- 1–

CHAPTER 1 Classical Logic

PROPOSITIONS Traditional techniques, based on Aristotle‟s works, for the
analysis of deductive arguments.
1.1 What Logic Is
Modern Symbolic Logic
Logic Methods used by most modern logicians to analyze
The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish deductive arguments.
correct from incorrect reasoning
Probability
1.2 Propositions The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive
argument) is true.
Propositions
An assertion that something is (or is not) the case 1.5 Validity & Truth
All propositions are either true or false
May be affirmed or denied Truth
An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the
Statement case.
The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time
In logic, the word “statement” is sometimes used instead of Sound
“propositions” An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

Simple Proposition Relations Between Truth and Validity:

A proposition making only one assertion.
Compound Proposition
A proposition containing two or more simple propositions
Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition
A type of compound proposition
If true, at least one of the component propositions must be
true
Hypothetical (or Conditional) Proposition
A type of compound proposition;
It is false only when the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false
1.3 Arguments
Inference
A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition
on the basis of one or more other propositions.
Argument
A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.
Premise
A proposition used in an argument to support some other
proposition.
Conclusion
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions,
the premises, support.
1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments
Deductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion conclusively
One of the two classes of argument
Inductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of
probability
One of the two classes of argument
Valid Argument
If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
(applies only to deductive arguments)
Invalid Argument
The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises
are true
(applies only to deductive arguments)
1. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions – true
premises and a true conclusion.
2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions –
false premises and a false conclusion
3. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions – all
their premises are true, and their conclusions as well.
4. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and
have a false conclusion.
5. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true
conclusion.
6. Some invalid arguments also have a false premise and a
true conclusion.
7. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false
propositions – false premises and a false conclusion.
Notes:
The truth or falsity of an argument‟s conclusion does not by
itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument.
The fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the
truth of its conclusion.
If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may
be certain that its conclusion is true also.
If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of
its premises can be true.
Some perfectly valid arguments do have a false conclusion
– but such argument must have at least one false premise.
CHAPTER 3
3.1 Three Basic Functions AND
of ITS APPLICATION
LANGUAGE
Language Ludwig Wittgenstein
One of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century
Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of
uses of what we call „symbols,‟ „words,‟ „sentences.‟
Informative Discourse
Language used to convey information
“Information” includes false as well as true propositions,
bad arguments as well as good ones
Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts,
reports of geographical trivia – our learning about the world
and our reasoning about – it uses language in the
informative mode
Expressive Discourse
Language used to convey or evoke feelings.
Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes,
emotions and feelings
E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry
Expressive discourse is used either to:

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

 - 2–
1. manifest the speaker‟s feelings Parties in Potential Conflict May:
2. evoke certain feelings in the 1. agree about the facts, and agree in their attitude towards
listeners Expressive discourse is neither true those facts
nor false. 2. they might disagree about both
3. they may agree about the facts but disagree in their
Directive Discourse attitude towards those facts
Language used to cause or prevent action. 4. they may disagree about what the facts are, and yet they
Directive discourse is neither true nor agree in their attitude toward what they believe the fats to
false. be.
Commands and requests do have other attributes –
reasonableness, propriety – that are somewhat analogous to Note: The real nature of disagreements must be identified if they are
truth & falsity to be successfully resolved.

3.2 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions CHAPTER 4

DEFINITION
Notes:
Effective communication often demands combinations of Dis/agreement in Belief vs. Dis/agreement in Attitude
functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what
the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been
calling “attitudes.” Patricia
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to 2014-02-26 03:43:55
depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate
attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects
--------------------------------------------
Patricia
their relevant beliefs. cannot be resolved by any linguistic
2014-02-26 03:49:52
adjustments basketball v volleyball
--------------------------------------------
Ceremonial Use of Language
Patricia
A mix of language functions (usually expressive and conflicts that can be resolved by simply
2014-02-26 03:50:29
directive) with special social uses. coming to agreement on how some word
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of --------------------------------------------
or phrase is to be used "differ verbally
worship, the portentous language of state documents disagreement that goes well beyond the
on what counts as flying"
use of words
Performative Utterance
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and
performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in
special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,
doing something more than combining the 3 major functions
of language

3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions

Sentences
The units of language that express complete thoughts
4 categories: declarative, interrogative, imperative,
exclamatory
4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming

USES OF LANGUAGE
Principal Uses Grammatical Forms
1. Informative 1. Declarative
2. Expressive 2. Interrogative
3. Directive 3. Imperative
4. Exclamatory
Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic function. Form
often gives an indication of function – but there is no sure connection
between the grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language Patricia
serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take any one of the 2014-02-26 03:52:25
4 grammatical forms --------------------------------------------
Patricia
2014-02-26 03:37:36
essential difference: its definition may
3.4 Emotive and Neutral Language --------------------------------------------
be true or false, depending on whether
Emotive Language The literal meanings
that meaning and or
is correctly theincorrectly
emotional
Appropriate in poetry meani ngs
reportes of a word are largely
Language that is emotionally toned will distract independent of one another. The very
Language that is “loaded” – heavily charged w/ emotional same thing can be referred to by words
meaning on either side – is unlikely to advance the quest for
truth having very different emotive impacts.

