPTER ONE: An Overture of Hebrew Verbal System: A Quick GuideUploaded bysteffen han
- Intro to LinguisticsUploaded byMark Andrew Fernandez
- Chomsky, N. (1980). binding.pdfUploaded byZhi Chen
- RPT B1 FORM 4Uploaded bymamaaniqs
- Cognitive Linguistics Issue1~4.Vol.21Uploaded bywwalczynski
- Translation ErrorUploaded byDerra Parindra
- 1976-Li,Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson-Subject and Topic A New Typology of Language.pdfUploaded byOscarHe