Logic Module

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPY
OBJECTIVES
This module will help the students:
1.Identify in what part of their life had they unconsciously engaged in philosophy.
2.determine their first hand understanding of the meaning of philosophy.
3.explain the formal definition of philosophy and compare their prior understanding of philosophy.
a.TOPIC 1-Meaning of Philosophy

b Content- Essential concept and definition of philosophy
At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of
knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a
selection of other alternative definitions:
 the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and
what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and
what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic) (Wikipedia)
 investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical
reasoning rather than empirical methods (American Heritage Dictionary)
 the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as discoverable by
human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)
 the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics (WordNet)
 the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour and beliefs
(Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)
 the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)
 the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think:
mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
 careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and
the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)
As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own
sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and religion.
Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are usually foundational and abstract in nature.
Philosophy is done primarily through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods
used to study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.
1|Page
In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings, but over the centuries
it has produced some of the most important original thought, and its contribution to politics, sociology,
mathematics, science and literature has been inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not yield "the
meaning of life, the universe and everything", many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us
examines such questions and even that an unexamined life is not worth living. It also provides a good way
of learning to think more clearly about a wide range of issues, and its methods of analyzing arguments can be
useful in a variety of situations in other areas of life.
c. Evaluation
1.Write your previously or recently held philosophy in life.
2.Relate how you philosophy has helped you understand yourself and others or has influenced your success, or
contributed tpwards forming you as a better person.
2|Page
CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
OBJECTIVES:Module 2 will help the students:
1. explain logic as a science and art of correct thinking
2. distinguish logical thinking from other forms of thinking.
3. Recount the persons involved in the history and development of logic.
4. Solve logical puzzles using basic logical reasoning.
a.TOPIC2- History of logic

b.CONTENT-ORIGIN AND MEANING OF LOGIC
The history of logic deals with the study of the development of the science of valid inference (logic). Formal
logics developed in ancient times in China, India, and Greece. Greek methods, particularly Aristotelian logic (or
term logic) as found in the Organon, found wide application and acceptance in Western science and
mathematics for millennia. The Stoics, especially Chrysippus, began the development of predicate logic.
Christian and Islamic philosophers such as Boethius (died 524) and William of Ockham (died 1347) further
developed Aristotle's logic in the Middle Ages, reaching a high point in the mid-fourteenth century. The period
between the fourteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century saw largely decline and neglect,
and at least one historian of logic regards this time as barren. Empirical methods ruled the day, as evidenced by
Sir Francis Bacon's Novum Organon of 1620.
Logic revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period when the subject
developed into a rigorous and formal discipline which took as its exemplar the exact method of proof used
in mathematics, a hearkening back to the Greek tradition. The development of the modern "symbolic" or
"mathematical" logic during this period by the likes of Boole, Frege, Russell, and Peano is the most significant in
the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in
human intellectual history.
Progress in mathematical logic in the first few decades of the twentieth century, particularly arising from the
work of Gödel and Tarski, had a significant impact on analytic philosophy and philosophical logic, particularly
from the 1950s onwards, in subjects such as modal logic, temporal logic, deontic logic, and relevance logic.
Prehistory of logic[
Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of
valid reasoning, inference and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first
arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as "land measurement".The ancient
Egyptians discovered geometry, including the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Ancient
Babylon was also skilled in mathematics. Esagil-kin-apli's medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC
was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th
centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to
the philosophy of science.
Logic – Logic can be defined as the science and art of correct reasoning. 3
3|Page
As a science, it employs in an orderly manner certain laws or rules and methods whereby we may derive a valid
conclusion from a given set of facts or ideas. Its purpose is to develop a science of reasoning. It clarifies our
thinking and helps us to evaluate the reasoning behind the systems of belief and theories that we encounter in
life. Logic helps us to understand what our beliefs mean, how to express them clearly, and how they may be
supported. Logic can be considered an art because, unlike mathematics and the empirical sciences, it’s about
representing something subjective.
As an Art.
Typically when people say something is ‘logical’ they mean it makes sense to them, or that there’s a pattern or
reasoning they can follow. Representing these logics, either symbolically, or graphically, is the same as
representing any other idea however. As in other arts, such as sculpture or comics, there are tropes, traditions,
and styles.
If there is a science to logic, that would be computer science, or the empirical science of applying logic to
computable tasks. But the notion of designing and developing a logic is an art requiring the practitioner make
choices about the structures and relationships that they want to represent, and how they will represent them.
C. EVALUATION
In order to demonstrate logic as a science and art of correct thinking, you have to work on the following logical
puzzle, The logical problem will compel you to think analytically and at the same time systematically. From the
data given in the puzzle, you can draw some conclusions through a series of reasoning. The conclusion may be
sufficient to establish the answer to the problem.
In a jeepney repairshop, the positions of mechanic, electrician and body repairman are held by three men,
Asiong,Badong, and Carding though not necessarily in that order. The electrician who is an only child, earns the
least.Carding, who married Badong’s sister, earns more than the mechanic.
What position does each person hold?
Questions for discussion;
1.What makes logic a science?
2. what makes logic an art?
3.What is correct thinking?
4.How did logic begin and develop?
5.Why is there a need for a person to have a certain kind of philosophy?
4|Page
CAPTER 3
Types of logic
OBJECTIVES: Module 3 will help the students:

1.distinguish deductive logic from inductive logic.
2.distinguish material logiv from formal logic
Deductive and Inductive Logic
Types of logic
Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from the general to the specific.
Deductive reasoning is supported by deductive logic, for example:
From general propositions:
All ravens are black birds.
For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.
To specific propositions such as:
This bird is a raven, therefore it is black
This rifle will recoil when it is fired.
In contrast to inductive reasoning, the conclusions of deductive reasoning are as valid as the initial assumption.
Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle.
Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from the specific to the general. Inductive reasoning is
supported by inductive logic, for example:
From specific propositions such as:
This raven is a black bird.
This rifle recoils when it is fired.
To general propositions:
All ravens are black birds.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the
same validity as the initial assumptions.
The two main branches of logic, one called formal or minor logic, the other material or major logic, are quite
distinct and deal with different problems.
5|Page
Material logic is concerned with the content of argumentation. It deals with the truth of the terms and the
propositions in an argument.
Formal logic is interested in the form or structure of reasoning. The truth of an argument is of only secondary
consideration in this branch of logic. Formal logic is concerned with the method of deriving one truth from
another.
The distinction between these two branches of logic was nicely described by G.K. Chesterton:
Logic and truth ... have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and
accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with
any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs ... Logic, then, is not
necessarily an instrument for finding out truth; on the contrary, truth is a necessary instrument for using logic--
for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth ... Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have
already found truth without it.
This last remark of Chesterton’s is important. It is not the purpose of formal logic to discover truth. That is the
business of everyday observation and, in certain more formal circumstances, empirical science. Logic serves
only to lead us from one truth to another.
That is why it is best to study formal logic first. In formal logic you study the form of an argument apart from or
irrespective of its content, even though some content must be used in order to show the form. Maritain put it
this way:
To study any complicated machine, a reaper for instance, we must begin by making it work in the void, while
we learn how to use it correctly and without damaging it. In the same way we must first of all learn how to use
reason correctly ... without damaging it.
c. EVALUATION
Questions for discussion:
1. What is the difference between deductive and inductive logic?
2. What is the difference between material and formal logic?
3. What is the difference between deductive and inductive arguments? Explain.
6|Page
CHAPTER 4
JUDGEMENT AND PROPOSITION
OBJECTIVE: This module will help students:

1.determine how judgments are made.
2.define a categorical propositions and give examples for it.
3.construct and distinguish categorical propositions according to logical structure.
4.distinguish a universal proposition from a particular proposition.
a.TOPIC 4- Meaning of judgement and proposition

Judgment is an act in which the mind pronounces the agreement or disagreement of ideas among themselves.
It is an act in which the intellect affirms or denies one idea of another. For instance, our intellect may relate the
ideas this dog and Dalmatian and affirm, This dog is a Dalmatian. This is an example of a judgment expressed in
a proposition. The proposition therefore is the oral or written expression of the judgment. Often used
interchangeably with statement, it as a verbal expression proclaiming a truth or falsity.
Truth and falsity

Truth, is the agreement of a judgment with reality, falsity, the disagreement.If a proposition coincides with
reality, it is true and, if not, it is false. The truth of a proposition is verified by comparing it with the reality it is
supposed to express. To state, The author of this lecture is a woman is false, while to propose, This lecture is
about Logic is true. The "test" of truth is, therefore, agreement of the judgment with reality. We refer to this as
objective evidence and thus our criterion of truth.
Nonetheless, there are statements that are considered true because other propositions verified as true
serve as their bases. Such truths are affirmed by the logical process called inference. By inference, we mean
proceeding from the truth-value of one or more propositions to the truth-value of another pertinent and
consequential proposition. Thus, when we affirmed that Hachiko is a dog, we can infer that Hachiko is a
mammal. (More of this will be discussed under the topic ‘Reasoning and Inference’). In this sense, inference
can also be considered a pathway to truth.
b.CONTENT- Quality and Quantity of Categorical Proposition

