Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
For BBA/BS-III
Students
Logic
BS-III
Course Code:
BA (H)-421
Credit Hours:
03
K K
I Karachi Institute of Management & Sciences (KIMS) I
M Phase-I, Sector-4, Ahsanabad Gulshan -e- Maymar, M
S S
Karachi
Phone: 36881347 Website: www.kims.net.pk
1
S:N Topi Course contents Pag
o c e
1 Book Title 1
2 Course contents 2
3 Syllabus 4
4 Acknowledgement 6
5 About the Book of Logic BS-III 7
6 1:00 Definition of Logic 8
7 Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain 10
8 Benefits of Logic 14
9 1:01 Logic is Science or an Art 14
10 1:02 The scope of Logic 15
11 The scope of Logic According to Karamat Husain 16
12 1:03 The Laws of Logic (Thoughts 18
13 Characteristics of the law of Thought 20
15 1:04 Induction and Essential characteristics of Induction 21
16 Essential Characteristics of Induction 22
17 Comparison between Deduction and Induction 24
18 2:00 Categorical propositions and Classes 26
19 2:01 Quality, Quantity and Distribution 26
20 Diagrams of Quality, Quantity A and E 27
21 Diagrams of Quality, Quantity I and O 28
22 Very important rules for Distribution and Undistribution 29
23 2.02 31
The Traditional Square of Opposition
24 2.03 Immediate inferences 34
25 Conversion 34
26 Obversion 36
27 Contraposition 38
28 Inversion 41
29 First method: (By converting the obverted converse) 42
30 Second method: 44
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and
obversion)
31 2.04 Existential import 48
32 2.05 Symbolism and Diagram for categorical Proposition 53
33 3.00 56
Three Basic Uses of Language
34 3:01 61
Discourse Serving Multiple Functions
35 3.02 63
The Forms of Discourse
36 Rules about Grammatical and principal propositions 64
2
37 The Four Kinds of Discourse 65
38 3.03 67
Emotive Words
39 3.04 70
Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement
40 3.05 72
Emotively Neutral Language
41 4.00 73
The Purpose of Definition
42 Definition 73
43 Three kinds of disputes 74
44 4.01 The Types of Definition 76
45 Stipulative Definition 76
46 Lexical Definition 77
47 Prcising Definitions 78
48 Theoretical Definitions 79
49 Persuasive Definitions 80
50 4.02 Various Kinds of Meaning 82
51 Extension and Intension or Denotation and Connotation 82
52 Kinds of Extensional or Denotative Definitions 83
53 Kinds of Intensional or Connotative Definitions 84
54 4.03 Techniques for Defining 86
55 5.00 89
Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms
56 89
Major, Miner and Middle terms
57 Mood 90
58 Total 64 kinds of Mood are shown in the table 91
59 Figure 92
60 5.01 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments 94
61 5.02 96
Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms
62 5.03 98
Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies
63 5.04 104
Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism
64 6:00 106
Informal Fallacies
65 Fallacies 106
66 Kinds of Fallacies 107
67 6.01 Fallacies of Relevance 109
68 1. Appeal to Force 109
69 2. Appeal to Pity 109
70 3. Appeal to Emotion 110
3
71 4. Appeal to Authority 111
72 5. Ad Hominem Argument (Argument against the 111
person)
73 6. Appeal to Ignorance 112
74 7. Irrelevant Conclusion 113
75 6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions 114
76 1. Accident 114
77 2. Converse Accident 115
78 3. False Cause 115
79 4. Begging the Question 116
80 5. Complex Question 117
81 Fallacies of Ambiguities 119
82 1. Equivocation 119
83 2. Amphiboly 121
84 3. Accent 121
85 4. Composition 122
86 5. Division 123
87 Passed Paper 125
88 Example of Solved Examination Paper Of Karachi 136
University
89 192
The End
4
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS
SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI
Objective
The Objective of this course is to sharpen the intellect of the students, develop their earning
ability, strengthen their understanding and promote clear thinking. In order to achieve the
desired goal, especially, in management of organizations the manager is expected to present
his case with reasoning and logically. It is important to convince the people while negotiating
in business. The knowledge of logic will help students to learn how to present their
viewpoints before others.
