LESSON 1

THE NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF LOGIC

I. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.

B. Logic differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than a descriptive
discipline.

1. It prescribes how one ought to reason; it's not concerned with how one actually does reason.

2. Logic is concerned with laying down the rules for correct reasoning.

3. Consequently, logic seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor ones.

II. How Logic helps reasoning:

A. "Practice makes better." Some examples of how this course can help reasoning about the world are as follows.

1. Consider this syllogism:

All followers of Senator Jones are in favor of higher taxes.

All communists are in favor of higher taxes.

All followers of Senator Jones are communists.

It will become easy for us to recognize the fallacy in this argument as the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

2. Consider this informal argument:

In spite of the large number of UFO spottings that can be attributed to weather conditions and known aircraft and
other factors, there are hundreds of sightings that cannot be accounted for. Hence, we can safely conclude that
UFO's exit.

Consider this counter-example:

In spite of the large number of quarters put under kid's pillows which can be attributed to sneaky parents, brothers,
sisters, and so forth, there are hundreds of cases which cannot be accounted for. Therefore, the tooth fairy exits.

B. As well, this course can help with "the negative approach"—that we avoid errors by being aware of them, e.g.,
being aware of common formal and informal fallacies.

1. Consider the passage, "Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short." In this short
argument, the fallacy of false cause (or non causa pro causa) occurs. If this argument were good, all or most short
persons would become great emperors.
 2. Consider the passage, "People in developing countries get old as an earlier age, because the average life
expectancy is so short in those countries." Due to infant mortality, people do not get older more quickly; the fallacy of
division occurs.

C. Methods, criteria, and techniques, all are given as methods of testing correctness. These are some of the
techniques we will be learning and using in this class. These methods are shown here merely for purposes of
illustration..

1. For example, we can draw Venn Diagrams to show the fallacy of the undistributed middle term in problem
I, A discussed above.

2. Or we can show the fallacy in I, A by appealing to specific rules.

All P is Mu.

All S is Mu.

All S is P.

The term shared by both premises is said to be undistributed because it does not refer to each and every
persons in favor of higher taxes.

III. There are several kinds of logic which exhibit a kind of family relation: dialectic, multivalued logic, logic of
commands, fuzzy logic, etc.

IV. In this course, basically, we will use just two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

A. Deductive Logic: concerned with determining when an argument is valid (i.e., deals with conclusive
inferences).

1. A deductive argument is one which claims that its conclusion follows with necessity.

2. If that claim is not met, then the argument is said to be invalid.

3. Consider this example from Time magazine about the Kennedy assassination:
"Since tests proved that it took at least 2.3 seconds to operate the bolt on Oswald's rifle, Oswald obviously could not
have fired three times--hitting Kennedy twice and Conally once--in 5.6 second or less."

B. Inductive Logic is concerned with the correctness of inferences for which the evidence is not conclusive (i.e.,
probable inferences).

1. Hence, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow with probability.

2. Consider the example from Mark Twain's Notebook: "…at bottom I did not believe I had touched that
man. The law of probabilities decreed me guiltless of his blood, for in all my small experience with guns I had never
hit anything I had tried to hit and I knew I had done my best to hit him."

3. Or consider extrapolation techniques used in stock market prediction, e.g., the wedge formation.

V. What logic is not:

A. Logic is not the science of the laws of thought--in which case it would be a descriptive science like psychology.

1. Sometimes people can come to conclusions reliably without being able to know or explain how the
conclusion was reached. E.g., the so-called intuitive type of personality.

2. Often people can come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Logic is the study of the modes of
correct reasoning as shown in an interpersonal manner.

B. Logic is not really the science of reasoning either because the logician is not interested in the psychological
processes of reasoning.

1. The logician is interested in the structure of arguments.

2. People infer statements and statements entail other statements.

3. We want to say that the entailment is there even though someone does not at this time understand it.

PHILOSOPHY

The original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or
"wisdom." When someone studies philosophy they want to understand how and why people do certain things and
how to live a good life. In other words, they want to know the meaning of life. Add the suffix -er to philosophy, and
you get a word for someone whose job it is to think these big thoughts.

LOGIC
 is the systematic study of the form of valid inference, and the most general laws of truth. A valid inference is one
where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion. In
ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by words such as therefore, thus, hence, ergo, and so on.

LOGIC: A SCIENCE AND ART

A science is a systematic study of some aspect of the natural world that seeks to discover laws (regularities,
principles) by which God governs His creation. Whereas botany studies plants, astronomy studies the sky, and
anatomy studies the body, logic studies the mind as it reasons, as it draws conclusions from other information. Logic
as a science seeks to discover rules that distinguish good reasoning from poor reasoning, rules that are then
simplified and systematized. These would include the rules for validity, of inference and replacement, and so on.

