LOGIC - is the science of correct reasoning.

It is the study of the methods and

principles used to distinguish good or correct reasoning from bad or incorrect
reasoning. It deals with principles, rules nd procedures that guaranty the validity
of the concepts asserted by our thinking minds. Simply, it is the process by
which we systematize our way of knowing the truth.
I. LOGIC and JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT - is the process of seizing a present object in terms of the ideas
we associate to it. Judgment is the conclusion we render to the reality of an
object.
MEANING - a mental phenomenon that serves as a copy of an instance of
any particular object. It denotes the object. It is the concept we assign to the
reality of an object.
CONCEPT - are meanings established by empirical observation or cultural
designation which capture reality.
II. LOGIC and THOUGHT
THOUGHT - a mental phenomenon where the mind organizes the data that
pass through the senses. This process results to the formation of insight.
INSIGHT - a meaning that one arrives at after relating or associating the data
that enter the human mind. It is the knowledge gained from inference, and it
is arrived at by way of judgment.
INFERENCE - the way by which the mind acquires new knowledge from a set
of facts that is already unknown.
IDEA - represents the objects of perception. Ideas are really concepts. As
meanings, this exists in the real of thought.
III. LOGIC as PHILOSOPHY
1. METAPHYSICS - the study of being. It is an inquiry into the nature of
reality. It inquires about "what is really real?"
2. COMMON SENSE - refers to our capacity to judge based on perceived
knowledge that is naturally and universally accepted. Common sense
dictates that data and facts do not lie, and so, as the senses picture them
out, a valid judgment is arrived at.
3. ARGUMENTATION
a. CLAIM - is an assertion about the truth of something. When one
makes a claim, one needs to show what one exactly means. Thus,
one who makes a claim needs to prove it with some information.
b. GROUND - the basis of any claim that is made. Any ground must be
some empirical data or experience that serves as evidence for the
veracity of one's claim. Data are gathered and not products of
assumption.

c. WARRANT - supports, justifies, or legitimizes a claim. It guarantees

the truth of the claim by pointing out to some obvious results or
consequences.
d. BACKING - in terms of underlying principle or background, backing
would validate a claim theoretically, providing a basic rule, law, or
principle.
IV. LOGIC as SCIENCE
1. LOGIC and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD - being a form of science, logic
investigates the formal structure of propositions and arguments. Logic
deals with inference, both mediate and immediate in order to see the
relation between propositions and their premises.
2. LOGIC and ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
a. LANGUAGE - is a picture of reality or of a fact
b. PROPOSITIONS - are expressions of reality. It purports to express
facts.
c. TERM - is a sign of concept. It is the most basic part of a proposition.
Term denotes meaning.
d. DEFINITION - the explanation of the nature of a thing. It expresses
what a thing is as a thing.

CRITICAL THINKING - is a general term given to a wide range of cognitive

skills needed to effectively interpret, analyze and evaluate arguments and truth
claims, to formulate logical arguments and to make reasonable and sound
decisions. In short, critical thinking means thinking clearly, logically and
intelligently.
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
1. INTERPRETATIVE SKILLS - the skills needed to assess arguments well and
interpret statements in such a way that makes their meaning as clear as
possible.
2. VERIFICATION SKILLS - the skills needed to determine the truth or falsity of
statements.
3. REASONING SKILLS - the skills needed to determine the logic of the
argument, whether or not what it claims has adequate support or basis for it
to be accepted.
4. SKILL IN ASKING RELEVANT QUESTIONS - the skill needed in challenging
the ideas and arguments presented to a critical thinker when they find them
questionable.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRITICAL THINKER

1. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY - Honest with themselves, acknowledging what

they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own
errors.
2. OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT - Base judgments on evidence rather than
personal preferences.
3. OPENNESS TO CRITICISMS - Interested in other people's ideas, so are
willing to read and listen attentively even when they tend to disagree with the
other person.
4. SELF-CONTROL - Practice retraint, controlling their feelings and thinking
before acting.
5. INDEPENDENT THINKING - Think independently and are not afraid to
disagree with group opinion.
THREE MENTAL ACTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
1. APPREHENSION - is a mental process of grasping ideas without affirming or
denying it. It is the mental act of simply understanding the thing, the
whatness or the essence of a thing with the use of our basic senses.
"IDEOGENESIS" - the formulation of the primary principles that enters the
mind.
PRODUCT OF APPREHENSION:
1. Ideas - based on senses and intellect
2. Fantasy - based on imagination
2. JUDGMENT - is the mental act of rendering conclusion for the reality of the
object
PRODUCT OF JUDGMENT
1. Statement - a group of concepts the purpose of which is to assert or claim
something. It is always either true or false. Usually, statements are
expressed through declarative sentences.
2. Proposition
3. REASONING - is the mental act where the mind links thoughts together in
such a way that one thought supports another thought. Through this process
of reasoning, we are able to formulate arguments.
PRODUCT OF REASONING
1. Argument - refers to a group of statements in which one statement is
claimed to be true on the basis of another statement. It is a claim put
forward and defended with reasons. It is composed of a premise and a
conclusion.
a. Premise - are statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons

in support of another statement.

b. Conclusion - the statement in an argument that the premises are
intended to support or prove.

LANGUAGE - is an essential tool in the art of logical and effective reasoning.

It is the most effective means of which we can express our thinking and
reasoning, as well as to convey our thoughts and arguments.
NATURE AND PROBLEMS OF LANGUAGE
1. VAGUENESS - refers to lack of clarity in the meaning of a term. A term is
vague when its meaning is fuzzy or has no exact boundaries. In order not to
be misunderstood by other people, we can remove the vagueness of
language by using a more specific term.
2. AMBIGUITY - arises when a term or a sentence has more than one meaning.
A word is ambiguous when it is not obvious which of its meaning is intended
in a situation in which the word is used. Ambiguity arise because of the way
sentences are constructed. Thus, in order to remove the ambiguity of this
sentence, we need to reconstruct it in such a wasy as to make clear what the
sentence really means.
a. Semantic ambiguity - occurs when it is not clear what is the intended
meaning of a particular word in a given sentence.
b. Grammatical ambiguity - arises when a sentence can have more than
one meaning because of its faulty structure.
TWO KINDS OF DISPUTE
1. VERBAL DISPUTE - when two people to not agree with each other over a
certain issue because they have different notions of what a term means.
Such dispute could be avoided if only these two people clarify from the very
beginning what the words in the sentence actually mean.
2. GENUINE DISPUTE - that which arise not because people have different
understanding of the terms but because people have different knowledge,
information or belief about something.

DEFINITION - one effective means of preventing and eliminating verbal

dispute as well as the misunderstanding and micommunication brought about by
the vagueness and ambiguity of language is through a clear and accurate
definition of our terms. The term "define" comes from the Latin verb definere,
which literally means to enclose within limits. Thus, to define a term means to
set limits to the usage of the term.
TWO SENSES OF THE MEANING OF A TERM
1. EXTENSION or DENOTATION - refers to all the objects to which it correctly
applies.
Ex: The extensional meaning of "percussion" consists of drums, cymbals,
maraccas, because these are objects to which the term correctly applies.
2. INTENSION or CONNOTATION - refers to the qualities or attributes shared

by all and only those objects to which the term refers.

Ex: The intentional meaning of "percussion" consists of being a musical
instrument played by striking or shaking, because these are the attributes
common and peculiar to all instruments we call percussion.
TWO PARTS OF DEFINITION
1. DEFINIENDUM - the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined
2. DEFINIENS - the word or group of words that does the defining
Ex: "Triangle is a polygon with three sides." - Triangle is the definiendum,
and everything after the word means is the definiens.
STRATEGIES or METHODS OF DEFINING TERMS
1. DENOTATIVE METHOD - provides concrete examples of the extension of a
term.
a. Enumerative Definition - where we name the members of the class to
which the term refers
Ex: To define "religion", you could mention Christianity, Islam, and
Muslim.
b. Ostensive Definition - pointing to the objects which the term denotes.
Ex: If someone wants to know what "corsage" is, you may point to a
person who is wearing a corsage.
2. CONNOTATIVE METHOD - gives the essential characteristics of a term being
defined.
a. Genus - refers to the general class to which the term belongs.
Ex: In the genus "animal" there are subclasses like mammal, bird, reptile,
etc.
b. Differentia - refers to the attributes that distinguish the various subclasses
within a genus.
Ex: The differential that distinguishes birds from other subclasses of the
genus animal would include the attributes of being feathered, having a
beak, being warm-blooded.
3. SYNONYMOUS METHOD - gives a word that has the same meaning with the
term being defined.
Ex: "There are many mendicants at the park." Mendicants is synonymous
with beggars.
4. ETYMOLOGICAL METHOD - provides the origin or ancestry of a term.
Ex: "License is derived from the Latin verb licere which means to be
permitted."
5. OPERATIONAL METHOD - specifying certain experimental procedures that
determine whether or not the word applies to a certain thing.
Ex: "An object is "magnetic" if it attracts iron filing that are put near that