In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies that all or
some of the members of one category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate term).[1] The
study of arguments using categorical statements (i.e., syllogisms) forms an important branch of deductive
reasoning that began with the Ancient Greeks.
The Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle identified four primary distinct types of categorical proposition and gave
them standard forms (now often called A, E, I, and O). If, abstractly, the subject category is named S and the
predicate category is named P, the four standard forms are:
7|Page
 All S are P. (A form)
 No S are P. (E form)
 Some S are P. (I form)
 Some S are not P. (O form)
A surprisingly large number of sentences may be translated into one of these canonical forms while retaining all
or most of the original meaning of the sentence. Greek investigations resulted in the so-called square of
opposition, which codifies the logical relations among the different forms; for example, that an A-statement is
contradictory to an O-statement; that is to say, for example, if one believes "All apples are red fruits," one
cannot simultaneously believe that "Some apples are not red fruits." Thus the relationships of the square of
opposition may allow immediate inference, whereby the truth or falsity of one of the forms may follow directly
from the truth or falsity of a statement in another form.
Modern understanding of categorical propositions (originating with the mid-19th century work of George
Boole) requires one to consider if the subject category may be empty. If so, this is called the hypothetical
viewpoint, in opposition to the existential viewpoint which requires the subject category to have at least one
member. The existential viewpoint is a stronger stance than the hypothetical and, when it is appropriate to
take, it allows one to deduce more results than otherwise could be made. The hypothetical viewpoint, being
the weaker view, has the effect of removing some of the relations present in the traditional square of
opposition.
Arguments consisting of three categorical propositions — two as premises and one as conclusion — are known
as categorical syllogisms and were of paramount importance from the times of ancient Greek logicians through
the Middle Ages. Although formal arguments using categorical syllogisms have largely given way to the
increased expressive power of modern logic systems like the first-order predicate calculus, they still retain
practical value in addition to their historic and pedagogical significance.
Categorical propositions can be categorized into four types on the basis of their "quality" and "quantity",
or their "distribution of terms". These four types have long been named A, E, I and O. This is based on the
Latin affirmo (I affirm), referring to the affirmative propositions A and I, and nego (I deny), referring to the
negative propositions E and O.
Quantity and quality
Quantity refers to the amount of members of the subject class that are used in the proposition. If the
proposition refers to all members of the subject class, it is universal. If the proposition does not employ all
members of the subject class, it is particular. For instance, an I-proposition ("Some S are P") is particular
since it only refers to some of the members of the subject class.
Quality refers to whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a subject within the class of the
predicate. The two possible qualities are called affirmative and negative.[3] For instance, an A-proposition
("All S are P") is affirmative since it states that the subject is contained within the predicate. On the other
hand, an O-proposition ("Some S are not P") is negative since it excludes the subject from the predicate.
Name Statement Quantity Quality
8|Page
A All S are P. universal affirmative
E No S are P. universal negative
I Some S are P. particular affirmative
O Some S are not P. particular negative
An important consideration is the definition of the word some. In logic, some refers to "one or more",
which could mean "all". Therefore, the statement "Some S are P" does not guarantee that the statement
"Some S are not P" is also true.
c. EVALUATION
.Give the quality and quantity of the following propositions. Use A for affirmative N for negative,
S for singular P for particular and U for universal.
Quality Quantity
1 All heroes are brave people. ________ ________

2. No brave people flee from danger. ________ ________
3. Some people who face danger are brave. ________ ________
4.The everlasting is a distinct Baguio flower. ________ ________
5.Philosophers have all studied logic. ________ ________
6. Many pre-law students study logic. ________ ________
7. Not all logic students become philosophers. ________ ________
8. At least one philosopher was emperor of Rome ________ ________
9All politicians are nasty. ________ ________
10.The Philippines is our native land ________ ________
9|Page
CHAPTER 5
FOUR STANDARD FORM OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
OBJECTIVE:This module will help students:

1.memorize the standard forms and basic reducible forms of standard categorical propositions.
2.construct categorical propositions according to the four standard forms.
3.identify the form categorical proposition by its letter representation.
4.determine the distribution of terms of a proposition.
a. TOPIC-The standard categorical forms(A,E,I,O).

b. CONTENT- Rules on Distribution of Distribution of terms.
The two terms (subject and predicate) in a categorical proposition may each be classified
as distributed or undistributed. If all members of the term's class are affected by the proposition, that
class is distributed; otherwise it is undistributed. Every proposition therefore has one of four
possible distribution of terms.
Each of the four canonical forms will be examined in turn regarding its distribution of terms. Although not
developed here, Venn diagrams are sometimes helpful when trying to understand the distribution of
terms for the four forms.
A form
An A-proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse. Consider the following
categorical proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All dogs are indeed mammals, but it would be false to
say all mammals are dogs. Since all dogs are included in the class of mammals, "dogs" is said to be
distributed to "mammals". Since all mammals are not necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to
"dogs".
E form
An E-proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate. From the categorical
proposition "No beetles are mammals", we can infer that no mammals are beetles. Since all beetles are
defined not to be mammals, and all mammals are defined not to be beetles, both classes are distributed.
10 | P a g e
I form Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some Americans are
conservatives". Neither term can be entirely distributed to the other. From this proposition, it is not
possible to say that all Americans are conservatives or that all conservatives are Americans.
O form
In an O-proposition, only the predicate is distributed. Consider the following: "Some politicians are not
corrupt". Since not all politicians are defined by this rule, the subject is undistributed. The predicate,
though, is distributed because all the members of "corrupt people" will not match the group of people
defined as "some politicians". Since the rule applies to every member of the corrupt people group,
namely, "all corrupt people are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.
The distribution of the predicate in an O-proposition is often confusing due to its ambiguity. When a
statement like "Some politicians are not corrupt" is said to distribute the "corrupt people" group to "some
politicians", the information seems of little value, since the group "some politicians" is not defined. But if,
as an example, this group of "some politicians" were defined to contain a single person, Albert, the
relationship becomes more clear. The statement would then mean that, of every entry listed in the
corrupt people group, not one of them will be Albert: "all corrupt people are not Albert". This is a
definition that applies to every member of the "corrupt people" group, and is, therefore, distributed.
Summary
In short, for the subject to be distributed, the statement must be universal (e.g., "all", "no"). For the
predicate to be distributed, the statement must be negative (e.g., "no", "not").
Distribution
Name Statement
Subject Predicate
A All S are P. distributed Undistributed
E No S are P. distributed Distributed
I Some S are P. undistributed Undistributed
O Some S are not P. undistributed Distributed
11 | P a g e
C. EVALUATION
Underline the subject terms and the predicate terms of the following propositions and determine the
distribution of terms . Label the subject terms with Sd if distributed, and Su if undistributed, for
predicates, Pd if distributed and Pu if undistributed.
1. All Filipinos are persons with dignity and self-respect .
2. No warriors who fought for freedom are self-centered individuals.
3. Some people who possess powers are greedy persons.
4. Many young children in the orphanage are unwanted foundlings
5. Not all liquors sold in the market are locally made products .
12 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6
REDUCING ORDINARY STATEMENT TO ITS STANDARD CATEGORICAL FORM.
OBJECTIVE:
1.Determine A, E, I, and O propositions applied in actual propositions.
2.Know and dentify from one another the structure of the four kinds of categorical propositions.
3. Enumerate and apply the rules in translating ordinary statements into Standard categorical form.
4.Reduce ordinary language statements to standard categorical propositions.
a.TOPIC 6-Logical Structures
b.CONTENT- Standard Categorical Form
There are four standard forms of categorical propositions such as A, E, I and O-propositions having the
structure of the form, 'All S is P' 'No S is P’, 'Some S is P' and 'Some S is not P' respectively. Thus, we know
that the logical structure of any categorical proposition exhibits the following four items in the order as
given below.
Quantifier (Subject term) copula (predicate term)
Here the first item is the 'quantifier' (or more precisely the words expressing the quantity of the
proposition). It is attached to the subject term only. The second item in any logical proposition is the
subject term. The predicate term, that expresses something about the subject, comes after the copula.
The copula is placed in between the subject and predicate term.
Further, the quality of the proposition is expressed in and through the copula. The copula and the
predicate term are respectively the third and fourth logical elements of a categorical proposition. Thus, a
categorical proposition which is in standard form must exhibit explicitly the subject, the predicate, the
copula, its quality and quantity. Let us call a categorical proposition regular if it is in its standard form,
otherwise it is called irregular.
In our ordinary language most of the categorical propositions are irregular in nature. Even though there
are irregular categorical propositions they can be put in their regular form. It should be noted that while
reducing an irregular categorical proposition into its standard form, we should pay enough attention to
the meaning of the proposition so that the reduced proposition is equivalent in meaning to its irregular
counterpart.
Before describing the method of reduction of irregular propositions into their regular forms, it is profitable
to understand the reasons for irregularity of a categorical proposition: The irregularity of any categorical
proposition may be due to one or more of these following factors.
13 | P a g e
(i) The copula is not explicitly stated; rather it is mixed with the main verb which forms the part of the
predicate
(ii) Though the logical ingredients of a categorical proposition are present in the sentence yet are not
arranged in their proper logical order.
(iii) The quantity of a categorical proposition is not expressed by a proper word like 'all', 'no' (or none),
'some' or it does not contain any word to indicate the quantity of the proposition.
(iv) All exclusive, exceptive and interrogative propositions are clearly irregular.
(v) The quality of the proposition is not specified by attaching the sign of negation to the copula.
Keeping these factors in mind, let us describe systematically the method of reduction of an irregular
categorical proposition into its standard form (or into a regular proposition). Below we describe the
method of reduction.
I. Reduction of categorical propositions whose copula is not stated explicitly
In our ordinary use of language, very often the copula is not explicitly or separately expressed but is mixed
with the main verb. The main verb in such a case forms the part of the predicate. The moment copula is
identified; the other items of a logical proposition are brought out in a usual manner. We know that the
copula of any logical proposition must be in present tense of the verb "to be" with or without the sign of
negation.
Now let us consider an example of an irregular proposition, where the copula is not explicitly stated. "All
sincere students deserve success". This is an irregular proposition, as the copula is clearly mixed with the
main verb of the proposition. The method of reducing such irregular sentences into regular ones is as
follows. The subject and the quantifier of the irregular proposition should remain as they are, while the
rest of the proposition may be converted to a class forming property (i.e. term) which would be our logical
predicate.
In our above example 'All' is the quantifier attached to the subject 'sincere students'. We should not touch
the quantifier nor the subject term of the proposition, they should remain where they are. On the other
hand, the rest of the proposition 'deserve success' should be converted into a class forming property
'success deserving'. This should be our logical predicate. Then we link the subject term with the predicate
term with a standard copula. Thus,
"All sincere students deserve success." Irregular proposition.
"All sincere students are success deserving." A - Proposition.
"All people seek power." Irregular proposition.
14 | P a g e
"All people are power seekers." A - Proposition.
"Some people drink Coca Cola." Irregular proposition.
"Some people are Coca Cola drinkers." I - proposition
II. Irregular propositions where the usual logical ingredients are all present but are not arranged in their
logical order.
Consider the following examples of irregular propositions. "All is well that ends well" and "Ladies are all
affectionate." In these cases, first we have to locate the subject term and then rearrange the words
occurring in the proposition to obtain the regular categorical proposition. Such reductions are usually
quite straight forward. Thus we reduce the above two examples as given below.
"All is well that ends well." Irregular proposition

