Anda di halaman 1dari 14

-1

CHAPTER 1
PROPOSITIONS
1.1 What Logic Is
Logic
The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish
correct from incorrect reasoning
1.2 Propositions
Propositions
An assertion that something is (or is not) the case
All propositions are either true or false
May be affirmed or denied
Statement
The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time
In logic, the word statement is sometimes used instead of
propositions

Classical Logic
Traditional techniques, based on Aristotles works, for the
analysis of deductive arguments.
Modern Symbolic Logic
Methods used by most
deductive arguments.

modern

logicians

to

analyze

Probability
The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive
argument) is true.
1.5 Validity & Truth
Truth
An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the
case.
Sound
An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

Hypothetical (or Conditional) Proposition


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

Relations Between Truth and Validity:


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

1.3 Arguments

Notes:

Simple Proposition
A proposition making only one assertion.
Compound Proposition
A proposition containing two or more simple propositions
Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition
A type of compound proposition
If true, at least one of the component propositions must be
true

Inference
A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition
on the basis of one or more other propositions.
Argument
A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.
Premise
A proposition used in an argument to support some other
proposition.
Conclusion
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions,
the premises, support.

The truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by


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

CHAPTER 3
LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION
3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language

1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments


Deductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion conclusively
One of the two classes of argument
Inductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of
probability
One of the two classes of argument
Valid Argument
If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
(applies only to deductive arguments)
Invalid Argument
The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises
are true
(applies only to deductive arguments)

SIENNA A. FLORES

Ludwig Wittgenstein
One of the most influential philosophers of the 20 th century
Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of
uses of what we call symbols, words, sentences.
Informative Discourse
Language used to convey information
Information includes false as well as true propositions,
bad arguments as well as good ones
Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts,
reports of geographical trivia our learning about the world
and our reasoning about it uses language in the
informative mode
Expressive Discourse
Language used to convey or evoke feelings.
Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes,
emotions and feelings
E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry
Expressive discourse is used either to:

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-2

1. manifest the speakers feelings


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

Parties in Potential Conflict May:


1. agree about the facts, and agree in their attitude towards
those facts
2. they might disagree about both
3. they may agree about the facts but disagree in their
attitude towards those facts
4. they may disagree about what the facts are, and yet they
agree in their attitude toward what they believe the fats to
be.
Note: The real nature of disagreements must be identified if they are
to be successfully resolved.

Notes:
Effective communication often demands combinations of
functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what
the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been
calling attitudes.
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to
depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate
attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects
their relevant beliefs.
Ceremonial Use of Language
A mix of language functions (usually expressive and
directive) with special social uses.
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of
worship, the portentous language of state documents
Performative Utterance
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and
performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in
special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,
doing something more than combining the 3 major functions
of language
3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions
Sentences
The units of language that express complete thoughts
4
categories:
declarative,
interrogative,
imperative,
exclamatory
4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming
USES OF LANGUAGE
Grammatical Forms
1. Declarative
2. Interrogative
3. Imperative
4. Exclamatory
Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic function. Form
often gives an indication of function but there is no sure connection
between the grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language
serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take any one of the 4
grammatical forms

CHAPTER 4
DEFINITION
4.1 Disputes and Definitions
Three Kinds of Disputes
1.
2.
3.

Criterial Dispute
a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely
verbal
4.2 Definitions and Their Uses
Definiendum
a symbol being defined
Definiens
the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same
meaning as the definiendum
Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use
1.

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

2.

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

3.

Precising Definitions
a. A report on existing language usage, with
additional
stipulations
provided
to
reduce
vagueness
b. Go beyond ordinary usage in such a way as to
eliminate troublesome uncertainty regarding
borderline cases
c.
Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that
meaning is vague
d. What is added to achieve precision is a matter of
stipulation
e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness

Principal Uses
1. Informative
2. Expressive
3. Directive

3.4 Emotive and Neutral Language


Emotive Language
Appropriate in poetry
Language that is emotionally toned will distract
Language that is loaded heavily charged w/ emotional
meaning on either side is unlikely to advance the quest for
truth
Neutral Language
The logician, seeking to evaluate arguments, will honor the
use of neutral language.
3.5 Agreement & Disagreement in Attitude & Belief
Dis/agreement in Belief vs. Dis/agreement in Attitude

SIENNA A. FLORES

Obviously genuine disputes


there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do
disagree, either in attitude or belief
Merely verbal disputes
there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine
disagreement at all
Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine
there is ambiguity present and the disputers
disagree, either in attitude or belief

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-3

Ambiguity: Uncertainty because a word or phrase has more


meaning than one

4.

5.

b.

Vagueness: lack of clarity regarding the borders of a


terms meaning

2.

