CHAPTER 1 PROPOSITIONS 1.

1 What Logic Is Logic

The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning

1.2 Propositions Propositions

An assertion that something is (or is not) the case
All propositions are either true or false
May be affirmed or denied

Statement
The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time
In logic, the word statement is sometimes used instead of propositions

Simple Proposition
A proposition making only one assertion.

Compound Proposition
A proposition containing two or more simple propositions

Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition

A type of compound proposition
If true, at least one of the component propositions must be true

Hypothetical (or Conditional) Proposition

A type of compound proposition;
It is false only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false

1.3 Arguments Inference

A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition on the basis of one or more other
propositions.

Argument
A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.

Premise
A proposition used in an argument to support some other proposition.

Conclusion
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions, the premises, support.

1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments Deductive Argument

Claims to support its conclusion conclusively
One of the two classes of argument

Inductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of probability
One of the two classes of argument

Valid Argument
If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
(applies only to deductive arguments)

Invalid Argument
The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises are true
(applies only to deductive arguments)

Classical Logic
Traditional techniques, based on Aristotles works, for the analysis of deductive arguments.

Modern Symbolic Logic

Methods used by most modern logicians to analyze deductive arguments.

Probability
The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive argument) is true.

1.5 Validity & Truth Truth

An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case.

Sound
An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

Relations Between Truth and Validity:

1. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions true premises and a true conclusion.
2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions false premises and a false conclusion
3. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions all their premises are true, and their
conclusions as well.
4. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.
5. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion.
6. Some invalid arguments also have a false premise and a true conclusion.
7. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions false premises and a false
conclusion.

Notes:
The truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of
the argument.
The fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion.
If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may be certain that its conclusion is true also.
If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of its premises can be true.
Some perfectly valid arguments do have a false conclusion but such argument must have at least one
false premise.

CHAPTER 3 LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION 3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language Ludwig
Wittgenstein
One of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century
Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of uses of what we call symbols, words,
sentences.

Informative Discourse
Language used to convey information
Information includes false as well as true propositions, bad arguments as well as good ones
Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts, reports of geographical trivia our learning
about the world and our reasoning about it uses language in the informative mode

Expressive Discourse
Language used to convey or evoke feelings.

Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes, emotions and feelings
E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry
Expressive discourse is used either to:

1. manifest the speakers feelings

2. evoke certain feelings in the listeners
Expressive discourse is neither true nor false.
Directive Discourse
Language used to cause or prevent action.
Directive discourse is neither true nor false.
Commands and requests do have other attributes reasonableness, propriety that are somewhat
analogous to truth & falsity

3.2 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions Notes:

Effective communication often demands combinations of functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been calling attitudes.
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to depend upon our ability to evoke in them the
appropriate attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects their relevant beliefs.

Ceremonial Use of Language

A mix of language functions (usually expressive and directive) with special social uses.
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of worship, the portentous language of state
documents

Performative Utterance
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in special ways to the circumstances in which
they are uttered, doing something more than combining the 3 major functions of language

3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions Sentences

The units of language that express complete thoughts
4 categories: declarative, interrogative, imperative, exclamatory
4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming

USES OF LANGUAGE
Principal Uses
1. Informative
2. Expressive
3. Directive

Grammatical Forms
1. Declarative
2. Interrogative
3. Imperative
4. Exclamatory

Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic

function. Form often gives an indication of function
but there is no sure connection between the
grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language
serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take
any one of the 4 grammatical forms

3.4 Emotive and Neutral Language Emotive Language

Appropriate in poetry
Language that is emotionally toned will distract
Language that is loaded heavily charged w/ emotional meaning on either side is unlikely to
advance the quest for truth

Neutral Language
The logician, seeking to evaluate arguments, will honor the use of neutral language.

