PHL1C03

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
(PHL1 C03)
I SEMESTER
CORE COURSE
M.A. PHILOSOPHY
(2019 Admission onwards)
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
School of Distance Education,
Calicut University P.O.
Malappuram - 673 635, Kerala.
190403
School of Distance Education
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
Study Material
I Semester
Core Course (PHL1 C03)
M.A. PHILOSOPHY
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Prepared by:
Manoj K.R.,
Assistant Professor of Philosophy,
SDE, University of Calicut.
Scrutinized by:
Dr. Sheeja O.K.,
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Philosophy,
Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur.
DISCLAIMER
“The author shall be solely responsible for the
content and views expressed in this book”
Symbolic Logic 2
Unit – I 5
Introduction
1. What is Logic
The Nature of Argument
Truth and Validity
Categorical Propositions: Quality, Quantity and Distribution
The Traditional square of Opposition
Standard Form Categorical Syllogism – Rules and Fallacies
Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism
Symbolic Logic
Unit –II 47
Arguments containing compound statements
Simple and compound statements
Conditional Statement
Argument Forms and Truth Tables, Statement forms
Unit – III 63
The Method of Deduction
Formal Proof of Validity
The Rules of Replacement
The Rules of Indirect Proof
The Strengthend rule of Conditional Proof
Symbolic Logic 3
Unit IV 82
Quantification Theory
Singular Propositions and General Propositions
Proving validity, Preliminary and Quantification Rules
Text Book
1. Irvin M Copi, Symbolic Logic( Relevant chapters and sections)
2. Irvin. M.Copi, Introduction To Logic( Relevant Chapters and
sections)
Reference :
Logic, Staun Baronett & Madhuchadrass, Publisher, Pearson
Logic, Informal, Symbolic and Inductive, Chandha Chakraborthi.
Symbolic Logic 4
Unit – I
1.1 What is Logic ?

Etymologically logic can be defined as the science of thought
expressed in language. We get knowledge through our thought
process or through our act of thinking. If we substitute reasoning
with the word thought, it may be stated that the concern of logic is
reasoning as expressed in certain language with a subsidiary
process. The study of logic is a normative discipline. The reasoning
process which goes on in the mind is not visible, instead it is the
verbal expression of such thoughts that are analysed.
Copy and Cohen define logic as the study of methods and
principles of distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect
reasoning.Logic is actually the method and principles in evaluating
good reasoning from bad reasoning or correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning.Logic is considered the basic science of
sciences, since correct reasoning is the basis of scientific study in
any field.
Logic is concerned with norms to distinguish between correct and
incorrect reasoning, hence it is called normative study of
reasoning.In our day to day life, we know the importance of ability
to reason since it is through this ability that we draw appropriate
conclusion from given evidence. It is source of most of our
knowledge. Since most of our knowledge is not from direct
observation instead it is through inference. We must know how to
infer correctly. Primarily, Logic is about inferring, about reasoning
in particular. It is the study of what constitutes correct reasoning.
Symbolic Logic 5
By studying logic one can recognise and use certain common

forms of correct logical inference hence avoid making common
logical errors.
According to Creighton, logic is the science which treats the
operations of the human mind in its search for truth. From this
definition there are three facts that are stated here, firstly it states
that logic is a science, then operations of human mind, then a
concern for truth.
Logic can be called science because,Logic shares the following
characteristics of science
a) Science deals with a particular department of study, like botany
is the study of plants.
b) Science is systematic and organised body of knowledge.
c) Science renders true and exact knowledge through special
means.
Similarly logic gives us systematic knowledge regarding correct
thinking and knowledge given is correct and precise.
Secondly the operations of the human mind with which logic is
concerned is three processes of thinking known as conception,
judgement and reasoning. Conception is the function of the human
mind by which an idea or a concept is formed in the mind. Another
function of the mind is judgement by which relation between
things is established. It is the process of comparing concepts or
ideas. Judgement is the process of affirmation or denial. When the
idea of man and mortality is related we have the idea of man is
mortal. Reasoning is the process of passing from certain known
judgement to a new judgement. The process by which one
proposition is arrived on the basis of other proposition is called
Symbolic Logic 6
inference. Through the act of reasoning mind draws a new truth

from given truth.
From the given judgements a conclusion is reached.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
-----------------------
Socrates is mortal
The above three processes conception, judgement, inference
expressed in language is called term, proposition and argument.
Logic in primarly concerned with reasoning, reasoning
presupposes concept and judgement, thought means processes and
product of thinking.It is the is well established truth expounded by
great minds which is the subject matter of logic.
Creighton states that truth is the goal of logic, it can be either
formal or material.In formal truth there is agreement of thought
among themselves. In material truth there should be agreement to
corresponding objects to the world outside.
The positive science studies the nature of things or otherwise called
natural science,it deals with things actual and real.While for
normative science tells us about how a thing ought to be in order
to agree with deal before us. Normative science is one which sets
a norm to which the facts under study must conform. While
positive science deals with things as they are.Examples of
normative sciences are Ethics, Aesthetics etc. Regarding how our
conduct ought to be to reach the ideal of goodness is the concern
of ethics. Normative science is concerned with an ideal, there is a
standard to which its material is directed and its value is estimated
with reference to that standard then it is called regulative science.
Symbolic Logic 7
Logic teaches us how our thought ought to be to reach the ideal

of truth. Here truth is made the ideal.
1.2 The Nature of Argument

Logic is directly concerned with thought, but language is an
indispensable medium to express what we think, arguments are
expressed in language, and we should use the correct language to
express the arguments in correct form. Verbal expression of
judgement is termed proposition. Proposition is the basic unit of
logical analysis, Proposition should be either true or false. A
declarative sentence is part of the language to which it is spoken
or written, while a proposition is not peculiar to the language in
which it is expressed. Eg:- ‘The book is on the table’ in French and
German language has the same propositional content, irrespective
of the language in which it is spoken. While the same sentence can
be uttered in different contexts to have different propositions .A
statement can be expressed using different words.Utterance of a
sentence in different contexts yields different statement. Statement
and Propositions are not exact synonyms. An argument is
comprised of a set of sentences consisting of one or more premises,
which contain the evidence and a conclusion which is supposed to
follow the premises.
An argument may be defined as any group of propositions or
statements, of which one is claimed to follow from the others,
which are alleged to provide grounds for the truth of that one.
Assertion do not cite reason for a particular event. There is some
differences between assertions and an argument . Assertion is only
an opinion or a belief. In an argument there will be certain reason
provided from which we have to infer the conclusion
The terms premise and conclusion are usually employed in
analysing the structure of the argument. The proposition which is
Symbolic Logic 8
affirmed on the basis of other propositions of the argument is the

conclusion of that argument.
Premises of an argument are sentences or claims containing the
evidence, while conclusion is the claim that is supposed to follow
the premises.
An argument is a set of propositions arranged in terms of their
relationship as premises and conclusion. The propositions of an
argument are either the premises or the conclusion.
Hence, an argument is defined as ‘a relational arrangement of
premises and conclusion’. The conclusion of an argument is
always the one proposition that is derived from one or more
supporting propositions called premises. In other words, the
propositions, which substantiate the conclusion, are the premises.
The proposition which is drawn on the basis of the premises is a
conclusion.
Premise 1 - All men are mortal.
Premise 2 - Socrates is a man.
Conclusion - Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Raghu will win the game if he worked hard for it.
Raghu worked hard for the game.
Therefore, Raghu won the game
Symbolic Logic 9
1.3 Truth and Validity

Truth and Falsity apply only to propositions but never to
arguments, while validity and invalidity is the logical property of
deductive arguments, but not of propositions.
There is relation between validity or invalidity of argument and
truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion which are
propositions.An argument can be valid even if one or more of
its premises are false. Some valid arguments can contain only
true premises
In the following argument the premises and the conclusion are true
All mammals have lungs.
All whales are mammals.
Therefore all whales have lungs.
For a valid deductive argument, it is impossible to have the
premises true and the conclusion false. Validity of an argument
depends upon the form of the argument. The validity does not
depend upon the content of the argument, validity is function of
the form of the argument. An argument is sound when it is
factually correct and is valid.
Even with false premises and false conclusion the argument can
remain valid.
All mammals have wings.
All reptiles are mammals.
----------------------------------------------
Therefore, all reptiles have wings.
Symbolic Logic 10
In the above argument all of the premises and conclusion is false

still the argument is valid.
It makes us clear that truth or falsity of the conclusion of the
argument does not by itself determine its validity or invalidity of
that argument. The argument being valid does not guarantee the
truth of the conclusion. But in a valid argument if the premises are
true then necessarily the conclusion must be also be true.
An argument with false premises and true conclusion may be
invalid as in the following
example:
All whales have wings.
Therefore all whales are mammals.
There are invalid arguments whose premises and conclusions are
all false, as in the
following example:
All whales have wings.
Therefore all mammals are whales.
From the above examples it is clear that the truth or falsity of an
argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or
invalidity of that argument. And the fact that an argument is valid
does not guarantee the truth of it conclusion. But the falsehood of
its conclusion does guarantee that either the argument is invalid
or one of its premises is false.
Symbolic Logic 11
Thus a valid deductive argument is one in which the conclusion

cannot possibly be false if all the premises are true. If it is possible
for the premises of a deductive argument to be all true and its
conclusion to be false, that argument is invalid.
1.3.1 Induction and deduction

