Introduction

Logic is an integral part of Philosophy. For this reason, we begin our study of logic by
considering what philosophy is.

What is Philosophy?

Normal Definition (explain what a name means)

Philosophy comes from the Greek words philo which means friend or lover and sohia
which mean wisdom. It means “the love of wisdom” or a “friend of wisdom.”

Real Definition (explains what a thing is)

Philosophy is a science of all that exist (of beings) in their ultimate cause through the aid
of the human intellect alone.

Elements in the Definition of Philosophy

• It is a science, a systematic body of knowledge which is not only based on opinions,

hypothesis and theories, but on ideal knowledge.
• Of beings, i.e., of all, everything that exists, or may exist, of everything knowable.
Philosophy is the highest synthesis of all the sciences dealing with man, nature and God.
It is also considered as the mother of all sciences because of its very vast scope and subject
matter.
• In their ultimate cause because it asks and answers not only facts and proximate causes
but also the deepest causes of things. Its task is to give answers not only to the question
“what” but most importantly to the question ”why.”
• Through the aid of the human intellect alone because philosophy uses natural reason and
not divine revelation of the recourse to the Bible; it is the product of one’s own thinking
and not of imagination of fantasy.

The Philosophical Disciplines

Man's philosophical speculations have given rise to various philosophical disciplines,

each of which endeavors to provide us with insights into certain realities. The following are the
more fundamental philosophical fields of study:

1. Metaphysics/Ontology (being in its most general form) the study of being as being while
taking into consideration that essence and existence are constitutes of being.
2. Theodicy (being in the highest form) - the philosophical study of God with consideration
to its nature and existence as absolute.
3. Cosmology (being in the non-living world) - the philosophical study of the material world
with regards to its order in the universe.
4. Philosophy of Man/Anthropology (being with its body and soul) - the philosophical
study of man with regard to the union of body and soul.
5. Ethics or Moral Philosophy (considering man's will) - philosophical study of the hi
morality of the human act that distinguishes good from evil and right from wrong.
6. Political Philosophy - the search for knowledge on the ultimate foundations of the state,
its ideal form and its basic structure.
 7. Aesthetics -the search for a deeper knowledge concerning beauty and perfection.
8. Epistemology (the value of our thought) - the search for the answers to the fundamental
questions concerning the conditions, the extent, and the limits of knowledge.
9. Logic - the study of the conditions for correct thinking and reasoning.

What is Logic?

Nominal Definition

Logic comes from the Greek word logos, which means thought, word, speech or science.

Real Definition

Logic is order and consistency. It is the science of those principles, laws and methods
which the mind of man must follow in its thinking for the secure and accurate attainment of truth.
In short... Logic is the science and art of correct thinking and reasoning.

Elements in the definition of Logic

• It is a science because it is a body of organized methods of tried and true knowledge which
is concerned with the rectitude of reasoning.
• It is an art because argument in logic is done beautifully with habitual validity, ease,
clarity, correctness, objectivity and certainty.

Formal Object of Logic

The formal object of logic is the correctness or validity of reasoning. It refers to the inner
consistency of the reasoning process. For reasoning to achieve consistency, it should be in
accordance with the principles and laws which logic teaches.

Three Essential Operations of the Intellect:

1. Simple Apprehension is the process through which the mind grasps the objective reality
as it is outside of the mind. When something is grasped, an idea or concept is formed
which is then expressed through the use of terms.
2. Judgement is the process through which the mind can assert or deny something. This
second process can be achieved only after having ideas because it is the ideas that are put
together in order to come up with judgement. The expressions of judgements are called
propositions.
3. Reasoning is the process through which the mind arrives at a conclusion From previously
processed judgements. It draws out new propositions from premises. We call this
inference. This is expressed through syllogism.
 THE ELEMENTS OF INFERENCES:

I. Ideas and Terms

Man can know the general nature of an object or thing because he can conceptualize. He can
apprehend the nature of the things that he perceives. Let us illustrate: Through our senses we
perceive sensible things in their individuality and concreteness. For instance, we see a particular
table. Our percept of this table is concrete, individual, and particular; and this perceptual image
is formed in the inner sense, in the imagination.

Then the intellect apprehends the nature or essence of the perceived object out of the
perceptual image (otherwise known as phantasm). As soon as the intellect has abstracted or
seized the essence of the perceived object, it has already acquired or formed an idea (concept)
of the perceived object. Thus the senses perceive the particular things and the intellect abstracts
their nature or essence. The senses and the intellect help each other in the formation of ideas.

Idea

It is the intellectual image of a thing, or the intellectual apprehension of a thing. Our idea
of a cow, for instance, is our mental image or apprehension of an animal called cow. This idea of
a cow will apply to any and all cows, irrespective of their individual differences among
themselves, provided they possess the same essential qualities which constitute the idea of a cow.

Term

It is the verbal expression of an idea. It is an articulate sound which serves as a

conventional sign of an idea. We form ideas from the things we perceive, and them we express or
manifest our ideas to others by means of terms or words. Not all words, however, are terms;
some words have no referents, such as if, from, by and in. But all terms are words for all terms are
articulate sounds signifying things.

Properties of a Term

With respect to any term, we speak of two properties-- the comprehension and
extension.

When we consider the characteristics of the thing represented by a term, we are referring
to is COMPREHENSION. When we consider the individuals or groups of individuals which have
characteristics and to which the term can be applied, we are referring to the EXTENSION of the
term.

Thus, when I speak of polygon as a "figure with many sides," I am referring to the
comprehension of the term "polygon". But when I speak of "a rectangle", "a square", "a triangle",
as a "polygon", I am referring to the extension of the term "polygon”.

The comprehension of a term is the sum total of the intelligible notes representing the
elements or characteristics which make a thing to be what it is. The extension of the term refers
to the subjects- individuals or groups which possess the characteristics signified by the notes in
the comprehension. Thus the term "university" has for UP, SLSU- its extension USC, UV, SWU, CTE,
and all other universities.
 TERM COMPREHENSION EXTENSION
MAN rational, sentient, living, corporeal substance man
ANIMAL sentient, living, corporeal substance brute, man
ORGANISM living, corporeal substance plant, brute, man
BODY corporeal substance mineral, plant, brute, man
SUBSTANCE substance pure spirit, mineral, plant, brute, man

TERM COMPREHENSION EXTENSION

ASIAN one who is from a country in Asia Malaysians
Indonesians
Filipinos
Japanese, etc.

