A SIMPLE GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC FOR BEGINNERS pdf-1

1
A SIMPLE GUIDE
TO PHILOSOPHY
AND
LOGIC
FOR
BEGINNERS
ASSOC. PROFESSOR, MOND. U. AGBONKPOLO

B.ED, M.ED, BENIN; PHD, UNIZIK
Lecturer in Philosophy & Logic
Former Head of the Department of Education
Benson Idahos University, Benin City
1
AGBONKPOLO M.U. 2004
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means without the prior permission from
the author.
pum i—iBUS
GOOD-BOOK PUBLICATIONS
08068352890
Printed in Nigeria, 2008.
Second Edition
Typeset by:
IMOEKO O. JANE
BIU, PART-TIME OFFICE
07036681898
A Simple Guide to Phitoeophy end Logic for Beginners
CONTENTS
Acknowledgment …………. ……. ……………………………………………………..iv
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………… v
Preface ……….. ………………………………………………………………….vi-vii
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ....................... …………………………………. 1 - 8
The Academic Meaning of Philosophy, Branches
and Scope of Philosophy
CHAPTER TWO - FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY…………………………………. 9-15
Speculative Function, Analytic Function
Synthetic Function, Prescriptive Function
CHAPTER THREE - MAJOR TERMS IN

PHILOSOPHY ………………………………………………………………………..18-29
CHAPTER FOUR-AN OUTLINE OF MAJOR ........ ……………………………………30-51

WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS
CHAPTER FIVE - LOGIC ............. .. ....................... ……………………………………52-59
Central Problem of Logic - Evaluation of

Argument, Nature of Argument, Truth and
Validity, Laws of Thought, Types of Argument
CHAPTER SIX - WHAT IS ARGUMENT MADE OF?............................................ 80-86

Propositions; Simple Propositions,
Features of Simple Propositions
The Four Standard Types of Simple Propositions The Relationship Between

Pairs of Simple Propositions
The relationship Among Four Standard Proposition
Aristotle’s Square of Opposition
Simple Propositions and Their
Inferred Equivalents
Conversion
Obversion Contraposition Distribution of Terms
3
A Simple-Guido to Philosophy and Logic for Beginners
CHAPTER SEVEN - HOW DO LOGICIANS

SYMBOLIZE PROPOSITION?...................................................................... 87- 98
Logical Quantifications Propositional Functions Logical Symbols

Mathematical Nations for A, E, l„ O Propositions Diagrams and Mathematical
Symbols for A, E, I, O
CHAPTER EIGHT - ARGUMENTS WITH

A, E, I, O, PROPOSITIONS - SYLLOGISM? ........ …………………………………99 -125
Meaning of Syllogism.
Features of a Categorical Syllogism, Standard Syllogism
Other Forms of Syllogism
Testing the validity of Syllogistic Arguments
The Rules Governing Syllogism
CHAPTER NINE - PARTS OF ARGUMENTS (II) .. ………………………………..126 -149

COMPOUND PROPOSITION
Truth Value of Compound Propositions Symbolism for Compound Propositions

Punctuation in Symbolic language ’
Truth Table for Compound Propositions Statement and Statements Forms
Tautology, Self-Contradictory
Contingent Statement Logical Equivalence De Morgan’s Theorems
CHAPTER TEN-ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENT FORMS OF COMPOUND

PROPOSITIONS………….....................................................................................150-158
Testing Validity of Compound Propositions
CHAPTER ELEVEN - THE METHOD OF DEDUCTION-PROVING VALIDITY

OF COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS .................. …………………………………….158 -180
Deduction - Proving Validity of Compound
Rules of Inference
Rule of Replacement
Conditional proof
Indirect Proof
Proving Invalidity
Proving Inconsistency
CHAPTER TWELVE-PROVING VALIDITY OF SIMPLE PROPOSITIONAL

ARGUMENTS ................................................. ……………………………………180-
Universal Instantiation Universal Generalization Existential Instantiation
Existential Generalization Fallacies
REFERENCES ............................... …………………………………………………

AStmpto Quid* to PMotophy and Logie tor Bagtonon
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express my gratitude to the Almighty God who kept me alive and healthy thus
making it possible to embark on this academic pursuit.
I am indeed grateful to members of my family for their love and moral support which created
the enabling environment to write this book. I owe immense appreciation to the Dean of Arts
and Education, Dr. (Mrs.) OMOREGIE, in whose office the main part of this work was typed
and corrected.
I wish to salute my colleagues at Benson Idahosa University, Dr James, Agboola, Dr.

Maxwell, and the Acting Director of General Studies Unit, Dr. Obahiagbon for their
understanding.
I am immensely grateful to a number of persons for the typing, correcting of the text, drawing
of figures without which this book would not be out by now. Some of these persons are the
Secretary to the Dean of Arts and Education, Imasuen, Pastor Inyang, Miss Venesia Tomson,
David Ozizegbe, Seme Mojugbe, Stanis Kiadidi, Mrs. Jenevy Obadan, Solomon Olumese,
Igbinosa Newton and Eyituoyo Ogbemi.
Finally, I express deep gratitude to my students for the encouragement given to me.
5
A SW* Gukfo »> PhHoMphy and Logic for Bogimwv v
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to all men of goodwill.

—A Simple Guide to Philosophy and Logic for Beginners
PREFACE
This text is written to meet clearly the objectives of the Nigerian University
Commission requirements of the general studies in philosophy and logic and the vision of
raising scholars and professionals who are academically and morally sound in their various
disciplines. The text also is designed to meet the aspirations of the general public who are
longing to have an acquaintance with philosophy and logic. The writing style and
arrangement of the topics have been done to ensure the realisation of the above aims. The
reader would notice the natural sequence in which the text is arranged. This would help
the reader to have an easy mental progression in the topics or ideas.
There is an attempt to introduce the reader to the fundamentals of the course. Instead of the
usual rendition of some specific problems of philosophy by authors, this text attempts to
capture the central problem of philosophy as seen through the functions of philosophy to
enable the render have a holistic appreciation of the subject.
In furtherance of the aim of give the reader a global outlook on the subject, the text
periscopes major terms in philosophy and their proponents. That is not all, brief biographic
information about these proponents is also rendered. The section on logic covers the
Aristotelian logic with quantification theory, and formal symbolic logic.
Furthermore, every chapter provides assessment questions to enable the reader monitor
his or her progress in the course. Above all the text is written to safety the yearnings of the
numerous students and interested persons to have a simple and readable text in
philosophy and logic devoid of the usual philosophical complexity. And in attempt to meet
this aspiration the author is not unmindful of the dangers of over- simplification. Needless to
say therefore that conscious effort is made to avoid such dangers.
In humility, there is more room for improvement; it is hoped therefore that the issues and
comments which this text will generate would be useful in improving the quality of
subsequent editions
7
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
The subject philosophy appears to many people as occultism, to some others as an

exoteric study or an archaic extravagant intellectualism. These mental attitudes
towards philosophy, in the main, stern, perhaps, from the priestly philosophy of the
Egyptian pyramid in the era of the pharaohs. The occultist philosophy more often
than not is confused with the academic philosophy. The origin of this confusion
could be linked with the obscurantist philosophers’ writing style, famous for high
sounding words interwoven with poetic effects. None of these truly represent the
academic philosophy. What then is the academic or true philosophy?
The Academic Meaning of Philosophy
Academic philosophy could be traced to Greece. It began as speculations into the

meaning; nature and purpose of existence and the universe. It was the expression of the
natural inclination of the mind overwhelmed by the imposing universe to gain mastery
through the understanding of life and the world in which it lives, using its own inherent
principle, reasoning through reflection. Thus philosophy as an academic discipline can be
seen from three perspectives, namely the conceptual, theoretical and the practical
perspectives.
The Conceptual Perspective:
The word Philosophy came from two Greek words, “Philo” and “Sophia”, meaning love and
wisdom respectively. From this etymological stance the Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary
defines it as “the passionate” search for the general causes of things with absolute reliance
on reasoning (Italicized word is mine). Search in this context means the reflective thinking
and causes as in Aristotelian philosophy encompass the following:
(1) The efficient cause- by what or whom a thing is made.

(2) Formal cause- what determines what a thing is ,
(3) Material cause- the stuff(s)from which a thing is made and
11
(4) Final cause-the purpose for which a thing is made.

These four areas represented the spectrum of Greek philosophy. With respect to
the first, they sought to know whether there is a creator, and possibly the nature
of the creator. And with respect to the second, they were interested in the
essential attributes of things. And in the third, they sought to know primarily the
stuff(s) from which all things were made; some claim the ultimate stuff is one,
some philosophers claim is two, still, others claim is pluralistic. With respect to
the fourth, they sought for the purpose, if any, of existence.
The Theoretical Perspective
The theoretical perspective refers to ultimate theories about the origin and nature of life,
universe, knowledge, truth, and values. These are ideas or worldviews that result from
the reflective thinking. In this sense we speak of the Aristotelian, Platonic, Hegelian
Philosophies, etc.
The Practical Perspective
From those ultimate theories, various principles are derived for all human endeavors. Such
principles are sometimes referred to as practical wisdom or the wisdom of the wise. This is
the reason why philosophy and those principles are often used interchangeably in many
contexts.
Branches and Scope of Philosophy
The forgoing examination shows that philosophy is all embracing, touching on all conceivable
and intelligible entity in man's mental horizon. The subject, however, could be delineated into
the following branches, namely:
 Natural Philosophy
 Metaphysics
 Epistemology
 Axiology
 Logic
Natural Philosophy
Natural philosophy is the study of nature through logical reasoning on sensory information.
The sensory data that are gathered are subjected to the reasoning activity of the mind which
thereupon makes inferences or conclusions in logical manners.
13
This study is based on the philosophical school of realism of Aristotle. The study of the
heavenly bodies and alchemy which were prominent with the Greeks belong to this
branch. Aristotle was also known to have carried out extensive study of plants and
animals. Other aspects of this category are motion, inertia, and many aspects of modern
physics. Hence, physics originally was called physical philosophy. What we have today is
philosophy of science, which examines issues of aims and method of science, and the
clarification of scientific concepts.
Metaphysics
Metaphysics literally means after physics. This subject appears in the papers of Aristotle
after the work entitled physics. This subject most probably owns its name to this
etymology. And since the Greek word physics means nature (Maduka 1998), the term
metaphysics could also be said to refer to the study of what lies beyond nature or the
physical world of sensory experience. If this study lies beyond sensory experience, how
then is it apprehended? For Plato certain first principles as they are called can be intuited
by the mind from which deductions (with principle of coherence) can be made. For
Aristotle, through the study of nature- the particulars- it is hoped that generalizations (first
principles) could be deduced with Aristotelian logic. Both categories stand in contra
distinction from mysticism which resorts to the occult phenomena to acquire mystical
knowledge. Metaphysical issues include questions about origin and nature of the
universe, the existence of God, the purpose of life, destiny, freedom and determinism,
time, evil etc. These issues could be classified into three categories namely cosmology
the nature of the universe, cosmogony-the origin of the universe, and ontology the study
of being.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, it raises the questions; How do we know? what can
we know? How do we know that what we know is true? These three questions correspond to
the modes of human knowledge, the limit and the certainty of the sources respectively.
modes of Knowledge in epistemology include: Sense experience (Empirical Knowledge)
reason (Rational Knowledge), Revelation, Intuition,
17
Authority (Secondary Source) and faith.
Axiology
Axiology is the theory of values, it raises the questions: What is valuable or worthwhile?
What is right or wrong principle for human actions? This theory is divided into two areas
namely: Ethics which relates to human conduct and Aesthetics, the theory relating to
beauty and ugliness. Of these two, ethics have more theories, some of these theories are
as follows the command theory, the utilitarian theory, situation ethics, the categorical
imperative to mention but a few. Another important aspect of Axiology is the clarification of
value, the test for consistency.
Logic
Logic deals with the rules governing human reasoning. Logic according to Meduka "deals
with the rules and laws by which we can arrive at valid conclusions” (1998:13), Copi,
defines it as the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing the correct from
incorrect reasoning: (Otakpor: 9). Logic is a special tool for philosophy and a subtle guide to
other disciplines.
SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1. Explain the erroneous notions of philosophy and identify the likely sources of those
beliefs.
2. Explain the Greek notion of philosophy.
3. Mention the branches of philosophy and explain each of them.
4. What is the philosophical foundation of Natural philosophy?
5. What is the name and scope of Natural philosophy today?
6. Explain the differences between metaphysics and mysticism.
7. Explain why principle and philosophy, are often used interchangeably in many
contexts.
CHAPTER TWO
WHY D0 WE STUDY PHILDSDPHY?
The question - why do we study philosophy? Or why do we have philosophers? - can

