21 views

Uploaded by Alan Orquinaza

definitions of classical logic

- 08JALenthBasis
- Palean Baskets Are Not Uniquely Palean
- it
- Children Walk 2 School
- The Traditional Square of Opposition
- 最常用商務英語會話220句
- PragmaticLogicArguments
- Legal Logic What is What Are
- GRE Essay
- 英语
- Logic Summary Final
- Philosophical Terms
- Legal Technique and Logic
- [Studyplan] SSC-CGL Logical Reasoning, General Intelligence_ Preparation Strategy, Approach, Roadmap, Booklist - Mrunal
- A Syllogism
- Persuasion Rubric.pdf
- CR Pearson
- IntroToArgumentMurderMystery (3)
- Logic Midterm Reviewer
- BMCM5103 Assignment Q May 2016

You are on page 1of 4

E
ADMO
2018

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

Contradictories

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

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 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 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

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 logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position of the middle term in its

premises; there are four possible figures.

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 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

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

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

be made between two (usually bad) alternatives.

In a simple dilemma, the conclusion is a single categorical proposition; in a complex

dilemma, the conclusion itself is a disjunction.

- 08JALenthBasisUploaded bypratolectus
- Palean Baskets Are Not Uniquely PaleanUploaded bymenuselect
- itUploaded byapi-378632707
- Children Walk 2 SchoolUploaded byShannen 섀넌 Yue
- The Traditional Square of OppositionUploaded byFaisal
- 最常用商務英語會話220句Uploaded by張听垶
- PragmaticLogicArgumentsUploaded byJoshua Bowles
- Legal Logic What is What AreUploaded byArmand Jerome Carada
- GRE EssayUploaded byShaun H-y ت
- 英语Uploaded byapi-3695827
- Logic Summary FinalUploaded bysgt_invictus
- Philosophical TermsUploaded byHazel San Buenaventura
- Legal Technique and LogicUploaded byLotionmatic Lee
- [Studyplan] SSC-CGL Logical Reasoning, General Intelligence_ Preparation Strategy, Approach, Roadmap, Booklist - MrunalUploaded byKartik Upreti
- A SyllogismUploaded bySeby Nurak
- Persuasion Rubric.pdfUploaded byRaniaGF
- CR PearsonUploaded byEun Kim
- IntroToArgumentMurderMystery (3)Uploaded byPamela Perez
- Logic Midterm ReviewerUploaded byCzarPaguio
- BMCM5103 Assignment Q May 2016Uploaded byRedha
- Paper 3- Analytical & Logical ReasoningUploaded byHAFIZ IMRAN AKHTER
- NAT Reviewer Critical ThinkingUploaded byElena Bañares
- The OutlineUploaded bydennissimo
- Genres of TextsUploaded byBunda Emi Achmad
- Identifying AssumptionsUploaded byNorzaifee Nizamudin
- assignment sheet - analytical reportUploaded byapi-206154145
- BMCM5103 Assignment Q May 2016Uploaded byRedha
- Outrage!Uploaded byNathaniel Berman
- Lesson Plan Ma Rainey day 8 a.pdfUploaded bysharon mason
- expressions used in argumentsUploaded bykierandonaghy

- Poli 2017Uploaded byBrunxAlabastro
- 04 Taxation Law Syllabus 2018.pdfUploaded byErnest Talingdan Castro
- 101_Square_Meals.pdfUploaded byHenrik Björnklint
- Dilag vs. MercedUploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- 06 Criminal Law Syllabus 2018.pdfUploaded byErnest Talingdan Castro
- UY v. JAVELLANAUploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- 08 Legal Ethics Syllabus 2018Uploaded byPGIN Legal Office
- Fallacies Definition.pdfUploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- 02 Moran v COAUploaded byRaymond Cheng
- D. 1 Ramiscal v. SandiganbayanUploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- (1) Monsato v. Factoran Jr.Uploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- (1) Monsato v. Factoran Jr.Uploaded byAlan Orquinaza
- People v. EbioUploaded byAlan Orquinaza

- Consumer BehaviourUploaded bySiddhartha Neog
- Nicard i PineUploaded byKarel Lu
- General Notes on Absalom and Achitophel Through HobbesUploaded bytadmoroseboy
- pepsicoUploaded byGarrett Davis
- CreepUploaded bymgskumar
- Quiz 3 SolutionUploaded byMuhammad Montaha
- GPS theoryUploaded byMohammed Al Sabah
- Chromosome 16 - Genetics Home ReferenceUploaded byBerniceTan
- HermeneuticsUploaded byNazir
- Freundlieb - Why Subjectivity Matters - Critical Theory and the Philosophy of the SubjectUploaded byshoeger
- Red Thread 2 EngUploaded bySinan Can Erdal
- Ian2012_Articol Zvonaru-Stanciu, Pt. Ian.2012 (Mateinfo.ro)Uploaded byalexcojocaru72
- Industrial ApplicationUploaded byJustin Marc Estipona
- Digests OnlineUploaded byLoisse Vitug
- NecKUploaded byswapnali
- Exercise PrescriptionUploaded byJoshua Arceo
- Solutions to Revision (1)Uploaded byKZ
- capstone project v2Uploaded byapi-374284585
- The Art of ChoreographyUploaded byRosa Meneses
- Education System Court CaseUploaded byAnonymous IF8HWK
- Autocom CDP Pro for Trucks user ManualUploaded byautool
- occ profile int plan2 klattUploaded byapi-288706996
- A Crime is Different From a TortUploaded byMissPardis
- ratio lesson planUploaded byapi-254497624
- Candidate AnalysisUploaded byajaykcap2016
- Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil 724.docxUploaded byFerj De Guzman
- Remote Fiber TestingUploaded byEnrik
- Lokayata in Ancient India and ChinaUploaded byEnglish Vocab
- Science FictionUploaded byEdgar Mora Quiros