FILIPINO one who is from a country in Asia, i.e All Filipinos

Philippines

CEBUANO one who is from a particular province in the All Cebuanos

Philippines, i.e., Cebu

The following examples shows the inverse relation between comprehension and
extension. Comprehension and extension are inversely proportional, as the comprehension
decreases, the extension increases and vice versa.

Kinds of Terms

Terms may be classified according to quantity, incompatibility, and definiteness of

meaning and the nature of referents.

1. As regards to quantity:
a. Singular Term is one which stands for a single individual or object.
Examples: Mr. Santos, SLSU-CTE, Pedro, Tomas Oppus, this pen

b. Particular Term is one which stands for an indefinite number of individuals of a

class. Also called as undistributed term.
Examples: some students, many sciences, few answers

Some indicators of a particular extension:

certain some not all
almost all practically all not every
many a few not many
a number of a lot of not everyone

c. Universal Term is one that is applicable to each and every member of a class. It is
also called distributed term.
Examples: man, animal, soldier, rat, cat
 Some indicators of a universal extension:
all whatsoever no
each whatever none
every whoever no one
everyone any nobody
everything anyone
anything

d. Collective Term is one that is applicable to all the members of a class taken together,
but not to the individual member taken singly.
Examples: family, army, audience, class, flock, squad, herd, society, crowd

2. As regards to incompatibility:
a. Contradictory Terms are those wherein on affirms what the other denies
Examples: life-lifeless, thing-nothing, honest-dishonest, careful-careless

b. Contrary Terms are those which represent the two extremes among objects of a
series belonging to the same class.
Examples: black-white, hot-cold, happy-sad, expensive-cheap

c. Private Terms are those wherein on signifies the perfection and the other denies the
perfection in a subject which naturally ought to possess it.
Examples: sight-blindness, wealth-poverty, health-sickness

d. Relative Term are those wherein one cannot be understood without the other.
Examples: master-slave, husband-wife, lolo-lola, boyfriend-girlfriend

3. As regards to definiteness of meaning:

a. Univocal Term is one term which can only be predicted of two or more individuals
or things in exactly the same sense. It admins only one meaning.
Example: Pedro is man. Pablo is man. Man is Univocal.

b. Equivocal Term admits of two or more meanings. It can be predicted of many in an

entirely different sense.
Example: spring, pen, page, ruler, table, bark, bank

c. Analogous Term is one which is predicted of two or more things in a sense that is
partly the same and partly different.
Example: legs of a woman – legs of a table, foot of a mountain – foot of a baby

4. As regards to the nature of the referents:

a. Concrete Term is one whose referent is tangible, or can be perceived by the senses.
Example: man, dog, house, cat
 b. Abstract Term is one whose referent is intangible, or can be understood only by the
mind.
Example: humanity, height, dullness, kindness, democracy, love

c. Null or empty Term is one which has no actual referents but only imaginary ones.
Example: fairy, wolverine, E.T., tikbalang

Definition

The importance of definition is the elimination of the ambiguity by establishing the limits
within which a word can be rightly used and understood. Definition is a statement that gives
meaning of a term or a statement which explains what a term means.

Elements of Definition

1. The definiendum/definitum is the term to be defined.

2. The definiens is the word whose meaning as to be explained.

e.g. Logic is a science that deals with correct reasoning. In this example, logic is the
definiendum; a science that deals with correct reasoning is the definiens.

Rules for a Good (Real) Definition:

1. The definiendum should not be contained in the definiens. That is, the definiens should
not include the definiendum; otherwise one is guilty of a circular definition.
e.g. A gentleman is a man who is gentle.
A plant is a vegetable organism.
2. The definiens must be equivalent to the definiendum.
3. A good definition should be stated in univocal and simple terms.
4. A good definition must give the essential attributes of the individuals denoted by the
definiendum.
5. The definition should not be negative as much as possible.

e.g. Good is that which is not evil.

Division and Classification

Division means the breaking up of an individual into its component parts; or a general
class into its subclasses; or of a class into its individual members; or a thing into its constituent
qualities.

e.g. car - tires, engine, body, etc.

Classification is the process through which individuals with some common characteristics
are grouped together to form a class.

e.g. car - BMW, Mercedez Benz, Mitsubishi, Honda, etc.

 In division, you break up a thing or a thing or a class into parts; classification you collect
or synthesize or put together things so as to form a class or group. Thus, we break up a car into
its tires, engine, body, etc. The two processes of division and classification are not essentially
different from each other, though they are not exactly the same either.

Chapter II

PROPOSITIONS

As in the case of terms, the treatment of the propositions in this section is largely
determined by the role that it plays in inferences.

The Proposition as Expression of the Judgement

The proposition expresses verbally or in writing what is attained in the mental act called
judgement. A judgement is an act of the mind which unites ideas by affirmation or separates by
negation. To assert that "The sun is shining" is to make a judgement of affirmation. To say that
"Poverty is not hindrance to success" is to make a judgement of negation. The ideas in the
judgement constitute its material elements or matter. The act of affirming or negating is its
formal element or form.

What is expressed by a judgement is either a truth or falsity. If the judgement conforms

to the reality of the thing about which it is made, then it is true. If things are not as the judgement
asserts them to be, then the judgement is false.

All propositions are sentences but not all sentences are propositions. There are many
sentences that do not always affirm or deny something. Such sentences like "What time is it now?"
(a question), "Turn to page 35 of your books, " (a command), "May you have a happy birthday" (a
wish) and "Aray!" (an exclamation).