be addressed by looking at the functions of philosophy. We shall explain each of
these in the following section.
Functions of Philosophy
Speculative Function
Our immediate needs appear to be the physiological needs, what to eat and what to wear.
Immediately these needs are satisfied we think of shelter. After all these, we look over our
heads at the starry heavens above and at the imposing mountains and the mystifying
seemingly endless seas or oceans below and We ponder on the miracles of life, we go to
sleep in exhaustions and wake up with hearts full of awe. We are thus agitated by ultimate
questions such as: how did the universe come about? What is the origin of life? Does life
have any purpose, is man free or predetermined? These and more questions border us. Why
questions bordering on our physiological needs, shelter and the like could be solved with
sensory data, those ultimate questions above are crying out for information that exceeds the
stock of sensory information at our disposal. Thus speculation is at once a necessity. Without
this, man must leave like the beast without purpose and meaning. So the study of meta
physics is the speculative function of philosophy, the attempt to acquire a transcendental
world view by which we could fully guide our lives.
The Analytic Function
In the foregoing we have extolled the importance of metaphysical knowledge. This however
does not belittle the importance of empirical knowledge. You will recall that Aristotle argues
that the knowledge of the particulars could lead to the knowledge of the Universals and
timeless truth, from which metaphysical knowledge such as meaning and purpose could be
inferred. As he argues there is no form (as conceived by Plato) without matter and no matter
without form in nature. So the knowledge of matter (the particulars) could yield the keys into
the knowledge of the form (universals).
Here lies the importance of analytic philosophy. The analytic function is the clarification of
concepts of the sensory world. Concepts are molecular ideas which need to be broken down
19
into parts for thorough understanding of the whole, much the same way as element have to
be broken down into atoms by Dalton and further into protons, electrons and neutrons by
Rutherford so we may understand the nature of matter. The same is also truth of Algebraic
equation in Mathematics. To understand the relationship among the element of an equation
we employ simplification to the lowest term, so concepts such as Democracy, Teaching,
Happiness, Man, Success, Communication, Nation etc. could be simplified to the lowest
terms for the purpose of accurate understanding of our lives, roles and activities.
The Synthetic Function
Aristotle lays the foundation for the study of particulars with the hope that we could
apprehend the universals. Modern science studies the particulars but have very little to do
with the Aristotelian goal. The need for in-depth knowledge over the years has given rise to
the endless fragmentation so called specialization. As at today modern libraries are stock
with thousands of volumes of atomic ideas without ‘the big pictures of life’. Each subject,
topic, ideas is standing separately in their storage compartments without connectivity.
Aristotelian philosophy and logic demand that these ideas are combined logically to form
universals. This is the synthetic function of philosophy it means to synthesize compound
ideas, universals from the particular because from such universals we understand the big
pictures of life.
Prescriptive Function
The philosophic exercise as mentioned in the preceding discussion, leads to the formation
of world views, thoughtful integrated conclusions about life and the world. Principles for
action, governance, happiness, success, education, law etc. are generated from those
world views. Many of such principles are the foundation of modern laws, education,
governance and life styles. To be happy for instance Aristotle prescribed moral uprightness
in human conduct and moderation which is referred to as the golden mean. In education he
prescribed that teaching should follow the natural course of the mind that is from the
knowledge of things in the immediate environment to the remote in a natural subsequence.
In governance Plato prescribed communism and the rule of philosopher kings. Immanuel
Kant in moral theories says, “Never use humanity whether in your person or another as a
means but always as an end.” In addition, he says, “Act only on that maxim whereby thou
canst at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” The utilitarians maintain
that a moral act is the one which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. In political philosophy the social contract theories by John Locke and Thomas
Hobbes are influential principles in modern governance all over the world. These are but a
few of the many principles prescribed by philosophers which have ordered the course of
human history and would continue to do so.
Summary
In this chapter we have examined four functions of philosophy namely the speculative,
analytic synthetic and perspective functions. The speculative function enables us to
acquire transcendental world view. The analytic function helps us to stir our life styles,
roles and activities right on target through accurate understanding of concepts that
underlie our roles and activities. The synthetic function when applied would enable us
apprehend universal truths which in turn helps in developing transcendental world view,
meaning and purpose of life. Finally the prescriptive function provides us with many useful
principles for living and for carrying out various roles in the society.
1. Use two concepts, one in science and one in mathematics to explain the analytic
function of philosophy.
2. What is the philosophical foundation of the synthetic function of philosophy?
3. What is the relevance of the synthetic function of philosophy to our lives?
4. Explain the philosophical basis of the prescriptive function of philosophy.
5. Mention five prescriptions of philosophers you know.
6. What is the relevance of the prescriptive function of philosophy to our lives and
roles?
21
A Simple Guide to Philosophy and Logic for Beginners
CHAPTER THREE
WHAT ARE THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY?
The aim of this chapter is to provide the reader with handy opportunity to appraise the
content of philosophy. This chapter therefore attempts a brief outline of the content of
philosophy. These are as follows:
Idealism
Idealism is the oldest philosophical school of thought. Its founder is Plato. He enunciated that
ultimate reality is idea and its container, the mind. He postulated that the physical universe is
not real but an image of the real world of ideas, which Plato referred to as the forms as distinct
from matter.
Plato’s Cave
Plato propounded an allegory of the cave in which he claims that humanity is in a cave-like
situation on earth, all that is seen is the shadow cast inside the cave by the light of the real
world. The real world is spiritual, only few do apprehend it while the rest chase the shadow.
Realism
Realism is a philosophical school of thought founded by Aristotle, who was a student of Plato.
Realism holds that matter is real. Aristotle disagreed with his master and held that matter and
form co-exist; we can't find matter without form or form without matter in nature. He
contended that the study of the particulars can yield the understanding of the universals, the
form, for him metaphysics was a general science; Realism has three shades namely the
natural realism of Aristotle, the religious realism of St. Thomas Aquinas and the scientific
realism of Francis Bacon.
Naturalism
Jean Jacques Rousseau is the founder of the philosophical school of thought called
Naturalism. For the naturalist nature is the only and ultimate reality. Thus no intimacy is
beyond the laws of nature. Man therefore must live in harmony with the laws.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism was propounded by Sanders Pierce, William James and John Dewey. The aim
of Pragmatism according to pierce was to make truth a universal law. James claims that truth
is agreement with reality. Dewey also sought to systematized conception and reasoning, for
him truth is warranted assertion, literally the term Pragmatism means work principle. Thus
whatever works is true, signifying the ability to produce desire result.
Existentialism
Existentialism is a philosophical school of thought popularized by Soren Kierkegaard. The
philosophy of Existentialism is summed up in their maxim which says existence precedes
essence. Existentialism is a revolt against the impersonalization of secular and religious
systems that tend to sacrifice the individual on the altar of social and religious systems.
Existentialists want the concrete situation of the individual and his freewill to be treated as
paramount. Two major variants of the movement are the theistic and atheistic versions. Other
notable members of this school are Jean Sartre and Martin Heidegger.
Empiricism
This is a philosophical school of thought that claims that all knowledge is a product of sense
experience; it says that there is nothing in the intellect that was not originally in the sense.
Ideas according to this position are the raw data of sensation, they claim. Thus knowledge
according to members of this school of thought is derived through sensation and the
reflective exercise of the mind, a posteriori. Notable members of this school are John
Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes.
Rationalism
Rationalism is the antithesis of Empiricism; the rationalists claim that knowledge is obtained
through logico-mathematical reasoning. This school of thought unlike Empiricism holds that
reason without experience is the necessary and sufficient source of knowledge, a priori,
using the methods of intuition, and deduction they claim we can arrive at indubitable
knowledge. Some rationalists are Rene Descartes, Baruch Benedict Spinoza and Gottfried
Leibniz.
Skepticism
This is the philosophical doctrine that indubitable knowledge cannot be obtained. The
possibility of exceeding opinionated knowledge is not in sight according to this position. A
mild position of skepticism is solipsism which holds that only I and my thoughts exist and only
these we do know. Skeptics are known for their practical disposition, the denial of certain
knowledge and lack lustre attitude towards judgement. The founder of skepticism was pyrho;
other members were Arcesilus Carneades and Sextus Empiricus.
Relativism
Relativism is a philosophical doctrine which claims that there are no absolute standards
whether in ethics or in knowledge generally for making judgment. Every judgment should
depend on its own circumstances and since no two situations are the same it follows that
every judgment ought to be unique according to this doctrine. The opposite of this view is
called absolutism.
29
Pantheism
This is the philosophical doctrine that nature is the expression of God. The extreme position is
that Nature and God are one and the same.
Theism
This is the metaphysical position that there is a supreme creator who is actively involved in
the day to day events in the world.
Atheism
This doctrine claim, that God does not exist. The fact that nobody has ever seen God couple
with the fact of the existence of evil in a world supposedly created by a good God are the
grounds upon which this claim is based.
Deism
This philosophical doctrine claims that God created the world as a machine and set it in
motion, functioning independently of its creator. God does not interfere with it as his principles
are already inbuilt.
Monism
This is the metaphysical position that reality is one. In other words all things are created or
emanated from one stuff. Those who hold this position are divided on the identity of this
substance or on whether it is a material or immaterial substances or a principle. This oneness
accounts for the unity in diversity in nature according to the monists.
Dualism
Unlike Monism, Dualism is the philosophical doctrine that reality is two. This explains why
everything has its opposite according to this position e.g., good and evil, God and the Devil
success and failure etc.
Determinism
This philosophical view claims that, man is not free even if it seems we are acting on our own
initiative. The extreme position of determinism is fatalism which holds that 'what will be, will
be”: meaning we cannot change the course of events, determinism is predicated on the fact
that God is omniscient, and on the fact that man is psychological and environmentally
conditioned.
Freewillism
Freewillism is the antithesis of determinism it maintains that man is a free moral agent. This is
why he is endowed with the ability to reason. This position is based on the following premises:
1. There are no permanent constraints
2. There are always alternative course of action and
3. Humans are rational beings.

Freewillism is also called libertarianism.
Logico Positivism
Logical positivism is a philosophical Communique of the Vienna circle, a group of
philosophers among whom were Schlick, Neurath, Waisman and Rudolf Carnap. The main
trust of the communique was that scientific knowledge and logic are the only reliable source
of human knowledge. Logical positivism is a revolutionary movement against metaphysic and
mysticism. Thus, this movement adopted the principle of Verificationism to sift objective truth
from Meaningless statements.
Logico Atomism
This is a metaphysical concept which expresses the commitment for the analysis of facts, the
synthesis of the structure and their interrelationship- universal truths. Logico atomism is the
revival of Aristotelian philosophy of reaching the universals through the analysis and
synthesis of the particulars. As Ozumba puts it; "to provide a more realistic picture of the
world which is believed lies in the simple components of the world '(Uduigiuwonmen 1995;
42)
Phenomenology
This is a philosophical method popularized by Husserl. It is a pre-supposedless approach in
which all background theories or knowledge is put aside in order to return to the very objects
themselves. This is based on the assumption that objects have permanent possibilities of
sensation and that we cannot take external objects as Independent of sense data.
Fideism
This term is a philosophical view that we could believe in the existence of a thing once there
is a sufficient reason to do so, even if we may not be able to know it with certainty. For
instance there is a sufficient reason to believe in God's existence though we may not be able
to prove it with certainty. Immanuel Kant was a fideist.
Intuitionism
This is an ethical theory which claims that the knowledge of right and wrong action depends
on the inner light of conscience and has nothing to do with the consequences of those
actions.
Altruism
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that stresses personal satisfactions from preferring the interest
and welfare of others to one's own interest.
31
Egoism
This is an ethical theory, according to one version, it says that one should always act in such
a way as to promote one's own interest or good. Another version of this theory, says the
Egoist apart from acting only on self interest could also endures the welfare of others so long
as it does not go against his or her own interest.
Epi -Phenomenalism
This theory says that the relationship between the body and the mind is similar to the
relationship between the locomotive and the smoke from it. That is the mind is “an epi-
phenomenon or appendage of the body” (ibid: 45)
SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1. Explain briefly the following schools of Thought in philosophy.

i. Idealism
ii. Realism
iii. Pragmatism
iv. Existentialism
2. Explain the differences between the following pairs.
i. Rationalism and Empiricism
ii. Skepticism and Relativism
iii. Theism and Deism
iv. Pantheism and Theism
v. Monism and Dualism
3. Why do the determinists believe that we are not free even if it seems we are acting on
our own initiatives?
4. What is Freewillism? Explain the rationale of this position.
5. Explain Logico positivism and its motive
6. Logical atomism is the revival of Aristotelian philosophy, explain?
7. Explain the differences between the following pairs.
i. Phenomenology and Epi -Phenomenalism
ii. Fideism and fntuitionism
Hi. Altruism and Egoism
CHAPTER FOUR
WHO ARE THE MAJOR WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS?
In this chapter an attempt is made to present an outline of western philosophers and

their major postulations and achievements. These are as follows:
Thales
Thales is regarded as the father of western philosophy. He predicted the eclipse of 585 B.C.
He invented the calendar of 30 days and 365 days as the duration for a month and a year
respectively. The shape of the Earth according to him is somewhat a disc floating on water.
Anaximander
Anaximander postulated that the primary substance of all things cannot be any of the things
we know because they are too distinct. He claimed that this stuff is indeterminate boundless
substance, the 'Aperior' (Uduigwomen,1995:134). He also postulated that the shape of the
Earth was Cylindrical and he was the first man to make a map.
Anaximenes
Anaximenes philosophized that air is the primary stuff of all things since the basic substances
of man’s soul is air which holds us together, so also does it fills the whole world. He claimed
that the Earth is like a round table in shape.
Pythagoras
As a mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras propounded the famous Pythagorean
theory. He postulated that numbers are the primary essence of all things. He believes that the
solution to the mystical problems of purification and immortality lies in the study of science
and mathematics (ibid)
Heraclitus
According to Heraclitus the primary stuff of all things is an everlasting fire. The universal law
immanent in all things is logos or reason which according to him is God. This logos is the unity
of all things the brotherhood of man and the commonality of all beings. Heraclitus was
probably renowned for his doctrine that change is the principle of all things. All things are in
perpetual flux. According to him one cannot step into the same river twice, because
freshwater are ever flowing upon one.
PARMENIDES
For Parmenides being is simply is and is one, therefore change is not possible. Nothing
comes into being or goes out of being; change is the confusion of appearances with reality he
claimed. He also denied the possibility of motion, for him appearance is the basis of opinion
71
while reality is the basis of truth.
Empedocles
For Empedocles four elements namely, water, air, fire and earth are the primary constituents
of a things. When they come together, he claimed things Come into existence. The forces
responsible for these actions, according to him are the forces of love and hate. In the
presence of love, there is harmony and things come together but hatred brings discord and
disintegration. He was believed to have performed miracles by magic or scientific knowledge,
and that he raised a dead woman who died for thirty years to life. To prove that he was a god
he leaped into a crater at Etna according to legend.
The Atomists
Members of this group such as Leucippus and Democritus hold that reality consists of space
and atoms. Atoms they claimed are the smallest indivisible particles of a thing.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae
Anaxagoras criticized Empedocles, pointing out the difficulty in the combination of those four
elements to form substances like a dog, table etc. He therefore asserts that hair or flesh for
instance cannot come from what is not hair or flesh. He claims that it is illusionary to expect
one substance to change into another. Hence he concluded: 'there is a portion of everything
in everything', that is each substance is a combination of all things. But one particle
predominates in any substance so that the substance is known by the name of that
dominator, so if X change into Y, it means the relative quantities of X and Y in that substance
has change, while X initially predominated but Y became greater. For Anaxagoras the Nous
or mind is the controlling force in the universe.
Xenophanes of Colophon
He postulated monotheism against the highly polytheistic tradition in Greece. For him there is
one God whose knowledge or intelligence cannot be completely grasped by mortals except
what is revealed to us. Nobody knows everything; we can only know what is better than what
was previously known. Xenophanes claimed God controls the universe by the thought of his
mind
The Sophists
The Sophists were a group of itinerant teachers who came to Athens because of its
cosmopolitan nature, to teach for a living. The Sophists took advantage of the vacuum
created by the transition from a traditional society to a commercialized one which exposed
the youth to new development. The Sophists change the course of philosophy from
cosmological speculation to ethical consideration. They were ethical relativists, who claimed
that there were no absolute standards for moral principles instead, man they claimed, is the
measure of all things. Gorgias, one of them for instance claimed that nothing exists, and if
anything exists it cannot be known or cannot be understood and if it can be understood it
cannot be communicated in words. Other members of this group were Protagoras and
Thrasymachus.
Socrates
Socrates was a Greek philosopher who came to prominence in attempt to challenge the
ethical relativism of the Sophists. Socrates claimed that there were absolute and universal
standards for morality. In other words, he believed that there were moral truths which are
absolute and universal, which any man can apprehend if he, looked within him. In trying to
lead youth to this realism he adopted the question and answer technique which is named
after him as Socratic technique. It is the process of definition through criticism, where the
learner through series of his own answers to the teacher's questioning is led to the truth. The
teacher's goal is to prove to the student that his (the student's) definition is absurd so that the
student can see the truth for himself. Socrates said virtue was knowledge and vice was
ignorance, that is, a man cannot be virtuous if he does not know what is good. “His celebrated
statement or dictum is “man know thyself (Ibid: 137). He was sentence to death by the
Athenian Elders on the charge of corrupting the youths and undermining their gods, he was
made to drink the Hemlock, a poison.
Plato
Plato was a student of Socrates. He believes that knowledge was innate just like his master.
He was the founder of idealism, for him the real world or reality is the world of forms or ideas.
The world of things is changing but the real world does not, it is eternal. He said the soul has
three parts namely, reason, spirit and appetite and that these corresponding to the three
classes in the society namely the rulers (the philosopher kings), the military (the Guardians)
and the workers (the craft man or artisans) respectively. Hence he said that the state is man
writ large. He is the founder of the first European university, the Academy: His famous book
was entitled the ‘Republic’ where he discussed the dynamics of government and education.
Aristotle
He was the founder of realism and a student of Plato: He propounded syllogistic logic
commonly called Aristotelian syllogism. He identified three types of reasoning namely
dialectic, eristic and demonstrative. The dialectic is reasoning from established fact. The
eristic is reasoning that is debatable while the demonstrative is reasoning based on true and
primary premises. He regarded substance as essential nature of a thing that is what
determines what a thing is. He proposed the four causes mentioned earlier in chapter one
namely, the formal cause, the efficient cause the material cause and the final cause. In ethics
he believes that the highest purpose of life is happiness. Man can attain happiness when the
soul works in harmony with the right reasons. He said man is both a political and a social
animal. For him metaphysic is a general science trying to work out the universal from the
73
particular. He was the founder of the second European university called the Lyceum, and was
a teacher to Alexandra the great
Epicurus
Epicurus was a hedonist that is he believed that the highest goal of human life is pleasure. He
claimed that the true pleasure is repose life free from pain and full of gentle relaxation.
Epicurus was an atomist.
THE STOICS
The stoics are known for their ethnical doctrine that happiness emanates from indifference or
apathy to life exigencies. This according to them is the hallmark of wise living. They believe
that reality is defined by matter. For them fate and providences determine the course of
events in the world. They believe in the universal brotherhood and held the doctrine of a
universal law. Some stoic philosophers were Zeno (who was actually the founder),
Cleanthes, Ariston, Cicero, Seneca and Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The Skeptics
(see skepticism in chapter 3)
The Scholastics
The scholastics were the church fathers in medieval period who worked assiduously trying to
reconcile faith and reason. Notable members of the scholastics were St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinans. They believe that the world was created from nothing, ex-nihilo. Aquinas
propounded five proofs to show that God exists namely, proof from motion, proof from the
degree of perfection, proof from necessary versus possible being, proof from the order of the
universe. He postulated four kinds of law; namely External law from divine reason, natural law
from God's principles in creation. Human law from specific statues of government and divine
law from the scriptures.
St. Augustine was a native of Tagaste in North African. To prove God's existence he said that
the fact that every effect has a cause the universe cannot be an exception. Secondly the
universal conviction of God existence, he claimed is a proof of his existence. For him time is
only a mental entity, the past is the mental activity of remembrance, the future is the mental
activity of expectation and the present is the mental activity of consideration. He
philosophized about evil as the misuse of man's freewill and happiness as a Gift of God. He
propounded the concept of two cities namely the 'city of God' those who love God and the city
of the world' those who love self and worldly pleasure.
Francis Bacon
He is regarded as the father of modern science. He advocated the inductive method of
science, to explain the forces of nature. He propounded the concept of four idols which he
claimed are the constraint of the mind in human knowledge. These idols are as follows:
1. Idols of the tribe- tribal beliefs
2. Idols of the cave -personal or family prejudices.
3. Idols of the market place -unguided utterances and verbal assaults
4. Idols of the theatre -popular beliefs
Thomas Hobbes
He was a political philosopher and often regarded as the father of totalitarianism. In his book
entitled the ’Leviathan’ he postulated the concept of “the state of nature' that is “the condition
of men before the emergence of civil society”. (Uduigwomen op cit: 142), which according to
him was short, nasty and brutish. He propounded a social contract theory in which he said
that every civil society is founded on agreement. For him the law is a command of a
sovereign.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Rene Descartes was the founder of rationalism, the philosophical process of intuition and
deduction. He propounded the famous dictum cognito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)
through which he was able to break free from skepticism and discovered the reality of the self.
This provided the leap to the justification of things, ideas and God. He was a dualist and
interactionist, claiming that the point of interaction between the mind and the body is the
pineal gland, situated at the back of the brain.
Spinoza (1632-1677)
Baruch Spinoza was of Portuguese Jewish parentage. He was a pantheist and a rationalist,
for him God is the only substance because according to him, substance is that which exist all
by himself, that is “God is the Causa sui- complete, infinite and self sustaining” (Ozumba, op
cit, p. 108) Therefore whatever exist is the expression of the divine substance, he posited. It
follows from that point that everything is divinely control, acting on necessity. Freedom
according to him is realized when we are aware of this divine connection and consciously,
co-operate with this divine essence. This view is tantamount to determinism.
Leibniz (1646 -1716)