3.5 Agreement & Disagreement in Attitude & Belief Dis/agreement in Belief vs.
Dis/agreement in Attitude
Parties in Potential Conflict May:
1. agree about the facts, and agree in their attitude towards those facts
2. they might disagree about both
3. they may agree about the facts but disagree in their attitude towards those facts
4. they may disagree about what the facts are, and yet they agree in their attitude toward
what they believe the fats to be.

Note: The real nature of disagreements must be identified if they are to be successfully
resolved. CHAPTER 4 DEFINITION 4.1 Disputes and Definitions Three Kinds of Disputes
1. Obviously genuine disputes
there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do disagree, either in attitude or belief
2. Merely verbal disputes
there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine disagreement at all
3. Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine

there is ambiguity present and the disputers disagree, either in attitude or belief

Criterial Dispute
a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely verbal

4.2 Definitions and Their Uses Definiendum

a symbol being defined

Definiens
the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same meaning as the definiendum

Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use

1. Stipulative Definitions
a. A proposal to arbitrarily assign meaning to a newly introduced symbol
b. a meaning is assigned to some symbol
c. not a report
d. cannot be true or false
e. it is a proposal, resolution, request or instruction to use the definiendum to mean what is
meant by the definiens
f. used to eliminate ambiguity

2. Lexical Definitions
a. A report which may be true or false of the meaning of a definiendum already has in
actual language use
b. used to eliminate ambiguity

3. Precising Definitions
a. A report on existing language usage, with additional stipulations provided to reduce
vagueness
b. Go beyond ordinary usage in such a way as to eliminate troublesome uncertainty
regarding borderline cases
c. Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that meaning is vague
d. What is added to achieve precision is a matter of stipulation
e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness
Ambiguity: Uncertainty because a word or phrase has more meaning than one Vagueness: lack of
clarity regarding the borders of a terms meaning

4. Theoretical Definitions
a. An account of term that is helpful for general understanding or in scientific practice
b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which
the term applies
c. Used to advance theoretical understanding
5. Persuasive Definitions
a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir the emotions, using language expressively rather
than informatively
b. used to influence conduct

4.3 Extensions, Intension, & the Structure of Definition Extension (Denotation)

the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly applied
Intension (Connotation)
the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to which a general term applies
4.4 Extension and Denotative Definitions Extensional/Denotative Definitions
a definition based on the terms extension
this type of definition is usually flawed because it is most often impossible to enumerate all the objects
in a general class
1. Definitions by example
We list or give examples of the objects denoted by the term

2. Ostensive definitions
a demonstrative definition
a term is defined by pointing at an object
We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of the term being defined
3. Quasi-ostensive Definitions
A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a descriptive phrase
The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being
known

4.5 Intension and Intensional Definitions Subjective Intension

What the speaker believes is the intension
The private interpretation of a term at a particular time
Objective Intension
The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the words extension

Conventional Intension
The commonly accepted intension of a term
The public meaning that permits and facilitates communication
Intensional Definitions
1. Synonymous definitions
a. Defining a word with another word that has the same meaning and is already understood
b. We provide another word, whose meaning is already understood, that has the same meaning as the
word being defined
2. Operational definitions
a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations where certain actions or operations lead to specified
results
b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance of specified
operations in the case yields a specified result
3. Definitions by genus and difference
a. Defining a term by identifying the larger class (the genus) of which it is a member, and the
distinguishing attributes (the difference) that characterize it specifically
b. We first name the genus of which the species designation by the definiendum is a subclass, and then
name the attribute (or specific difference) that distinguishes the members of that species from
members of all other species in that genus
4.6 Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference
1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the species
2. a definition must not be circular
3. a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow
4. a definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language
5. a definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative
Circular Definition
a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being defined
CHAPTER 5 NOTIONS AND BELIEFS 5.1 What is a Fallacy? Fallacy
A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but contains a mistake in reasoning.
When premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the
argument is said to be fallacious
In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy
In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect argument
5.2 The Classification of Fallacies Informal Fallacies
The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the mishandling of the content of the propositions
constituting the argument
THE MAJOR INFORMAL FALLACIES

Fallacies of Relevance

The most numerous and most

frequently encountered, are
those in which the premises
are simply not relevant to the
conclusion drawn.

