You are on page 1of 18

CHAPTER 1: THE WHAT AND WHY OF LOGIC

A.

Etymological Meaning of Logic

Zeno, the Stoic introduced the word, Logic. The word came from the Greek word logike which means a
treatise on matters pertaining to thought. Logike is closely related to another Greek word, logos which
means thought, reason or word.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) who started the study of logic, believed that it is the organon or instrument for
discovering and presenting truths. It is the instrument of all scientific investigations. It is through logical
methods that the sciences discover the truths peculiar to their subject matter. It is also through logical
demonstrations or argument that they prove their findings to be true and, therefore, acceptable. Logic
then is a prerequisite of all sciences.

B.

Man as Logician by Nature

The Supreme Creator has seen it fit to endow each creature with talent or power commensurate to its
nature. The wonders of His gifts may be glimpsed in the fierceness of the lion, in the speed of the horse, in
the strength of the elephant, in the flight of the sparrow, and the like. But the rarest of these gifts belongs
to man. This is the ability to reason.
The ability to reason correctly is innate to man.

He has the gift of common sense which St. Thomas

Aquinas defined as the habit of the first principles. This is natural logic. Hence, we say, that as rational
beings, we are logicians by nature.
It was natural logic which guided man to the invention of the fire and of the wheel. These discoveries, long
before man ever thought of building a schoolhouse, laid the cornerstone of progress and civilization. And
yet, common sense needs to be trained and sharpened to bring out the fullness of its
potentials.

Without, proper instruction, common sense is prone to mistakes, leaving the process of

reasoning to trial-and-error.
The singer, the dancer, the athlete, the painter, and the speaker all need systematized instruction on
how to develop their natural talents and how to use them effectively. In the same manner, each person
needs the science and art of logic to develop the habit of confident and valid reasoning.
Logic does not do away with common sense. Logic presupposes it and codifies its laws, shaping it into a
reliable instrument for the acquisition of knowledge.

C.

Definition of Logic

Logic is defined as the science and art of correct thinking. Just as chemistry investigates the laws
governing the composition, relationships, and affinities of matter, and just as physics studies the laws of
matter as endowed with motion and energy, so logic investigates, discovers, and applies the laws which
we must follow in order to think expeditiously and correctly.
o

Thinking. Thinking, in ordinary speech refers to any or to all movements of the mind, such
as imagining, recalling, memorizing, comprehension, analyzing, or , even daydreaming. However, in
the definition of logic as the science and art of correct thinking, the word thinking does not include
absolutely all mental operations but only those mental operations (1) that are directed toward the
attainment of truth and (2) by which we elaborate upon knowledge previously possessed.
Thinking then includes analysis, comparison, classification, definition, logical division and so on, and
especially the various kinds of inference.

Logic studies these operations in so far as they are

instruments of knowledge and means of attaining truth.


o

Correct Thinking. Thinking is correct when it conforms to the laws or rules


investigated by logic. For instance, definition is correct if it conforms to the rules of definition
Since very much of logic is a study of the conditions of correctness of thought, we cannot understand
the meaning of correct thinking unless we first have studied logic.

Science. Logic is a science because it is certain and systematized knowledge of the


principles governing correct thinking - it does not give us mere mechanical rules but gives us
insight into why its rules must be as they are and cannot be otherwise. Logic, however, differs from
the empirical sciences such as biology, physics, sociology, and others, because these give us
information about the world around us while logic makes no direct contribution to the content of our
thought. It is simply a mere tool of reason which deals with the reasoning process leading to the
discovery of truths.

Art. Art gives facility, in reasoning and judging correctly about things to be made such as
statues, paintings, chairs, and syllogisms and secondly, in making them in accordance with the
demands of reason. Logic is an art because it guides mans reason so he can proceed with
order and ease and without error in the constructive activity of making definitions,
propositions, syllogisms, and so on. Indeed, logic is the Art of Arts (Ars Artium), or a sort of a
super-art, for it directs reason itself, which is the director of the other arts. Yet, it is an art only in a
secondary sense of the word, for its products (unlike those of sculpture, painting, building, and so on)
are purely mental and imperceptible to the senses.

D.