Leibniz was a rationalist. He held the view that things are made up of irreducible, simple
substances called MONADS (Ibid: 109) Monads in the word of Ozumba “are windowless and
incorporeal substances whose behaviour is already predetermined” (Ibid), with regards to
Epistemology he identified two kinds of truths, namely; truth of fact and truth reason. Truth of
fact according to him is a posteriori that is it require experience to verify its truth value, while
75
truth of reason is a priori that is the solution of a statement is contained in its subject term” and
a valid conclusion follows from its premises.
John Locke (1632 -1704)

He is the founder of empiricism in Britain. He was an outstanding intellectual figure. Like
Bacon he was concern also with need of removing mental obstacles from the way of human
enlightenment. This concern was manifest in the writing of the book; 'An Essay concerning
human understanding, which was published in 1690. He postulated that the mind at birth is a
tabula rasa, a clean slate. For Him, we acquire knowledge through sense perception and
mental reflection on the ideas received by the mind. Thus he classifies ideas as simple ideas
and complex ideas. The formal is the raw ideas from the senses while the latter is the
finished, refined, ideas of the mind. In other words, they are inputs and outputs respectively.
Locke also identified the primary qualities (inherent qualities) and the secondary qualities (the
non-inherent qualities) of things. He postulated that substance is the substratum the source
of both qualities.
George Berkeley (1685 -1753)

George Berkeley was the next British empiricist, after Locke. For him reality consists of ideas,
mind and God, thus denying the existence of Locke’s substratum. He opposed the innate,
inference and the occult dimensions. For him anything that exists is perceivable, in other
words, “to be or to exist is to be perceived, expressed in his famous dictum “esse est percipi”.
So anything that exists must be perceived at one time or the other. And to protect his doctrine,
he says that though the human power of perception is limited, the ultimate mind, God has
unlimited perception.
David Hume (1711 -1776)

Hume is an empiricist, a native of Edinburgh. His argument was that the mind can ruminates
beyond this planet. According to Hume the mind does not really conceive any new thing
rather it combines experiential ideas to form apparently new forms. For him true knowledge
consists of impression and ideas. Impression is the original perception we get when we see,
touch, hears, taste, and smell while the less vivid faint perception that remains in the absence
of the object is the ideas. So to rid human knowledge of fictitious ideas, imaginations, Hume
insists on the verification principle of showing the original impression of any idea. As a result
of this position, Hume rejected the idea of causality, self, substance and God because we
cannot show their original impressions.
IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher. He was a product of the enlightenment, with
deep religious background. He is often regarded as the critical mediator between dogmatism
and skepticism on one hand and between empiricism and rationalism on the other hand. After
clarifying a priori knowledge (analytic) and posteriori knowledge, he postulated a third
category namely, the synthetic a priori knowledge. Some popular Kantian concept includes
the following:
1. Phenomenal -The perceived qualities in things

2. Noumenal- The qualities in things
3. Antimonies- Any discussion of the world that exceed human experience will result in
argument that have equal force on opposite side.
4. Categorical Imperative- The moral imperative or law, which every moral being, must follow
of necessity, irrespective of culture and contingencies.
HEGEL (1770-1831)
He was a German philosopher. Hegel disagreed with the mechanical interpretation of nature
which the physicist and Kant supported; He sought to replace this with speculative insight
and intuition. He was thus branded enemy of science and the patron of obscurantism. He, on
the other hand, accused the enlightenment of “trying to keep science and morals separate
and to sharpen the contrast that existed between theoretical and practical reason “ (Ozumba
op cit: 199) According to him “ things are meaningful in so far as they are part of the whole”.
Anything that is viewed isolation of the whole is unreal and to that extent an illusion (Ibid). He
propounded transcendental paradigm in which the absolute spirit in history struggles within
itself to resolves internal conflict and archives full realization. So “history is the match of the
absolute spirit or idea through nature.” This march precedes through a triadic movement
namely thesis, antithesis and syntheses, every idea produces its opposites and both are
reconciled to firm a synthesis and from there, the triad starts again, until absolute perfection is
attained ultimately. This philosophy was the precursor of dialectical materialism of Karl Marx
and Frederick EnaeJ.
Summary
This chapter presented an outline of western philosophers from ancient to modern times with
focus on their major contributions to the development of philosophy. Ancient Greek
philosophers concerned themselves with cosmological problems. They philosophized on the
ultimate stuff or materials that constitute all things and on the shape of the Earth. The Sophist
changed the tradition as they introduced ethicaf issues. They thought the Athenian youths,
ethical relativism. Socrates came to the stage to challenge that doctrine and sought to
replace it with ethical objectivism.
Post Socrates era saw two dominant philosophical doctrines Idealism and Realism
spearheaded by Plato and Aristotle respectively. The former saw reality (the form) only in the
spiritual universe or ideas while the latter saw it also in the physical universe. These two
philosophies dominated the ancient world.
The medieval period witnessed the confluence of philosophy and religion achieved in the
main through the work of the scholastics, notable among which were St. Augustine, St.
Ansetem and St, Thomas Aquinas. This situation remained so until the enlightenment when
77
philosophy was separated from religion. As science and philosophy became more robust,
religious faith and moral were left out of the scheme. However, the enlightenment was not a
united scheme. The theoretical divergence between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies
emerged in a different form namely rationalism and empiricism. In this chapter we reviewed
rationalists such as Rene Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and some empiricists like John Locke,
George Berkely. We also presented David
Hume, though an empiricist was truly neither here nor there. Rejecting the idea of causality
he undermined the vital root of science and rejecting the idea of God, he stands in opposition
to religion. He was thus an agnostic.
Immanuel Kant came on the scene and soughtto reconcile dogmatism and scepticism on one
hand and rationalism and empiricism on the other hand, thus advocated a compromise
synthetic a priori, though he rejected metaphysic.
Hegel however, rejected enlightenment and Kantian compromises and propounded a

transcendental philosophy were aspects of reality, are explained as a relationship to the
whole (the absolute spirit or idea) otherwise becomes an illusion. Members of the Vienna
circle as they are called came up with a communique which essentially endorsed the
synthetic a priori but styled logico positivism. This is generally referred to as analytic
philosophy. So the situation as it stands now is Hegel versus Kant the intellectual grandsons
of Plato and Aristotle respectively.
1. Which philosopher predicted the eclipse of 585 BC?

2. Who was the first Western philosopher?
3. Which philosopher said the ultimate stuff is intermediate boundless substance?
4. Which philosopher postulated that reason or logos is the unity of all things
5. Mention three of the paradoxes of Zeno
6. What are the four elements of Empedocles
7. According to Empedocles what are the two forces that bring things into and out of
existence
8. Mention one of the miracles Empedocles performed according to legend.
9. What according to Anaxagoras control the universe?
10. How does God control the universe according to Xenophanes of Colophon
11. What is the term for the ethical position of the Sophist?
12. With respect to human knowledge mention the claim of Gorgias, the Sophist
13. What did Socrates said about virtue and vice?
14. What are the components of the soul according to Plato and how do they correspond
to the classes in the society?
15. Mention the four causes of Aristotelian philosophy,

16. Attempt a historical sketch of philosophy from medieval to modern times,
17. Explain the role of Immanuel Kant in the historical development of philosophy
18. Critically evaluate the Hegelian philosophy with respect to the enlightenment.
19. Discuss David Hume theory of knowledge and the effect it had on his worldview.
20. Discuss the following philosophical terms;
i Cognito ergo sum
ii esse est percipi
79
CHAPTER FIVE
WHAT IS THE MEANING AND THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF LOGIC?
The section discusses the meaning and the central problem of logic. These are as
follows:
Meaning of Logic
As already discussed in chapter two, Logic deals with the rules and principles governing
human reasoning. According to Meduka, Logic "deals with the rules and laws by which we
can arrive at valid conclusions” (1998:13), Copi, defines it as the study of the methods and
principles used in distinguishing the correct from incorrect reasoning: (Otakpor: 9). Logic is
a special tool for philosophy and a subtle guide to other disciplines.
The Central Problem of Logic

There are two basic features of human communication namely agreement and
disagreement. Society exists because there is agreement. The level of cohesion in any
society depends on the level of agreement in that society. And there is a 'trade off between
agreement and disagreement, that is, they are inversely related. The higher the level of the
one, the lower the level of the other and vice versa. Now agreement exists because of
disagreement. And disagreements are bound to be because humans have so many
differences and diverse interests. Logic provides man with the principles for true and valid
argument so that people can reach agreement when there are disagreements. This
presupposed that people would become consistent and orderly in argument and sentiments
would be isolated from rationality. Argument is a means of trying to resolve disagreement. So
when the principles for true and valid argument are followed by people then disagreement
could give way to agreement. Thus the practical concern of logic is the evaluation of
arguments to see if those principles are followed or not.
Truth and Validity

The relationship between truth and validity is not a simple one. An argument is valid because
of its form or structure and not because of the truth or falsity of its premises. That is a valid
argument may have false proposition while an invalid one may have true propositions. See
the following examples
1. Valid Argument:
All men have two heads, Osaro is a man therefore Osaro has two heads.
In this example it is obvious that the first and the last propositions are false yet the argument
is valid. None of the rules of validity has been violated. We shall discuss this in one of the
chapters ahead.
2. Invalid Argument:
All Nigerians are human, Peter Edoche is human, therefore Peter

Edoche is a Nigerian.
In this example, notice that all the propositions are true yet the argument is invalid. The
argument has violated one of the rules of validity. This fact therefore raises an important issue
for education, for one might be disseminating true knowledge which is not valid in form or
transmitting false knowledge which is valid in form.
The foregoing indicates that there is a third category namely argument which is both true
(true propositions) and valid. This is referred to as a sound argument. An example is as
follows:
All humans are mortal, Osaro is human, therefore Osaro is mortal.
The fourth category of arguments is those that have false propositions, which are never the
less valid.
Truth and Validity Matrix
The relationship between truth and validity can be summarized in a two by two matrix.
PREMISES TRUE FALSE
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
True Premises (1) Valid and (2) Invalid arguments
invalid
False Premises arguments
(3) Valid and (4) Valid and invalid
invalid arguments
arguments
Quadrant 1- True premises and true conclusions The matrix shows that we can have valid
and invalid arguments with true premises and true conclusions.
Example:
A. All humans are sentimental, Peter is Human, therefore Peter is sentimental-
Valid
81
B. All humans are rational Peter is rational, therefore peter is human- Invalid.
Quadrant 2 -True premises and false conclusion. We can only have invalid arguments with
true premises and a false conclusion as shown in quadrant two. In other words, valid
argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion
Example:
Some tools users are humans, the Chimpanzee is a tool user, therefore the
chimpanzee is human invalid.
Quadrant 3 -False premises and True Conclusion.

We can also have valid and invalid arguments with false premises and a true conclusion as
shown in this quadrant:
Example:
A. All masculine persons are beings with mammalian glands, all girls are
masculine, therefore all girls are beings with mammalian glands - valid.
B. Some dogs are English speakers, Some students are dogs,

therefore some students are English speakers - Invalid
Quadrant 4- False Premises and False Conclusion

This quadrant shows that both valid and invalid arguments could have false premises and a
false conclusion.
Example:
A. All dogs are humans, all insects are dogs, therefore insects are humans Valid
B. All boys are celestial, some Antelopes are boys, therefore all Antelopes are
celestial- Invalid.
Laws of Thought
There are three laws of thought, which in the main are responsible for rational nature
of human thought and communication. Without these law, human thought,
communication and argument would be capricious and evasive. Thus no general
conclusion can be made, these laws are as follows:
1. The law of Identity: This law states that a thing is what it is, that is a tree is a tree, a
man is a man, a true statement is true and a false statement is false, etc In argument,
the implication of this for instance is that words should not be used ambiguously. Any
word when used more than once in an argument should have the same meaning
otherwise the argument would be ambiguous and evasive.
2. The law of contradiction: The law states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the
same time. This is the negative form of the law of identity. This law for instance means
that a statement cannot both be true and false at the same time.
3 The law of excluded middle: This law asserts that a thing is or is not. This law combines
the law of identity and contradiction in one. According to this law, a statement is either
true or false at a particular time.
SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS:

1. What is the central problem of logic?
2. What do we mean when we say that the conclusion follows from the premises?
3. Explain the relevance of logic to the society.
4. Can a valid argument have false propositions?
5. Can a valid argument have true premises and a false conclusion
6. What do we call an argument that is both valid and true?
7. Explain the three laws of thought
83
CHAPTER SIX
WHAT IS ARGUMENT MADE OF?
Argument is a group of propositions of which one, the conclusion is claimed follow

from the others which are premises (Cops, 1990:14),
Nature of Argument
An argument is a set of propositions in which some of them are premises and one is the
conclusion which follows from the premises. In other words, the conclusion is a derivative
of those premises. The conclusion is a derivative in quantity and quality; here we mean the
conclusion does not have more or less claims than what is contained in the premises and
at the same time does not negate the claims of the premises. But an argument could be
valid yet is not true (the propositions are not true). How so? We shall examine this shortly.
Types of Argument
There are three types of arguments, namely the deductive argument, the inductive argument
and adductive arguments.
The Deductive Argument: This is a logical procedure where a specific statement is inferred
from general statements in other words we move from general to the specific. The specific
is the conclusion which necessarily follows from the premises, thus the conclusion is
certain so long as the premises are true.
The Inductive Argument: This refers to the rule where a general statement is inferred from
a set of specific statements. In other words, it is a logical process where we move from the
specifics to the general. The general is the conclusion which is based on the probability
that what is true of the sample of specifics is most likely to be true of the entire class. Thus,
the inductive argument is inconclusive hence its conclusion is not classified as valid or
invalid rather it is classified as correct or incorrect.
Example (Hypothetical Case)

