LOGIC AND

CRITICAL THINKING
PROF. DENNIS PAUL GUEVARRA
Arguments, Premises,

and Conclusions
 ARGUMENT

is a group of statements, one or more of which

(the premises) are claimed to provide support
for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the
conclusion)
Good argument vs
Bad argument
Statements are the building
blocks of an argument
 Chocolate truffles are loaded with
1. calories.

2. Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.

Filipino politicians always tell the truth.

3.
No priests are sinners.
4.
Kiefer plays basketball and Alyssa plays
5.
volleyball.
Two possible truth values of
statements: Truth or Falsity
 THE girl beside me is wearing a red
1.
dress. (empirical knowledge claim)

via correspondence theory of

truth

What makes a
2. Fathers are male parents.

statement true? (analytic knowledge claim)

via coherence theory of truth

A statement that is either True
or False is cognitively
meaningful
But there are sentences that
are cognitively meaningless

1. Where is God in all these?

2. Let's watch Squid Game tonight.
3. I suggest you vote for BBM.
4. Drop it already!
5. Fantastic!
Argument consists of premise(s) and conclusion

Premise (claimed evidence)

Conclusion (what the evidence is claimed to support)

P1- All Korean film stars are popular.

P2- Jung Ho Yeon is a Korean film star.

C- Therefore, Jung Ho Yeon is popular

Distinguishing premises from
conclusions
CONCLUSION INDICATORS

therefore
wherefore
thus
accordingly
it must be that
consequently
so
it follows that
for this reason
we may infer
hence
it implies that
as a result
it entails that
PREMISE INDICATORS

since
in that
as indicated by
because
it may be inferred
from as
for
given that
inasmuch as
owing to
for the reason that
1. Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the

pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method of

interrogation.

2. Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs

since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development

of the fetus.
From formal logic, we know that there are principally two types of
reasoning:

Inductive - reasoning from particular to general

Deductive - reasoning from general to particular
 Syllogism is a deductive
argument consisting of two
premises (major, minor) and a
conclusion
 Major premise: All nursing students are smart.
Minor premise: Jenny is a nursing student.
Conclusion: Hence, Jenny is smart.

Word of caution: In syllogistic reasoning, the reasoning may be

valid, though the conclusion may not be necessarily true.
From formal logic,

we know that there

are principally two

types of reasoning:
INDUCTIVE AND
DEDUCTIVE
iNDUCTIVE

reasoning from particular to general.

DEDUCTIVE

reasoning from general to particular.

example 1: Sophia must be smart because she is a
nursing student. (deductive argument)

Example 2: The Ateneo Law School is good because

80% of its graduates passed the bar exams in the
last five years. (inductive argument)
Every argument involves an INFERENTIAL CLAIM -
the claim that the conclusion is supposed to
follow from the premises.
If the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict NECESSITY,
the argument is said to be deductive.

If the conclusion is claimed to follow only PROBABLY, the

argument is said to be inductive.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT FORMS

1. Argument based on mathematics

2. Argument from definition
3. Hypothetical syllogism
4. Disjunctive syllogism
5. Categorical syllogism
Argument from mathematics

1. A shopper places two apples and three oranges into a paper

bag and then concludes that the bag contains five pieces of
fruits.

2. A surveyor measures a square piece of land and, after

determining that it is 100 feet on each side, concludes that it
contains 10,000 square feet.
Argument from definition

1. Because Claudia is mendacious, it follows that

she tells lies.

2. Since a certain paragraph is prolix, we may infer

that it is excessively wordy.
Argument from definition

1. Because Claudia is mendacious, it follows that

she tells lies.

2. Since a certain paragraph is prolix, we may infer

that it is excessively wordy.
SYLLOGISM

A syllogism, in general, is an argument

consisting of exactly two premises
and one conclusion.
 Hypothetical syllogism - a syllogism having a
conditional statement (If...then statement) for one or
both of its premises.

A conditional statement consists of an ANTECEDENT

and a CONSEQUENT
example: If estate taxes are abolished, then
wealth will accumulate disproportionately.

Estate taxes are abolished. (antecedent)

Wealth will accumulate disproportionately.

(consequent)
VALID FORMS OF HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISM

1. Modus Ponens (affirming the consequent)

Major premise: If a student comes from the

SLCN, then he will succeed in life.

Minor premise: John comes ____ the SLCN.

Conclusion: Hence, John will succeed in

life.
VALID FORMS OF HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISM

2. Modus Tollens (negating the antecedent)

Major premise: If one is a scientist, then

one is a researcher.

Minor premise: One is not a researcher.

Conclusion: Therefore, one is not a

scientist.
INVALID HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISMS:

1. Fallacy of affirming the consequent (in

the minor premise)

2. Fallacy of denying the antecedent (in

the minor premise)
Disjunctive syllogism

a syllogism having a disjunctive statement

(i.e., an Either... or statement) for one of its
premises.
A disjunctive statement contains a left
disjuct and a right disjunct.
 example 1:
Major premise: Either I pass LCT or I fail LCT.
Minor premise: I did not pass LCT.
Conclusion: Hence, I failed LCT.

Example 2:
Major premise: Either I am a believer or an atheist.
Minor premise: I am not an atheist.
Conclusion: Thus, I am a believer.
Categorical syllogism - is a deductive argument consisting
of three categorical propositions (two premises, one
conclusion) that together contain exactly three terms
(major, minor, middle);

each term is used exactly twice in the same sense all

throughout the syllogism.
Major term is the predicate of the conclusion.
Minor term is the subject of the conclusion.
Middle term is the term used in both premises
but not in the conclusion.
 FOUR STANDARD-FORM
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

1. Universal Affirmative: All men

are mortal.
2. Universal Negative: No men are
mortal.
3. Particular Affirmative: Some men
are mortal.
4. Particular Negative: Some men are
not mortal.
 COMPONENT PARTS OF A
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION:

1. Quantifier: all, no, some

2. Subject term: men
3. Copula: are, are not
4. Predicate term: mortal.
Distribution of terms - a term is distributed when
the proposition in which it appears affirms or
denies something about the entire class which the
term represents.
From this definition, we can say the following:

1. In Universal Affirmative, the subject is distributed, whereas the

predicate is undistributed.
2. In Universal Negative, both subject and predicate are distributed.
3. In Particular Affirmative, both subject and predicate are
undistributed.
4. In Particular Negative, the subject is undistributed, whereas the
predicate is distributed.
RULES FOR CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISMS

1. A syllogism must have exactly three terms,

each of which is used twice in the same sense.

Resulting violation is known as Four-term

fallacy.

2. The middle term must be distributed in at

least one premise.
Resulting violation is known as Fallacy of
undistributed middle.
RULES FOR CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISMS

3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion,

then it must be distributed in the premise.
Resulting violation is known as Fallacy of
illicit process

4. No categorical syllogism having two negative

premises is valid.
Resulting violation is known as Fallacy of
exclusive premises
RULES FOR CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISMS

5. If one premise is negative, then the

conclusion must be negative.
Resulting violation is known as Fallacy of
drawing an affirmative conclusion from a
negative premise

6. If both premises are universal, then the

conclusion must be universal.
Resulting violation is known as Existential
fallacy
Syllogism 1

Major premise: All Catholics are Christians.

Minor premise: No Catholics are agnostics.

Conclusion: Some agnostics are not Christians.

Violation(s): fallacy of illicit process; existential fallacy

Assessment: invalid
Syllogism 2

Major premise: All scientists are professors.

Minor premise: Some artists are not professors.

Conclusion: Some artists are not scientists.

Violation(s): none

Assessment: valid
Thank you!