The Limits of Logic

Logic does not give us knowledge of the real world, at least, not directly, but only of certain aspects of our
thought. It does not consider real things but certain aspects of our knowledge of real things. Hence, (1)

logic inasmuch as it is a mere tool of reason, makes no direct contribution to the content of our
thought and (2) it presupposes means of attaining truth over which it has no control.
o

A Mere Tool of Reason


Students of logic are sometimes disappointed on being told that a logician as such does not even
know enough to come in out of the rain or that he does not even know that a dog is an animal. As a
man, of course, he knows these things, but not as a logician because they lie outside the field of
logic. The sole object of logic is certain aspects of our thought it considers concepts, propositions,
arguments; the subject-predicate relationship, and so on. It does not give us knowledge at all of real
things except insofar as it is a mere tool of reason which guides us in our thoughts about things and
aids the sciences in attaining truth.

Extra-Logical Means of Attaining Knowledge


Another limit of logic is suggested by the definition of thinking. We define thinking as those mental
operations (a) that are directed toward the attainment of truth and (b) by which we elaborate
knowledge previously possessed. Since we cannot think unless we first have something in our
minds to think about, logic presupposes means of attaining truths over which it has no
control. It assumes that we accept many truths independently of logic and logical procedures.
1. Experience. The immediate data of experience are not subject to the control of logic. Many
things are immediately evident to us because we experience them we see, touch, and handle
them.

The fact that we exist, too, is immediately evident to us because we experience

ourselves knowing other things, feeling, willing, and so on.


2. Insight into Principles. Truths like the principle of contradiction (A thing cannot be and not
be in the same respect.) and simple relationships of numbers (such as 2+2=4) impose
themselves in our minds because by insight into concrete exemplifications of these truths we
clearly understand that they must be true. The basic principles of logic and metaphysics are of
this sort we cannot, strictly speaking, prove them: we can only see them when we inspect
examples in which they are illustrated. Now, in the acceptance of truths that are immediately
evident (whether they are immediate data of experience or principles grasped by insight into
principles,) there is no movement of thought but only a simple assent to truth. Hence, such
acceptance of truth is not thinking in the sense in which we understand the word here and
therefore lies outside the control of logic.
3. Authority. We accept many statements merely because an authority we consider reliable has
proposed them to us as true. Reliance on authority is our reason for accepting much of what we
read in the newspapers and hear over the radio and in conversation.

Indeed, reliance on

authority is often the only possible way of getting information about things that we

have not witnessed ourselves. It is also the reason why we accept many of the conclusions
of science: no one not even a great scientist can examine all the data of science and test the
validity of all its conclusions for himself. Reliance on authority is also the reason for accepting
the dogmas of revealed religion.
Now, logic has no direct bearing on the acceptance of statements on authority. It can, however,
have an indirect bearing. First, it can sometimes help us make a critical examination of
the reasons for accepting an authority as worthy of credence. For instance, logic can
help us discover inconsistencies of thought; and we will rightly be suspicious of the reliability of
an authority (a newspaper columnist, editorialist, historian, and so on) if he makes statements
that we find to be either self-contradictory or inconsistent with what we already know to be true.
Secondly, logic can guide us when we elaborate on what an authority proposed to us
as true.

Thus, authority, just as experience and insight into principles can supply us with

things to think about that is, with matter that we can subject to logical analysis and use as the
starting point of inference.

E.

Material and Formal Logic

The study of logic is divided into: material logic and formal logic.
Material logic teaches us how truths are arrived at with certitude. It provides the principles by which we
may acquire true and certain knowledge. On the other hand, formal logic teaches us how we may be
correct in the presentation of an argument. It gives us the principles of rules of logical thinking.
Every argument has matter and form.

The matter refers to the thought-content of the proposition.

Matter belongs to the jurisdiction of material logic, which guides us in making the matter or thoughtcontent of an argument true.
The form refers to the structure of the argument. It is the function of formal logic to determine whether
the pattern or structure is correct or not.
A valid, that is, acceptable argument is one which is true in its matter and correct in its form.
Examples:
1. Every rose is a flower; therefore, some flowers are roses.
(Valid in both matter and form)
2. Every triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines; therefore, every plane figure
bounded by three straight lines is a triangle.