Theoretical Definitions
a. An account of term that is helpful for general
understanding or in scientific practice
b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or
scientifically useful description of the objects to
which the term applies
c.
Used to advance theoretical understanding

Operational definitions
a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations
where certain actions or operations lead to
specified results
b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given
case if and only if the performance of specified
operations in the case yields a specified result

3.

Definitions by genus and difference


a. Defining a term by identifying the larger class (the
genus) of which it is a member, and the
distinguishing attributes (the difference) that
characterize it specifically
b. We first name the genus of which the species
designation by the definiendum is a subclass, and
then name the attribute (or specific difference)
that distinguishes the members of that species
from members of all other species in that genus

Persuasive Definitions
a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir
the emotions, using language expressively rather
than informatively
b. used to influence conduct

4.3 Extensions, Intension, & the Structure of Definition


Extension (Denotation)
the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly
applied

4.6 Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference


1.

Intension (Connotation)
the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to
which a general term applies

2.
3.
4.

4.4 Extension and Denotative Definitions


5.
Extensional/Denotative Definitions
a definition based on the terms extension
this type of definition is usually flawed because it is most
often impossible to enumerate all the objects in a general
class
1.

Definitions by example
We list or give examples of the objects denoted by
the term

2.

Ostensive definitions
a demonstrative definition
a term is defined by pointing at an object
We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of
the term being defined

3.

Quasi-ostensive Definitions
A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a
descriptive phrase
The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some
descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being
known

4.5 Intension and Intensional Definitions


Subjective Intension
What the speaker believes is the intension
The private interpretation of a term at a particular time
Objective Intension
The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the
words extension
Conventional Intension
The commonly accepted intension of a term
The
public
meaning
that
permits
and
communication

Synonymous definitions
a. Defining a word with another word that has the
same meaning and is already understood

SIENNA A. FLORES

A definition should state the essential attributes of the


species
a definition must not be circular
a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow
a definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure,
or figurative language
a definition should not be negative where it can be
affirmative

Circular Definition
a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being
defined
CHAPTER 5
NOTIONS AND BELIEFS
5.1 What is a Fallacy?
Fallacy
A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but
contains a mistake in reasoning.
When premises of an argument fail to support its
conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the argument
is said to be fallacious
In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy
In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect
argument
5.2 The Classification of Fallacies
Informal Fallacies
The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the
mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting
the argument

Fallacies of
Relevance

facilitates

Intensional Definitions
1.

We provide another word, whose meaning is


already understood, that has the same meaning as
the word being defined

Fallacies of
Defective
Induction

THE MAJOR INFORMAL FALLACIES


The most numerous and R1: Appeal to
most
frequently Emotion
encountered, are those in R2: Appeal to Pity
which the premises are R3: Appeal to Force
simply not relevant to R4: Argument Against
the conclusion drawn.
the Person
R5: Irrelevant
Conclusion
Those in w/c the mistake D1: Argument from
arises from the fact that Ignorance
the premises of the D2: Appeal to
argument,
although Inappropriate
relevant
to
the Authority
conclusion, are so weak D3: False Cause

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-4

Fallacies of
Presumption

Fallacies of
Ambiguity

& ineffective that reliance


upon them is a blunder.
Mistakes
that
arise
because too much has
been assumed in the
premises, the inference
to
the
conclusion
depending
on
that
unwarranted assumption.
Arise from the equivocal
use of words or phrases
in the premises or in the
conclusion
of
an
argument, some critical
term having
different
senses in different parts
of the argument.

D4: Hasty
Generalizations
P1: Accident
P2: Complex
Question
P3: Begging the
Question

A1:
A2:
A3:
A4:
A5:

Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Composition
Division

5.3 Fallacies of Relevance


Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion.
They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance,
because they are the absence of any real connection between
premises and conclusion.
R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, to the populace)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than
on reason.
R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, a pitying heart)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity,
altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.
R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, to the stick)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force;
threat may also be veiled
R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against
the person taking a position
o
Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made
on the character of an opponent rather than on the
merits of the opponents position
o
Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is
made on the special circumstances of an opponent
rather than on the merits of the opponents position
Poisoning the Well
A type of ad hominem attack that cuts off rational discourse
R5: Irrelevant Conclusion (ignaratio elenchi, mistaken proof)
A type of fallacy in which the premises support a different
conclusion than the one that is proposed
o
Straw Man Policy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponents position is misrepresented
o
Red Herring Fallacy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponents position is misrepresented
Non Sequitor (Does not Follow)
Often applied to fallacies of relevance, since the conclusion
does not follow from the premises
5.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction
Fallacies of Defective Induction
Fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to
warrant the conclusion
D1: Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because
it has not been proved false, or false just because it has not
been proved true.