A research study carried out by the association of American Psychologist shows that black
girls tend to be more emotionally balanced than white and coloured girls. The average
score for the black girls was the highest in the test in which three groups were equally
represented in a sample of 600 girls.
Notice that the above conclusion is based on 600 girls and not on the entire population of
the groups under studied. This is therefore inconclusive and conclusion is a probability
ipso facto.
The Adductive Argument: The adductive argument according to Kienel is the argument in
which inference about the past is made from its traces in the present. In other words, “the
past is understood from its results in the present." (Kienel et al 1995:9). According to
these authors all historical and many scientific theories are based on this form of logic.
They buttress their explanation with the following example:
Dogs can vary greatly but still have essential commonalilities, Therefore they must
have come from a single source (Ibid)
Parts of Argument - Propositions

Maduka defines propositions as statements (or sentence) which assert or declare that
something is the case such that such a case can be said to be true or false but never both
at the same time (Maduka 1998: 52). Thus an argument, does not contain the following:
(1) Interrogative Sentences- Questions
(2) The imperative sentences- commands and
(3) The optative sentences -wishes
This is because these types of sentences are not declarative in other words they don't
make any claim which could be said to be true or false. There are two types of propositions
namely; simple proposition and compound proposition.
Simple Propositions
A simple proposition is a proposition having one subject and one predicate. According to
Maduka “a simple proposition is one which cannot be broken down to yield further
propositions”. Thus we can say that a simple preposition has a single claim. Examples of
simple propositions are:
1. All girls are kind
2. No girl is kind
3. Some pastors are kind
85
Features of Simple Propositions

Quantity: A simple proposition has a quantifier which indicates whether it is
universal, whole class or particular, part of a class. The universal quantifier is
denoted by the word 'ALL' while the particular quantifier is denoted by the word
‘SOME’
Quality: A simple proposition could be said to be negative or positive (affirmative)

in quality, Negative proposition have such words as 'No,' 'is/are not'. The positive or
affirmative propositions have the word "is or are”, these words that denote the
quality of the proposition are referred to as the 'copula'
Term: A simple proposition has two terms namely the subject and the predicate
terms which are linked together by the copula. The copula thus indicates whether
the quality in the predicate term is true of the subject term or not. Where the quality
is arrogated to the subject we say that the proposition is positive or affirmative but
where the quality is denied the subject term we say that the proposition is negative.
Categorical: Simple propositions by their nature are categorical that is they are not
based on conditions- i.e. their claims are not subject to any conditions. Compare
the proposition: Nigerians are good with Nigerians are good if they are treated well.
The first proposition is not hinged on any condition for its truth value while the
second one would be true only when Nigerians are treated well.
The Four Standard Types of Simple Propositions

Simple propositions could be classified into four standard types according to the
above features. These propositions are as follows:
The Universal Affirmative Proposition: This proposition claims that the quality of
the predicate term is found in all the members of the class of the subject term without
exception.
Example:
All Nigerians are kind
This means that the quality of kindness is to be found in all people who are Nigerians
without exception. This proposition is called, A - proposition
The Universal Negative Proposition: This proposition claims that the quality in the
predicate terms cannot be found in any member of the class of the subject term
without exception.
Example :
No Nigerian is kind.
Meaning no person who is a Nigerian has the quality of kindness. The proposition is
called the E-proposition.
The Particular Affirmative Proposition: This proposition claims that the quality of
the predicate term can be found only in some members of the class of the subject
term.
Example:
Some Nigerians are kind
This means that the quality of kindness is found in some citizens of Nigeria. This
proposition is called, I proposition.
The Particular Negative Proposition: This proposition infers that the quality of the
predicate term cannot be found in some members of the class of the subject term or
some members of the class of the subject term do not have the quality of the
predicate term.
Example
Some Nigerians are not kind
This proposition simply means some Nigerians do not have the quality of kindness.
This proposition is referred to as the O- proposition.
Relationship between Pairs of Simple Propositions

The relationships that subsist between pairs of simple propositions are as follows:
i Contradictory
ii Contrariety
iii Sub contrariety
iv Sub alternative
Let's take a look at these relationships.
Contradictory: This relationship exists between A- proposition which is simply

written as ’ All S is P' and the O proposition which is written as some S is not P. 'S'
stands for the subject term, and 'P' stands for the predicate term. The contradictory
relationship also exists between the E - propositions, written as 'No S is P’ and the I-
proposition which is written as some S is P. Now what does the contradictory
relationship entails? The relationship implies that when one is true, then the other
would be false and when the one is false the other is true. This is shown in the
following illustration:
79
A O E I
T F T F
F T
F T
The implication is that both propositions (A & O) and (E & 1) cannot both be true at
the same time and cannot both be false at the same time. Take for instance the
contradictory relationship:
All Nigerians are kind and Some Nigerians are not Kind.
If all Nigerians are kind is true then it implies, of necessity that some
Nigerians are not kind is false. And when “All Nigerians are kind” is false
then it implies that “some Nigerians are not kind “ is true because the denial
of the former affirms the truth of the latter.
Consider also the examples, both of which are contradictories:
No Nigerian is kind and Some Nigerians are kind
When the former is true the latter is false because if no Nigerian is kind then it cannot
be true that some Nigerians are kind. And when the former is false the latter must of
necessity be true since the denied of no Nigerian is kind would affirm the truth of
“some Nigerians are kind”.
Contrary Relationship: The contrary relationship exists between the A proposition

and the E proposition. This relationship entails that when A - proposition is true the E
proposition would be false. And when A proposition is false the E proposition would
be false or true- indeterminate. How so? Consider the examples:
All Nigerians are kind (A)

No Nigerian is kind (E)
Now, when “All Nigerians are kind” is true it means No Nigerian is kind is false. But
when 'All Nigerians are kind is false the logical possibilities are:
Only some Nigerians are kind or No Nigerian is kind.
So when A proposition is false we cannot determine whether 'E' is the case or T is the
case. This relationship can be illustrated as follows:
A E
T F
F ?
(T or F)
The implication of this relationship is that both propositions cannot both be true at the
same time but both can be false at the same time. This represents the overall
description of the above table.
Sub Contrary Relationship: This relationship exists between the I-proposition and
the 0 - proposition. The relationship is that when the I- proposition is true we do not
know whether the 0 proposition is true or false but when the 1 proposition is false it
implies directly that the 0 proposition is truth in other words the denial of I -
proposition affirms the truth of 0 -proposition.
Example:
Some Nigerians are kind and Some Nigerians are not kind.
When some Nigerians are kind, in the absence of experience we do not know
whether the rest of Nigerians are kind or not, from the face value of that statement
that is if the only Nigerians you have met are kind what can you say about the rest of
Nigerians? You simply cannot say whether they are kind or not. So it is indeterminate.
But the game is different if we say that some Nigerians are kind is false. In this case
we know straightway that the 0 - proposition. Some Nigerians are not kind is true. The
denial of the former simply affirms the truth of the latter. This can be illustrated as
follows:
81
I O
T ?
(T or F)
F T
The implication of this relationship is that both propositions can be true

simultaneously but cannot both be false at the same time as shown in the
table above.
Sub alternative Relationship:

This relationship exists between A- proposition and I- proposition. It also
exists between the ’E - proposition and the 0 - proposition. The relationship is
that when “A" is true then “I” is also true but when “A” is false we do not know
whether T is true or false. Example:
All Nigerians are kind. (A)

Some Nigerians are kind (I)
When ‘all Nigerians are kind’ is true it automatically affirms the truth of ‘some
Nigerians is kind’ because the latter is a subset of the form but when the
statement “All Nigerians are kind” is false, it implies two possibilities:
1. Only some Nigerians are kind.

2. No Nigerian is kind.
We cannot say which of these two would be the case, so the solution is
indeterminate - Illustration:
A I
T T
F ?
(Tor F)
If we alternate the two of them, i.e. beginning with the I proposition the operation
takes an inverse form, lets demonstrate this: when the proposition, some Nigeria are
kind is true without experience we cannot say whether the rest Nigerians are kind or
not , on the strength of that statement. It is indeterminate. But when “some Nigerians
are kind is false it refutes the statement. ‘All Nigerians are kind’
The Relationship among the Four Propositions

To examine the relationship among four propositions, let take a close look at the
foregoing tables. On close examination of these tables one can see a multi faceted
relationship among the four. Using a square, with a diagonal Aristotle correctly shows
the relationship among the four propositions. This multi dimensional relationship
depicted in a diagonal square is traditionally referred to as Aristotle square of
opposition. This is shown in the table below:
Fig I Aristotle's Square of Opposition.
Simple Proposition and their Inferred Equivalents
The A and E propositions have three equivalent propositions while the I and 0
propositions have two equivalent propositions. These are as follows:
A- All S is P = Some P is S = No S is non P = All non P is non S.
E - No S is P = No P is S = All S is non P = some non P is not non S.
The first, second and third equivalences can be obtained by the techniques of
conversion, obversion and contraposition-respectively. We shall demonstrate these
techniques shortly.
83
I - Some S is P = Some P is S = Some S is not non P.
The first and the second equivalences are derived by the techniques of conversion
and obversion respectively.
O - Some S is not P = some S is non P = some non P is not non S.
The first and second equivalences are derived by obversion and contraposition
respectively.
Explaining the Techniques
Conversion: This technique simply involves the interchange of the subject term and
predicate term. This is correct for the E and I prepositions. In case of the A
proposition a further operation is required, the quantifier 'All' is replaced by 'some'
This variant is called conversion by limitation or conversion per accidents. In
conversion the original statement is called the convertend while the equivalent is
called the converse.
Examples
1. Some girls are subtle ~ convertend
Some subtle persons are girls -Converse
2. All girls are subtle - convertend
Some subtle persons are girls - converse
3. No girl is subtle - convertend
No subtle person is a girl -converse
Obversion: Obversion involves the changing of the quality of the proposition and
replacing the predicate term with its complement. The complement of the predicate
term means the non-members of that term or class. In obversion the original
statement is called the obvertend while the equivalent is called the obverse
Examples:
1. All politicians are corrupt - Obyertend

No Politician is a non corrupt person -Obverse
2. No student is a politician - Obvertend

All students are non Politicians ~Obverse
3. Some pastors are corrupt - obvertend
Some pastors are not non corrupt Persons - Obverse

4 Some children are not honest -Obvertend.
Some children are non-honest persons – Obverse.
Contraposition: The operation has two methods. The first method is to obvert the
proposition, then convert the obverse and finally obvert the converse. The second
method is to replace the subject term with the complement of the predicate term and
replace the predicate term with the complement of the subject term.
These operations are correct for A, O and E propositions, though the last is by
limitation needing a further operation of changing the quantifier to 'some’. In
contraposition the original proposition is called the premise while the equivalence is
referred to as the contrapositive.
Examples
First Method
1. All adults are voters - premise.
No adult is a non voter - Observe
No non voter is an adult - Converse
All non voters is an adult -
Obverse/Contra positive
2. No policeman is a politician - premises
All policemen are non politician -Obverse
Some no politicians are Policemen - Converse
Some non Politicians are not non Policemen-
Obverse/Contrapositive
85
Second Method
1. All adults are voters - premise
All non voters are non adults -Contra positive
2. No Policemen is a politician - premise
No non Politicians are non Policemen - Contra positive.
The foregoing operations raise certain questions. These are:
❖ Why do we convert 'A' by limitation?
❖ Why is conversion not proper for O propositions?
❖ Why is contra position of E by limitation?
❖ Why is contra position not proper for I proposition?
The next section throws light on the answers to the question above.
Distribution of Terms
To answer the above questions we shall examine the nature of terms:-
A term is distributed when it is used in the universal sense. In other words no member
of its class is excluded in the statement or its quality is distributed to all members of
the class. Three propositions A, E, O either have two or one of their terms distributed,
while the I proposition has neither of its term distributed that is both terms, the subject
and the predicate terms are undistributed. How so?
Take for example the A - proposition:
All Politicians are liars

Consider the following questions and answers:
From the proposition let’s answer the following questions:
1. Are all politicians liars? Yes

2. Are all liars Politicians? No.
So this means that the term politician is distributed while the term liar is undistributed.
Take the E - proposition:
No Politicians are liars. This is equivalent to ‘no Liars are Politicians’
1. Are all Politicians non liars? Yes

2. Are all liars non politicians? yes.
Thus you can see that the two terms are used in the universal sense, so both are
distributed.
Let's take the I - proposition:

Some Politicians are liars. This is equivalent to ‘some liars are politicians’.
1. Are all politicians Liars? No

2. Are all liars Politicians? No.
The answers imply that the two terms are not distributed
The above proof cannot be used for the o- proposition. This because the proof is
based on the conversion technique which is not compatible with the o- proposition.
From the foregoing analysis we can make a table of distribution as follows:
Table vii: Distribution of Terms
Proposition Subject Term Predicate Term

.
A D U
E D D
I U U
0 U D
87
Simple guide to philosophy and logic
Now we shall address those questions r; earlier at the beginning of the foregoing
topic.
1. Why is A – proposition converted by limitation: if you interchange the subject

term and predicate term as in:
‘All girls are subtle’, becomes ‘all subtle persons are girls’.
Notice that both statements are not the same in meaning. Why? This is
because the term 'Subtle “is undistributed in the first while it is distributed in
the second. So to make the two statements equivalent the term 'subtle ' in the
second statement has to be restricted by replacing its quantifier' all' with
‘some’.
2. Why is conversion not proper for 0 proposition? Observe that the O

proposition has its subject term undistributed while its predicate terms is
distributed. So if we interchange them as demanded by conversion the
convertend and the converse would not be equivalent in meaning. If we
decide to change the quantifier 'some' to 'all' the resultant statement is
different from the original statement.
3. Why is contraposition of 'E', by limitation? The reason is that when we

perform the operation of obversion on 'E- proposition, the first step in
contraposition, the result is an A -proposition and to convert A -proposition
requires limitation as explained above.
1. Why is contraposition not proper for I -proposition? The reason lies in the
second step of contraposition. Now if you obvert an I -proposition in the first
step, the result is an O -proposition. And the second step demands that we
convert that result, and being an O proposition, conversion is not proper
1. Define simple proposition

2. What are the features of simple proposition?
3. Mention and explain the four standard types of simple prepositions.
4. Mention the four types of relationship between pairs of simple
propositions.
5. if the statement: All girls are simple is true what can we infer about the
following statements.
i. No girl is simple
ii. Some girls are not simple
iii. Some girls are simple
6. State the contradictory, the contrary
And the sub alternative of the
statement: No man is stupid
7. How many equivalents does the statement: “No Christian is
an evil person" have? How are they inferred?
8. Explain why is conversion not proper for O -proposition?
89
CHAPTER SEVEN
HDW DD LOGICIANS SYMBOLIZE PROPOSITIONS?
In this chapter, we shall introduce the reader to symbolic quantification of

simple propositions involving logical constants and mathematical notations for
the four propositions A, E, I, O, with Venn diagrams.
Logical Quantifications
Logical quantification of A, E, I, 0 is called predicate logic. In doing this three things are
required namely:
1. Quantification symbols
2. Propositional functions and
3. Logical Symbols.
Qualification symbols:
i. Individuals or Things: An individuals or thing is symbolized by the first letter of
that individual or thing and is written in small form. For examples House is h
Peter is P Nigeria as N etc.
ii. Property or Quality: The property or quality the individual or thing posses is
symbolized with a capital of the first letter of the property or quality. For
examples; Tall as T, Big as 'B' Fat as 'F’ etc.
iii. Position: To symbolize that a certain thing or individual posses a particular

property or quality we write the first letter (in capital) of the property or quality
first then the first letter (in small form) of the individual or thing to the right
beside it
Examples:
Nigeria is big Bn Osaro is fat Fo Lagos is far FL
All the above examples are referred to as A Singular propositions.
iv. Negation: The symbol for negation is a curl, written as or ~. So to negate the
above examples we write:
Nigeria is not big ¬Bn
Is not true that Osaro is fat ¬Fo
Is not the case that Lagos is far ¬FL
The preceding three examples are referred to as E singular propositions.
v. Quantifier: The words 'All' and 'No' are called the universal quantifiers and are
symbolized as (X); the word 'some' is called the existential quantifier and it is
symbolized as (3X).
Propositional Functions
When we want to symbolize a group of things having the same predicate, as one, we
use the 'letter X as propositional function for all members of the group. For examples:
John is big.
Osaro is big.
Would be written as Bx, Thus the first letter of each of the subject can replace the letter
X. This symbol serves the same function which F(x) serves in Algebraic equation in
mathematics.
Combining Quantifiers with propositional Functions:

To symbolize the four propositions A, E, l, 0, we combine the symbols for the
quantifiers with the propositional functions. These are as follows:
The unspecified cases:
A - Everything is good (X) GX

E - Nothing is good (X) ¬GX
I - Something is good (3X) GX
O - Something is not good (3X) ¬GX
The specified cases:

When the four propositions A, E, l, O are specified, the expression “if then” which is
symbolized as a wedge or horseshoe (→or ‫ )ﬤ‬is used as a link between the subject
and the predicate in the universal propositions and the conjunction which is
symbolized as a dot (.) is used as a link between the subject and the predicate in the
particular propositions as shown below:
A - All Nigerians are kind (X) (NX→KX)

This is read as, given any X that exists, if that X is a Nigerian then it is kind.
E - No Nigerians are kind (X) (NX →¬KX).