Based on the method and type of inference, logic is divided into
two - deductive logic or deduction and inductive logic or induction.
In deduction, the form determines the validity of inference. Being
the basis of formal logic, deductive reasoning concern is with the
form of the argument rather than its content. deductive argument,
the conclusion cannot be wider than the premises, but in induction
In, the conclusion is equal to or wider than the premises.
In deduction, the conclusion necessarily follows from the given
premises. Hence, their relationship is of implication or entailment.
See for example,
All humans are mortal.
Aristotle is a human being.
Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.
Induction refers to the process of drawing conclusion from
observed instances that give specific evidence to support the
inference. Inductive inferences are evaluated as sound or unsound
by considering not only form but also the content or matter.
Aristotle is human and mortal.
Bacon is human and mortal.
Descartes is human and mortal.
Symbolic Logic 12
------------------------------------.
------------------------------------.
Therefore, all humans are mortal.
In deduction, the premises form the necessary ground for the
conclusion. In induction, the conclusion is always probable.
Hence, an inductive argument is neither true nor false, but only
sound or unsound. Deduction and induction are not considered as
opposites by logicians instead it is considered as complementary
process of reasoning. Both being the the basis for
hypotheticodeductive method. As stated earlier deductive
reasoning is concerned with the form of the argument rather than
its content. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is already
contained in the premises.
Hence, in formal logic the material truth or falsity of the premises
is not important. The following deductive argument is invalid
because although the premises are true the conclusion is false:
All lions are four-legged animals.
All tigers are four-legged animals.
Therefore, all tigers are lions.
The evaluation of inductive inferences as sound or unsound is
based upon not only form but also the content or matter. Hence,
material logic is concerned with the content of the argument and
hence it is based more on inductive reasoning. For example, from
all the reported instances - ‘Crows are black’,
we infer the conclusion - All crows are black. Yet, this inductive
inference is only probable because as soon as we come across the
material evidence for a non-black crow it becomes invalid. In a
Symbolic Logic 13
deductive argument the premises provide absolutely conclusive

grounds for the conclusion. While in an an inductive argument the
premises provide only probable grounds for the conclusion.
1.4 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
In the deductive argument, premises provide conclusive grounds
for the truth of the conclusion.
In the following argument the premises and the conclusion are
categorical propositions
No Athletes are unhealthy
All football players are athletes
_____________________________
No football players are unhealthy
It can be said that such propositions is about classes,such that
whether class S is either affirmed or denied by P, completely or
partly. A class being collection of objects that have some
characteristics in common. If we consider the example of a class
of ellipses and another class of square both have no members in
common. One class is said to be included in another class when all
the members of one class is member of the second class. Also if
only some members of one class belong to another class, then it is
partially contained.
In the above argument there are three classes, class of Athletes,
football players and unhealthy.
Symbolic Logic 14
There are four different standard forms of categorical

propositions
All athletes are tall
No athletes are tall
Some athletes are tall
Some athletes are not tall
All S is P
In the first proposition class of all athletes in contained in the class
of tall, every member of first class belong to the second class,hence
schematically this can be written as
It is called universal affirmative proposition
The second proposition
No S is P
Is a universal negative proposition, which states that no member of
the first belong to the second,it means first class is completely
excluded from the other class, this can be schematically written as
No athletes are tall
Some S is P
The next proposition is particular affirmative proposition, which
states that some members of the first class are also members of the
second class,it means they have some members in common. This
proposition neither affirms nor denies that all athletes are tall,
literally it does not deny that some athletes are not tall, but in some
context it do suggest it.The word some is indefinite, in the
Symbolic Logic 15
customary usage it means atleast one member of the class ‘athletes’

is a member of the class ‘tall’.Here the relation of inclusion holds
but it is not universal, instead it is only partial.
Some Athletes are tall
Some S is not P
It is called the particular negative proposition. It means atleast one
member designated by the subject term(class S) is excluded from
the whole class designated by predicate term(P).
Some Athletes are not tall
Categorical Propositions either affirms or denies something about
a class of things unconditionally
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS ARE –
• It is always in indicative mood
• It is always in present tense
• Copula must be separate from the subject
and the object
The thing about which affirmation for negation is made is the
subject S
The attribute that is affirmed or denied of the subject is the
predicate P
There are four kinds of copula , is , is not, are , are not
S + Copula + P
Symbolic Logic 16
• Words are part of grammatical sentences, terms are

constituents of logical propositions
• A term is word or group of words which serves as either
subject or predicate of a proposition
• Propositions have only two terms namely the subject and
the predicate
• Propositions have only two terms subject and predicate,
while sentences can have any number of words
Quantity and Quality of Proposition

• Quality of a proposition indicates whether the
proposition is affirmed or denied of the subject.
• Quantity of a proposition is determined by the extent of
generalization of the subject.
• Proposition is universal if it refers to the whole class of
objects
• It is particular, if the subject refers to only part of the
class
• Quantity indicators – All, No and Some
Based upon quantity and quality we can classify proposition
in to four
A,E,I,O
A - All S is P
E - No S is P
Symbolic Logic 17
I - Some is P
O - Some is not P
CONNOTATION AND DENOTATION OF A TERM
• Every term has either connotation and denotation
• Every term connotes a quality an denotes a quantity
• Connotation refers to the quality of propositions
• It is the set of qualities possessed by objects referred to
that term
• Denotation refers to the objects that possess the given

qualities, denotation of the term human being is any
particular individual like Socrates
Distribution of Terms
• When a certain attribute is predicated to the whole of the
subject term,the subject is said to be distributed.
• If only a part of it is referred to, then the term is
characterized as undistributed
• In Universal Propositions the subject term is distributed
and in particular propositions the subject term is
undistributed
• In affirmative propositions predicate term in
undistributed,While in negative proposition the predicate
term is distributed.
Symbolic Logic 18
PROPOSITON SUBJECT PREDICATE
A Distributed Undistributed
E Distributed Distributed
I Undistributed Undistributed
O Undistributed Distributed
We can also use Mnemonic formula to represent the distribution

of terms,
AsEbInOp
A proposition distributed the subject term
E proposition distributes both subject and predicate term
I proposition distributed neither subject nor predicate
O proposition distributes predicate term
FOUR TYPES OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

A proposition - Universal Affirmative, All S is P
E proposition - Universal Negative, No S is P
Symbolic Logic 19
O proposition - Particular Affirmative, Some S is P

I proposition - Particular Negative, Some S is not P
The term about which affirmation or denial is made is the subject,
the term which is affirmed or denied is the predicate. The
connecting link is the copula, they are is , is not, are , are not
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION AND CONDITIONAL
PROPOSITION
In a Categorical proposition the relation between the subject and
predicate terms is unconditional
The conditional proposition asserts the relation on the basis of
some conditions, there are two types of conditions namely
hypothetical and Disjunctive
example for hypothetical -If I win the match I will celebrate
example for disjunctive - either I shall telephone him or
write to him
Distribution of Terms in a Proposition with Eulers Circles

All S is P
Symbolic Logic 20
No S is P
P
S
Some S is P
Symbolic Logic 21
Some S is not P
1.5 THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

• The truth relations between the four categorical
proposition is termed ‘Opposition’
• Traditional logicians have explained it by means of
diagram called ‘Square of Opposition’
• In the Square of Opposition, when we infer the Opposite
proposition from the given proposition,the subject and
predicate of the implied proposition is the same as the
implying one
• Two propositions are said to be opposite if they differ
either in quality or quantity or both quantity and quality
Symbolic Logic 22
A Contrary E
I Sub-Contrary O
In the Square of Opposition, we infer the opposite proposition
from the given proposition, subject and predicate of the implied
proposition is same as the implying one.
Two categorical propositions are said to be opposite if they
differ in quality or quantity or both quality and quantity
A and E are contrary propositions
I and O are sub - contrary
A is super altern to I and E is super altern to O
I is sub altern to A and O is sub altern to E
Symbolic Logic 23
A and O are contradictories,similarly E and I are contradictories

If the truth and falsehood of any one of the four standard form of
proposition is known, truth of some or all other can be inferred
immediately.
A given E is false I is true O is false

true
E given A is false I is false O is true

true
I given A is E is false O is
true undetermined undetermined
O given A is false E is I is
true undetermined undetermined
A given I is E is O is true
false undetermined undetermined
E given A is I is true O is
false undetermined undetermined
I given A is false E is true O is true

false
O given A is true E is false I is true

false
Immediate Inferences :
There are three kinds of immediate inferences :-
i) Conversion
ii) Obversion
Symbolic Logic 24
iii) Contraposition
In Conversion, there is interchange of the position of the subject
and predicate terms of the proposition.
If we take the proposition, It is an A proposition
All dogs are mammals
The converse of it is , All mammals are dogs
First proposition is true while second ,which is not true, instead
here there is conversion through limitation, here there is a
combination of sub alternation and conversion, Subject and
Predicate positions are interchanged and changing the quantity of
the proposition from universal to particular.
If we convert the A proposition
All S is P
Some P is S( by limitation)
For E and I proposition conversion is perfectly valid
Some S is P
Some P is S
No S is P
No P is S
Some S is non P
( not valid)
Symbolic Logic 25
The next immediate inference is Obversion

