Introduction to

Logic
 Why Study Logic?
• Why do we need to think logically? Isn’t it
better perhaps, to be spontaneous,
intuitive and perceptive?
– Reasoning is
• drawing out conclusion on the basis of certain
evidence,
• infer one thing from another or
• to figure out consequences of a certain course of
action.
 Some examples
• You can get into law school only if you do
well on the LSATs and have at least a 3.5
average. You will do well on the LSATs
only if you have a course in logic, but a
course in Logic may pull your grade point
average below 3.5. Can you get into a law
school?
 Some examples
• Suppose you are the judge and the following evidence
has been presented:
– The defendant could not have committed the murder
unless he had the cash to hire someone
– or was in possession of both a car and a gun.
– He would not have committed the crime unless he
was either drunk or on drugs. But he never touches
drugs and he did not have a gun.

Is the defendant’s attorney right in asserting that the

defendant could not have committed the crime?
 Why Study Logic?
• to recognize and use certain very common forms of
correct logical inference and avoid certain common
logical errors.
• To increase our ability to construct extended chains of
reasoning and to deal with more complex problems:
– Consider a number of options, consequences of each
of these options and consequences of the
consequences
• To not just how to reason correctly, but also why certain
forms of inference are correct and others incorrect.
 Logic

• Is concerned with verbal expression of

reasoning (argument), whether arguments
are good or bad, correct or incorrect
• An argument - a set of sentences
consisting of one or more premises, which
contain the evidence, and a conclusion,
which is supposed to follow from the
premises.
 Example of an argument

John will not get an A on this exam unless

he studied hard for it.
John did not study hard for this exam.
Therefore, John will not get an A on this
exam.
 Correctness of argument
• Depends on the connection between
premises and conclusion.
• It is generally the task of other disciplines
to assess the truth or falsity of particular
statements
 A valid deductive argument
• Has the strongest conceivable kind of
logical relationship with all premises that
are true, then the conclusion established
by the argument is true as well.
 Induction vs. Deduction
• Distinction lies in the intended strength of
the connection between premises and
conclusion.
• In a deductive argument, the premises are
intended to provide total support for the
conclusion
• In an inductive argument, the premises are
only supposed to provide some degree of
support for the conclusion.
 Inductive or Deductive?
• John gets A’s on 95% of the exams for
which he studies, and that he did study for
this exam, therefore, he will probably get
an A on this exam.
• 99.9% of commercial airline flights are
completed without incident, we may
correctly infer that the next airplane we
take will almost certainly arrive safely.
 Induction or Deduction?
John cannot get into law school unless he
scores well on the LSAT exam
John did not score well on the exam
Therefore, John cannot get into law school.
 Induction vs. Deduction
• Deduction: either the premises do provide
absolute support for the conclusion, in
which case the argument is valid, or they
do not, in which case it is invalid.
• Induction: the “goodness” of an argument
is a matter of degree.
 Scope and limitation
• This course is concerned exclusively with
deductive logic because:
– It is so clear-cut
– It is easier and better suited to a foundation to
math course
– At present, there is no generally accepted
system of inductive logic
 Valid vs. Invalid arguments
• A valid deductive argument is one in which
the truth of the premises absolutely
guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
• An invalid argument, by contrast, is one in
which it is possible for the premises all to
be true but the conclusion false.
 Form and Validity
1. All horses are green.
All green things are plastic.
---------------------------------------
 All horses are plastic.
a valid argument
2. If Duterte is the president, then
Marcos is the vice-president.
Marcos is the vice-president.
---------------------------------------
 Duterte is the president.
an invalid argument

this is all rather abstract, isn’t it?

 Form and Validity
• It is the form of an argument that
determines its logical validity. Thus,
• Symbolic logic turns out to be primarily the
study of the abstract forms and structures
used in argumentation.
 Form and Validity
• Consider the ff, notion of two arguments
having the same form:
1. Either F. Marcos was elected
in 1986 or Cory Aquino was
elected in 1986.
F. Marcos was not elected in
1986.
---------------------------------------
 Cory Aquino was elected in 1986.
What is the pattern?
2. Jose is either at the movies or
at home.
Jose is not at home.
---------------------------------------
 Jose is at the movies.
Either p or q
not q
---------------------------
p
 Sentential Logic
• Complete simple sentences are taken as
unbroken units and are not analyzed into
their component parts.
• The form of a compound sentence or
argument is then determined by how these
simple sentences are combined with
certain logical words, such as “and”, “or”,
and “not”.
 Predicate Logic
• Three other logical words, “all”, “some”
and “equals” and another kind of variable,
which represents individual objects rather
than sentences.
• Analysis of form is somewhat more
complex than in sentential logic.
 Predicate Logic
These are 2 instances:
1. All U.S. Presidents have been 2. All snakes are reptiles.
male. Some snakes are poisonous.
Some U.S. Presidents have been -------------------------------------------
generals.  Some reptiles are poisonous.
------------------------------------------------
 Some males are generals.

Common form:
All A’s are B’s
Some A’s are C’s
--------------------------------------
 Some B’s are C’s
 Form vs. Instances

• The form is the general pattern or

structure, which abstracts from all specific
subject matter
• Instances are the particular meaningful
examples that exhibit that form.
 Instance
• In sentential logic, it is obtained from a
form by substituting meaningful sentences
(consistently) for the p’s and q’s;
• In predicate logic, instances are obtained
by substituting class terms for the capital
letters A, B, and C.
Validity of an argument/instance
vs. Validity of a form
• An argument (particular instance) will be said to
be valid iff it is an instance of, or has, a valid
form.
• A form will be valid iff there are no instances of
that form in which all the premises are true and
the conclusion is false.
• A form will be invalid just in case there is an
instance of that form with all true premises and a
false conclusion.
 If two angles form linear pair, then they are
supplementary.
A and B are supplementary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
 A and B form linear pair.

This argument is invalid.

• Such an invalidating instance of a form, an
instance with all true premises but a false
conclusion, will be called a
counterexample to that form, and any form
that has a counterexample will be invalid.
1. All cats are fur-bearing mammals.
Some fur-bearing mammals are
black.
------------------------------------------------
 Some cats are black.
2. All U.S. presidents have been
males.
Some males have been on the
moon.
-------------------------------------------
 Some U.S. Presidents have
been on the moon.

Common form:
All A’s are B’s
Some B’s are C’s
--------------------------------------
 Some A’s are C’s
• An argument form will be valid iff it has no
counterexample. I.e., no instance with true
premises and a false conclusion.
 Moral of the story
• The validity of a particular argument (the
instance) is dependent upon its form.
• Silly sounding arguments may be valid,
and weight-sounding arguments may be
invalid.
• The truth or falsity of the premises and
conclusion are also irrelevant to the
validity of an argument, except for the
counterexample.
Advantages of using symbols
• Easier to manipulate
• They provide economical shorthand
• Allow us to see at a glance the overall
structure of a sentence
 Symbolic system of
sentential logic
• Single letter to stand for simple sentences,
such as “Juan enrolled in Geometry”
• Special symbols for the five logical words
“and”, “or”, “not”, “if-then”, and “if-and-only-
if”
• Grouping symbols such as parentheses
• No attempt of analysis of simple
sentences
 Symbolic system of
predicate logic

• Analysis will go a bit deeper into the

sentence structure such as subject and
predicate