For example, logic as a science could study the apostle Paul’s reasoning in 1 Cor. 15, “If there is no resurrection of
the dead, then Christ has not been raised… But Christ has been raised, and is therefore the first fruits from among
the dead.” It then simplifies this into a standard pattern: If not R then not C, C, therefore R. This rule can be further
simplified, named, and organized in relation to other rules of logic.

An art is a creative application of the principles of nature for the production of works of beauty, skill, and practical
use. The visual arts apply their principles to the production of paintings, sculptures, and pottery. The literary arts
produce poems and stories. The performing arts produce operas, plays, and ballets.

Logic is one of the seven liberal arts, which include the Trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. These arts are the
skills which are essential for a free person (liberalis, “worthy of a free person”) to take an active part in daily life, for
the benefit of others. Specifically, logic as an art seeks to apply the principles of reasoning to analyze and create
arguments, proofs, and other chains of reasoning.

WHY DO WE STUDY LOGIC?

Logic is an important subject because it teaches relation. This has far reaching effects beyond mathematics, where it
is often studied.

 It teaches deductive reasoning, such as the difference between reason and fallacy.

o For example, while it may be true that all rich people have money, it is not true that all people who
have money are rich.

 It also allows you to utilize deductive reasoning to interpret statements such as “Four out of five ____ agree
that _______.”

o While this statement appears to be founded in statistics, it actually leaves out just how many were
asked the question that led to the results. That is, there is a difference between 4 out of 5 and 80
 out of 100, even though they are the same percentage; 4 out of 5 tricks the mind to be “better” than
80 out of 100, because there is less gap between the numbers.

 It enforces critical thinking. I recall from my high school math class that taught logic : “Critical thinking is the
desire to seek, the patience to doubt, the fondness to meditate, and the slowness to assert” – Francis Bacon
(1605).

o When using critical thinking, you seek out information, not settling for what is given. Take the
previous example of “4 out of 5.” Seeking information allows you to question how many people
were surveyed, and what their relation to the question is. It allows you to open yourself to ask what
may have influenced their answer.

o The patience to doubt opens one to question the information, instead of just taking it for fact. “The
sun will rise tomorrow” may be a fact, but doubting it allows you to deductively verify or disprove
that statement.

o The fondness to meditate allows a person the ability to pause and think about the information
presented, instead of just reacting.

o The slowness to assert allows one to think about the information they are presenting, or presented,
and analyze it in a meaningful way.

Example:

 All birds have feathers. (TRUE)

 Turkeys have feathers. (TRUE)

 Therefore, all birds are turkeys. (FALSE). (A chicken is a bird, and is not a turkey)

Logic teaches us that

 what IS true is that All turkeys are birds.

LESSON 2

NOTION OF INFERENCES

INFERENCE

- An inference is an idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning.

- Using observation and background to reach a logical conclusion.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general
statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. “In deductive
inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. we predict what the
observations should be if the theory were correct. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in
general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, “All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore,
Harold is mortal.” For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the
premises, “All men are mortal” and “Harold is a man” are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

Deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It’s possible to come to a logical
conclusion even if the generalisation is not true. If the generalisation is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it
may also be untrue. For example, the argument, “All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is
a grandfather,” is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.A common form of deductive
reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — reach a logical
conclusion.

Inductive Inference:

Inductive reasoning moves from the particular to the general. It gathers together particular observations in the form of
premises, then it reasons from these particular premises to a general conclusion. The most common form of
inductive reasoning is when we collect evidence of some observed phenomena (e.g. examining 10,000 dogs for
fleas), then we draw a general conclusion about all such phenomena based on our collected evidence (e.g. whether
all dogs have fleas). In an inductive argument, the conclusion goes beyond what the premises actually say. For
example, if I observe 10,000 dogs, and every dog has fleas, I may conclude “All dogs must have fleas.” The
conclusion is a conjecture or a prediction. Further evidence may support or deny my conclusion. The 10,001st dog
may not have fleas. Therefore, with an inductive argument, anyone can affirm all my premises (10,000 dogs with
fleas, yet deny my conclusion (all dogs have fleas) without involving himself in any logical contradiction.in my
conclusion is possible, It may even seem very probable. Nevertheless, it is not anecessary conclusion. If someone
said, “Some dogs may have fleas, but I don’t believe all dogs have fleas,” there is no logical response I could make.
The logical certainty of my conclusion is entirely dependent upon my correct interpretation of the evidence and the
consistency of the evidence with the remainder of the phenomena which was not, is not, or may never be
observed.We use inductive reasoning all of the time. It is very useful. But we must recognize its limits. Most inductive
reasoning is not based upon exhaustive evidence, and therefore the form is incomplete.

MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE INFERENCES

The distinction between immediate and mediate inference is based on the number of premises involved in a given
piece of reasoning. A deductive inference is called immediate if we deduce the conclusion from a single premise. For
example, from the premise, “Some Belts are Leather Goods”, we can deduce “Some Leather Goods are Belts”. On
the other hand, if the conclusion is drawn from more than one premise, it falls into the category of mediate inference.
The argument, “All human beings are mammals” and “All men are human beings”, therefore, “All men are mammals”,
is an example of mediate inference.

