© All Rights Reserved

1.6K tayangan

© All Rights Reserved

- Answers to 2014 Bar Questions in Criminal Law
- 181598102 Legal Techniques and Logic Notes Docx
- Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer SIENNA FLORES
- legal technique and logic
- Legal Techniques and Logic
- UP Law Reviewer 2013 - Constitutional Law 2 - Bill of Rights
- Legal Technique and Logic
- LEGAL LOGIC & TECHNIQUE OUTLINE
- CONSTI 2 reviewer
- legal technique and logic
- 121470934 Legal Technique Finals Reviewer
- Logic.docx
- Legal Techniques and Logic Syllabus
- Human Rights Midterms Reviewer under Atty. Principe
- 114557811-Agpalo-Legal-Ethics-Reviewer.pdf
- Legal Technique and Logic
- 2007-2013 Political Law Philippine Bar Examination Questions and Suggested Answers (JayArhSals)
- UP Bar Reviewer 2013 - Legal and Judicial Ethics
- Documents.mx 181598102 Legal Techniques and Logic Notes Docx
- Agrarian Law and Social Legislation Notes Docx

Anda di halaman 1dari 14

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.

A type of compound proposition;

It is false only when the antecedent is true and the

consequent is false

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.

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

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:

-2

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

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

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

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

-3

meaning than one

4.

5.

b.

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.

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

Extension (Denotation)

the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly

applied

1.

Intension (Connotation)

the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to

which a general term applies

2.

3.

4.

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

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

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.

already understood, that has the same meaning as

the word being defined

Fallacies of

Defective

Induction

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

-4

Fallacies of

Presumption

Fallacies of

Ambiguity

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

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

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.

-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

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

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

-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.

Propositions

Boolean Interpretation

SIENNA A. FLORES

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

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.

-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:

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

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.

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

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.

-8

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.

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

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.

-9

A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism

A syllogism having one

categorical premise

conditional

premise

and

one

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

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

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

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

- 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

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

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

if q are symbolized as p q

SIENNA A. FLORES

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

symbolized by p q

p

T

T

F

F

q

T

F

T

F

pvq

T

T

T

F

~p

F

F

T

T

- 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

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

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

Any statement that results from the consistent substitution

of statements for statement variables in a statement form

~p

F

F

T

T

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

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

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

- 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

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)]

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)

r]

[p

(p v p)

(p p)

(q

r)]

- 13

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

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

- 14

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

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.

11.7 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

- Answers to 2014 Bar Questions in Criminal LawDiunggah olehIbiang Deleoz
- 181598102 Legal Techniques and Logic Notes DocxDiunggah olehJudilyn Ravilas
- Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer SIENNA FLORESDiunggah olehCzarPaguio
- legal technique and logicDiunggah olehjeax_arcr
- Legal Techniques and LogicDiunggah olehHans Nicole
- UP Law Reviewer 2013 - Constitutional Law 2 - Bill of RightsDiunggah olehJaece
- Legal Technique and LogicDiunggah olehNikasia Roxas
- LEGAL LOGIC & TECHNIQUE OUTLINEDiunggah olehpierremartinreyes
- CONSTI 2 reviewerDiunggah olehMaria Diory Rabajante
- legal technique and logicDiunggah olehMajho Oaggab
- 121470934 Legal Technique Finals ReviewerDiunggah olehMarc Calderon
- Logic.docxDiunggah olehMarco Antonio Rivas
- Legal Techniques and Logic SyllabusDiunggah olehNeapolle Fleur
- Human Rights Midterms Reviewer under Atty. PrincipeDiunggah olehStef Macapagal
- 114557811-Agpalo-Legal-Ethics-Reviewer.pdfDiunggah olehGerald Hernandez
- Legal Technique and LogicDiunggah olehRam Derick
- 2007-2013 Political Law Philippine Bar Examination Questions and Suggested Answers (JayArhSals)Diunggah olehJay-Arh
- UP Bar Reviewer 2013 - Legal and Judicial EthicsDiunggah olehPJGalera
- Documents.mx 181598102 Legal Techniques and Logic Notes DocxDiunggah olehLouie Bruan
- Agrarian Law and Social Legislation Notes DocxDiunggah olehPrecy Caballero
- 42768368 LOGIC ReviewerDiunggah olehLilette28
- Legal Logic (Evangelista and Ungos)Diunggah olehTrixie Marcelo
- Agrarian and Social Legislation by UngosDiunggah olehGianna Cantoria
- SAN BEDA LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER 2013Diunggah olehLenard Trinidad
- Legal Techniques and LogicDiunggah olehLang Limocon-Flores
- Legal Technique and LogicDiunggah olehHans Nicole
- Constitutional Law II ReviewerDiunggah olehMarc Ramos
- Agrarian Law Reviewer- UNGOS BOOKDiunggah olehIrisValeriano
- Legal Technique and LogicDiunggah olehAna Karina Bartolome
- Civil Law Reviewer-AlbanoDiunggah olehianyabao