(Formally invalid though materially valid)

F.

A Brief History of Logic


Aristotle is considered as the Father of Logic. He wrote six treatises on logical

matters, the collection of which was called Organon.


Zeno the Stoic introduced its actual name. The Stoic Logic was mainly the Prior and

Posterior Analytics of Aristotles logical works, expanded with a longer treatise on the hypothetical
syllogism, and with a treatise on the criterion of truth.
Chrysippus, a Greek philosopher, developed a logic in which the fundamental

elements were whole propositions. To him, every proposition is either true or false. He developed
rules of which the truth or falsity of the proposition is determined.
Poryphyrius, a Neo-Platonist, wrote a small introduction to the Categories of

Aristotle which Poryphyrius called Isagoge, which means introduction.


Severinus Boethius translated Aristotles Organon and wrote commentaries on the

Categories and the Isagoge of Poryphyrius.


Avicena and Averroes, Arabian philosophers, wrote commentaries on Aristotles

o
Organon.
o

Peter Abelard reconstructed and refined the logic of Aristotle and Chrysippus.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensive commentaries on the logical works of


Aristotle.
Francis Bacon wrote the Novum Organon with the aim of improving the Organon

of Aristotle. He introduced the theory of Induction, which John Stuart Mill developed into a general
theory for scientific investigation.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz attempted to develop a symbolic language or calculus

as way of settling disputes.


George Boole is considered as the Father of Symbolic Logic. Alfred North

Whitehead and Bertrand Russell were the chief exponents of symbolic logic. Today, symbolic
logic lost much of its earlier popularity and interest primarily because of its limited scope of
application.

G.
The Importance of Logic
Logic is a subject, which provides the learner with theoretical and practical value. The study of logic is
intellectually rewarding for it provides knowledge for its own sake. This is because many of its principles
are clear and systematic and are useful in the understanding of the philosophical and non-philosophical
issues.
The study of logic has practical uses. Some of which are enumerated below.
1.

With the understanding of the principles and methods of logical inference, a person can
reason out clearly.

2.

Logic will enable a person to recognize good from bad reasoning.

3.

Knowledge of logic will help a person to evaluate persuasions, which use mere
propaganda or psychological means such as emotion and majority pressure, rather than supporting
evidences or reason.

4.

Logic will provide a person a good grasp of logical terminologies useful in understanding
works or writings in philosophy, in physical and in other sciences.

5.

Logic will provide a person to develop a critical attitude toward his and others
assumptions and presuppositions that serves as bases of ones arguments.

6.

Logic will make a person aware of ambiguity of words and of various functions of
language, and will encourage him to be more exact and hence, more effective in the use of
language.

7.

Logic will motivate a person to value the systematic and objective approach in analyzing
issues and in doing things.

CHAPTER 2: THE TERM AS PART OF THE PROPOSITION


Introduction: The Mental Operations
Logicians are quick to divide the mental operations into three processes, namely, (1) Simple Apprehension;
(2) Judgment; and (3) Reasoning.
1.

Simple Apprehension
Simple apprehension refers to the act of the mind as it apprehends or grasps a particular entity or
reality. This enables the mind to know the essence (or which makes a thing a thing) as such thing,
entity, or reality. As the mind apprehends, grasps, or knows the thing, it produces an idea constituting
the essence of the thing (because the idea of the thing represents the thing as a thing).

2.

Judgment
Judgment is understood as an act of the mind through which the mind compares two ideas specifically
in terms of their relation, agreement or disagreement. This mental operation is expressed in what
logicians call proposition.

3.

Reasoning
Reasoning is an act of the mind through which the mind abstracts (from the Latin word abstrare
meaning to draw) or infers a specific judgment which is tacitly contained in other judgments. This
mental operation is expressed in what logicians call inference or argument.

Mental Operations
Simple Apprehension
Judgment
Reasoning
The Term

External Expression
Idea /Term
Proposition
Inference/Argument

The term is the basic component of a proposition. In this case, a term is a word or group of words that can
serve as the subject or predicate of a proposition. According to Bachhuber, the term is also the sensible
conventional sign of a concept. Written language, for him, directly signifies oral language and this, in turn,
signifies thought. In this study, we take the term to mean both the oral and the written word.