Neutral Language
The logician, seeking to evaluate arguments, will honor the
use of neutral language.
3.5 Agreement & Disagreement in Attitude & Belief
SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
 - 3–
Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use
4.1 Disputes and
1. Stipulative Definitions
Definitions Three Kinds of a. A proposal to arbitrarily assign meaning to a newly
introduced symbol
b. a meaning is assigned to some symbol
Disputes
c. not a report
1. Obviously genuine disputes d. cannot be true or false
e. it is a proposal, resolution, request or instruction
there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do
to use the definiendum to mean what is meant by
disagree, either in attitude or belief the definiens
2. Merely verbal disputes f. used to eliminate ambiguity
there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine
disagreement at all 2. Lexical Definitions
3. Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine a. A report – which may be true or false – of the
there is ambiguity present and the disputers meaning ofPatricia
a definiendum already has in actual
disagree, either in attitude or belief language use
2014-02-26 04:45:09
b. used to eliminate ambiguity
--------------------------------------------
Criterial Dispute
a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely 3. prime number
Precising Definitions
verbal a. A report on existing language usage, with
additional stipulations provided to reduce
4.2 Definitions and Their vagueness
b. Go beyond Patricia
ordinary usage in such a way as to
Uses Definiendum eliminate 2014-02-26
troublesome uncertainty regarding
04:08:31
a symbol being defined borderline cases
c. --------------------------------------------
Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that
Definiens planets tas yung isa skyscraper
meaning is vague
d. What is added(buildto achieve
ings) Everyprecision
generalisterm
a matter of
has both.
the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same
stipulation
meaning as the definiendum The extension of a term is determined
e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness
Ambiguity: Uncertainty because a word or phrase has more by its intension
meaning than one 2. Ostensive definitions
a demonstrative definition
Vagueness: lack of clarity regarding the “borders” of a a term is defined by pointing at an object
term‟s meaning We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of
the term being defined
4. Theoretical Definitions
a. An account of term that is helpful for general 3. Quasi-ostensive Definitions
understanding or in scientific practice A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a
b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or descriptive phrase
scientifically useful description of the objects to
The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some
which the term applies
descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being
c. Used to advance theoretical understanding
known
5. Persuasive Definitions
4.5 Intension and Intensional Definitions
a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir
the emotions, using language expressively rather
Subjective Intension
than informatively
What the speaker believes is the intension
b. used to influence conduct
The private interpretation of a term at a particular time
4.3 Extensions, Intension, & the Structure of
Objective Intension
Definition Extension (Denotation) The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the
word‟s extension
the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly
applied
Conventional Intension
The commonly accepted intension of a term
Intension (Connotation)
The public meaning that permits and facilitates
the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to communication
which a general term applies
Intensional Definitions
4.4 Extension and Denotative
1. Synonymous definitions
Definitions Extensional/Denotative a. Defining a word with another word that has the same
meaning and is already understood
Definitions
a definition based on the term‟s extension
this type of definition is usually flawed because it is most
often impossible to enumerate all the objects in a general
class

1. Definitions by example
We list or give examples of the objects denoted by
the term

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

 - 4–
b. We provide another word, whose meaning is 4. a definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure,
already understood, that has the same meaning or figurative language
as the word being defined 5. a definition should not be negative where it can be
affirmative
2. Operational definitions
a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations Circular Definition
where certain actions or operations lead to a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being
specified results defined
b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given
case if and only if the performance of specified CHAPTER 5
operations in the case yields a specified result 5.1 What is a Fallacy?
NOTIONS AND BELIEFS
3. Definitions by genus and difference Fallacy
a. Defining a term by identifying the larger class A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but
(the genus) of which it is a member, and the contains a mistake in reasoning.
distinguishing attributes (the difference) that When premises of an argument fail to support its
characterize it specifically conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the argument
b. We first name the genus of which the species is said to be fallacious
designation by the definiendum is a subclass, and In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy
then name the attribute (or specific difference) In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect
that distinguishes the members of that species argument
from members of all other species in that genus
5.2 The Classification of Fallacies
4.6 Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference
Informal Fallacies
1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the
The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the
species
2. a definition must not be circular mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting
3. a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow the argument

& ineffective that reliance D4: Hasty D2: Appeal toTHE Inappropriate
MAJOR INFORMALAuthority (ad verecundiam)
FALLACIES
upon them is a blunder. Generalizations FallaciesAoffallacy
Theinmost
which a conclusion
numerous and is based on thetojudgment of
R1: Appeal
Fallacies of Mistakes that arise P1: Accident a supposed
Relevance most authority who has Emotion
frequently no legitimate claim to
Presumption because too much has P2: Complex expertise in the matter.
encountered, are those in R2: Appeal to Pity
been assumed in the Question which the premises are R3: Appeal to Force
premises, the inference P3: Begging the D3: False Cause (causa
simply notpro causa)to
relevant R4: Argument Against
to the conclusion Question the conclusion
A fallacy drawn.
in which something thatthe
is Person
not really a cause, is
depending on that treated as a cause. R5: Irrelevant
unwarranted assumption. Conclusion
Fallacies of Arise from the equivocal A1: Equivocation Fallacies of Those in w/c the mistake D1: Argument from
Ambiguity use of words or phrases A2: Amphiboly Defective arises from the fact that Ignorance
in the premises or in the A3: Accent Induction
o the Hoc
Post premises of the
Ergo Propter Hoc:D2: Appeal
“After to
the thing,
conclusion of an A4: Composition argument,
therefore because although Inappropriate
of the thing”; a type of false cause
argument, some critical A5: Division relevant
fallacy in whichtoan eventthe is Authority
presumed to have been
term having different conclusion,
caused are soevent
by another weak that D3:
cameFalse Cause
before it.
senses in different parts o Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which
of the argument. change in a particular direction is assumed to lead
inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same
5.3 Fallacies of direction.