If we take the example
All residents are club members
No residents are non- club members
Obversion
Obvertend Obverse
All S is P All non S is non P
Some S is P Some S is not non P
No S is P All S is non P
Some S is not P Some S is non P
Contraposition
To form the contrapositive,the subject term of the given
proposition is replaced by the compliment of the predicate term
and the predicate term is replaced by the compliment of its subject
term.
The contrapositive of
All S is P
All non P is non S
All Staff are members
All non members are non staff
Symbolic Logic 26
Here we can see that the contrapositive is valid for A proposition,

it introduces nothing new.
It is valid for both A and O propositions
Premise Contraposition
A: All S is P A: All non P is non S
E: No S is P O: Some non P is not non S
I: Some S is P Not Valid
O: Some S is not P O: Some non P is not non S
Symbolism and Diagram for Categorical Propositions
To deny that S is empty is by saying that S has members, by
denying S = 0 we say that S is not empty, then it is symbolised as
S ≠ 0.
In Standard form Categorical Syllogisms there are two classes
Suppose S is the class of Sportsperson and P the class of
Intellectuals, the class of thing which belong to both of them can
be represented by SP ≠ 0.The product of the classes is the class
which belongs to both of them.
If we want to state the product of two is empty, we can state it as
an E proposition.
No S is P
Some S is P states that atleast one member of S belongs to P,
this can be symbolised as
SP ≠ 0
Symbolic Logic 27
[Ṕ -Here it is read as P complement , Ś – Here it is read as S

complement ]
In order to represent A and O propositions we need to introduce
complement of a class.The A proposition, All S is P can be
symbolised as SṔ = 0
While the O proposition can be symbolised as SṔ ≠ 0
Some S is not P
SṔ = 0 SP = 0
SP ≠ 0 SṔ ≠ 0
A and O propositions are contradictories, similarly E and I

propositions are contradictories
If we represent the propositions through diagrams, the class S can
be represented as a circle,
Symbolic Logic 28
S=0 S≠0
The above figure represents the class S, the first figure

represents an empty class, in the second figure there is an x inside
the figure which shows there is atleast one x which belongs to the
class S.
Usually to diagram standard categorical proposition two figures
are required, if their subject term is S and Predicate term P, two
intersecting circles are drawn
Symbolic Logic 29
The part of S that is not overlapping P can be symbolised as SṔ

= 0 similarly the part of P that does not overlap with S can be
symbolised as ŚP = 0. The intersecting part can be symbolised as
SP , it is the product of the classes S and P. ŚṔ is the part of the
diagram that is external to both S and P.
Diagrams of the four standard form categorical

propositions are given below
All S is P --- SṔ = 0
No S is P --- SP = 0
Some S is P --- SP ≠ 0
Some S is not P --- SṔ ≠ 0
1.6 Categorical Syllogism

Any deductive argument in which the conclusion is drawn from
two premises is a categorical Syllogism. It is a mediate inference
in which two premises jointly imply the conclusion. A categorical
syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three terms each
of which occurs in the two constituent propositions. The premises
Symbolic Logic 30
and conclusion being standard form categorical propositions are

arranged in standard order.
There are three terms which occur in the two constituent
propositions
In categorical syllogism all propositions are categorical.
All men are mortal
All kings are men
All kings are mortal
The validity and invalidity of a syllogism(whose constituent
propositions are contingent)depends upon it’s form and is
completely independent of its specific content or subject matter.
If a syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same form is
invalid. To understand the fallacious character, we can check it by
constructing another argument of the same form whose invalidity
was apparent.
All M is P
All S is M
All S is P
Eg:-
All mammals are animals
All cats are mammals
Symbolic Logic 31
All cats are animals

The above argument is valid
The following argument is invalid
All Cheetahs are fast runners
Some Rats are fast runners
Some Rats are Cheetahs

The form of the above argument is given below
All P is M
Some S is M
Some S is P
In Categorical Propositions there are three terms
Minor term - S,
Middle term - M
Major term - P
The premise in which minor term occurs is called minor
premise,the premise in which major term occurs is called major
premise .Middle term is the term which occurs in both premises,
but not in the conclusion.Middle term is common to both major
and minor premise.
Forms of the standard form categorical propositions determine the
mood of the standard form -syllogism.The representation of it is
Symbolic Logic 32
through 3 letters, the first one names the major premise, the second
one minor premise and the third one conclusion.
A standard form syllogism of a mood AII can have different
forms.
All P is M
Some S is M
_____________
Some S is P
All M is P
Some M is S
Some S is P
Here though both the syllogism are of the same mood , there is
difference in the position of the middle term, In the first syllogism
the middle term is predicate term of major and minor premise.
While in the second syllogism the middle term is the subject term
of major and minor premise.
Therefore syllogisms having same mood may differ in their form
depending upon the relative position of their middle terms. Is
Complete description of form of syllogism is by stating its mood
and figure. Figure indicates the position of the middle term in the
premises
Symbolic Logic 33
FIGURE OF A SYLLOGISM
The figure of the syllogism means the form of a syllogism which
is determined by position of the middle term in its two premises.
Accordingly there are four possible arrangements of middle
term(M) in two premises, and the figures of the syllogism are as
follows –
1st figure 2nd figure 3rd figure 4th figure

MP PM MP PM
SM SM MS MS
SP SP SP SP
Special Canons -
In the first figure the middle term is subject of the major premise
and predicate of minor premise
In the second figure the middle term is the predicate of both minor
and major premise
In the third figure the middle term is the subject of both minor and
major premise
In the fourth figure middle term is predicate of the major premise
subject of minor premise
Symbolic Logic 34
MOODS OF A SYLLOGISM
Mood of a proposition is determined by the quantity and quality
of the constituent propositions. If all the three propositions of a
syllogism are A propositions, the mood of the syllogism is AAA.
Valid mood of the first figure
MP
SM
----------
SP
Rule : Major premise should be affirmative and universal
There are four valid mood for the first figure, they are
AAA BARBARA
AII DARII
EAE CELARANT
EIO FERIO
Valid mood of the 2nd figure
PM
SM
----------
SP
Rule : 1. One premise must be negative
2. Major premise must be universal
Symbolic Logic 35
The four valid moods of 2nd figure are –

AEE - CAMESTRES
AOO - BAROCO
EAE - CESARE
EIO - FESTINO
Valid mood of the 3rd figure
MP
MS
---------
SP
Rule : 1. Minor premise must be affirmative
2. Conclusion must be particular
The 6 valid moods of 3rd figure are –
AAI - DARAPII
AII - DATISI
EAO - FELAPTON
EIO - FERISON
IAI - DISAMISS
OAO – BOCARDO
Symbolic Logic 36
Valid mood of the 4th figure

PM
MS
----------
SP
Rule : 1. One premise is negative,major premise must be universal
2. If the major premise is affirmative, minor premise must
be universal
The 5 valid moods of 4rth figure are –
AAI - BRAMANTIP
AEE - CAMENES
EAO - FESAPO
EIO - FRESISON
IAI - DIMARIS
Venn Diagrams :
For representing the syllogism in the Venn Diagram, three
overlapping circles are drawn, there are three terms in the two
premises, minor term, major term and middle term, we abbreviate
it as S , P and M
Symbolic Logic 37
The two premises are represented using the Venn diagram, the
circles are named in the order of S,P,M. With the circle S , the
diagram of S and S complement can diagrammed. Similarly with
the overlapping circles S and P, four classes SP,ŚP,PŚ,ŚṔ can be
diagrammed.
So with the three overlapping circles we can diagram 8 different
classes as shown above in the figure
By Using this diagram we can check the validity of Categorical
Syllogisms
All football players are athletes
All Rugby players are athletes
All Rugby players are football players
Symbolic Logic 38
To test the validity of the syllogism, we have to make a diagram

of three overlapping circles,with names in the usual order S,P and
M. Where S denotes the class of all Rugby Players, P the class of
all football players and M the class of all athletes.
In the above figure the shaded region shows the representation of

the first and second premises.The shaded areas are SṔḾ,
SPḾ,ŚPḾ as per the first two premises. But the area SṔM is
unshaded, which means the diagram does not satisfy the
conclusion hence the argument is invalid. Which means conclusion
says something more than said by the premises, which means it
does not imply the premises.
Rules and Fallacies

To establish the conclusion is the purpose of the syllogism there
are certain reasons for the syllogism failing to establish the
conclusion. It is by setting certain rules that cogency of the
argument is made possible, it enable the to avoid fallacies.
Symbolic Logic 39
Manifestation of rules is easily explicit,as a syllogism can be

evaluated as to whether it conform to those rules.
1. A valid standard form Categorical syllogism must contain three
terms and these three terms should be used in the same sense
through out the argument.
The assertion of the relationship of terms of conclusion to the same
third term by the premises makes the justification for
conclusion.When there are more than three terms in a categorical
syllogism.It is termed invalid and is said to commit the fallacy of
four terms(latin:quaternio terminorum).When the same term is
used in different senses in the argument it is said to commit the
fallacy of equivocation.
2. In valid standard form syllogism, the middle term must be
distributed in atleast one of the premises.
All Apples are sweet
All Mangos are sweet
____________________
Therefore,All Mangos are Apples
In the above argument the middle term ‘sweet’ is not distributed in
any of the premises, therefore it commits the fallacy of
undistributed middle, hence the argument is invalid.
In the conclusion there is a connection between it terms. The terms
in the conclusion is related to each other through a third term called
middle term. The premises justifies in asserting the connection
only if there is a connection through the middle term. In the above
syllogism the middle term does not connect to minor and major
term.
Symbolic Logic 40
3. In valid standard form categorical syllogism, if either term is

distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the
premises.
The argument is invalid if the conclusion illegitimately go beyond
what is stated by the premises.When the term in the conclusion is
distributed,which was not distributed in the premises then
conclusions states more than what was intended in the
premises.This makes the argument invalid.
All scooters are vehicles
No cars are scooters
-----------------------------------
No cars are vehicles
Here major term ‘vehicles’ in undistributed in the major premise,
while distributed in conclusion, which makes the argument invalid.
Here it is the fallacy of illicit process of the major term.
4. No standard form categorical syllogisms have two negative
premises are valid.
A negative proposition denies class inclusion,All or some of the
class is excluded from the other.When the premises are negative,
whether complete or partial, no relation between the terms( say S
and P) of the conclusion can be inferred.
5. If either of premises of the valid categorical syllogism is
negative, then conclusion must be negative.
We get affirmative conclusion when the premises are also
affirmative, but if the one of the premises is negative then the
conclusion should also be negative. If this rule is broken then it
Symbolic Logic 41
commits the fallacy of drawing affirmative conclusion from

negative premises.
6. No valid form standard categorical syllogism can have particular
conclusion from two universal premises
Since here the premises are without existential import.So to assert
objects of specific kinds from two universal premises is to
illegimately go beyond what is warranted by the premises.
Any syllogism that violates this rule is said to commit existential
fallacy.These 6 rules apply only to standard form categorical
syllogism, any syllogism that breaks these rules is invalid.
1.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms

The kinds of propositions determine what name the Syllogism
takes. A categorical syllogism contains categorical propositions
exclusively.
Categorical proposition is termed simple in contrast to
propositions that contain other propositions as its constituents.
Compound propositions contain other propositions as its
components.
A Disjunctive proposition usually contain two components which
are called disjuncts eg:-
Either Raju crossed the road or Raju got hit by car
Raju did not cross the road
Raju got hit by a car

The above syllogism is valid
Symbolic Logic 42
Here there are two components which are called disjuncts,either of

these disjuncts is not categorically affirmed, it says atleast one of
it is true.
The disjunctive proposition does not categorical affirm the truth
of either one of its judgements, it consists of two disjuncts , it
carries the possibility that both may be true.It says atleast one of it
may be true.
Either Raju crossed the road or Raju got hit by car
Raju crossed the road
Raju did not get hit by car

The above a syllogism is not valid, since truth of one disjunct does
not imply the falsity of the other, it might be Raju crossed the road
and got hit by the car.Hence we have valid disjunctive syllogism
when the categorical premise contradicts one of the disjuncts of
disjunctive premise and the conclusion affirms the other disjunct
of the disjunctive premise.
Either Raghu is in Delhi or Raghu is in Madras
Raghu is in Delhi
Raghu is in not in Madras

In the above syllogism conclusion follows validly, here the one of
the disjuncts is affirmed by the categorical premise and
conclusion contradicts the other disjunct.
Hypothetical Syllogism
A statement of the form
Symbolic Logic 43
If he wins the race then he will be promoted

If he is promoted,he will celebrate
If he wins the race , he will celebrate

In the conditional proposition containing two components, the one
following if is called the antecedent and the component following
then is called consequent.
It can be seen that the antecedent of the first premise same as the
antecedent of the conclusion and the consequent of the conclusion
is the same as the consequent of the second premise. The
consequent of the first premise is same as the antecedent of the
second premise.
Hypothetical syllogism whose component parts of the premises
and conclusion are so related is a valid argument.
The rules of pure hypothetical syllogism are as follows:
1) Both of the premises should have one common categorical
proposition.
2) This common proposition is the antecedent in one premise and
consequent in other premise.
3) The conclusion should not have this common term, but instead
it should contain the antecedent of one premise as antecedent
(other than the common term) and consequent other premise as
consequent (other than the common term)
Symbolic form
p⊃q
q⊃r
∴p ⊃ r
Symbolic Logic 44
1.8 SYMBOLIC LOGIC

Systems of logic had existed from the times of Aristotle(384-322
B.C).In symbolic logic just like mathematics advantages of using
symbols is made to use, since it is easy for one to manipulate
symbols ,it provides overall structure of the sentence. Aristotle had
used certain abbreviations in order to facilitate his investigations.
Using symbols we can make new developments in logic especially
in dealing with complex arguments. It is economical to use
symbols for scientific purposes since lot of time and space is
needed to report in long sequences of familiar words.And when
long sentences are involved it is more difficult to grasp the
meaning.
KxKxKxKxKxKxKxK=LxLxL
Can be symbolised as K8 = L3
The modern symbolic logic used some special symbols, the
difference between old and modern logic is of degree rather than
of kind.The modern logic has devised its own technical language
hence it has become a efficient tool for analysis and deduction. The
logical structures of arguments can be displayed with more clarity
with the special symbols used while in ordinary language it may
be more obscure. The special symbolic language makes us easily
identify valid and invalid arguments. Also the ambiguity and
vagueness of expressions are checked. Symbolic language enables
better drawing of inferences over ordinary language.With the
advent of symbolic logic there has been explosion of knowledge in
this area.
The advent of Symbolic logic was during 20th century though
there was certain systems of logic in the times of Aristotle.From
1840’s we could see the development of symbolic logic from two
branches of history, firstly George Boole(1815-1864) applying
Symbolic Logic 45
algebraic notations to non mathematical kind of arguments.The

algebraic notation and methods to first symbolise and then to
validate arguments.
The other branch to which the development may be pointed to was
the work of Augustus De Morgan(1806-1871) and Charles Sanders
Pierce(1839-1914) who were involved in developing precise
notation for relational arguments.
There were may stalwarts like Gottlob Frege(1848-
1925),Guiseppo Peano(1858-1932), Alfred North
Whitehead((1861-1947) those of whom had made magnificient
contribution and finally the work of Bertrand Russell(1872-1970)
‘Principia Mathematica’ which was eventually a landmark in the
history of Symbolic logic.
Symbolic Logic 46
UNIT - II
2 Arguments containing compound statements
2.1 SIMPLE AND COMPOUND STATEMENTS

Compound statements contain other statements as its component
parts. Compound proposition is that contain two or more
propositions as its components. A simple statement do not contain
other statements as its component.
Raju is brave and Hari is intelligent
The statement Raju is brave cannot be further split into component
propositions
For a part of a statement to be component of a larger statement two
conditions must be satisfied –
i) Firstly it must be a statement in its own right.
ii) If the part is replaced in the larger statement by any other
statement, the replaced statement must be meaningful.
Conjunction :
Conjunction is a compound statement in which the word ‘and’ is
inserted between the two statements. The symbol for the
conjunction operator is dot(.)
Symbolic Logic 47
If suppose first component of the compound statement is p and

second component is q then their conjuction is written as p.q. Truth
value of the compound statement is determined by truth value of
its parts. For the truth value of the compound statement to be true
both of its conjuncts need to be true. If any of the component
becomes false then the truth value of A.B becomes false.
Hence conjunction is termed truth functional compound statement.
The truth table for conjunction can be given as –
P Q p.q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Disjunction :
Disjunction is a compound statement in which ‘or’ is inserted
between the component statements, the two statements are called
disjuncts. The word or can be used in both exclusive and inclusive
sense.
Logicians recognize two kinds of disjunctions, inclusive
disjunction and exclusive disjunction. A disjunction containing
non-exclusive alternatives is called inclusive disjunction.
Example, ‘Ramesh is either sick or lazy’. The sense of ‘or’ in
inclusive disjunction is ‘at least one, both may be’.
A disjunction containing exclusive alternatives is called exclusive
disjunction. For example, ‘Today is either Saturday or Sunday’.
Symbolic Logic 48
Another example,Either tea or Coffee. The sense of ‘or’ in

exclusive disjunction is ‘at least one, but not both’.
The symbol ‘v’ is called wedge, in latin it means the inclusive
sense of ‘or’. It is the first letter of the word ‘ vel’
The truth table for ‘inclusive disjunction’ is as follows:
P q Pvq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Negation :
The symbol ‘~’ called “curl” or “tilde” is used to form the negation
of a statement. The truth table for negation is as follows
If A symbolizes the statement ‘Cat is on the mat’ then ~ A states
that it is not the case that cat is on the mat.It is false that Cat is on
the mat.
p ~p
T F
F T
Just like we put brackets and braces in mathematics, in symbolic
logic the importance of punctuation is the same, when there are
many compound statements which itself gets combined to form
complicated compounds, inorder to resolve the ambiguity of such
statements punctuation becomes essential.
Symbolic Logic 49
A statement of the form A.BvC becomes ambiguous regarding

whether it is A conjunction of B v C or disjunction of A.B with C
If we put brackets to it there are two senses associated with it.
(A.B) v C
A.(BvC)
If A and B are false and C is true
Then the first statement is true while the second statement is false.
So the above statement signifies the importance of punctuation,just
like in mathematics symbolic logic we use parentheses, brackets
and braces for punctuation.
If we symbolise statements, Either Ramu or Sanju will win the
game with its negation then it will be symbolised as ~ (R v S)
The negation of the statement Neither Ramu and Sanju will win
the game can be symbolised as ~(R.S)
Ramu and Sanju will both not win the game ~(R).~(S)
Ramu and Sanju will not both win the game ~ (R.S)
If the simple statements with the repeated use of truth functional
connectives form the compound statement, then it is the truth value
of the simple statements that determine the truth value of the
compound statement.
If we take an example –given M and N are true statements and P
and Q false
Symbolic Logic 50
P v [M.(QvN)]
Then the truth value of the above statement will be
P v M . QvN
F T F T
T
From the above diagram it is clear that the truth value of the
statement is true.
Now to symbolise a statement like, Either Team E or Team F will
win the tournament but will both not win the tournament.
(E v F). ~(E.F)
2.3 Conditional Statements
In the conditional statement of the form eg:- If the bus is late then
I may not reach office on time, here the component between if and
then is called the antecedent and the component after then is called
the consequent.
Symbolic Logic 51
There can be different kinds of implications that conditional

statements can express like, if all Rabbits likes Carrots,Chotu is a
Rabbit,then Chotu likes carrots, here the consequent logically
follows from the antecedent. If the figure is square then it has four
sides, here the consequent is implied by the antecedent.
So various examples can be cited for conditional statements, there
can be different senses of if then phrase, we try to identify some
common partial meaning of these conditionals.
For the conditional to be true, the negation of conjunction of
antecendent and negation of consequent should be true.
~(P. ~Q) should be true
When we open the brackets
~P v Q
Any conditional with true antecendent and false consequent must
necessarily be false.For the conditional to be true the indicated
conjunction ( of the antecedent and negation of the consequent)
must be false.Which means the negation of the conjunction must
be true.
This relation is shown by a new symbol ‘ↄ’, which is called
horseshoe.It represents the partial meaning of all conditional
statements.It is a truth functional connective,
It is therefore an abbreviation for ~(p.
~q)
Pↄq
If p then q
Symbolic Logic 52
P q ~q p. ~q ~( p. ~q) pↄq
T T F F T T
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T F T T
So in the above table there are Six columns , if we look in to the