Course Contents
1. Definition of Logic
5
1.3 The Laws of Logic
1.4 Induction and Essential Characteristics of Induction
6. Informal Fallacies
6
Recommended Books
Acknowledgement
I am also very thankful of Mr. Shaikh Salman Sahib for making a beautiful
title for this book.
7
About the Book
I feel pleased to present the book of Logic for BS-III students.
This book is written as per the syllabus of Karachi University for BS-III
students and describes the ancient and modern logic rules of Aristotle and
Boolean.
The basic aim of the writer is to write precise and easy to understand,
customize matter that could facilitate students. For this, the writer has
defined and translated the difficult phrases and terminologies of Logic to
Urdu and Arabic language.
Though the ancient and modern Subject matter of Logic, contravenes the
basic Islamic Ideology, yet it is believed that logic sharpens the mind, so
care is desired while co-relating logic, arguments with the bases of Islamic
teachings and Sunnah of His prophet (P.B.U.H)
8
7. While compiling this book references are taken from the book of
Irving M. Copi, and some other writers, like Karamt Husain and
other logic books.
In the end, care is taken while devising the contents of this book, yet any
suggestion about text or Subject matter is always welcome on my e-mail
ID (gulabkhan81@yahoo.com)
Gulab Khan
2. It is also not correct to define logic as, the science of the laws of
thoughts. Because all reasoning is thinking, but not all thinking is
reasoning.
9
3. The science of order. (
)
1. The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false
(Averroes).
3. The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err (makes a
mistake) in the manner of inferring or knowing (John Poinsot).
5. The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).
10. The science which directs the operations of the mind in the
attainment (accomplishment of truth (George Hayward Joyce).
10
12. The branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of
reasoning by which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premisses (Collins
English Dictionary)
13. The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and
correct reasoning (Penguin Encyclopedia).
11
Logic is a science that studies the laws of valid thoughts for things.
This definition is consists of four things.
Scien
) ( Systematic )( Complete
Natural Normativ
Science e
Science
12
2
Law
s
13
3
Valid
(True)
Formal Material
Inductive
Deductive
Logic
Logic
Though
14
Process
Production or
15
Benefits of Logic:
16
The scope or province of a science means its subject matter the whole
sphere or field of its study.
The scope of logic is very wide. It covers always all types of knowledge
weather it is related to science or arts: based or practice or theory, logic
provides bases for them. The nature of logic is simply like a tree and all
the fields of knowledge are its branches.
The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics
such as the study of fallacies and contradiction in terms, to specialized
analyses of reasoning such as possibility, correct reasoning, and
arguments involving causality. One of the aims of logic is to identify the
correct (or valid) and incorrect (or fallacious) inferences. Logicians study
the criteria for the evaluation of arguments.
For on Individual:
Logic is of great value for an individual person. When two ore more
persons have a discussion on the some matter but give different
arguments to defend or oppose the reasons or salutation of that matter,
but only that person will be considered best or efficient who will be strong
in his argument no matter whether the arguments are given as opponents
or defended personality.
For a Mathematician:
Math is a tailor made to use logic in all its power, to set theory and
number. In math various formulas theories and theorems are purely based
on logic.
For a Scientist:
Some is also closely related to logic. The expansion of knowledge in field
of science is only because of logic.
For a Philosopher:
Philosophy provides explanation or reality. It is also based on the laws of
logic.
17
Conclusion:
In Short, we may be saying that the logic is a touchstone we can judge the
rationality of the statements or arguments related to any field.