STRUCTURE OF LOGICAL INFERENCES

Logical structure refers to the way information in a document is organized; it defines the hierarchy of information and
the relation between different parts of the document. Logical structure indicates how a document is built, as opposed
to what a document contains.

FORMAL AND MATERIAL SEQUENCE

Material logic is concerned with the content of argumentation. It deals with the truth of the terms and the propositions
in an argument.

Formal logic is interested in the form or structure of reasoning. The truth of an argument is of only secondary
consideration in this branch of logic. Formal logic is concerned with the method of deriving one truth from another.

TERMS

Term, in logic, the subject or predicate of a categorical proposition or statement. Aristotle so used the Greek word
horos (“limit”), apparently by an analogy between the terms of a proportion and those of a syllogism. Terminus is the
Latin translation of this word, used, for example, by the 5th-century Roman philosopher Boethius. Hence in medieval
logic the word came to be used also for common and proper names generally and even for what were called syncate-
gorematic terms—words such as and, if, not, some, only, except, which are incapable of being used for the subject or
predicate of a proposition.

CLASSIFICATION OF TERMS IN LOGIC

Kinds of Terms: Terms may be classified according to quantity, incompatibility, definiteness of meaning, and the
nature of referents.

1. As regards quantity:

a. Singular Term – stands for a single individual or object.

b. Particular Term – stands for an indefinite number of individuals of a class.

c. Universal Term – stands not only for a class as a whole but also for each member of that class.

d. Collective Term – refers to a group or collection of objects or individuals regarded as a unit.

A collective term, however, may be universal (e.g., family), particular (e.g., some family), or singular (e.g.,
this family).

2. As regards incompatibility:
a. Contradictory Terms – those wherein one affirms what the other denies.

b. Contrary Terms – represent the two extremes among objects of a series belonging to the same class.

c. Private Terms – those wherein one signifies a perfection and the other denies a perfection in a subject which
naturally ought to posses it.

d. Relative Terms – those wherein one cannot be understood without the other.

3. As regards definiteness of meaning:

a. Univocal Term – predicated of two or more individuals or things in exactly the same sense; admits of only
one meaning.

b. Equivocal Term – predicated of many in an entirely different sense; admits of two or more meanings.

c. Analogous Term – predicated of two or more things that is partly the same and partly different sense.

4. As regards the nature of referents:

a. Concrete Term – can be perceived by the senses; referent is tangible.

b. Abstract Term – can be understood only by mind; referent is intangible. It may denote the property of a
thing, which is considered an entity by itself. It denotes being, quality, quantity, or relationship.

c. Null or Empty Term – nothing actually existing to which it can be applied; no actual referents but only
imaginary ones.

Supposition of Terms

The exact meaning it has in relation to the other words in a given sentence.

A. On the Basis of the Thing Signified:

1. Real Supposition – is present when the term stands for a thing which exists as a physical object in the
realm of realities.

2. Logical Supposition – is present when the term expresses an aspect of a concept itself as it exists only in
the mind.

3. Imaginary Supposition – is present when the term signifies something which can exist only in the
imagination.

4. Metaphorical Supposition – is present when the term signifies something which can be true only by
analogy to another.
 5. Symbolic Supposition – is present when a term signifies something which is true only from agreement of
a group of men.

6. Material Supposition – is present when the term stands for itself insofar as it is a verbal symbol.

B. On the Basis of the Extension:

1. Individual Supposition – is present when the term stands for an individual person or thing.

2. Universal Supposition – is present when the term stands for all the individuals of a given whole.

3. Particular Supposition – is present when a term stands for a portion of a given whole or totality.

4. Indefinite Supposition – is present when a term stands for unspecific number of individuals.

DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS

Distribution, also called Distribution of Terms, in syllogistics, the application of a term of a proposition to the entire
class that the term denotes. A term is said to be distributed in a given proposition if that proposition implies all other
propositions that differ from it only in having, in place of the original term, any other term whose extension is a part of
that of the original term—i.e., if, and only if, the term as it is used in that occurrence covers all the members of the
class that it denotes.

Thus, in a proposition of the form “No S is P,” both the subject and the predicate are distributed. In the form “Some S
is P,” neither S nor P is distributed. In “Every S is P,” S is distributed, but P is not. Lastly, in “Some S is not P,” S is
not distributed, but P is. Briefly, only universal propositions distribute the subject term (S), and only negative
propositions distribute their predicate (P). Naturally, singular terms (including proper names used as singular terms)
are always distributed, for they refer only to one object and cannot refer to fewer.

The importance of distribution lies in its being a principle of formal inference that no term may be distributed in the
conclusion unless it was distributed in the premises.

VENN DIAGRAM

A diagram representing mathematical or logical sets pictorially as circles or closed curves within an enclosing
rectangle (the universal set), common elements of the sets being represented by the areas of overlap among the
circles.