first two columns we can find the possible truth values applicable
to P and Q(component statements). Then the other columns
contain the stages in determining the truth value of the conditional
statement.
The horseshoe symbolise a weak kind of implication called
material implication.It is a special concept and not to be equated
with usual implication.
The different ways of expressing conditional statement P ↄ Q are
If P then Q,P implies that Q, P entails that Q, P is a sufficient
condition that Q,Q is a necessary condition that P.
‘ↄ’ is the symbolisation for the weak implication and is called
material implication, it means it should not be confused with other
implications. There are implications which are neither causal,
definitional nor logical, if we take a condition in which there is no
real connection in which antecedent and which consequent states.
Such a statement contains ridiculously a false statement as the
consequent such that it denies truth of the antecedent.
Eg:- If team A wins the game then colour of rose flower will
change
Symbolic Logic 53
Most conditionals express more than material implications

between antecedent and the consequent but the symbolisation ’ↄ’
abstracts from the meaning of conditional statements. Regarding
the expression of conditionals as material implication in valid
arguments this symbolisation is justified.
2.4 Argument forms and truth tables

Validity and invalidity are based upon the formal characteristics of
the argument. Two argument of the same form is either both valid
or both invalid whatever its subject matter may be.
The condition for validity of argument being there should be no
instance in which the conclusion is false with premises being true.
An argument is said to be invalid if exactly another argument of
the same form can be constructed with true premises and false
conclusion. Remember that an argument is valid if and only if its
form is valid, and an argument form is valid if and only if it has no
counterexample-no instance in which all the premises are true but
the conclusion is false The terms valid and invalid is applicable to
both argument and argument forms.
Argument form may be defined as an array of symbols which
contains statement variables, such that when statement is
substituted for statement variables, same statement being
substituted for every occurrence of the statement variable
throughout the result is an argument.
Suppose if we have to check the validity of the
argument
Electrical wirings should be insulated or there is chance of

electrocution
Symbolic Logic 54
Electrical wirings not insulated
There is chance of electrocution

Which can be symbolised as
EvC
~E
C
The following has the same form
Pvq
~p
______________
Therefore q
We can check the Validity of the disjunctive syllogism by
constructing truth table
P Q pvq ~p
T T T F
T F T F
F T T T
F F F T
Symbolic Logic 55
The whole class of substitution instances is being given in each

rows,the T’s and F’s in the initial columns is the truth value of
statements that can be substituted to statement variables P and Q
of the argument form.These truth values determine the truth value
of other columns.
Here first premise is the 3rd column and second premise 4th column
And conclusion the second column
We check all rows of premises and conclusion for true premises
and false conclusion.If there is no substitution instance with true
premises and false conclusion then the argument is valid.
So in order check the validity of the syllogism, we look for the
substitution instance having both premises true, so in the 3rd row
we have substitution instance with both premises true for which
the conclusion is also true. It shows that the argument is valid. In
order to determine the validity or invalidity of an argument we
have look in to all substitution instances and check whether there
are true premises and false conclusions.
Hence truth table provides an effective method to determine the
validity and invalidity of argument
Modus Tollens
pƆq
~q
_________
~p
Symbolic Logic 56
p q pƆ q ~p ~q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T
If we check the rows of the premises, column 3 and column 5,

there is a substitution instance of premises being true in the 4th row,
when we check the conclusion of it in the 4th row of the 4th column
which also true.This proves that the above argument form is
valid.There is no substitution instance with true premises and false
conclusion hence the argument is valid.
Now to check the validity of following argument form –
(pƆ q).(p Ɔ r)
p
Therefore,q v r
Here we have three statement variable, the number of rows
is given by the equation 2n ,where n is the number of variables,
hence for 3 variables it will be 8
p q R pƆq pƆ r qvr (p Ɔ q).(p Ɔ r)
T T T T T T T
T T F T F T F
T F F F F F F
Symbolic Logic 57
T F T F T T F
F T T T T T T
F F T T T T T
F T F T T T T
F F F T T F T
The premises are 1st and the 7th column and the conclusion the 6th
column, so here we check whether true substitution instance gives
false conclusion.
In the above truth table there is no substitution instances with true
premises and false conclusion , hence the argument is valid.
Statement forms :
We define a statement form to be any sequence of symbols
containing statement variables, such that when statements are
substituted for the statement variables—the same statement being
substituted for every occurrence of the same statement variable
throughout—the result is a statement.(page 27,im copi , symbolic
logic)
A statement form is any sequence of symbols containing statement
variables but no statements, such that when statements are
substituted for the statement variables-the same statement being
substituted for the same statement variable throughout- the result
is a statement. Thus, ~p is called a negation form or denial form, p
v q is a statement form called disjunctive statement form, p . q is
called conjunctive statement form and p Ͻ q is conditional
Symbolic Logic 58
statement form. Any statement of a certain form is said to be a

substitution instance of that statement form.
The specific form of a given statement is defined as that statement
form from which the statement results by substituting a different
simple statement for each different statement variable. For
example, p Ͻ q is the specific form of the statement A Ͻ B.
Tautologous, Contradictory, and Contingent statement forms:
We determine whether a given proposition is tautology,
contradictory or contingent by looking at the truth tables.
Tautology:
A statement is a tautology if the column under its main connective
is ‘True’ on every row of a complete truth table. Now consider the
statement - ‘it is raining or it is not raining’, which is symbolized
as
‘p v ~ p
The truth table for p v ~ p is represented as follows:
p ~p p v ~p
T F T
F T T
Contradictory:
A statement is a contradictory if the column under its main
connective is ‘False’ on every row of a complete truth table. Now
consider: ‘it is raining and it is not raining’ which is symbolized as
‘p . ~ p
Symbolic Logic 59
The truth table for p . ~ p is represented as follows:
P ~p p. ~p
T F F
F T F
Here we get false as conclusion for all substitution instances,

hence the statement being contradictory.
Contingent:
A statement is contingent if it is neither a tautology nor a
contradiction; i.e. if it is T on at least one row and F on at least one
row. Now consider the statement: ‘if it is raining then the roads are
wet’ which is symbolized as P Ͻ Q. The truth table for implication
is as follows:
p Q pϽq
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
So there is atleast one F and one T, it makes the statement

contingent.
Symbolic Logic 60
BICONDITIONAL :
The symbol tribar’≡’ stands for material equivalence or
biconditional. Biconditional is a compound proposition in which
simple statements are connected with phrase if and only if. Eg:-
The vehicle will operate if and only if there is enough fuel.
Material invalid implication is a special technical concept that
logician introduces such that it aids him and simplifies the task of
discriminating between valid and arguments.
When truth value of two statement is the same then the statements
is said to have material equivalence. The symbol for material
equivalence is ‘≡’, this symbol should be read if and only if.
Statement form of the pattern P ≡ Q is called biconditional.
Two statements are said to be logically equivalent when the
biconditional that expresses their material equivalence is a
tautology.(page 29, imcopi)
Eg:-
p ≡ ~~p
p Q P≡q
T T T
F T F
T F F
F F T
Symbolic Logic 61
Now to check using truth table that whether the following

statements are equivalent
(p Ͻ q) ≡ (~q Ͻ ~p)
p q PϽq ~p ~q ~q Ͻ ~p p Ͻ q ≡ ~q Ͻ
~p
T T T F F T T
T F F F T F T
F T T T F T T
F F T T T T T
The above statements are logically equivalent.

Truth table for (p Ͻ q) ∙ ~ q
p q pϽq ~q (p Ͻ q). ~q
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T
The above statement is contingent
Symbolic Logic 62
Unit - III
3 METHODS OF DEDUCTION
3.1 Formal Proofs of Validity
It is not always possible to test the validity of arguments by

using truth tables when the arguments contain more that three
different simple statements. Another method is to deduce the
conclusion from premises by sequence of shorter elementary
statements that are known to be valid. The premises and statements
are listed as proofs of validity in one column and the justification
for the latter is written in the adjacent to it. The rule of inference
and previous statement by which the statement in question is
deduced is mentioned as justification
Formal proof of validity for a given argument is defined to be a
sequence of statements, each of which is either a premiss of that
argument or follows from preceding statements by an elementary
valid argument, and such that the last statement in the sequence is
the conclusion of the argument whose validity is being proved.
This definition must be completed and made definite by specifying
what is to count as an ‘elementary valid argument’. We first define
an elementary valid argument as any argument that is a
substitution instance of an elementary valid argument form. Then,
we present a list of just nine argument forms that are sufficiently
obvious to be regarded as elementary valid argument forms and
accepted as Rules of Inference
Symbolic Logic 63
(page 33,Symbolic logic,im copi)
3.2 Nine rules of inference