"All things that end well are things that are well." A - Proposition
"Ladies are all affectionate." Irregular proposition
"All ladies are affectionate." A - Proposition
III. Statements in which the quantity is not expressed by proper quantity words. Some propositions do not
contain word like 'All', 'No', 'some' or contain no words to indicate the quantity. We reduce such a type of
irregular proposition into its logical form as explained below.
Here we have to consider two sub-cases : sub-case (i) where there is indication of quantity but no proper
quantity words like 'All', 'No', on 'Some' are used and Sub case (ii) where the irregular proposition contains
no word to indicate its quantity.
Sub-case (i): Affirmative sentences that begin with words like 'every', 'any', 'each' are to be treated as A-
propositions, where such words are to be replaced by the word "all" and rest of the proposition remains
as it is or may be modified as necessary. The followings are some of the examples of this type.
"Every man is liable to commit mistakes." Irregular proposition.
"All men are persons who liable to commit mistakes." A - Proposition.
"Each student took part in the competition." Irregular proposition.
"All students are persons who took part in the competition." A - Proposition.
"Any one of my students is laborious." Irregular proposition.
"All my students are laborious." A - Proposition.
A negative sentence that begins with a word like 'every', 'any', 'each', or 'all' is to be treated as an O-
proposition. Any such proposition may be reduced to its logical form as shown below.
15 | P a g e
"Every man is not honest". Irregular proposition
"Some men are not honest." O - Proposition
"Any student cannot get first class." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not persons who can get first class." O - Proposition.
"All is not gold that glitters." Irregular proposition.
"Some things that glitter are not gold." O - Proposition.
"Sentences with singular term or definite singular term without the sign of negation are to be treated as
A-proposition. For example, "Ram is mortal.", "The oldest university of Orissa is in Bhubaneswar." are A-
propositions.
Here the predicate is affirmed of the whole of the subject term. On the other hand, sentences with
singular term or definite singular term with the sign of negation are to be treated as E-propositions. For
example, "Ram is not a student" and "The tallest student of the class is not a singer" are to be treated as
E-propositions. These are cases where the predicate is denied of the whole of the subject term.
IV. “Sentences beginning with the words like 'no', 'never', 'none' are to be treated as E-propositions. The
following sentence is an example of this type.
"Never men are perfect." Irregular proposition
"No man is perfect." E - Proposition
V. Affirmative sentences with words, like 'a few', 'certain', 'most', 'many' are to be treated as I-
propositions, while negative sentences with these words are to be treated as
O-propositions. Since the word 'few' has a negative sense, an affirmative sentence beginning with the
word 'few' is negative in quality. A negative sentence beginning with the word 'few' is affirmative in
quality because it involves a double negation that amount to affirmation. The following are examples of
above type.
"A few men are present." Irregular proposition.
"Some men are present." I - proposition.
"Certain books are good." Irregular proposition.
"Some books are good." I - proposition.
"Most of the students are laborious." Irregular proposition.
16 | P a g e
"Some students are laborious." I - proposition.
Here we may note that 'most' means less then 'all' and hence it is equivalent to 'some'.
"Many Indians are religious." Irregular proposition.
"Some Indians are religious." I - proposition.
"Certain books are not readable." Irregular proposition
"Some books are not readable." O - Proposition
"Most of the students are not rich." Irregular proposition.
"Some students are not rich." O - Proposition
"Few men are above temptation." Irregular proposition
"Some men are not above temptation." O - Proposition
"Few men are not selfish." Irregular proposition
"Some men are selfish.' I
VI. Any statement whose subject is qualified with words like 'only', 'alone', 'none but', or 'no one else but'
is called an exclusive proposition. This is so called because the term qualified by any such word applies
exclusively to the other term. In such cases the quantity of the proposition is not explicitly stated.
The propositions beginning with words like 'only', 'alone', 'none but' etc are to be reduced to their logical
form by the following procedure. First interchange the subject and the predicate, and then replace the
words like 'only', 'alone' etc with 'all'. For example,
"Only Oriyas are students of this college." Irregular proposition.
"All students of this college are oriyas." A - Proposition.
"The honest alone wins the confidence of people." Irregular Proposition.
"All persons who win the confidence of people are honest." A-proposition.
VII. Propositions in which the predicate is affirmed or denied of the whole subject with some exception is
called an exceptive proposition. An exceptive proposition may be definite or indefinite. If the exception is
definitely specified as in case of "All metals except mercury are solid" then the proposition is to be treated
as universal and if the exception is indefinite, as in case of "All metals except one is solid", the proposition
is to be treated as particular.
17 | P a g e
"All metals except mercury are solid." is a universal proposition which means
"All non-mercury metals are solid."
Now let us consider an example where the exception is indefinite. For example, "All students of my class
except a few are well prepared", it is to be reduced to an I-proposition as given below.
"All students of my class except a few are well prepared." Irregular proposition.
"Some students of my class are well prepared." I - proposition.
VIII. There are impersonal propositions where the quantity is not specified. Consider for example, "It is
cold", "It is ten O'clock". In such cases propositions in question are to be reduced to A-proposition because
the subject in each of these cases is a definite description.
"It is cold". Irregular proposition
"The whether is cold." A - Proposition.
"It is ten O'clock." Irregular proposition.
"The time is ten O'clock." A - Proposition.
There are some propositions where the quantity is not specified. In such cases we have to examine the
context of its use to decide the quantity. For example, consider following sentences (1) "Dogs are
carnivorous", (2) "Men are mortal", (3) "Students are present." In first two examples, the quantity has to
be universal but in the third case, it is particular. Thus, their reductions into logical form are as follows.
"Dogs are carnivorous." Irregular proposition.
"All dogs are carnivorous." A - Proposition.
This is so because we know that "being carnivorous' is true of all dogs.
"Men are mortal." Irregular proposition.
"All men are mortal." A - Proposition
Here 'being mortal' is generally true of men. But in the proposition "Students are present", we mean to
assert that some students are present". So the proposition "Men are mortal" is reduced to "All men are
mortal" But in the example "Students are present", 'being present' is not generally true of all students.
So the proposition "Students are present" is reduced to "Some dents are present" which is an I-
proposition. Thus the context of use of a proposition determines the nature of the proposition.
18 | P a g e
IX. Problematic propositions are particular in meaning. For example "The poor may be happy" should be
treated as a particular proposition, because what such a proposition asserts is that it is sometimes true
and sometimes false.
Thus, "The poor may be happy" is reduced to "Some poor people are happy", which is an I-proposition
X. Similarly, there are propositions where the quantity is not specified but their predicates are qualified by
the words like 'hardly', 'scarcely', 'seldom'. Such propositions should be treated as particular negative. For
example, "Businessmen are seldom honest", is an irregular proposition. It is reduced to "Some
businessmen are not honest". If such a proposition contains the sign of negation that these proposition is
to be treated as an I-proposition.
For example, "Businessmen are not seldom honest." is to be reduced to "Some businessmen are honest",
which is an I - proposition. This is so because it involves a double negation which is equivalent to
affirmation.
c. EVALUATION
Reduce the following ordinary statements into standard categorical form propositions.
1. Certain persons rob the bank.
2. The youths are the only ones delegated to the conference.
3. Few student radicals have travelled to china.
4. Mario sells newspaper.
5. All but instructors can use the computers.
19 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7
Square of Opposition
OBJECTIVES: This module will help students :