Introduction

In our study of language in chapter 1, we discussed how we acquire or form idea. We

apprehend or grasp mentally the nature or essence of things and thus acquire ideas of them. As
we compare mentally one idea with another idea and enunciate their agreement or disagreement,
we are judging. Thus, the mental enunciation or pronouncement regarding the agreement or
disagreement between two ideas is called judgement. It is an act of the mind affirming an idea by
another idea, or denying an idea from another idea. For example, the mind may compare "this
flower" and "sampaguita" and then enunciate that "This flower is a sampaguita". The first idea,
"this flower", is called the subject idea; and the second idea "a sampaguita", is the predicate idea.
You will note that three things are necessary for the making of a judgement: (1) the mind must
have an understanding of the two ideas about which it intends to make a judgement; (2) the mind
must compare the two ideas in question and study the connotation of each; (3) the mind must
enunciate the agreement or disagreement between the two ideas compared together.

Proposition and Sentence

We have learned that a judgement is the mental pronouncement regarding the agreement
or disagreement between two ideas. As we verbalize or express this mental operation in words,
we are stating a proposition. A proposition therefore, is the verbalize expression of a judgement.
It is a statement in which something is either affirmed or denied. From this, it follows that a
proposition may be either affirmative or negative. An affirmative proposition is one in which one
term (called the predicate term) is affirmed of another (called the subject term).

Example: Mary is beautiful.

The term Mary is the subject term, while the second term beautiful is the predicate term.
In an affirmative preposition, the predicate is asserted (predicated) of the subject. In a negative
proposition, the predicate term is denied or negated of the subject term. For instance, Mary is not
beautiful.

All propositions are sentences, but not all sentences are propositions. In so far, as a
proposition expresses an affirmation of denial about something, it is a sentence. However, a
sentence does not always affirm or deny something. It may just be a single word or group of words
that expresses an emotion or a thought. For example, Run! is an exhortatory or imperative
sentence but not proposition; Aray! is an exclamatory sentence but not a proposition; Where are
you going? is an interrogatory sentence but not a proposition; Good luck! is an optative sentence
(i.e., expressing a wish or desire) but not a proposition.

Proposition and Definition

Both the proposition and the definition have the word is in their structure. Take the
examples: Martin is a student. Logic is a science of correct reasoning. In both cases, the word is
found. Does it follow that a proposition is the same as definition? Are they identical?

The word is in a proposition expresses either an affirmation or a denial. It enunciates the

agreement or disagreement between the subject term and the predicate term. The word is is
known as a copula in a proposition. It links (or does not link) the subject term and the predicate
term, Hence, it is called a linking verb in the English grammar.

On the other hand, the word is in a definition expresses the meaning specifically of the
definiendum so that even if the definiendum and the definiens are transpose, the meaning
remains the same. In the example Biology is a science that studies living organisms, the word is in
the definition means 'means' so that one can substitute means for is without changing the
meaning at all; or one can reverse the positions of the definiendum and the definience in the
whole statement the meaning of which remains: A science that studies living organisms is called
biology.

A proposition, therefore, is not the same as a definition despite the similarity in their
proposition is a copula that expresses either an affirmation or a structures. The word is in denial;
or an agreement or disagreement between the subject term. The word is in a definition gives the
meaning of the definiendum.

3 Elements of a Proposition

Basic to all propositions are three elements:

1. Subject term (S) is that about which something is affirmed or denied.

2. Predicate term (P) is that which is affirmed or denied of the subject term.
3. Copula (c) is the linking verb is or is not (am, am not, are, are not, was, was not, were, were
not) expressing the agreement or disagreement between the subject term and the
predicate term.
 The subject and the predicate are the material which are united by affirmation or
separated by negation.

The Logical Structure/form of the Proposition

A proposition is in the logical form when its elements are arranged as follows - "S c P".
Moreover, the copula (c) must be expressed in the present tense, indicative mood of the verb "to
be". The copula must be a linking verb because its function is to connect the subject and the
predicate; and it must be in the present tense because the proposition is the expression of the
judgement which is a present act of the mind.

Reduction to the Logical Structure

Of the following statements only the first is in the logical form; the others are not.

1. The stars are beyond our reach.

2. What we need is time.
3. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
4. He is indeed a lucky man who has found a true friend.
5. Heartless is the man who feels no compassion for the sufferings of his fellow man.
6. Hope dwells in the heart of the man with faith.

In putting a proposition in the logical form, the following may be taken as a guide:

1. Look for the logical subject that about which something is affirmed or denied. In case of
proposition no. 5, the logical subject is a complex term "The man who fells no compassion
for the suffering of his fellow man."
2. Eliminate insignificant words. Thus, in example no. 3, the expletive "it" is eliminated when
we say that "To light a candle is better than to curse the darkness."
3. Transpose a sentence which is in the inverted order. So, the logical form of proposition
no. 2 is "Time is what we need."
4. Unite a term that is split. So, in the case of proposition no. 4, the complete subject term is
"He who has found a true friend."

However, many propositions do not manifest or display their logical structure; for
instance, Mario loves Maria. In this proposition the word loves expresses both the copula and the
a part of the predicate; and the words loves Maria are the equivalent to is a lover of Maria.

I: The Types of Proposition

A. Categorical Proposition
A categorical proposition asserts directly the agreement or disagreement of two terms by
means of the verb copula.

e.g. The child is healthy.

Some students are not going home this summer.
 B. Hypothetical Proposition

What is expressed is not the agreement or disagreement of two terms but the dependence
of one proposition on another.

II: Basic Forms of the Categorical Propositions

There are two important aspects of the categorical proposition which serve as an
important basis for the classification of propositions. These are the quality of the copula and the
quantity or extension of the proposition. Something will also be said of the extension or
distribution of the predicate-term in this section.

The Quality of the Proposition

The quality of a proposition is either affirmative or negative. This quality is determined

by the quality of the copula.

1. In an affirmative proposition, the predicate is assigned to or affirmed of the subject. The

affirmation is expressed by an affirmative or a positive copula. As long as the copula is
positive, even if there is a negation in the subject or predicate, the proposition is
considered an affirmative proposition.
e.g. My friend is a scholar
Whoever will not submit the required written report will be given an IC
2. In a negative proposition, the predicate is denied of, or not applied to the subject.
e.g. Who is against me is not with me.
No student with a failing grade will graduate with honors.

