Course Description:

Logic and Critical Thinking is part of the general education curriculum which
acts as the heart of a university education. In as much as the aim of education is the
holistic development of the human person, the educational process is ideally
conducted in an environment that encourages logical discourses and critical thinking,
an indispensable skill for millennials in this age where information, truth and power
are blended. Logic may be described as the organized body of knowledge that
evaluates arguments. Its aim is to develop a system of methods and principles that
we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in
constructing arguments of our own (Hurley, 2003).

This manual provides the student the fundamentals of logic and critical
thinking: an introduction to and training in the science and art of how one should and
should not reason. Through the exercises, they will familiarize themselves to the
necessary features of sound reasoning through the study of its formal and informal
structures. Students need to study the difference between good and poor reasoning.
To promote such endeavor, the topics include but not limited to the nature of
arguments such as argument structure and identification, validity and strength of
arguments, common fallacies of reasoning, use and abuse of language in reasoning,
deduction and induction. Hence, there is the need to study the basic skills of good
reasoning needed for an intelligent and responsible conduct of life.

Also, to be stressed is the role of logic in thinking critically. Critical thinking is

necessary not only to a well-rounded education, but also to getting along well in one’s
personal and professional life. Logic alone is not the same as critical thinking but the
essence of critical thinking is logic. The discipline of logic brings the students to an
awareness of logic’s standards, and can thereby be their best friend in an attempt to
think critically, analytically and creatively.

Course Objectives:
1. Students should take Logic and Critical Thinking with an appreciation of the fact
that logic is both an object of study and an aid in thinking clearly. Thus, logic has
both a theoretical and a practical aspect.

2. Students should be able to identify (a) the truth or falsity of statements (b) the
validity or invalidity of arguments, (c) the emotional appeal of an argument and its
logical force, and (d) deduction and induction.

3. Students should be able to test the validity of arguments using the Traditional
Rules. In order to develop these skills it will be necessary to learn the fundamental
principles of elementary term logic.

4. Students should appreciate the roles of both deduction and induction in science,
including the ways in which these forms of reasoning are used and misused.

5. Students should understand the differences between formal and informal logic and
they should be able to identify the most common fallacious forms of reasoning in each
forms of logic. This aspect of the course prepares one to the varieties of ways that
language is used in the process of reasoning well and reasoning poorly.
Preliminaries

Vision

A leading research university in the ASEAN region

Mission Institutional Outcomes

Isabela State University is committed to ISU Expected Graduate Attributes

develop globally competitive human,
technological resources and services Communicator (Cm)
through quality instruction, innovative •Recognizes and values communication
research, responsive community as a tool for conveying and interacting
engagement and viable resource with others, and fostering their own
management programs for inclusive growth learning.
and sustainable development.
Inquiry-focused & Knowledgeable (IFK)
Quality Policy
•Creates new knowledge and
The Isabela State University endeavors to understanding through the process of
be a lead university in instruction, research and inquiry
research, extension and resource
generation through continual improvement •Demonstrates comprehensive theoretical
of services. and technical concepts related to their
field of specialization with relevant
To uphold this commitment, ISU shall attain connections to industry, professional
the following quality objectives: and regional knowledge.
1. Sustain academic excellence and quality Competent & Productive Professional (Cp)
in instruction;
•Initiates and innovates better ways of
2. Generate research breakthroughs; doing things
3. Engage in sectoral activities for •Promotes quality and productivity
community development;
Collaborative & Effective Leader (CEL)
4. Develop products for globalization;
•Works in collaboration with others and
5. Support students’ participation to local manages group functioning to meet
and international fora to enhance their common goal.
potentialities;
Lifelong Learner (LL)
6. Comply with the standards set by
statutory, regulatory and accrediting •Acquires new skills and adapts to rapid
bodies and; changes in professional and personal
environment
7. Review on periodic basis, the Quality
Management System (QMS) and gather
feedbacks on the level of client
satisfaction as basis for continual
 improvement.