SIENNA A. FLORES

D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)


A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of
a supposed authority who has no legitimate claim to
expertise in the matter.
D3: False Cause (causa pro causa)
A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is
treated as a cause.
o
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: After the thing,
therefore because of the thing; a type of false cause
fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been
caused by another event that came before it.
o
Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which
change in a particular direction is assumed to lead
inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same
direction.
D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)
A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual
cases to generalizations
Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the
reverse of another common mistake, known as the fallacy
of accident.
5.5 Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit
assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
P1: Accident
A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a
particular case.
P2: Complex Question
A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that
presupposes the truth of some proposition buried within the
question.
P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, circular argument)
A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed within
one of the premises.
A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always
worthless, as well
Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has
been constructed may if it is too large or fuzzy go
undetected
5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacies of Ambiguity (sophisms)
Fallacies caused by a shift or confusion of meaning within
an argument
A1: Equivocation
A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of a word or phrase
are used in different parts of an argument
A2: Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words
can be interpreted more than 1 way
The argument contains a premise based on 1 interpretation
while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation
A3: Accent
A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey 2 different
meaning within an argument, and the difference is based on
changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase
A4: Composition
A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the
attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of the
whole.
The fallacy is reasoning from attributes of the individual
elements or members of a collection to attributes of the
collection or totality of those elements.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-5

A5: Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the
attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the
whole.
o
1st Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
o
2nd Kind: committed when one argues from the
attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves.
CHAPTER 6
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
6.1 The Theory of Deduction
Deductive Argument
An argument that claims to establish its conclusion
conclusively
One of the 2 classes of arguments
Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid
Valid Argument
A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
Theory of Deduction
Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in
valid arguments.
Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid
and invalid deductions.
6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions
Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
o
Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of
another class.
o
Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one
class may be included in another class.
o
Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common.
Categorical Proposition
A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a
relationship between one category and some other category.
6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
1. Universal affirmative proposition (A Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class.
2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
excluded from the whole of another class.
3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions)
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member
or members in common.
4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions
that assert that at least on member of a class is excluded from the
whole of another class.
Standard Form Categorical Propositions
Name and Type
Proposition Form
Example
A Universal Affirmative
All S is P.
All politicians are
liars.
E Universal Negative
No S is P.
No politicians are
liars.
I Particular Affirmative
Some S is P.
Some politicians
are liars.
O Particular Negative.
Some S is not P.
Some politicians
are not liars.

SIENNA A. FLORES

6.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution


Quality
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
whether the proposition affirms or denies some form of
class inclusion.
o
If the proposition affirms some class inclusion,
whether complete or partial, its quality is
affirmative. (A and I)
o
If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether
complete or partial, its quality is negative. (E and
O)
Quantity
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
whether the proposition refers to all members (universal) or
only some members (particular) of the subject class.
o
If the proposition refers to all members of the
class designated by its subject term, its quantity is
universal.
(A and E)
o
If the proposition refers to only some members of
the lass designated by its subject term, its
quantity is particular.
(I and O)
General Skeleton of a Standard-Form Categorical Proposition
quantifier
subject term
copula
predicate term
Distribution
A characterization of whether terms of a categorical
proposition refers to all members of the class designated by
that term.
o
The A proposition distributes only its subject term
o
The E proposition distributes both its subject and
predicate terms.
o
The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor
its predicate term.
o
The O proposition distributes only its predicate
term.
Quantity, Quality
Letter Name
Quantity
A
Universal
E
Universal
I
Particular
O
Particular

and Distribution
Quality
Distribution
Affirmative
S only
Negative
S and P
Affirmative
Neither
Negative
P only

6.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition


Opposition
Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical
propositions (A, E, I, and O) exhibited on the Square of
Opposition.
Contradictories
Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both
be false.
A and O are contradictories: All S is P is contradicted by
Some S is not P.
E and I are also contradictories: No S is P is contradicted
by Some S is P.
Contraries
Two propositions that cannot both be true
If one is true, the other must be false.
They can both be false.
Contingent
Propositions that
necessarily false

are

neither

necessarily

true

nor

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-6

Subcontraries
Two propositions that cannot both be false
If one is false, the other must be true.
They can both be true.
Subalteration
The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its
corresponding particular proposition (the subaltern).
In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of
its corresponding particular proposition.
Square of Opposition
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four
types of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O).
The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern
Square of Opposition in important ways.
Immediate Inference
An inference drawn directly from only one premise.
Mediate Inference
An inference drawn from more than one premise.
The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the
mediation of the second.
6.6 Further Immediate Inferences
Conversion
An inference formed by interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of a categorical proposition.
Not all conversions are valid.
VALID
Convertend
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.