LESSON 3
 ATTRIBUTE PROPOSITION

Attributive Proposition

A proposition in which the predicate (P) is affirmed or denied of a subject (S).

Three basic elements of an attributive proposition:

1.) Subject that about which something is affirmed or denied.

2.) Predicate is what is affirmed or denied of the subject.

3.) Copula In the affirmative proposition, the copula (is, am & are) joins, unites or “copulates” the predicate with the
subject; the subject is declared to exist as something identical with the predicate. In the negative copula (is not, am
not & are not) separates, or divides the predicate from the subject.

Example: “ A dog is an animal” “ A dog is not a cat” Animals Dogs Pigs Rats Dog Cat

Note: For a proposition to be negative, the particles must modify the copula itself. If the negative particles modified
either the subject or the predicate, but not the copula, the proposition is affirmative.

Example:

Socrates is not sick.

Some are not seated.

No cat has nine tails.

None of the students will go.

He will never go.

The Quantity (or Extension) of Proposition The quantity, or extension of the proposition is determined by the quantity,
or extension of the subject term.

Singular - A proposition is particular if its subject term is standing for an indeterminately designated portion of its
absolute extension.

Particular - A proposition is singular if its subject term is standing for one definitely designated portion of its absolute
extension.

Universal - A proposition is universal if its subject term is standing for each of the subject that it can be applied.
If the subject term is indeterminate - that is if it is not modified by any sign of singularity (this, that, etc.), particularity
(some, A portion of, etc.), or universality (all, every, each, etc) - the proposition is indeterminate.

By its sense the quantity of the proposition can be determined. I n case of doubt, assume that it is “particular” and
thus avoid attempting to draw more out of the premises that may actually be in them.

Exercise:

Classify the following propositions as singular, particular, or universal.

1. Manila is a populous city.

2. That man is sick.

3. Some student is shouting at the top of his voice.

4. All men are mortal.

5. A dog is barking outside my window.

6. Fido is barking outside my window.

7. Our neighbor’s dog is barking outside my window.

8. A dog is an animal.

9. Dogs are not cats.

10. Pigeons are eating up the newly planted seed.

11. Pigeons are not mammals.

12. Many men are suffering from arthritis.

13. Some Filipinos are communists.

14. Whatever is lighter than water floats on water.

15. All students in this room weigh over 2 tons.

16. No student in this room weighs over 200 pounds.

17. Woman is fickle.

18. Romeo is a romantic character.

19. Men are selfish creatures.

20. The Republic of the Philippines is a great nation.

The Symbols A, E, I, & O On the basis of both quality and quantity, attributive propositions are designed as A, E, I, &
O.

These letters are from the Latin words “ a ff i rmo”, which means “I affirm,” and “n e g o ”, which means “I deny”.

A, E, I, & O have the following meanings:

A & I (the first two vowels of affirmo ) signify affirmative propositions - A either a universal or a singular, and
I a particular

E & O (the vowels of nego ) signify negative propositions - E either a universal or a singular, and O a
particular.

Affirmative Negative Universal & Singular Particular A I E O

Thus, the following are A Propositions:

All voters are citizens.

Every voter is a citizen.

A dog is an animal.

The following are E propositions:

No dog is cat.

Dogs are not cats.

I am not a lawyer.

The following are I Propositions:

Some houses are white.

Many men are selfish.

Dogs are pests.

The following are O propositions:

Some cat is not black.

All horses can’t jump.

Not every man is a saint.

Quantity of the Predicate:

Rule #1: The predicate is singular if it stands for one individual or group and likewise designates this individual or
group definitely.

Example:

1. John is not the tallest boy in the room.

2. He is not the first to do that.

Rule #2: (Rule on Affirmative Proposition) The predicate of an affirmative proposition is particular or undistributed
(unless it is singular).

Rule #3: (Rule on Negative Proposition) The predicate of a negative proposition is universal or distributed (unless it is
singular).

Logical Form The basic structure, or the basic arrangement of the parts, of a complex logical unit.

Subject (S) - Copula - Predicate (P)

The logical Form of the Attributive Proposition

Su is P SaP A

Su is not P SeP E

Sp is P SiP I

Sp is not P SoP O

Ss is P SaP A

Ss is not P SeP E
Reduction to Logical Form

Example:

“ He writes editorials . ”

“ He is a writer of editorials”

“ We should elect Smith ”

“ The one we should elect is Smith”

“ The ones who should elect Smith is we”

“ What we should do is elect Smith”

Supply words such as “one” thing

“ All men have free will”

“ All men are ones having free will.”

LESSON 4

LOGICAL OPPOSITION

It refers to the different relations that exist between propositions having the same subject & predicate, but differing in
quantity or quality, or both.

1. Contradiction

– a relation which exists betweenpropositions that differ both in quantity & quality.

a. A & O

(UA) All humans are mortal.

(PN) Some humans are not mortal.-

(PN) Some politicians are not celebrities.

(UA) All politicians are celebrities.

b. E & I
(UN) No humans are angels.