Relevance Fallacies of D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)

the
Relevance
Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to conclusion.
They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance,
because they are the absence of any real connection between
premises and conclusion.
R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, “to the populace”)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than
on reason.
R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, “a pitying heart”)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity,
altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.
R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, “to the stick”)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force;
threat may also be veiled
R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against
the person taking a position
SIENNA A. FLORES
A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual
cases to generalizations
Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the
reverse of another common mistake, known as the fallacy
of accident.
o Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made
on the character of an opponent rather than on the merits
of the opponents position
o Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is
made on the special circumstances of an opponent rather
than on the merits of the opponent‟s position
Poisoning the Well
A type of ad hominem attack that cuts off rational discourse
R5: Irrelevant Conclusion (ignaratio elenchi, “mistaken proof”)
A type of fallacy in which the premises support a different
conclusion than the one that is proposed
o Straw Man Policy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponent‟s position is misrepresented
o Red Herring Fallacy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponent‟s position is misrepresented
Non Sequitor (“Does not Follow”)
Often applied to fallacies of relevance, since the conclusion
LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
 - 5–
does not follow from the premises
5.5 Fallacies of Presumption
5.4 Fallacies of Defective
Fallacies of Presumption
Induction Fallacies of Defective Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit
assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
Induction
Fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to P1: Accident
warrant the conclusion A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a
particular case.
D1: Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just P2: Complex Question
because it has not been proved false, or false just because it A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that
has not been proved true. presupposes the truth of some proposition buried within the
question.
P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, “circular argument”)
A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed
within one of the premises.
A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always
worthless, as well
Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has
been constructed may – if it is too large or fuzzy – go
undetected

5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Ambiguity

(sophisms)
Fallacies caused by a shift or confusion of meaning within
an argument
A1: Equivocation
A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of a word or phrase
are used in different parts of an argument

A2: Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words
can be interpreted more than 1 way
The argument contains a premise based on 1 interpretation
while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation

A3: Accent
A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey 2 different
meaning within an argument, and the difference is based on
changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase

A5: Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the
attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the
whole.
o 1st Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
o 2nd Kind: committed when one argues from the
attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves.
CHAPTER 6
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
A4: Composition
A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from
the attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of
the whole.
The fallacy is reasoning from attributes of the individual
elements or members of a collection to attributes of the
collection or totality of those elements.
One of the 2 classes of arguments
Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid
Valid Argument
A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
Theory of Deduction
Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in
valid arguments.
Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid
and invalid deductions.

6.1 The Theory of 6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions

Deduction Deductive Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
Argument o Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of
An argument that claims to establish its conclusion another class.
conclusively o Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one
SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

class may be included in another class.
o Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common.
Categorical Proposition
A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a
relationship between one category and some other category.
6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
1. Universal affirmative proposition (A Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class.
- 6–
6.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution
Quality
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
whether the proposition affirms or denies some form of
class inclusion.
o If the proposition affirms some class inclusion,
whether complete or partial, its quality is
affirmative. (A and I)
o If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether
complete or partial, its quality is negative. (E and
O)

2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions) Quantity

Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
excluded from the whole of another class. whether the proposition refers to all members (universal) or
only some members (particular) of the subject class.
3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions) o If the proposition refers to all members of the
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member class designated by its subject term, its quantity is
or members in common. universal.
(A and E)
4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions o If the proposition refers to only some members of
that assert that at least on member of a class is excluded from the the lass designated by its subject term, its
whole of another class. quantity is particular.
(I and O)
Standard Form Categorical Propositions
Name and Type Proposition Form Example General Skeleton of a Standard-Form Categorical Proposition
A – Universal Affirmative All S is P. All politicians are quantifier
liars. subject term
E – Universal Negative No S is P. No politicians are copula
liars. predicate term
I – Particular Affirmative Some S is P. Some politicians
are liars. Distribution
O – Particular Negative. Some S is not P. Some politicians A characterization of whether terms of a categorical
are not liars. proposition refers to all members of the class designated by
that term.
o The A proposition distributes only its subject term
o The E proposition distributes both its subject and
predicate terms.
o The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor
its predicate term.
o The O proposition distributes only its predicate term.

Quantity, Quality and Distribution

Letter Name Quantity Quality Distribution
A Universal Affirmative S only
E Universal Negative S and P
I Particular Affirmative Neither
O Particular Negative P only
6.5 The Traditional Square of

Opposition Opposition
Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical
propositions (A, E, I, and O) exhibited on the Square of
Opposition.