Goals of General Education

General Education thus lays the groundwork for the development of a

professionally competent, humane and moral person. It also prepares the Filipino
for the demands of 21st century life and the requisite abilities to anticipate and
adapt to swiftly changing situations, to think innovatively, and to create solutions to
problems.

General Education enables the Filipino to find and locate her/himself in the
community and the world, take pride in and hopefully assert her/his identity and
sense of community and nationhood amid the forces of globalization. As life
becomes more complex the necessity of appreciating the gift of nature and
addressing social problems in the general education program increasingly become
more pressing.

General Education Outcomes

1. Intellectual Competencies
•Higher level of comprehension (textual, visual, etc.)
•Proficient and effective communication (writing, speaking and use of new technologies)
•Understanding of basic concept across the domains of knowledge
•Critical, analytical and creative thinking
•Application of different analytical modes (quantitative and qualitative, artistic and
scientific, textual and visual, experimental, observation, etc.) in tackling problems
methodically.

2. Personal and Civic Responsibilities

• Appreciation of the human condition
• Capacity to personally interpret the human experience
• Ability to view the contemporary world from both Philippine and Global perspectives
• Self-assuredness in knowing and being Filipino
• Capacity to reflect critically on shared concerns and think of innovative, creative
solutions guided by ethical standards
• Ability to reflect on moral norms/imperatives as they affect individuals and society
• Ability to appreciate and contribute to artistic beauty
• Understanding and respect for human rights
• Ability to contribute personally and meaningfully to the country’s development

3. Practical Skills
• Working effectively in a group
• Application of computing information technology
• To assist and facilitate research
• Ability to negotiate the world of technology responsibly
• Problem solving (including real world problems)
• Basic work related skills and knowledge

Logic in the General Education Curriculum

General education is designed to implement the following philosophy: General
Education is the study of humans in their global setting. The general education
curriculum, therefore, acts as the heart of a university education by developing the
capacities that typify the educated person and by providing a basis for life-long
learning and intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic fulfillment. General education
examines the world around us and fosters an understanding of our interactions with
the world and our place in the universe. General education celebrates the creative
capacities of humankind and helps to preserve and transmit to future generations the
values, knowledge, wisdom, and sense of history that are our common heritage.

According to proponents of thinking skills, without critical thinking

systematically designed into instruction, learning is transitory and superficial.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Course Description 2

Course Objectives 2

Preliminaries 3

ISU Vision, Mission, Quality Policy & Institutional Outcomes 3

Goals of General Education 3

General Education Outcomes 4

Logic in the General Education Curriculum 4

INTRODUCTION:

What is Philosophy?
Working Definition
What Philosophy Can Offer?
Categories of Human Knowledge 7
Basic Questions of Philosophy
Divisions of Philosophy 7

TRADITIONAL LOGIC 8

CHAPTER I. WHAT IS LOGIC? 8

Why study logic?
Logic and the Functions of Language 8
Divisions of Logic?
8
Inferences and Arguments
Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic
Statements versus Propositions
Exercise 1

CHAPTER II. THE PROPOSITION

What is a Proposition?
Exercise 2 9
Terms in a Proposition
10
The Quantity of Terms
Exercise 3 10
The Kinds of Propositions
The Four Standard Propositions 11
The Quality and Quantity of Propositions
 Exercise 4 11
Distribution of Terms
Exercise 5 14

CHAPTER III. REWRITING PROPOSITIONS 15

Rewriting Statements into Standard Forms
17
Non-standard Statements
Exercise 6

Brain Teasers 19

CHAPTER IV. SQUARE OF OPPOSITIONS 19

Rules of Logical Oppositions
Exercise 7 20
Exercise 8
21
CHAPTER V. THE SYLLOGISM
Terms within the Syllogism 21
Syllogism in Real Life Situations
22
Exercise 9
Rules for Determining Validity of Syllogisms 23
Exercise 10
Syllogistic Forms: Figures and Mood 23
Exercise 11
Exercise 12 23