1.discuss the square of oppositions.
2.define the logical opposition as a type of immediate inference.
3.Determine the oppositional relation that exists between propositions .
4.enumerate and apply the laws of oppositional relation.
a. Topic 7- Oppositional Reasoning.

b. CONTENT- Types of logical opposition.
"Truth" A All S is P[Every S is P]Contrary Both cannot be true No S is P Subaltern Truth flows down but not
up False flow up but not down Subaltern Truth flows down but not up False flow up but not down I Some
S is P Sub contrary Both cannot be false O Some S is not P[ Not every S is P ] Contradictory "Falsity"
For the purposes of the following discussion, the Aristotelian view that the affirmative propositions have
existential import is used. This position allows that the negative propositions might have empty terms and
the relations above then hold. The more modern "Boolean" approach may be more mathematically useful,
however for the beginning student who speaks English as a second language, the position that the
affirmative propositions carry existential import makes more sense inherently.
20 | P a g e
Contradiction
The proposition "Every Sepe is Kosraen" or the more accurate equivalent "Every person named Sepe is a
person from the island of Kosrae" is a universal affirmative. Whether the proposition is actually true is not
at issue. There may be people named Sepe who are not Kosraen. If the proposition is true, then "Some
persons named Sepe are not Kosraen" cannot also be true. Put in the terms of the Peripatetics, "Every
Sepe is Kosraen" is contradicted by "Not every Sepe is Kosraen." A and O propositions are said to be
"contradictory" or "contradictories."
The E and I propositions are also contradictory. "No sakau is alcoholic" is contradicted by "Some sakau is
alcoholic."
If one proposition in a contradictory pair is true, the other must be false. The contradictory propositions
are the propositions on the diagonal of the square.
Contraries and subcontraries
A: Every S is P Contrary Both cannot be trueE: No S is PI: Some S is P Subcontrary Both cannot be false O:
Some S is not P[ Not every S is P ]
Contraries cannot both be true. The A and E propositions are contrary to each other. "All Sepes are
Kosraen" and "No Sepes are Kosraen" cannot both be true. Contraries can split true-false, "All dogs are
animals" (true) "No dogs are animals" (false).
There are situations in which the A and E contraries can both be false. "All airplanes are Continental
Micronesia planes" and "No airplanes are Continental Micronesia planes" are both false propositions.
While not all airplanes are Continental Micronesia airplanes, there are some airplanes that are Continental
Micronesia planes. Note that this true I statement, "Some airplanes are Continental Micronesia planes" is
a contradictory to E, and thus if I is true, E must be factually false.
Another way to consider contraries is that if one is true, then the other cannot also be true. But knowing
that one is false does not provide any information on the true/false status of the other.
The I and O propositions are subcontraries. The use of the "sub-" prefix denotes that I and O are a
different type of contrary than A and E. I and O propositions cannot both be false. I and O can both be
true. Consider the two factually true propositions, "Some airplanes are Continental Micronesia planes"
and "Some airplanes are not Continental Micronesia planes." The O statement could also be written, "Not
every airplane is a Continental Micronesia plane." Both are true statements. Subcontraries can both be
true, they cannot both be false.
21 | P a g e
"Some cats are dogs" is a false I statement. "Some cats are not dogs" is a true proposition. In fact, the
stronger E statement holds for this S and P: "No cats are dogs." If I is false, then there must be S which are
not P and therefore O cannot also be false. If O is false, if "Some S are not P" is not true, then there are no
S outside of P and thus some S must be included in P.
Subalterns
A and I are subalterns. E and O are subalterns. In the following discussion keep in mind the idea that "truth
flows down from heaven above" while "falsity rises up from the earth below." This mnemonic should help
remember the subaltern relations.
Truth flows down
If A is true, then I must be true. If all S are P, then some S are P is almost trivially true. "All corals are an
animal" is true. The I statement, "Some corals are an animal" is also true. Some, in fact all, are animals.
Note that if I is true, then A need not be true. "Some dogs are black" is true. "All dogs are black" is not
true. Truth does not flow up the diagram. When I is true, there is no way to determine whether A is true
or false. Remember that I and O are subalterns: while they can both cannot be false, they can both be true
or they can split with one true and one false. So there is no way to argue the truth status of A by moving
from a true I to O.
When E is true, then O is also necessarily true. "No night is a night that lasts forever" guarantees that
"Some nights are not nights that last forever."
False rises up
I being true does not help predict the truth status of A. When I is false, however, then A is most assuredly
false. Consider a false I, "Some ferns produce coconuts." Clearly false. A cannot be true in this situation:
"All ferns produce coconuts." When I is false, then A must be false. The false status of I flows up the
diagram. Note that in this example the copula is formed from the verb "to produce." This can be
wordsmithed into a "to be" copula if necessary, "Some ferns are plants that produce coconuts."
O being true does not help to determine the truth of E. Yet when O is false, then E is also false. "Some
tuna are not fish" is clearly not true. Note that the Aristotelian version, "Not every tuna is a fish" is also
not true. With this being false, the statement "No tuna is a fish" is also false. Falsity rises up the diagram.
Running the Square
Suppose A is known to be true. Then O, by contradiction, must be false. The subalterns I and O cannot
both be false, so I must be true. Note that truth flows down, thus the truth of A could have been used to
determine that I was true from A. E is a contradictory to I. With I true, then E must be false.
22 | P a g e
An example of a true A would be "All lightning is electrical." "Some lightning is not electrical" (false).
"Some lightning is electrical" (true, in fact not just some but all). "No lightning is electrical" (false).
Running the diagram means to use the relations to move between the four types of propositions.
Sometimes knowing the truth or falsity of one proposition allows the other three types to be worked out.
Sometimes not all three can be worked out. If A is known to be false, then O must be true. In this case I
and O remain undetermined. I and O cannot both be false, but O is known to be true. I and O can both be
true or they can split true/false as noted above. O is true, but truth does not flow up the diagram, thus E is
not known. And both A and E can be false (they cannot both be true, but they can both be false).
"All dogs are cats" is false. "Some dogs are not cats" is true - there do exist dogs which are not cats. "Some
dogs are cats" is actually undetermined from the above information, although in this case the proposition
is false. "No dogs are cats" happens to be true, but this too is not demanded by "All dogs are cats" being
false. Think of this example as AEIO=FTFT.
"All cars are Toyotas" is a false A proposition, as in the example immediately above. O is clearly true,
"Some cars are not Toyotas." In this case I is true, "Some cars are Toyotas," and E is false, "No cars are
Toyotas." Think of this example as AEIO=FFTF.
c.EVALUATION
Give the three opposite propositions of the following propositions ( contradictory first,
contrary/subcontrary second, and subaltern third – in this order) and their corresponding truth – values
given the truth –value of the original proposition.
1. No lawyers are liars. (T)

