Logic Logic is the discipline that studies the distinction that it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect

reasoni agreement on substantive mattersboth by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads na some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect fo no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error.

Philosophy: Reasoning about the ultimate questions in life.

Framework Our fundamental unit of what may be asserted or denied is the proposition (or statement) that is typically expressed by a Propositions are distinct from the sentences that convey them.

The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the truth of another. Thus, we will usu related propositions. An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but on premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion). The transition or movement from pre the logical connection between them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.

Deductive vs. Inductive When an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a dedu When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, i inductive inference.

Validity: A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from premises to conclusion is perfect. Here are two equival standard: If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true. It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises are true.

Any deductive argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its conclusion to be false while its premises are true, s are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either true or false. An argument cannot have true premises and a valid inference but a false conclusion: Premises Inference Conclusion True Valid XXXX True True Invalid False True Valid False False True Invalid False

Soundness: The combination of true premises and a valid inference is a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion m trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference

reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our e truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of eve something without respect for its truth. This provides in are sometimes in error.

nt) that is typically expressed by a declarative sentence.

uth of another. Thus, we will usually consider a group of other in such a way that all but one of them (the transition or movement from premises to conclusion,

usion, it is said to involve a deductive inference. e that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an

n is perfect. Here are two equivalent ways of stating that

are true.

alse while its premises are true, so even if the premises

e of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both.

Definitions A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing. Th definienda), and the cluster of words that has the same meaning is a definiens (pl. definientia). Types of Definitions Stipulative Lexical Precising Theoretical Persuasive

Stipulative A definition that is deliberately assigned to some symbol is called stipulative. A stipulative definition is a proposal to use t 21 definiens. This is common in mathematics, for example in assigning the names "zetta" and "yotta" to the numbers 10 an introduced in science to free investigators from the distractions of the emotive associations of more familiar terms, such "intelligence."

Lexical A lexical definition reports a meaning that the definiendum already has, based on established use. A lexical definition ma "bird is defined as any warm-blooded vertebrate with feathers" is a true lexical definition. Lexical definitions of words do

Precising Precising definitions are those that are introduced to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness. Uses particularly often in law, w statute need to be sharply demarcated. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act provides comprehensive civil rig mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." The act may go through tens of pages givin activities are," and what types of "physical and mental impairments" apply.

Theoretical A theoretical definition of a term is one that attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful descrip An example of this is the definition of "heat," which was once defined as a subtle imponderable fluid, but later came to b body by virtue of the irregular motions of its molecules. Several definitions were put forward because different theories o

Persuasive A persuasive definition is one that is put forward to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions. For exa defined as "democracy extended to the economic sphere," while from the right we hear "freedom in the economic spher Intension and Extension

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional defin denotative definition, of a concept or term specifies its extension. It is a list naming every object that is a member of a sp

So, for example, an intensional definition of 'Prime Minister' might be the most senior minister of a cabinet in the executi system. An extensional definition would be a list of all past, present and future prime ministers.

When attributes are added to the intension of the term, we say that the intension increases. The extension varies inverse "person" has a very large set of members, but increasing the intension to "living person" will significantly reduce that set. in Peru" will reduce the extension further. It is also possible for an increased inclusion to not affect the exclusion, because For example, adding "with a spinal column" to "living person" will not decrease the exclusion.

Obstensive An obstensive definition is a form of extensional definition that gives the meaning of a term by pointing to the thing itsel

Types of Intention Subjective intension the set of all the attributes the speaker believes to be possessed by objects denoted by that word Objective intension the total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the word's extension. Conventional intension the commonly accepted intension of a term; the public meaning that permits and facilitates co Synonymous Definition A synonymous definition defines a word with another word that has the same meaning and is already understood.

Definition by Genus and Differentia (Difference) Often though to be the most effective and widely applicable method of definition, definition by Genus and Differentia ide term belongs, and the distinguishing attributes (the difference) that characterize it specifically.

For example, all members of the genus polygon share the characteristic of being closed-plane figures bounded by straight different species or subclasses, such that all the members of each subclass have some further attribute in common that is The genus polygon is divided into triangles, quadrilaterals, pentagons, hexagons, and so on. What differentiates members all other subclasses is having precisely six sides. Therefore, a hexagon could be defined as "a polygon (genus) having six si

Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference Rule 1: A definition should state the essential attributes of the species. For example, the essential attributes of "governors" or "senators" would not be any specific mental or physical features t the special relations they have to other citizens. Rule 2: A definition must not be circular (the definiendum itself or any synonym of the definiendum may not appear in th For example, in defining "lexicon," as "a lexical compilation of words" would violate this rule, as well as "a compilation of dictionary (a synonym of lexicon) in the definiens. A synonymous definition would be preferred in this case. Rule 3: A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow. We want the definiens to denote exactly the same amount of thing as the definiendum denotes. For example, to define man as "featherless biped" would include a chicken with its feathers plucked off, and would need Rule 4: Ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language must not be used in a definition. For example, defining "net" as "anything reticulated or decussated at equal distances with interstices between the interse Rule 5: A definition should not be negative (what a term does not mean) where it can be affirmative (what a term does For example, "a piece of furniture that is not a bed, a chair, a stool, or a bench, etc.." does not define "couch." Exceptions apply for terms that are essentially negative, such as "bald," or "orphan."

ols), or a type of thing. The term to be defined is the definiendum (pl.

nition is a proposal to use the definiendum to mean what is meant by the 21 24 ta" to the numbers 10 and 12 , respectively. Also, they can be more familiar terms, such as Spearman's "g-factor" instead of

use. A lexical definition may, therefore, be true or false. For example, al definitions of words do change, however, over the course of time.

particularly often in law, where acts forbidden (or permitted) by some es comprehensive civil rights protections for "individuals with physical or hrough tens of pages giving further clarification on what "major life

scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies. e fluid, but later came to be defined as a form of energy possessed by a ecause different theories of heat were accepted at different times.

r stirring emotions. For example, from the left we may hear "socialism" om in the economic sphere."

ient conditions for a thing being a member of a specific set. Any ntia, is an intensional definition. An extensional definition, also called a t that is a member of a specific set.

of a cabinet in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary .

he extension varies inversely with intension. For example, a general term gnificantly reduce that set. "Living person born in Mexico currently living fect the exclusion, because the inclusion refers to every original member.

pointing to the thing itself.

jects denoted by that word. Varies among individuals. on. at permits and facilitates communication.

already understood.

Genus and Differentia identifies the larger class (the genus) to which a

igures bounded by straight line segments. This genus may be divided into ttribute in common that is shared by no member of any other subclass. hat differentiates members of the subclass hexagon from the members of lygon (genus) having six sides (specific difference)."

ental or physical features that differentiate them from other persons, but

ndum may not appear in the definiens). s well as "a compilation of words like a dictionary," as this definition gives in this case.

s. cked off, and would need to be expanded.

rstices between the intersections" is too obscure. mative (what a term does mean). define "couch."

Categorical Logic Categorical logic was originally developed by Aristotle, codified in greater detail by medieval logicians, and then interpret Venn in the nineteenth century. Respected by many generations of philosophers as the the chief embodiment of deductiv be useful in a broad range of ordinary circumstances.

Categorical Term The basic unit of meaning or content in our new deductive system is the categorical term. Usually expressed grammatica term designates a class of things. e.g. cows, unicorns, square circles, philosophical concepts, etc.

Each categorical term cleaves the world into exactly two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: those things to not apply. A complement includes everything excluded from the original class. e.g. non-cows, non-unicorns, etc.

Categorical Proposition A categorical proposition joins together exactly two categorical terms and asserts that some relationship holds between convenience, we'll call the term that occurs first in each categorical proposition its subject term and the other its predica

If there is a non-copular verb or the predicate is adjectival, nominalize the verb or adjective phrase. e.g., 'Some snakes bit 'All computers are electronic' 'All computers are electronic things.'

Distribution A categorical term is said to be distributed if that proposition provides some information about every member of the clas below, the quantity and quality of categorical propositions determines distribution.

Quantity and Quality We need only four distinct kinds of categorical propositions, distinguished from each other only by their quality and quan the relationship between two classes.

The quantity of a categorical proposition is a measure of the degree to which the relationship between its subject and pr proposition if the asserted inclusion or exclusion holds for every member of the class designated by its subject term, and that the relationship holds for one or more members of the subject class.

The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of the relationship it affirms between its subject and predica states that the class designated by its subject term is included, either as a whole or only in part, within the class designate proposition if it wholly or partially excludes members of the subject class from the predicate class.