Contradictories
Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both
be false.
A and O are contradictories: “All S is P” is contradicted by
“Some S is not P.”
E and I are also contradictories: “No S is P” is contradicted
by “Some S is P.”

Contraries
Two propositions that cannot both be true
If one is true, the other must be false.
They can both be false.

Contingent
Propositions that are neither necessarily true nor
necessarily false

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

 - 7–
Subcontraries The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in
Two propositions that cannot both be false which universal propositions (A and E) are not assumed to
If one is false, the other must be true. refer to classes that have members.
They can both be true. Patricia
Existential Fallacy 2013-11-13 05:10:18
Subalteration
A fallacy in which the--------------------------------------------
argument relies on the illegitimate
The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its assumption that a class
corresponding particular proposition (the subaltern).
walahas members,
silang whenimport..
existential there is ano
explicit assertion that it does.
In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of
universal proposition must be understood to
its corresponding particular proposition. Note: A proposition is said to assert only thatimport
have existential "if there
if it is such ais thing
typically
uttered to assert the existenceas a..." of some kind.
of objects
Square of Opposition
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four 6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions
types of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O).
The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern Form Proposition Symbolic Explanation
Square of Opposition in important ways. Rep,
_ The class of things that are
Immediate Inference A All S is P SP = both S and non-P is empty.
0
An inference drawn directly from only one premise.
The class off things that are
E No S is P SP = O both S and P is empty.
Mediate Inference
An inference drawn from more than one premise. The class of things that are
The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the I Some S is P SP ≠ 0 both S and P is not empty.
mediation of the second. (SP as at least one member.)
_ The class of things that are
6.6 Further Immediate O Some S is SP ≠ both S and non-P is not
not P O empty. (SP has at least one
Inferences Conversion member).
An inference formed by interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of a categorical proposition. Venn Diagrams
Not all conversions are valid. A method of representing classes and categorical
propositions using overlapping circles.
VALID CONVERSIONS
Convertend Converse CHAPTER 7
Patricia
A: All S is P. I: Some P is S (by limitation) CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
2013-11-13 04:02:56
E: No S is P. E: No P is S. 7.1 Standard-Form Categorical
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S --------------------------------------------
O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid) Syllogism Syllogism combination of subalternation and
conversiin
Any deductive argument on which
-> All S is P -> Some
a conclusion S is P
is inferred ->
Complement of a Class from two premises. Some P is S
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
Categorical Syllogism
Obversion A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of
and replacing the predicate term by its complement. which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical
proposition. Standard-From Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and
OBVERSIONS conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions
Obvertend Obverse (A, E, I or O)
A: All S is P. E: NO S is non-P Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P.
second, and the conclusion last.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P. The Parts of a Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
Major Term The predicate term of the conclusion.
Contraposition Minor Term The subject term of the conclusion.
Middle Term The term that appears in both premises but not in
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a
the conclusion.
proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and
Major Premise The premise containing the major term. In standard
replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject
form, the major premise is always stated 1st.
term.
Minor Premise The premise containing the minor term.
Not all contrapositions are valid.

CONTRAPOSITION
Premise Contrapositive Mood
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S. One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation) syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form
I: Some S is P. (Contraposition not valid) propositions it contains.
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3
letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the
standard-form order.
6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical
The 1st letter names the type of that syllogism‟s major
Propositions
premise; the 2nd letter names the type of that syllogism‟s
minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of its
Boolean Interpretation conclusion.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

 - 8–
Every syllogism has a mood.
Figure Note: A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it
The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position renders the syllogism invalid. Because it is a mistake of that special
of the middle term in its premises kind, we call it a fallacy; and because it is a mistake in the form of
Syllogisms can have four–and only four–possible different the argument, we call it a formal fallacy.
figures:
7.5 Exposition of the 15 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism
The Four Figures
1st Figure 2nd 3rd Figure 4th Figure The 15 Valid Forms of the Standard-
Figure Form Categorical Syllogism
Schematic M–P P–M M–P P–M 1st Figure 1. AAA-1 Barbara
Represen- S–M S–M M–S M–S 2. EAE-1 Celarent
tation .˙. S – P .˙. S – P .˙. S – P .˙. S – P 3. AII-1 Darii
The The The The middle 4. EIO1 Ferio
middle middle middle term may 2nd Figure 5. AEE-2 Camestres
term may term may term may be the 6. EAE-2 Cesare
be the be the be the predicate 7. AOO-2 Baroko
subject predicate subject term of 8. EIO-2 Festino
term of term of term of the major 3rd Figure 9. AII-3 Datisi
Description the major both both premise 10. IAI-3 Disamis
premise premises. premises. and the 11. EIO-3 Ferison
and the subject 12. OAO-3 Bokardo
predicate term of 4th Figure 13. AEE-4 Camenes
term of the minor 14. IAI-4 Dimaris
the minor premise. 15. EIO-4 Fresison
premise.

7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument 7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism

The validity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form.