Contradictory: ____________________________________________________
Truth value: _________
Contrary:_________________________________________________________
Subaltern:________________________________________________________
Truth value:_________
2. Some Filipinos are Muslims. (F)
Contradictory: ____________________________________________________
Sub-Contrary:_____________________________________________________
Subaltern:________________________________________________________
3. All love affairs are successful. (F)
Contradictory: ____________________________________________________
23 | P a g e
Contrary:_________________________________________________________
Subaltern:________________________________________________________
4. Not all instructors are inefficient (T)
Contradictory: ____________________________________________________
Sub-Contrary:_____________________________________________________
Subaltern:________________________________________________________
24 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8
EDUCTION AND EQUIVALENCE
OBJECTIVES:
1. Define eduction as a kind of immediate inference.
2. Distinguish conversion from obversion.
3. Know the rules in conversion and obcersion
4. Convert and obvert as well as contrapose A, E, I, and O proposirtions
a.TOPIC8- types of eduction
b.CONTENT- CONVERSION, OBVERSION,AND CONTRAPOSITION
Here are several operations (e.g., conversion, obversion, and contraposition) that can be performed on a
categorical statement to change it into another. The new statement may or may not be equivalent to the
original. [In the following tables that illustrate such operations, rows with equivalent statement shall be
marked in green, while those with inequivalent statements shall be marked in red.]
Some operations require the notion of the class complement. This refers to every element under
consideration which is not an element of the class. Class complements are very similar to set
complements. The class complement of a set P will be called "non-P".
Conversion
The simplest operation is conversion where the subject and predicate terms are interchanged.
Obverted
Obverted Converse per
Name Statement Converse Subaltern Converse per
Converse accidens
accidens
Some S are P (if S Some P are S (if S or Some P are not non-S (if
A All S are P. All P are S. No P are non-S.
or P exists). P exists). S or P exists).
Some S are not P Some P are not S (if P Some P are non-S (if P
E No S are P. No P are S. All P are non-S.
(if S exists). exists). exists).
Some P are not N/A

I Some S are P. Some P are S.
non-S.
O Some S are Some P are Some P are non-
25 | P a g e
not P. not S. S.
From a statement in E or I form, it is valid to conclude its converse. This is not the case for
the A and O forms.
Obversion
Obversion changes the quality (that is the affirmativity or negativity) of the statement and the predicate
term.For example, a universal affirmative statement would become a universal negative statement.
Name Statement Obverse
A All S are P. No S are non-P.
E No S are P. All S are non-P.
I Some S are P. Some S are not non-P.
O Some S are not P. Some S are non-P.
Categorical statements are logically equivalent to their obverse. As such, a Venn diagram illustrating any
one of the forms would be identical to the Venn diagram illustrating its obverse.
Contraposition
Obverted
Obverted Contrapositive per
Name Statement Contrapositive Contrapositive per
Contrapositive accidens
accidens
All non-P are

A All S are P. No non-P are S. N/A
non-S.
No non-P are Some non-P are not Some non-P are S (if S
E No S are P. All non-P are S.
non-S. non-S (if S exists). exists).
Some S are Some non-P are Some non-P are

I
P. non-S. not S.
N/A
Some S are Some non-P are Some non-P are
O
not P. not non-S. S.
26 | P a g e
C. EVALUATION
Give the complete contraposits of the following propositions.
1. All fragile things are breakable things.

o-_________________________________________________________________
c-_________________________________________________________________
o-_________________________________________________________________
2. All mammals are warm-blooded animals.
o-_________________________________________________________________
c-_________________________________________________________________
o-_________________________________________________________________
3. Some tests are practical exams.
o-_________________________________________________________________
c-_________________________________________________________________
o-_________________________________________________________________
4. No aliens are citizens
o-_________________________________________________________________
c-_________________________________________________________________
o-_________________________________________________________________
27 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9
Standard Categorical Syllogisms AND The 8 General syllogistic rules
OBJECTIVES
1.Define a categorical syllogism
2.explain the structure of a categorical syllogism
3. explain the ultimate basis of cthe validity of categorical syllogism.
4.determine wether a syllogism is valid or invalid in the light of the eight general syllogistic rules.
a. TOPIC 9-Elements and srtructures of categorical syllogism.

b. CONTENT- The 8 General Syllogistic Rules.
A standard categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of three categorical sentences, in which there
are three terms, and each term appears exactly twice.
The three terms in a standard categorical syllogism are the major, the minor and the middleterms. The
major term is the predicate term of the conclusion. The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion.
The middle term is the term that appears twice in the premises.
A categorical syllogism is presented in standard form when its statements are arranged in the order of the
major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion. Here the major premise is the premise that
contains the major term, and the minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term.
Rules of the Syllogism. -- Besides the special rules of each of the figures, logicians formulate eight rules
applicable to the syllogism in general, expressing the nature of the reasoning.
FIRST RULE. -- Terminus esto triplex: medius, majorque, minorque. -- The syllogism must have three terms,
neither more nor fewer. To reason is in fact to compare two terms with one and the same third, so as to
see what logical relation exists between the two terms so compared.
This rule may be violated by defect, in using only two terms, or by excess, in using more than three.
(1) A syllogism with two terms is, e. g., where one of the premises is tautological. E. g.: Every effect has a
cause. But the universe is an effect. Therefore the universe has a cause.
This first rule is violated by the form of sophism called petitio principii, which resolves the qnestion by the
question (begging the question).
28 | P a g e
(2) A syllogism contains more than three terms when one term is equivocal and is taken in different
acceptations. E. g.,: The operations of thought have the brain as organ. An operation which has the brain
as organ is material. Therefore the operations of thought are material.
In this syllogism the middle term, has the brain as organ, is equivocal.
SECOND RULE. -- Latius hoc (terminos extremos) quam praemissae conclusio non vult, or: AEque ac
praemissae extendat conclusio voces. -- The extremes must be the same in the conclusion as in the
premises.
The conclusion expresses the results of the comparison made in the premises. It cannot go beyond that;
otherwise it would pass from the terms compared in the premises to other terms, and thus would violate
the first rule, the essential condition of reasoning.
THIRD RULE. -- Aut semel aut iterum medius generaliter esto. -- The middle term must be taken as
universal in one premise at least.
The analysis of the process of reasoning (50) has made this third rule intelligible. If the middle term were
taken twice in a restricted sense, that part of its extension which it represents might possibly be different
in the two cases, and there would be four terms in the syllogism (first rule). E. g.: Every metal is heavy.
This substance is heavy. Therefore this substance is a metal. The middle term, heavy, is not universal in
either of the premises.
This very common sophism is characterized by the adage: Ab uno disce omnes.
FOURTH RULE. -- Nequaquam medium capiat conclusio fas est. -- The middle term may not enter into the
conclusion.
It is for the conclusion to apply to the two extremes the result of the comparison made in the
premises between them and the middle term. To introduce the middle term into the conclusion, then,
would be to miss the aim of the reasoning.
FIFTH RULE -- Ambae affirmantes nequeunt generare negatem. -- Two affirmative premises cannot beget a
negative conclusion.
If two ideas agree with one and the same third idea, the other rules of the syllogism being observed, they
cannot but agree with each other; and the identity affirmed in the premises cannot be denied in the
conclusion.
SIXTH RULE. -- Utraque si praemissa neget, nil inde sequetur. -- With two negative premises no conclusion
is possible.
29 | P a g e
Two extremes both excluded from one middle term cannot be connected with each other on account of
this exclusion.
But on the other hand, it is possible that two terms excluded from one given middle term may be
comparable with another middle term with which both must be coupled, or else one coupled and the
other separated. The use of this other middle term would give a conclusion.
The fact, then, that two extremes are excluded from a given middle term warrants no assertion as to the
relation of the extremes.
SEVENTH RULE. -- Pejorem. sequitur semper conclusio partem. -- The conclusion should follow the premise
of lower rank. This formula has a double application:
(1) If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative. If, of two ideas A and B, A agrees
with a third idea, C, while B does not, it is impossible to conclude therefrom that A agrees with B.
(2) If one of the premises is particular, the conclusion cannot be universal.
As the premises cannot both be negative (sixth rule), only two cases are to be considered:
(a) Both the premises are affirmative. (b) One is affirmative; the other, negative.
In case (a) both the predicates are particular; one of the two subjects is by hypothesis particular: there is,
then, only one universal term in the premises. As this must be the middle term (third rule), neither of the
extremes is universal in the premises and, consequently, cannot be so in the conclusion. So that the
conclusion, since it necessarily has a particular subject, is particular.
In case (b) the premises include two universal terms: the predicate of the negative premise and the
subject of the proposition which, by hypothesis, is universal.
But the conclusion is negative, so that its predicate is universal. This term. which is the predicate in the
conclusion, is not the middle term (fourth rule). The second universal term of the premises is therefore
the middle term. Hence the extreme which becomes the subject of the conclusion is particular in the
premises, and, consequently, in the conclusion. Therefore the conclusion is particular.
For example: Every man is corporeal. But A is not corporeal. Therefore A is not a man.
The result would be the same if one proposition were both universal and negative, as: No man is spiritual.
But A is a man. Therefore A is not spiritual. -- Or: But B is spiritual. Therefore B is not a man. When one
premise is particular, then, the conclusion must be particular.
EIGHTH RULE -- Nil sequitur geminis ex particularibus unquam. -- No conclusion follows from two
particular premises.
30 | P a g e
As both the premises cannot be negative (sixth rule), the only possible cases are: (a) Both premises are
affirmative. (b) One is affirmative; the other, negative.
In case (a) all the terms are particular: the two predicates, because the propositions are affirmative; the
two subjects, by hypothesis. The middle term, therefore, is not once taken universally. The third rule is
violated. No conclusion.
Example: Some men are rich. Some men are ignorant. Therefore some rich men are ignorant.
If this syllogism were valid, it might be proved in the same way that some rich men are poor, which
exposes the sophism.
In case (b) the premises contain only one universal term, the predicate of the negative premiss. But the
conclusion being negative, its predicate is universal; being so in the conclusion, it must also be universal in
the premises. Consequently, the middle term, which cannot be identical with the predicate of the
conclusion (fourth rule), is twice particular in the premises. Once more, the third rule is violated. No
conclusion. Example: Some men are learned. But some men are not virtuous. Therefore some learned
men are not virtuous
c.EVALUATION
Analyze the following syllogisms applying the 8 general syllogistic rules and determine the fallacy
committed if there is any, if there is no violation just simply write valid. Choose the letter of your answer
from the list below
A. Fallacy of four terms B. Fallacy of ambiguous middle C.Fallacy of illicit minor D.Fallacy of illicit
major E. Fallacy of undistributed middle F. Fallacy of drawing a negative conclusion from two
affirmative premises G. Fallacy of exclusive terms H. Fallacy of drawing affirmative conclusion from
a negative premise I. Fallacy of two particulars J. Fallacy of illicit process
____1. All Filipinos are Passionate believers of God.