On the basis of its extension, the proposition is either universal, particular, singular or
collective.

a) A universal proposition has a universal subject term.

e.g. Every being endowed with life possesses a soul.
No man is infallible.
b) A particular proposition has a particular subject term.
e.g. Some public officials are not interested in the welfare of the people. Certain
experiences are difficult to forget.
c) A singular proposition has a singular term.
e.g. This student is on the Dean's list.
USC is the oldest school in the Philippines.
d) A Collective proposition has a collective term for its subject.
e.g. The class is noisy.
The audience gave the professors a resounding applause.

Singular and collective propositions are taken as universal propositions because, like the
latter, they take their subjects according to the whole of their extension. Since collective and
singular propositions have the same value as universal propositions, there are only two types of
propositions based on quantity - the universal and the particular.

The quantifiers which help us to determine whether the subject is particular or universal
are also useful in determining the extension of the proposition.
 There are propositions which have no definite subject-quantifier. Such are propositions
like "Fire burns," "Truth hurts," "Children are naughty," and "Cebuano's have dimpled checks." A
study of the relation between the subject and predicate of these propositions will enable us to
determine whether they are particular or universal.

If the predicate represents something that does not belong to the essence of the subject,
then it may or may not be attributed to other members of the subject. In this case, the proposition
is to be taken as a particular proposition. Thus, "Truth hurts," and "Cebuano's have dimpled
checks" are actually particular propositions.

The Distribution of the Predicate Term

When we speak of the distribution of the predicate term, we mean the extension or
quantity that the predicate has on account of its relation to subject in a certain proposition. The
predicate may be taken as a universal (distributed) or a particular (undistributed) term.

To determine the extension of the predicate term, we have to look at the copula. The rule
is:

1. In an affirmative proposition, the predicate term is always taken particularly;

2. In a negative proposition, the predicate term is always taken universally.

The reason for the above rules may become clear once we consider how the subject and
predicate are related in affirmative and negative propositions.

In affirmative statement, what is formally asserted is that ? is in the comprehension of S,

and that S is contained in the extension of P. If S is in P, P must have an extension wider than that
of S. But in an affirmative proposition, S and P are identified and to make this identification, we
must limit the extension of P. Thus, in an affirmative proposition, the predicate is taken
particularly. Only part of the extension of P is identified with S.

In the statement, "All Cebuano's are Filipinos," the predicate term "Filipinos" is a
particular term, that is, only a certain portion of the extension of "Filipinos" is identified with the
subject "Cebuano's." Using the circles, we may illustrate the extension between S and P of the
above statement in the following manner.

If we consider the matter (content) of the affirmative proposition, we may find that
sometime P represents the definition of S. This is the case with the statement "A square is a figure
with four equal sides and four equal angles." Here, the subject and predicate are co- extensive. In
other words, the whole of the extension of P is identified with S. This does not mean, however,
that the predicate term must be taken universally. By virtue of the form, P is still a particular term.

In a negative proposition, what is asserted is that P is excluded from the comprehension

of S, and S is excluded from the extension P. when we say, for example, "No cat is a chick," we
mean that "chick" is not identified with any members of the subject "cat". Consequently, the whole
of the extension P (chick) is excluded from S (cat) and the predicate term is taken universally. If
S and P were represented by circles, S would be outside P. This is shown in the illustration below:

S P

Cat Chick

I. The ordinary A, E, I and O Propositions

Considering the quality and quantity of the propositions, there are four general types
designated traditionally by the symbols A, E, I, or O.

a) The universal affirmative (A) proposition has a universal subject term and an affirmative
copula.

Example: Every X is Y,
Every circle is round.

b) The universal negative (E) proposition has a universal subject term and a negative copula.

Example: No X is Y.
No circle is a square.

c) The particular affirmative (I) proposition has a particular subject term and a positive
copula.
Example: Some X is Y.
Some polygons have more than three sides.
d) The particular negative (O) proposition has a particular subject and a negative copula.
Example: Some X is not Y.
Not all X is Y.
Not all figures are enclosed by a curved line.

Euler's Diagram of the A, E, I and O Propositions

The mathematician Euler invented diagrams illustrating the structure of ordinary categorical
propositions. The diagrams referred to as "Euler's diagrams' make use of two circles designating
the subject and the predicate, each of which is taken as presenting a class.
The following diagrams illustrate the A, E, I and O propositions:

a) A - All lifeguards are expert swimmers.

S
P expert swimmer
Lifeguard

In an A proposition, a class of S comprises part of the extension of P. Thus the circle

presenting S is inside the circle representing P. The diagram show that the predicate term of an
A proposition is particular.

b) E-No one who is liberal is conservative.

S P
Liberal Conservative

In an E proposition, the subject term, in the totality of its extension, is excluded from the
totality of the extension of the predicate term. It is easy to see in the diagram that the predicate
of an E proposition is a universal term.

c) I- Some animals are herbivorous.

S P

The shaded area in the diagram represents the animals that are herbivorous. In an I
proposition, a part of the extension of S is included in P as part of its extension. In an I proposition,
P is thus taken particularly with respect to S.

d) O- Some mothers are not wives.

Mothers who are S P

not wives

The shaded area represents the class of mothers who are not wives. In an O proposition,
some of the members of the class of S are not included in the extension of P. Or P, in the totality
of its extension is excluded from a part of S; P is, therefore, taken universally in an O proposition.
HYPOTHENICAL PROPOSITION
The hypothetical proposition does not declare unqualified affirmation or denial, but
expresses the dependence of one affirmation or denial on one another. Hypothetical propositions
are also called sequential propositions because they assert a certain sequence between two or
more propositions. There are three basic forms of the hypothetical statements - the conditional,
disjunctive and conjunctive propositions.

a) The conditional proposition expresses a relation in virtue of which one proposition follows
necessarily from the other because of a definite condition that is verified. It usually takes the form
"if... then...”
Examples: If man were God, then he would be all-knowing.
If a patient refuses to follow his doctor's orders, then he will suffer a relapse.
The examples show the two elements of the conditional proposition:
(1) The antecedent which is usually introduced by the word "if” and expresses a condition.
(2) The consequent which expresses what follows when the condition is verified

The truth of the conditional proposition depends not on the truth of the separate
elements, but on the presence of the necessary sequence between antecedent and consequent.
This is necessary sequence when the consequent follows necessarily from the antecedent. The
separate elements may be true, but if there is no necessary sequence, the conditional statement
is false. So, it may be true that you are in the Philippines, but it is not true that "If you are a Filipino,
then you are residing in the Philippines.”

b) The disjunctive proposition, by means of the particles "either...or", formally asserts that two
or more alternatives or choices cannot be false at the same time. At least one of the alternatives
must be true. If all the alternatives can be false, then the disjunctive proposition is false.
Example: You are either a catholic or not. (true)
You are either a Protestant or a Catholic.
(false- one may be neither a Protestant nor a Catholic.)