R1: Appeal to Emotion

R2: Appeal to Pity
R3: Appeal to Force
R4: Argument Against the
Person
R5: Irrelevant Conclusion
D1: Argument from
Ignorance
D2: Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority
D3: False Cause
D4: Hasty Generalizations

Fallacies of Defective
Induction

Those in w/c the mistake

arises from the fact that the
premises of the argument,
although relevant to the
conclusion, are so weak &
ineffective that reliance upon
them is a blunder.

Fallacies of Presumption

Mistakes that arise because

too much has been assumed
in the premises, the inference
to the conclusion depending
on that unwarranted
assumption.

P1: Accident
P2: Complex Question
P3: Begging the Question

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Arise from the equivocal use

of words or phrases in the
premises or in the conclusion
of an argument, some critical
term having different senses
in different parts of the
argument.

A1:
A2:
A3:
A4:
A5:

Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Composition
Division

5.3 Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.
They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance, because they are the absence of any real
connection between premises and conclusion.

R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, to the populace)

A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than on reason.

R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, a pitying heart)

A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.

R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, to the stick)

A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force; threat may also be veiled

R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem)

A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against the person taking a position

o Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made on the character of an opponent rather than
on the merits of the opponents position
o Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made on the special circumstances of an
opponent rather than on the merits of the opponents position

Poisoning the Well

A type of ad hominem attack that cuts off rational discourse

R5: Irrelevant Conclusion (ignaratio elenchi, mistaken proof)

A type of fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion than the one that is proposed
o Straw Man Policy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in which the opponents position is
misrepresented
o Red Herring Fallacy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in which the opponents position is
misrepresented

Non Sequitor (Does not Follow)

Often applied to fallacies of relevance, since the conclusion does not follow from the premises

5.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction Fallacies of Defective Induction

Fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion

D1: Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)

A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because it has not been proved false, or false just
because it has not been proved true.
D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)
A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of a supposed authority who has no legitimate
claim to expertise in the matter.

D3: False Cause (causa pro causa)

A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is treated as a cause.
o Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: After the thing, therefore because of the thing; a type of false cause
fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by another event that came before it.
o Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which change in a particular direction is assumed to
lead inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same direction.

D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)

A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual cases to generalizations

Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the reverse of another common mistake,
known as the fallacy of accident.

5.5 Fallacies of Presumption Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.

P1: Accident
A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a particular case.

P2: Complex Question

A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that presupposes the truth of some proposition buried
within the question.

P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, circular argument)

A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed within one of the premises.
A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always worthless, as well
Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has been constructed may if it is too large or
fuzzy go undetected

5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity Fallacies of Ambiguity (sophisms)

Fallacies caused by a shift or confusion of meaning within an argument

A1: Equivocation
A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different parts of an argument

A2: Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted more than 1 way
The argument contains a premise based on 1 interpretation while the conclusion relies on a different
interpretation

A3: Accent
A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey 2 different meaning within an argument, and the
difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase

A4: Composition

A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole, to the
attributes of the whole.
The fallacy is reasoning from attributes of the individual elements or members of a collection to
attributes of the collection or totality of those elements.
A5: Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of the
parts of the whole.
o 1st Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
o 2nd Kind: committed when one argues from the attributes of a collection of elements to the
attributes of the elements themselves.

CHAPTER 6 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS 6.1 The Theory of Deduction Deductive Argument

An argument that claims to establish its conclusion conclusively
One of the 2 classes of arguments
Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid

Valid Argument
A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Theory of Deduction
Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in valid arguments.
Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid and invalid deductions.

6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions Class: The collection of all objects that have some
specified characteristic in common.
o Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of another class.
o Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included in another class.
o Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common.

Categorical Proposition
A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a relationship between one category and some
other category.

6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions 1. Universal affirmative proposition (A

Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is included or contained in another class.

2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions)

Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is excluded from the whole of another class.

