Go to Contents

2.3 Immediate inferences

Inferences with one premise (and one conclusion) are called

immediate in traditional logic.

Subalternation as immediate inference

We saw in the previous section that according to traditional logic

general sentences logically entail their subalterns, i.e. from a
universal affirmative or universal negative sentence we may
validly infer the particular affirmative or particular negative
sentence with same subject and predicate, respectively. Here are
two examples:

All dolphins are mammals.

Some dolphins are mammals.

No humans are sinless.

Some humans are not sinless.

Symbolically:

SaP
SiP

SeP
SoP

Such conclusions are immediate inferences as they have one

Get Paid to Review Books
premise. We will not10-year-old
consider the
website with conclusions
over one based
Learn More on the other
million members.
relations in the square of opposition as immediate inferences as
OnlineBookClub.org
they represent transitions form the truth of a sentence to the
falsehood of another or vice versa – not from the truth of a
sentence to the truth of another.

Get Paid to Review

Books

Learn More

Conversion

Conversion is an immediate inference whose conclusion is

obtained from the premise by interchanging the subject and the
predicate – the subject becomes predicate and the predicate
becomes subject. Such interchange not always represents a valid
inference. It is valid for the E and I sentences, valid by limitation
for the A sentences (we will see what that means) and invalid for
the O sentences.

If the premise is a universal negative (E) sentence, conversion is

logically valid.

No S are Р. SeР
No Р are S. РeS
Example:

No humans are gods.

No gods are humans.

We say of the two sentences that they are converses of one

another. The converse of an E sentence is the same sentence with
the subject and predicate interchanged. To see why conversion is
logically valid for E sentences, look at the following diagram
showing all possible relations between the extensions of the
subject and the predicate of a categorical sentence:

The only possible case in which the premise “No S are P” is true is
4). In that case, the sentence “No P are S” is also true. Thus, it is not
possible for the conclusion to be false when the premise is true,
which means that the inference is valid.

The conclusion is the converse of the premise but also the premise
is the converse of the conclusion, therefore the premise also
follows logically form the conclusion, the two sentences are
actually logically equivalent: we have SeP ⟺ PeS (not only SeP ⇒
PeS).
Factory Price in China

xdchem-cz Get Quote

If the premise is a particular affirmative (I) sentence, conversion is

also logically valid:

Some S are Р. SiР

Some Р are S. РiS

Example:

Some women are drivers.

Some drivers are women.

Again, we can verify the validity of conversion for I sentences by

the above diagram. The premise “Some S are P” is true in cases 1),
2), 3, and 5). In all of them “Some P are S” is also true.

As with E-sentences, since “Some S are P” and “Some P are S” are

related symmetrically, the logical inference is in both directions:
SiP ⟺ PiS (not only SiP ⇒ PiS).

The (simple) converse of a universal affirmative sentence “All S are

P” is “All P are S” and the latter cannot be validly inferred from
the former. For example, it is true that all trees are plants but false
that all plants are trees. The problematic case is when the
extension of S is a proper subset of the extension of P. Then “All S
are P” is true but “All P are S” is false. However, in that case we
can validly infer the sentence “Some P are S”. For example, form
“All trees are plants” we can infer that some plants are trees.
Generally, the validity of the inference scheme SaP ⇒ PiS is seen
as follows. By subalternation, from “All S are P” (SaP) we may
validly infer “Some S are P” (SiP) and, as we have seen, the last
sentence entails by conversion the sentence “Some P are S” (PiS).1

The inference of “Some P are S” from “All S are P” is called

conversion by limitation. For convenience we will consider “Some
P are S” to be the converse of “All S are P” dropping the addition
“by limitation” but we have to keep in mind that “All S are P” is not
the converse of “Some P are S”. The convers of the latter is “Some S
are P”. In addition, unlike with E and I sentences, the converse (by
limitation) of “All S are P” is not logically equivalent to it. The
sentence “All S are P” entails “Some P are S” but the latter does not
entail the former. For example, “Some cats are animals” does not
entail “All animals are cats”.

All S are Р. SaР

Some Р are S. РiS

Example:

All trees are plants.

Some plants are trees.