According to Karamat
Or Or
Realism
)
( Conceptualism
(Nominalism)
(Materialism)
)
( Conceptualists
( Nominalists)
)
Formalists
( Materialists
Realists
18
The scope of Logic
According to Karamat
Scie
nce
Concept Judgme
nt
A concept is a A judgment is a
mental act mental act
means general means
Idea or Simple combination of
apprehension two concepts,
about some which has
thing. relation of agree
or disagree
Term Preposit
ion
Premise or Reasoni
Argum
Premises and
Reasoning
Reasoning The proposition or
means an
when propositions which are given
inference
expressed in and form which was argue
which is
language is are called the premises and
drawn from
called an the proposition which is
one judgment
Argument. drawn from them is called
19
Topic No: 1:03 the Laws of Logic (Thoughts)
It indicates that a thing is what it is, every thing identical with itself. Every
thing is what it is, and not another thing. A dog is dog: and a cat is cat.
Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A.
p is p at the same time and in the same respect.
A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same
sense. Propositions cannot be both true and false.
A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
A conjunctive proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time
and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be
true.
20
For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a
contradiction, and must be false.
Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining
and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional
phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the
same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them
explicitly.
A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that a
proposition is true or its negation (contradiction) must be true - thus,
either p is true or not-p must be true.
For example: Red and Yellow are not contradictories but contraries, and
between contraries
other alternative
are possible. Contraries are mutually
) but collectively exhaustive (
(
exclusive
) .
It indicates that this law demands not only a cause for every thing, but a
sufficient or adequate cause. When we say that hard work is the cause of
a student`s success, we do not mean any amount of hard work, but
sufficient for success. There is a sufficient cause for every thing. If a war
21
breaks out, there must be a sufficient cause for it happened by chance.
But chance does not mean that there is no cause.
Fundamental:
Self evident:
They are so simple that they neither need nor are capable of any proof.
.
Necessary:
Formal:
Not Material.
22
Apriority:
Induction:
An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of
probability, but not certainty to its conclusion.
Logi
Deduct Inducti
Forma Materi
23
Essential Characteristics of Induction:
1. Material Truth:
2. It depends on observation:
24
4. It goes from particular to general:
In many cases this rule is valid, but in some cases the implementation of
this rule is possible.
Akram is mortal, Zahid is mortal, and therefore, all men are mortal.
Other example is that inductive argument does move from particular to
general is the following.
Socrates is human and mortal. Xanthippe is human and mortal. Sappho
is human and mortal.
It is therefore, probability true that all humans are mortal.
Inducti
It goes from
particular to
general
25
Comparison
between Deduction
and Induction
Deducti Inductio
on n
26
But
Truth:
Truth means the correspondence ( ) of a statement to
reality.
Validity:
An argument is valid, when it`s conclusion follows logically
from it`s premises.
Soundness:
The soundness
1. An argument is used
can contain truetopremises
indicate that all the
and still be premises in an
invalid. Likewise, it
argument are and
can be perfectly thatand
valid thecontain
argument is premises.
false valid.
4. An argument may be valid even when its conclusion and one or more
of its premises are false.
For example: 1. All four legged creature have wings. 2. All spiders
have four legs.
Quantity refers to the amount of members of the subject class that are
used in the proposition. If the proposition refers to all members of the
subject class, it is universal. If the proposition does not employ (Utilize or
Use) all members of the subject class, it is particular.
28
The quantity of a standard form categorical proposition determines
the distribution of the subject.
(Such that if the quantity is universal, the subject is distributed and if the
quantity is particular, the subject is undistributed), and...
Preposition
Quantity
Quality
Univer Particul
sal ar
Affirmati Negati
ve ve
A E
Universal Universal
Affirmative Negative
29
Preposition
Quantity Quality
I O
30
Particula Particula
r r
Affirmati Negative
Distribution:
A form:
E form:
31
I form:
O form:
32
Reasoning or
Inference
Mediate Immediate
Eduction Opposition
of
Obvers Conver
2.02 The Traditional Square of Opposition
Definition:
A Contrari
33 E
Supe
Supe
r
r
Sub Sub
alternation
Contradicto alternation
Sub
Sub
Alter
Alter
n
n
I Sub O
Standard form categorical propositions having the same subject and same
predicate terms may differ from each other in quantity or quality, or both.
For example:
34
All men are poets (A) Some men are not poets (O)
...differ in both quantity and quality. This kind of differing was given the
technical name of opposition by classic logicians and certain important
truth relations were correlated with various kinds of opposition.