But some Malayans are not Filipinos.
Therefore some Malayans are not passionate believers of God
_____2. Many high-ranking policemen are not very important dignitaries
But no members of this organization are high-ranking policemen.
Thus, some members of this organization are not very important dignitaries.
_____3. All persons who live in Ilagan are frugal persons.
But some frugal persons are Negrenses.
Hence, many Negrenses live in Ilagan.
_____4. Every girl is a female.
31 | P a g e
But all students of Assumption College are girls.
So, every students of Assumption College is a female.
_____5. All Filipinos are stern law-abiding citizens.
But all Filipinos are good persons when asleep.
Therefore, all good persons when asleep are stern law-abiding citizens.
_____6. Several youths are no longer concerned with their civic responsibilities.
But most of the students are youths.
Hence, many students no longer concerned with their civic responsibilities.
_____7. But all well-covered books are guaranteed last long under normal usage.
But plenty of books in the library are not well-covered.
Therefore, some books in the library are not guaranteed to last long.
_____8. Some agricultural goods nowadays are products containing GMO.
all vegetables I bought in the market are agricultural goods.
Thus, all vegetables I bought in the market are products containing GMO.
____9. The deep is the favorite of all scuba divers.
But many commentators are deep.
Therefore, many commentators are favorites of scuba divers.
_____10. Some long-standing structures are in need of greater maintenance.
Hence, some things in need of greater maintenance are ISU buildings.
32 | P a g e
CHAPTER 10
Fallacies of Ambiguous Language
OBJECTIVES:
1.Define fallacies of ambiguous language.
2.Know the different types of fallacies of ambiguous language.
3.Know how fallacies of ambiguous language is committed.
4.Analyze and identify the specific fallacies of ambiguous language committed by an argument.
a.TOPIC 10-FALLACIES OF AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE

b. CONTENT- Types of fallacies of Ambiguous Language
Fallacy of Equivocation:
This fallacy is committed when a key word or phrase is used with two or more different meanings in the same
argument. The following arguments are guilty of committing this fallacy:
(I) "Since a criminal is a law breaker, a criminal lawyer too is a law breaker." It can be noticed that the term 'criminal'
has been used in two different senses in the argument. A criminal lawyer is not a criminal.
(ii) The signboard says "fine for parking here". A driver notices the signboard and reasons as follows: "Since it is fine. I
will park my vehicle here." This surely is a misinterpretation. The word 'fine' has been used in two different senses
here. In the signboard 'fine' means penalty. But the driver thinks that it means 'all right'.
(iii) "Nature is governed by laws. Laws are the work of law makers. So, laws of nature are the work of some law
maker." In this argument the term 'law' has been used ambiguously. It means descriptive law in the first premise but
used in the sense of prescriptive law in the second. Only prescriptive laws are the work of law makers. Laws of nature
are descriptive laws and not prescriptive.
(iv) Really exciting novels are rare. But rare books are expensive. So, really exciting novels are expensive. Here the
word 'rare' is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument. In the first premise 'rare' means
extraordinary, whereas in the second it means novels that are scarce.
Amphiboly:
The construction of a sentence sometimes allows it to have two different meanings or interpretations. Amphiboly
occurs when an arguer misinterprets a sentence that is syntactically or grammatically ambiguous and goes on to
draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. This fallacy can also occur when someone is quoted out of context.
The announcement that there will be a lecture on heart attack in the auditorium may be misinterpreted to mean that
the lecture will be on heart attacks which have occurred in the auditorium. The ambiguity, however, can be clearly
avoided if the phrase "in the auditorium" is placed immediately after "lecture" instead of "heart attack."
33 | P a g e
Accent:
The fallacy of accent occurs when emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the actual content of the
proposition. For examples, if a teacher remarks, "Ravi has done the homework today" with undue emphasis on
'today', that might suggest that Ravi normally comes to school without doing homework.
Fallacy of Composition:
This fallacy occurs when an attribute true of the parts of something is erroneously transferred to the whole. Consider
the following argument:
Each player in the team plays well.
Therefore, the whole team plays well.
This argument commits the fallacy of composition. From the fact that each individual player is a good player it
doesn't follow that the whole team plays well.
Fallacy of Division:
This fallacy occurs in an argument when an attribute true of a whole (or a class) is erroneously transferred to its parts
(or members). Consider the following argument:
Men are numerous.
Aristotle is a man.
Therefore, Aristotle is numerous.
The argument is fallacious. It is true that "man" as a class has many members. So the class "man" as a whole is
numerous. But we cannot draw the conclusion that each individual human being is numerous.
C.EVALUATION
Analyze and identify the specific fallacies of ambiguous language committed by the arguments.
Choose the letter of your answer from the list below
A. Fallacy of Equivocation B. Fallacy of Amphiboly C.Fallacy of Accent D.Fallacy of Figure of

Speech E. Fallacy of Composition F. Fallacy of Division
34 | P a g e
____1. Classified Ad: A Ford Fiera for Sale. Just right for the working man with orange paint and a
slight dent on the right side.
____2.But why can’t I be allowed to go in? Sure it says “Children of members under 18 are not
allowed, “but my father is already 40 years old!
____3.Our police force is the finest, so sergeant x is a very fine policeman.
____4. “Tom lasing ka nanaman, ha? Remember liquor is your worst enemy.”Teka nga Mr. X, hic.
Di ba you told me to love your enemy. Well that’s what I’m doing. Hic!
____ 5. A, B. and C are wicked persons, they live in Ilagan, thus, all Ilagueňos are wicked.
____ 6. A thing is visible when we actually see it. It is audible when we actually hear it. Therefore,
a thing is desirable when we actually desire it.
____ 7. Adobo and lechon have salty flavors, these are Filipino dishes, therefore all Filipino foods
are salty.
____ 8. ISU is a bastion of excellence, X is a student of ISU, hence, X is an excellent student.
____9. X went out on the veranda on the 12th of June and watched the fireworks in his pajamas.
____10. The Narcotics are habit forming. Therefore if you allow the physician to use it on you,
you can be a hopeless drug addict.
35 | P a g e
CHAPTER 11
Fallacies of Neglected Categories
OBJECTIVES:
1.Define fallacies of neglected categories.
2.Know the different types of fallacies of neglected categories.
3.Know how fallacies of neglected categories is committed.
4.Analyze and identify the specific fallacies of neglected categories committed by an argument.
a.TOPIC 10-FALLACIES OF neglected categories

b. CONTENT- Types of fallacies of neglected categories.
FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
(also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, dicto simpliciter,
converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping generalization)
Description: When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when clearly there are
exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and to
ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law. People like simplicity
and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.
Logical Form:
X is a common and accepted rule.
Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.
Example #1:
I believe one should never deliberately hurt another person, that’s why I can never be a surgeon.
Explanation: Classifying surgery under “hurting” someone, is to ignore the obvious benefits that go with
surgery. These kinds of extreme views are rarely built on reason.
Example #2:
The Bible clearly says, “Thou shall not bear false witness.” Therefore, as a Christian, you better answer the
door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun, that his wife, whom he is looking to kill, is hiding in our
basement. Otherwise, you are defying God himself!
Explanation: To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation,
even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.
36 | P a g e
Exception: Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a
violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.
The Bible says, “Thou shall not murder,” therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and
untie that little kid.
Tip: It is your right to question laws you don’t understand or laws with which you don’t agree.
Fallacy of False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal
connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing
that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.
1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal connection. E.g., consider
"Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies, the growth of hair causes the
growth of teeth."
2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore

Republicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental generalizations need not always be
causal relations.
B. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of inquiry in
the philosophy of science.
C. Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake
about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of "false cause."
Fallacy of False Analogy

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has
property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in
a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
i. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must
employees.
ii. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so
also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different,
so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
37 | P a g e
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show
that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization

DEFINITION
A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or
unbiased evidence. Also called insufficient sample, converse accident, faulty generalization, biased
generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and neglect of qualifications.
By definition, an argument based on a hasty generalization always proceeds from the particular to the
general.
A hasty generalization is a broad claim based on too-limited evidence. It is unethical to assert a broad
claim when you have only anecdotal or isolated evidence or instances. Consider two examples of hasty
generalizations based on inadequate data
Fallacy of Irrelevant Premises
 Certain types of defective arguments that occur frequently are known as fallacies. Fallacies are
often psychologically persuasive but logically flawed.
 We can divide fallacies into two broad categories: (1) those that have irrelevant premises and (2)
those that have unacceptable premises.
 Fallacies with irrelevant premises include the genetic fallacy (arguing that a claim is true or false
solely because of its origin), composition (arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of
the whole), division (arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts or that what
is true of a group is true of individuals in the group), appeal to the person (rejecting a claim by
criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself), equivocation (the use of a word in
two different senses in an argument), appeal to popularity (arguing that a claim must be true
merely because a substantial number of people believe it), appeal to tradition (arguing that a
claim must be true or good just because it’s part of a tradition), appeal to ignorance (arguing that
a lack of evidence proves something), appeal to emotion (the use of emotions as premises in an
argument), red herring (the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument), straw
man (the distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone’s position so it can be more easily
attacked or refuted), and two wrongs make a right (arguing that your doing something morally
wrong is justified because someone else has done the same thing).
Fallacy of Rationalizing
Description: Offering false or inauthentic excuses for our claim because we know the real reasons are
much less persuasive or more embarrassing to share, or harsher than the manufactured ones given.
Logical Form:
Reason A is given for claim B, although reason A is not the real reason.
38 | P a g e
Example #1:
I can’t go with you to that opera because I have a deadline at work coming up, plus I need to wash my hair
that night.
Explanation: The real reason is, “I don’t want to go”, but that might hurt some feelings, so manufactured
reasons (excuses) are given in place of the authentic and honest reason.
Example #2:
I believe in winged horses because the Koran is historically accurate and would never get such an
important fact wrong.
Explanation: The person actually believes in winged horses out of faith, but recognizes that is not a
persuasive argument -- especially to the non-believer of Islam. Out of the desire to hold on to his faith, he
adopts a common defense (historical accuracy) and gives that as the reason.
Exception: Is it acceptable to rationalize to protect someone’s feelings? I will leave that to you to answer,
realizing that all situations are unique.
Tip: Whenever possible, give honest reasons stated in diplomatic ways.
Fallacy of One, More or Less
Description: When one argues that no useful distinction can be made between two extremes, just
because there is no definable moment or point on the spectrum where the two extremes meet. The
name comes from the heap paradox in philosophy, using a man’s beard as an example. At what point
does a man go from clean-shaven to having a beard?
Logical Form:
X is one extreme, and Y is another extreme.
There is no definable point where X becomes Y.
Therefore, there is no difference between X and Y.
Example #1:
Why does the law state that you have to be 21 years old to drink? Does it really make any difference if you
are 20 years and 364 days old? That is absurd. Therefore if a single day makes no difference, then a
39 | P a g e
collection of 1095 single days won’t make any difference. Therefore, changing the drinking age to 18 will
not make any difference.
Explanation: Although this does appear to be typical 18-year-old thinking (sorry 18 year-olds), it is quite a
common fallacy. Just because any single step makes no apparent difference, there is a difference that
becomes more noticeable as the number of those steps increase.
Example #2:
Willard: I just realized that I will probably never go bald!
Fanny: Why is that?
Willard: Well, if I lose just one hair, I will not be bald, correct?
Fanny: Of course.
Willard: If I lose two hairs?
Fanny: No.
Willard: Every time I lose a hair, the loss of that one hair will not make me bald; therefore, I will never go
bald.
Fanny: Congratulations, you found the cure to baldness -- stupidity!
Explanation: What Willard did not take into consideration is “baldness” is a term used to define a state
along a continuum, and although there is no clear point between bald and not bald, the extremes are both
clearly recognizable and achievable.
Exception: The larger the spread, the more fallacious the argument, the smaller the spread, the less
fallacious.
Tip: Realize that there are very few clear lines we can draw between categories in any area of life.
Categories are human constructs that we create to help us make sense of things, yet they often end up
creating more confusion by tricking us into thinking abstract concepts actually exist.
Fallacy of Black or White
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists
between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but
can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when
three choices are presented when more exist.
40 | P a g e
Logical Forms:
Either X or Y is true.
Either X, Y, or Z is true.
Example (two choices):
You are either with God or against him.
Explanation: As Obi-Wan Kenobi so eloquently puts it in Star Wars episode III, “Only a Sith deals in
absolutes!” There are also those who simply don’t believe there is a God to be either with or against.
Example (omission):
I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at church today.
Explanation: The assumption here is that bad people don’t go to church. Of course, good people exist
who don’t go to church, and good church-going people could have had a really good reason not to be in
church -- like a hangover from the swingers' gathering the night before.
Exception: There may be cases when the number of options really is limited. For example, if an ice cream
man just has chocolate and vanilla left, it would be a waste of time insisting he has mint chocolate chip.
It is also not a fallacy if other options exist, but you are not offering other options as a possibility. For
example:
Mom: Billy, it’s time for bed.
Billy: Can I stay up and watch a movie?
Mom: You can either go to bed or stay up for another 30 minutes and read.
Billy: That is a false dilemma!
Mom: No, it’s not. Here, read Bo’s book and you will see why.
Billy: This is freaky, our exact conversation is used as an example in this book!
Tip: Be conscious of how many times you are presented with false dilemmas, and how many times you
present yourself with false dilemmas.
41 | P a g e
C.EVALUATION
Analyze and identify the specific fallacies of Neglected Categories committed by the arguments.
Choose the letter of your answer from the list below
A. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT B. Fallacy of False Cause C. Fallacy of False Analogy

D. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization E. Fallacy of Irrelevant Premises F. Fallacy of Rationalizing
G. Fallacy of One, More or Less H. Fallacy of Black or White
1. A student who fails to qualify as cum laude: “ Its not the grade that counts. It is what you learn
and what you become. You may be a summa cum laude, but what’s the use if you are self-
serving?”
2. One co-ed to another” “We have a really nice party planned for tomorrow, so I hope you’ll come.
Just skip your afternoon classes. Anyway, what’s one absence?
3. I had barely begun reading my assignment in logic when my toothache started. So you see, logic is
not good for my health.
4. A young lady wishes a marry a youn man because he is a “superb” dancer.
5. Alcoholic drinks lead to drunkenness and should therefore be forbidden.
6. You cannot see God; therefore, there is no God.
7. You ride your bike to school. What was good enough for your grandfather should be good be
enough for you.
8. I have stomachache now because I ate plenty of oyster yesterday.
9. Mother: “johnny, I want to stop stealing money from my dresser drawer.” Johnny: “ Do you
expect me to be a saint?”
10. Last night, in a rare quarrel, Mrs. Dimagiba shouted to Mr. Dimagiba, “I hate you!” And Mr.
Dimagiba shouted back, “ You are foolish wowan” I conclude, therefore, that Mr and Mrs.
Dimagiba no longer love each other. They will soon separate.
42 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Ardales, Venancio. Introduction to Philosophy (Manila: Malones Printing Press, 1998).
Barry, Vincent. Philosophy: A Text with Readings (California: Wadsworth, 1983).
Bayot, Kerwin and Samuel Damayon. Logic: A Manual in Philosophy 1, rev. ed. (bayombong: SMU
Research Center, 2001).
Ceniza, Claro R. Elementary Logic, rev. ed. (Manila: DLSU Research Center, 1967).
Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic (New York: the Mcmillan Co., 1986).
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic (Singapore: Simon and Schuster, 1998).
Cruz, Corazon L. Introduction to Logic (Manila: National Bookstore, Inc. 1993).
Houde, Roland. Handbook of Logic (pensylvania: WM. C Brown Co., 1954).
Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic (California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1985).
Little, Winston. Applied Logic (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955).
Mahony, Michael S. J. Essential of Formal Logic (New York: The Encyclopedia Press Inc., 1918).
Mander, A. E. Logic for the Million (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947). Ardales,
Venancio.Introduction to Philosophy (Manila:Malones Printing Press, 1998).
Facione, Peter. Logic and Logical Thinking (New York: McGraw-Hill book Co., 1978). Govier, Trudy.
A Practical Study Of Argument (California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,1985).
Joseph Miriam, Sister. Everyday Logic (Indiana: McClave Printing Co., 1948).
Martinez, Salvador. LOGIC: A Text Book in Deductive Reasoning (Manila: Phoenix Press, Inc.,
1983).
Montemayor, Felix. Harmony of Logic (Manila: National Bookstore, Inc., 1988).
43 | P a g e
Vision of the University
The Isabela State University, a globally recognized institution of learning for

people empowerment and sustainable development embodying excellence,
effectiveness, accountability and integrity.
Vision of the University 5. Create and innovate alternative teaching