CONVERSIONS
Converse
I: Some P is S (by limitation)
E: No P is S.
I: Some P is S
(conversion not valid)

Complement of a Class
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
Obversion
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition
and replacing the predicate term by its complement.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical
proposition.
OBVERSIONS
Obvertend
Obverse
A: All S is P.
E: NO S is non-P
E: No S is P.
A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P.
I: Some S is non-P.
Contraposition
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a
proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and
replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject
term.
Not all contrapositions are valid.

Premise
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.

CONTRAPOSITION
Contrapositive
A: All non-P is non-S.
O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation)
(Contraposition not valid)
O: Some non-P is not non-S.

6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical


Propositions
Boolean Interpretation

SIENNA A. FLORES

The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in


which universal propositions (A and E) are not assumed to
refer to classes that have members.
Existential Fallacy
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the illegitimate
assumption that a class has members, when there is no
explicit assertion that it does.
Note: A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is
uttered to assert the existence of objects of some kind.
6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions
Form

Proposition

All S is P

Symbolic
Rep,
_
SP = 0

No S is P

SP = O

Some S is P

SP 0

Some
not P

is

_
SP O

Explanation
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is empty.
The class off things that are
both S and P is empty.
The class of things that are
both S and P is not empty.
(SP as at least one member.)
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is not
empty. (SP has at least one
member).

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

and

categorical

CHAPTER 7
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
Syllogism
Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred
from two premises.
Categorical Syllogism
A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical
propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of
which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.
Standard-From Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and
conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions
(A, E, I or O)
Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise
second, and the conclusion last.
The Parts
Major Term
Minor Term
Middle Term
Major Premise
Minor Premise

of a Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism


The predicate term of the conclusion.
The subject term of the conclusion.
The term that appears in both premises but not in
the conclusion.
The premise containing the major term. In standard
form, the major premise is always stated 1st.
The premise containing the minor term.

Mood
One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical
syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form
propositions it contains.
The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3
letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the
standard-form order.
The 1st letter names the type of that syllogisms major
premise; the 2nd letter names the type of that syllogisms
minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of its
conclusion.
Every syllogism has a mood.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-7

Figure
The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position
of the middle term in its premises
Syllogisms can have fourand only fourpossible different
figures:

Note: A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it


renders the syllogism invalid. Because it is a mistake of that special
kind, we call it a fallacy; and because it is a mistake in the form of
the argument, we call it a formal fallacy.
7.5 Exposition of the 15 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism

Schematic
Representation

Description

The Four Figures


1st Figure
2nd
3rd Figure
Figure
MP
PM
MP
SM
SM
MS
.. S P
.. S P
.. S P
The
The
The
middle
middle
middle
term may term may term may
be
the be
the be
the
subject
predicate
subject
term
of term
of term
of
the major both
both
premise
premises.
premises.
and
the
predicate
term
of
the minor
premise.

4th Figure
PM
MS
.. S P
The middle
term may
be
the
predicate
term
of
the major
premise
and
the
subject
term
of
the minor
premise.

7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument


The validity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form.
Valid Syllogisms
A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of
its form alone.
If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same
form will also be valid.
If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the
same form will also be invalid.
7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism
7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies
Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies
Rule
Associated Fallacy
1. Avoid four terms.
Four Terms
A formal mistake in which a
categorical syllogism contains more than
3 terms.
2. Distribute the middle Undistributed Middle
term in at least one
A formal mistake in which a
premise.
categorical syllogism contains a middle
term that is not distributed in either
premise.
3. Any term distributed Illicit Major
in the conclusion must
A formal mistake in which the major
be distributed in the term of a syllogism is undistributed in
premises.
the major premise, but is disturbed in
the conclusion.
Illicit Minor
A formal mistake in which the minor
term of a syllogism is undistributed in
the minor premise but is distributed in
the conclusion.
4. Avoid 2 negative Exclusive Premises
premises.
A formal mistake in which both
premises of a syllogism are negative.
5. If either premise is Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion
negative, the conclusion from a Negative Premise
must be negative.
A formal mistake in which one
premise of a syllogism is negative, but
he conclusion is affirmative.
6. From 2 universal
Existential Fallacy
premises no particular
As a formal fallacy, the mistake of
conclusion
may
be inferring a particular conclusion from 2
drawn.
universal premises.