CHAPTER 8
Valid Syllogisms SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE
- A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of
its form alone. 8.1 Syllogistic Arguments
- If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same
form will also be valid. Syllogistic Argument
- If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or
same form will also be invalid. can be formulated as one without any change in meaning.

7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism 7.4 Reduction to Standard Form
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.
Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies
Standard-Form Translation
Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies
Rule Associated Fallacy The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put
argument appearing in ordinary language into classical
1. Avoid four terms. Four Terms
syllogism
A formal mistake in which a
categorical syllogism contains more than
3 terms.
Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary
2. Distribute the middle Undistributed Middle
Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical
term in at least one A formal mistake in which a
Argument:
premise. categorical syllogism contains a middle
term that is not distributed in either
First Deviation
premise.
The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary
3. Any term distributed Illicit Major
in the conclusion must language may appear in an order that is not the order of
A formal mistake in which the major the standard-form syllogism
be distributed in the
term of a syllogism is undistributed in Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,
premises.
the major premise, but is disturbed in the minor premise second, the conclusion third.
the conclusion.
Illicit Minor Second Deviation
A formal mistake in which the minor
A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3
term of a syllogism is undistributed in
the minor premise but is distributed in terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language
the conclusion. may appear to involve more than 3 terms – but that
appearance might prove deceptive.
4. Avoid 2 negative Exclusive Premises
premises. A formal mistake in which both Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o
premises of a syllogism are negative. loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be
5. If either premise is Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion successful.
negative, the conclusion from a Negative Premise
must be negative. A formal mistake in which one Third Deviation
premise of a syllogism is negative, but The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in
he conclusion is affirmative. ordinary language may not all be standard-form
6. From 2 universal Existential Fallacy propositions.
premises no particular As a formal fallacy, the mistake of Remedy: If the components can be converted into
conclusion may be inferring a particular conclusion from 2
S IENNA A. FLORES
drawn. universal premises. LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
 - 9–
standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the
reduction to standard form may be successful.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three
Eliminating Synonyms
A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a
4th term, but only another way of referring to one of the 3
classes involved.
E.g. “wealthy” & “rich”
Eliminating Class Complements
Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do
not belong to that class (explained in 6.6)
E.g. “mammals” & “nonmammals”
8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form
Note: Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard
form, may be translated into standard form so as to allow the
syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams or by the use of rules
governing syllogisms.
I. Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs
(or does not belong) to a particular class
Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but
we can nevertheless interpret a singular proposition as a
proposition dealing w/ classes and their interrelations
E.g. Socrates is a philosopher.
E.g. This table is not an antique.
Unit Class
o A class with only one member
II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than
substantive or class terms
E.g. Some flowers are beautiful.
o Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties.
E.g. No warships are available for active duty
o Reformulated: No warships are things available for
active duty.
III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula “to
be”
E.g. All people seek recognition.
o Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition.
E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.
o Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine
drinkers.
IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in
standard form order
E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds.
o Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds.
E.g. all is well that ends well.
o Reformulated: All things that end well are things
that are well.
V. Propositions having quantifiers other than “all,” “no,” and
“some”
E.g. Every dog has its day.
o Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their
days.
E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated.
o Reformulated: All contributions are things that are
appreciated.
VI. Exclusive Propositions, using “only or “none but”
A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the
subject named
E.g. Only citizens can vote.
o Reformulated: All those who can vote are citizens.
E.g. None but the brave deserve the fair.
o Reformulated: All those who deserve the fair are
those who are brave.
VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity
E.g. Dog are carnivorous.
o Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.
E.g. Children are present.
o Reformulated: Some children are beings who are
present.
VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions
at all
E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.
o Reformulated: Some children are not believes in
Santa Claus.
E.g. There are white elephants.
o Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.
IX. Exceptive Propositions, using “all except” or similar
expressions