If the premise is a particular negative (O) sentence conversion is

not logically valid, i.e. “Some S are not P” does not entail “Some P
are not S”. This can be seen through an example. “Some plants are
not trees” is a true sentence but its converse “Some trees are not
plants” is false. Generally, to see the invalidity of the inference
scheme SoP ⇒ PoS, we may use the diagram above. The
problematic case, in which the premise “Some S are not P” (SoP) is
true but the conclusion “Some P are not S” (PoS) is false is 5) –
when the extension of P is a proper subset of the extension of S. In
that case, there are some S that are not P but all P are S, which
makes the sentence “Some P are not S” false.

The table below summarizes the immediate inference of

conversion.

Type A
Premise All S are P.
Converse Some P are S. (by limitation)
Symbolically SaP ⇒ PiS

Type E
Premise No S are P.
Converse No P are S.
Symbolically SeP ⟺ PeS

Type I
Premise Some S are P.
Converse Some P are S.
Symbolically SiP ⟺ PiS

Type O
Premise Some S are not P.
Converse (Conversion is not valid.)
Symbolically
Fully Funded Scholarships in The USA
For African Students 2021

Nation.com Open

Obversion

In addition to conversion (and subalternation), there are two other

types of immediate inferences that traditional logic addresses:
obversion and contraposition. They use the concept of
complement, so let us briefly dwell on it.

complement

The primary use of the notion is related to classes. The class Y is

the complement of a class X if and only if Y’s elements are all and
only those things that are not elements of X. For example, if X is the
class of all cats, its complement (or complementary class) is the
class of all non-cats. The latter consists of everything that is not a
cat (all non-living things included). The class of cats is the
extension of the term “cat” and its complement is the extension of
the term “non-cat”. So, starting from an arbitrary term S, whose
extension is the class X, we can always form a second term “non-
S”, whose extension is the complement of X (“cat” – “non-cat”,
“human” – “non-human”, etc.). Therefore, as а secondary meaning,
the concept of complement relates not to classes, but to terms
formed from other terms by the negative word “non”. For
example, we may refer to the class of all non-cats as the
complement of the class of all cats but also we may refer to the
term “non-cat” as the complement (or the complementary term) of
the term “cat”.

Note that the complement of the complement of a class is the class

itself – a non-non-cat is simply a cat. Therefore, (usually) the
complement of a complement of a term is replaceable by the term
itself.

We should be careful not to mistake complementary terms for

contrary terms. The complement of the term “beautiful” is not the
term “ugly” (which is the contrary term) but the term “non-
beautiful”. In addition to things that are ugly, under the second
term fall things that are neither beautiful, nor ugly. If a term is the
complement of another term, each thing falls under one or the
other term. We may use this as a test whether a term is a
complement of a term. Each thing is either a cat or a non-cat but
there are things that are neither ugly nor beautiful.
Fully Funded Scholarships in The
USA For African Students 2021
Nation.com

We turn now to the immediate inference of obversion. Here is an

example:

All narcotics are addictive.

No narcotics are non-addictive.

To obvert a sentence, we replace the predicate with its complement

and change the quality – to negative if affirmative, and vice versa.
The obtained sentence is called the obverse of the initial one. In
the above example, the predicate “addictive” is replaced by its
complement “non-addictive” and the type of the sentence is
changed from universal affirmative to universal negative – the
quantity has remained the same (universal) but the quality has
been switched to negative from affirmative. This is the defining
pattern of obversion.

Unlike conversion, obversion is logically valid for all four types of

categorical sentences and it is such without reservations (there is
no things like “by limitation” in it). A sentence and its obverse are
actually logically equivalent. The logical inference is in both
directions, because replacing the predicate with its complement
and changing the quality compensate for each other so that in the
end the sentences have the same meaning. Let us go through the
four type of categorical sentences and see how obversion will look
like with them.

The obverse of a universal affirmative (A) sentence “All S are P”

(SaP) is the E-sentence “No S are non-P” (S e non-P). For example,
“All cats are intelligent” is obverted to “No cats are non-
intelligent”. We may use again the above diagram to convince
ourselves of the logical validity of the inference scheme SaP ⇒ S e
non-P. The premise “All S are P” is true in cases 1) and 2). The class
of all non-P is represented in the diagram by the whole area
outside the circle of P. In the two cases there is no overlapping
between this area and the circle of S, so no S is a non-P when all S
are P.

All S are Р. SaР

No S are non-P. S e non-P

Example:

All cats are intelligent.

No cats are non-intelligent.