This is read as, given any X that exists, if that X is a Nigerian, then it is not kind.
91
I - Some Nigerians are kind (3X) (Nx→Kx)

This is read as, there is at least one X that is a Nigerian and it is kind.
O - Some Nigerians are not kind (3x) (Nx→¬Kx)
The implied cases:
Sometimes the propositions could be used without the quantifiers expressly stated
which nevertheless are implied. See the following examples:
1. Boys are strong (x) (Bx→Sx)
2. Children are here (3x)(Cx.Hx)
3. Musicians are not always handsome (3x)(Mx.Hx)
Mathematical Notations for A, E, l, 0
With the help of Venn diagrams we can also express the four propositions with
mathematical notations.
Preamble: The basic elements or symbols for the mathematical notations are as
follows;
Empty class: A class represents individuals or things that have the same property or
quality. A class is empty when there are nothing or individuals having the property or
quality of that class. It is denoted by shading the particular class
Empty Class:
Fig 3
Occupied Class: A class is occupied when there are individuals or things having
the property or quality of that class. It is denoted by inserting letter X in that class.
Fig 4
Classes in a proposition: A proposition is symbolized by two interlocking circles.

There are two original classes (Representing the subject and predicate) which are
divided into three class representing area exclusive to S. area common to both S
and P and area exclusive to P. The three classes are denoted as: SP, SP, SP
respectively.
Membership of the Class: When there are members in any class say SP, we insert:
letter x
SP ≠ 0
Fig 6
In the area exclusive to S we then write SP ≠ 0 meaning that the class is not empty.
But when there are no members in that Class we shade out that area and we write SP
= O meaning the class is empty
S P
SP = 0
DIAGRAMS AND MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS FOR A, E, I, O
A - Proposition (All S is P): This proposition means all members of S are also in P.
That is there are no members in SP class hence SP = O.
S P
SP = 0
93
E - Proposition (No S is P): The E- proposition implies that there are no members of
the original S class in P This also implies that there are no members of the original P
class in S. Therefore SP class is empty i.e. SP = O
SP = 0
I - Proposition (Some S is P): This proposition P means that Some members of

the original class S are also in P. it also mean that some members of the original P are
also S. this implies that SP is not empty i.e SP≠O
S P
x
SP ≠ O
O - Proposition (Some S is not P): The O proposition implies that some

members of the original class S are not members of the original class P. In other
words those members belong to class S exclusively. Meaning S is not empty i.e SP
≠ O.
SELF ASSESSEMENT QUESTIONS

1. Make four simple propositions with the word beautiful as the predicate,
symbolize each of them and write their propositional functions. Express the
logical symbolism and mathematical notations (with Venn diagram) for the
following propositions.
2. Some churchgoers are not Christians.
3. Some students are rude.
4. Some Pastors are fake.
5. Women are in this Church.
6. Some Lecturers are not serious.
7. Christians are not always holy.
8. All men are goal motivated.
9. Some persons are difficult.
10. Some women are childish.
11. No Christians are evil.
12. No students are idiot.
13. Express the mathematical notations for the following Venn diagram.
95
CHAPTER EIGHT
HDW DD WE MAKE ARGUMENTS WITH A. E, I. D

PROPOSITIONS - Syllogism?
Meaning of Syllogism: A syllogism according to Copi ”is a deductive argument in

which a conclusion is inferred from two premises”. When the two premises are
categorical that is belonging to the standard simple propositions (A, E, 1, O.) the
conclusion invariably, would be categorical, and the argument is referred to as
categorical syllogism.
The features of a Categorical Syllogism. These are as follows;
1. Three Terms: A categorical syllogism has three terms namely the major term,
minor term and the middle term, each of which occurs twice in the syllogism. The
major term is the predicate of the conclusion while the minor term is the subject of
the conclusion. The middle term is the word that occurs in the two premises.
2. The Mood: The mood of a syllogism shows the quantity: and quality of the syllogism.
Literally the mood represents the three types of standard simple propositions that is
used to make the syllogism. Example a mood is ’All’. This indicates that the first
premise is a universal affirmative; the second premise is particular- affirmative
while the conclusion is also particular affirmative.
3. The Figure: The figure of a syllogism describes the arrangement of the three
terms with special reference to the position of the middle term in the syllogism.
The middle term could be the subject or the predicate of the first premise and
could be the subject or the predicate of the second premise. Thus there are four
different possible positions of the middle term, which in turn means that there
are four types of figure in syllogistic arguments.
Let's take an example:

M P
All humans are mortal
S M
Socrates is human
S P
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Using the letters, S, P, M for the minor term, major term and middle term respectively
to label the syllogism as in the above, we can derive the figure easily.
Thus, the figure is:
MP
SM
SP
The three other figures can be derived from the above as follows:
To obtain the second figure, convert the first premise only, thus the above figure
becomes:
PM
SM
SP
To obtain the third figure, convert the second premise of the first figure only, to have:
MP
MS
SP
To obtain the fourth figure, convert the first and second premises of the first figure to
have:
PM
MS
SP
These figures are generally called first figure, second figure, third figure and fourth
figure.
The Standard-Form Syllogism

A standard form syllogism according Copi is one whose premises and conclusions
are all standard-form categorical propositions and are arranged in a specified
standard order as follows: The premise which contains the major term is referred to as
the major premise and it takes the first position (that is the first line). Then the premise
which contains the minor term is called the minor premise, it occupies the middle
position, that is the second line, follow by the conclusion in the third line. Recall that the
major term is the predicate of the conclusion while the minor term is the subject of the
conclusion, using this information an ordinary syllogism with standard simple
propositions can be standardized by rearranging the propositions as explained
97
above.
Other Forms of Syllogisms

There are three other forms of syllogisms. These other forms are the extended
syllogism, enthymemes and sorites. Let’s take a look at them briefly.
Extended Syllogism: These are arguments in standard propositions which have more
than three terms. These can be translated into standard syllogism by reducing the
terms by collapsing similar terms into one. Another technique for rehabilitating these
forms of arguments is to reword them. According to Otakpor a proposition such as:
No cooks in this town make good tea
Can be reworded as:
No cooks in this town are makers of good tea
Furthermore singular propositions can be changed to standard form.
Enthymemes: Enthymeme is a form of syllogism which has only a part of it stated

expressly. Either a premise or the conclusion is not stated but implied. Where the
conclusion is not stated it is called innuendo (an Enthymeme of the third order) usually
to reduce the force of an insinuation. Where the major or the minor premises are not
expressed it is an enthymeme of the first order or enthymeme of the second order
respectively.
Sorites: Sorites are series of syllogisms which are chained together. The
conclusion in one syllogism is the premise in the next syllogism. All the conclusions
except the last one are not expressed but implied. Sorites are also called poly
syllogism. To translate them into standard syllogism the chain is broken and each
one recast into autonomous syllogism.
Testing the Validity of Syllogistic Arguments

There are, as mentioned earlier, four types of standard simple proposition A, E, I, O
and three of them represent a mood. 64 (sixty four) sets (moods) can be obtained by
the method of random selection with replacement from the four propositions. And
since there are four figures and 64 (sixty four) moods it means there are two hundred
and fifty six (256) (i.e., 64 X 4) possible syllogisms. This means that every argument
has 256 possible forms. And only some of these forms are valid. The question
therefore is how many valid forms are there in this number. Thus it is imperative to
test the validity of syllogisms.
The procedure has six steps these are as follows:
Step One -Standardize the argument, in case the argument is not in standard form.
Step Two - State the mood and the figure.
Step Three - Using the mood and figure derive the mathematical symbolisms.
Step Four - Draw three overlapping circles.
Step Five - Using the mathematical symbolisms as guide, diagram the premises into
the circles beginning with the universal premises if there is. Shade out the universal
premise and insert X for the particular premise in the appropriate classes (where it is
not specific, insert it on the borderline between the two classes in question).
Step Six - The decision: If the conclusion is reflected within the two premises and does
not negate them, in the circles then the argument is valid otherwise it is invalid.
Explanation
1. To standardize the argument, firstly you identify the conclusion. The following
are the indicators of the conclusion:
Therefore (the standard word) →

Hence→ ←Since
So → ← For
←Because Consequently→
Note: The arrows indicate the direction of the conclusions.
2. There are seven classes in these overlapping circles. The classes and their
descriptions are given below:
99
Class Description
S P
.
SPM
SPM
SPM
SPM
SPM
SPM
SPM - Area exclusive to S and complementary to P and M
SPM - Area common to S and P, complementary to M.

SPM - Area exclusive to P, complementary to S and M
SPM - Area Common to S, P, M
SPM - Area common to P and M and complementary to S
SPM – Area exclusive to M and complementary to S and P
SPM - Area common to S and M. complementary to P
3. Diagramming the Premises: See the Venn diagrams and the mathematical
symbolism for the four propositions A, E, I, O in chapter seven
4. Border Line Case: If there is no universal premise in the syllogism or the

universal premise does not indicate the actual class, we diagram it in the
borderline between two classes involved.
Example: Some S is P i.e. SP ≠ O is diagramed as follows:
Test One:
Put each of the following syllogisms into standard form. State its mood and figure and
test its validity by means of a Venn diagram.
1. Some reformers are fanatics, so some idealists are fanatics, since all reformers are
idealists.
2. S o m e p h i l o s o p h e r s a r e mathematicians; hence some scientists are

philosophers, since all scientists are mathematicians.
3. Some mammals are not horses, for no horses are centaurs and all centaurs are
mammals.
1. Solution:
Standard Form
M P
Some reformers are fanatics
M S
All reformers are idealists
S P
Therefore some idealists are fanatics
Mode: IAI
Figure: MP
3 MS
SP
Mathematical Symbolism:
I MP is MP ≠ 0
A MS is MS = 0
I SP is SP≠ 0
S - Idealists P – Fanatics
x
M
The arguments is valid
101
2. Solution
Standard Form
P M
Some philosophers are Mathematicians.
S M
All Scientists are Mathematicians.
S P
Therefore some scientists are philosophers.
Mood: IAI
Figure: PM
2 SM
Sp
Mathematical Symbolism
I PM is PM ≠ O
A SM is SM = O
I SP is SP ≠ O
P
Philosophers
The argument is invalid.
3. Solution
Standard Form
P M
No horses are centaurs
M S
All centaurs are mammals.
S P
Therefore some mammals are not horses.
Mood: EAO
Figure: PM
4 MS
SP
Mathematic Syllogism
E PM is PM ≠ O
S P
A MS is MS = O
O SP is SP≠ O Mammals Horses
X
Centaurs
M
This argument is invalid.
TEST TWO
Using the Venn diagram test the validity of the following syllogistic forms.
1. AEE -1
2. EIO -1
3. AOO-4
1. Solution
Mood: AEE
Figure: MP
1 SM
SP S P
Mathematical Symbolism
A MP is MP = O
E SM is SM= O
E SP is SP = O
M
This form is Invalid.
103
2. Solution
Mood: EIO
Figure MP
1 SM
SP
P
Mathematical S ymbolism
E MP is MP = O X
I SM is SM ≠O
O SP is SP ≠ O
This form is valid.
3. Solution
Mood: AOO
Figure PM
4 MS
SP
Symbolism:
S P
A PM is PM ≠ 0
O MS is MS = 0
O SP is SP ≠ 0 X
M
This is argument is invalid
The Rules Governing Valid Syllogism

In this section i we present eight rules of syllogism with specific names assigned to each
one according to the features for mental storage and retrieval operations. These are
follows:
Quantity rules: a valid syllogism cannot have more than three terms, and each term
occurs twice in the same sense in two of the three proposition of a syllogism. Thus
three terms with two appearances make a total quantity of six
Distribution rules: The rules states that the middle term in a valid syllogism must be
distributed at least once in either premise otherwise there would be no connection
between the premises thus no valid conclusion can be drawn. The violation of this rule
is called fallacy of distributed middle
Example:
All females are feminine
Some boys are feminine
Therefore some boys are females
This syllogism is invalid because the middle term “feminine" is not distributed in any of
the premises. How? The major premise is an A- proposition and does not distribute its
predicate term. And the minor premise is an I - proposition which does not distribute
any of its terms. Secondly, if any term is distributed in the conclusion that term must be
distributed in one of the premise otherwise it is invalid. That is the conclusion says
more about the term than the Premises warrant. When this term in question is a major
one, this unwarranted assertion is called fallacy of illicit major but if the term is a minor
then the fallacy of illicit minor has been committed.
Examples:
(A) All human are mortal

No animals are human
Therefore no animals are mortal
(B) All student are rude

All students are proud
Therefore all proud persons are rude
The syllogism (A) is invalid, the major term, mortal is distributed in the conclusion
being an E proposition that distributes its both terms but the term is undistributed in the
major premise thus violating the distribution rule. This violation is called fallacy of illicit
major. Syllogism (B) is also invalid because its minor term “proud” is distributed in the
conclusion, but it is undistributed in the minor premise so the fallacy of illicit minor is
committed
Uni-Negative Proposition Rule:

A standard form syllogism that has two negative premise cannot be valid.
Example:
No horses are birds
105
Some birds are not wild
Therefore some wild creatures are not horses.
This syllogism is invalid because there is no connection between wild creatures and
horses in the premises, the reason being that the term horses is completely excluded
from the term “birds” in the major premise while the term “birds” is partly excluded from
the term “wild” leaving no connection between 'horses’ and wild creatures. This
Violation is referred to as fallacy of excluded premises.
Negative Supremacy: Any syllogism with a negative proposition as one of the

premises must have a negative proposition as its conclusion.
Example:
All girls are smart.
Some smart persons are not wicked.
Therefore some wicked persons are girls.
The above example commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a
negative premise. The error here is that since some smart persons are excluded
from wicked persons therefore some girls ought to be excluded from wicked
persons.
Uni-Particular Proposition Rule: Any syllogism with two particular premises cannot
be valid because there is no certainty that the members of the middle class in the
two premises are one and the same or that one is inclusive in the other.
Example.
Some students are intelligent.
Some intelligent persons are kind.
Therefore some students are kind.
It is obvious that this syllogism is invalid because the conclusion does not follow the
premises. We do not know whether the students in the major premises are included in
or the same with the members of the class of intelligent persons who are kind.
Affirmative Propositional Concord: This rule implies that if the premises are affirmative
then the conclusion must be affirmative. It is impossible to draw a negative conclusion
from affirmative statement.
Example.
All Roman Soldiers are brave.
Some brave persons are wicked.
From these two premises the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is the
affirmative proposition:
Some Roman Soldiers are wicked.
However this conclusion is invalid because the middle term 'brave' is undistributed in
the two premises.
Universal Propositional Concord. This rule demands that if the two premises are
universal] then the conclusion must be universal because it is not possible logically to
draw a particular assertion from a universal statement, which has no existential import.
Example:
No deliberate sinner is pardonable
All the wicked are deliberate sinners
Therefore No wicked person is pardonable.
The above example is a valid argument. Observe that it is impossible to draw the
particular conclusion:
Some wicked persons are not pardonable.
This so because there is no particular term in the premises.
Particular supremacy: if one of the premises is particular then the conclusion will be
particular in a valid syllogism
A Second Look at the Venn Diagram Test- Interpretation

Test Three: Given the following syllogistic forms, conduct test and interpret the
results.
1. OAO-4
2. EIO-2
3. IAI-4
4. OAI-3
5. IAA-3
107
(1) Mood: OAO
Figure 4:
PM
MS
SP
Symbolism:
x
0 PM is PM ≠ 0
A MS is MS = 0
0 SP is SP ≠ 0 M
M
Invalid; interpretation. Fallacy of illicit major.
(2) Mood: EIO

Figure 2 PM S P
SM
SP
Symbolism: X
E P M is SM = 0 M
I SM is SM ≠ 0
0 SP is SP ≠ 0
Valid, interpretation: No rule is violated
(3) Mood IAI

Figure 4 MP
MS
SP P
S
Symbolism:
I PM is PM ≠ 0 X
A MS is MS = 0
I SP is SP ≠ 0
M
Valid, interpretation: no rule violated.
(4) Mood OAI
Figure 3 PM
MS
SP
Symbolism:
O MP is MP ≠ 0 P
A MS is MS = 0
I SP is SP ≠ 0
X
(5) Mood IAA
Figure 3 MP
MS
SP
S P
Symbolism:
I M P is MP ≠ 0 X
A M S is MS = 0
A SP is SP = 0
M
Invalid interpretation: fallacy of illicit minor. It also violates rule of particular supremacy
i.e. Drawing universal conclusion from a particular premise.
Using Venn diagrams determine whether the argument with the following moods and
figures are valid or invalid and state the relevant reasons:
(1) OAO - 2
(2) EIO - 4
(3) AOO - 3
(4) IOI - 1
(5) IAI - 1
109
(6) OEI - 4
(7) All - 2
(8) EAE - 1
(9) OAO - 3
(10) EAE - 3
CHAPTER NINE
PARTS OF ARGUMENTS II COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS
A compound proposition is a proposition containing two or more simple

propositions. Thus, a compound proposition can be broken down into two or
more simple propositions as the case may be. In this chapter we discuss the
following compound propositions; conjunction, disjunction, material
implication and material equivalence. Specifically, we discuss the truth- value
of each of them, their special symbolisms and their truth tables. Thereafter,
we introduce arguments with compound propositions and use of truth table
analysis to test for validity. These are as follows:
Truth Value: The truth value of any statement is either true or false. So the “truth
value of a true statement is true and the truth value of a false statement is false"
(Copi, ibid: 256). Let's now turn to the compound propositions.'
Conjunction: this is a statement with two or more simple propositions having the word
“and" in-between them. The truth-value of a conjunction is true when all the
components are true otherwise it is false. Specifically, the truth value of a conjunction
of two simple propositions is true when the first and the second propositions are true.
For example, John is tall and kind. This compound proposition is made up of: John is
tall and John is kind. Both are the first and second conjuncts respectively. The truth
value of the compound statement therefore is true when the first conjunct John is tall is
true and the second- John is kind is true otherwise the conjunction is false.
Disjunction: This is a compound proposition which has the word “or" between two or
more simple propositions expressed as one statement. Disjunction is called an
alternation.
Example:
John is an accountant or John is an economist.
Simply written as:
John is an accountant or economist.

In its positive sense, disjunction may have the word “either” before or somewhere in
the first proposition. In its negative sense it takes the words 'neither' and 'nor1 inserted
111
in the statement.
Examples:
1. Either John is an accountant or economist
2. Neither Mary nor Esther came home yesterday.
In disjunction, the first and second propositions are called the first and second
disjuncts, respectively.
Disjunction has two senses, namely; the weak or inclusive senses and the strong and
or exclusive senses. In the weak senses, it implies at least one or both. As' or/and’
Examples:
The insurance policy says the insured would be indemnified in case

of motor or fire accident
The strong or exclusive disjunction implies only one of the two that is at least one and
at most one. For precision, we may add the expression 'but not both'.
Examples:
The restaurant menu sells coffee or tea for ten naira (N10).
The truth-value of the weak or inclusive disjunction is true when at least one or both
disjunct are true.
The truth-value of the strong and exclusive disjunction is true when at most one of the
disjuncts is true otherwise it is false.
Material Implication:
This is a conditional statement which is expressed with the words 'if...then'.
The first and second constituents are called the antecedent and the consequent
respectively. The truth value of material implication is true when the antecedent is
false or both the antecedent and the consequent are true, otherwise it is false.
Material Equivalence:
Material equivalence is a bi-conditional statement in which the two constituents
imply each other that is, one is a condition for the other and Vice versa. Both
constituents are referred to as equivalents. The truth value of this compound
proposition is true when both constituents have the same truth value that is the
compound proposition is true when both constituents are true or both are false.
Material equivalence is expressed with the words “if and only if.
Symbolising Compound Propositions.

The symbolism for compound propositions consists of two elements namely
prepositional variables and logical constants. Prepositional variables are sentences
variables. They take the positions of sentences in the symbolism. Apparently they
are first letters of the words that will help us remember which statements they
abbreviates. Logical constants are the truth functional connectives namely the “and"
“or” “if.... then", and “if and only if. Thus, a proposition is functional connectives
because of these logical constants and not because of the variables. The logical
constants are symbolized as follows:
Symbolism for Conjunction: The logical constant for conjunction "and” is symbolized
as a dot (.) Thus the conjunction
John is tall and kind
Could be symbolism as: T.K and the conjunction:
Mary is a great singer and a poet”
Could be symbolized as S.P

Apart from the word “and” other words that are used in conjunction are but,
however, though, yet, because, still, also etc.
Symbolism for Disjunction: The logical constant for disjunction "or" is symbolized by
a vee (V). The letter V comes from the Latin word vel which corresponds to the weak
or inclusive sense of disjunction. Thus the following disjunction could be symbolized
as follows:
Either America withdraw their troops or Chile will protest to the UN
WvP
Joseph is either intelligent or kind

IvK
Symbolism for material implication: “if.... then” is symbolized as an arrow (→) or the
horseshoe (‫ )ﬤ‬The use of “if.... then* has four senses. These are shown in the
113
following examples
1. If all students are proud and John is a student then he is proud- logical
implication (S. J) →p
2. If Osaro is a bachelor then he is unmarried-definitional implication (B →M)
3. If Clara has malaria fever then she has malaria parasite-causal

implication (F→P)
4. If I win contract then I will travel abroad- decisional implication (C → A)
Although the four implications are different they have common string that is they are
not true when their antecedents are true and the consequents are false. i.e
¬(p. ¬Q)
Symbolism for material equivalence: “if and only if “is symbolized as double arrows
(←→) or three bar (≡)
Example:
Okafor will lend Osaro money if and only if
Osaro signs a promissory note,
Could be symbolized as:
M≡P
Negation: A negation is a statement of denial or a contradiction. A statement is

negated by inserting the word “not” in the sentence.
Alternative words are:
1 It is not the case that………..
2 It is false that……………..
3 It is not true that…………...
The negation of say P is symbolized as ¬P

Punctuation in Symbolic Language
Punctuation in English is the grouping of words to specify the actual meaning we wish
to convey and avoid ambiguity.
For example the sentence:
The student says the teacher is a fool.
The above sentence could be interpreted in two ways if we insert the comma
immediately before the word “say” and if we insert it immediately after same. This is
also true in mathematics, take for example the operation:
2x5+6
Could have 16 or 22 as total without punctuation
Logic procedures are not exceptions, without; punctuation in logical symbolism it

would be impossible to pin down the meaning, and the, truth value of the compound
propositions that] have more than two constituents
The common punctuations in logical symbolism are:
1. parenthesis – ( )
2. bracket - [ ]
3. braces - { }
The parenthesis is used when grouping is needed, but when there is need for a
second and third grouping with increasing scope the brackets and braces are
inserted. Examples:
1 P(qvr)
2 [pv(q.r)].s
3 {[PV(q.r)]. S}v[(P.S)r]
Punctuations are not inserted arbitrarily rather they are used according to the
implied meaning of the statement.
Examples:
1. If something has life it has a soul and if it has a soul, it is self-moving

(L →S). (S →3 M)
2. If either Iraq mobilizes or Israel protest to the UN then Egypt will call for a meeting of
all the Arab states
(M v ᴜ) →C
115
3. Either Iraq will mobilize or if Israel protests to the Un then Egypt will call for a meeting of all
the Arab states.
M v (u → c)
4 If Iraq mobilizes then Kuwait will protest to the Un and Egypt will call for a meeting
of aril Arab states.
I→ (k.E)
5 If Osaro is holy, he is righteous; if he is righteous he is pleasing to God. Therefore, if is

pleasing to God, he is holy
H→ R
R→ P
P→ H
6 If twins have everything in common and if truly you are twins, then both of you ought to
have equal possession.
(C.T) → E
7 Okoro said he would travel abroad if and only if he wins the contract.
A≡ C
Truth Table.
A truth table is a tabular schema showing all the constituents of a compound
proposition and the outcomes resulting from all the combinations of the truth and
falsity of the propositional variables. The above definitions might appears opaque but
the truth table for the four compound propositions would at once clarify this definitions.
So the dynamics of the truth table for the four propositions are discussed below:
Truth Table for Conjunction

A conjunction of two simple propositions represented by propositional variables p and
q has four substitution instances. How so? These are two possible truth values namely
true and false in two places (p and q) that is 2n where n stands for the number of
variables. So basing this analysis on the fact that the truth value of a conjunction is true
when the two simple propositions represented by P and q are true. We have the
following possible outcomes:
Where p is true and q is true the p.q is true
Where p is true and q is false the p.q is false
Where p is false and q is true then p.q is false
Where p is false and q is false than p.q is false
These can be shown in table as follows:
P q p.q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
T=true
F=false
Truth Table for Disjunction
Now that the parameters have been explained we can go straight way to the possible
outcomes of a disjunction with two simple sentences. Again using the premise that a
disjunctive statement is true when one or both constituents are true, (the weak or
inclusive case) we have the following possibilities:
Where p is true and q is true then pvq is true

Where p is false and q is true then pvq is true
Where p is false and q is false then pvq is false
These can be shown on a table as follows
p q pvq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Truth Table for Material Implication

Using the truth criterion for a conditional statement that until and unless the
antecedent is true and the consequent is false the statement remains true we can
derive the following possible outcomes:
Where p is true and q is true then p → is true
Where p is true and q is false then p → q is false
117
Where p is false and q is true then p → q is true
Where p is false and q is false then p → q is true
The truth table for the this analysis is as follows
P q p→q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
The last two rows is a classic case of the law of excluded middle it is however
uncommon in popular parlance or in ordinary speech. The rationale here is that until
and unless the conditioner holds we cannot fault the claim and so since there is> no
premise to fault the claim then it is true by the law of excluded middle, for a thing is
either false or true. The situation is referred to as the crux logic rum meaning from the
false anything follows: specifically we can deduce from that, that a false statement
implies any statement and a true statement is implied by any statement whether
relevant or not. This situation is referred to as the paradox of material implication.
Truth Table for Material Equivalence

The possible outcomes of a materially equivalent statement (following the rule that this
statement is true only when the two constituents have the same truth value) can be
stated as follows.
Where p is true and q is true then p ≡ q is true
Where p is true and q is false then p ≡ q is false
Where p is false and q is true then p ≡ q is false
Where p is false and q is false then p ≡ q is true
The truth table for the above is as follows:

P q P≡Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Statement and Statement Forms
A statement is an expression. A statement that has truth value is a propositional

statement. A propositional statement form on the other hand is truth functional
structure of a propositional statement. To make this clearer lets consider two
propositional statements:
If Iraq mobilizes then Kuwait will protest to the UN and Egypt will
call for a meeting of all the Arab States.
I → (K.E) …….A
If Nigeria mobilizes then Cameroon will protest to the UN and France will
call fora meeting of all French Speaking countries.
N → (C.F)……..B
Statements A and B have different ideas but their symbolisms clearly show that both
have the same truth functional structure. This structure is the statement form of
statements A and B.
Logic is concerned with the forms and not the contents of arguments with respect to
their validity or otherwise. So we symbolize the forms, using the lower case letters p,q,
r,s...
Thus the form of both statements above is symbolized as follows:
P → (q .r).........C
Each of the two statements can be substituted in C and would obviously have the
same values.
Types of Statement Forms

There are four types of statement forms namely tautology, self-contradictory,
contingent5and logical equivalent forms. Let's take a look at each of them 1
Tautology: A statement form is said to be a tautology when all the substitution

instances (the substitution of each and every! possible combination of T and F for the
prepositional variables) of the statement form are true statements Example. P v ¬P
can be shown to be a tautology by means of a truth table. P is the propositional
variable of the statement form while the symbol ¬p is the negation or the denial of p.
This is as follows
119
Tautology
P ¬P P v ¬P
T F T
T T T
In this table, the first column shows the possible truth value of p while the second
column shows their negations and the truth value of disjunction that when one or both
disjunctions are true, the disjunctive statement is true explains why the last column
has true in the two rows. This shows that the statement is a tautology.
Self-Contradictory: A statement form in which all the substitution instances are false
is self-contradictory. Thus any statement having this form is self-contradictory ipso
facto. For example the statement form p. ¬ p can be shown to be self-contradictory by
means of a truth table.
Self Contradictory
P ¬P P.¬P
T F F
F T F
Contingent: A statement form that has both false and true substitution instances is
called a contingent statement form. A statement is not necessarily a contingent
statement simply because it is a substitution-instance of a contingent form. The reason
is that apart from contingent statement, tautologies and self-contradictories are also
substitution instances of contingent statements form though itself is never a
substitution instance of tautology and self-contradictory forms.
The truth value of contingent statement as the name implies is subject to the content of
the statement. Conjunction, disjunction material implication, material equivalence and
negation are contingent statement forms. Example: [(p→q)→q]→q can be shown to
be a contingent statement form by truth table analysis.
Contingent Statement form
P Q P→ q (P →q)→q [P → q) →q]→q
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T T T
F F T F T
Logical Equivalence: two statement are logically equivalence when all their
substitution instances are materially equivalent.
We can show expression (p→q) ≡ ( ¬q→¬p) to be logically equivalent as follows:
Logically Equivalence
p q ¬q ¬p P→q (¬q →¬p) (p→q) ≡(¬q →¬p)
T T F F T T T
T F T F F F T
F T F T T T T
F F T T T T T
De Morgan's Theorems
Augustus De Morgan, a mathematician and a logician identified two special types of

logical equivalence. These are as follows:
(1) The negation of a conjunction of two statements is logically equivalent to the
disjunction of the negations of the two statements. This is written symbolically
as :
¬(p.q) ¬p v ¬q
The rationale here is that the negation of one of the two statements is
sufficient to negate the conjunction, since a conjunction can only stand on
the affirmation of both conjuncts. Hence the negation of a conjunction of
two statements is logically equivalent to the negation of the first statement
or the negation of the second statement.
(2) The negation of a disjunction of two statements is logically equivalent to the

conjunction of the negations of the two statements this is symbolized as:
¬(pvq) ¬p. ¬q
This form is so, because to negate a disjunction of two statements requires
that both statements be negated since a disjunction can stand on the
affirmation of one of the disjuncts. So to negate one of the disjuncts would
not be sufficient to negate the disjunction. Thus negation of a disjunction of
121
two statements is logically equivalent to the negation of the first disjunct
and the negation of the second disjunct.
Symbolize the following statements and shows their truth tables.
1. If Argentina does not mobilize, then neither will Brazil protest to the UN nor will Chile
call for a meeting of all the Latin American States.
2. Either Argentina will mobilize or if Brazil protest to the UN, then Chile will call for
a meeting of all the American States.
3. Brazil will protest of the UN only if either Argentina mobilizes or Chile calls for a
meeting of all the Latin American States.
4. It is false that he bought a TV set or a car.
5. If she goes to school, she will make herself miserable and if she does not go
back to school, she will make her parents miserable.
6. It is not true that Nigeria defeated Brazil.
7. Explain the different types of material implication with examples.
8. Explain the two types of disjunction and their truth values.
9. If A, B and C are true statements, and X, Y, and Z are false statements

determine which of the following are true:
i (AvX). B
ii (B→C) v (ZvC)
iii. (B.C) → (XvC)
CHAPTER TEN
ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENT FORMS OF COMPOUND