object."
KINDS OF DEFINITION
1. STIPULATIVE DEFINITION - used to deliberately assigns meaning to a word.
Ex: Words such as "cyberspace", "internet", and "webpage" have been
coined due to the advancement of technology.
2. LEXICAL DEFINITION - used to give the conventional or standard usage of a
term.
Ex: The word "bank" can have various meanings and are listed in its lexical
definition so that a person who consults such a definition is better prepared to
avoid ambiguity.
3. PRECISING DEFINITION - given to further clarify a term that is vague in a
particular context.
Ex: "Before a vital organ transplant can be conducted, the donor must be
dead." There is vagueness as to the statement. Thus, surgeons can be
accused for murder if they violate this law, or if the donor is dead for too long,
the success of the transplant will be imperiled.
4. PERSUASIVE DEFINITION - used to influence others' feelings or beliefs.
ERRORS OF DEFINITION
1. CIRCULAR DEFINITION - when the term we are defining appears in the
definition.
Ex: Hunger is the state of being hungry.
2. TOO BROAD DEFINITION - when the definition includes non-members of the
term being defined.
Ex: A dog is a domestic animal.
3. TOO NARROW DEFINITION - when the definition excludes real members of
the term being defined.
Ex: A triangle is a polygon with three equal sides.
4. FIGURATIVE DEFINITION - if it involves metaphors and tends to pe poetic.
Ex: Love is a many splendored thing.
5. OBSCURE DEFINITION - if it unnecessarily uses technical and unfamiliar
terms.
Ex: A reptile is an air-breathing vertebrate characterized by a completely
ossified skeleton with a single occipital condyle and a distinct quadrate bone.
6. NEGATIVE DEFINITION - if it conveys to us what the term is not rather than
what it is.
Ex: A senator is not a congressman or a mayor.
USES OF LANGUAGE
1. INFORMATIVE - used to communicate information or convey facts.
Ex: The capital of the Philippines is Manila.

2. EXPRESSIVE - used to express one's feelings or emotions.

Ex: Wow! That was amazing!
3. DIRECTIVE - used to cause or prevent an action.
Ex: The teacher tells the students to write a 2-page reaction paper on the
film they will watch.
LANGUAGE AND THE LAW - THE PARTS OF SPEECH
1. NOUNS - used to name persons, places, things, ideas or abstractions.
2. PRONOUNS - take the place of nouns so that the latter may not be
needlessly repeated.
3. VERBS - state action, condition, or merely link two nouns or an adjective and
a noun.
4. ADVERBS - modify or limit the meanings of verbs, adjectives, or adverbs.
5. ADJECTIVES - describe, modify, or limit the meaning of nouns or words that
stand for nouns.
6. PREPOSITIONS - connect and show the relation between words as regards
time, place, direction, etc.
7. CONJUNCTIONS - connect clauses and show relations of contradiction,
addition, location, conclusion, etc.
8. INTERJECTIONS - show strong feelings.
9. EXPLETIVES - words or phrases inserted in sentence to fill a part of the
sentence that seems to be "vacant" because the intended word is not where it
should be, but is later mentioned.
CHAPTER 4 - ATTACKING FAULTY REASONING
FALLACIES - is not a false belief but a mistake or error in thinking and
reasoning. Fallacies are deceptive and misleading since, although they are
illogical or incorrect, they seem to be correct and acceptable . Although they are
not logically sound, they are often psychologically persuasive and, thus, tend to
be followed or accepted by people.
TWO KINDS OF FALLACIES
1. FORMAL FALLACIES - are those that may be identified through mere
inspection of the form and structure of an argument. Fallacies of this kind are
found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms.
Ex.

All turtles are reptiles.

All frogs are not turtles.
Therefore, all frogs are not reptiles.

Through mere inspection of this form, one can see that the argument is
illogical. The fact that all frogs are reptiles and all frogs are not turtles does

not guarantee that all frogs are not reptiles is also true. This formal fallacy is
called fallacy of illicit major. Regardless of the content of the argument, as
long as its form violates the rules of logic, the argument commits a formal
fallacy.
2. INFORMAL FALLACIES - are those that can be detected only through
analysis of the content of the argument.
Ex.