A universal negative (E) sentence “No S are P” (SeP) is obverted to

the A-sentence “All S are non-P” (S a non-P). For example, from
“No cats are intelligent” we may validly infer “All cats are non-
intelligent”. “No S are P” is true in case 4) of the diagram. In that
case, the circle of S is completely included into the area outside the
circle of P (representing the class of all non-P). So, all S are non-P
when no S are P.

No S are P. SeР
 All S are non-P. S a non-P

Example:

All cats are intelligent.

All cats are non-intelligent.

A particular affirmative (I) sentence “Some S are P” (SiP) has as its

obverse the O-sentence “Some S are not non-P” (S o non-P). For
example, “Some cats are intelligent” is obverted to “Some cats are
not non-intelligent”. Taking into account that the set of things that
are not non-P is exactly the set of P, the equivalence of the two
sentences is obvious.

Some S are P. SiР

Some S are not non- S o non-P
P.

Example:

Some cats are intelligent.

Some cats are not non-intelligent.

The obverse of a particular negative (0) sentence “Some S are not

P” (SoP) is the I-sentence “Some S are non-P” (S i non-P). For
example, “Some cats are not intelligent” is obverted to “Some cats
are non-intelligent”. The equivalence of the sentences is even
more obvious here than in the previous case.

Some S are not P. SoР

Some S are non-P. S i non-P

Example:
 Some cats are not intelligent.
Some cats are non-intelligent.

We showed that a sentence logically entails its obverse. That the

sentences are actually logically equivalent (that the obverse
entails the initial sentence, too) is seen by the fact that the obverse
of the obverse is the initial sentence. For example, the obverse of
“All S are P” (SaP) is “No S are non-P”. Obverting the latter
sentence, we get “All S are non-non-P”, in which the two “non” can
be dropped. This shows that “All S are P” follows logically from
“No S are non-P” (its obverse) by obversion (which we have
already shown to be valid). The situation is the same with the
other three types of categorical sentences.

The table below summarizes the immediate inference of

obversion:

Type A
Premise All S are P.
Obverse No S are non-P.
Symbolically SaP ⟺ S e non-P

Type E
Premise No S are P.
Obverse All S are non-P.
Symbolically SeP ⟺ S a non-P

Type I
Premise Some S are P.
Obverse Some S are not non-P.
Symbolically SiP ⟺ S o non-P

Type O
 Premise Some S are not P.
Obverse Some S are non-P.
Symbolically SoP ⟺ S i non-P

Fully Funded Scholarships in The USA

For African Students 2021

Nation.com Open

Contraposition

Terms change their places under conversion and are negated

under obversion. Under the immediate inference of
contraposition, both things happen – terms are negated and
change their places. Here is an example:

All narcotics are addictive.

No non-addictive substances are narcotics.

In contraposition, the complement of the predicate becomes a

subject. We should look at that immediate inference as
constructed by sequential applications of first obversion and then
conversion:

obversion ⇨ conversion
As we have seen, obversion is always valid but conversion is
invalid for O-sentences and valid only by limitation for A
sentences. Therefore, the validity of contraposition will depend on
the second step of conversion – if it is valid, contraposition will be
valid, too. Let us go through the four types of categorical sentences
and see what contraposition will look like for them.

A universal affirmative (A) sentence “All S are P” (SaP) has as its

contrapositive the equivalent sentence “No non-P are S” (non-P e
S). For example, from “All cats are intelligent” we may validly
infer by contraposition “No non-intelligent beings are cats”. That
the two types of sentences are equivalent is seen from the fact that
the second can be obtained from first as follows. Obverting “All S
are P” (e.g. “All cats are intelligent”), we get the sentence “No S are
non-P” (“No cats are non-intelligent”). As we know, obversion
always yields an equivalent sentence. Then, applying conversion
to the last sentence, we get “No non-P are S” (“No non-intelligent
beings are cats”). Conversion does not always yield an equivalent
sentence but it does when the premise is an E-sentence. As the two
steps are equivalent transformations, an A-sentence and its
contrapositive are logical consequences of each other.

All S are P. SaР

No non-P are S. non-P e S

Example:

All cats are intelligent.

No non-intelligent beings are cats.

A particular negative (O) sentence “Some S are not P” (SoP) has as

its contrapositive the equivalent sentence “Some non-P are S”
(non-P i S). For example, from “Some cats are not intelligent” we
may validly infer “Some non-intelligent beings are cats”. The
validity of the inference is shown through the same sequence of
transformations – obversion and then conversion. “Some S are not
P” (SoP) is obverted to the “Some S are non-P” (S i non-P), whose
converse is the equivalent sentence “Some non-P are S” (non-P i S).

