New Britannica History

Do not cite. Do not publish. Do not reproduce. For discussion purposes only.
PHL 102 LOGIC: Class Notes
Gian Carla D. Agbisit (Instructor)

09263735207/ giancarlaagbisit@gmail.com
I. Logic:
a. Etymological definition by Zeno the Stoic: Greek, logike: a treatise on matters
pertaining to thought
b. Real definition: as the science and art which helps our mind to distinguish
between the correct from the incorrect
c. To attain clarity in our thoughts; to examine the validity of arguments and the
processes of inference
II. Logic: Nature and Divisions
a. Material Object: items or things that the science covers in its study (ex:
Arithmetic: numbers)
i. Logic’s material object: concepts and conceptual structures
(propositions and syllogisms) taken as products of the mind and not as
psychical affections or accidental modifications of the mind
b. Formal Object: the primary object of its study or consideration, by reason of
which, the science discusses the different items that fall under its study (ex:
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division in Arithmetic)
i. Logic’s formal object: the inferential functions of concepts and
propositions
ii. Logic views concepts in their functions (Major, Minor, and Middle
Terms) and propositions as Major and Minor Premises of an inferential
conceptual structure which is the Syllogism. Such inferential functions
are also called Relations of Reasons, inasmuch as they properly exist
only in the mind that attains and considers them.
c. Traditional/Aristotelian Logic and Symbolic Logic
1|PHL 102 NOTES

i. Traditional/Aristotelian Logic: uses syllogistic method, which is

typically deductive because it reasons out from universal into
particular.
ii. Symbolic Logic: mathematical logic, may also be deductive in approach;
uses symbols in the analysis of the arguments in order to easily
determine the validity of such given arguments.
d. Division of Logic: logic is commonly divided according to three acts of the mind,
which provide the different elements of its subject-matter and the different
bases of the different inferential functions
Mental Act Mental Product External Sign Logical Issue
Apprehension Idea Term Predicability
Judgment Enunciation Proposition Predication
Reasoning Argument Syllogism Inference
*The “mental product” or expression, which falls in between the “mental act” and the
“external sign,” is often designated with the name of the one or of the other. Ex: the
enunciation is also commonly designated as judgment, or as proposition.
*Syllogism: connected thought (syn + logos)
d. Formal Logic and Material Logic
i. In constructing anything, whether it is a suit, or a house, or even an
argument, one must have good structure or form and good material.
ii. Formal Logic discusses the conceptual patterns or structures needed
for correct and valid inference. (concerned itself with the rules
governing the structure and the validity of argument forms or patterns)
iii. Material Logic discusses the kind of matter, that is, the nature of the
terms and premises that are used in the different kinds of
demonstration. (concerned with the meaning and truth of the concept
and sentences, which comprise a syllogism)
iv. Formal Logic coincides with our present science on correct and valid
inference. Material Logic is the philosophical discussion on matters of
thought and knowledge.
*This distinction does not mean that they are two separate kinds of logic. They are, in fact,
complementary.
2|PHL 102 NOTES

*Internal and external consistency= Valid and sound argument
All human beings are God’s creature

Juan de la Cruz is a human being
Therefore, Juan de la Cruz is God’s creature.
Because it follows a sequence, this argument is valid. (Material Logic: This argument,
however, is valid only insofar as Juan de la Cruz is a human being. But if Juan de la Cruz is a
name of a puppet or a dog, the argument would not be sound.)
All Filipinos are God-fearers.

Jose Rizal is a Filipino.
Therefore, Apolinario Mabini is a God-fearer.
Because it has no sequence, this argument is invalid.
e. Formal Logic and Dialectics

i. Some divide our present science of logic into Formal Logic and
Dialectics because they define Formal Logic as treatise on matters
pertaining to thought while Dialectics is the treatise on argumentation
or disputation.
ii. Formal Logic: covers the discussion on Ideas and Propositions
iii. Dialectics: covers the discussion on Inference and Syllogisms
f. Deductive Logic and Inductive Logic
i. This division is applicable only to the third part of logic
ii. Deductive Logic: from universal to the particular
iii. Inductive Logic: from particular to universal
III. Idea and Term: Meaning, Kinds of Terms, Supposition
a. Simple Apprehension: the first act by which the mind without judging (without
affirming or denying anything about the thing) forms a concept of something;
b. Idea: the mental product of apprehension; it is the mental image of a thing; it
represents the object in the intellect
c. Term: the external manifestation of an idea; when an idea that exists in the
mind is expressed verbally
3|PHL 102 NOTES

