# 5.6 Further Immediate Inferences

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions EXERCISES A. If we assume that the first proposition in each of the following sets is true, what can we affirm about the truth or falsehood of the remaining propositions in each set? B. If we assume that the first proposition in each set is false, what can we affirm? *1. a. All successful executives are intelligent people. b. No successful executives are intelligent people. c. Some successful executives are intelligent people. d. Some successful executives are not intelligent people. 2. a. No animals with horns are carnivores. b. Some animals with horns are carnivores. c. Some animals with horns are not carnivores. d. All animals with horns are carnivores. 3. a. Some uranium isotopes are highly unstable substances. b. Some uranium isotopes are not highly unstable substances. c. All uranium isotopes are highly unstable substances. d. No uranium isotopes are highly unstable substances. 4. a. Some college professors are not entertaining lecturers. b. All college professors are entertaining lecturers. c. No college professors are entertaining lecturers. d. Some college professors are entertaining lecturers. 5.6 Further Immediate Inferences Three other important kinds of immediate inference are not associated directly with the square of opposition: Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition. These we now explain: A. CONVERSION Conversion is an inference that proceeds by interchanging the subject and predicate terms of the proposition. No men are angels converts to No angels are men, and these propositions may be validly inferred from one another. Similarly, Some women are writers and Some writers are women are logically equivalent, and by conversion either can be validly inferred from the other. Conversion is perfectly valid for all E propositions and for all I propositions. One standard-form categorical proposition is therefore said to be the converse of another when we derive it by simply interchanging the subject and predicate terms of that other proposition. The proposition from which it is derived is called the convertend. Thus, No idealists are politicians is the converse of No politicians are idealists, which is its convertend.

2 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page Further Immediate Inferences 199 The conversion of an O proposition is not, in general, valid. The O proposition, Some animals are not dogs, is plainly true; its converse is the proposition, Some dogs are not animals, which is plainly false. An O proposition and its converse are not, in general, logically equivalent. The A proposition presents a special problem here. Of course, the converse of an A proposition does not in general follow from its convertend. From All dogs are animals we certainly may not infer that All animals are dogs. Traditional logic recognized this, of course, but asserted, nevertheless, that something like conversion was valid for A propositions. On the traditional square of opposition, one could validly infer from the A proposition, All dogs are animals, its subaltern I proposition, Some dogs are animals. The A proposition says something about all members of the subject class (dogs), the I proposition makes a more limited claim, about only some of the members of that class. In general, it was held that one could infer Some S is P from All S is P. And, as we saw earlier, an I proposition may be converted validly; if some dogs are animals, then some animals are dogs. So, if we are given the A proposition that All dogs are animals, we first infer that Some dogs are animals by subalternation, and from that subaltern we can by conversion validly infer that Some animals are dogs. Hence, by a combination of subalternation and conversion, we advance validly from All S is P to Some P is S. This pattern of inference, called conversion by limitation (or conversion per accidens) proceeds by interchanging subject and predicate terms and changing the quantity of the proposition from universal to particular. This type of conversion will be considered further in the next section. In all conversions, the converse of a given proposition contains exactly the same subject and predicate terms as the convertend, their order being reversed, and always has the same quality (of affirmation or denial). A complete picture of this immediate inference as traditionally understood is given by the following table: OVERVIEW Valid Conversions Convertend Converse A: All S is P. I: Some P is S. (by limitation) E: No S is P. E: No P is S. I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S. O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid)