Some S are not P. SoР

Some non-P are S. non-P i S

Example:

Some cats are not intelligent.

Some non-intelligent beings are cats.

For universal negative (E) sentences, contraposition is valid only by

limitation, similarly to conversion for A-sentences. That the
sentence “No S are P” does not entail “All non-P are S” may be seen
by example. “No cats are dogs” is true but its contrapositive “All
non-dogs are cats” is false – humans are non-dogs that are not cats.
The reason for the invalidity of the (simple) contraposition in this
case is that by the first step of obversion we get an A-sentence –
“All S are non-P” (“All cats are non-dogs”), which cannot be
inverted simpliciter but only by limitation. “All cats are non-dogs”
entails “Some non-dogs are cats” rather that “All non-dogs are
cats”. Therefore, the sentence obtained through the obversion
should be converted by limitation to “Some non-P are S”. The result
is that the contrapositive (by limitation) of a universal negative
sentence “No S are P” (SeP) is “Some non-P are S” (non-P i S) – the
same as when the premise is an O-sentence.

No S are P. SeР
Some non-P are S. non-P i S
Example:

No cats are intelligent.

Some non-intelligent beings are cats.

Contraposition is invalid for particular affirmative (I) sentences.

The reason is that after obverting “Some S are P” we get the O-
sentence “Some S are not non-P” and, as we know, conversion in
invalid for O-sentences. For example, assuming that each thing is
identical to itself, if we start with the true I-sentence “Some
women are identical to themselves” (SiP), after the obversion we
will get “Some women are not non-identical to themselves”, which
is the same as “Some women are not different from themselves”.
Obviously, the latter sentence cannot be validly converted to the
false sentence “Some entities that are different from themselves
are not women”. It is false as there are no entities that are
different from (not identical to) themselves.

The table below summarizes the immediate inference of

contraposition:

Type A
Premise All S are P.
Contrapositive No non-P are S.
Symbolically SaP ⟺ non-P e S

Type E
Premise No S are P.
Contrapositive Some non-P are S. (by limitation)
Symbolically SeP ⇒ non-P i S

Type I
Premise Some S are P.
 Contrapositive (Contraposition is not valid.)
Symbolically

Type O
Premise Some S are not P.
Contrapositive Some non-P are S.
Symbolically SoP ⟺ non-P i S

We may use sequences of immediate inferences to prove that (or

to find out if) a sentence logically entails another one – something
that may not be immediately evident. The use of symbolic
representations rather than the sentences themselves makes the
proofs considerably easier to find and to follow. As an example,
we will show that the sentence “All socialists are pacifists”
logically entails the sentence “Some non-socialists are not
pacifists”.

We symbolize the premise with “SaP” (S for “socialist” and P for

“pacifist”). Then the conclusion has to be symbolized by “non-S o
P”. Here is a proof of the validity of that inference:

1. SaP / non-S o P

2. S e non-P 1, obversion

3. non-P e S 2, conversion

4. non-P a non-S 3, obversion

5. non-S i non-P 4, conversion

6. non-S o non-non-P 5, obversion

7. non-S o P 6, “non-non-” dropped

Fully Funded Scholarships in The
USA For African Students 2021
Nation.com

Exercises

(Download the exercises as a PDF file.)

(1) What valid conclusions can be drown from each of the

following sentences by subalternation, conversion, obversion and
contraposition?

1) All tigers are mammals.

2) Some athletes are not professionals.

3) No metals are organic substances.

4) All pearl hunters are good swimmers.

5) Some drugs are not addictive substances.

6) Some university graduates are chess players.

7) No optimist is a person who knows life.

8) Some active opponents of the corporative tax raise are not

members of the Chamber of Commerce.
(2) Prove that the sentence “All socialists are pacifists” logically
entails the following sentences.

1) Some pacifists are not non-socialists.

2) Some non-pacifists are not socialists.

(3) Prove that the sentence “No socialists are pacifists” logically
entails the following sentences.

1) Some socialists are non-pacifists.

2) Some pacifists are non-socialists.

3) Some non-pacifists are socialists.

4) Some non-socialists are not non-pacifists.

1. As usual, we assume here that S is not empty. Otherwise, SaP ⇒ PiS

will not be valid since the empty S makes SaP true and PiS false. See
this paragraph from the previous section. /

Factory Price in China

xdchem-cz Get Quote