SIENNA A. FLORES

The 15 Valid Forms of the StandardForm Categorical Syllogism


1st Figure
1. AAA-1
Barbara
2. EAE-1
Celarent
3. AII-1
Darii
4. EIO1
Ferio
2nd Figure
5. AEE-2
Camestres
6. EAE-2
Cesare
7. AOO-2
Baroko
8. EIO-2
Festino
3rd Figure
9. AII-3
Datisi
10. IAI-3
Disamis
11. EIO-3
Ferison
12. OAO-3 Bokardo
th
4 Figure
13. AEE-4
Camenes
14. IAI-4
Dimaris
15. EIO-4
Fresison
7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism

CHAPTER 8
SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE
8.1 Syllogistic Arguments
Syllogistic Argument
An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or
can be formulated as one without any change in meaning.
Reduction to Standard Form
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.
Standard-Form Translation
The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put
argument appearing in ordinary language into classical
syllogism
Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary
Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical
Argument:
First Deviation
The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary
language may appear in an order that is not the order of
the standard-form syllogism
Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,
the minor premise second, the conclusion third.
Second Deviation
A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3
terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language
may appear to involve more than 3 terms but that
appearance might prove deceptive.
Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o
loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be
successful.
Third Deviation
The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in
ordinary language may not all be standard-form
propositions.
Remedy: If the components can be converted into
standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the
reduction to standard form may be successful.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-8

8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three


Eliminating Synonyms
A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a
4th term, but only another way of referring to one of the 3
classes involved.
E.g. wealthy & rich
Eliminating Class Complements
Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do
not belong to that class (explained in 6.6)
E.g. mammals & nonmammals
8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form
Note: Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard
form, may be translated into standard form so as to allow the
syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams or by the use of rules
governing syllogisms.
I. Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs
(or does not belong) to a particular class
Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but
we can nevertheless interpret a singular proposition as a
proposition dealing w/ classes and their interrelations
E.g. Socrates is a philosopher.
E.g. This table is not an antique.

VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity


E.g. Dog are carnivorous.
o
Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.
E.g. Children are present.
o
Reformulated: Some children are beings who are
present.
VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions
at all
E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.
o
Reformulated: Some children are not believes in
Santa Claus.
E.g. There are white elephants.
o
Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.
IX. Exceptive Propositions, using all except or similar
expressions
A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of
some class except for members of one of its subclasses
are members of some other class
Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is
somewhat complicated, because propositions of this kind
make 2 assertions rather than one
E.g. All except employees are eligible.
E.g. All but employees are eligible.
E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.
8.4 Uniform Translation

Unit Class
o

A class with only one member

II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than


substantive or class terms
E.g. Some flowers are beautiful.
o
Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties.
E.g. No warships are available for active duty
o
Reformulated: No warships are things available for
active duty.
III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula to
be
E.g. All people seek recognition.
o
Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition.
E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.
o
Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine
drinkers.
IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in
standard form order
E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds.
o
Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds.
E.g. all is well that ends well.
o
Reformulated: All things that end well are things
that are well.
V. Propositions having quantifiers other than all, no, and
some
E.g. Every dog has its day.
o
Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their
days.
E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated.
o
Reformulated: All contributions are things that are
appreciated.
VI. Exclusive Propositions, using only or none but
A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the
subject named
E.g. Only citizens can vote.
o
Reformulated: All those who can vote are citizens.
E.g. None but the brave deserve the fair.
o
Reformulated: All those who deserve the fair are
those who are brave.

SIENNA A. FLORES

Parameter
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion
into standard form
Uniform Translation
Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic
argument by using parameters or other techniques.
8.5 Enthymemes
Enthymeme
An argument containing an unstated proposition
An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being
enthymematic
First-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the major premise
Second-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the minor premise
Third-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is left unstated is the conclusion
8.6 Sorites
Sorites
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any
number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences
8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction
and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts
Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid
Hypothetical Syllogism
A form of argument containing at least one conditional
proposition as a premise.

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

-9

Pure Hypothetical Syllogism


A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively
Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism having one
categorical premise

conditional

premise

and

one

Affirmative Mood/Modus Ponens (to affirm)


A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion affirms its consequent
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise affirms the consequent, rather than the
antecedent, of the conditional premise
Modus Tollens (to deny)
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise denies the consequent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion denies its antecedent
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise denies the antecedent, rather than the
consequent, of the conditional premise
8.8 The Dilemma
Dilemma
A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it
is claimed that a choice must be made between 2 (usually
bad) alternatives
An argumentative device in which syllogisms on the same
topic are combined, sometimes w/ devastative effect
Simple Dilemma
The conclusion is a single categorical proposition
Complex Dilemma
The conclusion itself is a disjunction
Three Ways of Defeating a Dilemma
Going/escaping between the horns of the dilemma
Rejecting its disjunctive premise
This method is often the easiest way to evade the conclusion
of a dilemma, for unless one half of the disjunction is the
explicit contradictory of the other, the disjunction may very
well be false