- Ten Theses on PoliticsDiunggah olehtaxsistas
- Research and Design IDiunggah olehSoumyadeep Maity
- Update on Land Registration LawDiunggah olehDenise Capacio Lirio
- Mt. Pulag ReasearchDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Criminal Law Case DigestsDiunggah olehChaii
- Negotiable Instruments Law notes - Atty. Zarah Villanueva-CastroDiunggah olehLex Talionis Fraternitas
- Transportation Voucher Template DownloadDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- LP Citizenship CC 001Diunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Legal Forms ManualDiunggah olehJoseph Rinoza Plazo
- CyberCrime Case DigestDiunggah olehJuliefer Ann Gonzales
- 11-1 Reading Courtship and Marriage Among the HopiDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Course Syllabus Introduction to CulturalDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Complete Legal Ethics Case Digests (Canons 7-22)Diunggah olehFranch Galanza
- FAQs on Land OwnershipDiunggah olehD.F. de Lira
- Malone Knowing What We SeeDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Cases - Batch 3Diunggah olehcashielle arellano
- elements+of+drama (1)Diunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Classical Theories of International TradeDiunggah olehRAMEEZ. A
- MTBase--Multilingual Education.pdfDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- drawingrubric.pdfDiunggah olehRommelyn Perez Pelicano
- Karya Umum-Basics of International Economics.pdfDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- ec3016_ch1-3Diunggah olehNavdeep Sehrawat
- Marriage, Family, KinshipDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- AbstractDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Chapter Vii-raw CasesDiunggah olehcashielle arellano
- Arts 1206-1255 FIB.pdfDiunggah olehcashielle arellano

- 08JALenthBasisDiunggah olehpratolectus
- Logical Fallacies, False ArgumentsDiunggah olehSusan Coleman
- Chapter 9Diunggah olehAgradecidoHuésped
- 6.1Diunggah olehHamid Ilyas
- Philosophical ArgumentsDiunggah olehHu Xiang
- Syllabus. CrithinDiunggah olehMark Anthony Dacela
- PHIL 132-Introduction to Logic-M. Shabbir AhsenDiunggah olehAhsan Saeed
- CATEGORIAL SYLLOGISMDiunggah olehHector
- Eng 102 Appendix FallaciesDiunggah olehjeanninestanko
- Gerald Runkle - Good Thinking, An Intro to LogicDiunggah olehbkaplan452
- fluids mind map rubricDiunggah olehapi-318809591
- Mediate InferenceDiunggah olehmish berns
- What is Thinking Like a LawyerDiunggah olehDonna Mae Gonzales Marquez
- Syl Log IsmsDiunggah olehArpit Nigam
- sp deductive reasoningDiunggah olehapi-326933003
- Spring 2012 Intro to Logic SyllabusDiunggah olehCameron Mortazavi
- FallaciesDiunggah olehvaba
- aristotle-prior-analytics-hackett-1989.pdfDiunggah olehHumpt Vivacqua
- LogicDiunggah olehArvella Albay
- Some Basic Concepts of LogicDiunggah olehMimi Lee
- Course Outline Intro to Philo With LogicDiunggah olehMichel Nayre
- A LOOK AT LOGICDiunggah olehandi kusuma irfandi
- Steps in the Reading ProcessDiunggah olehBarby Angel
- A History of Natural Deduction and Elementary Logic Textbooks in Logical Consequence - Rival Approaches, Vol 1 F J Pelletier (2000) (Oxford)Diunggah olehAnonymous 9FIdbUqJ9g
- Induction and DeductionDiunggah olehNethravathi Narayanaswamy
- Joshua Lieberman - Roles and Applications for Hydro OntologiesDiunggah olehConsortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc.
- Kenneth Konyndyk - Introductory Modal LogicDiunggah olehTarlan Fisher
- An Introduction to Ontology EngineeringDiunggah olehNick
- Librero_Felix_R_-_Writing_your_thesis_-_A_Practical_Guide_for_Students.pdfDiunggah olehRaef Sobh Azab
- Hume.docxDiunggah olehpenguinsarecute