Immediate Arguments:
Contradictories:
Example:
1. If A: "All dogs are animals" is true, then O:"Some dogs are not
animals" must be false. Or vice versa.
2. If A: All men are poets is false, then O: Some men are not poets
must be true.
3. If E: "No dogs are birds" is true, then I:"Some dogs are birds" must
be false. Or vice versa.
4. If E: "No men are doctors" is false, then I:"Some men are doctors"
must be true. Or vice versa.
Contraries:
A: "All dogs are animals" and E:"No dogs are animals" at the same time.
35
For example; they may both be false:
1. Texas will win the coming game with Oklahoma and Oklahoma will
win the coming game with Texas are contraries: if either of these
prepositions is true, then the other must be false. But the two
prepositions are not contradictories; both would be false, if the game is
a draw.
2. A: All mangoes are sweets and E: No mangoes are sweets. Both
are wrong, because
Sub contraries:
I and O are sub contrary: "Some S is P" and "Some S is not P" can be true,
but both cannot be false.
For example; they may both be true but cannot both be false:
Sub alternation:
Whenever two propositions have the same subject and the same
predicate terms and agree in quality but differ only in quantity. They are
called corresponding propositions.
36
Thus the A Preposition has corresponding I preposition.
Immediate inferences:
Conversion:
One standard-form categorical preposition is said to be the converse of
37
another when it is formed by simply interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of that other preposition.
Rules of Conversion:
Thus: "No pigs are dogs" becomes "No dogs are pigs."
38
Na Converte Example Nam Convers Example
me ned e e
A All S is P All men are I Some P Some mortal are
mortal. is S men.
E No S is P No men are E No P is S No angles are
angels. men.
I Some S is Some mangoes I Some P Some sweet
P are sweets. is S things are
mangoes.
O Some S is Some animals O Some P Some dogs are
not P are not dogs. is not S not animals.
Wrong concept
Obversion:
Rules of Obversion:
39
Table of Valid Obversion
Obvertend Obverse
40
I: Some men are non Muslims.
O: Some men are not Muslims.
Contraposition: (
:
)
Rules of Contraposition:
1. Obvert the original preposition.
2. Then convert the obverse of the original preposition.
3. Then obvert the converse preposition.
Table of Contraposition
41
Some S is Some
I P mangoes are
sweets.
Some S is Some animals Some nonP Some nondogs
O not P are not dogs. O is nonS are nonanimals.
A----A:
E----O:
For example;
I: Some animals are dogs.
Obvert: O: Some animals are not nondogs.
Convert: O: Some nondogs are not animals.
Note: This is wrong statement, because there are many animals except
dogs.
O----O:
42
Contraposition A----A
All S is P:: All All men are mortal. All immortal are
nonP is nonS All dogs are nonmen. All non
mammals. mammals are nondogs.
Obversio All nonP is All non mortals are All nonmortals are
n nonS nonmen. nonmen
Contraposition E----O
43
Obversio Some nonP is Some nonangels are
n not nonS not nonmen.
Contraposition I----x
Obversio x x x
n
Contraposition O----O
44
Inversion: (
)
Inversion is the formulation of a new proposition whose subject is the
contradictory of the original subject, and having the same or the
contradictory predicate of the original. When the original predicate
remains the same, the Inversion is called partial Inversion. And when the
original predicate chanced into its contradictory, the Inversion is called
complete Inversion.
Kinds of Inversion:
a. Partial Inversion
b. Complete or Full Inversion
Note:
Inver tend - the original proposition
Inverse - the new proposition
Inversion - the process itself
Example:
1. A---O: All men are mortal. Some nonmen are not mortal.
2. E----I: No men are angels. Some nonmen are angels.
45
2. E to O
Example:
1. A---- I: All men are mortal. Some nonmen are non mortal.
2. E--- O: No men are angels. Some nonmen are not non angels.
Explanation:
When original predicate remain the same, the inverse is called Partial
Inversion. But the subject must be changed into its contradictory. The
quality must be changed.