Modus Ponens
PƆ q
P
∴q
Modus Ponens
PƆ q
~q
∴~p
Hypothetical syllogism
PƆq
QƆr
∴pƆr
Disjunctive Syllogism
Pvq
~p
∴q
Symbolic Logic 64
Constructive Dilemma
(p Ɔ q).(r Ɔ s)
Pvr
∴qvs
Destructive Dilemma
(p Ɔ q).(r Ɔ s)
~q v ~s
∴ ~p v ~r
Simplification
p.q
∴P
Conjunction
P
q
____________
∴ p.q
Addition
Symbolic Logic 65
∴Pvq
State the rules of inference from which the following
conclusion is reached
1. (M Ɔ ~N).( ~O Ɔ P)
∴(M Ɔ ~N)
Answer : Simplification
2.( ~ (A.B) Ɔ ~C).(D Ɔ ~E)
~(A.B) v D
∴~Cv~E
Answer : Constructive Dilemma
3. A Ɔ (B≡ ~ C) -----------------------1
(B≡ ~ C) Ɔ D -----------------------2
∴AƆD -----------------------3
Answer : 1,2 Hypothetical Syllogism
Construct a formal proof of validity of each of the following
arguments
1. P Ɔ Q
RƆS
Symbolic Logic 66
(~Q v ~ S).( ~P v ~Q)
∴ ~P v ~R
Answer:
PƆ Q ----------------------------1
RƆS -----------------------------2
(~Q v ~ S).( ~P v ~Q)----------------------------3
___________________________________
∴ ~P v ~R
(P Ɔ Q).(R Ɔ S) 1,2 conjunction-----------4
(~Q v ~ S) 3 simplification --------5
~P v ~R 4,5 Destructive Dilemma---6
2. (A Ɔ ~B).(C Ɔ ~D)
( E Ɔ ~ F).(G Ɔ ~H)
(C Ɔ F).(D Ɔ B)
EvA
∴ ~ C v ~D
Answer
(A Ɔ ~B).(C Ɔ ~D) -----------------------1
( E Ɔ ~ F).(G Ɔ ~H) ----------------------- 2
Symbolic Logic 67
(C Ɔ F).(D Ɔ B) ------------------------3
EvA ------------------------4
EƆ~F 2 simplification -----5
A Ɔ ~B 1 simplification-----6
( E Ɔ ~ F) . (A Ɔ ~B) 5,6 conjunction -----7
~ F v ~B 7,4 constructive dilemma----8

~ C v ~D 3,8 destructive dilemma
Construct a formal proof of validity of the following argument,
using the abbreviations suggested:
1. If the king does not castle and the pawn advances, then either
the bishop is blocked or the rook is pinned. If the king does not
castle, then if the bishop is blocked, then the game is a draw. Either
the king castles or if the rook is pinned, then the exchange is lost.
The king does not castle and the pawn advances. Therefore, either
the game is a draw or the exchange is lost.
(C: The king castles. W: The pawn advances. B: The bishop is
blocked.
P: The rook is pinned. D: The game is a draw. E: The exchange is
lost.)
Symbolic Logic 68
So we have to first symbolize the above argument

~C.W Ɔ B v P
~C Ɔ (B Ɔ D)
C v (P Ɔ E )
~C.W
∴DvE
So inorder to solve the argument , first we have to number it
~C.W Ɔ B v P ---------------------1
~C Ɔ (B Ɔ D) ----------------------2
CvPƆE ----------------------3
~C.W ----------------------4
∴DvE
BvP 1,4 modus ponens -----5
~C 4 simplification --------6
BƆD 2,6 Modus ponens------7
PƆ E 3,6 Disjunctive Syllogism -----8
(B Ɔ D).(P Ɔ E) 7,8 Conjunction ---------9
DvE 9,5 Constructive Dilemma
Symbolic Logic 69
3.3 Rule of Replacement

The nine rules of inference may not be able to prove the validity of
certain truth functional arguments. The rule of replacement or the
principle of extensionality states when we replace a part in the
compound truth functional statement with an expression which is
its logical equivalent,then the resultant statement has the same
truth value as the original statement.
The result of the replacement of parts of the compound statements
or as a whole by logically equivalent statements can be inferred
using the replacement rules.
It is considered the additional rule of inference, so the following
are the additional rules of inference continuing after the nine rules
of inference.
10. De Morgan’s theorem
~(p.q) ≡ ~p v ~q
~(p v q) ≡ ~ p . ~q
11. Commutation
pvq≡qvp
p.q ≡ q.p
12. Association
P v (qvr) ≡ (p v q) v r
p.(q.r) ≡ (p.q).r
Symbolic Logic 70
13. Distribution
p.(qvr) ≡ (p.q) v (p.r)

p v(q.r)≡ (pvq).(pvr)
14. Double Negation
P ≡ ~~P
15. Transposition
p Ɔ q ≡ (~q Ɔ ~p)
16. Material Implication
p Ɔ q ≡ (~p v q)
17. Material Equivalence
( p≡q )≡[ (p Ɔ q).(q Ɔ p)]

( p≡q )≡ (p.q) v (~p. ~q)
18. Exportation
(p.q) Ɔ r ≡ p Ɔ (q Ɔ r)
19. Tautology
p ≡ p.p
p≡pvp
Symbolic Logic 71
So in order to prove the validity of arguments using truth table

method is cumbersome, when the number of rows listed may get
large. Truth table method is mechanical, while to prove the validity
of arguments using the 19 rules of inference, questions like where
to begin and the way to proceed needs to get solved. Here though
it is not a mechanical method like truth table, formal proof of
validity is much easier than to write truth tables with many
columns and rows.
The difference between the first 9 rules of inference and rules of
replacement is that rules of replacement can be applied to whole of
lines or part of lines.
Not only p Ɔ q can be replaced as ~p v q (whole of a line)
(p Ɔ q).r can be written as (part of a line)
(~p v q).r
Wherever there are logically equivalent statements it can be
replaced as whole or part, but first nine rules of inference can be
applied only to line as a whole.
According to the rules of replacement, the logical equivalence of
statements to be replaced are given as per the rules 10 through
19.In the case of substitution of statements in the argument form
all the statements substituted in the statement variable needs to be
the same, while in the case of replacement one occurrence of the
statement variable can change without other not being replaced.
One start first by deducing the conclusions from the given premises
according to the given rules of inference, after this further
deductions are made from the sub-conclusions which act as
premises then one understands how the conclusion of the argument
is proved.According to the rules of inference we can apply it for
Symbolic Logic 72
elimination of some statements in the premises not in the

conclusion.Like if we apply the rule of hypothetical syllogism then
the middle term q is eliminated, like
PƆq
qƆr
pƆr
also by applying simplification
p.q
∴p
Here q is eliminated
By commutation left side conjunct can be shifted to ride
side.Another rule is addition, addition of a statement that occur in
the conclusion but not in the premises.We can also infer by looking
backwards from the conclusion regarding which premises or pair
of premises from which we can deduce conclusion based upon the
rules.For each of the following arguments, state the rules by which
conclusion follows from the premises
1. (~E Ɔ F ).(G v ~H)
∴ (~E Ɔ F).(~H v G)
Answer : Commutation
2.(~A v B).(C v ~D)
∴ ( A Ɔ B).(C v ~D)
Symbolic Logic 73
Answer : Material implication

3. A Ɔ ~(B v ~ C)
∴ M Ɔ ~B.~~C
Answer : De Morgan’s Theorem
4. (G.H) Ɔ {I. [(J. K). L]}
∴ (G.H) Ɔ {I. [(K.J). L]}
Answer: Commutation
5. [A Ɔ (B v C)]v [ A Ɔ (B v C)]
∴ [A Ɔ (B v C)]
Answer : Tautology
a) Construct formal proof of validity for the following
argument
1. A Ɔ (B Ɔ C)
CƆ~C
(D Ɔ A).(E Ɔ B)
∴ D Ɔ ~E
A Ɔ (B Ɔ C) ----------------------------1
CƆ~C ----------------------------2
(D Ɔ A).(E Ɔ B) ----------------------------3
∴ D Ɔ ~E
Symbolic Logic 74
(A.B) Ɔ C 1 exportation------------4
~Cv~C 2 Material implication-------------5

~C 5 Tautology -------------------------6
~(A.B) 4,6 Modus Tollens----------------7
~A v ~B 7 De Morgan ----------------------8
~D v ~ E 3,8 Destructive Dilemma -------9
DƆ~E 9 Material implication
2. (A v B) v (C.D)
(~ A .D).~(~A.B)
∴~A.C
(A v B) v (C.D) -------------------1
(~ A .D).~(~A.B)---------------------2
∴~A.C
(~A.D) .( A v ~ B)-- 2, Demorgan---3
~ A .(D.A v ~ B) ----3 Association ---4
~A ---------4 simplification –5
A v (Bv (C.D)) ----------1 Association------6
[B v (C.D)] ------------6, 5 Disjunctive Syllogism--7
(B v C).(B v D )-----------7 Distribution ---------8
BvC -----------8 Simplification ------9
Symbolic Logic 75
~ A . (B v C) -----------5,9 Conjunction -----10

~A.B v ~A.C ----------10 Demorgan -------11
~(~A.B). (~ A .D) -----------2 Commutation----12
~(~A.B) ------------12 Simplification--13
~ A.C -------------11,13 Disjunctive
Syllogism.
b)Construct formal proofs of validity of the following
arguments with the suggested notation
Either the Mayor and the councillor will both run for re-election
or the primary race will be wide open and the party will be torn
by dissension. The Mayor will not run for re-election. Therefore
the party will be torn by dissension.(M,C,W,D)
(M . C) v W.D ----------------1
~M -----------------2
∴D
~M v ~C 2 addition------3
~(M.C) 3 DeMorgan----4
W.D 1,4 Disjunctive Syllogism----5
D.W 5 commutation--------------6
Symbolic Logic 76
3.4 The Rule of Conditional Proof

There is another rule that can be applied to the method of deduction
called rule of conditional proof.It can be applied to arguments
whose conclusion is conditionals.
If an argument has conditional statements as its conclusion say if
it is M Ɔ N then the conjunction of premises is H, for the argument
is valid only if the conditional is a tautology
H Ɔ (M Ɔ N)
Arguments usually contain conditional statements, the antecedents
of it being the conjunction of the premises and conclusion being
the consequent.So we need to deduce the conclusion (M Ɔ N) from
the premises conjoined in H through the sequence of elementary
valid arguments proving the argument to be valid and conditional
H Ɔ (M Ɔ N) being a tautology.
By using the exportation(Rules of replacement)
(H.M) Ɔ N
The premise of this argument has all the premises of the first
argument and antecedent of the conclusion of the first.We have to
prove this to be a tautology. We deduce N using the premises
conjoined in H.M,by sequence of elementary valid arguments.
Through it we prove it to be a tautology.
(H v I) Ɔ ( J.K) -----------------1
(K v L) Ɔ M -----------------2
∴HƆM
Symbolic Logic 77
H / ∴ M (C.P)----------3
H v I -------3 addition---4
J.K ---------1,3 Modus Ponens----5
K.L -----------5 commutation -------6
K -----------6 simplification--------7
K v L ----------7 addition --------------8
M ---------2,8 Modus Ponens-----9
Hence it proves the validity of the above argument.
3.5 The Strenthend Rule of Conditional Proof
In order to strengthen the rule of conditional truth for
situations in which the conclusion is not a explicit
conditional thus providing wider applicability. A new
method of writing proofs is used using conditional
methods.
Earlier we used conditional proof as the method for proving
the validity of arguments in which the conclusion which is
a conditional statement, the antecedent of the conditional is
made the premise as an assumption,then deducing the
conditional’s consequent.
When an assumption is made in the conditional proof of
validity its scope is limited not extending to the end of the
argument. Inorder to mark the scope of the assumption, in
the new method a bent arrow is used. Head of the arrow
pointing to the assumption from left, and the shaft run
Symbolic Logic 78
down along all line till the scope of the assumption benting
inwards marking end of the scope.
(L v M) Ɔ [(N vO) Ɔ P] / ∴ L Ɔ [(N.O) Ɔ P] -------------1

L ------------------------2
LvM 2 addition------------3
(NvO) Ɔ P 1,3 Modus Ponens--4
N.O -------------------------5
N 5 Simplification ---- 6
NvO 6 addition -----------7
P 4,7 Modus Ponens----8
N.O Ɔ P 5,8 Conditional Proposition--9
L Ɔ (N.O) Ɔ P 2, 9 conditional Proposition---10

Where the scope of an assumption ends then assumption is said to
be discharged.Justification of reference to the assumption belongs
only to the lines lying between the limited scope and the line that
discharges it.
After discharge of an assumption based on limited scope is made
another assumption can be made and then discharged.Or a second
assumption of a limited scope may be written within the scope of
the first.It can be that one scope may be contained in another or
scopes of different assumptions may follow each other.
Not only any assumptions of limited scope can be made. Even
negation of arguments conclusion can be assumed in strengthend
rule of conditional proof.
Symbolic Logic 79
3.6 The Rule of Indirect Proof:

In the indirect proof of validity of an argument,the argument is
constructed where the negation of the conclusion is assumed as
an additional premise and , and deriving explicit contradiction
from the augmented set of premises.
This method is also called method of proof by Reductio ad
absurdum .In elementary geometry where the opposite of what
one wants to prove is assumed. If that assumption leads to
contradiction then the theorem that we wanted to prove is true.
Arguments having tautology as conclusion can be verified using
truth table method.If the tautologous conclusion of an argument
is not a conditional statement and the premises are consistent
with each other and quite irrelevant to the conclusion then
argument cannot be proved valid using the usual methods, for
which indirect proofs need to be used.
For the following arguments construct indirect proof
1. (A Ɔ B).(C Ɔ D) --------1
(B v D) Ɔ E ---------2
~E ---------3
∴ ~(A v C)
AvC Indirect Proof-------4
BvD 1,4 Constructive Dilemma --5
E 2, 5 Modus Ponens --------6
~E.E 3,6 conjunction ---------7
Symbolic Logic 80
So step 7 is a contradiction, which means our negation of the

conclusion is false. Hence the argument is valid.
2. (A Ɔ ~B).(C Ɔ D) ---------------------1
(~B Ɔ E).(D Ɔ ~M)---------------------2
(E Ɔ ~N).(~M Ɔ O)--------------------3
(A.C)-------------------------------------4
∴~ N.O
~(~ N.O) ----------Indirect Proof --5
~~N v ~O De Morgan ------------ 6
~E v ~~M 3,6 Destructive Dilemma---7
~~ B v ~ D 2,7 Destructive Dilemma ---8
~Av~C 1,8 Destructive Dilemma---9
~(A.C) 8 De morgan -----------------10
(A.C).~(A.C) 4, 9 Conjunction ----------11
So here the step 12 is a contradiction which proves that the
negation of the conclusion is false, hence the argument valid.
If this was proved using formal proof of validity without using
indirect proof the
There would have been longer steps and proof would have
been more tedious.
Symbolic Logic 81
UNIT - IV
4.1 Quantification Theory

4.1.1 Singular Propositions and General
Propositions
All Humans are mortal
Aristotle is human
Aristotle is mortal
The inner logical structure of non compound statements have to be
analysed since validity of such arguments depend upon it. There
should be methods for it. Any subject term has its attribute
designated by the predicate term. Individuals described here are
not only persons it can be things, planets, nations etc. Attributes
can be not only adjectives it can be nouns or verbs. Singular
propositions are symbolised using ‘a through w’ using the first
letter of individuals name to denote that individual. It is also called
individual constants.
In the above example, mortal may be symbolised as M, and
Humans as H. The predicate term is written left to the subject term.
Aristotle is human can be symbolised as Ha and Aristotle is mortal
Ma
So if there are symbolisation for singular propositions having the
same predicate term like
Symbolic Logic 82
Socrates is human - Hs
Bacon is human - Hb
Spinoza is human - Hs
All these propositions have a attribute symbol H followed by an
individual constant.
Since all these propositions have same attribute symbol and
different constants
We can write pattern common to all singular propositions as Hx.
Hx is called propositional function. Here x is called the individual
variable. Hs,Hb,Hs are either true or false while Hx is neither true
or false. When the individual variable in Hx is replaced by an
individual constant like Hs they become individual propositions.
When the substitution of the individual constant in the individual
variable in the propositional function results in singular
proposition,this singular proposition can regarded as the
substitution instance of the propositional function. The process of
obtaining a proposition from a propositional function by
substituting a constant for a variable is called ‘instantiation’.
In the case of general propositions it is quantification,they can
result from propositional functions but here it is not instantiation.
Everything is mortal can be written as
We can use x in the place of pronoun it
Given any x , if x is mortal
x written as universal quantifier is (x)
Symbolic Logic 83
The above proposition can be symbolised as

(x)Mx
We can paraphrase
‘Something is mortal’ as
There is atleast one x such that it is Mx
There is one x such that is symbolised using (Ǝx) is called the
existential quantifier.
So the above proposition can be symbolised as
(Ǝx)Mx
It can be seen that in front of the propositional function Mx , the
symbolisation (Ǝx) is placed to form a general proposition. So a
general proposition is formed when either a universal or existential
quantifier is placed before the propositional function. Here the
existential quantification of the propositional function is true if
atleast one substitution instance of the propositional function is
true. For Universal quantification to be true all of its substitution
instances need to be true.
Now if we consider the negations of the above two propostions,
ie.,
The symbolisation of it is
Nothing is mortal - (x) ~Mx
Something is not mortal – (Ǝx)~Mx
Symbolic Logic 84
If we use the attribute symbol φ ‘phi’ ,then we can represent the

relation between existential and Universal generalisation using the
square array
(x)φx Contrary (x)~ φx
A E
I O
(Ǝx) φx Sub contrar y (Ǝx) ~ φx
The top two propositions are contraries, which means both can be
false but both cannot be true, while for the two propositions in the
bottom both can be true but both cannot be false.For the
propositions on the sides, the lower proposition is implied by the
proposition above it. Regarding the opposite corners they are
called contradictories , ie., when one is true other must be false.
The four types of subject predicate propositions in traditional logic
may be listed as-
All humans are mortal
No humans are mortal
Symbolic Logic 85
Some humans are mortal

Some humans are not mortal
If we symbolise it using propositional functions and quantifiers
Given any individual thing whatever, if it is human then it is mortal
Given any x if x is human then x is mortal
(x)(Hx Ɔ Mx)
Now for the next E proposition
No humans are mortal, can be paraphrased as
Given any x if x is human then x is not mortal, can be symbolised
as
(x)(Hx Ɔ ~ Mx)
For the I proposition
There is atleast one x if x is human, then x is mortal, can be
symbolised as
Ǝx(Hx.Mx)
And finally for the O proposition
There is atleast one x if x is human, then x is not mortal, can be
symbolised as
Ǝx(Hx. ~Mx)
If φ(phi) and ψ(psi) are used to represent the attributes, then the
four general subject predicate propositions of traditional logic can
be represented in the following square array
Symbolic Logic 86
φ and ψ are Greek letters