With symbols, we can perform some logical operations


almost mechanically, with the eye, which might otherwise
demand great effort
A symbolic language helps us to accomplish some
intellectual tasks without having to think too much
Modern Logic
Logicians look now to the internal structure of propositions
and arguments, and to the logical links very few in
number that are critical in all deductive arguments
No encumbered by the need to transform deductive
arguments in to syllogistic form
It may be less elegant than analytical syllogistics, but is
more powerful
9.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, & Disjunction
Simple Statement
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a
component
Compound Statement
A statement that contains another statements as a
component
2 categories:
o
W/N the truth value of the compound statement is
determined wholly by the truth value of its
components, or determined by anything other
than the truth value of its components
Conjunction ()
A truth functional connective meaning and
Symbolized by the dot ()
We can form a conjunction of 2 statements by placing the
word and between them
The 2 statements combined are called conjuncts
The truth value of the conjunction of 2 statements is
determined wholly and entirely by the truth values of its 2
conjuncts
If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true;
otherwise it is false
A conjunction is said to be a truth-functional component
statement, and its conjuncts are said to be truth-functional
components of it
Note: Not every compound statement is truth-functional
Truth Value
The status of any statement as true or false
The truth value of a true statement is true
The truth value of a false statement is false

Taking/grasping the dilemma by its horns


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

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

Devising a counterdilemma
One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed
to the conclusion of the original
Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it
should be built up out of the same ingredients (categorical
propositions) that the original dilemma contained

Truth-Functional Compound Statement


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

CHAPTER 9
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language
Symbols
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its
essential nature and putting aside what is not essential

SIENNA A. FLORES

Truth-Functional Connective
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction,
material implication, and material equivalence) between the
components of a truth-functional compound statement.
Simple Statement
Any statement that is not truth functionally compound
p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

pq
T
F
F
F

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

- 10

Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~)
symbolized by the tilde or curl (~)
often formed by the insertion of not in the original
statement
Disjunction/Alteration (v)
A truth-functional connective meaning or
It has a weak (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge
(v) (or vee), and a strong (exclusive) sense.
2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives
p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implication


Conditional Statement
A compound statement of the form If p then q.
Also called a hypothetical/implication/implicative statement
Asserts that in any case in which its antecedent is true, its
consequent is also true
It does no assert that its antecedent is true, but only if its
antecedent is true, its consequent is also true
The essential meaning of a conditional statement is the
relationship asserted to hold between its antecedent and
consequent
Antecedent (implicans/protasis)
In a conditional statement, that component that immediately
follows the if
Consequent (implicate/apodosis)
In a conditional statement, the component that immediately
follows the then
Implication
The relation that holds between the antecedent and the
consequent of a conditional statement.
There are different kinds of implication
Horseshoe ( )
A symbol used to represent material implication, which is
common, partial meaning of all if-then statements
q
T
F
T
F

~q
F
T
F
T

p~q
F
T
F
F

~ (p~q)
T
F
T
T

q
T
F
T
T

Material Implication
A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe ( )
that may connect 2 statements
The statement p materially implies q is true when either p
is false, or q is true
p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

Refutation by Logical Analogy


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

Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity
are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that
any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid
or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which
they are concerned.
Statement Variable
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be
substituted.
Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an
argument, it contains statement variables, but no
statements
Substitution Instance of an Argument Form
Any argument that results from the consistent substitution
of statements for statement variables in an argument form
Specific Form of an Argument
The argument form from which the given argument results
when a different simple statement is substituted for each
different statement variable.
9.5 The Precise Meaning of Invalid and Valid
Invalid Argument Form
An argument form that has at least one substitution
instance with true premises and a false conclusion
Valid Argument Form
An argument form that has no substitution instances with
true premises and a false conclusion
9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables
Truth Table
An array on which the validity of an argument form may be
tested, through the display of all possible combinations of
the truth values of the statement variables contained in that
form
9.7 Some Common Argument Forms
Disjunctive Syllogism
A valid argument form in which one premise is a
disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two
disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
disjunct
pvq
~p
q

q
T
F
T
T

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


if q are symbolized as p q

SIENNA A. FLORES

9.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy

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


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

pvq
T
T
T
F

Punctuation
The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic
language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning
In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to
apply to the smallest statement that the punctuation permits

p
T
T
F
F

In general, p is a sufficient condition for q is


symbolized by p q

p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

pvq
T
T
T
F

~p
F
F
T
T

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

- 11

Modus Ponens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise affirms the antecedent of that
conditional, and the conclusion affirms its consequent
p

Specific Form of a Statement


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

q
p
q

p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

Tautologous Statement Form


A statement form that has only true substitution instances
A tautology:

q
T
F
T
T

Modus Tollens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise denies the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent
p q
~q
~p
p
T
T
F
F

q
T
F
T
F

Substitution Instance of Statement Form


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

~p
F
F
T
T

Self-Contradictory Statement Form


A statement form that has only false substitution instances
A contradiction

r
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F

q
T
T
F
F
T
T
T
T

r
T
F
T
T
T
F
T
T

p
T
T
F
F

r
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent


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

SIENNA A. FLORES

q)

p]