i. Simple or Complex
1. Simple: consists of a single word (ex: man)
2. Complex: consists of a group of words that signify one thing (ex:
a rational sentient animate corporeal substance)
ii. Significant or Non-Significant:
1. Significant: terms that signify concepts directly and
immediately
2. Non-significant: terms that merely indicate or point out things
without expressing its nature (demonstrative pronouns, proper
nouns, adjectives)
d. Comprehension and Extension
i. Comprehension: the sum total of the attributes or thought-elements
which constitute the idea
ii. Extension: the sum total of all the individuals, things or groups to which
the idea/term could be applied
Kinds of Extension:
1. Absolute Extension: the sum total of all subjects—of actual
subjects, as well as possible subjects—whose nature is signified
by the term and concept
2. Functional Extension: it includes only those subjects that it
actually sets before the mind when it is used in a discourse
Ex: Term: Pencil
Comprehension: A writing instrument consisting of a
thin stick of graphite or a similar substance enclosed in a
long thin piece of wood or fixed in a metal or plastic case
Extension: types and brands of pencil; Monggol, etc.
e. Kinds of Terms:
i. Terms according to Extension
1. Singular: an idea that can be applied to one subject only
a. Proper Noun
b. Nouns modified by adjective in the superlative degree
(ex. The most valuable player, the wisest man in Athens)
4|PHL 102 NOTES

c. Demonstrative pronouns (this, that, those, these)

d. Article “the”
e. Personal Pronouns (I, you, he, she, they, we)
2. Particular: an idea that can be applied to a part or a portion of
all the members of a class
a. Indefinite pronouns or adjectives
b. Use of numbers
c. Articles “a” and “an”
d. General propositions which are true most of the time but
not always (ex: Filipinos are hospitable)
3. Universal: an idea that can be applied to all and every member
of a class
a. Universal expressions (all, every, each, whichever,
whatever, none, no one, etc.)
b. Universal idea
c. Articles “a,” “an” or “the,” if the idea is universal (ex: A
snake is a dangerous creature)
ii. Terms according to Definition
1. First Intention: a concept by which we understand what a thing
is according to what it is in reality, whether we think of the term
or not
2. Second Intention: a concept by which we understand not only
what a thing is in reality but also how it is in the mind. This
pertains to how the mind is thinking of the term in a particular
situation, independent of its essence
iii. Terms according to Quality
1. Positive: a term that asserts the presence of some attributes (ex:
healthy)
2. Negative: a term that denies the presence of some attributes (ex:
unhealthy)
iv. Terms according to Manner of Meaning
1. Univocal: a term that has one and the same meaning as applied
to different extensions
5|PHL 102 NOTES

2. Analogous: a term that expresses a meaning that is partly

different and partly the same, or meanings that are related
a. Analogous by Proportion: when a term is used in an
absolute sense in one thing and then attributed in other
things because of some intrinsic relation with the first.
Metaphorical words are classified under this kind
Ex: “Healthy” attributed to medicine, body, exercise, food
b. Analogous by Proportionality: (also called metaphysical
analogy) when a term is used by virtue of the kindred
similarity of the conceptual and formal reasons denoted.
Ex: A beautiful song is not beautiful in exactly the same way
and sense as a beautiful girl.
3. Equivocal: when the term is outwardly or apparently the same,
but expressing different meanings
a. In pronunciation only: sweet-suite
b. In writing only: bow (gesture, weapon)
c. In both pronunciation and writing: ball (dance, round
toy)
v. Terms according to Relation
1. Contradictory: terms that mutually exclude each other to such a
degree that there is no middle ground possible (lawyer, non-
lawyer)
2. Contrary: terms that signify their extreme relations but
belonging to the same class. They allow for a middle ground.
(black and white)
3. Privative: terms in which one expresses perfection and the
other, the denial of that perfection in its proper subject that
ought to have that perfection (sight, blindness)
4. Correlative: terms whose meanings are mutually related to each
other in such a way that the meaning of one is in reference to the
other and vice-versa (mother-daughter)
f. Supposition of Terms
i. Supposition: the precise meaning a term bears in a sentence
6|PHL 102 NOTES

ii. Proper Supposition: when a term stands for something for which it is
permitted to stand for literally
1. Material: when a word is taken simply to signify the spoken
word or the written symbol (ex: “To run” is a verb.)
2. Formal
a. Logical: when a term refers to a thing in mental existence
(ex: Man is a universal idea)
b. Real: when a term refers to a thing in real existence (The
sun rises every morning.)
iii. Improper Supposition: when a term stands for something
metaphorically and from its use in speech (Augustine is a Seraphic
Doctor of the Church)
IV. Logic of Propositions
a. Categorical Proposition
i. It is a proposition that makes a direct assertion of agreement or
disagreement between the subject and the predicate. It relates two
classes or categories: the subject term and the predicate term
ii. The general form of a categorical proposition is:
Subject---Copula---Predicate
Ex:
(Quantifier) Subject Copula Predicate
All philosophers are lovers of wisdom
iii. Four Forms of Categorical Proposition

1. A-Proposition:
a. This asserts that the whole subject class is included in
the predicate class.
b. Quantity: Universal/Singular, Quality: Affirmative
c. All S are P
Ex: All saints are holy people.
Every philosopher is a lover of wisdom.
7|PHL 102 NOTES