The four kinds Combining these two distinctions and representing the subject and predicate terms respectively by the letters "S" and "P forms of categorical propositions: Proposition Properties Immediate Inferences Name Quantity Quality Distributes Converse Obverse

A E I O

Universal Universal Particular Particular

Affirmative Negative Affirmative Negative

Subject Both Neither Predicate

Unreliable Reliable Reliable Unreliable

Reliable Reliable Reliable Reliable

* Note: proposition names originated from the Latin words for affirmre (affirm) and neg (deny)

Square of Opposition When two categorical propositions are of different forms but share exactly the same subject and predicate terms, their tr interesting ways, all of which are conveniently represented in the traditional square of opposition:

Contradictories Propositions that appear diagonally across from each other in this diagram (A and O on the one hand and E and I on the o subject and predicate terms are the same, one of the propositions in each contradictory pair must be true and the other cannot both be false. They have the opposite truth value.

e.g. 'All S is P' (A) and 'Some S is not P' (O) are contradictories, and logical oppositesas are 'No S is P' (E) and 'Some S is P

Contraries* The universal propositions that appear across from each other at the top of the square (A and E) are contraries. Assuming designated by their shared subject term, it is impossible for both of these propositions to be true, although both could be

e.g. 'All S is P' (A) and 'No S is P' (E) are contraries. It is possible that they are both false, but impossible they are both true

Subcontraries* Particular propositions across from each other at the bottom of the square (I and O) are the subcontraries. Assuming tha at least one member, it is impossible for both of these propositions to be false, but possible for both to be true. e.g. 'Some S is P' (I) and 'Some S is not P' (O) are subcontraries. It is possible that they are both true, but impossible they a Subalterns*

The universal and particular propositions on either side of the square of opposition (A and I on the one left and E and O o subalternation. Provided that there is at least one member of the class designated by the subject term they have in comm proposition of either quality to be true while the particular proposition of the same quality is false. e.g. 'All S is P' (A) and 'Some S is P' (I) are subalterns, as are 'No S is P' (E) and 'Some S is not P' (O). * See 'Existential Import' topic below

Immediate Inferences Since each of these new cases involves a pair of categorical propositions that are logically equivalent to each otherthat falsethey enable us to draw an immediate inference from the truth (or falsity) of either member of the pair to the truth

Conversion The converse of a categorical proposition is the new proposition that results from putting the predicate term of the origin proposition and the subject term of the original in the predicate place of the new. Universal negative (E) and particular af converted. Converse of A proposition 'All S is P' is 'All P is S' (unreliable). Converse of E proposition 'No S is P' is 'No P is S' (reliable). Converse of I proposition 'Some S is P' is 'Some P is S' (reliable). Converse of O proposition 'Some S is not P' is 'Some P is not S' (unreliable).

Obversion The obverse of a categorical proposition is the new proposition that results from replacing the predicate term of the prop quality of the proposition, either from affirmative to negative or from negative to affirmative. Obversion is the only imme propositions of every form. Obverse of A proposition 'All S is P' is 'No S is non-P' (reliable). Obverse of E proposition 'No S is P' is 'All S is non-P' (reliable). Obverse of I proposition 'Some S is P' is 'Some S is not non-P' (reliable). Obverse of O proposition 'Some S is not P' is 'Some S is non-P' (reliable).

Contraposition The contrapositive of a categorical proposition is the new proposition that results from putting the complement of the pr subject place of the new proposition and the complement of the subject term of the original in the predicate place of the negative (E) propositions can be reliably contraposed. Contrapositive of A proposition 'All S is P' is 'All non-P is non-S' (reliable). Contrapositive of E proposition 'No S is P' is 'No non-P is non-S' (unreliable). Contrapositive of I proposition 'Some S is P' is 'Some non-P is non-S' (unreliable). Contrapositive of O proposition 'Some S is not P' is 'Some non-P is not non-S' (reliable).

Existential Import Existential import is a special assumption that the class designated by the subject term of a universal proposition has at l presupposed that universal propositions have existential import.

The denial of existential import does undermine the reliability of some of the above truth-relations. In the traditional squ survive intact; the relationships of the contraries, the subcontraries, and subalternations no longer hold when we do not subject terms of A and E propositions have members. Therefore, one can rely only upon the three immediate inferences contrapositionand suppose that A and O propositions and E and I propositions are genuinely contradictory.

Diagramming Propositions Venn diagrams are topological representations of the logical relationships among the classes designated by categorical te labelled circle, the area within which represents the extension of the categorical term. The area outside represents the co

In order to represent a categorical proposition, we must draw two overlapping circles, creating four distinct areas corresp members of the class designated by the subject term but not of that designated by the predicate term; those that are me members of the class designated by the predicate term but not of that designated by the subject term; and those that are

The universal affirmative (A) proposition asserts that every member of the subject class is also a member of the predica the area inside the subject circle but outside the predicate circle:

The universal negative (E) proposition asserts that nothing is a member of both classes designated by its terms, so its di overlap:

The particular affirmative (I) proposition asserts that there is at least one thing that is a member of both classes, so its d circles overlap:

The particular negative (O) proposition asserts that there is at least one thing that is a member of the class designated b by its predicate term, so its diagram places an in the area inside subject circle but outside the predicate circle.

*Note: The contradictory pairsA and O, and E and Iare incompatible with Venn diagrams as well. An area cannot be s

eval logicians, and then interpreted mathematically by George Boole and John he chief embodiment of deductive reasoning, this logical system continues to

. Usually expressed grammatically as a noun or noun phrase, each categorical

xhaustive parts: those things to which the term applies and to which it does

me relationship holds between the classes they designate. For our own t term and the other its predicate term.

ve phrase. e.g., 'Some snakes bite' 'Some snakes are animals that bite' and

about every member of the class designated by that term. As we will see

er only by their quality and quantity, in order to assert anything we like about

ship between its subject and predicate terms holds: it is a universal gnated by its subject term, and it is a particular proposition if it merely asserts

between its subject and predicate terms: it is an affirmative proposition if it n part, within the class designated by its predicate term, and it is a negative ate class.

ctively by the letters "S" and "P," we can uniquely identify the four possible Example Form

ate Inferences Contrapositive

Reliable Unreliable Unreliable Reliable

All/Every S is P. No S is P. Some S is P. Some S is not P.

ect and predicate terms, their truth is logically interdependent in a variety of pposition:

he one hand and E and I on the other) are contradictories. So long as their pair must be true and the other false. They cannot both be true and they

re 'No S is P' (E) and 'Some S is P' (I).

and E) are contraries. Assuming that there is at least one member of the class be true, although both could be false.

ut impossible they are both true.

he subcontraries. Assuming that the class designated by their subject term has ble for both to be true. both true, but impossible they are both false.

d I on the one left and E and O on the right) exhibit a relationship known as subject term they have in common, it is impossible for the universal y is false. ot P' (O).

equivalent to each otherthat is, either both of them are true or both are member of the pair to the truth (or falsity) the other:

the predicate term of the original proposition in the subject place of the new sal negative (E) and particular affirmative (I) propositions can be reliably

g the predicate term of the proposition with its complement and reversing the tive. Obversion is the only immediate inference that is reliable for categorical

utting the complement of the predicate term of the original proposition in the nal in the predicate place of the new. Universal affirmative (A) and particular

f a universal proposition has at least one member. Classical logicians typically

-relations. In the traditional square of opposition, only the contradictories no longer hold when we do not suppose that the classes designated by the he three immediate inferencesconversion, obversion, and uinely contradictory.

sses designated by categorical terms. Each categorical term is represented by a e area outside represents the complement.

eating four distinct areas corresponding to four kinds of things: those that are edicate term; those that are members of both classes; those that are subject term; and those that are not members of either class. is also a member of the predicate class. This can be diagrammed by shading

designated by its terms, so its diagram shades the area in which the two circles

member of both classes, so its diagram places an in the area where the two

member of the class designated by its subject term but not of that designated de the predicate circle.

ms as well. An area cannot be shaded and contain an .

Analogies To draw an analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar.

