You are on page 1of 4

# Block

LOGIC REVIEW
Chapter 6
Deductive Argument
Valid Argument
Class
Categorical Proposition
Universal Affirmative
Propositions
(A Propositions)
Universal Negative
Propositions
(E Propositions)
Particular Affirmative
Propositions
(I Propositions)
Particular Negative
Propositions
(O Propositions)
Quality
Quantity
Distribution

Proposition
All S is P.
No S is P.
Some S is P.
Some S is not P.
Oppositions
Contraries
Subcontraries
Subalternation
Square of Opposition

An argument that claims to establish its conclusion conclusively; one of the two classes of
arguments.
A deductive argument in which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in common.
A proposition, used in deductive arguments, that asserts a relationship between one
category and some other category.
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is included or contained in another class;
All S is P.
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is excluded from the whole of another
class; No S is P.
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member or members in common; Some
S is P.
Propositions that assert that at least one member of a class is excluded from the whole of
another class; Some S is not P.
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition affirms
or denies some form of class inclusion.
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition refers to
all members (universal) or only some members (particular) of the subject class.
A characterization of whether terms in a categorical proposition refer to all members of the
class designated by that term.

Letter Name
A
E
I
O

## Quantity, Quality, and Distribution

Quantity
Universal
Universal
Particular
Particular

Quality
Affirmative
Negative
Affirmative
Negative

Distribution
S only
S and P
None
P only

Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O) exhibited on
the Square of Oppositions.
Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false.
Two propositions that cannot both be true; if one is true, the other must be false. They can
both be false.
Two propositions that cannot both be false; if one is false the other must be true. They can
both be true.
The opposition between a universal proposition (the superaltern) and its corresponding
particular proposition (the subaltern). In classical logic, the universal proposition implies that
truth of its corresponding particular proposition.
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four types of categorical propositions
(A, E, I, and O). The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern Square of
Opposition in important ways.

LOGIC REVIEW
Immediate Inference
Mediate Inference
Conversion
Complement of a Class
Obversion
Contraposition

## An inference drawn directly from only one premise.

An inference drawn from more than one premise; the conclusion is drawn from the first
premise through the mediation of the second.
An inference formed by interchanging the subject and predicate terms of a categorical
proposition. Not all conversions are valid.
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition and replacing the predicate
term by its complement. Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical proposition.
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a proposition with the complement of its
predicate term, and replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject term. Not
all contrapositions are valid.
Immediate Inferences:
Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition
Conversion

Convertend
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.

Converse
I: Some P is S. (By limitation)
E: No P is S.
I: Some P is S.
(Conversion not valid)
Obversion

Obvertend
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.

Obverse
E: No S is non-P.
A: All S is non-P.
O: Some S is not non-P.
I: Some S is non-P.
Contraposition

Premise
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.

Contrapositive
A: All non-P is non-S.
O: Some non-P is not non-S. (By limitation)
(Contraposition not valid)
O: Some non-P is not non-S.

## If A is TRUE then, E is FALSE, I is TRUE, and O is FALSE.

If E is TRUE then, A is FALSE, I is FALSE, and O is TRUE.
If I is TRUE then, E is FALSE, A and O are UNDETERMINED.
If O is TRUE then, A is FALSE, E and I are UNDETERMINED.
If A is FALSE then, O is TRUE, E and I are UNDETERMINED.
If E is FALSE then, I is TRUE, A and O are UNDETERMINED.
If I is FALSE then, E is TRUE, A is FALSE, and O is TRUE.
If O is FALSE then, A is TRUE, E is FALSE, and I is TRUE.
Chapter 7
Syllogism
Categorical Syllogism
Standard-Form
Categorical Syllogism
Major Term/Major
Premise
Minor Term/Minor
Premise
Middle Term
Mood

## Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.

A deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain
exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and conclusions are all standard-form
categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O) and are arranged with the major premise first, the
minor premise second, and the conclusion last.
The major term is the term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion in a standard-form
syllogism. The major premise is the premise that contains the major term.
The minor term is the term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion in a standard-form
syllogism. The minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term.
The term that occurs in both premises, but never in the conclusion, of a standard-form
syllogism.
One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical syllogisms determined by the forms of

LOGIC REVIEW
Figure

## the standard-form propositions it contains.

The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position of the middle term in its
premises; there are four possible figures.

## The 15 Valid Forms of the Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism

In the first figure (Middle term is \)
AAA 1
Barbara (Santana)
EAE 1
Celarent (Bersabe)
AII 1
Darii (Halili)
EIO 1
Ferio (Deio)
In the second figure (Middle term is |)
AEE 2
Camestres (Mabee)
EAE 2
Cesare (Bersabe)
AOO 2
Baroko (Ayoko)
EIO 2
Festino (Deio)
In the third figure (Middle term is |
AII 3
Datisi (Halili)
IAI 3
Disamis (Liai)
OAO 3
Bokardo (Tomato)
EIO 3
Ferison (Deio)
In the fourth figure (Middle term is /)
AEE 4
Camenes (Mabee)
IAI 4
Dimaris (Liai)
EIO 4
Fresison (Deio)

## Fallacy of Four Terms

Fallacy of the
Undistributed Middle
Fallacy of the Illicit Major
Fallacy of the Illicit Minor
Fallacy of Exclusive
Premises
Fallacy of Drawing an
Affirmative Conclusion
from a Negative Premise

A formal mistake in which a categorical syllogism contains more than three terms.
A formal mistake in which a categorical syllogism contains a middle term that is not
distributed in either premise.
A formal mistake in which the major term of a syllogism is undistributed in the major premise,
but is distributed in the conclusion.
A formal mistake in which the minor term of a syllogism is undistributed in the minor premise,
but is distributed in the conclusion.
A formal mistake in which both premises of a syllogism are negative.
A formal mistake in which one premise of syllogism is negative, but the conclusion is
affirmative.
Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies
Rule

## 1. Avoid four terms

2. Distribute the middle term in a least one premise
3. Any term distributed in the conclusion must be
determined in the premises.
4. Avoid two negative premises.
5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
6. From two universal premises, no particular conclusion
may be drawn.

Associated Fallacy
Four terms
Undistributed middle
Illicit Major/Illicit Minor
Exclusive premises
Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
Existential fallacy

Chapter 8
Syllogistic Argument
Reduction to Standard

## An argument that is a standard-form categorical syllogism, or can be formulated as one

without any change in meaning.
Reformulation of syllogistic argument into standard form.

LOGIC REVIEW
Form
Singular Proposition
Unit Class
Exclusive Proposition
Exceptive Proposition
Parameter
Uniform Translation
Enthymeme
First-Order Enthymeme
Second-Order
Enthymeme
Third Order Enthymeme
Sorites
Disjunctive Syllogism
Hypothetical Syllogism
Modus Pones
Fallacy of Affirming the
Consequent
Modus Tollens
Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent
Dilemma
Simple/Complex Dilemma

A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs (or does not belong) to a
particular class.
A class with only one member.
A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the subject named.
A proposition making two assertions, that all members of some classexcept for members
of one of its subclassesare members of some other class.
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion into standard form.
Reducing propositions into a standard-form syllogistic argument by using parameters or
other techniques.
An argument containing an unstated proposition.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is take for granted is the major
premise.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted is the
minor premise.
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is left unstated is the
conclusion.
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any number of premises through a chain
of syllogistic inferences.
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction and the conclusion claims the truth
of one of the disjuncts. Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid.
A form of argument containing at least one conditional proposition as a premise.
Hypothetical syllogisms can be pure (where all premises are conditional) or mixed (where
one premise is conditional and the other is not).
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the antecedent of the
conditional premise, and the conclusion affirms its consequent.
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the
consequent, rather than the antecedent, of the conditional premise.
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the consequent of the
conditional premise, and the conclusion denies its antecedent.
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the
antecedent, rather than the consequent, of the conditional premise.
A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it is claimed that a choice must