2. E-Proposition
a. This asserts that the whole subject class is excluded in
the predicate class.
b. Quantity: Universal/Singular, Quality: Negative
c. All S are not P/ No S is P
Ex: All sinners are not holy people.
No sinner is a saint.
3. I-Proposition
a. This asserts that part of subject class is included in the
predicate class.
b. Quantity: Particular, Quality: Affirmative
c. Some S are P
Ex: Some philosophers are atheists.
Many Filipinos are romantic lovers.
4. O-Proposition
a. This asserts that part of subject class is excluded in the
predicate class.
b. Quantity: Particular, Quality: Negative
c. Some S are not P/ Not all S are P
Ex: Some Filipinos are not patriotic.
Not all Senators are honest politicians.
A-proposition E-proposition
Universal/Singular Universal/Singular
Affirmative Negative
I-proposition O-proposition
Particular Particular
Affirmative Negative
8|PHL 102 NOTES

b. The Square of Opposition
c. Rules
i. Contradictory Opposition (CD): the opposition of a pair of
propositions that have the same subject and predicate but have
different quantity and different quality (A and O propositions; E and I
propositions)
Given Contradictory
True False
False True
Ex: If “some students are studious” is FALSE, then, “all students

are not studious” is TRUE.
9|PHL 102 NOTES

ii. Contrary Opposition (CT): the opposition of two propositions that

have the same subject and predicate, and the same universal quantity
but are different as to quality (A and E propositions)
Given Contrary
True False
False Doubtful
Ex: If “all bananas are fruits” is TRUE, then, “no bananas are
fruits” will be FALSE.
If “all Filipinos are artists” is FALSE, then, “no Filipino is an
artist” is DOUBTFUL.
iii. Sub-Contrary Opposition (SC): the opposition of two propositions
that have the same subject and predicate, and the same particular
quantity but are different as to quality (I and O propositions)
Given Sub-Contrary
True Doubtful
False True
Ex: If “some students are music lovers” is TRUE, then, “some

students are not music lovers” will be DOUBTFUL.
If “not all saints are martyrs” is FALSE, then, “some saints are
martyrs” is TRUE.
iv. Sub-Altern Opposition (SA): the opposition of two propositions that
have the same subject and predicate, and the same affirmative quality
or the same negative quality, but are different in terms of quantity (A
and I propositions; E and O propositions)
Given Sub-Altern
Universal True Particular True
Universal False Particular Doubtful
Particular True Universal Doubtful
10 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Particular False Universal False
Ex: If “all students are studious” is TRUE, then, “some students

are studious” is also TRUE.
If “no politician is corrupt” is FALSE, then, “some politicians are
not corrupt” is DOUBTFUL.
If “some teachers are loving persons” is TRUE, then, “all teachers
are loving persons” is DOUBTFUL.
If “some monkeys are flying animals” is FALSE, then, “all
monkeys are flying animals” is also FALSE.
I. Eduction
Eduction comes from the Latin word educere which means to extract. It is the
process of immediate inference whereby from any given proposition, we
derive another proposition with the same meaning but of different quantity or
quality or both quantity or quality
11 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
TYPES OF EDUCTION
a. Obversion (Obv.): the process of forming the equivalent proposition by
changing the quality and the predicate of the given proposition. The given
proposition is called obvertend, while the new proposition is called the
obverse.
i. Applicable to A, E, I, and O propositions. (A->E; E->A; I->O, O->I)
ii. STEPS:
1. Change the quality of the given proposition (the copula)
2. Change the predicate to its contradictory or into its immediate
opposed contrary terms
3. Retain the subject and the quantity of the given proposition.
OBVERTEND (Given) OBVERSE (New)
A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P
E: All S are not P/ No S is P A: All S are non-P
I: Some S are P O: Some S are not non-P/ Not all S are non-
P
O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P I: Some S are non-P
Or
OBVERTEND (Given) OBVERSE (New)
A: All S are non-P E: All S are not P/ No S is P
E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P A: All S are P
I: Some S are non-P O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P
O: Some S are not non-P/ Not all S are non- I: Some S are P
P
Ex: Because all Filipinos are Asians, therefore, no Filipino is non-Asian.
12 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
b. Conversion (Conv.): the process of forming the equivalent proposition by

transposing the subject and the predicate of the given proposition. The given
proposition is called convertend, while the new proposition is called the
converse.
i. Simple Conversion: applicable to E and I propositions. (E->E; I-> I)
ii. STEPS:
1. Transpose the subject and the predicate
2. Retain the quality and the quantity of the given proposition
CONVERTEND (Given) CONVERSE (New)
E: All S are not P/ No S is P E: All P are not S/ No P is S
I: Some S are P I: Some P are S
Ex: Since no dog is a cat, no cat is a dog.