(PA) Some humans are angels.-

(PA) Some lawyers are boastful.

(UN) No lawyers are boastful.

2. Contrariety

- a relation which exists between universalpropositions that differ in quality only.

a. A & E

(UA) All Koreans are Asians.

(UN) No Koreans are Asians.

b. E & A

(UN) No soldiers are coward.

(UA) All soldiers are coward.

3. Subcontrariety – a relation which exists between particular propositions that differ in quality only.

a. I & O

(PA) Some teachers are males.

(PN) Some teachers are not males.

b. O & I

(PN) Some politicians are not honest.

(PA) Some politicians are honest.

4. Subalternation – a relation which exists between twopropositions having the same quality, but differing inquantity.

a. A & I or I & A

(UA) All doctors are professionals.

(PA) Some doctors are professionals.

b. E & O or O & E

(UN) No engineers are egoists.

(PN) Some engineers are not egoists. The universal proposition is called the superaltern.* The particular proposition
is called the subaltern.

SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

The square of opposition is a chart that was introduced within classical (categorical) logic to represent the logical
relationships holding between certain propositions in virtue of their form. The square, traditionally conceived, looks
like this:

The four corners of this chart represent the four basic forms of propositions recognized in classical logic:

A propositions, or universal affirmatives take the form: All S are P.

E propositions, or universal negations take the form: No S are P.

I propositions, or particular affirmatives take the form: Some S are P.

O propositions, or particular negations take the form: Some S are not P.

KINDS OF LOGICAL OPPOSITION

1. Contrary Opposition

2. Contradictory Opposition

3. Sub- Contrary Opposition

4. Sub- Altern Opposition

1. Contrary Opposition - One which exist between two universal proposition that differ in quality

- Two propositions with the same subjects and predicates but different qualities and having the same universal
quantities.

Rules: a. Contrary proposition cannot be true together. b. Contrary propositions can be false together.

Examples:

A: All Cats are Dogs. (F) A: All Diamonds are Gems. (T)

E: No Cats are Dogs. (T) E: No diamonds are Gems. (F)

A: All Flowers are Roses. (F) E. No Flowers are Roses. (F)

Thus, “If one is true the other is false; If one is false the other is doubtful.”

2. Contradictory Opposition - One which exist between two proposition that differ in both quality or quantity

- Two propositions with the same subjects and predicates but different in quantities and in qualities.

Rules:

a. Contradictory proposition cannot be true together.

b. Contradictory proposition cannot be false together.

Example:

A: All Dogs are Animals. (T)

O: Some Dogs are not Animals. (F)

E: no women are married. (F)

I. Some Women are married. (T)

Thus, “If one is true the other is false or vice versa.”

3. Sub- Contrary Proposition - One which exist between two particular propositions that differ only in quality.

- Two particular propositions with the same subjects and predicates but different qualities.
Rules:

a. Sub-Contrary Proposition cannot be false together.

b. Sub Contrary proposition may be true together.

Examples:

I: Some Basketball Players are tall. (T)

O: Some Basketball Players are not tall.

O: Some Triangles are not Squares. (T)

I; Some Triangles are Squares. (F)

I: Some Students are present. (F)

O: Some Students are not present.

(T) Thus, “If one is true the other is false; If one is true the other is doubtful.”

4. Sub- Altern Opposition - One which exist between two propositions that differ in quality.

- Two propositions with the same subjects and Predicates both with the same qualities and different only in qualities.

Rules:

a. Sub - Altern Proposition cannot be false together.

b. Sub - Altern Proposition can be true together.

Examples:

A: All Dogs are Animals.(T)

I: Some Dogs are Animals. (T)

E: No Cats are Dogs. (T)

O: Some Cats are not Dogs.

(T) Thus, “If the universal is true the particular is true but if the universal is false, the particular is doubtful or vice
versa
The Three Laws of Thought

There are three important laws of thought that every critical thinker needs to know. Without them, we would find it
very difficult to reason correctly.

The Principle of Identity

The Principle of Identity states that “A is A.” Other ways of saying the same thing are “What is, is,” “Everything is
what it is,” and “A thing is identical with itself.” Can we seriously challenge such a principle?

The Principle of Contradiction

The Principle of Contradiction states that “A cannot be A and not A at the same time in the same respect.” It can also
be stated as “Whatever is, cannot at the same time not be under the same circumstances,” or “It is impossible for the
same thing both to be and not to be at the same time from the same point of view.” From the standpoint of logic, the
Principle of Contradiction can be read as “The same attribute cannot at one and the same time be both affirmed and
denied of the same thing in the same respect.”

The Principle of Excluded Middle

The Principle of Excluded Middle can be stated in different ways: “A thing either is or is not,” “Everything must either
be or not be,” and “Any attribute must be either affirmed or denied of any given subject.” For the purpose of the study
of logic, the principle can be stated: “If we make an affirmation, we thereby deny its contradictory; if we make a
denial, we thereby affirm its contradictory.”

LESSON 5

EDUCATION

Education, discipline that is concerned with methods of teaching and learning in schools or school-like environments
as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization (e.g., rural development projects and education
through parent-child relationships).

Types of Education:

1. Formal education: Formal education is the type of education which is provided in certain institutions like school,
college, universities etc. Formal education is designed with fixed aims and objective and provided according to the
curriculum. It has fixed time table, examination system and discipline. It is provided in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the concerned school and college. The characteristics are:-

(a) It is pre determined and pre planned.

(b) It is time bound and regulated by routine.

(c) It is space bound i.e., institutional.

(d) It is age bound.

(e) It follows systematic curriculum.

(f) It is imparted by qualified teachers.

(g) It observes strict discipline

(h) It is methodical in nature.

2. Informal education: Informal education or incidental education is one which occurs automatically in the process of
living. It is received by one by living with others, such as cycling, horse riding, fishing etc. The main characteristic of
informal education are:

(a) It is incidental and spontaneous.

(b) It is not pre planned and deliberate.

(c) It is not confined to any institution.

(d) There is no prescribed syllabus and time table.

(e) It is not time bound and age bound.

(f) There are many agencies of informal education.

(g) It is also known as out of school education.

3. Non-formal education: Non-formal education is any organized systematic educational activity carried outside the
framework of the established formal system. Non-formal education is provided at the convenient place, time and level
of understanding or mental growth of children and adult. The main characteristics are:-
(a) Non-formal education is open ended and non-competitive.

(b) Non-formal education is structured and planned but outside the sphere of formal education.

(c) It is consciously and deliberately organized and implemented.

(d) It is programmed to serve the need of the homogeneous groups.

(e) It possesses flexibility in design of the curriculum and process and evaluation.

(f) In non-formal education teacher pupil relationship is much more intimate.

(g) Attendance in non-formal education is voluntary.

(h) In non-formal education many students are working persons.

LESSON 6

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

A Categorical Syllogism is modernly defined as a particular kind of argument containing three categorical
propositions, two of them premises, one a conclusion.

A categorical proposition is of the type "This S is P" and "This man is a man", no 'if', no 'but' and no 'either or'. There
are other forms of syllogisms in use. Other examples include Disjunctive Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogism and
Polysyllogism. We will only be discussing on Categorical Syllogism in this article (unless otherwise mentioned).

The following is an example of a syllogism:

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.

A syllogism will be made up of 3 sentences. Each of the three sentences will be called a proposition.[define 1]

Socrates is a man. → PROPOSITION 1

All men are mortal. → PROPOSITION 2
Socrates is mortal. → PROPOSITION 3
The first two of the three propositions are premises and the last one is a conclusion.
 Socrates is a man. → PREMISE
All men are mortal. → PREMISE
Socrates is mortal. → CONCLUSIO

THE FIGURES OF THE SYLLOGISM

As described by Petrus Hispanius.

I Barbara all M is P; all S is M: all S is P

I Celarent no M is P; all S is M: no S is P
I Darii all M is P; some S is M: some S is P
I Ferio no M is P; some S is M: some S is not P
     

II Cesare no P is M; all S is M: no S is P
II Camestres all P is m; no S is M: no S is P
II Festino no P is M; some S is M: some S is not P
Baroko
II all P is M; some s is not M: some S is not P
Fakofo
     

III Darapti all M is P; all M is S: some S is P

III Disamis some M is P; all M is S: some S is P
III Datisi all M is P; some M is S: some S is P
III Felapton no M is P; all M is S: some S is not P
Bocardo
III some M is not P; all M is S: some S is not P
Dokamok
III Ferison no M is P: some M is S: some S is not P
     

I
Bramantip all P is M; all M is S: some S is P
V
I
Camenes all P is M; no M is S: no S is P
V
I
Dimaris some P is M; all M is S: some S is P
V
I
Fesapo no P is M; all M is S: some S is not P
V
I
Fresison no P is M; some M is S: some S is not P
V

The vowels indicate the type of statements:

A - Universal affirmative
E - Universal negative
I - Particular affirmative
O - Particular negative

Conversions of II, III, IV to corresponding I:

S - simple
P - per accidens
M - transpose premises

MOOD
The mood of a categorical syllogism in standard form is a string
of three letters indicating, respectively, the forms of the major
premise, minor premise, and conclusion of the syllogism. Thus,
the mood of the syllogism in Example 2 above is EAE.

Note, however, that syllogisms can have the same mood but still
differ in logical form. Consider the following example:

Example 3
1. No mammals are birds.
2. All mammals are animals.
3. Therefore, no animals are birds.

Example 3 also has the form EAE. But, unlike Example 2, it is

invalid. What’s the difference?

The syllogisms in Examples 2 and 3 have the following forms, respectively:

No P are M. No M are P.
All S are M. All M are S.
No S are P. No S are P.