(x)(φx Ɔ ψx) (x)(φx Ɔ ~ψx)
A E
I O
(Ǝx)(φx. ψx) (Ǝx)(φx. ~ψx)
(x)(φx Ɔ ψx) and (x)(φx Ɔ ~ψx) has only true substitution

instances,where φx has no true substitutional instances, regardless
of what attribute is symbolised by ψ.This is so because all their
substitution instance is a conditional statement with false
antecedents.
Here A and E are not contraries instead, here A and E are true.
Now φx having no true substitution instances, whatever the value
taken by ψx
Symbolic Logic 87
φx. Ψx and φx. ~ψx have only false substitution instances. Since
it is conjunction and their first conjunct is false.
Thus I and O propositions are false. Also they are not
subcontraries.A and E are true and I and O are false, it means the
universal do not imply the particular.
If we assume there is one individual then (x)(φx Ɔ ψx) implies
Ǝx(φx Ɔ ψx) , we should remember that here Ǝx(φx Ɔ ψx) is not
the I proposition. The symbolisation Ǝx(φx Ɔ ψx) means there
is atleast one object either having attribute ψ and with not having
the attribute φ. The I proposition symbolised as Ǝx(φx.ψx), it
means there is atleast one thing with the attributes φ and ψ.
All the members are either Artists or Engineers
Can be symbolised as
(x)[ Mx Ɔ (Ax v Ex)]
Some Students are either intelligent or hardworking
Can be symbolised as
Ǝx [Sx .( Ix v Hx)]
Iron and Copper are Metals
(x)[Ix Ɔ Mx]. (x)[Cx Ɔ Mx]
Or
(x)[(Ix v Cx) Ɔ Mx]
It does not mean that anything that is metal are both iron and
copper so the following symbolisation is wrong
Symbolic Logic 88
(x)[(Ix.Cx) Ɔ Mx]
4.2 Proving Validity : Preliminary Quantification Rules

When there are arguments comprised of propositional functions
and quantifiers there are certain rules of inference that are listed
for its formal proofs of validity.
There are four rules concerning quantification.
1. Universal Instantiation :
If all the substitution instance of a propositional function is true
then the universal quantification of the propositional function is
true. The principle that Inference from universal quantification can
result in valid substitution instance of the propositional function
can be listed as a rule of inference. It is called the principle of
universal instantiation, it is abbreviated as UI
(x)(φx)
______
φn
All humans are mortal
Aristotle is human
______________________
Aristotle is mortal
(x)[Hx Ɔ Mx] -----------------1
Hv / Mv -----------------2
Hv Ɔ Mv -----------------1 U.I-----------------3
Mv -----------------3,2 M.P
Symbolic Logic 89
2. Universal Generalisation :
If k is an arbitrarily selected individual, then a special attribute
of k that can be generalised, what is it that makes true of the
arbitrary selected individual true of other individuals. In Universal
instantiation φk follows validly from (x)φx. It means what is true
of all individuals is true of an arbitrary individual k. It can also be
true in the reverse order, what is true of arbitrary individual can be
true of all individuals.
Here the principle that universal quantification of the propositional
function can be validly inferred from a substitution instance k, can
be added to the rules of inference.It is called the principle of
universal generalisation written as ‘UG’.
The symbolic expression can be written as
φk
--------
‫(؞‬x)φx
(where k is an arbitrary selected individual, and φk is not within
the scope of any assumption
containing the special symbol ‘k')
3. Existential Generalisation :
If and only if there exists one true substitution instance in the
propositional function then only existential quantification of the
propositional function is true. Then it can be added to the list of
rules of inference ,the principle that existential quantification of
the propositional function can validly be inferred from any
substitution instance of the propositional function. This rule allows
Symbolic Logic 90
inference of general propositions that are existentially quantified.

It is called the principle of existential generalisation.
The symbolic formulation is given below –
φk
---------
‫؞‬Ǝx φx
4. Existential Instantiation :
The existential quantification of a propositional function asserts
that there exists at least one individual the substitution of whose
name for the variable x in that propositional function will yield a
true substitution instance of it. Here we use any individual constant
which has no prior occurrence. Knowing that there is an
individual, which has no prior occurrence and having agreed to
denote it by a symbol ‘w’ instead of y. From the substitution
instance of the symbol ’w’ in the proositional function x’, we can
infer the existential quantification of the propositional function, the
substitution instance of that propositional function with respect to
the individual symbol w.
Ǝx φx
--------
‫؞‬φv
( where v is an individual constant which has no prior
occurrence in the context)
Symbolic Logic 91
a) The translation of sentences to quantified propositional

function is given below
1. Only Dancers have flexibility
(Dx: x is a dancer, Fx: x is flexibility)
(x)( Dx Ɔ Fx)
2. No furniture is protected, unless it has been polished
( Fx : x is furniture, Ox: x is polished)
(x)[Fx Ɔ (~Px v Ox)]
3. None but the winner deserves the credit
( Wx: x is winner, Dx: x is deserves credit)
(x) [ Wx Ɔ Dx]
B) Constructing formal proof of validity for the following
argument -
i) All cars have four wheels
Some vehicles are cars
_______________________
Some vehicles have four wheels
Which can be symbolised as
(x)( Cx Ɔ Fx) -------------1
(Ǝx)(Vx.Cx) --------------2
Symbolic Logic 92
/ ‫( ؞‬Ǝx)( Vx.Fx)
Vw.Cw ---------------2,E.I-----------------3
Cw Ɔ Fw ----------------1,U.I----------------4
Cw.Vw ---------------3 Commutation—5
Cw -----------------5 Simplification—6
Fw ----------------4,6 Modus Ponens-----7
Vw -----------------3, Simplification--------8
Vw.Fw -----------------8,7 Conjunction ---------9
Ǝx( Vx.Fx)---------------9, Existential generalisation----10
ii) Mangoes are edible . Only Items of food are edible.All items
of food are good, therefore All
Mangoes are good.(Mx,Ex,Gx,Fx)
MxƆ Ex -----------------------------1
Ex Ɔ Fx -----------------------------2
Fx Ɔ Gx ------------------------------3
/ ‫ ؞‬Mx Ɔ Gx
My Ɔ Ey 1 UI------------------------4
Ey Ɔ Fy 2 UI ------------------------5
Fy Ɔ Gy 3 UI------------------------6
My Ɔ Fy 4,5 H.S--------------------7
Symbolic Logic 93
My Ɔ Gy 7,6 H.S-----------------------8
Mx Ɔ Gx 8 U.G -------------------------9
C) Formal proof of validity for the following arguments using
the rule of conditional proof
(x)(Ax Ɔ Bx) ---------------------1
(x)[(Ax.Bx) Ɔ Cx] ----------------------2
/ ‫( ؞‬x)[Ax Ɔ Cx]
Ay ------------------------3
Ay Ɔ By 1 U.I ---------------------4
By 4,3 M.P ----------------5

(Ay.By) Ɔ Cy 2, U.I -------------------6
Ay.By 3,5 conjunction-------7
Cy 6,7 M.P ----------------8
Ay Ɔ Cy 3,8 Conditional Proof-----9

(x)[Ax Ɔ Cx] 9 U.G --------------------10
Symbolic Logic 94
References :
Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic , 8th
edition,Macmillan Publishing Company, New York,1990
Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic,Macmillan Publishing Company,
New York,1979
Virginia Klenk, Understanding Symbolic Logic , 5th
edition,Prentice Hall, 2007
Logic and Scientific method,Self Learning Material,School of
Distance Education, University of Calicut
Symbolic logic and Informatics ,Self Learning Material, School of
Essentials of Symbolic Logic,Self Learning Material, School of
Essentials of formal logic,Self learning material, School of
Distance Education, University of Calicut.
Symbolic Logic 95

PHL1C03

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

PHL1C03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYMBOLIC LOGIC

1.1 What is Logic ?

By studying logic one can recognise and use certain common

inference. Through the act of reasoning mind draws a new truth

Logic teaches us how our thought ought to be to reach the ideal

1.2 The Nature of Argument

affirmed on the basis of other propositions of the argument is the

Therefore, Raghu won the game

1.3 Truth and Validity

In the above argument all of the premises and conclusion is false

Thus a valid deductive argument is one in which the conclusion

1.3.1 Induction and deduction

deductive argument the premises provide absolutely conclusive

There are four different standard forms of categorical

customary usage it means atleast one member of the class ‘athletes’

• Words are part of grammatical sentences, terms are

Quantity and Quality of Proposition

• Denotation refers to the objects that possess the given

PROPOSITON SUBJECT PREDICATE

We can also use Mnemonic formula to represent the distribution

FOUR TYPES OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

O proposition - Particular Affirmative, Some S is P

Distribution of Terms in a Proposition with Eulers Circles

1.5 THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

A and O are contradictories,similarly E and I are contradictories

A given E is false I is true O is false

E given A is false I is false O is true

I given A is false E is true O is true

O given A is true E is false I is true

The next immediate inference is Obversion

Here we can see that the contrapositive is valid for A proposition,

[Ṕ -Here it is read as P complement , Ś – Here it is read as S

A and O propositions are contradictories, similarly E and I

The above figure represents the class S, the first figure

The part of S that is not overlapping P can be symbolised as SṔ

Diagrams of the four standard form categorical

1.6 Categorical Syllogism

and conclusion being standard form categorical propositions are

All cats are animals

Some Rats are Cheetahs

1st figure 2nd figure 3rd figure 4th figure

The four valid moods of 2nd figure are –

Valid mood of the 4th figure

All Rugby players are football players

To test the validity of the syllogism, we have to make a diagram

In the above figure the shaded region shows the representation of

Rules and Fallacies

Manifestation of rules is easily explicit,as a syllogism can be

3. In valid standard form categorical syllogism, if either term is

commits the fallacy of drawing affirmative conclusion from

1.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms

Raju got hit by a car

Here there are two components which are called disjuncts,either of

Raju did not get hit by car

Raghu is in not in Madras

If he wins the race then he will be promoted

If he wins the race , he will celebrate

1.8 SYMBOLIC LOGIC

algebraic notations to non mathematical kind of arguments.The

2 Arguments containing compound statements

2.1 SIMPLE AND COMPOUND STATEMENTS

If suppose first component of the compound statement is p and

Another example,Either tea or Coffee. The sense of ‘or’ in

A statement of the form A.BvC becomes ambiguous regarding