3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions)

Propositions that assert that two classes have some member or members in common.

4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions that assert that at least on

member of a class is excluded from the whole of another class.
6.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

Quality
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition
affirms or denies some form of class inclusion.
o If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its
quality is affirmative. (A and I)
o If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is
negative. (E and O)

Quantity
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the proposition
refers to all members (universal) or only some members (particular) of the subject
class.
o If the proposition refers to all members of the class designated by its subject term,
its quantity is universal.

(A and E)
o If the proposition refers to only some members of the lass designated by its
subject term, its quantity is particular.

(I and O) General Skeleton of a Standard-Form Categorical Proposition

quantifier
subject term
copula
predicate term

Distribution
A characterization of whether terms of a categorical proposition refers to all
members of the class designated by that term.
o The A proposition distributes only its subject term
o The E proposition distributes both its subject and predicate terms.
o The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor its predicate term.
o The O proposition distributes only its predicate term.
6.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition Opposition

Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O)
exhibited on the Square of Opposition.

Contradictories
Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false.
A and O are contradictories: All S is P is contradicted by Some S is not P.
E and I are also contradictories: No S is P is contradicted by Some S is P.

Contraries
Two propositions that cannot both be true
If one is true, the other must be false.
They can both be false.

Contingent
Propositions that are neither necessarily true nor necessarily false
Subcontraries
Two propositions that cannot both be false
If one is false, the other must be true.
They can both be true.

Subalteration
The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its corresponding
particular proposition (the subaltern).
In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of its corresponding
particular proposition.

Square of Opposition
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four types of categorical
propositions (A, E, I and O).
The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern Square of Opposition in
important ways.

Immediate Inference

An inference drawn directly from only one premise.

Mediate Inference
An inference drawn from more than one premise.
The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the mediation of the second.

6.6 Further Immediate Inferences Conversion

An inference formed by interchanging the subject and predicate terms of a
categorical proposition.
Not all conversions are valid.
Complement of a Class
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.

Obversion
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition and replacing the
predicate term by its complement.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical proposition.
6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical Propositions
Boolean Interpretation

The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in which universal

propositions (A and E) are not assumed to refer to classes that have members.
Existential Fallacy
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the illegitimate assumption that a class
has members, when there is no explicit assertion that it does.

Note: A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is uttered to

assert the existence of objects of some kind.

6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions

Venn Diagrams
A method of representing classes and categorical propositions using overlapping
circles.

CHAPTER 7 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism Syllogism
Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.

Categorical Syllogism
A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical propositions that together contain
exactly 3 terms, each of which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.

Standard-From Categorical Syllogism

A categorical syllogism in which the premises and conclusions are all standard-form
categorical propositions (A, E, I or O)
Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise second, and the
conclusion last.
Mood
One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical syllogisms determined by the
forms of the standard-form propositions it contains.
The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3 letters, and those 3 letters
are always given in the standard-form order.
The 1st letter names the type of that syllogisms major premise; the 2nd letter
names the type of that syllogisms minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of
its conclusion.
Every syllogism has a mood.
Figure
The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position of the middle term in
its premises
Syllogisms can have fourand only fourpossible different figures:
7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument The validity of any syllogism
depends entirely on its form. Valid Syllogisms
- A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of its form alone.
- If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be valid.
- If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be
invalid.

7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism

7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Note: A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it renders the syllogism
invalid. Because it is a mistake of that special kind, we call it a fallacy; and because
it is a mistake in the form of the argument, we call it a formal fallacy.
7.5 Exposition of the 15 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism
7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism

CHAPTER 8 SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE

8.1 Syllogistic Arguments Syllogistic Argument
An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or can be formulated as
one without any change in meaning.

Reduction to Standard Form

Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.

Standard-Form Translation
The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put argument appearing in
ordinary language into classical syllogism

Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary Language may

Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical Argument: First Deviation
The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary language may appear in an
order that is not the order of the standard-form syllogism
Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first, the minor premise
second, the conclusion third.