3 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions B. CLASSES AND CLASS COMPLEMENTS To explain other types of immediate inference we must examine more closely the concept of a class and explain what is meant by the complement of a class. Any class, we have said, is the collection of all objects that have a certain common attribute, which we may refer to as the class-defining characteristic. The class of all humans is the collection of all things that have the characteristic of being human; its class-defining characteristic is the attribute of being human. The class-defining characteristic need not be a simple attribute; any attribute may determine a class. For example, the complex attribute of being left-handed and red-headed and a student determines a class the class of all left-handed, red-headed students. Every class has, associated with it, a complementary class, or complement, which is the collection of all things that do not belong to the original class. The complement of the class of all people is the class of all things that are not people. The class-defining characteristic of that complementary class is the (negative) attribute of not being a person. The complement of the class of all people contains no people, but it contains everything else: shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages but no kings, because kings are people. It is often convenient to speak of the complement of the class of all persons as the class of all nonpersons. The complement of the class designated by the term S is then designated by the term non-s; we may speak of the term non-s as being the complement of the term S.* The word complement is thus used in two senses. In one sense it is the complement of a class, in the other it is the complement of a term. These are different but very closely connected. One term is the (term) complement of another just in case the first term designates the (class) complement of the class designated by the second term. Note that a class is the (class) complement of its own complement. Likewise, a term is the (term) complement of its own complement. A sort of double negative rule is involved here, to avoid strings of non s prefixed to a term. Thus, the complement of the term voter is nonvoter, but the complement of nonvoter should be written simply as voter rather than as nonnonvoter. One must be careful not to mistake contrary terms for complementary terms. Coward and hero are contraries, because no person can be both a coward and a hero. But we must not identify cowards with nonheroes because not everyone, and certainly not everything, need be one or the other. *Sometimes we reason using what is called the relative complement of a class, its complement within some other class. For example, within the class of children of mine there is a subclass, daughters of mine, whose relative complement is another subclass, children of mine who are not daughters, or sons of mine. But obversions, and other immediate inferences, rely on the absolute complement of classes, as defined above.

4 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page Further Immediate Inferences 201 Likewise, the complement of the term winner is not loser but nonwinner, for although not everything, or even everyone, is either a winner or a loser, absolutely everything is either a winner or a nonwinner. C. OBVERSION Obversion is an immediate inference that is easy to explain once the concept of a term complement is understood. To obvert a proposition, we change its quality (affirmative to negative or negative to affirmative) and replace the predicate term with its complement. However, the subject term remains unchanged, and so does the quantity of the proposition being obverted. For example, the A proposition, All residents are voters, has as its obverse the E proposition, No residents are nonvoters. These two are logically equivalent propositions, and either may be validly inferred from the other. Obversion is a valid immediate inference when applied to any standardform categorical proposition: The E proposition, No umpires are partisans, has as its obverse the logically equivalent A proposition, All umpires are nonpartisans. The I proposition, Some metals are conductors, has as its obverse the O proposition, Some metals are not nonconductors. The O proposition, Some nations were not belligerents, has as its obverse the I proposition, Some nations were nonbelligerents. The proposition serving as premise for the obversion is called the obvertend; the conclusion of the inference is called the obverse. Every standardform categorical proposition is logically equivalent to its obverse, so obversion is a valid form of immediate inference for all standard-form categorical propositions. To obtain the obverse of any proposition, we leave the quantity (universal or particular) and the subject term unchanged; we change the quality of the proposition and replace the predicate term with its complement. The following table gives a complete picture of all valid obversions: OVERVIEW 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.