CHAPTER VII. INFORMAL FALLACIES IN LOGIC 25

A. Fallacies of Relevance
Exercise 13 26
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
Exercise 14 29
C. Fallacies of Presumption
D. Fallacies of Expression
Exercise 15 30

References 30

INTRODUCTION TO SYMBOLIC LOGIC 30

CHAPTER I: STATEMENTS AND LOGICAL CONNECTIVES 33

Logical Connectives and Constants
Negation
Conjunction
34
Disjunction
Conditional
Bi-conditional
36
CHAPTER II: TRUTH-FUNCTIONALLY COMPOUND SENTENCES
Evaluating Statement Calculus 36
Substitution of Truth-Values
 Truth-Table Analysis 40

CHAPTER III: SYLLOGISTIC ANALYSIS 41

Substitution
Truth-Table Method
Proving the Invalidity
42
Background on the Derivation Method
42
CHAPTER IV: THE DERIVATION METHOD
A. Implicative Rules 43
B. Rules of Replacement
44

46

49

52

54

55

56

56

59

60

62

63

63

65
INTRODUCTION:

“To teach how to live with uncertainty, and yet without being
paralyzed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that
philosophy in our age can still do for those who study it.”
(Bertrand Russell)

Each person, of any race, of any place, of any time in history, is driven by
basic and fundamental urge to know and understand things that surrounds him.
When a prehistoric nomad tries to observe the seasons for hunting and fruit
gathering, or when a young girl grapples with the complex rules and procedures in
running a household, or when a young brave masters the skills of combat, or when
an apprentice approximates the strokes of the craftsman, or when a college student
works through the intricacies of a mathematical or logic lesson, they all are simply
displaying their share of this basic and fundamental drive. It is in this sense that
knowledge can be seen as intimately part of humanity, to the point of asserting that
there is no human being without knowledge, just as there is no knowledge without
human beings. Man creates knowledge, just as in return knowledge creates man
(Timbreza, 2001).

We are destined to know and we are so constituted that we cannot help

wanting to know. Man is insatiably curious. The kind of knowing that we desire, is
not only about what, where, when and how but distinctly concerned with the ability
to answer the question why. In varying degrees, we are interested to know why
things are so. An evident sign is that even children frequently ask the “whys” of
things. One ancient Greek philosopher declared: “Wonder is the starting point of
knowledge.” The right of the human mind to search for the truth gives philosophy
its right to existence.

Truth is the aim and goal of every science, including philosophy; and truth
can only be attained by correct thinking based on thorough knowledge. It is then
expected that students can proceed, with some degree of certainty, in the pursuit of
truth. Students of philosophy are challenged to be part of the search for truth and
live by the truth.

What is Philosophy?
1. Etymology: (from the Greek word, philos (Φιλος) = love or friend; and sophia
(Σοφιά) = wisdom or knowledge). Hence, philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is an
exercise of the human mind to acquire new knowledge.

Working Definition
a. It is a habit of the mind or a body of natural knowledge that results from
disciplined inquiry and that enables one to explain in a more or less profound
way the sum of human experience.

b. Two ways of understanding philosophy

i. Knowledge of reality – God, Man and World
 ii. As a Way of Life – an essential way of living your life towards meaning and
happiness according to a certain knowledge.
c. Philosophy is a science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles
acquired by the aid of reason alone. From this vantage point, we think of
philosophy as a universal science because it considers the totality of reality and
investigates the basic causes of all beings.

What Philosophy can offer?

1. It provides the searcher priceless information about the world, about man and
beyond.
2. It enables one to distinguish truth from error in the midst of conflicting and
confusing opinions.
3. Infused with the great principles of true philosophy, one can become a better
character and a greater individual.

Four Categories of Human Knowledge

1. Pre-scientific Knowledge – also called common sense; this is founded on
experience and observation. It is the knowledge of the man in the street, that
which he accumulates in the light of what he sees or what in the past has
happened to him. It is therefore rather meaner in content, sometimes incorrect,
often inexact. It does not go beyond the appearance of things.