Second Deviation
A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3 terms. The premises of
an argument in ordinary language may appear to involve more than 3 terms but
that appearance might prove deceptive.
Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o loss of meaning the
reduction to standard form may be successful.

Third Deviation

The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in ordinary language may

not all be standard-form propositions.
Remedy: If the components can be converted into standard-form propositions w/o
loss of meaning, the reduction to standard form may be successful.
8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three Eliminating Synonyms
A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a 4th term, but only
another way of referring to one of the 3 classes involved.
E.g. wealthy & rich

Eliminating Class Complements

Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do not belong to that class
(explained in 6.6)
E.g. mammals & nonmammals

8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form Note:

Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard form, may be translated
into standard form so as to allow the syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams
or by the use of rules governing syllogisms. I. Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs (or does not belong) to a
particular class
Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but we can nevertheless
interpret a singular proposition as a proposition dealing w/ classes and their
interrelations
E.g. Socrates is a philosopher.
E.g. This table is not an antique.

Unit Class
o A class with only one member

II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than substantive or

class terms
E.g. Some flowers are beautiful.
o Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties.
E.g. No warships are available for active duty
o Reformulated: No warships are things available for active duty.

III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula to be

E.g. All people seek recognition.
o Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition.
E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.
o Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine drinkers.

IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in standard form

order
E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds.
o Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds.
E.g. all is well that ends well.
o Reformulated: All things that end well are things that are well.

V. Propositions having quantifiers other than all, no, and some

E.g. Every dog has its day.
o Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their days.
E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated.
o Reformulated: All contributions are things that are appreciated.

VI. Exclusive Propositions, using only or none but

A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the subject named
E.g. Only citizens can vote.
o Reformulated: All those who can vote are citizens.
E.g. None but the brave deserve the fair.
o Reformulated: All those who deserve the fair are those who are brave.
VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity
E.g. Dog are carnivorous.
o Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.
E.g. Children are present.
o Reformulated: Some children are beings who are present.

VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions at all

E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.
o Reformulated: Some children are not believes in Santa Claus.
E.g. There are white elephants.
o Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.

IX. Exceptive Propositions, using all except or similar expressions

A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of some class except for
members of one of its subclasses are members of some other class
Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is somewhat complicated,
because propositions of this kind make 2 assertions rather than one

E.g. All except employees are eligible.

E.g. All but employees are eligible.
E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.

8.4 Uniform Translation Parameter

An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion into standard form

Uniform Translation
Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic argument by using parameters
or other techniques.

8.5 Enthymemes Enthymeme

An argument containing an unstated proposition
An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being enthymematic

First-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted
is the major premise

Second-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is taken for granted
is the minor premise

Third-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition that is left unstated is the
conclusion

8.6 Sorites Sorites

An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any number of premises through
a chain of syllogistic inferences

8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism

A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction and the conclusion claims
the truth of one of the disjuncts
Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid

Hypothetical Syllogism
A form of argument containing at least one conditional proposition as a premise.
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism

A syllogism having one conditional premise and one categorical premise

Affirmative Mood/Modus Ponens (to affirm)

A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms the
antecedent of the conditional premise, and the conclusion affirms its consequent

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise affirms
the consequent, rather than the antecedent, of the conditional premise

Modus Tollens (to deny)

A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies the
consequent of the conditional premise, and the conclusion denies its antecedent

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical premise denies
the antecedent, rather than the consequent, of the conditional premise

8.8 The Dilemma Dilemma

A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it is claimed that a
choice must be made between 2 (usually bad) alternatives
An argumentative device in which syllogisms on the same topic are combined,
sometimes w/ devastative effect

Simple Dilemma
The conclusion is a single categorical proposition

Complex Dilemma
The conclusion itself is a disjunction

Three Ways of Defeating a Dilemma Going/escaping between the horns of

the dilemma
Rejecting its disjunctive premise
This method is often the easiest way to evade the conclusion of a dilemma, for
unless one half of the disjunction is the explicit contradictory of the other, the
disjunction may very well be false