5 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions D. CONTRAPOSITION A third type of immediate inference, contraposition, can be reduced to the first two, conversion and obversion. To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, we replace its subject term with the complement of its predicate term, and we replace its predicate term with the complement of its subject term. Neither the quality nor the quantity of the original proposition is changed, so the contrapositive of an A proposition is an A proposition, the contrapositive of an O proposition is an O proposition, and so forth. For example, the contrapositive of the A proposition, All members are voters, is the A proposition, All nonvoters are nonmembers. These are logically equivalent propositions, as will be evident on reflection. Contraposition is plainly a valid form of immediate inference when applied to A propositions. It really introduces nothing new, because we can get from any A proposition to its contrapositive by first obverting it, next applying conversion, and then applying obversion again. Beginning with All S is P, we obvert it to obtain No S is non-p, which converts validly to No non-p is S, whose obverse is All non-p is non-s. The contrapositive of any A proposition is the obverse of the converse of the obverse of that proposition. Contraposition is a valid form of immediate inference when applied to O propositions also, although its conclusion may be awkward to express. The contrapositive of the O proposition, Some students are not idealists, is the somewhat cumbersome O proposition, Some nonidealists are not nonstudents, which is logically equivalent to its premise. This also can be shown to be the outcome of first obverting, then converting, then obverting again. Some S is not P obverts to Some S is non-p, which converts to Some non- P is S, which obverts to Some non-p is not non-s. For I propositions, however, contraposition is not, in general, a valid form of inference. The true I proposition, Some citizens are nonlegislators, has as its contrapositive the false proposition, Some legislators are noncitizens. The reason for this invalidity becomes evident when we try to derive the contrapositive of the I proposition by successively obverting, converting, and obverting. The obverse of the original I proposition, Some S is P, is the O proposition, Some S is not non-p, but (as we saw earlier) the converse of an O proposition does not generally follow validly from it. In the case of E propositions, the contrapositive does not follow validly from the original, as can be seen when, if we begin with the true proposition, No wrestlers are weaklings, we get, as its contrapositive, the obviously false proposition, No nonweaklings are nonwrestlers. The reason for this invalidity we will see, again, if we attempt to derive it by successive obversion, conversion, and obversion. If we begin with the E proposition, No S is P, and obvert it, we obtain the A proposition, All S is non-p which in general

6 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page Further Immediate Inferences 203 cannot be validly converted except by limitation. If we do then convert it by limitation to obtain Some non-p is S, we can obvert this to obtain Some non-p is not non-s. This outcome we may call the contrapositive by limitation and this too we will consider further in the next section. Contraposition by limitation, in which we infer an O proposition from an E proposition (for example, we infer Some non-p is not non-s from No S is P ), has the same peculiarity as conversion by limitation, on which it depends. Because a particular proposition is inferred from a universal proposition, the resulting contrapositive cannot have the same meaning, and cannot be logically equivalent to the proposition that was the original premise. On the other hand, the contrapositive of an A proposition is an A proposition, and the contrapositive of an O proposition is an O proposition, and in each of these cases the contrapositive and the premise from which it is derived are equivalent. Contraposition is thus seen to be valid only when applied to A and O propositions. It is not valid at all for I propositions, and it is valid for E propositions only by limitation. The complete picture is exhibited in the following table: OVERVIEW Contraposition Premise Contrapositive A: All S is P. A: All non-p is non-s. E: No S is P. O: Some non-p is not non-s. (by limitation) I: Some S is P. (contraposition not valid) O: Some S is not-p. O: Some non-p is not non-s. Questions about the relations between propositions can often be answered by exploring the various immediate inferences that can be drawn from one or the other of them. For example, given that the proposition, All surgeons are physicians, is true, what can we know about the truth or falsehood of the proposition, No nonsurgeons are nonphysicians? Does this problematic proposition or its contradictory or contrary follow validly from the one given as true? To answer we proceed as follows: From what we are given, All surgeons are physicians, we can validly infer its contrapositive, All nonphysicians are nonsurgeons. From this, using conversion by limitation (valid according to the traditional view), we can derive Some nonsurgeons are nonphysicians. But this is the contradictory of the proposition in question

7 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 11/13/07 8:40 AM Page CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions ( No nonsurgeons are nonphysicians ), which is thus no longer problematic but known to be false. In the very first chapter of this book we noted that a valid argument whose premises are true must have a true conclusion, but also that a valid argument whose premises are false can have a true conclusion. Thus, from the false premise, All animals are cats, the true proposition, Some animals are cats, follows by subalternation. And from the false proposition, All parents are students, conversion by limitation yields the true proposition, Some students are parents. Therefore, if a proposition is given to be false, and the question is raised about the truth or falsehood of some other, related proposition, the recommended procedure is to begin drawing immediate inferences from either (1) the contradictory of the proposition known to be false, or (2) the problematic proposition itself. The contradictory of a false proposition must be true, and all valid inferences from that will also be true propositions. And if we follow the other course and are able to show that the problematic proposition implies the proposition that is given is false, we know that it must itself be false. Here follows a table in which the forms of immediateinference conversion, obversion, and contraposition are fully displayed: OVERVIEW Immediate Inferences: Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition Conversion Convertend Converse A: All S is P. I: Some P is S. (by limitation) E: No S is P. E: No P is S. I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S. O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid) Obversion 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 Premise Contrapositive A: All S is P. A: All non-p is non-s.