All students with serious family problems should not be given a failing
mark.
Elmer is a student with serious family problems.
Therefore, Elmer should not be given a failing mark.

Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument is logical. But
the argument is not logical because of its content. Looking at the content of
the argument, one would find out the erroneous reasoning contained in the
argument which says that the basis in giving the student a passing or failing
mark is his/her family situation rather than his/her performance in the class.
THREE KINDS OF INFORMAL FALLACIES
1. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY - are committed because of a misuse of
language. They contain ambiguous or vague language which is deliberately
used to mislead people.
a. EQUIVOCATION - using a term in its different senses/meanings and
making it appear to have only one meaning.
Ex.

Congressmen can create or abolish laws.

The law of supply and demand is a law.
Therefore, congressmen can abolish the law of supply and
demand.

This example commits the fallacy of equivocation since the term "law" has
been used in two different senses. In the first premise, it refers to "rule
binding in a particular community or society," while in the second premise,
it refers to "general principle deduced from facts."
b. AMPHIBOLY - using a phrase whose meaning is ambiguous due to its
grammatical construction.
Ex.

To be repaired, the rocking chair of an old lady with two broken

legs.

c. IMPROPER ACCENT - misleading people by placing improper emphasis

on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim. The fallacy of
improper accent is found not only in advertisements and headlines but
also in other very common forms of human discourse.
Ex.

Newspaper headline: "President to Declare Martial Law"

This headline might lead one to infer that the President has immediate
plans of declaring martial law whereas the article might simply be
reporting an interview with the President in which she said she might

declare martial law if military officials defy the chain of command or any
circumstances for that matter. Improper accent can also be done by
putting sensational words in large letters qualified sharply by other words
in much smaller letters which usually appear in advertisements.
d. VICIOUS ABSTRACTION - misleading the people by using vague or
abstract terms.
Ex.

Vote Elmer Guevarra - the People's Choice

In this political campaign, the term "people" was used to make others
think that Elmer Guevarra is supported by a lot of people, or by the
masses. But it is possible that only few people support him.
2. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE - do not have a problem with language but
with the connection of the premise and conclusion. They occur because the
premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion. They are misleading
because the premises are psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may
seem to follow the premises although it does not follow logically.
a. PERSONAL ATTACK (Argumentum ad Hominem)
i. Abusive - ignoring the issue by attacking the character or personality
of the opponent (includes name calling and mudslinging)
Ex.

You should not listen to her opinion. She has been a drugaddict and has also been arrested due to theft.

ii. Circumstantial - ignoring the issue by citing the circumstances of

another person. This is also called the tu quoque which means "you're
another."
Ex.

Dina: Why were you late again in our meeing, Bernie?

Bernie: Look who's talking. Last week you were late twice,
remember?

b. APPEAL TO PITY (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) - persuading the

people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when such
feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguer's
conclusion.
Ex.
I think we should hire Sarah for the vacant position. She is a widow
with three children living in a one-bedroom basement apartment.
c. APPEAL TO FORCE (Argumentum ad Baculum) - persuading others to
accept a position by using threat or pressure instead of presenting
evidence for one's view.
Ex.
Try voicing a contrary opinion during the next meeting and I will
make sure you never get a decent job in the town.
d. APPEAL TO DESIRE - ignoring the issue by appealing to the desires,
interests or passions of the people to get the conclusion accepted.

Ex.
The speech of Adolf Hitler which brought his German listeners to a
state of patriotic frenzy.
e. STRAW PERSON - misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument
usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack.
Ex.
What I object most about those people who oppose the death
penalty is that they believe that the lives of convicted murderers are more
important than the lives of the innocent people they have victimized.
f. BEGGING THE QUESTION (Petitio Principii) - stating or assuming as a
premise the very thing that should be proven in the conclusion. This is also
called arguing in circle or circular argument.
Ex.

Whiskey causes drunkenness because it is intoxicating.

3. FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - like fallacies of relevance, do

not have a problem with language but with the connection of the premise and
conclusion. The difference is that fallacies of insufficient evidence occur not
because the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion but because
the premises fail to provide evidence strong enough to support the
conclusion. Although the premises have some relevance to the conclusion,
they are not sufficient to cause a reasonable person to accept the conclusion.
a. APPEAL TO POPULARITY (Argumentum ad Populum) - assuring that
the conclusion is proven because in general believe it to be true. This is
also "bandwagon fallacy." It suggests that an idea or action must be true or
good because all or most people are accepting it or jumping on it as if it
were a wagon full of musicians in a circus parade.
Ex.
This film must be the best film in this year's Metro Manila Film
Festival. It is the one most watched by the people as seen in its gross
income in the first three days of the film fest.
b. APPEAL TO TRADITION - persuading others of a certain belief by
appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for some traditions,
instead of givin rational basis for such belief.
Ex.
I don't understand why the Church allowed cremation of the dead.
In our time, we have not been taught to burn the bodies of our dead loved
ones. We should not also do that to any of our loved ones.
Ex.
There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have practiced
it since time immemorial. Do you mean to tell me that they were wrong all
the while?
In the first example, the speaker argues that cremation is wrong on the
grounds that such practice is not in accordance with the traditional beliefs.
In the second example, the practice of kaingin is defended on the basis of
what was traditionally done.
c. APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam) - persuading others by appealing to people who command
respect or authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at

hand.
Ex.
Jose Javier Reyes, director of the movie "Live Show" said in a
press conference that MTRCB has unjustly banned the movie from being
shown. According to him, the movie is not pornographic since it has a very
relevant plot and a well-written story line. Since Reyes is a veteran in
Philippine cinema, we can say that indeed MTRCB acted wrongly in
banning the said movie.
d. ACCIDENT - applying a general rule to a particular case when
circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule should apply. In other
words, it unnecessarily applies a general truth to particular cases.
Ex.
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Leo Beltran should not be arrested for his speech that incited
the riot last week.
e. HASTY GENERALIZATION - drawing a general or universal conclusion
from insufficient particular cases. This fallacy is also known as converse
accident because its reasoning is the opposite of the fallacy of accident.
We take a particular case (which may be an exception) and make a
general rule or truth out of that.
Ex.
All of the five Malaysians I met in Boracay last week do not speak
English well. Thus, most Malaysians do not speak English well.
f. DIVISION - wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in
particular. This is quite related to accident since it proceeds from general
to particular.
Ex.
PNP is one of the most corrupt agencies of the government.
Therefore, these three policemen cannot be trusted.
g. COMPOSITION - wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals
automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals. This
has resemblance with hasty generalization because it proceeds from
particular to general.
Ex.
Roger Federer and Martina Hingis are two of the best tennis
players in the world, so if these two Swiss players team up, they'd make
one of the best mixed doubles teams.
h. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) - assuming
that the conclusion is true because its opposite cannot be proven.
Ex.
I believe that there are living creatures in Mars called Martians.
Nobody can furnish evidence to disprove my contention, so it must be
true.
i. FALSE CAUSE - mistaking a purely temporal sequence for a causal
connection. Also called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore
because of this).
Ex. After he broke the bedroom mirror yesterday, he had a car accident

the following day. Indeed, breaking a mirror is bad luck.

j. COMPLEX QUESTION - asking a question in which some presuppositions
are buried in that question.
Ex.

Have you already stopped gambling?

Whether the respondent answers "yes" or "no", he/she is trapped into

accepting that he/she is gambling which may not be true or which may not
be supported by any evidence.
k. FALSE DILEMMA - arises when the premise of an argument presents us
with a choice between two alternatives and assumes that they are
exhaustive when in fact they are not.
Ex.
Many people are protesting the implementation of warrantless
arrest. I think it is just right for that can facilitate the military's crackdown
on terrorist groups. You surely don't want terrorism to prevail in our
country.
The arguer presupposes that there are only two alternatives in this case:
implement warrantless arrest and get rid of terrorism or not implement it
and terrorism prevails. What is wrong here is that it overlooks the fact that
there can be other ways of dealing with terrorism.
l. FALSE ANALOGY - drawing a comparison between two or more things
where a significant difference exists between them.
Ex.
We allow physicians to look up a difficult case in medical books. We
agree that lawyers can consult law books when dealing with a legal
problem. Students, therefore, who are taking a difficult examination should
also be allowed to use their textbooks.
CHAPTER 5 - ASSESSING TRUTH CLAIMS
KINDS OF STATEMENTS
1. EMPIRICAL STATEMENT - these are truth-claims we make based on what
our senses perceive. They are asserted to be true on the basis of senseperception. Empirical statements deals with matters of facts and can be
verified using the correspondence theory of truth. Correspondence theory of
truth states that a statement is true, it it corresponds with empirical facts.