RULES OF VALID SYLLOGISM

Any syllogism that satisfies all four of the following rules is valid; any syllogism that fails even one of the rules is
invalid.

1. In a valid syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises.

2. If either of the terms in the conclusion is distributed, it must be distributed in the premise in which it occurs.

3. No valid syllogism can have two negative premises.

4. If either premise of a valid syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative, and if the conclusion is negative,
one premise must be negative.

LESSON 7

FALLACY
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A
fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

Ambiguous Language

In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several
patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or
sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions
included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each
of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.

Equivocation

An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the
propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

 Really exciting novels are rare.

 But rare books are expensive.
 Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.

Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link they seem to establish
between the terms of the conclusion is spurious. In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the
reliability of otherwise valid deductive arguments.

Amphiboly

An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a
sentence creates its own ambiguity.

 A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his
pickup truck.
 Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.
In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different ways, creating the
possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.

Accent

The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example:

 Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.

 Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to
imply the truth of the conclusion.

Composition

The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a
class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).

 Every course I took in college was well-organized.

 Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic
mess, so this reasoning is defective.

Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual
specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For
the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual
part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

Division

Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole)
to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).

 Ocelots are now dying out.

 Sparky is an ocelot.
 Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of
any of its individual members.
Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical
specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor
health"). The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it
does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.

Avoiding Fallacies

Informal fallacies of all seventeen varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth. Whether they
are committed inadvertently in the course of an individual's own thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to
manipulate others, each may persuade without providing legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. But
knowing what the fallacies are affords us some protection in either case. If we can identify several of the most
common patterns of incorrect reasoning, we are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled by anyone else.

BEGGING THE QUESTION

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises
assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that
requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is
hidden, or at least not easily apparent.
In modern vernacular usage, however, begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or
"suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", an attempt to avoid it.

Examples of Begging the Question:

1. Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new gadget on the market!

2. God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is from God.

3. Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong.

4. Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly.

5. The rights of the criminal are just as important as the rights of the victim. Everyone's rights are equal.

6. Fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. After all, a healthy eating plan includes fruits and vegetables.

7. Student: Why didn't I receive full credit on my essay? Teacher: Because your paper did not meet the requirements
for full credit.

8. The greatest thing we can do is to love each other. Love is better than any other emotion.

FALLACIES OF IGNORING THE ISSUE

When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman
fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim X.

Person 2 makes unrelated statement.
Audience and/or person 1 forget about claim X.

Example #1:

Daryl: Answer honestly, do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be
Christian, or would we be Muslim?

Ross: I think those of us raised in a place where Christianity is taught are fortunate.

Daryl: I agree, but do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or
would we be Muslim?

Ross: Your faith is weak -- you need to pray to God to make it stronger.

Daryl: I guess you’re right. What was I thinking?

Explanation: Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept. While it may seem,
at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry;
therefore, fallacious.

Example #2:

Molly: It is 3:00 in the morning, you are drunk, covered in lipstick, and your shirt is on backward! Would you care to
explain yourself?

Rick: I was out with the guys.

Molly: And the lipstick?

Rick: You look wonderful tonight, honey!

Molly: (softening) You think so? I got my hair cut today!

Explanation: It is not difficult to digress a line of questioning, so beware of these attempts.

Exception: At times, a digression is a good way to take the pressure off of a highly emotional argument. A funny
story, a joke, or anything used as a “break” could be a very good thing at times. As long as the issue is dealt with
again.

Tip: Don’t avoid questions where you are afraid you won’t like the answers. Face them head on, and deal with the
truth.

Variation: Distraction can be a form of avoiding the issue, but does not have to be just verbal. For example, being
asked a question you can’t answer and pretending your phone rings, saying you need to use the restroom, faking a
heart attack, etc.

FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

Irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the
informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion)
fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.

Irrelevant conclusion should not be confused with formal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from
its premises.

Example 1: A and B are debating as to whether criticizing indirectly has any merit in general.

A: There is no point in people ranting on social media about politics; the president is not going to read it anyway.
B: But it is their social media. People can agree on making a petition or convey notice from many others that they will
be signing one based on their concerns.
A: Well, I do not keep up with it anyway.
A attempts to support their position with an argument that politics ought not to be criticized on social media because
the message is not directly being heard by the head of state; this would make them guilty of ignoratio elenchi, as
people such as B may be criticizing politics because they have a strong message for their peers, or because they
wish to bring attention to political matters, rather than ever intending that their views would be directly read by the
president.[6]

Example 2: A and B are debating about the law.

A: Does the law allow me to do that?

B: The law should allow you to do that because this and that.
B missed the point. The question was not if the law should allow, but if it does or not.

Dr Johnson's unique "refutation" of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism, his claim that matter did not actually exist but
only seemed to exist,[7] has been described as ignoratio elenchi:[8] during a conversation with Boswell, Johnson
powerfully kicked a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[9] (See also argumentum ad
lapidem.)

A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing
the subject.[2] Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.