8 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page Further Immediate Inferences 205 E: No S is P. O: Some non-p is not non-s. (by limitation) I: Some S is P. (contraposition not valid) O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-p is not non-s. EXERCISES A. State the converses of the following propositions, and indicate which of them are equivalent to the given propositions. *1. No people who are considerate of others are reckless drivers who pay no attention to traffic regulations. 2. All graduates of West Point are commissioned officers in the U.S. Army. 3. Some European cars are overpriced and underpowered automobiles. 4. No reptiles are warm-blooded animals. *5. Some professional wrestlers are elderly persons who are incapable of doing an honest day s work. B. State the obverses of the following propositions. *1. Some college athletes are professionals. 2. No organic compounds are metals. 3. Some clergy are not abstainers. 4. No geniuses are conformists. *5. All objects suitable for boat anchors are objects that weigh at least fifteen pounds. C. State the contrapositives of the following propositions and indicate which of them are equivalent to the given propositions. *1. All journalists are pessimists. 2. Some soldiers are not officers. 3. All scholars are nondegenerates. 4. All things weighing less than fifty pounds are objects not more than four feet high. *5. Some noncitizens are not nonresidents. D. If All socialists are pacifists is true, what may be inferred about the truth or falsehood of the following propositions? That is, which can be

9 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions known to be true, which can be known to be false, and which are undetermined? *1. Some nonpacifists are not nonsocialists. 2. No socialists are nonpacifists. 3. All nonsocialists are nonpacifists. 4. No nonpacifists are socialists. *5. No nonsocialists are nonpacifists. 6. All nonpacifists are nonsocialists. 7. No pacifists are nonsocialists. 8. Some socialists are not pacifists. 9. All pacifists are socialists. *10. Some nonpacifists are socialists. E. If No scientists are philosophers is true, what may be inferred about the truth or falsehood of the following propositions? That is, which can be known to be true, which can be known to be false, and which are undetermined? *1. No nonphilosophers are scientists. 2. Some nonphilosophers are not nonscientists. 3. All nonscientists are nonphilosophers. 4. No scientists are nonphilosophers. *5. No nonscientists are nonphilosophers. 6. All philosophers are scientists. 7. Some nonphilosophers are scientists. 8. All nonphilosophers are nonscientists. 9. Some scientists are not philosophers. *10. No philosophers are nonscientists. F. If Some saints were martyrs is true, what may be inferred about the truth or falsehood of the following propositions? That is, which can be known to be true, which can be known to be false, and which are undetermined? *1. All saints were martyrs. 2. All saints were nonmartyrs. 3. Some martyrs were saints. 4. No saints were martyrs. *5. All martyrs were nonsaints. 6. Some nonmartyrs were saints.

10 M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 11/13/07 8:41 AM Page Existential Import and the Interpretation of Categorical Propositions Some saints were not nonmartyrs. 8. No martyrs were saints. 9. Some nonsaints were martyrs. *10. Some martyrs were nonsaints. 11. Some saints were not martyrs. 12. Some martyrs were not saints. 13. No saints were nonmartyrs. 14. No nonsaints were martyrs. *15. Some martyrs were not nonsaints. G. If Some merchants are not pirates is true, what may be inferred about the truth or falsehood of the following propositions? That is, which can be known to be true, which can be known to be false, and which are undetermined? *1. No pirates are merchants. 2. No merchants are nonpirates. 3. Some merchants are nonpirates. 4. All nonmerchants are pirates. *5. Some nonmerchants are nonpirates. 6. All merchants are pirates. 7. No nonmerchants are pirates. 8. No pirates are nonmerchants. 9. All nonpirates are nonmerchants. *10. Some nonpirates are not nonmerchants. 11. Some nonpirates are merchants. 12. No nonpirates are merchants. 13. Some pirates are merchants. 14. No merchants are nonpirates. *15. No merchants are pirates. 5.7 Existential Import and the Interpretation of Categorical Propositions Categorical propositions are the building blocks of arguments, and our aim throughout is to analyze and evaluate arguments. To do this we must be able to diagram and symbolize the A, E, I, and O propositions. But before we can do that we must confront and resolve a deep logical problem one that has

### Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world

Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk Pearson Education Limited 2014

### 7. Some recent rulings of the Supreme Court were politically motivated decisions that flouted the entire history of U.S. legal practice.

M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page 193 5.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition 193 EXERCISES Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions, and state whether their

### 1. Immediate inferences embodied in the square of opposition 2. Obversion 3. Conversion

CHAPTER 3: CATEGORICAL INFERENCES Inference is the process by which the truth of one proposition (the conclusion) is affirmed on the basis of the truth of one or more other propositions that serve as its

### Unit 7.3. Contraries E. Contradictories. Sub-contraries

What is opposition of Unit 7.3 Square of Opposition Four categorical propositions A, E, I and O are related and at the same time different from each other. The relation among them is explained by a diagram

### Dr. Carlo Alvaro Reasoning and Argumentation Distribution & Opposition DISTRIBUTION

DISTRIBUTION Categorical propositions are statements that describe classes (groups) of objects designate by the subject and the predicate terms. A class is a group of things that have something in common

### 1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4

1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4 Summary Notes These are summary notes so that you can really listen in class and not spend the entire time copying notes. These notes will not substitute for reading the

### Identify the subject and predicate terms in, and name the form of, each of the following propositions.

M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page 187 5.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution 187 EXERCISES Identify the subject and predicate terms in, and name the form of, each of the following propositions.

### Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide

Chapter 6: Categorical Syllogisms Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide A. Standard-form Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument containing three categorical propositions: two premises

### SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Prof. C. Byrne Dept. of Philosophy SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC Syllogistic logic is the original form in which formal logic was developed; hence it is sometimes also referred to as Aristotelian logic after Aristotle,

### In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following:

Basic Principles of Deductive Logic Part One: In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following: Mental Act Simple Apprehension Judgment

### 10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 441 10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers 441 and Wx, and so on. We call these propositional functions simple predicates, to distinguish them from

### 5.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

M05_COI1396_13_E_C05.QXD 11/13/07 8:39 AM age 182 182 CHATER 5 Categorical ropositions Categorical propositions are the fundamental elements, the building blocks of argument, in the classical account of

### Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE

CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or

### What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing Logical relations Deductive logic Claims to provide conclusive support for the truth of a conclusion Inductive

### Fortunately, the greatest detective was doing some. Categorical Logic. Students will learn to...

8 Deductive Arguments I Categorical Logic... The Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the

### CHAPTER III. Of Opposition.

CHAPTER III. Of Opposition. Section 449. Opposition is an immediate inference grounded on the relation between propositions which have the same terms, but differ in quantity or in quality or in both. Section

### Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER VIII

CHAPTER VIII ORDER OF TERMS, EULER'S DIAGRAMS, LOGICAL EQUATIONS, EXISTENTIAL IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS Section 1. Of the terms of a proposition which is the Subject and which the Predicate? In most of the

### 1.6 Validity and Truth

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 30 30 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in which the probability of a certain combination of events is

### Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language

### Complications for Categorical Syllogisms. PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University

Complications for Categorical Syllogisms PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University Overall Plan First, I will present some problematic propositions and

### Philosophy 57 Day 10

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 57 Lecture 1 Philosophy 57 Day 10 Quiz #2 Curve (approximate) 100 (A); 70 80 (B); 50 60 (C); 40 (D); < 40 (F) Quiz #3 is next Tuesday 03/04/03 (on chapter 4 not tnanslation)