2. Scientific Knowledge – science is a comprehensive explanation of the objects and

the phenomena of nature. It is an effort to delve deeply into the nature of these
objects and to discover their causes. Through scientific instruments, our range of
perception is increased remarkably. Three steps must be considered in scientific
research: a. experimentation b. interpretation of facts c. hypotheses and
verification.

3. Philosophical knowledge – philosophy is not only a science but also wisdom, the
highest form of human knowledge. It attempts to give the sum total of all
knowledge which is beyond the scope of common and scientific knowledge.

4. Theological knowledge – theology is the study of religion; a kind of ‘god-talk’

because basically (wo)men talk of religious theories, systems of belief and
thought. It is a source of knowledge since it includes a deep reflection of
(wo)man, through his/her faith experiences as to how God relates with human
beings, with the world and how human beings make sense of their faith to this
God.

Basic Questions of Philosophy (Immanuel Kant)

1. What can I know?
a. Can I know the external world?
b. Can I know myself?
c. How can I acquire knowledge?
d. What does truth mean?
2. What should I do?
a. Am I free to act?
b. Do rules govern my action?
c. How do I make right decisions?
 d. Do I have rights in society?
e. Can I make society better?

3. What may I hope?

a. Does God exist?
b. Can my life make sense?
c. How should I deal with evil and death?

Divisions of Philosophy
Philosophy treats of the world at large in all its forms and manifestations,
under the aspect of its ultimate reasons, causes, and principles. We can start with
the world around us (Cosmology), then consider man himself (Psychology); then
study the inner workings of the mind (Logic, Epistemology), and will (Ethics); then
investigate being in itself (Ontology); and finally contemplate God (Theodicy).

Being

in its most in its special forms

general forms
(METAPHYSICS)
World God
(THEODICY)

Non-living World Living World

(COSMOLOGY)
Man (Rational)
(Animals & Plants)

As a Composite of In the In the

Body & Soul Operations Operations
(PSYCHOLOGY) of his Will of his Mind
(ETHICS) Correct Thinking Validity of
(LOGIC) Knowledge
(EPISTEMOLOGY)

CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic may be defined as the science of reasoning. This is not to suggest,
however, that logic is an empirical science (i.e., experimental or observational) like
physics, biology, or psychology. Rather, logic is a non-empirical science like
mathematics. Also, in saying that logic is the science of reasoning, we do not mean
that it is concerned with the actual mental (or physical) process employed by a
thinking being when he is reasoning. The investigation of the actual reasoning
process falls more appropriately within the domain of psychology, neurophysiology,
or cybernetics.

Even if these empirical disciplines were considerably more advanced than

they presently are, the most they could disclose is the exact process that goes on in
an individual’s head when he or she is reasoning. They could not, however, tell us
whether the individual is reasoning correctly or incorrectly.

Distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning is the task of logic.

Why study logic?

According to Hurley (2003), logic and critical thinking are skills needed to do
anything well. Logic is essential to every endeavor that involves any form of
communication. The lawyer needs it to formulate arguments to a judge; the
physician needs it to give a credible explanation for the use of a medication to the
patient; the businessman needs it to write a coherent business plan, its execution
and success; the anthropologist needs it to write a well-reasoned article; and,
students learn to think more critically so that they may become more proficient at
historical, scientific, and mathematical thinking. Finally, they develop skills,
abilities, and values crucial to success in their professional life. Literally, everyone
needs it in day-to-day dealings with friends, relatives, customers and associates. For
these reasons, logic plays a foundational role in an individual’s life. Logic and
critical thinking skills are expressed from thoughts to words; hence, there is a need
to study their relations.

Logic and the Functions of Language

Reasoning and thinking are externalized through language. Language is the
verbal form of our thoughts, and as such it is our tool of communication. Man can
communicate with others because of language. Language then may be defined as a
set of symbols by which things, ideas, and thoughts or feelings are communicated
to others. Hence, logic studies terms, definitions and propositions or statements
which are part and parcel of language (Timbreza, 2001). Language has the following
diverse functions:

1. Informative Function – is one in which language is used to convey some

information. It usually takes the form of declarative statements. For example,
“The Fallen 44 SAF commandos were collateral damages to avoid another all-out-
war in Mindanao.” “Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen.” All scientific
statements have an informative function.