An analogical argument establishes similarities among entities in the premises, and concludes that since they are alike in

Form Entities a, b, c, d (e.g. Smith, Jones, Wilson, Johnson) all have the attributes P, Q, and R (e.g. creased earlobes, depressed Entities a, b, c (e.g. Smith, Jones, Wilson) all have the further attribute of S (e.g. heart disease). Therefore d (e.g. Johnson) probably has the attribute S (e.g. heart disease). Analogues = a, b, and c (Smith, Jones, and Wilson) Primary subject = d (Johnson) Shared attributes = P, Q, and R (creased earlobes, depressed sternums, and narrow hips) Target attribute(s) = S (heart disease)

Appraising Analogical Arguments Some are much more cogent than others. None are deductively valid or invalid, but six criteria can help determine an arg 1. Number of Analogues 2. Variety among Analogues 3. Number of similar respects 4. Relevance (of similar respects) 5. Disanalogies 6. Strength of the conclusion relative to the premises

1. Number of Analogues The number of entities, situations, or occasions/instances. The specific instances are the entities listed as what can be called the data base. The more number of occasions of persons or things that have the further property of S (heart disease in this example) a premise, the better the evidence is (ceteris paribus). Generally, the more examples enumerated, the higher the probabili In the example: a, b, and c (Smith, Jones, Wilson) in the first/second premise are three in number.

2. Variety among the Analogues The similarities existing among entities in the data base. The conclusion is made more probably when entities are varied/diverse because of the data base is broader and more i Disanalogies between the entities in the data base and the entity in the conclusion are minimized by including more dis In the example: a, b, c (Smith, Jones, Wilson) in the first/second premise would have more variety if they were of differen

3. Number of Shared Attributes Properties, or attributes the data base is said to share with the entity in the conclusion. The probability and strength of argument increases with more number of shared respects. In the example: P, Q, and R (creased earlobes, depressed sternums, narrow hips). Argument would be strengthened by ad 4. Relevance (of Shared Attributes)

The relevance of attributes or respects to the entities or situations. The points of resemblance must be relevant to the conclusion drawn. Relevancy is often determined by a suspected causal or determing effect. In the example: Are the attributes P, Q, and R (creased earlobes, depressed sternums, narrow hips) relevant to the occurr was cited as a shared attribute between d (Johnson), and the data base, its irrelevance would weaken the argument.

5. (Absense of) Disanalogies Disanalogies are points of difference between the entities in the data base and the conclusion entity. The argument is weaker if more dissimilarities exist between the data base and the conclusion entity. In the example: Dissimilarities exhibited to exist between d (Johnson) and the data base (Smith, Jones, Wilson) weaken th to be 20 years old, while the rest of the entities were above age 70, the dissimilarity would weaken the argument.

6. Strength of the conclusion relative to the premises The aggressiveness of the claim made in the conclusion. If the stated conclusion is hedged, conservative, more cautious, or guarded relative to the premises, the argument is str In the example: Entity d (Johnson) was claimed to have attribute S (heart disease) in the conclusion. This claim would be i probably has heart disease may have heart disease may have heart trouble.

they are similar.

that since they are alike in one manner, they will be alike in another.

ased earlobes, depressed sternums, and narrow hips).

can help determine an argument's strength:

disease in this example) along with the other properties in the first d, the higher the probability. er.

base is broader and more inclusive. ized by including more dissimilar and entites. ety if they were of different cultures, ages, and races.

ould be strengthened by adding chest pain, blackouts, etc..

hips) relevant to the occurrence of S (heart disease)? If music preference weaken the argument.

entity. n entity. , Jones, Wilson) weaken the argument. For example, if Johnson was said aken the argument.

emises, the argument is strengthened. sion. This claim would be incrementally strengthened with the following:

Causal Reasoning Inductive reasoning in which some effect is inferred from what is assumed to be its cause, or some cause is inferred from

Necessary Condition A circumstance in whose absense the event cannot occur is a necessary condition. It is coloquially equivalent to "Q canno Q is false." Example: The presence of oxygen (O) is a necessary condition for combustion (C) to occur. Diagrammed: (~P ~O), or (C O); If no oxygen, then no combustion; or, If combustion, then oxygen; or, Combustion o

Sufficient Condition A circumstance in whose presence the event must occur is a sufficient condition. It is to say that knowing P to be true is a true. Example: The president's signing of a bill that Congress passed (B) is sufficient to make the bill law (L). Diagrammed: (B L) , If the bill is signed, then it is made law.

Necessary and Sufficient Necessity and sufficiency are dual to each other in that if P is claimed to be a sufficient condition for Q, Q can be implied claimed to be a necessary condition for Q, Q can be implied to be a sufficient condition for P. (Sufficient Necessary), or, (~Necessary ~Sufficient) Two things can hold simultaneous necessity and sufficiency. To say that P is necessary and sufficient for Q is to say two sufficient for Q. A third understanding is that each is sufficient/necessary for the other. Stated as "P if and only if Q," or (P Q) = (Q P).

Induction by Simple Enumeration A type of inductive generalization that suggests that two or more phenomena always accompany one another (often cau repeatedly accompany one another in those circumstances. Simple enumeration does not suffice for the testing of causa Instance 1 of phenomenon E is accompanied by circumstance C. (confirming instance ) Instance 2 of phenomenon E is accompanied by circumstance C. (confirming instance ) Instance 3 of phenomenon E is accompanied by circumstance C. (confirming instance ) Therefore every instance of phenomenon E is accompanied by circumstance C. *Note: the first criterion for the appraisal of analogical arguments also applies to simple enumeration: number of (confirm Mill's Methods of Causal Analysis Five patterns of inductive inference analyzed and formulated by John Stuart Mill; also known as "canons of induction." Method of Agreement Method of Difference Joint Method of Agreement and Difference Method of Residues Method of Concomitant Variation

1. Method of Agreement A common tool of scientific inquiry that looks for the sole circumstance invariably associated with a particular effect in m circumstance as the cause or the effect. "If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumsta the cause (of effect) of the given phenomenon."

Symbolically: Person or instance 1: A B C D occur together with w x y z Person or instance 2: A E F G occur together with w t u v Person or instance 3: A H I J occur together with w q r s Therefore, A is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of w. Example: Person or instance 1: Eating fish, chips, ketchup, and red bull occurs together with symptoms a, b, c, and d. Person or instance 2: Eating fish, carrots, lemon, and diet coke occurs together with symptoms a, e, f, and g. Person or instance 3: Eating fish, asparagus, mashed potatoes, and wine occurs together with symptoms a, h, i, and j. Therefore, eating fish is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of symptom a. Weakness: the method of agreement is essentially eliminative, and requires uniform agreement among its phenomena.

2. Method of Difference A common tool of scientific inquiry that looks for the sole circumstance that varies between an instance in which an effec effect is not produced, and considers that circumstance the cause or part of the cause or effect. "If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have eve occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or the cause, or an in phenomenon." Symbolically: Person or instance 1: A B C D occur together with w x y z Person or instance 2: B C D occur together with x y z Therefore, A is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of w. Example: Person or instance 1: Eating fish, chips, ketchup, and red bull occurs together with symptoms a, b, c, and d. Person or instance 2: Eating chips, ketchup, and red bull occurs together with symptoms b, c, and d. Therefore, eating fish is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of symptom a. Note: powerful in scientific tests, especially genetic tests where mice are bred to lack certain genes.

3. Joint Method of Agreement and Difference The use of a combination of the method of agreemtn and the method of difference in order to give the conclusion a high "If two or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one circumstance in common, while two or more in nothing in common save the absense of that circumstance: the circumstance in which alone the two sets of instances diff of the cause, of the phenomenon." Symbolically: Person or instance 1: A B C occur together with x y z Person or instance 2: A D E occur together with x v w also B C occur with y z Therefore, A is the cause, the effect, or part of the cause of x.

4. Method of Residues A pattern of inductive inference in which, when some portions of the phenomenon under investigation are known to be t we may conclude that the remaining portion of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents. "Subduct from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and of the remaining antecedents."

Symbolically: A B Cx y z B is known to be the cause of y C is known to be the cause of z Therefore, A is the cause of x.

5. Method of Concomitant Variation (Correlation) A pattern of inductive inference in which it is concluded that, when one phenomenon varies consistently with some othe there is some causal relation between the two phenomena. "Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is eithe is connected with it through some fact of causation." Symbolically: A B C occur together with x y z A B C results in x y z Therefore, A and x are causally connected.

ome cause is inferred from what is assumed to be its effect.

ally equivalent to "Q cannot be true unless P is true," or "if P is false then

oxygen; or, Combustion only if oxygen.

at knowing P to be true is adequate grounds to conclude that Q is also

aw (L).

ion for Q, Q can be implied to be a necessary condition for P. If P is

fficient for Q is to say two thingsthat P is necessary for Q and that P is

ny one another (often causally) in specified circumstances because they ce for the testing of causal laws.

eration: number of (confirming) instances.

s "canons of induction."

ith a particular effect in multiple instances, and suggests that

in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is

, b, c, and d. a, e, f, and g. ymptoms a, h, i, and j.

t among its phenomena.

instance in which an effect is produced and an instance in which the . t does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one fect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the

, b, c, and d. nd d.

enes.

give the conclusion a higher degree of probability. mon, while two or more instances in which it does not occur have e two sets of instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part

stigation are known to be the effects of certain identified antecedents, antecedents. of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect

nsistently with some other phenomenon, either directly or inversely,

particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or

Fallacies A fallacy, as logicians refer to it, designates not any error in reasoning, but typical errorsmistakes in reasoning whose co argument, however, in which the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from its premises contains a flaw in reasoning and

We will define a fallacy as a type of argument that may seem to be correct but that proves, on examination, not to be so. type occurs is said to commit that fallacy. Formal fallacies are types of mistakes that are made in constructing syllogisms or in using logical symbols. Informal fallacies are types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions

Classification of Informal Fallacies Fallacies of Relevance (R) the premises are simply not relevant to the conclusion drawn. This is the most numerous a Fallacies of Defective Induction (D) the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak is a blunder. This is also quite common. Fallacies of Presumption (P) too much is assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on tho Fallacies of Ambiguity (A) arise from equivocal use of words or phrases in the premises or in the conclusion, with som in different parts of the argument.

Fallacies of Relevance R1 The Appeal to Emotion ad populum "to the populace" In place of evidence and rational argument, appeals to emotion rely on expressive language and other devices calculated some cause. A conclusion is defended with premises that are directed mainly at emotions is fallacious.

Example: The oratory of Adolf Hitler can be taken as a classic example. Love of a country is an honorable emotionbut th manipulate and milead one's audience is intellectually disreputable. Example: Commercial advertising, in which products are associated with, explicitly or slyly, as things we yearn for or excit R2 The Appeal to Pity ad misericordiam "to a pitying heart" The argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than reason. This is a special (but common) subcategory of

Example: An attorney, seeking compensatory damages for the injuries of a client, will seek to have the client's continuing heart-rendering way. Conversely, a defense attorney for a client accused of murdering his mother and father may plead f now an orphan.

R3 The Appeal to Force ad baculum "to the stick" The acceptance of a conclusion relies on the threat of force rather than on reason. It needs not be physical or explicitly st Example: Religion often appeals to this notion in saying "You must believe in Godafter all, if you do not accept His exist eternal hell.

Example: "You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours late building anyways, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later." R4 The Argument Against the Person ad hominem "against the person"

An argument which links the validity of a premise or conclusion to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the s undermine the opponent's argument; the mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem. If someone will reduce/increase their credibility as a witness, but it won't prove that their testimony is false/true.

Of the form: 1. Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on (or praises) person A. Therefore, A's claim is false/ Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. Insults and even true negative facts about personal character h of the opponent's assertions. Example: "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone's assertion is false because he is in circumstances such that he This constitutes an attack on the bias of a source, and is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does

Example: It may be unfairly suggested that a clergyman must accept a given proposition because its denial would be inco

Ad hominem tu quoque ("you too," or "you're another") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has s with the argument (i.e., a hypocrite). This is fallacious because it does not logically disprove the argument. Indeed, the pe to provide personal testimony on the negative consequences of the stated action.

Example: A father may tell his son not to start smoking, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This regret smoking when he is older, and the fact that his father was a smoker means he can talk from a position of experienc

Guilt by association this can sometimes be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because o someone making an argument and other proponents.

Example: Source A (President Obama) makes claim P (healthcare should be universally available). Group B (socialists) also (Obama) is a member of group B (socialists). Also, "Hitler and Stalin would agree with you."

Inverse ad hominem an argument that praises a source in order to add irrelevant support for that source's argument Example: "That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him." R5 Irrelevant Conclusion ignoratio elenchi "mistaken proof/refutation"

Arguments that have premises that are directed at the support of a conclusion different from the conclusion they purpor but successfully distracts the attention of the audience.

Straw man fallacy an argument directed against a weakened or distorted position presented as though it were true o Example: "Person A said we should liberalize laws on [beer], but any society with [unrestricted access to intoxicants] lose immediate gratification. Therefore, we should reject A's claim that we should liberalize laws on beer.

Red herring fallacy a deceptive argument that attacks some alleged feature of a proposed program that's not in fact changing the subject and distracting the attention of the audience from the matter genuinely at issue. Example: "I think/don't think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that yo a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

Non sequitor or "does not follow" this term is commonly applied when the gap between the premises and the concl

akes in reasoning whose common pattern can be detected. Any ins a flaw in reasoning and can be labelled as fallacious.

examination, not to be so. An argument in which a mistake of this

ical symbols. ontent of the propositions constituting the argument.

his is the most numerous and frequently encountered. e conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them

nclusion depending on those unwarranted assumptions. in the conclusion, with some critical term having different senses

d other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against acious.

onorable emotionbut the appeal to that love in order to

hings we yearn for or excite us favorably.

common) subcategory of ad populum.

ave the client's continuing disability revealed to the jury in some her and father may plead for leniency on the grounds that he is

be physical or explicitly stated. ou do not accept His existence, then you will face the horrors of

uring your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your

he person advocating the stance. MUST be used in an attempt to ad hominem. If someone is a known liar/truth-teller, that fact e/true.

erefore, A's claim is false/true. volve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or bout personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits

taxes in 2003."

rcumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. e a certain argument does not make the argument false.

e its denial would be incompatible with the scriptures.

making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent argument. Indeed, the person making the claim may be a position

er is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may om a position of experience.

attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of

e). Group B (socialists) also make claim P. Therefore, source A

or that source's argument or claim.

d vote for him."

he conclusion they purport to establish. Often "misses the point"

d as though it were true of an opponent's assertion. access to intoxicants] loses its work ethic and goes only for beer.

program that's not in fact an element of that program, in effect t issue. ents. I recommend that you support/reject this because we are in

he premises and the conclusion is painfully wide.

Classification of Informal Fallacies Fallacies of Relevance (R) the premises are simply not relevant to the conclusion drawn. This is the most numerous a Fallacies of Defective Induction (D) the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak blunder. This is also quite common. Fallacies of Presumption (P) too much is assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on tho Fallacies of Ambiguity (A) arise from equivocal use of words or phrases in the premises or in the conclusion, with som parts of the argument.

Fallacies of Defective Induction D1 The Argument from Ignorance ad ignorantiam It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true/false simply because it has not been proven false/true (respectively) as well as opposed, by an appeal to ignorance. Example: When Wisconsin reduced the additional benefits it gave to the welfare mothers for having more than one child any evidence that unwed mothers were having additional children simply in order to gain the added income. His reply, ad is no evidence on the contrary, either." D2 The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority ad verecundiam A conclusion is claimed to be true based on the judgment of an authority who has no legitimate claim to expertise in the support a claim without committing the fallacy. Example: When a parent says to a child who asks why he or she must take an action, "because I said so."

Bandwagon fallacy an argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it. "If ma Example: "Watch show X, because it's the #1-watched show on television!" Exceptions : social conventions, grammar, existence of a belief, democratic processes. D3 False Cause non causa pro causa An argument presumes the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist. Several types:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc "after this, therefore because of this" mere temporal succession is suggested to establish Example: "Rooster syndrome" for "giving credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun." Cum hoc ergo propter hoc "with this, therefore because of this" correlation is used to imply causation. A occurs in cor may really be the cause of B, B may be the cause of A, some unknown third factor may be the cause of both, or pure coin Example: "With an increase in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming. Therefore, global war Slippery slope fallacy argues that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating Example: "Once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule D4 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) ad dictum simpliciter Conclusions are drawn about all the persons or things in a given class on the basis of our knowledge about only one (or a people from certain countries or cultures illustrates this fallacy. Example: "My son Martyn has been eating fish and chips his whole life, and his recent cholesterol test shows he is below fryer's shop is healthy than his son?"

ant to the conclusion drawn. This is the most numerous and frequently encountered. ment, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is a

mises, the inference to the conclusion depending on those unwarranted assumptions. or phrases in the premises or in the conclusion, with some critical term having different senses in different

"appeal to ignorance" because it has not been proven false/true (respectively). This can lead to changes that are both supported,

e to the welfare mothers for having more than one child, the governor of Wisconsin was asked if there was n simply in order to gain the added income. His reply, ad ignorantiam, was this: "No, there isn't, but there

"to respect" uthority who has no legitimate claim to expertise in the matter. But, expert authority can be used to

must take an action, "because I said so."

n to be true because many or all people believe it. "If many believe it, it is so." elevision!" emocratic processes.

"non-cause for cause" es not really exist. Several types:

" mere temporal succession is suggested to establish a causal connection. owing for the rising of the sun." " correlation is used to imply causation. A occurs in correlation with B, therefore (A B). In reality, A nown third factor may be the cause of both, or pure coincidence may exist. een an increase in global warming. Therefore, global warming is caused by pirates." inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule." Often argues for status quo.

"to a maxim without qualification" class on the basis of our knowledge about only one (or a very few) of the members. Stereotypes about

le life, and his recent cholesterol test shows he is below the national average. What better proof that a

Classification of Informal Fallacies Fallacies of Relevance (R) the premises are simply not relevant to the conclusion drawn. This is the most numerous a Fallacies of Defective Induction (D) the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak blunder. This is also quite common. Fallacies of Presumption (P) too much is assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on tho Fallacies of Ambiguity (A) arise from equivocal use of words or phrases in the premises or in the conclusion, with som different parts of the argument.

Fallacies of Presumption P1 Accident a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid A generalization that is true by and large may not apply in a given case, or to some subcategory of cases, for good reason accidental circumstances are ignored, and we assume the generalization applies universally, we commit this fallacy. Example: "Cutting people with a knife is a crime. Surgeons cut people with knives. Therefore, surgeons are criminals."

P2 Complex Question plirium interrogationum A question that has a buried presupposition that is assumed to be acceptable when the question is answered directly. On necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question, and are intended to trick them into replying in a way they argument become fallacious. Fallacious example: "With all the hysteria, fear, and phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the grea Legitimate example: "Who is the Queen of the United Kingdom?" (assumes there is a place called the United Kingdom an

P3 Begging the Question (Circular Argument) petitio principii The conclusion is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises; i.e., the issue at stake is given as evidence. Always a circ Example: The principle of induction states that laws of nature will operate tomorrow as they operate today, and that natu has always operated consistently in the past" to support this conclusion is to assume the very issue at stake.

his is the most numerous and frequently encountered. e conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is a

nclusion depending on those unwarranted assumptions. in the conclusion, with some critical term having different senses in

"from a maxim without qualification" of cases, for good reasons ("accidental" circumstances). If these e commit this fallacy. urgeons are criminals."

"of many questions" n is answered directly. Only when some of the presuppositions are not nto replying in a way they wouldn't if the question was simple, does the

global warming is the greatest hoax ever invented?" ed the United Kingdom and it has a Queen)

"assuming the initial point" as evidence. Always a circular argument. perate today, and that nature is uniform. When using "Because nature ssue at stake.

Classification of Informal Fallacies Fallacies of Relevance (R) the premises are simply not relevant to the conclusion drawn. This is the most numerous a Fallacies of Defective Induction (D) the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak blunder. This is also quite common. Fallacies of Presumption (P) too much is assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on tho Fallacies of Ambiguity (A) arise from equivocal use of words or phrases in the premises or in the conclusion, with som different parts of the argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity A1 Equivocation Two or more meanings of a word or phrase are confused, and used in different parts of an argument. Often utilizes a rela "have faith in." Example: In Syllogism "A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark." Example: Semantic shift "Women do not need to worry about man-eating sharks (sharks devouring only male human b Example: Metaphor "All jackasses have long ears (male donkey). Carl is a jackass (metaphorical use). Therefore, Carl ha

A2 Amphibole Arguments presented within an ambiguous grammatical structure. The argument contains a premise based on one interp different interpretation. Example: "Dr. Salick donated, along with his wife, Gloria, $4.5 million to Queens College. Donations are tax-deductible. Gl Example: "No food is better than our food." "Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's getting too dangerous on the st

A3 Accent An argument that may prove deceptive, and invalid, when the shift of meaning within it arises from changes in the empha Example: "We should not speak ill of our friends" changes with the accent of different words, i.e., we stressed implies oth do ill, friends stressed implies we should speak ill about people other than friends. Example: Cutting quotations to accent unrepresentative portions, e.g. "Mr. Gore said that 'there is no proven link betwee fallacious if the quotation was actually introduced by 'some tobacco company scientists will claim with a straight face..'

A4 Composition "From Each to All" Two types, distrinct in that the former describes a relationship between a part (e.g. bricks or parts) and a whole (a house describes a relationship between a member of a set (a janitor) and the collection of all members in the set (all janitors co Reasoning fellaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself. (components of a Example: "Since every ship is ready for battle, the whole fleet is ready for battle." "Since every part of the machine is ligh Reasoning fellaciously from attributes of the individual elements or members of a collection to attributes of the collecti words, assuming that what may be true distributively is also true of the term collectively . (members of a set to collection Example: "Buses use more gasoline than automobiles" is true distributively but not collectively, because there are many m Example: "Atomic bombs dropped during WWII did more damage than ordinary bombs dropped" is true distributively bu

Distributive "College students may enroll in no more than six different classes each semester" implies a distributive us student individually. Collective "College students enroll in hundreds of different classes each semester" implies a collective use; the statem A5 Division "From All to Each"

The reverse of the fallacy of composition. Two types, distinct in the same way mentioned above. Reasoning fellaciously that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts. Example: "Since the machine is heavy, the component parts are distributively heavy." Reasoning fellaciously from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves. Example: "University students study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry; therefore, each/any university students studie

Distinguishing between Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) and Composition, and between Accident and Division "From All to Each" The reverse of the fallacy of composition. Two types, distinct in the same way mentioned above. Reasoning fellaciously that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts. Example: "Since the machine is heavy, the component parts are distributively heavy." Reasoning fellaciously from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves. Example: "University students study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry; therefore, each/any university students studie

his is the most numerous and frequently encountered. e conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is a

nclusion depending on those unwarranted assumptions. in the conclusion, with some critical term having different senses in

ment. Often utilizes a relative or ambiguous term, such as "good" or

annot be dark." vouring only male human beings)." cal use). Therefore, Carl has long ears."

emise based on one interpretation while the conclusion relies on a

ions are tax-deductible. Gloria is tax-deductible." ng too dangerous on the streets."

rom changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. e., we stressed implies others should, speak stressed implies we should

e is no proven link between smoking and lung cancer'" would be im with a straight face..'

rts) and a whole (a house or a machine assembly), and the latter rs in the set (all janitors collectively). le itself. (components of assembly to assembly) part of the machine is light, the machine is light." o attributes of the collection or totality of those elements. In other mbers of a set to collection of all members) because there are many more cars than buses. d" is true distributively but not collectively.

r" implies a distributive use; the statement applies to each college

collective use; the statement applies to college students as a whole.

e.

elements themselves. university students studies medicine, law, etc..

e.

elements themselves. university students studies medicine, law, etc..

Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositionstwo premises and a conclusio categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice.

One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.

Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some relation between its midd the syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise.

Standard Form A categorical syllogism in standard form always begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes w conclusion in the final position, whichever premise contains its predicate term must be the major premise that should be

Mood Medieval logicians devised a simple way of labelling the various forms in which a categorical syllogism may occur by statin simply a statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises, listed in the order in which they appear in

Figure Since the positioning of the middle term in the two premises creates four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood, we ne statement of figure. In a first-figure syllogism, ; in second figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both premises; fourth figure, the middle term appears as the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term of the minor pre a simple chart showing the position of the terms in each of the premises:

Mnemonic shape of shirt collar for the m Figure First-figure Second-figure Third-figure Fourth-figure Major Premise Subject Predicate Subject Predicate Minor Premise Predicate Predicate Subject Subject

Forms Three occurrences of four possible combinations of quality/quantity creates the possibility for 4 3 = 64 distinct moods. Two occurrences of two possible relative positions of the middle term creates the possibility for 4 distinct figures. 64 moods and 4 figures creates 44 or 256 unique mood/figure combinations.

Rules and Fallacies Relying heavily upon the medieval tradition, Copi & Cohen provide a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary con Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the formal fallacies, errors in reasoning that result from reliance o

1. There must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms co terminorum). 2. The middle term must be distributed in at least one premise. In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuin the premises of a syllogism must provide some information about the entire class designated by the middle term. If the m then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely unrelated to each other. Syllogism of the undistributed middle. 3. Any term distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in its premise. A premise that refers only to some me term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every menber of that class. Depen syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.

4. Avoid two negative premises. Since the exclusion of the class designated by the middle term from each of the classes nothing about the relationship between those two classes, nothing follows from two negative premises. The fallacy of ex

5. If either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative. For similar reasons, no affirmative conclusion abo negative proposition about class exclusion. A violation results in the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from ne

6. From two universal premises no particular conclusion can be drawn. Because we do not assume the existential impor premises to establish the existential import that is part of any particular proposition. The existential fallacy violates this r

7. At least one premise must be universal. It cannot occur that both premises are particular and a relationship is stated b

Valid Syllogisms A careful application of these rules to the 256 possible forms of categorical syllogism (assuming the denial of existential im modern interpretation of categorical logic provides an easier method for determining the validity of categorical syllogism by name: Form Name Major Premise Minor Premise Only form with universal affirmative conclusion: Barbara AAA-1 All M is P. All S is M. Other universal premises and conclusion: Baroco AOO-2 All P is M. Some S is not M. Bocardo OAO-3 No M is P. All M is S. Universal premises (one affirmative) to derive universal negative conclusion: Camenes AEE-4 All P is M. No M is S. Camestres AEE-2 All P is M. No S is M. Celarent EAE-1 No M is P. All S is M. Cesare EAE-2 No P is M. All S is M. Universal premises (one affirmative) to derive particular affirmative conclusion: Darii AII-1 All M is P. Some S is M. Datisi AII-3 All M is P. Some M is S. Disamis IAI-3 Some M is P. All M is S. Dimaris IAI-4 Some P is M. All M is S. Only one mood is valid in all four figures, since both premises permit conversion: Ferio EIO-1 No M is P. Some S is M. Festino EIO-2 No P is M. Some S is M.

EIO-4 EIO-3

Fresison Ferison

No P is M. No M is P.

Some M is S. Some M is S.

Diagramming Syllogisms By combining the drawings of individual propositions, we can use Venn diagrams to assess the validity of categorical syllo 1. Draw three overlapping circles and label them to represent the major, minor, and middle terms of the syllogism.

2. Next, draw the diagrams of both the syllogism's premises. Always begin with a universal proposition, no matter whether it's the major or minor premise. Remember that you will be using only two of the circles in each case; ignore the third circle. 3. Finally, without drawing it, look for the drawing of the conclusion. If the syllogism is valid, then the drawing will already For example: No M is P. Some M is S. Some S is not P. First premise: 'No M is P.'

Second premise: 'Some M is S.'

Conclusion 'Some S is not P' is already drawn above. Therefore, the conclusion is valid.

Further Venn Diagram Examples

AAA-1 (valid) All M is P. All S is M. All S is P.

AAA-3 (invalid) All M is P. All M is S. All S is P.

OAO-3 (valid) Some M is not P. All M is S. Some S is not P.

EOO-2 (invalid) No P is M. Some S is not M. Some S is not P.

IOO-1 (invalid) Some M is P. Some S is not M. Some S is not P.

premises and a conclusionin which there appear a total of exactly three

call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the yllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be employed in

lation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of mise.

inor, and then finishes with the conclusion. Once we've identified the premise that should be stated first.

gism may occur by stating its mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is r in which they appear in standard form, e.g. OAO.

h syllogistic mood, we need to supplement this labelling system with a term of both premises; in third, the subject term of both premises; and in ct term of the minor premise. (The four figures may be easier to remember as

pe of shirt collar for the middle term Ms:

= 64 distinct moods. 4 distinct figures.

h states a necessary condition for the validity of any categorical syllogism. hat result from reliance on an invalid logical form:

more than three terms commits the fallacy of four terms (quaternio

the presence of a genuine connection between the major and minor terms, the middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both premises, to each other. Syllogisms that violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy

t refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor nber of that class. Depending which of the terms is misused in this way, or.

rom each of the classes designated by the major and minor terms entails emises. The fallacy of exclusive premises violates this rule.

irmative conclusion about class inclusion can follow if either premise is a ative conclusion from negative premises.

me the existential import of universal propositions, they cannot be used as tial fallacy violates this rule.

a relationship is stated between the two terms.

he denial of existential import) leaves only 15 that are valid. Although the of categorical syllogisms, it may be worthwhile to note the fifteen valid cases

Conclusion All S is P. Some S is not P. No S is M. No S is P. No S is P. No S is P. No S is P. Some S is P. Some S is P. Some S is P. Some S is P. Some S is not P. Some S is not P.

Some S is not P. Some S is not P.

lidity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple three-step procedure:

s of the syllogism.

. the drawing will already by done.

Categorical Syllogisms We can perform the deduction of the 15 valid forms of the syllogism by determining which of the possible forms violate a Maj. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I I I I Min. A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I Conc. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Fig. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Violation? Barbara 2 4 4 6 6 6 6 4 2, 4 4 2, 4 4, 6 4, 6 6 2, 6 6 6 4, 6 4, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 4, 6 4, 6 4, 6 4, 6 4, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 2 2 4 4 6 6 6 6 2, 4 2, 4 2, 4 Maj. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I I I I Min. A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I Conc. E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Fig. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2, 4 4, 6 4, 6 2, 6 2, 6 2, 6 6 4, 6 4, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 2, 4, 6 4, 6 2, 4, 6 4, 6 4, 5, 6 4, 5, 6 2, 5, 6 5, 6

I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

which of the possible forms violate any one of the fundamental rules of the syllogism. Violation? 3 2 3, 4 4 3 Camestres 3 Camenes 3, 4 2, 4 3, 4 2, 4 3, 4 4 3 2 Celarant Cesare 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4, 5 4, 5 5 5 2, 3 2, 3 3, 4 3, 4 3 3 3 3 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4 Maj. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I I I I Min. A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I Conc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fig. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Violation? 7 2, 7 7 7 6, 7 6, 7 6, 7 6, 7 Darii 2 Datisi 2 6 6 6 2, 6 6, 7 6, 7 6, 7 6, 7 5, 6, 7 5, 6, 7 5, 6, 7 5, 6, 7 6 6 6 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 2 2 Disamis Dimaris 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 Maj. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I I I I Min. A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I Conc. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

2, 3, 4 3, 4 3, 4 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 3 4 3, 4 5 3, 5 5 3, 5 2, 4 3, 4 2, 4 3, 4 4, 5 3, 4, 5 2, 5 3, 5

I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2 6 6 2, 6 2, 6 2, 6 6 6 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 2, 6 6 2, 6 6 5, 6 5, 6 2, 5, 6 5, 6

I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I O O O O A A A A E E E E I I I I O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Fig. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Violation? 3, 7 2, 7 3, 7 7 3, 7 7 3, 7 7 3 2 3 2 3 Baroko 3 2 7 7 7 7 5, 7 5, 7 5, 7 5, 7 Ferio Festino Ferison Fresison 5 5 5 5 2, 3 2, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3

4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2, 3 3 3 2, 3 2, 3 2 3 Bokardo 3 5 3, 5 5 3, 5 2 3 2 3 5 3, 5 2, 5 3, 5

Rules: 1. Fallacy of four terms. 2. Fallacy of undistributed middle. 3. Fallacy of the illicit major. 4. Fallacy of the illicit minor. 5. Fallacy of exclusive premises. 6. Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. 7. Existential fallacy.

Propositional Logic Propositional logic studies arguments whose validity depends on "if-then," "and," "or," "not," and similar notions.

Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false. Contrary to the notation u convey propositional statements by complete declarative sentences, such as "Alan bears an uncanny resemblance to Jona and Lloyd are an unbeatable team."

Propositional Language Specific statements are represented by using capital letters of the alphabet as statement constants. Thus, for example, w mentioned aboveletting A standing for "Alan bears an uncanny resemblance to Jonathan," B standing for "Betty enjoys Lloyd are an unbeatable team." Five special symbols are used to form well-formed formulas (wff): Symbol ~P or P (P Q) (P v Q) (P Q) (P Q) Name Logical Negation Conjunction Disjunction Material Implication Material Equivalence Represents Not-P Both P and Q Either P or Q If P then Q P if and only if Q

Function Reverses the truth value of any statement (simple or compound) Compound statement is true only if both the component statem Compound statement is true whenever either (or both) is true. Compound statement is true unless the antecedent (left) is true Compound statement is true only when its component statemen

Well-formed formulas are constructed using these rules: Any capital letter is a wff. The result of prefixing any wff with "~" is a wff. The result of joining any two wffs by "" or "v" or "" or "" and enclosing the result in parentheses is a wff. Examples of wffs: P = "I went to Paris." ~Q = "I didn't go to Paris." (P ~Q) = "I went to Paris and I did not go to Quebec." (N (P ~Q)) = "If I'm Napoleon, then I went to Paris and I did not go to Quebec." (P (N v Q)) = "I went to Paris if and only if (iff) either I'm Napoleon or I went to Quebec."

Truth Tables The five logical operators are all truth-functional connectives; the truth or falsity of each compound statement formed b of the component statements and the meaning of the connective. Thus, using statement variables in order to cover every can develop a convenient truth-table to define the meaning of each statement connective. The total rows necessary to e terms) : 2 terms = 4 rows, 3 terms = 8 rows, 4 terms = 16 rows, 5 terms = 32 rows, etc.

Truth-Table Test

To conduct a truth-table test, take a propositional argument, and construct a truth table showing the truth value of the p argument is valid if and only if no possible case has the premises all true and the conclusion false. An example is below: If you're a dog, then you're an animal. You're not a dog. You're not an animal. (D A) ~D ~A

In the above example, all premises are true and lead to a false conclusion. Therefore, the argument is invalid. The truth table reveals the case in which you are not a dog and you are an animal. This makes the premises true, but the

As a shortcut, we can immediately disregard any row of the truth table containing a false premise, since we are only look argument invalid.

Truth Assignment Test To conduct a truth assignment test, take a propositional argument and set each premise to 1 and the conclusion to 0. The assigning 1 and 0 to the letters will make this work. So we can't make the premises all true and the conclusion false. Exam It's in my left hand or my right hand. It's not in my left hand. It's in my right hand. (L v R) = 1 ~L = 1 R=0 (L0 v R0) 1 Valid ~L0 = 1 R =0 (L0 v R1) = 1 Invalid ~L0 = 1 ~R = 0
1 0

Since we cannot consistently set the above premises to true and the conclusion to false, the argument is valid. True prem It's in my left hand or my right hand. It's not in my left hand. It's not in my right hand. (L v R) = 1 ~L = 1 ~R = 0

Since we can make the premises true and the conclusion false, the argument is invalid.

nd similar notions.

Contrary to the notation used to represent categorical terms/propositions, we canny resemblance to Jonathan," "Betty enjoys watching John cook," or "Chris

ants. Thus, for example, we could use A , B , and C to represent the statements standing for "Betty enjoys watching John cook," and C standing for "Chris and

ent (simple or compound). th the component statements are true. r either (or both) is true. e antecedent (left) is true and the consequent (right) is false. n its component statements have the same truth value.

theses is a wff.

ound statement formed by using them is wholly determined by the truth-value les in order to cover every possible combination of truth-values (T or F), we total rows necessary to encapsulate every possibility will be 2 (number of unique

ng the truth value of the premises and conclusion for all possible cases. The e. An example is below:

ment is invalid. he premises true, but the conclusion false.

se, since we are only looking for a string of true-true-false to prove our

nd the conclusion to 0. The argument is valid if and only if no consistent way of the conclusion false. Example:

gument is valid. True premises must lead to a valid conclusion.

Types of Statement Forms A statement form is a string of symbols including only statement variables, and connectives (along with parenthetical pun substitution of a statement for each of its variables would result in a well-formed compound statement. Tautology A statement that is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a false assertion.

(A v ~A)

Contradiction A statement that is necessarily false because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a true assertion.

(A ~A)

Contingency Most statement forms are neither tautologous Nor self-contradictory; their truth-tables contain both 1s and 0s.

(A ~B)

Rules Inference rules state that certain formulas can be derived from certain other formulas. These rules are important in their reflect common forms of reasoning. The same rules will be building blocks for formal proofs, which reduce a complex arg small steps, each based on an inference rule. There are two kinds of inference rule: simplification/substitution rules, and inference rules. Substitution/Replacement Rules: Inference Rules: Double Negation (D.N.) Modus Ponens (M.P.) De Morgan's Theorems (DeM) Modus Tollens (M.T.) Material Implication (Impl.) Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.) Transposition (Trans.) Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.) Material Equivalence (Equiv.) Constructive Dillemma (C.D.) Commutation (Comm.) Absorption (Abs.) Association (Assoc.) Simplification (Simp.) Distribution (Dist.) Conjunction (Conj.) Exportation (Exp.) Addition (Add.) Tautology (Taut.)

Substitution Rules Substitution instances may be used to replace statement forms of logical equivalence wherever they occur within a form argument.

1. Double Negation (D.N.) No matter what simple or compound statement we substitute for p, the statement with two ~s in front will have the sam "Alan is clever." is equivalent to "It is not the case that Alan is not clever," or "Alan is not non-clever." A ~~A

2. De Morgan's Theorems (DeM) Together, De Morgan's Theorems establish a systematic relationship between statements and v statements. "I am not both bald and fat." is equivalent to "Either I am not bald or I am not fat."

~(A B) (~A v ~B) ~(A v B) (~A ~B)

3. Material Implication (Impl.) This tautologous biconditional amounts to a logical definition of the connective in terms of v and the ~. Since these two logically equivalent, we could make the conditional assertions without using the symbol at all. "If it rains, then we cancel the picnic." is equivalent to "Either it doesn't rain, or we cancel the picnic."

(A B) (~A v B)

4. Transposition (Trans.) Transposition shows the logical equivalence of any statement with another statement that results from switching its an consequent and negating both. "If it produces pleasure, then it is right." is equivalent to "If it isn't right, then it doesn't produce pleasure."

(A B) (~B ~A)

5. Material Equivalence (Equiv.)

In the first form, is defined in terms of , justifying the use of the term "biconditional." In the second form, is defined basic truth conditions, i.e. "either both true or both false." "We ski if and only if it snows." is equivalent to "If we ski then it snows, and if it snows then we ski," and to "Either we ski don't ski and it doesn't snow."

(A B) (A B) (B A)

(A B) (A B) v (~A ~B)

6. Commutation (Comm.) Commutation shows that statements of conjunction and disjunction forms can simply be reversed at any time. "Either Spot is brown or Tabby is white." is equivalent to "Either Tabby is white or Spot is brown."

(A B) (B A) (A v B) (B v A)

7. Association (Assoc.) Association permits modification of the parenthetical grouping of certain statements. "Harold is over 21, and so are Jane and Kelly." is equivalent to "Harold and Jane are over 21, and so is Kelly." (A v (B v C)) ((A v B) v C)

(A (B C)) ((A B) C)

8. Distribution (Dist.) Distribution exhibits the systematic features of statements in which both disjunctions and conjunctions appear. In one of distributed over a disjunction. In the other, a disjunct is distributed over a conjunction.

"Paul is tall, and so is either Susan or James." is equivalent to "Either Paul and Susan are tall, or Paul and James are." *A (B v C)+ *(A B) v (A C)+

*A v (B C)+ *(A v B) (A v C)+

9. Exportation (Exp.) Exportation shows a relationship between a conjunction as the antecedent of a statement, and a string of two conditiona "If Harry is tall and quick, then he plays well." is equivalent to "If Harry is tall, then if he's quick, then he plays well."

*(A B) C+ *A (B C)+

10. Tautology (Taut.) Although ordinary-language use seems pointless and redundant, this pattern of reasoning is a useful principle in the rigor formal proofs. "Paul is tall." is equivalent to "Paul is tall or Paul is tall" and "Paul is tall and Paul is tall."

A (A v A)

A (A A)

(along with parenthetical punctuation) such that the d statement.

to make a false assertion.

to make a true assertion.

ntain both 1s and 0s.

se rules are important in their own right, since they s, which reduce a complex argument to a series of

ever they occur within a formal proof of a deductive

o ~s in front will have the same truth value. n-clever."

and v statements.

of v and the ~. Since these two statements are at all. he picnic."

at results from switching its antecedent and

duce pleasure."

the second form, is defined by pointing out its we ski," and to "Either we ski and it snows or we

versed at any time. own."

, and so is Kelly."

onjunctions appear. In one of its forms, a conjunct is

, or Paul and James are."

and a string of two conditionals. ick, then he plays well."

s a useful principle in the rigorous development of

Inference Rules Inference rules are used to infer a conclusion that follows validly from the premise(s). 1. Modus Ponens - M.P. (Affirm the Antecedent) If the antecedent is confirmed, the consequent must follow. "If Tuesday is the 14th, then Friday must be the 17th. Tuesday is the 14th. Therefore, Friday is the 17th." (A B), A B

2. Modus Tollens - M.T. (Deny the Consequent) If the consequent is denied, the antecedent must also be denied. "If it had rained this morning, then the grass would still be wet. But the grass is not wet. Therefore, it did not rain this mo (A B), ~B ~A

3. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.) In a string of premises linking three terms with material implications, the first and third terms can be linked. "If Debbie is promoted, then Gene will be too. If Gene is promoted, then Kim will be angry. Therefore, if Debbie is promo angry."

(A B), (B C) (A C)

Note: There are no instances in which the premises are satisfied but the conclusion is not. There are four instances in whi satisfied along with the conclusion: Debbie is promoted, Gene is promoted, Kim is angry. Debbie is not promoted, Gene is promoted, Kim is angry. Debbie is not promoted, Gene is not promoted, Kim is angry. Debbie is not promoted, Gene is not promoted, Kim is not angry. 4. Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.) In an either-or statement, if one term is false, the other term must be true.

"The ball is either in my left hand or my right hand. The ball is not in my left hand. Therefore, the ball is in my right hand." (A v B), ~A B

5. Constructive Dillemma (C.D.) The most complex of the rules of inference, Constructive Dillemma involves four variables and a 16-line truth table. "If it's sunny tomorrow we'll have a picnic, and if it rains we'll go bowling. But either it will be sunny or it will rain tomorro we'll have a picnic or we'll go bowling."

(A B) (C D) (A v C) (B v D)

6. Absorption (Abs.) In a material implication statement, the consequent can be expanded to include both the antecedent and the consequen "If Mary comes to the party, then so will George. Therefore, if Mary comes to the party, then both Mary and George will.

(A B), *A (A B)+

7. Simplification (Simp.) Simplification allows the truth of a conjunct to be inferred from the truth of a conjunction in which it resides. "Jevona is tall and Jevona is thin. Therefore, Jevona is tall."

(A B), A, B

8. Conjunction (Conj.) Conversely, conjunction permits the derivation of a conjunction from the truth of both of its conjuncts. "Kay has a doctorate. Alan has a doctorate. Therefore, both Kay and Alan have doctorates." A, B (A B)

9. Addition (Add.) Addition warrants an inference from any true statement to its disjunction with anything whatsoever. This is an amazingly it permits us to introduce any new statement into the context of a proof. "The bird is flying. Therefore, either the bird is flying or the pig is flying." A, B (A B)

is the 17th."

erefore, it did not rain this morning."

ms can be linked. Therefore, if Debbie is promoted, then Kim will be

here are four instances in which all the premises are

e, the ball is in my right hand."

nd a 16-line truth table. e sunny or it will rain tomorrow. Therefore, either

ntecedent and the consequent. n both Mary and George will."

n which it resides.

s conjuncts.

atsoever. This is an amazingly powerful device, since

Proofs Formal proofs help us to develop reasoning skills and are a convenient way to test arguments of various systems. The invalid arguments differs slightly.

Method 1. Start: Block off the conclusion and add "asm:" followed by the conclusion's simpler contradictory. 2. Simplify & Infer (S&I): Go through the unstarred, complex, not-blocked-off wffs and use these to derive whatever n Star (with one star for each not-blocked-off assumption any wff you simplify using an S-rule, or the longer wff used in contradiction, apply RAA (step 3). If you can derive nothing further and yet have no contradiction, then make another otherwise, refute (step 5).

3. RAA: Since you have a contradiction, apply RAA. If all assumptions are now blocked off, you've proven the argumen having more stars than the number of not-blocked-off assumptions. Then return to step 2.

4. Assume: Make another assumption if you have an unstarred, not-blocked-off wff of one of these forms for which y negation: ~(A B), (A v B), (A B) Assume one side or its negation and then return to step 2. 5. Refute: Here all complex, not-blocked-off wffs are either starred or already broken up and yet you have no contra simple wffs (letters or their negation) that aren't blocked off. In the original argument, mark each letter "1" or "0" or letter or its negation or neither in the box. These truth conditions should make the premises all true and conclusion fa invalid.

Valid Examples Premise 1: If the world had a beginning of time (B) and didn't just pop into existence without any cause (~P), then th Premise 2: If the world was caused by God (C), then there is a God (G). Premise 3: There is no God (~G) Conclusion: Either the world had no beginning in time (~B), or it just popped into existence without any cause (P).

* 1. * 2. 3.

((B ~P) C) (C G) ~G (~B v P) asm: ~(~B v P) B ~P ~C ~(B ~P) ~B P (B v P)

* 4. 5. 6. 7. * 8. 9. 10 11.

 Premise 1: If logical positivism is true (T) and is a genuine truth claim (G), then it's either experimentally testable (E) Premise 2: LP isn't experimentally testable (~E). Premise 3: LP isn't true by definition (~D). Premise 4: If LP isn't a genuine truth claim (~G), then it isn't true (~T). Conclusion: LP isn't true (~T). * 1. 2. 3. * 4. 5. 6. 7. * 8. 9. 10. 11. ((T G) (E v D)) ~E ~D (~G ~T) ~T asm: T G (T G) (E v D) E D ~T

Invalid Examples Premise 1: If the maid prepared the drink (M), then the butler didn't prepare it (~B) Premise 2: The maid didn't prepare the drink (~M). Premise 3: If the butler prepared the drink (B), then the butler poisoned the drink (P) and the butler is guilty (G). Conclusion: The butler is guilty (G).

1. 2. 3.

(M ~B) ~M ((B (P G)) G asm: ~G asm: ~B (break up 3) No more possible inferences

4. 5.

elop reasoning skills and are a convenient way to test arguments of various systems. The method for solving valid arguments and htly.

sion and add "asm:" followed by the conclusion's simpler contradictory. hrough the unstarred, complex, not-blocked-off wffs and use these to derive whatever new wffs you can using the S- and I- rules. not-blocked-off assumption any wff you simplify using an S-rule, or the longer wff used in an I-rule inference. If you get a ep 3). If you can derive nothing further and yet have no contradiction, then make another assumption if you can (step 4);

tradiction, apply RAA. If all assumptions are now blocked off, you've proven the argument valid. Otherwise, erase star strings umber of not-blocked-off assumptions. Then return to step 2.

sumption if you have an unstarred, not-blocked-off wff of one of these forms for which you don't already have one side or its

ion and then return to step 2. not-blocked-off wffs are either starred or already broken up and yet you have no contradiction. Draw a box containing any negation) that aren't blocked off. In the original argument, mark each letter "1" or "0" or "?" depending on whther you have the her in the box. These truth conditions should make the premises all true and conclusion false thus showing the argument to be

a beginning of time (B) and didn't just pop into existence without any cause (~P), then the world was caused by God (C). s caused by God (C), then there is a God (G). (~G) d had no beginning in time (~B), or it just popped into existence without any cause (P).

(from 4) (from 4) (from 3 and 2, Modus Tollens) (from 7 and 1, Modus Tollens) (from 6 and 8) (from 5 and 8) (from 4 5 contradicts 9, and 6 contradicts 10)

ism is true (T) and is a genuine truth claim (G), then it's either experimentally testable (E) or true by definition (D). entally testable (~E). definition (~D). uine truth claim (~G), then it isn't true (~T). T).

(from 5 and 4, Modus Tollens) (from 5 and 6) (from 1 and 8) (from 3 and 8, disjunctive syllogism) (from 2 and 8, disjunctive syllogism) (from 5, 2 contradicts 9, 3 contradicts 10)

pared the drink (M), then the butler didn't prepare it (~B) prepare the drink (~M). pared the drink (B), then the butler poisoned the drink (P) and the butler is guilty (G). uilty (G).

Refutation box: ~M, ~G, ~B, ?)

All premises could be true with the conclusion false. INVALID. The scenario in which it's false: The maid didn't prepare the drink. The butler didn't pour the drink. The butler is not guilty. The butler either did or did not poison the drink (unknown)

arious systems. The method for solving valid arguments and

ry. o derive whatever new wffs you can using the S- and I- rules. e longer wff used in an I-rule inference. If you get a then make another assumption if you can (step 4);

proven the argument valid. Otherwise, erase star strings

e forms for which you don't already have one side or its

t you have no contradiction. Draw a box containing any letter "1" or "0" or "?" depending on whther you have the ue and conclusion false thus showing the argument to be

y cause (~P), then the world was caused by God (C).

out any cause (P).

mentally testable (E) or true by definition (D).

utler is guilty (G).

(M0 ~B0) = (0 1) = 1 ~M = 1 ((B0 (P G0)) = ((0 (? 0)) = (0 0) = 1 G0 = 0

0

Predicate/Quantificational Logic