### 6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism

M06_COPI1396_13_SE_C06.QXD 10/16/07 9:17 PM Page 255 6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism 255 7. All supporters of popular government are democrats, so all supporters

### Philosophy 57 Day 10. Chapter 4: Categorical Statements Conversion, Obversion & Contraposition II

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 57 Lecture 1 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 57 Lecture 2 Chapter 4: Categorical tatements Conversion, Obversion & Contraposition I Philosophy 57 Day 10 Quiz #2 Curve (approximate)

### Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

### Reasoning SYLLOGISM. follows.

Reasoning SYLLOGISM RULES FOR DERIVING CONCLUSIONS 1. The Conclusion does not contain the Middle Term (M). Premises : All spoons are plates. Some spoons are cups. Invalid Conclusion : All spoons are cups.

### 7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions

Unit 7.1 Terms and Propositions Nature of propositions A proposition is a unit of reasoning or logical thinking. Both premises and conclusion of reasoning are propositions. Since propositions are so important,

### The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle

The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle Aristotle, Antiquities Project About the author.... Aristotle (384-322) studied for twenty years at Plato s Academy in Athens. Following Plato s death, Aristotle left

### Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms

Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms Consider Argument 1 and Argument 2, and select the option that correctly identifies the valid argument(s), if any. Argument 1 All bears are omnivores. All omnivores

### Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak.

On Interpretation By Aristotle Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak. First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation',

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

### (Refer Slide Time 03:00)

Artificial Intelligence Prof. Anupam Basu Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture - 15 Resolution in FOPL In the last lecture we had discussed about

### 1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

Analysis Breaking down an idea, concept, theory, etc. into its most basic parts in order to get a better understanding of its structure. This is necessary to evaluate the merits of the claim properly (is

### Philosophy 105: Critical Reasoning. Modesto Junior College Instructor: J. Smith

1 Philosophy 105: Critical Reasoning Modesto Junior College Instructor: Categorical Logic 1.1 Venn Diagrams for Simple Propositions 1.2 Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms 1.3 Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition

### Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations

### HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the

### 3.3. Negations as premises Overview

3.3. Negations as premises 3.3.0. Overview A second group of rules for negation interchanges the roles of an affirmative sentence and its negation. 3.3.1. Indirect proof The basic principles for negation

### REASONING SYLLOGISM. Subject Predicate Distributed Not Distributed Distributed Distributed

REASONING SYLLOGISM DISTRIBUTION OF THE TERMS The word "Distrlbution" is meant to characterise the ways in which terrns can occur in Categorical Propositions. A Proposition distributes a terrn if it refers

### On Interpretation. Section 1. Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill. Part 1

On Interpretation Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill Section 1 Part 1 First we must define the terms noun and verb, then the terms denial and affirmation, then proposition and sentence. Spoken words

### CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model

### PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic

PHI 103 - Introduction Lecture 4 An Overview of the wo Branches of Logic he wo Branches of Logic Argument - at least two statements where one provides logical support for the other. I. Deduction - a conclusion

### Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms Unit 5 John Venn 1834 1923 English logician and philosopher noted for introducing the Venn diagram Used in set theory, probability, logic, statistics, and computer

### In Search of the Ontological Argument. Richard Oxenberg

1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

### PRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin.

PRACTICE EXAM 1 I. Decide which of the following are arguments. For those that are, identify the premises and conclusions in them by CIRCLING them and labeling them with a P for the premises or a C for

### 1/5. The Critique of Theology

1/5 The Critique of Theology The argument of the Transcendental Dialectic has demonstrated that there is no science of rational psychology and that the province of any rational cosmology is strictly limited.

### Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall Stetson University Chapter 8 - Sentential ruth ables and Argument orms 8.1 Introduction he truth-value of a given truth-functional compound proposition depends

### Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Study Guides Chapter 1 - Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)

### MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

### Anthony P. Andres. The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic. Anthony P. Andres

[ Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 0 AQR Vol. W rev. 0, 17 Jun 2009 ] [The Aquinas Review Vol. W rev. 0: 1 The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic From at least the time of John of St. Thomas, scholastic

Trinity & contradiction Today we ll discuss one of the most distinctive, and philosophically most problematic, Christian doctrines: the doctrine of the Trinity. It is tempting to see the doctrine of the

### But we may go further: not only Jones, but no actual man, enters into my statement. This becomes obvious when the statement is false, since then

CHAPTER XVI DESCRIPTIONS We dealt in the preceding chapter with the words all and some; in this chapter we shall consider the word the in the singular, and in the next chapter we shall consider the word

### Workbook Unit 17: Negated Categorical Propositions

Workbook Unit 17: Negated Categorical Propositions Overview 1 1. Reminder 2 2. Negated Categorical Propositions 2 2.1. Negation of Proposition A: Not all Ss are P 3 2.2. Negation of Proposition E: It is

### Early Russell on Philosophical Grammar

Early Russell on Philosophical Grammar G. J. Mattey Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156 Philosophical Grammar The study of grammar, in my opinion, is capable of throwing far more light on philosophical questions

### PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 7.1 Introduction PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions What has been made abundantly clear in the previous discussion

### BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

1 BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC 1. What is Logic?... 2 2. Inferences and Arguments... 2 3. Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic... 5 4. Statements versus Propositions... 6 5. Form versus Content... 7 6. Preliminary

### Chapter 9- Sentential Proofs

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9- Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truth-functional arguments.

### Logic: A Brief Introduction

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions 7.1 Introduction What has been made abundantly clear in the previous discussion

### Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate

Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate We ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free will. But what does this mean?

### Russell: On Denoting

Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of

### Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

### 9 Methods of Deduction

M09_COPI1396_13_SE_C09.QXD 10/19/07 3:46 AM Page 372 9 Methods of Deduction 9.1 Formal Proof of Validity 9.2 The Elementary Valid Argument Forms 9.3 Formal Proofs of Validity Exhibited 9.4 Constructing

### By submitting this essay, I attest that it is my own work, completed in accordance with University regulations. Minh Alexander Nguyen

DRST 004: Directed Studies Philosophy Professor Matthew Noah Smith By submitting this essay, I attest that it is my own work, completed in accordance with University regulations. Minh Alexander Nguyen

### Instructor s Manual 1

Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The

### Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument

### 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

### BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC 1. What is Logic?...2 2. Inferences and Arguments...2 3. Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic...5 4. Statements versus Propositions...6 5. Form versus Content...7 6. Preliminary

### Broad on Theological Arguments. I. The Ontological Argument

Broad on God Broad on Theological Arguments I. The Ontological Argument Sample Ontological Argument: Suppose that God is the most perfect or most excellent being. Consider two things: (1)An entity that

### The Names of God. from Summa Theologiae (Part I, Questions 12-13) by Thomas Aquinas (~1265 AD) translated by Brian Shanley (2006)

The Names of God from Summa Theologiae (Part I, Questions 12-13) by Thomas Aquinas (~1265 AD) translated by Brian Shanley (2006) For with respect to God, it is more apparent to us what God is not, rather

### 1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are two-edged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective

### John Buridan. Summulae de Dialectica IX Sophismata

John Buridan John Buridan (c. 1295 c. 1359) was born in Picardy (France). He was educated in Paris and taught there. He wrote a number of works focusing on exposition and discussion of issues in Aristotle

### Truth At a World for Modal Propositions

Truth At a World for Modal Propositions 1 Introduction Existentialism is a thesis that concerns the ontological status of individual essences and singular propositions. Let us define an individual essence

### 1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

18. If inflation heats up, then interest rates will rise. If interest rates rise, then bond prices will decline. Therefore, if inflation heats up, then bond prices will decline. 19. Statistics reveal that

### 9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations. Today s Lecture 3/30/10

9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations Today s Lecture 3/30/10 Announcements Tests back today Homework: --Ex 9.1 pgs. 431-432 Part C (1-25) Predicate Logic Consider the argument: All

### THE PROBLEM OF CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITIONALS. By JOHN WATLING

THE PROBLEM OF CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITIONALS By JOHN WATLING There is an argument which appears to show that it is impossible to verify a contrary-to-fact conditional; so giving rise to an important and

### Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring Sound: Any valid argument with true premises.

Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring 2017 Deductive argument: An argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Validity: A characteristic of any

### 2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.

### The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument Saint Anselm offers a very unique and interesting argument for the existence of God. It is an a priori argument. That is, it is an argument or proof that one might give independent

### GENERAL NOTES ON THIS CLASS

PRACTICAL LOGIC Bryan Rennie GENERAL NOTES ON THE CLASS EXPLANATION OF GRADES AND POINTS, ETC. SAMPLE QUIZZES SCHEDULE OF CLASSES THE SIX RULES OF SYLLOGISMS (and corresponding fallacies) SYMBOLS USED

Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

Chadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDE-IN To classify sentences like This proposition is false as having no truth value or as nonpropositions is generally considered as being

### Logic Primer. Elihu Carranza, Ph.D. Inky Publication Napa, California

Logic Primer Elihu Carranza, Ph.D. Inky Publication Napa, California Logic Primer Copyright 2012 Elihu Carranza, Ph.D. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any

### CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those

### Deccan Education Society s FERGUSSON COLLEGE, PUNE (AUTONOMOUS) SYLLABUS UNDER AUTONOMY FIRST YEAR B.A. LOGIC SEMESTER I

Deccan Education Society s FERGUSSON COLLEGE, PUNE (AUTONOMOUS) SYLLABUS UNDER AUTONOMY FIRST YEAR B.A. LOGIC SEMESTER I Academic Year 2016-2017 Department: PHILOSOPHY Deccan Education Society s FERGUSSON

### Introduction to Philosophy Practice Exam Two. True or False A = True, B= False

Introduction to Philosophy Practice Exam Two True or False A = True, B= False 1. The objective aspect of an object's beauty is called "admirable beauty." 2. An apparent good is something you need. 3. St.

### Russell on Denoting. G. J. Mattey. Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156. The concept any finite number is not odd, nor is it even.

Russell on Denoting G. J. Mattey Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156 Denoting in The Principles of Mathematics This notion [denoting] lies at the bottom (I think) of all theories of substance, of the subject-predicate

### SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

Exam Name SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. Draw a Venn diagram for the given sets. In words, explain why you drew one set as a subset of

### Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The Physical World Author(s): Barry Stroud Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 87 (1986-1987), pp. 263-277 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian

### First Principles. Principles of Reality. Undeniability.

First Principles. First principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known (see FOUNDATIONALISM). Even coherentism uses the first principle of noncontradiction to test the

### Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 6th edition Extra Examples

Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 6th edition Extra Examples Section 1.1 Propositional Logic Page references correspond to locations of Extra Examples icons in the textbook. p.2, icon at

### INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include

### Aristotle on the Principle of Contradiction :

Aristotle on the Principle of Contradiction : Book Gamma of the Metaphysics Robert L. Latta Having argued that there is a science which studies being as being, Aristotle goes on to inquire, at the beginning

### Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last

### A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,

### Creation & necessity

Creation & necessity Today we turn to one of the central claims made about God in the Nicene Creed: that God created all things visible and invisible. In the Catechism, creation is described like this:

### Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page x

Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page x McGraw-Hill Higher Education Layman: The Power of Logic, 3e CHAPTER 1 / Page x Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page 1 McGraw-Hill Higher Education Layman: The Power

### In his paper Studies of Logical Confirmation, Carl Hempel discusses

Aporia vol. 19 no. 1 2009 Hempel s Raven Joshua Ernst In his paper Studies of Logical Confirmation, Carl Hempel discusses his criteria for an adequate theory of confirmation. In his discussion, he argues

### Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

A03.1 Introduction Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: With valid arguments, it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are all true. Obviously valid arguments play a very important