FALLACIES OF NEGLECTED ASPECT

This fallacy involves the selective omission of information necessary for making a valid judgement. It is usually
information damaging to the argument which is omitted.

 Nuclear power is great benefit to mankind. It supplies great sources of energy and is used in medical
treatment.
 Our foreign fallacy is great success. Our relation with Britain, the US and France have not been better.
 Mom, can I go the party of Sue’s? Her parent are going to be there. (for the first hour only..)
 The US performed very well in Nagano Olympic winter games. We won Women’s hockey gold.
 Canada’s record on human rights is the envy of the world. We are true democracy
 INTRODUCTION

Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account,
reason or principle) is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and
demonstration. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.

Aristotle defined logic as "new and necessary reasoning", "new" because it allows us to learn what we do not know,
and "necessary" because its conclusions are inescapable. It asks questions like "What is correct reasoning?", "What
distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?", "How can we detect a fallacy in reasoning?"

Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal
systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. It deals only with propositions
(declarative sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions, commands or sentences expressing
wishes) that are capable of being true and false. It is not concerned with the psychological processes connected with
thought, or with emotions, images and the like. It covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as
well as specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and argumentation
theory.

Logical systems should have three things: consistency (which means that none of the theorems of the system
contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference
from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at
least in principle, be proved in the system).

History of Logic

In Ancient India, the "Nasadiya Sukta" of the Rig Veda contains various logical divisions that were later recast
formally as the four circles of catuskoti: "A", "not A", "A and not A" and "not A and not not A". The Nyaya school of
Indian philosophical speculation is based on texts known as the "Nyaya Sutras" of Aksapada Gautama from around
the 2nd Century B.C., and its methodology of inference is based on a system of logic (involving a combination of
induction and deduction by moving from particular to particular via generality) that subsequently has been adopted by
the majority of the other Indian schools.

But modern logic descends mainly from the Ancient Greek tradition. Both Plato and Aristotle conceived of logic as the
study of argument and from a concern with the correctness of argumentation. Aristotle produced six works on logic,
known collectively as the "Organon", the first of these, the "Prior Analytics", being the first explicit work in formal logic.

Aristotle espoused two principles of great importance in logic, the Law of Excluded Middle (that every statement is
either true or false) and the Law of Non-Contradiction (confusingly, also known as the Law of Contradiction, that no
statement is both true and false). He is perhaps most famous for introducing the syllogism (or term logic) (see the
section on Deductive Logic below). His followers, known as the Peripatetics, further refined his work on logic.

In medieval times, Aristotelian logic (or dialectics) was studied, along with grammar and rhetoric, as one of the three
main strands of the trivium, the foundation of a medieval liberal arts education.

Logic in Islamic philosophy also contributed to the development of modern logic, especially the development of
Avicennian logic (which was responsible for the introduction of the hypothetical syllogism, temporal logic, modal logic
and inductive logic) as an alternative to Aristotelian logic.

In the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgment, so that the
valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgments, although he still maintained that Aristotle
had essentially said everything there was to say about logic as a discipline.

In the 20th Century, however, the work of Gottlob Frege, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell on Symbolic
Logic, turned Kant's assertion on its head. This new logic, expounded in their joint work "Principia Mathematica", is
much broader in scope than Aristotelian logic, and even contains classical logic within it, albeit as a minor part. It
resembles a mathematical calculus and deals with the relations of symbols to each other.
 CONTENT
Lesson 1
THE NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF LOGIC
DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
DEFINITION OF LOGIC
LOGID IS A SCIENCE
LOGIC IS AN ART
WHY DO WE STUDY LOGIC?

Lesson 2
NOTION OF INIFERENCES
DEFINITION OF INFERENCE
DEDUCTICVE AND INDUCTIVE INFERENCE
MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE INFERENCE
FORMAL AND MATERAIL SEQUENCE
TERMS
CLASSSIFICATION OF TERMS
DISTRITION OF TERMS
VENN DIAGRAM

Lesson 3
ATTRIBUTE PROPOSITION
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSITION
QUALITY OF PROPOSITION
QUANTITY OF PROPOSITION
SYMBOLS A, E, I, AND O
QUANTITY OR EXTENSION OF THE PREDICATE

Lesson 4
LOGICAL OPPOSITION
SQUARE OF OPPPOSITION
KINDS OF OPPOSITION
LAWS GOVERNING OPPOSITION

Lesson 5
EDUCATION
KINDS OF EDUCATION

Lesson 6
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
FIGURES
MOODS
RULES OF VALID SYLLOGISM

Lesson 7
FALLACY
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
FALLACIES OF BEGGING THE QUESTION
FALLACIES OF IGNORING THE ISSUE
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
FALLACIES OF NEGLECTED ASPECTS
 NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PEÑARANDA OFF – CAMPUS PROGRAM
PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

TERM PAPER IN
LOGIC

MARK LOUIE P. PERALTA

BSBA -3B
MS. AMALIA GUTAY
LECTURER