Materially Equivalent ( )
A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements
connected by the three-bar sign ( ) have the same truth
value

p q
q r
p r
Q
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F

p v ~p
T
T

Peirces Law
A tautological statement of the form [(p

Hypothetical Syllogism
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions

p
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F

~p
F
T

Contingent Form
A statement form that has both true and false substitution
instances
~q
F
T
F
T

T
F
T
T

p
T
F

q
T
F
T
F

q
T
F
F
T

Biconditional Statement
A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component
statements imply one another and therefore are materially
equivalent
The Four Truth-Functional Connective
Symbol
Proposition
Names of
(Name of
Type
Components of
Symbol)
Propositions of
that Type
And
(dot)
Conjunction
Conjuncts
Or
V (wedge)
Disjunction
Disjuncts
Ifthen
(horseshoe)
Conditional
Antecedent,
consequent
If and only if
(tribar)
Biconditional
Components
TruthFunctional
Connective

Note: Not is not a connective, but is a truth-function operator, so it


is omitted here
Note: To say that an argument form is valid if, and only if, its
expression in the form of a conditional statement is a tautology.
9.9 Logic Equivalence
Logically Equivalent
Two statements for which the statement of their material
equivalence is tautology
they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one
another
Double Negation
An expression of logical equivalence between a symbol and
the negation of the negation of that symbol

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

- 12

p
T
F

~p
F
T

~~p
T
F

p ~~p
T
T

Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent.
Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be
true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it
connects
Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a
relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional
Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely
impossible for them to have different truth values.
p

pvq

~(p v q)

~p

~q

~p~q

T
T
F
F

T
F
T
F

T
T
T
F

F
F
F
T

F
F
T
T

F
T
F
T

F
F
F
T

~(p v q)

(~p~q)

T
T
T
T

De Morgans Theorems
Two useful logical equivalences
o
(1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the
negations of the 2 disjuncts
o
(2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the
negations of the 2 conjuncts

9 RULES OF INFERENCE:
ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS
NAME
ABBREV.
FORM
1. Modus Ponens
M.P.
p q
p
q
2. Modus Tollens
M.T.
p q
~q
~p
3. Hypothetical Syllogism
H.S.
p q
q r
p r
4. Disjunctive Syllogism
D.S
pvq
~p
q
5. Constructive Dilemma
C.D.
(p q) (r s)
pvr
qvs
6. Absorption
Abs.
p q
p (p q)
7. Simplification
Simp.
pq
p
8. Conjunction
Conj.
p
q
pq
9. Addition
Add.
p
pvq

9.10 The Three Laws of Thought

10.2 The Rule of Replacement

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

Rule of Replacement
The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace
each other
Note: this is very different from that of substitution

Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false
Every statement of the form p~p must be false
o
Every such statement is self-contradictory
Principle of Excluded Middle
Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true
Every such statement is a tautology
CHAPTER 10
METHODS OF DEDUCTION

RULES OF REPLACEMENT:
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS
NAME
ABBREV.
FORM
10. De Morgans
De M.
~(p q)
(~ p v ~q)
Theorem
~(p v q)
11. Commutation

Com.

12. Association

Assoc.

13. Distribution

Dist.

14. Double
Negation
15. Transportation
16. Material
Implication
17. Material
Equivalence

D.N.

(p v q)

Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument
by using the rules of inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the
validity of an argument that is valid
Formal Proof of Validity
A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise
of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of
inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such
that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of
the argument whose validity is being proved
Elementary Valid Argument
Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves
as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a formal
proof of validity

SIENNA A. FLORES

(q v p)

(p q)

[(p v q) v r]

[p (q r)]

[(p q) r]

[p (q v r)]

[(p q) (p r)]

[p v (q r)]

Trans.

(p

Imp.
Equiv.

(p
(p
(p

18. Exportation

Exp.

19. Tautology

Taut.

(q p)

[p v (q v r)]

10.1 Formal Proof of Validity


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

(~ p ~q)

~~ p

q)

(~q

q)

q)
q)

[(p v q) (p v r)]

~p)

(~p v q)

[(p

q) (q

p)]

[(p q) v (~p ~q)]

[(p q)

r]

[p

(p v p)

(p p)

(q

r)]