A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of
some class – except for members of one of its subclasses –
are members of some other class
Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is
somewhat complicated, because propositions of this kind
make 2 assertions rather than one
E.g. All except employees are eligible.
E.g. All but employees are eligible.
E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.
8.4 Uniform
Translation Parameter
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion
into standard form
Uniform Translation
Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic
argument by using parameters or other techniques.
8.5 Enthymemes
Enthymeme
An argument containing an unstated proposition
An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being
enthymematic
First-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the major premise
Second-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the minor premise
Third-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is left unstated is the conclusion
8.6 Sorites
Sorites
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any
number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences
8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical
Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction
and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts
Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid
Hypothetical Syllogism
A form of argument containing at least one conditional
 proposition as a premise.
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively
Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism having one conditional premise and one
categorical premise
Affirmative Mood/Modus Ponens (“to affirm”)
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion affirms its consequent
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise affirms the consequent, rather than the
antecedent, of the conditional premise
Modus Tollens (“to deny”)
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise denies the consequent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion denies its antecedent
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise denies the antecedent, rather than the
consequent, of the conditional premise
8.8 The Dilemma
Dilemma
A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it
is claimed that a choice must be made between 2 (usually
bad) alternatives
An argumentative device in which syllogisms on the same
topic are combined, sometimes w/ devastative effect
Simple Dilemma
The conclusion is a single categorical proposition
Complex Dilemma
The conclusion itself is a disjunction
Three Ways of Defeating a Dilemma
Going/escaping between the horns of the dilemma…
Rejecting its disjunctive premise
This method is often the easiest way to evade the conclusion
of a dilemma, for unless one half of the disjunction is the
explicit contradictory of the other, the disjunction may very
well be false
Taking/grasping the dilemma by its horns…
Rejecting its conjunction premise
To deny a conjunction, we need only deny one of its parts
When we grasp the dilemma by the horns, we attempt to
show that at least one of the conditionals is false
Devising a counterdilemma…
One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is
opposed to the conclusion of the original
Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it
should be built up out of the same ingredients (categorical
propositions) that the original dilemma contained
CHAPTER 9
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language
Symbols
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its
With symbols, we can perform some logical operations almost
mechanically, with the eye, which might otherwise demand great effort
A symbolic language helps us to accomplish some
intellectual tasks without having to think too much
Modern Logic
Logicians look now to the internal structure of propositions
and arguments, and to the logical links – very few in
number – that are critical in all deductive arguments
No encumbered by the need to transform deductive
arguments in to syllogistic form
It may be less elegant than analytical syllogistics, but is
more powerful
9.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, &
Disjunction Simple Statement
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a
component
Compound Statement
A statement that contains another statements as a
component
2 categories:
o W/N the truth value of the compound statement is
determined wholly by the truth value of its
components, or determined by anything other
than the truth value of its components
Conjunction ()
A truth functional connective meaning “and”
Symbolized by the dot ()
We can form a conjunction of 2 statements by placing the
word “and” between them
The 2 statements combined are called conjuncts
The truth value of the conjunction of 2 statements is
determined wholly and entirely by the truth values of its 2
conjuncts
If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true;
otherwise it is false
A conjunction is said to be a truth-functional component
statement, and its conjuncts are said to be truth-functional
components of it
Note: Not every compound statement is truth-functional
Truth Value
The status of any statement as true or false
The truth value of a true statement is true
The truth value of a false statement is false
Truth-Functional Component
Any component of a compound statement whose
replacement by another statement having the same truth
value would not change the truth value of the compound
statement
Truth-Functional Compound Statement
A compound statement whose truth function is wholly
determined by the truth values of its components
Truth-Functional Connective
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction,
material implication, and material equivalence) between the
components of a truth-functional compound statement.
Simple Statement
Any statement that is not truth functionally compound
p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
 essential nature and putting aside what is not essential
Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~) In general, “q is a necessary condition for p” and “p only
symbolized by the tilde or curl (~) if q” are symbolized as p q
often formed by the insertion of “not” in the original
statement