1.

A term is sensible, because, being material, it is perceptible to the senses, such as our
sense of hearing or sight.

As verbal symbol, a term is made up of the letters of the alphabet,

arranged in a manner that we can reproduce in guttural sound.


2.

A term is conventional because it is a sort of name or label coined by men and its usage
depends upon convention or tradition. For this reason, terms are not constant or unchanging
like the concept they represent. Some terms are rendered obsolete and are dropped as they are no
longer fashionable.

3.

A term is a sign because it represents a concept and through the concept, it represents reality.
What constitutes a term as such is its meaning. The meaning of a given term is the concept which it
represents. A term without a concept to back it up is literally meaningless. But such terms have a
function is a language and is not entirely useless.

A.

Simple and Complex Terms


1.

A single word is a simple term.


a.

Man is a rational animal.

b.

All students are in the library.

c.

The lady in black is beautiful.

2.

A group of words that serves as the subject or predicate of a proposition is called a


complex term.

B.

a.

The quick brown fox is an animal.

b.

Some modern philosophers are empiricists.

c.

AUF is one of the universities in the Philippines.

Classification of Terms According to the Terms Function (Quiddity)

Quiddity is derived from the Latin word, quid which means what?; hence, it means whatness. In
this context, essence and nature are nearly synonymous with quiddity.
1.

Significant terms are terms that signify the quiddity or whatness, essence or
nature of the thing or things they stand for.
Examples: man, school, dog

2.

Non-Significant terms merely point out things without signifying their quiddities,
essences or natures.
Examples:
a.

Demonstrative Pronouns: this, that, those and these

b.

Proper Names: Mr. Clean, Captain Barbell, Pong Pagong

c.

Adjectives: beautiful, red,

C.

Distributive and Collective Terms


1.

Distributive or Divisive terms signify the quiddity of individuals taken singly.


Examples: Soldier, player, duck, wolf

2.

Collective Terms signify the quiddities of a group of individuals but not of those
individuals taken singly.
Examples: army, team, flock, pack

D.

The Comprehension and Extension of a Term


1.

The Comprehension of a term is the sum total of the intelligible elements (notes) of the
quiddity signified by the term. Notes refer to those essential attributes which constitute the nature
of a thing.
The nature of physical things is often complex. It cannot be expressed mentally by a single note.

The nature of man, for instance, is expressed by several conceptual notes, namely,

substance,

corporeal, vegetative, sentient, and rational. The concept man is a rational animal

since

animal implies the notes of substance, corporeal, vegetative, and sentient.


Likewise, the concept, mother implies all of the abovementioned notes plus these: woman/with
child/of her own. It is sufficient to say that mother is a woman with a child of her own since
woman implies rational animal plus notes of adult female Notice, however, that it would not
suffice to say that a mother is a woman, nor a woman with a child. We have to include all the
notes in order to grasp the precise meaning of mother.
Comprehension then is the totality of all those qualities by which a thing is known to us. A partial
or incomplete presentation of these qualities or notes renders a concept vague.
Examples:
a.
b.
c.

Man- sentient corporeal rational animal


Elephant- sentient corporeal animal
Mercedez Benz- four-wheeled luxury vehicle

2.

The Extension of a term includes the subjects signified by the term. The subjects, falling
within the comprehension of a concept, are said to be the inferiors of that concept, which in turn,
it called the superior concept.

The inferiors of man would be all men, taken individually as

Dwayne, Kobe, Tracy, Tim and Aleth, or taken collectively as Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian,
American, etc.
The inferiors of mother would include my mother, his mother, their mother, or, Aling

Marsha, Aling

Linda, Aling Lukring, etc.


a.

Absolute Extension is the sum total of the subjects- of the actual subjects as
well as the possible subjects- whose quiddity is signified by the term.

b.

1)

Man- Filipino, Pedro, child, son

2)

Vehicle- jeep, bus, BMW


Functional Extension: includes only those subjects that are actually set before

the mind when they are used in discourse. The extension of a term may be said to be universal,
particular or singular.

The Inverse Ratio of Comprehension and Extension


Comprehension and extension are reciprocal and are inversely proportional to each other. This means that
increasing the number of notes in comprehension necessarily decreases the numbers of inferior in the
extension. Thus, the greater the comprehension, the lesser the extension, and vice versa.
The clarity and preciseness of a concept depends upon the sum total of notes included in its
comprehension. The more notes a concept has, the clearer and definitive it becomes and, therefore, to
fewer inferiors will it apply.
The diagram below shows how the single conceptual note substance applies to several categories of
inferiors which include spirits, minerals, plants, animals, and men. Progressively, as more and more notes
are added, the inferiors decrease in number. Finally, the sum total notes listed applies only to inferior
man and to nothing else.
COMPREHENSION
Substance
Material substance
Living material substance
Sentient living material substance
Rational sentient living material substance

EXTENSION
Spirits, minerals, plants, beasts, men
Minerals, plants, beasts, men
Plants, beasts, men
Beasts, men
Men

If asked which of two terms has the greater comprehension, you must ask yourself two questions:
First, you must ask yourself whether the terms are related as a superior and an inferior term. For instance,
of the two terms iron and silver, you cannot say that either of them has greater comprehension than

the other, because they are related as coordinate species rather than as superior and inferior terms that
is, you cannot say Iron is silver. or Silver is iron. However, metal and iron are related as superior
and inferior term because Iron is metal.
Secondly, you must ask yourself which of the two terms gives more information about the subject of which
it is predicated which term gives all the information that the other gives and something else besides. For
instance, iron has greater comprehension than metal because the proposition This is iron. tells me all
that the proposition This is metal. tells me and something else besides.
Classification of Terms according to their Comprehension
1.

Univocal Terms signify exactly the same concept, in at least two occurrences of the
term. The same term and exactly the same meaning.
Examples:
a.

Pedro is a man; the child is also a man.

b.

A ruler is a measuring device; this ruler is 12-inch long.

c.

Your classmates are more studious than his classmates.

2.

Equivocal Terms stand for different concepts in each of at least two occurrences of the
term. The same term but completely different meaning. Terms are sometimes equivocal in
pronunciation only; sometimes in writing only or both.
Examples:
a.

A ruler is a measuring device; GMA is a ruler.

b.

A pack of cigarettes; a pack of wolves.

c.

The knight appeared during the night. (pronunciation only)

d.

The record books record historical events. (in writing only)

3.

Analogous Terms applied to their inferiors in a sense that is partly the same and partly
different. The same term but partly the same and partly different meaning.
Examples:
a.

A healthy man is eating healthy foods.

b.

His arms are nailed on the arms of the cross.

c.

A typhoons eye is not a human eye.

E.

Classification of Terms according to their Functional Extension


1.

Singular Terms stand for one individual or group and designates


that individual or group definitely.
Examples:
a.

Proper Names: Nokia, Pedro, Lucky Me

b.

Superlatives: best, highest, worst, lowest.

c.

Demonstrative Pronouns: this, that, those, these

2.

Particular Terms stand for an indeterminately designated portion


of its absolute extension. Examples are terms with quantifiers like some, not all, and few.

3.

Universal Terms stand for each of the subjects to which it can be


applied. Examples are terms with quantifiers such as all, every, and each.
Note:
a.

The definite article the is prefixed to both singular and


universal terms. The dog is an animal is universal. The dog is barking loudly is singular.

b.

The indefinite articles a and an are prefixed to both


particular and universal terms. A dog is an animal is universal. A dog is barking loudly is
particular.

CHAPTER 3: JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION


Simple Apprehension and Judgment
The moment any of our five external senses receives a perception of an awareness, this sense perception
is transmitted or reported to the imagination right away. The imagination, in turn, forms an image, which
is called a phantasm. The mind, operating in perfect teamwork with the imagination, picks up this image,
this phantasm, and forms an image of its own we call an idea. This mental process is what we call simple
apprehension.
The moment an image, an idea, is formed in the mind, the filing cabinet of the mind (memory)
immediately supplies another image. Then, the mind compares these two images or ideas (the one picked
up from the imagination and the one supplied by the memory). The mind notices a relation between these
two ideas and asserts or expresses this relation. This assertion of the relation between two ideas is called
judgment.
Steps in the Formation of Judgment:
1. The mind picks up the image (phantasm) from the imagination.
2. The mind then forms its own image (idea).
3. Memory (the filing cabinet of the mind) supplies the mind with another image, more less similar to
the image the mind has just picked up from the imagination.
4. The mind now compares the two images.
5. The mind notices a certain relation between two images; a relation of either identity or non-identity
or dependence.
6. The mind affirms or denies the relation between the two images.

Given the mind has an image of a tree, which it picked up from the imagination, memory supplies the mind
with an image say, an acacia tree. The mind now compares the two images and notices certain similarity
between them. So the mind asserts: there is an acacia. This assertion in the mind is called judgment,
the thought-content of the second operation of the mind, the act of affirming or denying.
Suppose that the tree in reality (i.e. not the tree in the mind, but the tree in the outside world) is, in fact,
an acacia tree.

Then, the assertion, the judgment, is said to conform to reality, or to be true.

Such

judgment then is knowledge; that is, he knows that the tree in reality is an acacia tree.
Judgment then may be equated to, or may be considered knowledge only when the judgment is true.
Assuming that the judgment conforms to reality, therefore is true, then the person has knowledge; the
person knows. He would like to express and share his knowledge with somebody else so he speaks and
says to the other, That is an acacia tree. This statement is what we call in logic, the proposition.
Hence, judgment as the mental assertion of the relation between two ideas while proposition is the
external manifestation or expression of judgment.
General Notion of the Proposition
A proposition is defined as a statement in which anything whatsoever is affirmed or denied.

(a)

Statements where the simple existence of a subject is affirmed or denied.


God exists.
Troy does not exist.

(b)

Statements where an attribute is affirmed or denied of a subject.


A dog is an animal.
A dog is not a cat.

(c)

Statements where relationships, or connections, between member propositions are affirmed or


denied.
If it is raining, the ground is probably wet.
Propositions are either true or false.

A proposition is expressed by what grammarians call a declarative sentence, and must be


distinguished from a question, exclamation, wish, command, and entreaty.
The following are not propositions:
What is a platypus?
Ouch!
May God grant them peace.
Do it immediately.
Please come.

These are not propositions because in them nothing whatsoever is either affirmed or denied.
A proposition may also be defined as a discourse that expresses either truth or falsity. It is the

only kind of discourse that can be true or false in the strict sense, and every proposition is the one or
the other. Thus, it is the only discourse that you believe, assume, prove, refute, doubt, or deny.

Two Major Types of Propositions:


A fundamental in logic is knowing the distinction between a categorical/attributive or attributive
proposition.
1.

CATEGORICAL / ATTRIBUTIVE PROPOSITION a proposition which unites or separates two


concepts by means of the linking verb to be.
Examples:
a. Some sharks are man-eaters.
b. No crime is justifiable.
c. Every good action is meritorious.

2.

HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION a proposition which unites or separates, not two concepts,


but two enunciations by means of a non-verb copula. Often, a conjunction is used instead, such as,
if and either-or.
Examples:
a. If it is a car, it has a motor.
b. If he is a criminal, he deserves a punishment.
c. A proposition is either categorical or hypothetical.
d. He will be chosen because he is the best man.

Note:

The kind of copula being employed is not the only distinction between the categorical and

hypothetical propositions.

A categorical proposition expresses a positive or negative judgment, in an

absolute manner, without any conditionality. On the other hand, a hypothetical proposition expresses
a judgment which is qualified by a certain conditionality.

Again the truth expressed by a categorical proposition is verifiable by its conformity or non-conformity with
reality, while that of the hypothetical proposition depends on the correct formulation of the hypothetical
proposition itself and only by indirect reference to reality. Notice the difference in these two examples:
a. Categorical: A native of the Philippines is a Filipino.
The statement is a direct declaration of fact, which can be verified as true or false by reference
to objective reality.
b. Hypothetical: If he is a native of the Philippines, he is a Filipino.

Notice how the truth of he is a Filipino depends upon the truth of the conditionality, if he is a
native of the Philippines.

There are many other kinds of propositions existential and non-existential, simple and compound, causal,
inferential, and so on and so on but for the succeeding chapters we shall deal with the attributive or
categorical proposition.

CHAPTER 4: THE ATTRIBUTIVE / CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION


Basic Elements of the Attributive Proposition
An attributive or categorical proposition is defined as a proposition in which a predicate (P) is affirmed or
denied of a subject (S). It has three basic elements: the subject, the predicate, and the copula.
The Three Elements:

SUBJECT is that about which something is affirmed or denied.

It stands for the thing under

consideration.

PREDICATE is that which is affirmed or denied of the subject.

COPULA is the linking verb (is/am/are), which indicates the act of affirmation or negation.
Hence, it determines the quality of the proposition. Affirmative and negative are the two kinds of
quality that a proposition can have.
In the affirmative proposition, the copula joins, unites the predicate with the subject. On the other

hand, in the negative proposition, the copula separates or divides the predicate from the subject.
Tips in Determining the Quality of the Proposition:
1. If the proposition has no negative particle which modifies the copula, it is affirmative.
2. For a proposition to be negative, the negative particle (no, not, never) must modify the copula itself.
If the negative particle modifies either the subject or the predicate, but not the copula, the
proposition is affirmative.
Examples:
He who is not with me is against me. (Affirmative)
Those who have not been vaccinated are likely to get small pox. (Affirmative)

3. The negative particle of a negative proposition is usually located in the beginning of the proposition
or immediately after the copula.

Examples:
No man is an island. (Negative)
Not every man who retreats is a coward. (Negative)
A dog is never a cat. (Negative)
This is not easy. (Negative)
4. The use of two negative particles automatically makes the proposition affirmative.
Examples:
Nothing is not possible.
Not all students are not required to attend the seminar.

Analysis of Categorical Propositions


In analyzing propositions, the following should be determined:
a. Quantity of the Subject Term
b. Quantity of the Proposition
c. Quality of the Proposition
d. Quantity of the Predicate Term
e. Type of Proposition

Rules in Determining the Quantity or Extension of the Proposition:


1.

The quantity of the subject term determines the quantity of the proposition.
a. If the subject term is singular (standing for one definitely designated individual or group), the
proposition is singular.
b. If the subject term is particular (standing for an indeterminately designated portion of its
absolute extension), the proposition is particular.
c. If the subject term is universal (standing for each of the subjects to which it can be applied),
the proposition is universal.
d. If the subject term is indeterminate where the subject term is not modified by any sign of
singularity,

particularity

or

universality,

the

proposition

too

is

indeterminate.

The

reader/listener must decide by the sense whether it is to be regarded as singular, particular or


universal.
(Please refer to Clues in Determining the Quantity of the Proposition)

Rules in Determining the Quality of the Proposition:


2.

The relation established between the terms in the proposition determines the quality of
the proposition.
a. If the relation established is that of identity, the quality of the proposition is affirmative.
b. If the relation established is that non-identity, the quality of the proposition is negative.
(Please refer to Tips in Determining the Quality of the Proposition)

Rules in Determining the Quantity of the Predicate Term:


3.

If the predicate term is singular, the predicate term is singular. (See signs of Singularity)
Examples:
The Miami Heat are the 2006 NBA Champions.
Yao Ming is the tallest NBA player from China.
The 2006 NBA Finals MVP is Dwayne Wade.

4.

The quality of the proposition determines the quantity of the predicate term (PT) unless
the predicate term is singular.
a. If the proposition is affirmative, the predicate term is particular (unless PT is singular).
b. If the proposition is negative, the predicate term is universal (unless PT is singular).

The Symbols A, E, I and O


On the basis of both quality and quantity, attributive propositions are designated as A, E, I and O. These
letters are from the Latin words, affirmo, which means, I affirm, and nego which means, I deny. A, E, I,
and O have the following meanings: A and I (the first two vowels of affirmo) signify affirmative propositions
A either a universal or singular, and I a particular; E and O (the vowels of nego) signify negative
propositions E either a universal or singular, and O a particular.

Affirmative

Negative

Universal
and
Singular

Particular

Rules in Determining the Type of Proposition:


5.

The quantity and quality of the proposition determines the type of the proposition.
a.

If the proposition is universal affirmative, the proposition is A.

b.

If the proposition is singular affirmative, the proposition is A

c.

If the proposition is universal negative, the proposition is E.

d.

If the proposition is singular negative, the proposition is E.

e.

If the proposition is particular affirmative, the proposition is I.

f.

If the proposition is particular negative, the proposition is O.

CHAPTER 5: THE LOGICAL FORM OF THE CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION


Logical Form in general is the basic structure, or the basic arrangement of the parts, of a complex
logical unit. It is the structural pattern which shows the material relationship of subject, predicate, and the
copula. This generic basic structure or generic logical form is:

Subject Term Copula - Predicate Term


Subject Copula Predicate
SCP
The Six Basic Structures
This generic basic structure admits of six variations according to differences in the quantity of the subject
and the quality of the copula. The subject can be universal, particular, or singular; and the copula can be
affirmative or negative.

Each of these six varieties of structure is a distinct logical form, or type of

attributive proposition. Thus, we have the following forms of the attributive proposition:

1.

2.

3.

Su

is/are

P.

a P

All _____ are _____.


Every _____ is a _____.
Each _____ is a _____.
Any _____ is _____.

All roses are flowers. (if distributive)


Every student is entitled to his opinion.
Each man is responsible to his fellowmen.
Anything is possible.

Su is/are not P.

All _____ are not _____.


Every _____ is not _____.
Each _____ is not _____.
Any _____ is not _____.

All men are not immortals.


Every plant is not an animal.
Each car is not a spaceship.
Any criminal is not innocent.

Ss

is/are

P.

The _____ is/are _____.


This_____ is/are _____.
(Proper noun) is/are _____.
(Pronoun) is/are _____.
(Superlative) is/are _____.
4.

Ss

is/are not P.

e P

S a P

The girls are watching a movie.


That hot woman is my neighbors wife.
Washington D.C. is the capital of U.S.A.
You are my song.
The richest man alive is my friend.
S e P

The _____ is/are not _____. The man waiting outside the room is not my father.
This_____ is/are not _____. Those jerks are not my students.
(Proper noun) is/are not _____.
Lebanon is not a safe place anymore.
(Pronoun) is/are not _____. I am not going to resign as president.
(Superlative) is/are not _____.
The most productive city in Pampanga is San Fernando
No ______ is a _____.
No apple is an banana.
5.

6.

Sp

is/are

P.

S i P

Some _____ are _____.


Several _____ are _____.
Many _____ are _____.
Most _____ are _____.
More _____ are _____.
Majority _____ are ______.
Few _____ are _____.
Certain _____ are _____.
(Number)_____ are _____.
A _____ is _____.

Some prisoners are innocent.


Several councilors are absent in the meeting.
Many Christians are called serve His people.
Most of his arguments are logically valid.
More and more subscribers are switching to Globe.
Majority of public officials are corrupt.
Few laws are implemented properly.
Certain classified documents are missing.
Five kittens are sleeping soundly in the couch.
A car is parked in front of the building.

Sp

S o P

is/are not P.

Some _____ are not _____.


Some scholars are not deserving.
Several _____ are not _____. Several fruits are not sweet.
Many _____ are not _____.
Many of the teachers are not happy with their salary.
Most _____ are not _____.
Most of the terms are not found in the book.
More _____ are not _____.
More jokes are needed to make him laugh.
Majority _____ are not _____. Majority of the priests are ordained by the bishop.
Few _____ are not _____.
Few essential things on earth are not free.
Certain _____ are not _____. Certain mathematical principles are not easy to understand.
(Number) _____ are not _____.
Two songs are not enough to please the audience.
A _____ is not _____.
A snake is not the animal which killed him.
Not all _____ are _____.
Not all men are manly.
Not every _____ is a _____.
Not every Filipino is courteous.
Reduction to Logical Form
Reduction to logical form consists in rewording a proposition or argument to some set plan in order to
make its basic structure (SCP) obvious. The purpose of reduction to logical form is to extricate a part of
the complex logical unit to make it an object of special consideration or to facilitate various logical
processes.
Reducing a categorical proposition therefore, consists of rewording a proposition so as to state its logical
subject, copula, and predicate explicitly. For example, reducing the proposition, The carpenters built a big
house., we would have, The carpenters are the ones who built a big house.