2. Practical Function – is one in which language is used to produce some effects.

This is also called the dynamic function of language. It usually takes the form of
imperative sentences like orders, appeals pleas, requests, and commands; e.g.
“Quiet please”.
3. Expressive Function – is one in which language is used not only to express
certain feelings of the speaker (writer) but also to evoke some emotional response
from the listener (reader). It usually takes the form of exclamatory statements;
e.g. “Shut up!” It also assumes the forms of jokes, jests, puns, humor, or lyric
poems. For example, “Some religions are pornographic in character such that
they have Brahmanism and Pantheism.”

4. Performative Function – is one in which language is used not only to say or report
something but also to perform what is being said. It is walking the talk. An
 example is when the priest says “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, simultaneously pouring water on the child’s
forehead.

5. Ceremonial Function – is one in which language is used to enhance social

interactions, relationships, or social amenities. For instance, “Good morning”;
“How are you?”, “I would like you to meet my boyfriend”; “Nice meeting you” are
examples of social utterances.

6. Logical Function – is one in which language is used to reason, analyze, and

clarify a problem or an argument. One may use language to prove or disprove the
truth of some statements or theories. This is the function of logical reasoning.

7. Complex Function – (also known as multiple function) is the combination or

mixture of two or more functions of language. Political campaign speeches
usually involve a mixture of purposes. They are informative, practical,
expressive, and logical. In a drinking session, for example, when one asks “what
time is it now?” it may imply that he wants to go home. The question implies
informative and practical or even expressive functions. And the question is
different as to when one says, “Oh no! It’s already twelve midnight!”

Divisions of Logic: Three Acts of the Mind

Mental Act Product External Sign

Apprehension Ideas Term

Judgment Enunciation Proposition

Reasoning Argument Syllogism

1. Simple Apprehension: is the process of grasping the essence of a thing without

affirming or denying anything about it.

2. Judgment: it pronounces the agreement or disagreement between two ideas. For

example, the mind compares a ‘square’ and a ‘polygon’, and by recognizing their
identity, the person pronounces: “A square is a polygon.”

3. Reasoning: is a mental act whereby starting with several judgments which we

relate to one another, we arrive at a new judgment which necessarily follows from
the preceding ones. For example: “All men are mortal.” “Jake is a man.”
Therefore, Jake is mortal.

Inferences and Arguments

Reasoning is a special mental activity called inferring, what can also be called
making (or performing) inferences. The following is a useful and simple definition of
the word ‘infer’: to infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
 In place of word ‘premises’, you can also put: ‘data’, ‘information’, ‘facts’.
Examples of inferences:

1) You see smoke and infer that there is a fire.

2) You count 19 persons in a group that originally had 20, and you infer that
someone is missing.

* Note carefully the difference between ‘infer’ and ‘imply’, which are sometimes
confused. We infer the fire on the basis of the smoke, but we do not imply the fire.
On the other hand, the smoke implies the fire, but it does not infer the fire. The
word ‘infer’ is not equivalent to the word ‘imply’, nor is it equivalent to ‘insinuate’.

The reasoning process may be thought of as beginning with input (premises,

data, etc.) and producing output (conclusions). In each specific case of drawing
(inferring) a conclusion (C) from premises P1, P2, P3, ..., the details of the actual
mental process (how the "gears" work) is not the proper concern of logic, but of
psychology or neurophysiology. The proper concern of logic is whether the inference
of the conclusion (C) on the basis of P1, P2, P3,... is warranted (correct).

Inferences are made on the basis of various sorts of things – data, facts,
information, states of affairs. In order to simplify the investigation of reasoning, logic
treats all of these things in terms of a single sort of thing – statements. Logic
correspondingly treats inferences in terms of collections of statements, which are
called arguments. The word ‘argument’ has a number of meanings in ordinary
English. The definition of ‘argument’ that is relevant to logic is given as follows.
An argument is a collection of statements, one of
which is designated as the conclusion, and the
remainder of which are designated as the premises.
* Note that this is not a definition of a good argument. Also note that, in the context
of ordinary discourse, an argument has an additional trait, described as follows.
Usually, the premises of an argument are intended to
support (justify) the conclusion of the argument.
Before giving some concrete examples of arguments, it might be best to clarify
a term in the definition. The word ‘statement’ is intended to mean declarative
sentence. In addition to declarative sentences, there are also interrogative,
imperative, and exclamatory sentences. The sentences that make up an argument
are all declarative sentences; that is, they are all statements. The following may be
taken as the official definition of ‘statement’.
The following are examples of statements.
1) It is raining. 4) God exists.
2) I am hungry. 5) Philosophy is where the brains are.
3) 2+2 = 4
On the other hand the following are examples of sentences that are not
statements.
1) Are you hungry? 4) #$%@!!! (expletive)
2) Ouch! 5) Whatever!?!
3) Shut the door, please.
 Observe that whereas a statement is capable of being true or false, a question,
or a command, or an exclamation is not capable of being true or false.

Note that in saying that a statement is capable of being true or false, we are
not saying that we know for sure which of the two (true, false) it is. Thus, for a
sentence to be a statement, it is not necessary that humankind knows for sure
whether it is true, or whether it is false. An example is the statement ‘God exists’.

Now let us get back to inferences and arguments. Earlier, we discussed two
examples of inferences. Let us see how these can be represented as arguments. In
the case of the smoke-fire inference, the corresponding argument is given as follows.

(a1) There is smoke. (premise)

Therefore, there is fire. (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of two statements, ‘there is smoke’ and ‘there is
fire’. The term ‘therefore’ is not strictly speaking part of the argument; it rather
serves to designate the conclusion (‘there is fire’), setting it off from the premise
(‘there is smoke’). In this argument, there is just one premise.

In the case of the missing-person inference, the corresponding argument is

given as follows.

(a2) There were 20 persons originally. (premise)

There are 19 persons currently. (premise)
Therefore, someone is missing. (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of three statements – ‘there were 20 persons

originally’, ‘there are 19 persons currently’, and ‘someone is missing’. Once again,
‘therefore’ sets off the conclusion from the premises.

In principle, any collection of statements can be treated as an argument

simply by designating which statement in particular is the conclusion. However, not
every collection of statements is intended to be an argument. We accordingly need
criteria by which to distinguish arguments from other collections of statements.

There are no hard and fast rules for telling when a collection of statements is
intended to be an argument. Often an argument can be identified as such because
its conclusion is marked. We have already seen one conclusion-marker – the word
‘therefore’. Besides ‘therefore’, there are other words that are commonly used to
mark conclusions of arguments, including ‘consequently’, ‘hence’, ‘thus’, ‘so’, and
‘ergo’. Usually, such words indicate that what follows is the conclusion of an
argument.

Other times an argument can be identified as such because its premises are
marked. Words that are used for this purpose include: ‘for’, ‘because’, and ‘since’.
For example, using the word ‘for’, the smoke-fire argument (a1) earlier can be
rephrased as follows.
 (a1) There is fire ….
…. for there is smoke.

* Note that the conclusion comes before the premise.

Other Conclusion Indicators:

wherefore, consequently, we may infer, accordingly, we may
conclude, it must be that, for this reason, entails that, it follows
that, implies that, as a result
Other times neither the conclusion nor the premises of an argument are
marked, so it is harder to tell that the collection of statements is intended to be an
argument. A general rule of thumb applies in this case, as well as in previous cases.
In an argument, the premises are intended
to support (justify) the conclusion.
To state things somewhat differently, when a person (speaking or writing)
advances an argument, he (she) expresses a statement he(she) believes to be true
(the conclusion), and he(she) cites other statements as a reason for believing that
statement (the premises).

Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic

Let us go back to the two arguments from the previous section.

(a1) There is smoke;
Therefore, there is fire.
(a2) There were 20 people originally;
There are 19 persons currently;
Therefore, someone is missing.

There is an important difference between these two inferences, which

corresponds to a division of logic into two branches. On the one hand, we know that
the existence of smoke does not guarantee (ensure) the existence of fire; it only
makes the existence of fire likely or probable. Thus, although inferring fire on the
basis of smoke is reasonable, it is nevertheless fallible. Insofar as it is possible for
there to be smoke without there being fire, we may be wrong in asserting that there
is a fire.

The investigation of inferences of this sort is traditionally called inductive

logic. Inductive logic investigates the process of drawing probable (likely, plausible)
though fallible conclusions from premises. Another way of stating this: inductive
logic investigates arguments in which the truth of the premises makes likely the
truth of the conclusion.

Inductive logic is a very difficult and intricate subject, partly because the
practitioners (experts) of this discipline are not in complete agreement concerning
what constitutes correct inductive reasoning.
 Inductive logic is not the subject of this manual. If you want to learn about
inductive logic, it is probably best to take a course on probability and statistics.
Inductive reasoning is often called statistical (or probabilistic) reasoning, and forms
the basis of experimental science.

Inductive reasoning is important to science, but so is deductive reasoning,

which is the main focus of this manual.

Consider argument (a2): There were 20 people originally;

There are 19 persons currently;
Therefore, someone is missing.
In this argument, if the premises are in fact true, then the conclusion is
certainly also true. Still another way of stating things: the truth of the premises
necessitates the truth of the conclusion. The investigation of these sorts of
arguments is called deductive logic.

The following should be noted. Suppose that you have an argument and
suppose that the truth of the premises necessitates (guarantees) the truth of the
conclusion. Then it follows (logically!) that the truth of the premises makes likely the
truth of the conclusion. In other words, if an argument is judged to be deductively
correct, then it is also judged to be inductively correct as well. The converse is not
true: not every inductively correct argument is also deductively correct; the smoke-
fire argument is an example of an inductively correct argument that is not
deductively correct. For whereas the existence of smoke makes likely the existence
of fire it does not guarantee the existence of fire.

In deductive logic, the task is to distinguish deductively correct arguments

from deductively incorrect arguments. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that,
although an argument may be judged to be deductively incorrect, it may still be
reasonable, that is, it may still be inductively correct.

Some arguments are not inductively correct, and therefore are not deductively
correct either; they are just plain unreasonable. Suppose you flunk you Logic
subject, and suppose that on the basis of this you conclude that it will be difficult to
get into law school. Under these circumstances, it seems that your reasoning is
faulty.

Statements versus Propositions

Logic investigates inferences in terms of the arguments that represent them.

Recall that an argument is a collection of statements (declarative sentences), one of
which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated
as the premises. Also recall that usually in an argument the premises are offered to
support or justify the conclusions.

Statements and sentences in general, are linguistic objects, like words. They
consist of strings (sequences) of sounds (spoken language) or strings of symbols
(written language). Statements must be carefully distinguished from the
propositions they express (assert) when they are uttered. Intuitively, statements
stand in the same relation to propositions as nouns stand to the objects they
denote. Just as the word ‘water’ denotes a substance that is liquid under normal
circumstances, the sentence (statement) ‘water is wet’ denotes the proposition that
water is wet; equivalently, the sentence denotes the state of affairs, the wetness of
water.

The difference between the five letter word ‘water’ in English and the liquid
substance it denotes should be obvious enough, and no one is apt to confuse the
word and the substance. Whereas ‘water’ consists of letters, water consists of
molecules. The distinction between a statement and the proposition it expresses is
very much like the distinction between the word ‘water’ and the substance water.

There is another difference between statements and propositions. Whereas

statements are always part of a particular language (e.g., English), propositions are
not peculiar to any particular language in which they might be expressed. Thus, for
example, the following are different statements in different languages, yet they all
express the same proposition – namely, the Philippines having many islands.

The Philippines has many islands.

Ang Pilipinas ay may maraming isla.
Ti Pilipinas ket adu ti isla na.

In this case, quite clearly different sentences may be used to express the same
proposition. The opposite can also happen: the same sentence may be used in
different contexts, or under different circumstances, to express different
propositions, to denote different states of affairs. For example, the statement ‘I am
hungry’ expresses a different proposition for each person who utters it. When I utter
it, the proposition expressed pertains to my stomach; when you utter it, the
proposition pertains to your stomach; when the president utters it, the proposition
pertains to his stomach.
 Exercise 1

Name: _________________________________ Schedule: ___________________

I. True or False: Write 1 for true and 0 for false to the following statements.
Erasures are considered wrong.
___1. The purpose of the premise or premises is to set the reasons or evidence given
in support of the conclusion.
___2. Some arguments have more than one conclusion.
___3. All arguments have more than one premise.
___4. The words “therefore”, “hence”, “so”, “since”, and “thus” are all conclusion
indicators.
___5. The words “for”, “because”, “as”, and “for the reason that” are all premise
indicators.
___6. In the strict sense of the terms, “inference” and “argument” have exactly the
same meaning.
___7. In most arguments that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first
statement.
___8. Any sentence that is either true or false is a statement.
___9. Every statement has a truth value.
___10. Questions can either be true or false.
___11. Philosophy is a science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and
principles acquired by the aid of reason and faith.
___12. To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
___13. Language may have complex functions.
___14. Metaphysics studies being in its most general forms.
___15. Philosophy in its etymological sense means love of science.

II. Multiple Choice: Choose the letter of the correct answer.

__1. It is that branch of philosophy that studies the operation of man’s mind
through correct reasoning.
a. Psychology b. Ethics c. Cosmology d. Epistemology e. Logic
__2. It is a function of language which is used not only to say or report something
but also to perform what is being said.
a. Informative b. Ceremonial c. Expressive d. Performative
__3. It is that branch of philosophy that studies the operation of man’s will in
understanding good and bad behavior, and right or wrong conduct.
a. Ethics b. Epistemology c. Psychology d. Logic e. Metaphysics
__4. It is a mental act which pronounces the agreement or disagreement between
two ideas a. Apprehension b. Argument c. Judgment d. Reasoning
__5. These are questions of philosophy except one: a. What does truth mean.
b. What should I do? c. What may I hope? d. Does God exist?
e. Can I know myself?
__6. It is a category of knowledge that seeks a comprehensive explanation of the
objects and the phenomena of nature and usually involves experimentation.
a. Pre-scientific b. Scientific c. Philosophical d. Theological
__7. Language is used to convey some information.
a. Complex b. Ceremonial c. Logical d. Informative

Name: _________________________________ Schedule: ___________________

__8. It is knowledge of religious theories, systems of belief and thought that includes
a deep reflection of man, through his faith experiences as to how God relates
with him, with the world and how human beings make sense of their faith.
a. Pre-scientific b. Scientific c. Philosophical d. Theological
__9. It is the intellectual image of a thing, or the intellectual apprehension of a
thing.
a. Enunciation b. Judgment c. Apprehension d. Reasoning e. Ideas
__10. It is a function of language which is used to enhance social interactions,
relationships, or social amenities. a. Practical b. Ceremonial
c. Informative d. Complex e. None of the above
__11. Language is used to reason, analyze, clarify an argument, and to prove or
disprove the truth of some statements or theories.
a. Logical b. Performative c. Practical d. Informative
__12. Which of the following is a proposition?
a. Are you there? b. Get out! c. Love hurts. d. Kindly pass the book.
__13. It is a kind of logic that investigates the process of drawing probable though
fallible conclusions from premises.
a. Deductive b. Inductive c. Propositional d. Sentential
__14. Which of the following does not belong to the group?
a. therefore b. hence c. so d. accordingly e. but
__15. It is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach
a logically certain conclusion.
a. Deductive b. Inductive c. Propositional d. Sentential

III. Essay: How would you relate logic and critical thinking in your course? Give
some specific examples to show the relationship (10pts).

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________