Taking/grasping the dilemma by its horns

Rejecting its conjunction premise
To deny a conjunction, we need only deny one of its parts
When we grasp the dilemma by the horns, we attempt to show that at least one of
the conditionals is false

Devising a counterdilemma

One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed to the conclusion of

the original
Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it should be built up out of
the same ingredients (categorical propositions) that the original dilemma contained

CHAPTER 9 SYMBOLIC LOGIC

9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language Symbols
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its essential nature and
putting aside what is not essential

With symbols, we can perform some logical operations almost mechanically, with
the eye, which might otherwise demand great effort
A symbolic language helps us to accomplish some intellectual tasks without having
to think too much
Modern Logic
Logicians look now to the internal structure of propositions and arguments, and to
the logical links very few in number that are critical in all deductive arguments
No encumbered by the need to transform deductive arguments in to syllogistic form
It may be less elegant than analytical syllogistics, but is more powerful

9.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, & Disjunction Simple

Statement
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a component

Compound Statement
A statement that contains another statements as a component
2 categories:
o W/N the truth value of the compound statement is determined wholly by the truth
value of its components, or determined by anything other than the truth value of its
components

Conjunction ()
A truth functional connective meaning and

Symbolized by the dot ()

We can form a conjunction of 2 statements by placing the word and between
them
The 2 statements combined are called conjuncts
The truth value of the conjunction of 2 statements is determined wholly and entirely
by the truth values of its 2 conjuncts
If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true; otherwise it is false
A conjunction is said to be a truth-functional component statement, and its
conjuncts are said to be truth-functional components of it
Note: Not every compound statement is truth-functional

Truth Value
The status of any statement as true or false
The truth value of a true statement is true
The truth value of a false statement is false

Truth-Functional Component
Any component of a compound statement whose replacement by another
statement having the same truth value would not change the truth value of the
compound statement

Truth-Functional Compound Statement

A compound statement whose truth function is wholly determined by the truth
values of its components

Truth-Functional Connective
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction, material implication, and
material equivalence) between the components of a truth-functional compound
statement.

Simple Statement
Any statement that is not truth functionally compound
Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~)
symbolized by the tilde or curl (~)

often formed by the insertion of not in the original statement

Disjunction/Alteration (v)
A truth-functional connective meaning or
It has a weak (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge (v) (or vee), and a
strong (exclusive) sense.
2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives
Punctuation
The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic language to eliminate
ambiguity in meaning
In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to apply to the smallest
statement that the punctuation permits

9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implication Conditional

Statement
A compound statement of the form If p then q.
Also called a hypothetical/implication/implicative statement
Asserts that in any case in which its antecedent is true, its consequent is also true
It does no assert that its antecedent is true, but only if its antecedent is true, its
consequent is also true
The essential meaning of a conditional statement is the relationship asserted to
hold between its antecedent and consequent

Antecedent (implicans/protasis)
In a conditional statement, that component that immediately follows the if

Consequent (implicate/apodosis)
In a conditional statement, the component that immediately follows the then

Implication
The relation that holds between the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional
statement.
There are different kinds of implication

Horseshoe ()
A symbol used to represent material implication, which is common, partial meaning
of all if-then statements
Material Implication
A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe () that may connect 2
statements
The statement p materially implies q is true when either p is false, or q is true

In general, q is a necessary condition for p and p only if q are symbolized

as p q

In general, p is a sufficient condition for q is symbolized by p q

9.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy
Refutation by Logical Analogy
Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another argument with the same
form whose premises are known to e true and whose conclusion is known to be
false.

To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another argument

that:
Has exactly the same form as the first
Has true premises and a false conclusion

Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely
formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any 2 arguments having
exactly the same form are either both valid or invalid, regardless of any differences
in the subject matter which they are concerned. Statement Variable
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be substituted.

Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an argument, it contains
statement variables, but no statements

Substitution Instance of an Argument Form

Any argument that results from the consistent substitution of statements for
statement variables in an argument form

Specific Form of an Argument

The argument form from which the given argument results when a different simple
statement is substituted for each different statement variable.

9.5 The Precise Meaning of Invalid and Valid Invalid Argument Form
An argument form that has at least one substitution instance with true premises and
a false conclusion

Valid Argument Form

An argument form that has no substitution instances with true premises and a false
conclusion

9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables Truth Table

An array on which the validity of an argument form may be tested, through the
display of all possible combinations of the truth values of the statement variables
contained in that form

9.7 Some Common Argument Forms Disjunctive Syllogism

A valid argument form in which one premise is a disjunction, another premise is the
denial of one of the two disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
disjunct
Modus Ponens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and in which another
premise affirms the antecedent of that conditional, and the conclusion affirms its
consequent
Modus Tollens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and in which another
premise denies the consequent of that conditional, and the conclusion denies its
antecedent
Hypothetical Syllogism
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

A formal fallacy in which the 2nd premise of an argument affirms the consequent of
a conditional premise and the conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in which the 2nd premise of an argument denies the antecedent of
a conditional premise and the conclusion of the argument denies its consequent
Note: In determining whether any given argument is valid, we must look into the
specific form of the argument in question 9.8 Statement Forms & Material
Equivalence Statement Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of a statement
It contains statement variables but no statements
Substitution Instance of Statement Form
Any statement that results from the consistent substitution of statements for
statement variables in a statement form

Specific Form of a Statement

The statement form from which the given statement results when a different simple
statement is substituted consistently for each different statement variable

Tautologous Statement Form

A statement form that has only true substitution instances
A tautology:
Self-Contradictory Statement Form
A statement form that has only false substitution instances
A contradiction

Contingent Form
A statement form that has both true and false substitution instances

Peirces Law
A tautological statement of the form [(p q) p] p

Materially Equivalent ()

A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements connected by the three-bar

sign () have the same truth value
Biconditional Statement
A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component statements imply one
another and therefore are materially equivalent
Note: Not is not a connective, but is a truth-function operator, so it is omitted
here Note: To say that an argument form is valid if, and only if, its expression in the
form of a conditional statement is a tautology. 9.9 Logic Equivalence Logically
Equivalent
Two statements for which the statement of their material equivalence is tautology
they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one another

Double Negation
An expression of logical equivalence between a symbol and the negation of the
negation of that symbol
Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be true or false
depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it connects Logical
Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a relation between 2
statements that is not truth-functional Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent
only when it is absolutely impossible for them to have different truth values.
De Morgans Theorems
Two useful logical equivalences
o (1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements is logically equivalent to the
conjunction of the negations of the 2 disjuncts
o (2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements is logically equivalent to the
disjunction of the negations of the 2 conjuncts

9.10 The Three Laws of Thought Principle of Identity

If any statement is true, it is true.
Every statement of the form p p must be true
o Every such statement is a tautology

Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false
Every statement of the form p~p must be false

o Every such statement is self-contradictory

Principle of Excluded Middle

Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true
Every such statement is a tautology

CHAPTER 10 METHODS OF DEDUCTION 10.1 Formal Proof of Validity Rules

of Inference
The rules that permit valid inferences from statements assumed as premises

Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument by using the rules of
inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the validity of an argument
that is valid

Formal Proof of Validity

A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise of a given argument or
is deduced, suing the rules of inference, from preceding statements in that
sequence, such that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of the
argument whose validity is being proved

Elementary Valid Argument

Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves as a rule of inference
& can be used to construct a formal proof of validity
10.2 The Rule of Replacement Rule of Replacement
The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace each other
Note: this is very different from that of substitution
The 19 Rules of Inference
The list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a complete system of truth-functional
logic, in the sense that it permits the construction of a formal proof of validity for
any valid truth-functional argument
The first 9 rules can be applied only to whole lines of a proof