There are two forms of the disjunctive proposition - the proper (perfect or strict) and the
improper (imperfect or broad) disjunctive statements.
1. The proper or perfect disjunctive statement asserts that the possibilities or alternatives
cannot be true and false at the same time. If the disjunctive proposition presents only two
alternatives, there must be contradictories.
Example: You are either honest or dishonest.
Aristotle lived either before, during or after the time of Christ.

2. The improper or imperfect disjunctive statement asserts that the alternatives cannot all
be false but can be true at the same time.
Examples: His sickness was due either to overwork or to an improper diet.
His unsatisfactory grades in college are caused either by his poor training in
high school by the teacher's inefficiency.

c) The conjunctive proposition formally asserts that certain possibilities cannot all be true.
Example: You cannot eat your cake and have it too. (true)
You cannot sing and dance at the same time.
 (false - both alternatives can be true.)

The conjunctive and disjunctive propositions can be reduced to conditional propositions.

That is why, the hypothetical propositions are often identified with the conditional statements.
As stated at the outset, the study of propositions is primarily intended as a preparation for the
study of inferences which begins in the following chapter.

CHAPTER III
INFERENCE GENERAL

Inference: A Way to Truth

Truth, as we have said earlier, is a property of judgements or propositions. But how do
we come to know that a proposition is true or false?
Many propositions are taken as true on the basis of the evidence of the senses. Statements
like "It's raining", "It is now half past ten", and "I am not feeling well" are verified or falsified by
direct seeing, hearing, feeling, or by direct perceiving.
Other statements are known as true by the mere analysis of the terms in the statements.
Among these are the self-evident statements like "Whatever is, is' and "A thing cannot be and not
be at the same time."
Still others are accepted on the basis of authority. Thus, if we have trust in the competence
of a physicist, we accept his pronouncements as true. Or if we believe in God, then we accept as
true as what He revealed in the bible.
Most propositions, however, are accepted as true because other propositions can be
found to serve as evidence for them. Such truths are attained by a process called inference.
Inference is a process whereby from the true-value of one or more propositions, we
conclude to the true-value of another proposition. Whenever we draw a conclusion from what we
have asserted as true or false, we make an inference. So, if we know that 3x = 15, then we can
conclude that x=5. Or if the teacher says that the passing score is 50% of the total number of
points, then you conclude that your score, which is only 40 out of 100, is failing. Or seeing that
there are dark clouds, one can infer that it is going to rain.

The Types of Inferences

Inferences are classified into two - the immediate and mediate inferences.
In a broad sense, immediate inferences proceed from one proposition directly to another
proposition; mediate inferences proceed from two or more propositions to another which is
implied in the given propositions. The latter type of inferences involves what is commonly
referred as reasoning.

Examples of Immediate Inferences:

a. It is true that some students do not take their studies seriously. Therefore, it is false that
every student takes his studies seriously.
b. No beggar is a millionaire. Therefore, no millionaire is a beggar.

Examples of Mediate Inferences:

a. Minors are not allowed to see this film.
My brother is still a minor.
So, he is not allowed to see this film.
 b. He will either pay or be sued for damages.
But he stubbornly refuses to pay.
Ergo, he will be sued for damages.

The difference between the two modes of inferences may become clear as we study each
of these later. The following diagram shows the different forms of inferences under each type:

The Form and Matter of Inferences

The material element (matter) of the inference refers to the terms and propositions that
are used. The formal element (form) refers to the order of specific arrangement of the terms and
propositions in the inference. Inferences may differ in matter or content but assume the same
form.
Consider the following examples:
a) No Muslim is a Christian.
So, no Christian is a Muslim.
b) No material thing will last forever.
Ergo, nothing that will last forever is material.

The above have the same form: No X is Y.

So, No Y is X.
c) A voter is at least 18.
Esther is already a voter.
Therefore, she is at least 18.

d) Metal is a conductor of electricity.

Copper is metal.
Ergo, copper is a conductor of electricity.
The preceding two inferences have the same form and that is
M is P
S is M
So, S is P.

There are forms of inferences which are correct or valid. In these forms, the conclusions
follow necessarily from the given premises. There are forms which are incorrect or invalid. To
determine which are valid or correct and which are not, we have to know the rules governing
each type of inference. It is precisely the task of logic to provide with us with an understanding of
the laws or rules in the light of which inferences are judged as correct or incorrect, valid or invalid.
The primary question that the logician asks is not "Is it true?" but "Is it valid?" or "Does the
conclusion proceed necessarily from the given propositions?"

The First Principles or the Basic Laws of Thought

There are basic laws of thought which we must first consider because they serve as the
ground of all the fundamental rules governing the validity or correctness of inferences. These are
the following:
1. The Principles of Identity "Whatever is, is" or "A thing is identical with itself."
2. The Principle of Contradiction - "A thing cannot be and not be at the same time," or
"The same attribute or predicate cannot be affirmed and denied of the same subject at the
same time."
3. The principle of Excluded Middle - "A thing either is or is not," "Any attribute must be
either affirmed or denied of a given subject," or "Between contradictories there is no
middle ground.”
Bearing these principles in mind, we now proceed to the study of the structure as well as
the rules pertaining to the different types of inferences.

CHAPTER IV
OPPOSITIONAL INFERENCES

Oppositional Inferences consists in proceeding from the known or assumed truth or

falsity of one proposition to the truth or falsity of any of its opposites.
In order that we may know when inferences of this type are valid or not, we must study
the different modes of opposition and the rules governing each.