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

- 13

The 19 Rules of Inference


The list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a complete system
of truth-functional logic, in the sense that it permits the
construction of a formal proof of validity for any valid truthfunctional argument
The first 9 rules can be applied only to whole lines of a proof
Any of the last 10 rules can be applied either to whole lines or
to parts of lines
The notion of formal proof is an effective notion
It can be decided quite mechanically, in a finite number of
steps, whether or not a given sequence of statements
constitutes a formal proof
No thinking is required
Only 2 things are required:
o
The ability to see that a statement occurring in one
place is precisely the same as a statement occurring
in another
o
The ability to see W/N a given statement has a
certain pattern; that is , to see if it is a substitution
instance of a given statement form
Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables
The making of a truth table is completely mechanical
There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal
proofs
Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its
validity is much easier than the purely mechanical
construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or
thousands of rows
10.3 Proof of Invalidity
Invalid Arguments
For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity
An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one
row of its truth table in which all its premises are true but its
conclusion is false
We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an
arguments invalidity: the discovery of a single row in which
its premises are all true and its conclusion is false will suffice
10.4 Inconsistency
Note:
If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true
and the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid
Any argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid
Any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless
of what its conclusion may be
Inconsistency
Inconsistent statements cannot both be true
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (Untrustworthy in one
thing, untrustworthy in all)
Inconsistent statements are not meaningless; their trouble
is just the opposite. They mean too much. They mean
everything, in the sense of implying everything. And if
everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false,
because every statement has a denial
10.5 Indirect Proof of Validity
Indirect Proof of Validity
An indirect proof of validity is written out by stating as an
additional assumed premise the negation of the conclusion
A version of reductio ad absurdum (reducing the absurd)
with which an argument can be proved valid by exhibiting the
contradiction which may be derived from its premises
augmented by the assumption of the denial of its conclusion
An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a given step
is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof
had been made
This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for
testing arguments by making it possible, in some

SIENNA A. FLORES

circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than would be


possible without it
10.6 Shorter Truth-Table Technique
Shorter Truth-Table Technique
An argument may be tested by assigning truth values
showing that, if it is valid, assigning values that would make
the conclusion false while the premises are true would lead
inescapably to inconsistency
Proving the validity of an argument with this shorter truth
table technique is one version of the use of reductio ad
absurdum but instead of suing the rules of inference, it
uses truth value assignments
Its easiest application is when F is assigned to a disjunction
(in which case both of the disjuncts must be assigned) or T
to a conjunction (in which case both of the conjuncts must
be assigned)
o
When assignments to simple statements are thus
forced, the absurdity (if there is one) is quickly
exposed
Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most
efficient in testing the validity of a deductive argument
CHAPTER 11
QUANTIFICATION THEORY
11.1 The Need for Quantification
Quantification
A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical
structure of propositions.
11.2 Singular Propositions
Affirmative Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has
some specified attribute
Individual Constant
A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual
Individual Variable
A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant
Propositional Function
An expression that contains an individual variable and
becomes a statement when an individual constant is
substituted for the individual variable
Simple Predicate
A propositional function having some true and some false
substitution instances, each of which is an affirmative
singular proposition
11.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers
Universal Quantifier
A symbol (x) used before a propositional function to assert
that the predicate following is true of everything
Generalization
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
function by placing a universal quantifier or an existential
quantifier before it
Existential Quantifier
A symbol ( x) indicating that the propositional function
that follows has at least one true substitution instance.
Instantiation
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
function by substituting an individual constant for its
individual variable

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

- 14

11.4 Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions


Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple
predicates
11.5 Proving Validity
Universal Instantiation (UI)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any
substitution instance of a propositional function from its
universal quantification
Universal Generalization (UG)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of a
universally quantified expression from an expression that is
given as true of any arbitrarily selected individual
Existential Instantiation (EI)
A rule of inference that permits (with restrictions) the valid
inference of the truth of a substitution instance (for any
individual constant that appears nowhere earlier in the
context) from the existential quantification of a propositional
function
Existential Generalization (EG)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of the
existential quantification of a propositional function from any
true substitution instance of that function

Universal
Instantiation

Universal
Generalization

Existential
Instantiation

Existential
Generalization

Rules of Inference: Quantification


UI
(x) ( x)
Any substitution instance
of
a
propositional
v
(where v is any function can be validly
inferred
from
its
individual symbol)
universal quantification
UG
y
From the substitution
instance
of
a
(x) ( x)
function
(where y denotes propositional
any
arbitrarily with respect to the name
selected individual) of any arbitrarily selected
individual,
one
may
validly infer the universal
quantification
of
that
propositional function
EI
( x)( x)
From
the
existential
quantification
of
a
v
function,
(where v is any propositional
we may infer the truth of
individual
constant,
other its substitution instance
with respect to any
than y, having no
individual constant (other
previous
occurrence in the than y) that occurs
nowhere earlier in the
context)
context.
EG
v
From
any
true
substitution instance of a
( x)( x)
function,
(where v is any propositional
we may validly infer the
individual
existential quantification
constant)
of
that
propositional
function.

11.6 Proving Invalidity


11.7 Asyllogistic Inference
Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more
logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O
propositions

SIENNA A. FLORES

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC