Logic The study of the methods and principles sed to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Proposition A statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence always either true or false—although its truth or falsity may be unknown. Statement A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itsell. Every statement must be elther true or false, although the truth oF falsity of a given statement may be unknown. Inference ‘A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of sone other proposition or propositions. Argument Any group of Propositions of which one Is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as Providing support or grounds for tne truth of Inat one. ‘Conclusion In any argument, the Propasition to which the otner propositions in the argument are claimed to give support, or for wich thoy are givan as Premises in an argument, the Propositions upon wnicn Interence Is basea: the Propositions that are Claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion. Conclusion indicator ‘Aword or phrase (such as “therefore” or “thus") appearing in an argument and usually indicating that wnat follows itis the conclusion of that argument. Premise indicator In an argument, a word or phrase (like “because” and "since”) that normally signals that what follows it are statements serving as premises. f Rhetorical question An utterance used to make a statement, but which, because it is in interrogative form and is therefore neither true nor false, does not literally assert anything. Enthymeme ‘An argument that Is stated incompletaly, the unstated part of it being taken for granted. vanity A charactenstic of any deductive argument wnose premises, If they wore all true, would Provide conciusive grounds for the truth of Mts conclusion. Such an argument is said to bo valle. Valiaity Is a tormal Characteristic: it applies ony to arguments. distinguished from truth,Deductive argument One of the two major types of argument traditionally distinguished, the other being the inductive argument. A deductive argument claims 10 provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion. If it does Provide such grounds, it is valid; if it does not. Is Invalic Inductive argument One of the two major types of argument traditionally distinguished, the other being the deductive argument. An inductive argument claims that its Premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion, Retrograde analysis Reasoning that seeks to explain how things must have developed from what went before. Lexical definition A definition that reports the meaning that the definiendum already has. A lexical definition can be true or false. Precising definition A definition devised to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness by delineating a concept more sharply. Denotative definition A definition that identifies the extension of a term, by (for example) listing the members of the class ‘of objects to which the term refers. An extensional definition.Theoretical definition A definition that encapsulates an understanding of the theory in which that term is a key element. Persuasive definition A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language. Operational definition A kind of connotative definition that states that the term to be defined is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance af Specified operations in that case ylelds a specified result. Definition by genus and difference A type of connotative definition of a term that first identifies the larger class (“genus”) of which the definiendum is a Species or subclass, and then identifies the attribute (‘difference’) that distinguishes the members of that species from members of all other species in that genus.Extension The collection of all the objects to which a term May correctly be applied. Intension The attributes shared by all and only the objects In the class that a given term denotes; the connotation of the term. Subjective intension The sot of all attributes that the speaker believes to be possessed by objects. denoted by a given term. ‘Objective intension The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the extension of a term. Conventional intension The commoniy accepted intension of a term; the criteria generally agreed upon for deciding, with respect to any object, whether itis part of the extension of that term. ‘Synonymous: definition Akind of connotative definition in which a word, phrase or symbol is defined in terms of another word, phrase or symbol that has the same meaning and is already understood.Fallacy A\type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a mistake in reasoning, Fallacy of relevance A fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Appeal to the populace An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conelusion is an appeal to popular belief, Also known as argument ad populum. Appeal to pity A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason. Also known as argument ad misericordiam. Red herring A fallacy in which attention Is deliberately deflected away from the issue under discussion.Argument against the person A fallacy in Missing the point A fallacy in which the which the argument premises support a relies upon an attack Appeal to force different conclusion trom against the person taking A fallacy in which the the one that is a position. This fallacy is argument relies upon an proposed. Also known also Known as open or velied threat of as "irelevant *Bagunent i feomriarn:* force. Also known as eats . “argument ad baculum.” anes Fallacy of defective induction Atallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion, Argument from Appeal to ignorance inappropriate Atallacy in which a authority A fallacy in False cause proposition is held to be elaine A fallacy in which bk) en eae, Gecao an petted something that is not or false because It has Said that itis true. This is really the cause of not been proven true. eared wee - not something aise Is Also known as ee ents treated as Its cause. neen et the conclusion. Also Also Known as.non ignorantiam: known as “argument ad causa pro causa. verecundiam.” Poisoning the well A variety of abusive ad Straw man hominem argument in A fallacy in which an which continued rational ‘opponent's position is exchange is undermined depicted as being more by attacking the good extreme or faith or intellectual unreasonable than is honesty of the justified by what was opponent. actually asserted.Post hoc ergo propter ‘noc A fallacy in which an event is presumed to nave been caused by a closely preceding event. Literally, “After this; therefore, because of thi: Slippery slope A fallacy in which change In a particular direction is asserted to lead inevitably to further changes (usually undesirable) in the same direction. Fallacy of presumption Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false. Fallacy of accident Aallacy in which a generalzation is mistakenly applied to. a particular case to which ‘the generalization does. not apply. Hasty generalization A fallacy of defective Induction in which one moves carelessly froma single case, or a very few cases, to a large- scale generalization about all or most cases. Also known as “converse accident.” Complex question An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as. to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question. Begging the question An informal fallacy in. which the conalusion of an argument is stated or assumed in any one of the premises. Also known as “circular argument” and petitio princiot.Fallacy of ambiguity An inforrnal fallacy caused by a shift ora contusion in the Mmeanngs of words or phrases within an argument. Also known asa *sophism. Fallacy of ‘equivocation ‘Atallacy 1 which two or more meanings of a ‘word or phraso aro used, accidentaly or deliberately, in diferent parts of an argument. Fallacy of amphiboly Atallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted in more than one wai argument contains a premise based upon one Interpretation, while ‘the conclusion relies on a different interpretation. Fallacy of Accent A fallacy of ambiguity ‘that occurs when an argument contains a premise that relies on one possible emphasis of certain words, but the conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives those same words a different meaning. Fallacy of composition ‘Mfalacy of ambiguity in ‘which an argument erroneously assigns atiributas to 2 whole (or 10. collection) based on the tact that parts of that ‘whole (or members of that colection) have those attributes. Fallacy of division fallacy of ambiguity in ‘which an argument ‘errcneausty assigns alirioutes to paris of a ‘whole (or to members of 4 collector) based on the fact that the whole (or the collection) nas those attributes.Fallacy of ambiguity An informal fallacy caused by 4 shift ora confusion in the meanings of words or phrases within an argument. Also known as a “sophism.” Fallacy of equivocation A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used, accidentally or deliberately, in different parts of an argument. Fallacy of division A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously assigns attributes to parts of a whole (or to members of a collection) basad on ‘the fact that the whole (or the collection) nas ‘those attributes. Fallacy of composition A tallacy of ambiguity in ‘which an argument erroneously assigns attributes to a whole (or toa collection) based on the fact that parts of that ‘whole (or members of that collection) have those attributes. Fallacy of amphiboly A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted in’ more than one way: the argurnent contains a premise based upon one Interpretation, while the conclusion ralies on a differant Interpretation. Fallacy of Accent Atallacy of ambiguity ‘that occurs wnen an argument Contains a promise that rolies on ‘one possible ompnasis Of cortain words, but tno conclusion reties on a different emphasis that gives those same words @ aifferont meaning.Deductive argument An argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. validity A characteristic of any deductive argument whose premises, if they were all true, would provicle conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument is said to be valid. Classical or Aristotelian logic The traditional account of syllogistic reasoning, in which cartain symbolic logic The account of syllogistic reasoning accepted today. It differs in important ways from the traditional account. Class The collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in common. Categorical Proposition A proposition that can be analyzed as being about classes, or catagories, affirming or denying that one class, §, is included in some other class, P, in whole or in part.‘Standard-form categorical proposition Any categorical proposition of the form “AILS is P” (universal affirmative), “No S is P” (universal negative), “Some S is P” (particular affirmative), or “Some S is not ©" (particular negative). Respectively, these four types are known as A, E, I, and @ propositions. Venn Iconic representation of a categorical proposition or of an argument, used to display their logical forms by means of overlapping circles. Quality An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether ihe proposition affirms. or denies class inclusion. Thus every categorical proposition Is either universal in quality or particular in quality.Quantity An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the Proposition refers to all members or only to some members of the class designated by its Subject term. Thus every categorical proposition is either universal in quantity or particular in quantity. Copula Any form of the verb “to be” that serves to connect the subject term and the predicate term of a categorical Proposition. Distribution An attribute that describes the relationship between a categorical proposition and each one of its. terms, indicating whether or not the proposition makes a statement about every member of the class represented by a given term.Opposition The logical relation that exists between two contradictories, between two contraries, or in general between any two categorical propositions that differ in quantity, quality, or other respects. These relations are displayed on the square of opposition. Contradictories Two propositions so related that one Is the denial or negation of the other. On the traditional square of opposition, the two pairs of contradictories are indicated by the diagonals of the square: A and E propositions are the contradictories of © and I, respectively. Contraries. Two propositions so relatod that they cannot both be true, although both may be false. Contingent Being neither tautologous nor self- contradictory. A. contingent statement may be true or false. Subcontraries Two propositions so related that they cannot both be false, although thay may both be true. Subalternation The relation on the square of opposition between a universal proposition (an A or an E proposition) and its corresponding particular proposition (an | or an O proposttion, respectively). In this relation, the particular proposition (I or ©) is called the “subaltern,” and the universal proposition (A or E) is called the “superaitern.” ‘Square of opposition A diagram in the form of a square in which the four types of categorical proposttions (A, E, 1, and ©) are situated at the corners, exhibiting the logical relations (Galied “oppositions’) among these propositions.Immediate inference An inference that is drawn directly from one premise without the Mediation of any other premise. Various kinds of Immediate inferences may be distinguished, traditionally including conversion, obversion, and contraposition. Mediate inference Any inference drawn from more than one premise. Conversion A valid form of immediate inference for some but not all types of propositions. To form the conversa of a proposition the subject and predicate terms are simply interchanged. Thus, applied to the proposition "No circles are squares,” conversion yields “No squares are circles,” which is called the “converse” of the original proposition. The original proposition is called the “convertend.” ‘Complement, or ‘complementary class The collection of all tings that do not belong to a given class. bversion A valid form ot Immediate inference for every standard-form categoncal proposition. Te obvert a propesition we change its quality (rom amirmative te negative, or from negative to affirmative) and replace the Predicate term with its complement. Thus. applied te tho Proposition “All dogs are mammals.” obversion yloids "No dogs aro onmarmimals,” which is called the “obverse” of tho onginal proposition. The original proposition is called the opvertena.”Contraposition A valid form of immediate inference for some, but not for all types of propositions. To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, its subject term is predicate term, and its predicate term Is replaced by the complement of its subject term. Thus the contrapositive of the Proposition “All humans are mammiais” is the proposition “All nonmammals are nonhumans.” Boolean interpretation The modem interpretation of categorical propositions, adopted in this chapter and named after the Engjish logician George Boole. In the Boolean interpretation, often contrasted with the Anstotelian interpretation, universal propositions (A and E propositions} do not have existential import.Existential import An attribute of those propositions that normally assert the existence of objects of some specified kind. Particular propositions (land © propositions) always have existential import; thus the proposition “Some dogs are obedient” asserts that there are dogs. Whether universal propositions (A and E propositions) have existential import is an issue on which the Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations of propositions differ.Existential fallacy Any mistake in reasoning that arises from assuming ilegitimately that some Class has members.syllogism Any deductive argument in which a conalusion is inferred trom two premises. Categorical syllogism A deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs In exactly two of the propositions. Standard form The form in which a syllogism is said to be ‘when its premises and conclusion are all standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, 1, or O) and are arranged in standard order (major premise, than minor premise, then conclusion). Major term The term that occurs as the predicate term of tne cenelusion in a standara-form categorical syllogism. Minor term The term that occurs as the subject term of the conclusion ina standard-form categorical syllogism. Middle term In @ standard-form categorical syllogism (ehich must contain exactly three terms), the term that appears in both premises but does not appear in the conclusion. Major premise In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the premise that contains the major term. Minor premise In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the premise that contains the minor term.Mood A characterization of categorical syllogisms, determined by the forms of the standard-torm categorical propositions it contains. Since there are Just four forms ot propositions, A, E, 1, and O, and each syliogism contains exactly three such propositions, there are exactly 64 moods, each mood identified by the three letters of Its constituent propositions, AAA, AAI, AAE, and so on, to O00. Fallacy of tour terms: The format fallacy that is committed when a syllogism is constructed with more than three terms. Fallacy of the undistributed middle ‘The formal fallacy that is committed wnen te middie term ora syllogism is not distributed in at least one premise. Fallacy of exclusive premises The formal fallacy that is committed when both premises in a syllogism are negative propositions (E or 0). Figure ‘The position of the middie term in the premises of a standard- form