PROPOSITIONS
When a conclusion is drawn from premises that consist of compound

propositions, a compound prepositional argument results. Like statement
forms, arguments are truth functional structure containing variables of
argument. This argument is said to be valid when its form is valid and not
because of its content.
Example:
1. If Osaremen attends lectures then he would pass his final exams but Osaremen did
not attend lectures. Therefore he will not pass his final exams
L→p
¬L
¬P
2. If lyabo passes her Exams her father would give her freight ticket to London. But she
did not pass. Therefore her father will not give her a freight ticket to London.
P→F
¬p
¬F
The two arguments (1 and 2) though have different content yet have the same truth
functional structure, that is both have the same form (as in statement forms) using
lower case letters p q r.... So the form of both arguments is symbolized thus
P→ q
¬P
¬q
Many other arguments can take this form:
These other arguments are considered valid if and only if the form is valid.
Testing validity of compound Propositions

We can use a truth analysis to test whether the form of these arguments^ valid. This is
as follows
123
p q p→q ¬ p ¬q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T
The argument form is invalid because one of the substitution instances shows that the
two premises are true yet the conclusion is false. You will recall that earlier we said a
valid argument cannot have both premises true and a false conclusion. Thus this
argument is clearly invalid. You might be wondering why this argument, which
apparently looks good, is invalid. We can resolve the puzzle. Observe that the
condition does not foreclose the possibility of her father giving her a freight ticket from
other reasons. Once it is indicated that the conditioner is the only means by which she
can get a freight ticket from her father the argument becomes valid. The argument
form that would foreclose any other means apart from the given conditioner is:
P≡ q
¬P
¬q
This form can be shown to be valid by truth table analysis. This is as follows:
p q p≡q ¬p ¬q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T F T F
F F T T T
This argument as shown in the truth table is valid because there is no substitution
instance that has true premises and a false conclusion
Test Two
Determine by truth table whether the following argument is valid
P→q
¬Q
¬p
Solution
P q p→q ¬p ¬q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T T
F F T T T
Valid argument: no substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion
Test Three
Test the following argument whether it is valid
P→ (qvr)
¬P→ [qvr)
¬q→ r
Solution
No of substitution instances is 2n = 23 = 8 (i.e 8 rows). The truth table is as follows:
p q r ¬p ¬q ¬qvr P→(qvr) ¬P→(qvr) ¬q→r
T T T F F T T T T
T T F F F T T T T
T F T F T T T T T
T F F F T T T T T
F T T T F T T T T
F T F T F T T T T
F F T T T F T F T
F F F T T F T F F
There is a substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion. Therefore
the argument is invalid.
125
Test Four
Use a truth table to determine whether the following statements are logically
equivalent.
(P→q) ≡ (p. ¬q)
SOLUTION
No of substitution instances is 2n= 22=4
p q ¬q p. ¬q p→q ¬(p. ¬q) (p→q) ≡ ¬(p. ¬q)

T T F F T T T
T F T T F F T
F T F F T T T
F F T F T T T
The statement (p→ q) ≡ (¬p. ¬q) is logically equivalent because all its substitution
instances are materially equivalent.
Use truth tables to determine the validity or invalidity of each of the following
arguments,
i (AvB)→ (A.B) ii (CvD) → (C.D)
AvB C.D
A.B CvD
iii (GvH) →(G.H) iv (OvP)→Q

(G.H) Q→ (O.P)
(GvH) (OvP) →(O.P)
iv. If Japan continues to export capital, then either Korea or Laos will become
rapidly industrialized. Korea will not become rapidly industrialized, it follows
that if Japan continues to export capital then, Laos will become rapidly
industrialized.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE METHOD OF DEDUCTION-PROVING VALIDITY OF

COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS
There is hardly anything that has advantages, which has no disadvantages. The
truth table analysis is not an exception. Testing the validity of arguments with
two or three variable are handy and maneuverable. The situation becomes
really different for arguments with four or more variables. The analysis becomes
bogus and unwieldy. For instance, the number of substitution instances
becomes 16 or 32 for four or five variables respectively. Nevertheless the truth
table analysis can be used indirectly to handle these cases. How? Valid
information from the truth table analysis in form of elementary arguments can
be used to deduce the conclusions of arguments from their premises. It is a
sequential deduction from the known'. If we are able to deduce the conclusion
using as rules the forms of valid, then it follows that such argument in question
is valid. We can explain this method with an analogy. Imagine you were given
as puzzle, three or four known transit places and you are required to prove
whether it is possible to reach a specified town through those places. So your
task is to try to identify established routes that link those places and the town.
Those transit places are the premises, the linking routes are the deductive steps
to be derived by rules of establishment truth table information (elementary valid
argument forms) while the town is the conclusion to be deduced from the
premises and the linking routs.
PROCEDURE:
There is a formal order of proceeding to the conclusion. First is to set forth the
premises in a column to the left hand side and followed by the deductive steps in the
next column until the conclusion is arrived at. These premises and the derivative steps
are numbered serially. The conclusion to be deduced is written on the same line with
the last premises with a diagonal stroke between them.
On the right hand the inferential rules (the elementary argument forms) are written by
their first letters in capital in a column, each rule against the respective step.
127
Before we put this method into practice it is imperative to bring the rules into this
picture.
Rules of Inferences
(1) Modus Ponens (M.P) (2) Modus Tollens (M.T)
P→q P→q
P ¬q
q ¬p 
(3) Hypothetical (4) Disjunctive

Syllogism (H.S) Syllogism (D.S.)
p→ q pvq
q→r ¬p
p→ r q
(5) Constructive (6) Absorption

Dilenma (C.D) (Abs)
(p→ q). (r→ s) p→ q
Pvr  p→ (p.q)
qvs
(7) Simplification (Simp) (8) Conjuction (Conj)

p.q p
p q
pq
(9) Addition (Add)
P
pvq
With these rules we are ready to delve into the analysis
Examples
Here are the rules (the justification) for each line that is not a premise in the following
proofs of validity.
1. A.B
2. (AvB) → d/A.D
3. A 1,SIMP
4. AvC 3, Add
5. D 2,4Mp
6. A.D 3,5,Conj
Explanation
Line 3: A deduced from line 1 using the rule of simplification.
Line 4: A v C is deduced from 3 using the rule of addition.
Line 5: D is deduced from line 2 and 4 using the rule of Modus Ponens.
Line 6: A.D (the given conclusion) deduced from lines 3 and 5 using the rule of
Conjunction.
2. 1)1→J
2) L→M
3) L→M
4) I v L/  KvM
5) I→ K 1,2 HS
6) (l→K). (L→M 5,3 Conj
7) KvM 6,4CD
Explanation
Line 5: I →K is deduced from lines 1 and 2 using the rule of Hypothetical Syllogism.
Line 6: (l→K). (L→M) is deduced from line 5 and 3 by the rule of conjunction.
Line 7: KvM is the-*.given conclusion and is deduced from lines 6 and by the
Disjunctive Syllogism.
3.1) Q→R
2) ¬S→(T→U)
3) S v (QvT)
4) ¬S/ RvU
5) T→U 2,4 MP
129
6) (Q→R). (T→U) 1,5 Conj
7) Q v T 3,4 DS
8) R v U 6,7 CD
Explanation
Line 5: T→U is deduced from lines 2 and 4 by modus ponens
Line 6: (Q→R). (T→U) is deduced from Lines 1 and 5 by conjunction.
Line 7: Q vT is deduced from lines 3 and 4 by disjuncture Syllogism.

Line 8: R v U which is the given conclusion is deduced from lines 6 and 7 by
constructive dilemma
Problem One
Construct a formal proof of validity for the following arguments.
1. A→B 2. (F→G). (H→1)

Av (C.D) J→K
¬B. ¬E (FvJ). (H v L)/GvK
C
Solutions
1.1) A→ B
2) Av (C.D)/C
3) ¬B. ¬E
4) ¬B 3, Simp
5) ¬A 1,4 MT
6) C.D 2,5 DS
7) C 6, Simp
2.1) (F→G). (H→I)
2.) J→K
3) (FVJ). (HVL)/* GVk.
4) F→G 1 Simp
5) (F→G). (J→K) 4,2 Conj
6) F v J 3 Simp
7) G v K 5,6 CD
Rules of Replacement
In the course of our journey to the conclusive proposition we sometimes have a road
block on our way. We do not have a rule from the nine rules to justify our transiting
through that proposition to our destination the conclusive proposition.
Example:
We may come to a step p.q but we want to pass through q because we have seen
intuitively that, that route will lead to the conclusive proposition immediately or
subsequently. But there is no rule among the nine that would justify the passage. What
then do we do?
We have other rules, which are referred to as rules of replacement. These rules of
replacement are ten in number. With these rules, we can replace the proposition (Whose
propositional structure makes it impossible to pass a particular route which leads to the
conclusive proposition) with another with desire structure and equivalent in truth value. So
rules of replacement are pairs of equivalent statements we can use in replacing each other.
Before we mention these equivalences lets turn to our specific problem in our
example. There is a pair called commutation which says: p.q q.p So using this as a
route we can replace our p. q with q. p by extension. And with this replacement we can
apply the rule of simplication that justifies our passage through q. So we write q as our
next route. That is:
P.q
q.p Comm
q Simp
Having resolved our specific problem lets take a look at the ten rules of replacement
* 10. De Morgan's theorems (Dom)
¬(P.q)≡(pv¬q)
¬(Pvq)≡(¬P. ¬q)
* 11. Commutation's theorems (Com)
(pvq) ≡ (qvp)
(p.q)≡(q.p)
* 12. Association (Assoc)
[ pv(qvr) ]≡[ (pvq) vr]
[p.(q.r)]≡[p.q).r]
* 13. Distribution. (Dists)
[P.(qvr)]≡ [(p.q)v(p.r)]
[ Pv(q.r)] ≡[(pvq). (pvr)]
* 14. Double Negation (D.N)
131
P=¬¬p
* 15. Transposition (Trans)
(p→q)≡(¬qv¬p)
* 16. Material Implication (Impl)
(P→q) (¬pv¬q)
* 17. Material Equivalence (Equiv)
(P≡q)≡[ (p→q). (q→P) ]
(p≡q)≡[(p.iq)v (¬p. ¬q)]
* 18. Exportation (Exp)
[ (p.q) → r ] ≡[p→(q→r)]
* 19. Tautology (Taut)
P≡ (p v p)
P ≡ (p. P)
The ten equivalences can be used to replace their counterparts either in part or in full.
Lets us introduce them in the formal proof.
Problem Two
State the rules by which the conclusion of the following arguments follow from their
premises
1. (A→B) .(C→D)
(A →B)( ¬D→¬C)
2. (¬K→L) →(¬Mv¬N)
(¬K→L) → ¬(M.N)
3. [¬ E V(¬¬ F→G)].[ ¬ EV(F→G)]

[¬E V (F→G)].[ ¬EV(F→G)]
4. [¬MV¬ N)→(O→¬ ¬ P)
¬ (M.N)(O→¬ ¬ P)
Solution
1. Transposition
2. De Morgan's theorems
3. Double Negation
4. De Morgan Theorems
Problem Three
State the justification for each line that is not a premise in the following arguments
1. A→B
2. C¬B/A→¬C
3. ¬¬B→¬C
4. B→¬C
5. A→¬C
2.1. (MvN)→ ¬(O.P)

2, ¬O/¬M
3. ¬Ov¬P
4. ¬(Mv¬N)
5. ¬M.N
6. ¬M
3.1. (D.E)→(O.P)
2. (D→F)→G/E→G
3. (E.D)→F
4. E→(D→F)
5. E→G
Solution
1.1) A→B
2) C→¬B/A→¬C
3) ¬¬B→C 2,TRANS
4) B→¬C 3,D,N
5) B→¬C 1,4 HS
6) A→¬C
Problem Four
Construct a formal proof of the following arguments.
1. O → p
P →¬P/O
2. (ZvA) v B
A/ZvB
1. (D.E)F
¬(EvF)
¬D
Solution
1. 1. O→P
2. P→¬P/¬O
3. O→¬P 1,2 HS
4. ¬Ov¬P 3, IMP
133
5. ¬(O.P) 4, De. M
6. ¬O 5,SIMP
2. 1) (Z v A) v B
2) A/Z v B
3) Z v (BvA) 1,ASSOC
4) Z v (BvA) 3,COM
5) (ZvB)vA 4,ASSOC
6) AV (ZvB) 5, COM
7) Z v B 6, 2, DS
3. 1) (D. ¬E) →F
2)¬(EvF)/ ¬D
3)¬E. ¬F 2,De.M
4) D→ (¬E→F) 1,EXP
5) (¬E.D) F 1,COM
6) ¬E→ (D→F) 5,EXP
7) ¬E 3,SIMP
8) D→F 6,7.MP
9) ¬F.E 3,COM
10) ¬F 9,SIMP
11) ¬D 8,1OMT
Conditional Proof
The conditional proof is another method of deduction. It is applicable to arguments
whose conclusions are conditional. This method is not fundamentally different from
the preceding one. Essentially the method involves adding the antecedent of the
conclusion to the premise while its consequent becomes the conclusion to be
deduced. Conditional proof is abbreviated as (cp).
Example:
1. A(BvC)
2. CD
3. ¬B/A→C
4. A/:.C
5. BvC 1,4, MP The antecedent of the conclusion A is added to
the premises leaving the consequent C as the
6. C 5,3, DS conclusion to be deduced
If the conclusion has three or four letter constants the conditional rules is used two or
three times respectively. Generally the rule is applied successively until one letter
constant is left in the original conclusion.
Example:
1. E→(P→G)
2. F (G H)/E→(F→H)
3. E/FH CP
4. F/H CP
5. F→G 1,3 M.P
6. G 5,4 M.P
7. G →H 2,4 M.P
8. H 7,6 M.P
9. E→(F-H) 3 – 8CP
Indirect Proof
The indirect method of deduction is associated with the traditional editions of
Euclid's Geometry according to Uduigwomen. This method is specially called
“reductio ad absurdum”. In this method, we add the negation of the conclusion to
the premises and if we are able to deduce a contradiction along the line then we
have succeeded in showing that the argument is valid. indirect proof is abbreviated
(IP).
Example:
1. A. V(B.C)
2. A→C/C
3. C IP
4. A 2,3, MP
5. B.C 1,4, DS
6. C.B 5, Com
7. C 6,SIMP
8. C.O 7,3, CONJ
Proving Invalidity
The method of proving an argument invalid is derived from the truth table analysis of
an invalid argument. You will recall that an invalid argument has true premises and a
false conclusion as one of its substitution instances. This feature of invalid argument
is what is used, like a blue litmus test to prove an argument invalid. How? First, we
determine the truth value (that is true or false) that would make the conclusion false.
Then if we apply those particular truth values where they occur in the premises and
if true or false is assigned to the rest components of the premises and the premises
135
are true then we have shown that the argument is invalid. A truth table with one row
is just what is required for this purpose. Let's consider the following example:
If the Governor supports high income tax then he supports the reduction of
consumers’ power. If the Governor is a working class oppressor then he supports
the reduction of consumers' power. Therefore if the Governor supports high income
tax then he is a working class oppressor.
This argument can be symbolized as follows
SR
OR
SO
Since the conclusion is a conditioner, to make it false we assign the truth-value of
true to the antecedent (s) and assign the true-value of false to the consequent (o)
And if we assign these truth values of (s) and (o) to the antecedents of the two
premises and assign true or false to (R) to make if possible the premises true then
we have shown that the argument is invalid. This is possible if we assign the
truth-value 'true' to (R), the two premises would be true. This is shown in the table
below.
S O R S→R O→R S→O
T F T T T F
Proving Inconsistency
You will recall the dark hole in the truth table of material Implication, the paradox of
material implication which asserts, "if a statement is false then it materially implies
any statement whatever”, symbolized as ¬P→ (P→q). We have a similar situation
here. In this case arguments with inconsistent premises are found to be valid. In
other words a set of inconsistent premises implies any statement. Logicians have
termed this situation as the paradox of strict implication (copi, op. cit, p. 320) let's
consider an obvious example.
Today is Sunday. Today is not Sunday. Therefore the moon
is made of green cheese (ibid).
The symbolism is:
1. S
2. ¬S/M
The formal proof is:

3. S V M 1, Add
4. m 3,2, D.S
This situation is indeed curious. The premises are inconsistent and irrelevant to the
conclusion yet the argument is valid. The situation therefore demands that premises
be tested for inconsistency. Good enough the rules of inference are effective for this
task. So given a set of inconsistent premises we can prove the inconsistency using
the rules of inference. And when this is done we are certain that at least one such
premises is not true and therefore the argument though valid is not sound.
Take for example the argument

E→F
¬E→C
¬(FvG)
H
Proof:
1. EF
2. ¬EG
3. ¬(FvG)/H
4. ¬F. ¬G 3, De, m
5. ¬F 4, Simp
6, ¬E 1,5 MT
7. G 2,6 MP
8. ¬G. ¬F 4, Com
9. ¬G 8, SIMP
10.GvH 7, Add
11. H 10,9, D.S.
Though the above proof shows that the argument is valid yet the premises are
inconsistent as shown in lines 7 and 9. Note that it is possible to end the proof
immediately after lines 7 with the principle of Addition. The proof is prolonged in
order to make explicit the implicit inconsistency in the premises.
137
1. State the justification for each line is not a premises in the following formal
proofs of validity.
i (1) A → B
(2) C →¬B/A→¬C
(3) ¬¬B¬→C
(4) B→¬C
(5) A→¬C
ii (1) (D.E) →F
(1) (D→F) →G/E→G
(2) (E.D) →F
(3) E→(D→F)
(4) E→G
iii (1) (M v N)→(O.P)

( 2) ¬O/¬M
(3) ¬OV¬P
(4) ¬(O.P)
( 5) ¬(M¬N)
( 6) ¬M. ¬N
( 7) ¬M
2. State the rule of inference by which the conclusion follows from the premises in the
following arguments.
i. Z→(A→B)
Z→(¬¬A→B)
ii. (A→B). (C→D)
iii (A→B).( ¬D→¬C)
v. [(Rv¬S). ¬T] v [(R v¬S).U]
(Rv¬S). ¬(TvU)
3. Prove the invalidity of each of the following by the method of assigning truth values.
i. A→B
C→D
AvD
B v C
ii. ¬(E.F)
(¬E. ¬F)→(G.H)
H→G
G
4. Prove that the following arguments have inconsistent premises.
i M . ¬N
ii. N→M
iii. M →N/N
5. i. M→(N→O)
ii. (O.N) v M
iii. Nv (O.M)
iv. O→N
v. PvO
vi. O. ¬M/ O v (M→ P)
139
CHAPTER TWELVE
PROVING VALIDITY OF SIMPLE PROPOSITIONAL ARGUMENTS
To prove the validity of simple prepositional arguments we also employ the rules
of inference and rules of replacement. But there are obstacles that must be
removed at least temporary. These obstacles are the quantifiers 'AL'NO' and
'some'. Since our interest or aim is not the reconstruction of the proposition but the
proving of their validity we can appeal to rules that will permit the removal of those
quantifiers and the inverse rules that will permit the replacement of the quantifiers
when the proof has been done. There are four rules propounded by logician for
doing just that. These rules are as follows.
Universal Instantiation (Ul)
The rule of universal instantiation (Ul) permits the replacement of a universal proposition
with a singular proposition. This rule is based on the rationale that what is true of all
members of a class is true of the individual members of that class. Thus the statement:
Everyone is rational
This is symbolized as:

(X) Rx…….. …………………………………(1)
Can be replaced with:
Funke is rational
Which is symbolized as
RF ………………………………………….(2)
Statement (1) will only be true if statement (2) is true, for everyone is rational can only be
true if every member of the universe is rational. In the same vein, propositions with more than one
predicate such as:
Every educated person is rational
Symbolized as:
(X)(E→Rx)
85
Could be replaced with an individual constants say; If Okoro is educated then he is rational.
i.e
(Eo→Ro)
We can state the argument implied in the two statements as follows:
Every educated person is rational, Okoro is educated, therefore Okoro is rational.

Symbolized as:
(X)(Ex→Rx)
Eo
Ro
Proof:
1. (X)(EX→Rx)
2. Eo/Ro
3. Eo→Ro 1.UI
4. Ro 3.2MP
Thus the (Ul) generally justifies us to write new premises with individual constants
symbolize with any small letters the help us to have us to remember what they stand for.
Example
All meticulous persons are subtle, all gentle persons are meticulous, and therefore all
gentle persons are subtle.
Symbolization:
(X)(Mx→Sx)
(X)(Gx→Mx)
 (X)(Gx→Sx)
Proof
1. (X)(Mx→Sx)
2. (X)(Gx→Mx)/ (X)(Gx→Sx)
3. My→Sy 1, UI
4. Gy→My 2, UI
5. Gy→Sy 4, 3, HS
Universal Generalization
Universal generalization permits us to quantity an unquantified statement. This rule thus

justifies us to reverse universal instantiation that is to replace an individual constant with the
universal quantifiers. That is from: ‘my’, we can infer (X) mx
If we apply this rule to the preceding example our proof we exceed line 5 as follows:
5. G→Sy 4,3 HS
6. (X) (Gx→Sx) 5 UG
So, the two rules Ul and UG enable us to remove the qualifier and to replace it thereafter.
The Existential Instantiation
This rule gives us the justification to replace the existential quantifier ‘some’ with an individual
constant because the word ‘some’ ranges from at least one individual to almost an entire
class of subjects so some persons are educated is logically the same as someone is
educated. Thus we can infer that: Okoro is educated (Eo) from some persons are educated
(3x)Ex. The existential instantiation is abbreviated (EI)
The Existential Generalization

This rule permits us to replace unquantified proposition. It is used when the conclusion to be
deduced is an existential generalization.
Note: Where an argument has both the universal and existential generalization, the
proposition that has the same quantity with the conclusion is the one to be instantiated and
the one to be generalized at the end.
Problems
Construct a formal proof of validity for the following arguments:
1. (x)(Ax→¬Bx)
(3x)(Cx.Ax)
 (3x)(Cx. ¬Bx)
2. (x)(Gx→Hx)
(x)(1x→¬Hx)
 (x)(1x→¬Gx)
Solution
1. 1) (x)(Ax→¬Bx)
2) (3x)(Cx. ¬Bx/ (3x)(Cx. ¬Bx)
3) Cx. ¬Ba 2, EI
87
4) Aa→Ba 1, UI
5) ¬Ba.Ca 3, Com
6) Ca 3, Simp
7) ¬Ba 5, Simp
8) Ca. ¬Ba 6, 7 Conj
9) (3x)(Cx. ¬Bx) 8, EG
2. 1) (x)(Gx→Hx)
2) (x)(1x→¬Hx)/  (x)(1x→¬Gx)
3) Gy→Hy 1, UI
4) 1y→¬Hy 2,UI
5) Hy→¬Iy 4, Trans
6) Hy→¬Iy 5, DN
7) Gy→¬Iy 3, 6 HS
8) ¬Iy→Gy 7,Trans
9) Iy→¬Gy 8,DN
10) (X) (Ix→¬Gx) 9, UG
Fallacies
According to Copi, fallacy is an error in reasoning (op cit, p.91) they are common error
committed in ordinary discourse. These fallacies can be classified into three main groups
namely the fallacies of relevance, ambiguity and false premises. Fallacy of relevance relates
to argument whose conclusions are not relevant to the premises, that is the truth of the
conclusion cannot be established by the premises. Fallacy of ambiguity refers to argument
whose meanings shift and change along the line of the argument. They are tantamount to
sophism-clever but misleading argument. Fallacies of false premises are those fallacies,
which do not belong to the two categories above. The issues here does not border on the
relationship between the premises and the conclusion nor the semantic and syntactic
connection rather it border on the deliberate or non intentional falsehood in the premises.
These fallacies are rendered briefly below under their respective categories:
Ad BACULUM: This fallacy refers to conclusions which are based on a motion laden
language instead of rational evidence.
Authority: This fallacy refers to conclusion that are accepted or advanced only because an
authority as said so, even though the competence is doubtful or total
unrelated to the issue.

Accident: This fallacy refers to conclusions, which are drawn from the fact of mere
coincidental or temporary succession between two things.
Petitio Principil: This is an argument whose conclusion is based on assumed self-evident
truth. An example is the claim that a particular politician is good; it is simply
begging the question.
Over Simplication: This refers to argument whose conclusions trivialized complex issues. In
the democratization process these types of arguments pass, on the
grounds that the polity should not be heated up.
Ignoratio Elenchi: This is an argument whose conclusion is quite irrelevant to the premises.
Wrong Analogy: This fallacy refers to arguments in which it is assumed that the quality n
one thing is in another because of seemingly similarities between them.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Amphiboly: This is an argument whose conclusion is erroneous because of misleading
grammar.
Equivocation: This refers to argument whose conclusion are based on two different
meaning of the same terms.
Accent: Fallacy of accent refers to conclusion which are erroneous because of change of
emphasis the words or parts.
Composition: This refers to argument in which it is assumed that what is true of the parts is
also true of the whole without regards to configuration or the effect of
interactions.
Division: This refers to argument which assumed that what is true of the whole is true its
parts.
Fallacies of False Premises.
Half truth: This refers to arguments in which some of the facts are suppressed deliberately in
order to shape the conclusion in a desired manner.
Two Wrongs make right. This fallacy refers to conclusions, which are based on the belief
that it is right to pay evil for veil or to excuse one’s wrong on the grounds that
others of same.
Small Sample. Conclusion in which generalization is drawn from insignificant sample is
referred to as fallacy of small sample.
Wrong sample. This refers to argument whose conclusion is drawn from evidence derived
from a sample that does not represent the population about which the
89
conclusion is made.
Non-existing statistics. This fallacy refers to arguments whose conclusion are based on
statistical claims, which are not available.
Domino Theory. This is an argument in which the conclusion suggests that B, C and so will
fall because A has fallen in view of the fact that they are related by
proximity.
SELF ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

Construct a formal prove of validity for the following arguments.
1. 1.)(3X) (Ex.HX)
2) (X) (Ex→Dx)/ (3X Cx.Hx)
2. 1.) (X) (Hx→Sx)
2.) (X) (Sx →¬Fx)/ (X) (Fx→¬Hx)
3. 1.) (3x) [Cx.CPx.Dx)]
2.) (X) (Px →1x)/ (3X) (x.1x)
4. 1) (X) (Px →¬Fx)
2. (3X) (Fx.Vx) / (3X) (Vx.Px)
5. Mention four fallacies of relevance and explain them.
6. Mention four fallacies of ambiguity and explain each of them.
7. Write short notes on the following:
1. Half Truth
2. Two Wrongs make a right
3. Wrong Sample
4. Small Sample
REFERENCES
Copi I. M. & Cohen C. (1990), Introduction to Logic, New York: Macmillan.
Gutek (1988), Philosophical and ideological Perspectives on education, US; Allyn &
Bacon.
Maduka C. (1998), Philosophy and logic A first course, Benin: llliad publishers
Otakpor N. (2000), Introduction to philosophy and logic, Nigeria; Omone Books
Smith V.E (1965), philosophy and science US: Bruce publishing company.
Uduigwomen A. F. & Ozumba G. O. (ed) (1995). A concise Introduction to Philosophy
and Logic, Calabar: Centaur publishers.
91

A SIMPLE GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC FOR BEGINNERS pdf-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A SIMPLE GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC FOR BEGINNERS pdf-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

ASSOC. PROFESSOR, MOND. U. AGBONKPOLO

Acknowledgment …………. ……. ……………………………………………………..iv

Preface ……….. ………………………………………………………………….vi-vii

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ....................... …………………………………. 1 - 8

The Academic Meaning of Philosophy, Branches

and Scope of Philosophy

CHAPTER TWO - FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY…………………………………. 9-15

Speculative Function, Analytic Function

Synthetic Function, Prescriptive Function

CHAPTER THREE - MAJOR TERMS IN

CHAPTER FOUR-AN OUTLINE OF MAJOR ........ ……………………………………30-51

CHAPTER FIVE - LOGIC ............. .. ....................... ……………………………………52-59

Central Problem of Logic - Evaluation of

CHAPTER SIX - WHAT IS ARGUMENT MADE OF?............................................ 80-86

The Four Standard Types of Simple Propositions The Relationship Between

CHAPTER SEVEN - HOW DO LOGICIANS

Logical Quantifications Propositional Functions Logical Symbols

CHAPTER EIGHT - ARGUMENTS WITH

CHAPTER NINE - PARTS OF ARGUMENTS (II) .. ………………………………..126 -149

Truth Value of Compound Propositions Symbolism for Compound Propositions

CHAPTER TEN-ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENT FORMS OF COMPOUND

CHAPTER ELEVEN - THE METHOD OF DEDUCTION-PROVING VALIDITY

CHAPTER TWELVE-PROVING VALIDITY OF SIMPLE PROPOSITIONAL

REFERENCES ............................... …………………………………………………

I wish to salute my colleagues at Benson Idahosa University, Dr James, Agboola, Dr.

This book is dedicated to all men of goodwill.

The subject philosophy appears to many people as occultism, to some others as an

The Academic Meaning of Philosophy

Academic philosophy could be traced to Greece. It began as speculations into the

The Conceptual Perspective:

(1) The efficient cause- by what or whom a thing is made.

(4) Final cause-the purpose for which a thing is made.

The Theoretical Perspective

The Practical Perspective

Branches and Scope of Philosophy

Authority (Secondary Source) and faith.

SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

WHY D0 WE STUDY PHILDSDPHY?

The question - why do we study philosophy? Or why do we have philosophers? - can

The Analytic Function

The Synthetic Function

SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

WHAT ARE THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY?

3. Humans are rational beings.

1. Explain briefly the following schools of Thought in philosophy.

WHO ARE THE MAJOR WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS?

In this chapter an attempt is made to present an outline of western philosophers and

while reality is the basis of truth.

4. Idols of the theatre -popular beliefs

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Leibniz (1646 -1716)

John Locke (1632 -1704)

George Berkeley (1685 -1753)

David Hume (1711 -1776)

1. Phenomenal -The perceived qualities in things

Hegel however, rejected enlightenment and Kantian compromises and propounded a

SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. Which philosopher predicted the eclipse of 585 BC?

15. Mention the four causes of Aristotelian philosophy,

WHAT IS THE MEANING AND THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF LOGIC?

The Central Problem of Logic

Truth and Validity

All Nigerians are human, Peter Edoche is human, therefore Peter