iii. Accidental Conversion: applicable to A propositions only. (A->I)
iv. STEPS:
1. Transpose the subject and the predicate
2. Change the quantity of the given universal proposition into
particular
3. Retain the quality of the given proposition
CONVERTEND (Given) CONVERSE (New)
A: All S are P I: Some P are S
Ex: All mangoes are sweet fruits, therefore, some sweet fruits are mangoes.
c. Contraposition: this is the type of immediate inference whereby from the

given proposition, we derive a new proposition of the same meaning through
the use of the combination of obversion and conversion
13 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
i. Partial Contraposition (PC): a combination of obversion and

conversion; Applicable to A, E, and O propositions. (A->E; E->I; O->I)
ii. STEPS:
1. Obvert the given proposition
2. Convert the obverse of the given proposition
CONTRAPONEND (Given) PARTIAL CONTRAPOSIT (New)
A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P (Obv)

E: All non-P are not S/ No non-P is S
(S.Conv)
E: All S are not P/ No S is P A: All S are non-P (Obv)

I: Some non-P are S. (Acc.Conv)
O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P I: Some S are non-P (Obv.)
I: Some non-P are S (S.Conv.)
Ex: All Christians are theists; therefore, no atheists are Christians.

Ex: No college students are illiterate; therefore, some literate are college students.
iii. Full Contraposition: a combination of obversion and conversion and

another obversion; Applicable to A, and O propositions. (A->A; O->O)
iv. STEPS:
1. Obvert the given proposition
2. Convert the obverse of the given proposition
3. Obvert the converse of the obverse of the given proposition
CONTRAPONEND (Given) FULLL CONTRAPOSIT (New)
A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P (Obv)

E: All non-P are not S/ No non-P is S
(S.Conv) (PC)
14 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
A: All non-P are non-S (Obv) (FC)
O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P I: Some S are non-P (Obv.)
I: Some non-P are S (S.Conv.) (PC)
O: Some non-P are not non-S/ Not all non-P
are non-S (Obv) (FC)
Ex: Every diagram is a visual aid; therefore, every non-visual aid is a non-diagram.
d. Inversion (Inv.): the process of getting the equivalent proposition wherein

the given proposition would undergo a series of obversions and conversions.
i. Simple Inversion (S.Inv): a process of inferring a new proposition
whereby the subject of the new particular proposition is the
contradictory of the subject of the given universal proposition;
Applicable to A, and E propositions. (A->O; E->I)
ii. STEPS:
1. Change the subject of the original proposition into its
contradictory or immediately opposed contrary terms
2. Change the universal quantity into particular
3. Change the quality of the proposition
4. Retain the original predicate
INVERTEND (Given) SIMPLE INVERSE (New)
A: All S are P O: Some non-S are not P
E: All S are not P/ No S is P I: Some non-S are P
Ex: All artists are lovers of nature; therefore, not all non-artists are lovers of nature.
iii. Complete Inversion (C.Inv.): consists of inferring a new proposition

whereby the subject and the predicate of the original proposition is the
contradictory of the subject and the predicate of the new proposition.
(A->I; E->O)
iv. STEPS:
15 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
1. Change the subject and the predicate of the original proposition

into its contradictory or immediately opposed contrary terms
2. Change the universal quantity into particular
3. Retain the quality of the original proposition
INVERTEND (Given) COMPLETE INVERSE (New)
A: All S are P I: Some non-S are non-P
E: All S are not P/ No S is P O: Some non-S are not non-P/ Not all non-S
are non-P
Ex: No vegetarian is a meat-lover; therefore, not all non-vegetarians are non-meat

lovers.
II. Reasoning and the Syllogism

a. Syllogism means “connected thought.” It is a deductive argument consisting
of two premises and a conclusion. A categorical syllogism is a “type of
reasoning in which all three of the statements that make up the syllogism are
categorical statements.”
b. A categorical syllogism is usually arranged like this:
Example: All philosophers are intellectual beings. (Major Premise)
Plato is a philosopher. (Minor Premise)
Plato is an intellectual being. (Conclusion)
c. A categorical syllogism has three terms.
i. The Middle Term (M): the term found in the premises but not in the
conclusion. It is the term that mediates or that which essentially relate
or connect the two premises.
ii. The Major Term (P): the term found in the major premise that serves as
the predicate of the conclusion
iii. The Minor Term (S): the term found in the minor premise that serves as
the subject of the conclusion
Example:
All philosophers are intellectual beings. (Major Premise)
Plato is a philosopher. (Minor Premise)
16 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Plato is an intellectual being. (Conclusion)
Middle Term (M) Philosophers
(P) Intellectual beings

Major Term
(S) Plato
Minor Term
d. Figures of Categorical Syllogism

i. The relative positions of the three terms (the major, minor and middle
terms) constitute the figure of the syllogism. There are four possible
patterns in which these terms may occur.
ii. First Figure: otherwise known as the scientific figure. The middle term
takes the position of the subject of the major premise and the predicate
of the minor premise. (sub-pre)
M–P Every saint is a holy person. Major Premise
S–M Pedro is a saint. Minor Premise
S–P Pedro is a holy person. Conclusion
iii. Second Figure: the middle term takes the position of the predicate of
the major premise and the minor premise. (pre-pre)
P–M All men are creative beings. Major Premise
S–M No ape is a creative beings. Minor Premise
S–P No ape is a man. Conclusion
iv. Third Figure: The middle term takes the position of the subject of both
the major premise and the minor premise. (sub-sub)
M–P All patriotic people are brave. Major Premise
M–S Some patriotic people are women. Minor Premise
S–P Some women are brave. Conclusion
17 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
v. Fourth Figure: The middle term takes the position of the predicate of
the major premise and the subject of the minor premise. (pre-sub)
P–M All cheaters are sinners. Major Premise
M–S No sinners are saints. Minor Premise
S–P No saints are cheaters. Conclusion
e. Moods of Categorical Syllogism: the mood of a categorical syllogism is the

external pattern of a syllogism with respect to the kinds of tyoes of
propositions (A, E, I, or O propositions) of the premises and the conclusion.
There are 19 valid moods each corresponding to the type of figure.
Figure Mood Sample Syllogism

bArbArA A (major premise) All birds are animals.
Figure 1
A (minor premise) All parrots are birds.
A (conclusion) All parrots are animals.
M-P
S-M cElArEnt E (major premise) No birds are foxes.
S-P A (minor premise) All parrots are birds.
E (conclusion No parrots are foxes.
dArII A (major premise) All dogs are animals.
I (minor premise) Some mammals are dogs.
I (conclusion Some mammals are animals.
fErIO E (major premise) No dogs are birds.
I (minor premise) Some mammals are dogs.
O (conclusion Some mammals are not birds.
cEsArE E (major premise) No foxes are birds.
Figure 2
A (minor premise) All parrots are birds.
E (conclusion) No parrots are foxes.
P-M
S-M cAmEstrEs A (major premise) All foxes are animals.
S–P E (minor premise) No tree is an animal.
E (conclusion No trees are foxes.
fEstInO E (major premise) No restaurant food is healthy.
I (minor premise) Some recipes are healthy.
O (conclusion Some recipes are not restaurant food.
18 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
bArOcO A (major premise) All liars are evil-doers.

O (minor premise) Some lawyers are not evil-doers.
O (conclusion Some lawyers are not liars.
dArAptI A (major premise) All men are fallible.
Figure 3
A (minor premise) All men are animals.
I (conclusion) Some animals are fallible.
M-P
M-S dIsAmIs I (major premise) Some books are precious.
S–P A (minor premise) All books are perishable things.
I (conclusion Some perishable things are precious.
dAtIsI A (major premise) All books are imperfect.
I (minor premise) Some books are informative.
I (conclusion Some informative things are imperfect.
fElAptOn E (major premise) No snakes are edible.
A (minor premise) All snakes are animals.
O (conclusion Some animals are not edible.
bOcArdO O (major premise) Some websites are not helpful.
A (minor premise) All websites are internet resources.
O (conclusion) Some internet resources are not
helpful.
fErIsOn E (major premise) No atheist is a believer of God.
I (minor premise) Some atheists are good people.
O (conclusion) Some good people are not believers of
God.
brAmAntIp A (major premise) All rats are unclean.
Figure 4
A (minor premise) All unclean things are best avoided.
I (conclusion Some best avoided things are rats.
P-M
M-S cAmEnEs A (major premise) All trees are plants.
S-P E (minor premise) No plants are birds.
E (conclusion No birds are trees.
dImArIs I (major premise) Some evil-doers are lawyers.
A (minor premise) All lawyers are humans.
I (conclusion Some humans are evil-doers.
fEsApO E (major premise) No meal is free.
A (minor premise) All free things are desirable.
O (conclusion Some desirable things are not meals.
19 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
frEsIsOn E (major premise) No dogs are birds.

I (minor premise) Some birds are pets.
O (conclusion Some pets are not dogs.
III. Rules
a. General Laws
i. Dictum de Omni/Dictum de Nullo
ii. The Principle of Identity
iii. The Principle of Contradiction
iv. The Principle of Identifying Third
b. Particular Laws: on the correct use of syllogistic terms
i. A syllogism must have only 3 terms
ii. No term in the conclusion can have a greater extension than in the
premises
iii. The middle term must not be found in the conclusion
iv. The middle term must be distributed at least once.
c. Particular Laws: on the correct use of syllogistic propositions
i. No negative conclusion can be inferred from two affirmative premises
ii. No conclusion can be inferred from two negative premises
iii. No conclusion can be inferred from two particular premises
iv. The conclusion should always follow the weaker premise
d. Rules of Each Particular Figure
i. Figure 1: The major premise should always be universal and the minor
premise should always be affirmative (jumA)
ii. Figure 2: One of the premises should be negative and the major premise
should be universal (ONju)
iii. Figure 3: The minor premise should be affirmative and the conclusion
should be particular (mAcopa)
iv. Figure 4:
1. If one premise is negative, the major premise should be
universal (ONju)
2. If the minor premise is affirmative, the conclusion must be
particular (mAcopa)
3. If the major premise is affirmative, the minor premise should be
universal (jAmu)
IV. Reduction:
a. The process of changing into figure 1 any categorical syllogism that is
considered valid in other figures.
20 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
b. S: simple conversion; to simple convert the proposition represented by the

vowel before “s”
c. P: accidental conversion; to accidental convert the proposition represented by
the vowel before “p”
d. M: mutation; interchange the major and the minor premise
e. C: to obvert the propositions that are not succeeded by the letter “c”
Original Original Sample Syllogism New Mood Reduced Syllogism

Figure Mood
cEsArE No foxes are birds. cElArEnt No birds are foxes.
Figure
All parrots are birds. All parrots are birds.
2
No parrots are foxes. No parrots are foxes.
P-M cAmEstrEs All foxes are animals. cElArEnt No animal is a tree.
S-M No tree is an animal. All foxes are animals.
S–P No trees are foxes. No foxes are trees.
fEstInO No restaurant food is fErIO No healthy food is a
healthy. restaurant food.
Some recipes are Some recipes are healthy.
healthy. Some recipes are not
Some recipes are not restaurant food.
restaurant food.
bArOcO All liars are evil-doers.
Some lawyers are not
evil-doers.
Some lawyers are not
liars.
dArAptI All men are fallible. dArII All men are fallible.
Figure
All men are animals. Some animals are men.
3
Some animals are fallible. Some animals are fallible.
M-P dIsAmIs Some books are precious. dArII All books are perishable
M-S All books are perishable things.
S–P things. Some precious things are
Some perishable things books.
are precious. Some precious things are
perishable.
dAtIsI All books are imperfect. dArII All books are imperfect.
Some books are Some informative things
informative. are books.
21 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Some informative things Some informative things

are imperfect. are imperfect.
fElAptOn No snakes are edible. fErIO No snakes are edible.
All snakes are animals. Some animals are snakes.
Some animals are not Some animals are not
edible. edible.
bOcArdO Some websites are not
helpful.
All websites are internet
resources.
Some internet resources
are not helpful.
fErIsOn No atheist is a believer of fErIO No atheist is a believer of
God. God.
Some atheists are good Some good people are
people. atheists.
Some good people are Some good people are not
not believers of God. believers of God.
brAmAntIp All rats are unclean. bArbArA All unclean things are best
Figure
All unclean things are avoided.
4
best avoided. All rats are unclean.
Some best avoided things All rats are best avoided.
P-M
are rats.
M-S
S-P cAmEnEs All trees are plants. cElArEnt No plants are birds.
No plants are birds. All trees are plants.
No birds are trees. No trees are birds.
dImArIs Some evil-doers are dArII All lawyers are humans.
lawyers. Some evil-doers are
All lawyers are humans. lawyers.
Some humans are evil- Some evil-doers are
doers. humans.
fEsApO No meal is free. fErIO No free thing is a meal.
All free things are Some desirable things
desirable. things are free.
Some desirable things Some desirable things are
are not meals. not meals.
frEsIsOn No dogs are birds. fErIO No birds are dogs.
22 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Some birds are pets. Some pets are birds.

Some pets are not dogs. Some pets are not dogs.
INDIRECT REDUCTION
bArOcO All liars are evil-doers. Obvert All liars are not non-evil-
Some lawyers are not evil- major doers.
doers. premise and Some lawyers are non-evil-
Some lawyers are not liars. minor doers.
premise Some lawyers are not liars.
All liars are not non-evil- fErIO All non-evil-doers are not
fEstIno
doers. liars.
Some lawyers are non-evil- Some lawyers are non-evil-
doers. doers.
Some lawyers are not liars. Some lawyers are not liars.
Some websites are not Obvert Some websites are non-
bOcArdO
helpful. major helpful.
All websites are internet premise and All websites are internet
resources. conclusion resources.
Some internet resources are Some internet resources are
not helpful. non-helpful.
Some websites are non- dArII All websites are internet
dIsAmIs
helpful. resources.
All websites are internet Some non-helpful things are
resources. websites.
Some internet resources are Some non-helpful things are
non-helpful. internet resources.
I. Material Fallacies
a. Argumentum Ad Hominem argument against the person
i. Jun Lozada is not credible because he looks funny when he cries
b. Argumentum Ad Populum arguer appeals to people
i. All the others in the class want the party in the gym, so don't you think
we should have it there, too?
c. Argumentum Ad Baculum arguer appeals to force
23 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
i. If you expect to receive allowance tomorrow, I suggest you don’t talk to

your boyfriend anymore.
d. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam arguer appeals to pity
i. Please give me an A+ in this exam because if I don’t get an A+, I will lose
my scholarship. I won’t be able to continue my studies.
e. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam arguer appeals to wrong authority
i. You don’t need to go to the hospital. I am a doctor. In Philosophy.
f. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam an assumption that since something is not
proven false, it must be true, and vice versa.
i. Not all men are cheaters because you can’t even prove that my
boyfriend has already cheated on me
g. Ignoratio Elenchi missing the point, valid premise, irrelevant conclusion
i. Crime rates are getting higher because of riding-in-tandem criminals.
In order to catch these criminals, we must forbid motorcycle riders in
using helmets.
h. Petitio Principii: begging the question; assumes what it attempts to prove
i. The Bible is saying the truth about God’s existence because God guided
the people who wrote the Bible.
i. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: assumes that because one thing follows the other
that the first event is the cause of the second event.
i. Yesterday, I fell down on my face. 5 mins later, my crush said he finds
me beautiful. Now I try to fall down on my face every day. 
j. Non Sequitur: fallacy of consequent; the error in this fallacy is due to a lack of
logical connection
i. If it rains, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it
rained.
ii. If it rains, then the ground is wet. It did not rain. Therefore, there is no
reason for the ground to be wet.
k. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small; to support an
inductive generalization about a population
i. My boyfriend cheated on me. My father cheated on my mom. My best
friend’s father cheated on her mom. Therefore, all men are cheaters.
l. Fallacy of Accident: applying a general rule to an exceptional case
i. The maximum speed limit in NLEX is 60kph. Your father is in the
passenger’s seat, having a heart attack but you can’t step on the wheel
because of the speed limit.
m. Compound Question: assumes the conclusion at issue.; usually intended to
trap the respondent into acknowledging something which he/she does not
want to acknowledge
i. Are you still a heavy smoker?
24 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
n. Slippery Slope: this happens when an argument tries to prove that

proposition A is unacceptable because of a series of unacceptable events
following from it
i. Banning pornographic materials is dangerous to our freedom because
if we allow this to happen, soon, they will also ban art, and freedom of
expression will become meaningless.
o. Straw Man Fallacy: “when a person distorts an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then
concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished”
i. Feminism is a man-hating activity and to hate men is not a promotion
of gender equality. Therefore, feminism is bad.
p. Red Herring: when the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by changing
the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one
q. Arithmetical Fallacy: consists in applying the rules of arithmetic to practical
situations without qualifications.
i. If you can finish a book in 5 hours, then, there is no reason for you to
not be able to finish 4.8 books in 24 hours.
II. Special Kinds of Syllogisms
a. Enthymeme: an incompletely stated argument
All men are rational beings.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is a rational being.
Orders of Omitted Example

Enthymeme Proposition
First Order Major Premise Socrates is a rational being because he is a man.
Second Order Minor Premise All men are rational beings, therefore Socrates is a
rational being.
Third Order Conclusion All men are rational beings and Socrates is a man.
One of the premise: for, since, for the reason that, because
Conclusion: hence, therefore, consequently
Two Premises: and, but
b. Epicheireme: a syllogism in which one or both premises are supported by
explanations
i. All Filipinos are Asians because Philippines is an Asian country. Jose
Rizal is a Filipino. Therefore, he is an Asian.
25 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
c. Polysyllogism: connected syllogism

d. Sorites: a kind of polysyllogism in which the intermediary conclusions are
omitted
Polysyllogism Goclinean Sorites Aristotelean Sorites
All animals are A=B All animals are substances. A=B Black Beauty is a horse.
substances. C=A All four-legged beings are B=C A horse is a four-legged
All four-legged beings animals. being.
D=C C=D
are animals. A horse is a four-legged All four-legged beings are
E=D D=E
All four-legged beings being. animals.
are substances. E=B A=E
Black Beauty is a horse. All animals are substances.
A horse is a four- ∴Black Beauty is a ∴Black Beauty is a
legged being. substance. substance.
A horse is a substance.
Black Beauty is a
horse.
∴Black Beauty is a
substance.
III. Hypothetical Syllogism

a. Conditional Hypothetical Syllogism (ↄ)
i. Ex: If it rains, then there will be flood.
ii. Rule: Modus Ponens: if the antecedent (p) is affirmed, the consequent
(q) must also be affirmed but not vice versa
iii. Modus Tollens: if the consequent (q) is negated, the antecedent (p)
must also be negated but not vice versa
pↄq pↄq
p . ∼q .
∴q ∴ ∼p
pↄq pↄq
q . ∼p .
∴? ∴?
b. Strict Disjunctive Hypothetical Syllogism(∨)

i. Either he was innocent or he was guilty
ii. Rule: affirm one or more member of the major premise, then negate the
remaining member in the conclusion
26 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
iii. Negate one or more member of the major premise, then affirm the
p∨q p∨q
p . ∼p .
∴∼q ∴q
p∨q p∨q
q . ∼q .
∴∼ ∴p
c. Broad Disjunctive Hypothetical Syllogism (∨)

i. Either he likes comic books or he likes computer games
ii. Rule: Negate one or more member of the major premise, then affirm
the remaining member in the conclusion
p∨q p∨q
p . ∼p .
∴? ∴q
p∨q p∨q
q . ∼q .
∴? ∴p
d. Conjunctive Hypothetical Syllogism (•)

i. No one can be in Manila and Davao at the same time
ii. Rule: affirm one or more member of the major premise, then negate the
∼(p • q) ∼(p • q)
p . ∼p .
∴ ∼q ∴?
∼(p • q) ∼(p • q)
q . ∼q .
∴ ∼p ∴?
IV. Symbolic Notation

a. Negation
p ∼p
T F
27 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
F T
b. Conjunction
p q p•q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
c. Disjunction
p q p∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
d. Material Implication (if, then)
p q pↄq
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
e. Material Equivalence (if and only if)
p q p≡q
T T T
T F F
F T F
28 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
F F T
Note: Tautology: compound statement that is true under all possible combinations of truth-
values of their component statements. Contradiction: compound statements that are false
under all possible combinations of truth-values of their component statements. Otherwise it
is a contingent statement.
V. Method of Deduction
pↄq pↄq
Modus Modus
p . ∼q .
Ponens Tollens
∴q ∴ ∼p
pↄq p∨q p∨q
Hypothetical Disjunctive
q ↄ r. ∼p . ∼q .
Syllogism Syllogism
∴pↄr ∴q ∴p
(p ↄ q) • (r ↄ s) (p ↄ q) • (r ↄ s)
Constructive Destructive
(p ∨ r) . (∼q ∨ ∼s) .
Dilemma Dilemma
∴ (q ∨ s) ∴ (∼p ∨ ∼r)
p
p • q_ p • q_
Simplification Conjunction q _
∴p ∴q
∴p•q
p _ q _ pↄq _
Addition Absorption
∴p∨q ∴p∨q ∴ p ↄ (p • q)
References:
Aguas, A Handbook in Basic Logic.
Buenaflor, The Art of Critical Thinking: Logic for Filipino Students.
Domingo and Cabantac, Rudiments of Reasoning.
Gaarder, Sophie’s World.
Piñon, Fundamentals of Logic.
29 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S

New Britannica History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Britannica History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do not cite. Do not publish. Do not reproduce. For discussion purposes only.

PHL 102 LOGIC: Class Notes

Gian Carla D. Agbisit (Instructor)

1|PHL 102 NOTES

i. Traditional/Aristotelian Logic: uses syllogistic method, which is

Mental Act Mental Product External Sign Logical Issue

Apprehension Idea Term Predicability

Judgment Enunciation Proposition Predication

Reasoning Argument Syllogism Inference

2|PHL 102 NOTES

*Internal and external consistency= Valid and sound argument

All human beings are God’s creature

All Filipinos are God-fearers.

Because it has no sequence, this argument is invalid.

e. Formal Logic and Dialectics

3|PHL 102 NOTES

4|PHL 102 NOTES

c. Demonstrative pronouns (this, that, those, these)

5|PHL 102 NOTES

2. Analogous: a term that expresses a meaning that is partly

6|PHL 102 NOTES

(Quantifier) Subject Copula Predicate

All philosophers are lovers of wisdom

iii. Four Forms of Categorical Proposition

7|PHL 102 NOTES

8|PHL 102 NOTES

b. The Square of Opposition

Ex: If “some students are studious” is FALSE, then, “all students

9|PHL 102 NOTES

ii. Contrary Opposition (CT): the opposition of two propositions that

Ex: If “some students are music lovers” is TRUE, then, “some

Universal True Particular True

Universal False Particular Doubtful

Particular True Universal Doubtful

Particular False Universal False

Ex: If “all students are studious” is TRUE, then, “some students

OBVERTEND (Given) OBVERSE (New)

A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P

E: All S are not P/ No S is P A: All S are non-P

O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P I: Some S are non-P

OBVERTEND (Given) OBVERSE (New)

A: All S are non-P E: All S are not P/ No S is P

E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P A: All S are P

I: Some S are non-P O: Some S are not P/ Not all S are P

Ex: Because all Filipinos are Asians, therefore, no Filipino is non-Asian.

b. Conversion (Conv.): the process of forming the equivalent proposition by

CONVERTEND (Given) CONVERSE (New)

E: All S are not P/ No S is P E: All P are not S/ No P is S

I: Some S are P I: Some P are S

Ex: Since no dog is a cat, no cat is a dog.

CONVERTEND (Given) CONVERSE (New)

A: All S are P I: Some P are S

c. Contraposition: this is the type of immediate inference whereby from the

i. Partial Contraposition (PC): a combination of obversion and

CONTRAPONEND (Given) PARTIAL CONTRAPOSIT (New)

A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P (Obv)

E: All S are not P/ No S is P A: All S are non-P (Obv)

Ex: All Christians are theists; therefore, no atheists are Christians.

iii. Full Contraposition: a combination of obversion and conversion and

CONTRAPONEND (Given) FULLL CONTRAPOSIT (New)

A: All S are P E: All S are not non-P/ No S is non-P (Obv)

A: All non-P are non-S (Obv) (FC)

d. Inversion (Inv.): the process of getting the equivalent proposition wherein

INVERTEND (Given) SIMPLE INVERSE (New)