Any of the last 10 rules can be applied either to whole lines or to parts of lines

The notion of formal proof is an effective notion

It can be decided quite mechanically, in a finite number of steps, whether or not a
given sequence of statements constitutes a formal proof
No thinking is required
Only 2 things are required:
o The ability to see that a statement occurring in one place is precisely the same as
a statement occurring in another
o The ability to see W/N a given statement has a certain pattern; that is , to see if it
is a substitution instance of a given statement form

Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables

The making of a truth table is completely mechanical
There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal proofs
Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its validity is much easier
than the purely mechanical construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or
thousands of rows

10.3 Proof of Invalidity Invalid Arguments

For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity
An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one row of its truth table in
which all its premises are true but its conclusion is false
We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an arguments invalidity:
the discovery of a single row in which its premises are all true and its conclusion is
false will suffice

10.4 Inconsistency Note:

If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true and the conclusion
false, then the argument must be valid
Any argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid
Any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless of what its conclusion
may be

Inconsistency
Inconsistent statements cannot both be true
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (Untrustworthy in one thing, untrustworthy in
all)
Inconsistent statements are not meaningless; their trouble is just the opposite.
They mean too much. They mean everything, in the sense of implying everything.
And if everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false, because every
statement has a denial

10.5 Indirect Proof of Validity Indirect Proof of Validity

An indirect proof of validity is written out by stating as an additional assumed
premise the negation of the conclusion
A version of reductio ad absurdum (reducing the absurd) with which an
argument can be proved valid by exhibiting the contradiction which may be derived
from its premises augmented by the assumption of the denial of its conclusion
An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a given step is derived after the
assumption advancing the indirect proof had been made
This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for testing arguments by
making it possible, in some circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than
would be possible without it
10.6 Shorter Truth-Table Technique
Shorter Truth-Table Technique
An argument may be tested by assigning truth values showing that, if it is valid,
assigning values that would make the conclusion false while the premises are true
would lead inescapably to inconsistency
Proving the validity of an argument with this shorter truth table technique is one
version of the use of reductio ad absurdum but instead of suing the rules of
inference, it uses truth value assignments
Its easiest application is when F is assigned to a disjunction (in which case both of
the disjuncts must be assigned) or T to a conjunction (in which case both of the
conjuncts must be assigned)
o When assignments to simple statements are thus forced, the absurdity (if there is
one) is quickly exposed

Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most efficient in
testing the validity of a deductive argument CHAPTER 11 QUANTIFICATION
THEORY 11.1 The Need for Quantification Quantification

A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical structure of

propositions.

11.2 Singular Propositions Affirmative Singular Proposition

A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has some specified attribute

Individual Constant
A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual

Individual Variable
A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant

Propositional Function
An expression that contains an individual variable and becomes a statement when
an individual constant is substituted for the individual variable

Simple Predicate
A propositional function having some true and some false substitution instances,
each of which is an affirmative singular proposition

11.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers Universal Quantifier

A symbol (x) used before a propositional function to assert that the predicate
following is true of everything

Generalization
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional function by placing a
universal quantifier or an existential quantifier before it

Existential Quantifier
A symbol (x) indicating that the propositional function that follows has at least
one true substitution instance.

Instantiation

The process of forming a proposition from a propositional function by substituting an

individual constant for its individual variable
11.4 Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple predicates

11.5 Proving Validity Universal Instantiation (UI)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any substitution instance of a
propositional function from its universal quantification

Universal Generalization (UG)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of a universally quantified
expression from an expression that is given as true of any arbitrarily selected
individual

Existential Instantiation (EI)

A rule of inference that permits (with restrictions) the valid inference of the truth of
a substitution instance (for any individual constant that appears nowhere earlier in
the context) from the existential quantification of a propositional function

Existential Generalization (EG)

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of the existential quantification
of a propositional function from any true substitution instance of that function
11.6 Proving Invalidity 11.7 Asyllogistic Inference Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more logically complicated than the
standard A, E, I or O propositions