Mission of the University
The Isabela State University, a globally recognized approaches.
The Isabela State University is committed to train and develop students to
institution of learning for people empowerment and
become professionally
sustainable competent development graduates embodying
who are equipped with sound
excellence,
moral principles; and to serve the community
effectiveness, accountability and integrity. through research, extension and SYLLABUS IN PHILO 11
research generation by way of
Mission of the University inspired leadership and responsive manpower. I.COURSE NUMBER: PHILO11
University Core Values The Isabela State University is committed to train and develop
EXCELLENCEstudents to become professionally competent graduates who are equipped with
sound moral principles; and to serve the community through research,
ISU commits
extension itself togeneration
and research dispensingbyitsway functions with leadership
of inspired productivity andand
II.COURSE TITLE : Fundamentals of Logic with
exemplifying its values
responsive with distinction and brilliance. Every work manifests a
manpower. Critical Thinking
district quality and every individual persistently strives to meritoriously improve
University Core Values
his/her performance
EXCELLENCE and value system every single time.
EFFECTIVENESS ISU commits itself to dispensing its functions with productivity III. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course
and exemplifying its values with distinction and brilliance. Every work
ISU desires
manifests a far-reaching
a district quality andand everylong-lasting
individual useful impact
persistently on every
strives to presents the fundamentals of argumentation
individual,meritoriously
every institution
improve and
his/heronperformance
various other entities
and value bothevery
system in local
singleand
time.
international scenes that be translated into a holistic growth of people, of the and the rationalassessment of claims. Topics will
EFFECTIVENESS
country and the world. ISU desires a far-reaching and long-lasting useful impact on include the analysis and clarification of meaning,
every individual, every institution and on various other entities both in local
ACCOUNTABILITY
and international scenes that be translated into a holistic growth of people, of deductive and inductive reasoning, assessing the
theISU commits
country toworld.
and the being answerable to everyone, to every appropriate
authority ACCOUNTABILITY
and to the laws of the land and of God in everything that it does. It evidence for claims and the credibility of
ISUhighest
commits to beingof answerable to everyone, to everyand
submits itself to the principles responsibility, responsiveness
appropriate authority and to the laws of the land and of God in everything that sources, detecting insidious persuasive
moral uprightness.
it does. It submits itself to the highest principles of responsibility,
INTEGRITY responsiveness and moral uprightness. techniques, and recognizing formal and informal
INTEGRITY
ISU adheres to hightomoral
ISU adheres high moralsoundness
soundnessinternally andexternally.
internally and externally. It It
fallacies.
dispensesdispenses
and upholds honesty
and upholds in thought,
honesty in thought, in in
words
wordsand
and in deedsand
in deeds and conducts
conducts
transactions
transactions with transparency
with transparency andand accountability. ItIt submits
accountability. submits itself
itselfto to
the the
highest level of professional standards and individual and corporate
highest level of professional
wholeness. The Lord Godstandards
is its iconand individual and corporate wholeness.
of integrity.
IV. COURSE CREDIT: 3 units
The Lord God
Goalsis its icon of integrity. V. COURSE PREREQUISITES : none
The college is tasked to develop professional educators and train
Goals future teachers who are competent, caring, confident, committed and would
contribute to the development of the community through education by:
The 1.college is tasked
Enhancing the to develop professional
qualification of educators educators andand
for academic train VI. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon completion
professional development equipped with advanced training and
future teachers whoeducational
are competent, caring, confident, committed and
innovations as well as research and extension
would of the course, the students are expected to:
contribute to the development of the community through education by:
capabilities; and
2. Preparing and developing highly qualified basic education
teachers and skilled technologists through quality and well-
1Enhancing the qualification of educators
rounded pre-service forboth
training in academic
academic and professional
and vocational 1.become a more cogent reasoner, and a more
development equipped fieldswith advanced
for diverse trainingofand
communities educational innovations as
learners.
well as research and extension
Objectives capabilities;
of Bachelor and
of Secondary Education objective and analytically astute persons.
2Preparing and1.developing highly qualified
rangebasic education teachers and skilled
Possesses wide of theoretical and practical 2.become more alert to nonsense and bogus
technologists through quality
skills forandanwell-rounded
effective pre-service training
instructional in both
delivery
academic and vocational fields
system. for diverse communities of learners. rhetoric, and hence be very difficult todupe.
Objectives of Bachelor of Secondary Education
2. Perform the necessary competencies needed in the 3.develop the kind of mind all future employers
different learning areas in the secondary school.
1. Possesses wide range
3. Conduct of research
action theoretical
forand
thepractical skills for
improvement of an value.
effectivethe
instructional
instruction.delivery system.
2. Perform the necessaryactual
4. Undertake competencies
trainingneeded in the different
experiences in
learning community
areas in thedevelopment
secondary school.
through extension.
3. Conduct action research for the improvement of the
instruction.
4. Undertake actual training experiences in community
development through extension.
44 | P a g e

Logic Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

a.TOPIC 1-Meaning of Philosophy

a.TOPIC2- History of logic

OBJECTIVES: Module 3 will help the students:

OBJECTIVE: This module will help students:

a.TOPIC 4- Meaning of judgement and proposition

Truth and falsity

b.CONTENT- Quality and Quantity of Categorical Proposition

Quantity and quality

Name Statement Quantity Quality

E No S are P. universal negative

I Some S are P. particular affirmative

O Some S are not P. particular negative

1 All heroes are brave people. ________ ________

OBJECTIVE:This module will help students:

a. TOPIC-The standard categorical forms(A,E,I,O).

A All S are P. distributed Undistributed

E No S are P. distributed Distributed

I Some S are P. undistributed Undistributed

O Some S are not P. undistributed Distributed

1. All Filipinos are persons with dignity and self-respect .

2. No warriors who fought for freedom are self-centered individuals.

3. Some people who possess powers are greedy persons.

4. Many young children in the orphanage are unwanted foundlings

a.TOPIC 6-Logical Structures

b.CONTENT- Standard Categorical Form

Quantifier (Subject term) copula (predicate term)

I. Reduction of categorical propositions whose copula is not stated explicitly

"All sincere students deserve success." Irregular proposition.

"All sincere students are success deserving." A - Proposition.

"All people seek power." Irregular proposition.

"Some people drink Coca Cola." Irregular proposition.

"Some people are Coca Cola drinkers." I - proposition

"All is well that ends well." Irregular proposition

"Every man is liable to commit mistakes." Irregular proposition.

"All men are persons who liable to commit mistakes." A - Proposition.

"Each student took part in the competition." Irregular proposition.

"Any one of my students is laborious." Irregular proposition.

"All my students are laborious." A - Proposition.

"Some men are not honest." O - Proposition

"Any student cannot get first class." Irregular proposition.

"All is not gold that glitters." Irregular proposition.

"Some things that glitter are not gold." O - Proposition.

"Never men are perfect." Irregular proposition

"No man is perfect." E - Proposition

"A few men are present." Irregular proposition.

"Some men are present." I - proposition.

"Certain books are good." Irregular proposition.

"Some books are good." I - proposition.

"Most of the students are laborious." Irregular proposition.

"Many Indians are religious." Irregular proposition.

"Some Indians are religious." I - proposition.

"Certain books are not readable." Irregular proposition

"Some books are not readable." O - Proposition

"Most of the students are not rich." Irregular proposition.

"Some students are not rich." O - Proposition

"Few men are above temptation." Irregular proposition

"Some men are not above temptation." O - Proposition

"Few men are not selfish." Irregular proposition

"Some men are selfish.' I

"Only Oriyas are students of this college." Irregular proposition.

"All students of this college are oriyas." A - Proposition.

"The honest alone wins the confidence of people." Irregular Proposition.

1 All heroes are brave people.