categorical syllogism. Fallacy of illicit process The formal fallacy that is committed when a term that is distributed in the conciusion is not distributed in the corresponding premise.Existential fallacy The formal fallacy that is committed when, in a standard-form categorical syllogism, a particular conclusion is inferred from two universal premises. Bapara The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AAA Camestres The traditional name for the valid syllogism with ‘the mood and figure ‘AEE-2 Camenes ‘The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AEE-4 Colarent The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EAE-1 Cesare The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure EAE-2 Dani The traditional name for tha valid syllogism with the mood and figure Alli Datisi The traditional name for the valid syllogism with tha mood and figure All-3 Disamis The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure 1AL-3 Dimaris The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure 1AL-4 Baroko The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure AQO-2 Feria The traditional name for tha valid syllogism with the mood and figure EIO-4Festino The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure 10-2 Ferison The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure El0-3 Fresison The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure E104 Singular proposition A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has (or does not have) some specified attribute, Unit class A class with only one member. Bokardo ‘The traditional name for the valid syllogism with the mood and figure A0-3 Exclusive Propositions Propositions that assert that the predicate applies exclusively to the subject named. Example: “None but generals wear stars” asserts that the predicate, “wearing stars,” applies only to generals, Syllogistic argument ‘Any argument that elther isa standard-form categorical syllogism or can be reformulated as a standard-form categorical sylogism without any change of meaning Reduction to standard form The translation of syllogistic arguments in any form into the ‘standard form in which they can be tested for validity; also called translation to standard form Exceptive proposition A proposition that asserts that all members of some class, with the ‘exception of the members of one of its ‘subclasses, are members of some other less. Exceptive propositions are in realty ‘compound, because they assert both a relation of class Inclusion, and a relation of class exciusion. Exampie: "All persons ‘except employees are ligbio" is an axcoptive Proposition in which it is asserted both that “All nonemployees are eligible” and that “No- employees ae eligible.”Parameter An auxiliary symbol or phrase that is introduced in translating statements uniformly, helping to express a syllogism with exactly three terms, so that it may be accurately tested, Uniform translation Techniques (often requiring the use of auxiliary symbols) making possible the reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard form, so that it may be accurately tested. Enthymeme. ‘An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of it being taken for granted. An enthymeme may be of the first, second, or third order, depending upon whether the unstated proposttion is the major premise, the minor premise, or the conelusion of the argument. First-order enthymeme An incompietaly stated syllogism in which the Proposttion that Is taken for granted but not stated is the major premise. Second-order enthymeme An incompletely stated syllogism in which the proposition that Is taken for granted but not stated is the minor premise. Third-order enthymeme An incompietaly stated syllogism in whieh the proposition that is taken for granted but not stated is the conclusion,Sorites An argument whose conclusion is inferred from Disjunctive syllogism epenes ue A syllogism in which one chain of syllogistic of the premises is a inferences in which the disjunction, the other conclusion of each premise is the denial or inference serves as a ee eae oe 8 two disjuncts in premise for the next, the frst premise, and the and the conclusion of aavnaonisie the last syllogism is the statement that the other conclusion of the entire disjunct in that first argument. premise is true. Modus toliens A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is a ‘conditional proposition, the second premise Is tne Genial of tne consequent of that conditional, and the ‘conclusion Is the denial of the antecedent of that conditional, Fallacy of denying the antecedent A fallacy in which, from the negation ‘of the anteceaent ora conditional proposition, the conclusion is reached that the consequent of that ‘conditional is false Pure hypothetical syllogism Asylogism that contains only nypotnetical propositions. Mixed hypothetical syllogism Assyllogism that contains ‘one condlional (or Aypotnetican premise, and one categorical promise. Modus ponons A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the ‘wst promise Is a coneitional proposition, the sacond premise affirms the antecedent of that conditional, and the conclusion aims tho onsaquent of that coneitional Fallacy of affirming the consequent A fallacy in which, from the truth of the ‘consoquent of a conditional proposition, the conclusion is reached that the antecedent of that conetional is true.Dilemma Acommon form of argument in ordinary discourse in which It is claimed that a choloe must be made between two altematives, both of which are (usually) bad, Complex dilemma An argument consisting of (a) a disjunction, () two conatitional premises linked by 4 Conjunction, and (c) a conclusion that is nota single categorical proposition (as ina simple dilemma) but a. disjunction, a pair of (usually undesirable) alternatives. simple dilemma An argument designed to push the adversary to choose between two alternatives, the (usually undesirable) conclusion in gither case being a single categorical proposition.