The Modes of Opposition

Opposition involves a relationship between one statement and its opposites. In the case
of the oppositions of propositions, we have the relation between two propositions having the
same subject and predicate but which differ in quantity, in quality, or in both quantity and quality.
There are four different modes of opposition: contradiction, contrariety, sub-alternation
and sub-contrariety.
1. Contradiction is the opposition between propositions that differ both in quality and
quantity. The propositions opposed in this way are called contradictories.
Examples:
No S is P -- Some S is P
Not all S are P -- Every S is P
2. Contrariety is the opposition between universal propositions that differ in quality. The
propositions opposed in this way are called contraries.
Examples:
No S is P -- Every S is P
3. Sub-contrariety is the relation between universal and particular propositions that differ
in quality Statements opposed in this manner are referred to as sub-contraries.
Examples:
Some S is P -- Not all S are P
 4. Sub-alternation is the relation between universal and particular propositions having the
same quality of the copula. Propositions related in this manner are referred to as sub-alterns.
Examples:
Some S is P -- Every S is P
Some S is not P -- No S is P

These four modes of oppositions are exemplified in what is traditionally called the square
of opposition which is illustrated in the following:

The Law of Opposition

If we know that a given proposition is true or false, then we can determine whether any
of its opposites is true or false. This is possible because there are certain laws concerning the
opposites. The following laws of opposition must be applied in judging whether oppositional
inferences are correct or incorrect.

1. The law of contradiction governs A and O, as week as E and I.

a. Contradictories cannot be both true; if one is true, the other is false.
Examples:
No cheater is honest is true.
Therefore, some cheaters are honest is false.

It is true that some students do not take their studies seriously.

Therefore, it is false that every student takes his studies seriously.
b. Contradictories cannot be both false; if one is false, the other is true.
Examples:
It is false that all government employees are college degree holders.
So, it is true, that some government employees are not college degree holders.

It is false that some monkeys are able to think.

So, it is true that no monkey is able to think.

2. The law of sub-alternation applies to inferences proceeding from A to I or vice versa, and
from E to O or vice versa.
a. If the universal statement is true, the subaltern is also true. In other words, the truth of
the universal involves necessarily the truth of the particular. If A is true, I is also true; if E
is true, then O is also true.
 Examples:
It is true that no benign tumor is curable.
So, it is true that some benign tumors are incurable.

That every lifeguard is an expert swimmer is true.

That some lifeguards are expert swimmers must be true.

b. If the particular statement is true, the subaltern is doubtful (that is, either true or false).
In other words, the truth of the particular does not necessarily involve the truth of the
universal. If I is true, then A is doubtful; if O is true, then E is doubtful.
Example:
It is true that some artists are creative.
Whether every artist is creative is doubtful.
c. If the particular statement is false, the subaltern is likewise false. Thus, the falsity of the
particular determines the falsity of the universal. If I is false, then A is also false; if O is
false, then E is also false.
Example:
That some radicals are reactionary is false.
Ergo, it is likewise false that every radical is reactionary.
d. If the universal is false, the subaltern is doubtful. That is to say, the falsity of the universal
does not necessarily determines the falsity of the particular. Given A as false, I may be true
or false or given E is false, O is doubtful.
Example:
It is false that no TV show is good for children.
Therefore, it is doubtful whether some TV shows are not good for
children.
Note regarding inferences from the universal to the particular. Considering the modern
logician's view on the existential import of propositions, one may question the validity of passing
from the universal statement (which does not assert the existence of the class of things it is talking
about) to the particular statement (which does have an existential import). The question may be
dismissed by saying that we assume, as did the traditional logicians, that every class of things we
talk about does have at least one member.

3. The law of contrariety governs A and E propositions.

a. Contraries cannot be true at the same time. If A is true, E is false; if E is true, then A is false.
Example:
If it is true that no hero is a coward.
Therefore, it is false that every hero is a coward.
b. Contraries can be both false at the same time. That is, if A is false, E is doubtful; if E is false,
A is doubtful.
Example:
It is false that no child is egocentric.
Therefore, we cannot be certain that every child is egocentric.
 4. The law of sub-contrariety governs inferences involving I and O.
a. Sub-contraries cannot be false at the same time. If I is false, O is true; if O is false, I is true.
Example:
Assuming it is false that some obstacles are insurmountable; we can conclude it is
true that not all obstacles are insurmountable.
b. Sub-contraries can be true at the same time. If I is true, then O is doubtful; if O is true, I is
doubtful.
Example:
It is true that some movies are purely for entertainment.
On the basis, however, we cannot be certain that some movies are not purely for
entertainment.

To summarize:
If A is true, O is false If A is false, O is true
I is true I is ?
E is false E is?
If E is true, I is false If E is false, I is true
O is true O is ?
A is false A is ?
If I is true, E is false If I is false, E is true
A is ? A is false
O is? O is true
If O is true, A is false If O is false, A is true
E is ? E is false
I is ? I is true

CHAPTER V
EDUCTION

Aside from the explicit meaning of a given proposition, there are meanings that are
implied in it. These "implicit" meanings are, so to speak, "folded within" or "folded under" the
given proposition. The process of drawing out these implied meaning is called eduction.
Eduction, then expresses explicitly in another proposition a meaning is contained
implicitly in a given proposition. We find in eduction another type of immediate inference which
consists in passing from truth-value of a given statement to the truth-value of the implied
judgement.

The Types of Eduction

When we speak of eduction, we refer to the processes of conversion, obversion,

contraposition, and inversion. Of these four, the first two are the more basic because they are
presupposed in other forms.
1. Conversion
Conversion is a process whereby from a given proposition called proposition called
convertend, we derive a proposition called the converse whose subject is the original predicate
and whose predicate is the original subject. To convert is to interchange subject and the predicate
terms of the proposition.

This, given S c P (convertend)

We derive P c S (converse)
Examples: No sinner is a saint.
Therefore, no saint is a sinner.

Some acts that are legal are immoral.

Therefore, some acts that are immoral are legal.

The following are the rules in deriving the correct converse:

1. Interchange S and P.
2. Retain the quality of the copula. If the convertend is negative, the converse must be
negative; if it is positive, the converse is positive.
3. Do not overextend any term. This means that no term which is particular in the
convertend may be universal in the converse.