Disjunction/Alteration (v)
A truth-functional connective meaning “or”
It has a “weak” (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge
(v) (or “vee”), and a “strong” (exclusive) sense.
2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives

p q pvq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Punctuation
The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic
language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning
In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to
apply to the smallest statement that the punctuation permits

9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implication

Conditional Statement
A compound statement of the form “If p then q.”
Also called a hypothetical/implication/implicative statement
Asserts that in any case in which its antecedent is true, its
consequent is also true
It does no assert that its antecedent is true, but only if its
antecedent is true, its consequent is also true
The essential meaning of a conditional statement is the
relationship asserted to hold between its antecedent and
consequent

Antecedent (implicans/protasis)
In a conditional statement, that component that immediately
follows the “if”

Consequent (implicate/apodosis)
In a conditional statement, the component that immediately
follows the “then”

Implication
The relation that holds between the antecedent and the
consequent of a conditional statement.
There are different kinds of implication

Horseshoe ()
A symbol used to represent material implication, which is
common, partial meaning of all “if-then” statements

p q ~q p~q ~ (p~q) p q
T T F F T T
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T F T T

Material Implication
A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe )
( that may connect 2 statements
The statement “p materially implies q” is true when either p
is false, or q is true

p q p q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
 In general, “p is a sufficient condition for q” is of statements for statement variables in an argument form
symbolized by p q
Specific Form of an Argument
9.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical The argument form from which the given argument results
when a different simple statement is substituted for each
Analogy Refutation by Logical Analogy different statement variable.
Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another
argument with the same form whose premises are known 9.5 The Precise Meaning of “Invalid” and “Valid”
to e true and whose conclusion is known to be false.
Invalid Argument Form
To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate An argument form that has at least one substitution
another argument that: instance with true premises and a false conclusion
Has exactly the same form as the first
Has true premises and a false Valid Argument Form
conclusion An argument form that has no substitution instances with
true premises and a false conclusion
Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity
are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that 9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth
any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid
or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which Tables Truth Table
they are concerned. An array on which the validity of an argument form may be
tested, through the display of all possible combinations of
Statement Variable the truth values of the statement variables contained in that
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be form
substituted.
9.7 Some Common Argument Forms
Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an Disjunctive Syllogism
argument, it contains statement variables, but no A valid argument form in which one premise is a
statements disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two
disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
Substitution Instance of an Argument Form disjunct
Any argument that results from the consistent substitution
Modus Ponens Substitution Instance of Statement Form
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and Any statement that results from the consistent substitution
in which another premise affirms the antecedent of that of statements for statement variables in a statement form
conditional, and the conclusion affirms its consequent
p q
Specific Form of a Statement pvq ~p
pq
T form
The statement T from which
T the Fgiven statement results
pq
T
when a different F T
simple F
statement is substituted
consistently F T different
for each T statement
T variable
F F F T
p q p q Tautologous Statement Form
T T T A statement form that has only true substitution instances
T F F A tautology:
F T T
F F T p ~p p v ~p
T F T
Modus Tollens F T T
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise denies the consequent of that Self-Contradictory Statement Form
conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent A statement form that has only false substitution instances
A contradiction
pq
~q Contingent Form
~p A statement form that has both true and false substitution
instances
p q p q ~q ~p
T T T F F Peirce’s Law
T F F T F
A tautological statement of the form [(p q) p] p
F T T F T
F F T T T
Materially Equivalent ( )
A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements
)
Hypothetical Syllogism connected by the three-bar sign have the same truth
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions
pvq
~pq
q
r
pr
( value
p q pq
T T T
T F F
 F T F
p Q r p q q r p r F F T
T T T T T T
T T F T F F Biconditional Statement
T F T F T T A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component
T F F F T F statements imply one another and therefore are materially
F T T T T T equivalent
F T F T F T
F F T T T T The Four Truth-Functional Connective
F F F T T T Truth- Symbol Proposition Names of
Functional (Name of Type Components of
Connective Symbol) Propositions of
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
that Type
A formal fallacy in which the 2nd premise of an argument affirms the And  (dot) Conjunction Conjuncts
consequent of a conditional premise and the conclusion of its Or V (wedge) Disjunction Disjuncts
argument affirms its antecedent If…then (horseshoe) Conditional Antecedent,
pq consequent
qp If and only if (tribar) Biconditional Components

Note: “Not” is not a connective, but is a truth-function operator, so it

is omitted here
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in which the 2 nd premise of an argument Note: To say that an argument form is valid if, and only if, its
denies the antecedent of a conditional premise and the expression in the form of a conditional statement is a tautology.
conclusion of the argument denies its consequent
9.9 Logic
pq
~p Equivalence Logically
~q
Equivalent
Note: In determining whether any given argument is valid, we must
Two statements for which the statement of their material
look into the specific form of the argument in question
equivalence is tautology
9.8 Statement Forms & Material they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one
another
Equivalence Statement Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of a Double Negation
statement An expression of logical equivalence between a symbol and
It contains statement variables but no statements the negation of the negation of that symbol
 9 RULES OF INFERENCE:
ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS
NAME ABBREV. FORM
1. Modus Ponens M.P. p q
p
q
T
p ~p ~~p p ~~p 2. Modus Tollens M.T. p q
T F T T ~q
F T F T ~p
3. Hypothetical Syllogism H.S. p q
Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent. q r
p r
Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be 4. Disjunctive Syllogism D.S pvq
true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it ~p
connects q
5. Constructive Dilemma C.D. (p q)  (r s)
Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a pvr
relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional qvs
Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely 6. Absorption Abs. p q
impossible for them to have different truth values. p (p  q)
7. Simplification Simp. p q
10.2 The Rule of Replacement
p q pvq ~(p v q) ~p ~q ~p~q ~(p v q) (~p~q) p
T T T F F F F T Rule of8.Replacement
Conjunction Conj. p
T F T F F T F T q
The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace each
F T T F T F F T p q
F F F T T T T T other
9. Addition Add. p
Note: this is very different from that of substitution
pvq
De Morgan’s Theorems
Two useful logical equivalences
o (1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the
negations of the 2 disjuncts
o (2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the
negations of the 2 conjuncts

9.10 The Three “Laws of Thought”

Principle of Identity
If any statement is true, it is true.
Every statement of the form p p must be true
o Every such statement is a tautology

Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false
Every statement of the form p~p must be false
o Every such statement is self-contradictory

Principle of Excluded Middle

Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true
Every such statement is a tautology

CHAPTER 10
METHODS OF DEDUCTION

10.1 Formal Proof of Validity

Rules of Inference
The rules that permit valid inferences from statements
assumed as premises

Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument
by using the rules of inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the
validity of an argument that is valid

Formal Proof of Validity

A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise
of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of
inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such
that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of
the argument whose validity is being proved