Simple Conversion of E and I Propositions

An E proposition converts simply to an E proposition. There can be no danger in the

overextension in the conversion of E since all its terms are universal.
Examples: No learned man is ignorant. No Su is Pu
No one who is ignorant is learned. No Pu is Su

No cat is a dog. No Su is Pu.

No dog is a cat. No Pu is Su.

I also coverts to an I proposition.

Examples: Some unforgettable events are unforeseen. Some Sp are Pp.
Some unforeseen are unforgettable events. Some Pp are Sp.

Accident Conversion of a Proposition

When an A proposition is convertend, the extension of the converse is limited. A converts

to I. The reason for this is that A is an affirmative proposition; consequently, its predicate is
particular. This predicate, when used as subject of the converse, must be taken as a particular
term; otherwise, there would be an overextension of P.

So, Every Su is Pp converts to Some Pp is Sp

Every triangle is a polygon. converts to Some polygons are triangle.

Inconvertibility of O

O proposition cannot be convertend without violating either the second or third rule for
a valid conversion. If we say that "Some S is not P, therefore, "Some P is not S," we find that there
is an overextension of S in the converse, thereby violating the third rule. For S in the converse to
be particular, the copula must be affirmative. But the copula must be negative since the rule is to
retain the quality of the copula in converting, and O has a negative quality.
We cannot, then, legitimately proceed from "Some taxi drivers are not honest" to "Some
honest are not taxi drivers," The second statement may be true, but its truth is not implied
necessarily in the given statement. It is not a valid converse of the given O proposition.

Example: Some taxi drivers are not honest Some Sp are not Pu.
Converts to
Some honest are not taxi drivers Sorne Pp are not Su.
 2. Obversion
Obversion is the process whereby the given statement is called the obvertend we derive or
infer another proposition called the obverse whose subject is the same as original subject but
whose predicate is the contradictory of the given predicate. This second or inferred, proposition,
however, expresses the same meaning as the given proposition. Put in another way, to obvert is
to state negatively what is given positively, or to express positively what is given negatively.

So, given S is P (obvertend)

We infer S is not non-P (obverse)

Examples: No fish is unable to swim. (obvertend)

All fishes are able to swim (obverse)

Some things are indestructible. (obvertend)

Some things are not destructible (obverse)

To get the correct obverse, the following rules must be observed:

1. Retain the subject term.
2. Negate te copula or change the quality of the copula — from positive to negative or from
negative to positive.
3. Contradict the predicate of the obvertend.
(The safest way to contradict is to prefix "un" or "non." It is not always safe to use the
prefixes "in, ir, im," because they do not always affect a denial. Thus, while "material" and
immaterial' are contradictories. "Memorable" and "immemorable" are not. While "finite" and
"infinite" are opposites, "tense" and "intense" are not.

Obversion of A, E, I and O

1. E obverts to A
No honest man is untrustworthy. No S is Un-P
Every man is trustworthy. Every S is P

2. A obverts to E
Every good artist is creative. Every S is P
No good artist is uncreative. No S is un-P

3. I obverts to O
Some men are emotionally insecure. Some S in in-P
Some men are not emotionally secure. Some S is not P

4. O obverts to I
Some lands are not productive. Some S is not P
Some lands are unproductive. Some S is un-P

Since the obvertend and obverse express the same thing, both have the same truth-
value. If the obvertend is trues the obverse is also true; if false, the obverse is also false.
 3. Contraposition

Contraposition actually consists in performing alternately the processes of obversion and

conversion, The propositions may be inferred from a given proposition in the process of
contraposition. One of the partial contrapositive whose subject is the of the original predicate
but whose predicate is the same as the original subject. The other is the full contrapositive
whose subject is the contradictory of the given predicate and whose predicate is the contradictory
of the given subject.
That is, given S is P (contraponend)
we derive No P is S (partial contrapositive or PC)
No P is Non-S (full contrapositive of FC)

Contraposition of A, E and O

A Proposition
Given: Every S is P
Obverse: No S is non-P
Converse: No non-P is S (PC)
Obverse: Every non-P is non-S (FC)

Example: Every material being thing is destructible.

Every S is P
(PC) Nothing is indestructible is material.
No in-P is S
(FC) Anything indestructible is nonmaterial.
Every in-P is non-S

E Proposition

Given: No S is P
Obverse: Every S is non-P
Converse: Some non-P is S (PC)
Obverse: Some non-P is not non-S (FC)

Example: No wealthy man is financially insecure.

No S is P
(PC) Some who are financially secure are wealthy men.
Some non-P are S
(FC) Some who are financially secure are not non-wealthy men.
Some non-P are not non-S

O Proposition

Given: Some S is not P

Obverse: Some S is non-P
Converse: Some non-P is S (PC)
Obverse: Some non-P is not non-S (FC)
Example: Some imaginable things are not possible.
Some S are not P
(PC) Some impossible things are imaginable.
Some non-P are S
(FC) Some impossible things are not unimaginable.
Some non-P are not un-S

Truth-Value of the Contrapositives

The partial and full contrapositive of A and O propositions have the same quantity as the
given propositions. By the rules of obversion and conversion, the truth-value of the derived
contrapositives is the same as that of the given proposition.
The law of sub-alternation is applied in determining the truth-value of the partial and full
contrapositives of an E proposition, because as shown below, E and its contrapositives are like
subalterns.

Given: No S is P
(PC) Some non-P is C =c Some S is non-P =o Some S is not P
(FC) Some non-P is not non-S =o Some non-P is S =c Some S is non-P
=o Some S is not P

4. Inversion
Inversion involves obversion and conversion. The partial inverse of a given proposition is the
one whose subject is the contradictory of the given subject but whose predicate is the same as the
given predicate. The full inverse is an inferred proposition whose subject and predicate are the
contradictories of the given subject and predicate.

Thus, given S is P (Invertend)

We derive non-S is P (Partial Inverse or PI)
Non-S is non-P (Full Inverse or FI)

The Inversion of A begins with Obversion

Given: Every S is P
Obverse: No S is non-P
Converse: No non-P is S
Obverse: Every non-P is non-S
Converse: Some non-S is non-P (FI)
Obverse: Some non-S is not P (PI)

Example: Anything material is destructible.