Elementary Valid Argument

Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that
serves as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a
formal proof of validity
 RULES OF REPLACEMENT:
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS
NAME ABBREV. FORM
10. De Morgan‟s De M.
~(p  q) (~ p v ~q)
Theorem
~(p v q) (~ p  ~q)
11. Commutation Com.
(p v q) (q v p)
(p  q) (q  p)
12. Association Assoc.
[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r]
[p  (q  r)] [(p  q)  r]
13. Distribution Dist.
[p  (q v r)] [(p  q) (p  r)]
[p v (q  r)] [(p v q)  (p v r)]
14. Double D.N.
Negation p ~~ p
15. Transpor- Trans.
tation (p q) (~q ~p)
16. Material Imp.
Implication (p q) (~p v q)
17. Material Equiv.
Equivalence (p q) [(p q)  (q p)]
(p q) [(p  q) v (~p  ~q)]
18. Exportation Exp.
[(p  q) r] [p (q r)]
19. Tautology Taut.
p (p v p)
p (p  p)
The 19 Rules of Inference
The list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a complete Note:
system of truth-functional logic, in the sense that it permits If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true
the construction of a formal proof of validity for any valid and the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid Any
truth- functional argument argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid Any
The first 9 rules can be applied only to whole lines of a proof argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless of
Any of the last 10 rules can be applied either to whole lines or what its conclusion may be
to parts of lines
Inconsistency
The notion of formal proof is an effective notion Inconsistent statements cannot both be true
It can be decided quite mechanically, in a finite number of “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus” (Untrustworthy in one
steps, whether or not a given sequence of statements thing, untrustworthy in all)
constitutes a formal proof Inconsistent statements are not “meaningless”; their trouble is
No thinking is required just the opposite. They mean too much. They mean
Only 2 things are everything, in the sense of implying everything. And if
required: everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false,
o The ability to see that a statement occurring in one because every statement has a denial
place is precisely the same as a statement occurring
in another 10.5 Indirect Proof of Validity
o The ability to see W/N a given statement has a
certain pattern; that is , to see if it is a substitution Indirect Proof of Validity
instance of a given statement form An indirect proof of validity is written out by stating as an
additional assumed premise the negation of the conclusion
Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables A version of reductio ad absurdum (reducing the absurd) –
The making of a truth table is completely mechanical
with which an argument can be proved valid by exhibiting the
There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal
contradiction which may be derived from its premises
proofs
augmented by the assumption of the denial of its conclusion
Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its
An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a given step
validity is much easier than the purely mechanical is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof
construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or had been made
thousands of rows
This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for
10.3 Proof of Invalidity testing arguments by making it possible, in some

Invalid Arguments
For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity
An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one
row of its truth table in which all its premises are true but its
conclusion is false
We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an
argument‟s invalidity: the discovery of a single row in which
its premises are all true and its conclusion is false will suffice

10.4 Inconsistency
 circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than would The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
be possible without it function by substituting an individual constant for its
individual variable
10.6 Shorter Truth-Table

Technique Shorter Truth-Table

Technique
An argument may be tested by assigning truth values
showing that, if it is valid, assigning values that would
make the conclusion false while the premises are true
would lead inescapably to inconsistency
Proving the validity of an argument with this shorter truth
table technique is one version of the use of reductio ad
absurdum – but instead of suing the rules of inference, it
uses truth value assignments
Its easiest application is when F is assigned to a
disjunction (in which case both of the disjuncts must be
assigned) or T to a conjunction (in which case both of the
conjuncts must be assigned)
o When assignments to simple statements are thus
forced, the absurdity (if there is one) is quickly
exposed

Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most

efficient in testing the validity of a deductive argument

CHAPTER 11
11.1 The Need for
QUANTIFICATION THEORY
Quantification Quantification
A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical
structure of propositions.

11.2 Singular Propositions

Affirmative Singular

Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has
some specified attribute

Individual Constant
A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual

Individual Variable
A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant

Propositional Function
An expression that contains an individual variable and
becomes a statement when an individual constant is
substituted for the individual variable

Simple Predicate
A propositional function having some true and some false
substitution instances, each of which is an affirmative
singular proposition

11.3 Universal and Existential

Quantifiers Universal Quantifier

A symbol (x) used before a propositional function to assert
that the predicate following is true of everything

Generalization
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
function by placing a universal quantifier or an existential
quantifier before it

Existential Quantifier
A symbol “( x)” indicating that the propositional function
that follows has at least one true substitution instance.

Instantiation
11.4 Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions

Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple
predicates

11.5 Proving Validity

Universal Instantiation (UI)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any
substitution instance of a propositional function from its
universal quantification

Universal Generalization (UG)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of a
universally quantified expression from an expression that is
given as true of any arbitrarily selected individual

Existential Instantiation (EI)

A rule of inference that permits (with restrictions) the valid
inference of the truth of a substitution instance (for any
individual constant that appears nowhere earlier in the
context) from the existential quantification of a propositional
function

Existential Generalization (EG)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of the
existential quantification of a propositional function from any
true substitution instance of that function

Rules of Inference: Quantification

UI (x) ( x) Any substitution instance
v of a propositional
Universal function can be validly
(where v is any
Instantiation inferred from its
individual symbol)
universal quantification
UG y From the substitution
(x) ( x) instance of a
(where y denotes propositional function
any arbitrarily with respect to the name
Universal selected individual) of any arbitrarily selected
Generalization individual, one may
validly infer the universal
quantification of that
propositional function
EI ( x)( x) From the existential
v quantification of a
(where v is any propositional function,
individual we may infer the truth of
Existential constant, other its substitution instance
Instantiation than y, having no with respect to any
previous individual constant (other
occurrence in the than y) that occurs
context) nowhere earlier in the
context.
EG v From any true
( x)( x) substitution instance of a
(where v is any propositional function,
Existential individual we may validly infer the
Generalization constant) existential quantification
of that propositional
function.

11.6 Proving Invalidity

11.7 Asyllogistic Inference

Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more
logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O
propositions