Every S is P
(PI) Some nonmaterial things are not destructible.
Some non-S are not P’
(FI) Some nonmaterial things are indestructible.
Some non-S are non-P

The Inversion of E begins with Conversion

Given: No S is P
Converse: No P is S
Obverse: Every P is non-S
Converse: Some non-S is P (PI)
Obverse: Some non-S is not non-P (FI)
Example: No wealthy man is financially insecure.
No S is P
(PI) Some non-wealthy men are financially insecure.
Some non-S are P
(FI) Some non-wealthy men are not financially secure.
Some non-S are not non-P.

I and O propositions cannot be validly inverted.

The Truth Value of the Inverse

If a given statement is true, the inverse is likewise true; if false, the inverse is doubtful.
This is based on the law of sub-alternation, because as we shall point out below, the inverse are
like the sub-alterns of the given propositions.

Given: Every S is P o = No S is non-P c = No non-P is S

PI Some non-S is not P o = Some non-S is non-P c = Some non-P is non-S

o = Some non-P is not S

FI Some non-S is non-P c = Some non-P is non-S o = Some non-P is not S

Given: No S is P c = No P is S
PI Some non-S is P c = Some P is non-S o = Some P is not S
Fl Non-S is not non-P o = Some non-S is P c = Some P is non-S
o = Some P is not S

CHAPTER VI
MEDIATE INFERENCE: REASONING

Inference is a way to the truth. But the immediate inferences dealt with in the previous
chapters do not really lead our minds very far on the road to knowledge and truth. Basically, each
of those inferences merely involves the explicitation of what is implicity given in a statement
recognized as true or false. It is by means of the other mode of inference that we can really
advance in our knowledge and carry ourselves along the way to the discovery of more important
truths. This mode of inference is called mediate inference, it is better known as reasoning.

Basic Form of Mediate Inference

In its most basic form, reasoning involves a process whereby from certain truths already
known, we proceed to another which is different from those that are given but necessarily
following from them. The new truth that is attained is called the conclusion and from those which
the conclusion is derived are referred to as the premises.
The argument expresses the verbally or in writing the process of reasoning. As expression
of the act of reasoning, the argument is a discourse which proves something (the conclusion) on
the basis of certain facts or propositions (the premises). In the argumentative discourse,
statements do not merely follow one another; rather, a statement follows from other statements.
It is to be distinguished from the expository discourse which simply narrates, describes or makes
an account of a certain phenomenon.
Conditions for a Totally Correct or Sound Argument

Like any other form of inference, there are two elements in an argument — the matter
and the form. For an argument to be totally correct, it must be both formally correct and
materially correct.
Material correctness refers to the truth of the propositions. Formal correctness refers to
the logical connection among the propositions such that one proposition (the conclusion) follows
necessarily from the other propositions (the premises). If an argument ha.s a conclusion that
necessarily follows from a given set of true premises, then the argument is a totally correct
argument.
Formal correctness which is identical with validity does not always go with material
correctness or truth.
An argument may be materially correct (that is, its propositions are true) but formally
incorrect (that is, invalid). The following illustrates this argument.

Birds fly. (true)

Eagles fly. (true)
So, eagles are birds. (true) but invalid)

An argument may be materially incorrect but formally correct. An example is given below:
All lawyers are liars. (false)
Jesus Christ is a lawyer. (false)
Ergo, he is a liar. (false but valid)

There are, then, two sources of error in the argument — the matter and form. In the
construction as well as in the evaluation of arguments we must look into these formal and
material aspects.

The Two Types of Arguments

Arguments are either deductive or inductive.
Deductive arguments proceed from a more universal truth to a less universal truth.
Example: No one without a visa can go abroad.
Marissa has no visa.
Ergo, she cannot go abroad. (valid)
Inductive arguments proceed the other way around, that is, from a sufficient number of
particular instances to a universal truth.
Example: Child A of the Reyes family is intelligent.
Child B is also intelligent.
Child C is likewise intelligent.
Therefore, all the six children in the Reyes family are intelligent. (invalid)

FALLACIES OF EVADING THE QUESTIONS

This fallacy is made to evade the issue by using techniques or modus operandi.
Various Types of the Following:
1. Argument to the Man (Argumentum ad Hominemn) — this ignores the real issues by
attacking the character or personality of n opponent. Sometimes, this is also known as
character assassination.
Example: Why should we believe in the statement of Ka Doming?
He is an ex-convict.
He is convicted once of murder.
2. Argument to the people (Argumentum ad Populum)- it evades the issues by appealing
to passions and prejudices of the populace.
Example: Only respectable women wear a Sara Lee bikinis.
Anlene Milk keeps your bones healthy.
3. Argument to Sympathy (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)- it consists of pleading for
mercy and leaving reason aside. We ignore the point of issue and appeal to our instinct to
have compassion towards the needy, unfortunate, and the downtrodden.
Example: Anthony cannot be given a failing grade because he is blind.

4. Argument to Money (Argumentum ad Crumemam)- we commit this fallacy when we

appeal to the sense of greed or cupidity of an individual. Instead of reasoning for an
argument, we bribe and use money to defeat the opponent.
Example: A jeepney driver who was caught by policemen for traffic violation uses
his money to settle arguments.
5. Argument to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)- we ignore the truth or falsity
of a proposition and assert the truth because people are ignorant about it.
Example: We cannot disprove that mermaids exist, therefore, this existence is
true, mermaids exist.
6. Argument to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)- we commit this fallacy when we ignore
the real issue at hand and appeal to physical or moral pressure rather than to reason.
Example: A teacher threatens his students that if they will not give him an
outstanding performance rating in the evaluation survey, he will give them a
failing grades.
7. Argument to One's Own Advantage (Argumentum Pansarilum)- this argument is
called an appeal to gain or profit. This fallacy is committed when we ignore the issue and
appeal to a person to adopt a belief or a policy in exchange for the advantage offered.
Example: A man offers a girl for her to study and finish a degree but in return, the
girl should be his mistress.
8. Argument to Tradition (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) – we commit this fallacy when
we agree to a certain belief without a reason.
Example: You are not allowed to sweep the floor during vigil.