For example, All S is P. And Some non S is not P. It is affirmative.
Partial Inversion
And when original predicate is changed into its contradictory, the inverse
is called complete Inversion. But the subject must be changed into its
contradictory. The quality will remain same.
For example, All S is P. And Some non S is nonP.
Complete Inversion
A:Preposition
46
on
E:Preposition
I:Preposition
47
Some S is p Some dogs are animals.
O:Preposition
Note:
Thus, By converting the obverted converse, we can get the inverse only in
the case of E. In the case of A, I, and O, we cannot get the inverse by using
this method.
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
48
Let us begin with Conversion:
A:Preposition
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
A:Preposition
49
Obversio All nonp is non S All nonanimals are
n .nondogs
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
E:Preposition
50
Let us begin with Obversion:
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
E:Preposition
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
I:Preposition
51
Conversi Some P is S Some dogs are animals.
on
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
I:Preposition
52
Let us begin with Conversion:
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
O:Preposition
Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
O:Preposition
53
on
Note:
Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get
the inverse.
To sum up:
We find that I and O cannot be inverted. Only universals (A and E) can be
inverted. And the inverse is always a particular preposition.
2.4
Existential import (
)
According Irving Copi:
54
This would seem to mean that universal statements also have existential
import, as particular propositions I and O follow logically from their
corresponding universal propositions through sub alternation. A and E
propositions must also have existential import, since existential import
could not be derived validly from a proposition without existential import.
For example:
The Solutions:
What is to be done?
Can the traditional square of opposition be rescued?
The notion of presupposition: ( ) :
We would rehabilitate ( ) square of opposition by introducing the
notion of presupposition. This existential presupposition accepted to
protect the square of opposition of propositions really problematic
To rescue the Traditional Square of Opposition, we might simply assume
that all propositions: A, E, I and O presuppose that the class that
they make reference to is not empty.
In this way, A, E remains contraries, I and O will remain sub
contraries; subalterns will validly follow from their super alterns, and A
and O as well as E and I, will remain contradictories. To hold to this,
55
however, we must insist (claim) that all the classes we make reference to
are not empty.
Example of presupposition:
1. Did you spend the money you stole? can be reasonably
answered yes or no only if the presupposition that you stole some
money be granted. () 2.
If you are told, All the apples in the barrel are Delicious and find
when you look into the barrel that is empty, what would you say? You
would probably not say that the claim was false, or true, but would instead
point out that there are no apples in the barrel.
Firstly:
If we invariably ( ) presuppose that the class designated has
members, we will never be able to formulate the proposition that denies
that it has members.
Secondly:
Some what we say does not suppose that there are members in the
classes we are talking about. Consider this example. "All trespassers
will be prosecuted". Here we do not intend to say that there are
trespassers or that the class of trespassers is non-empty. We do not mean
that there are actual trespassers who will be punished.
We simply mean to say that if any person will trespass he or she will be
punished. Thus, we do not assume anything about the existence of
members of the class of trespassers.
Third:
In science and other theoretical subjects, we often wish to reason without
making any presuppositions about existence.
Newtons first law of motion: If there is no net force on an object, then
its velocity is stable. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to
zero), or it moves with stable speed in a single direction.
The law may be true; a physicist may wish to express and protect it
without wanting to free suppose that there actually are any bodies that
are not acted on by external forces.
56
categorical propositions. This interpretation has the following
consequences:
57
Consider the claim "All swans are white". In order for that claim to be
false, we need to know that there is at least one non-white swan. Imagine
how you might argue with someone who claims that it is true that "A''All
swans are white". You would produce as evidence for the falsity of the
claim the existence of a non-white swan. "No," your might argue, "Not all
swans are white, for here is a swan that is brown."
1. But now suppose for a minute that there were no swans at all.
What sort of evidence could you produce, in the total absence of
any swans, against the claim that all swans are white? Obviously
you couldn't produce a non-white one because there aren't any
swans at all. In the absence of any evidence for a falsifying instance
to the universal claim, you should accept the claim. But now extend
that reasoning to universal claims about empty classes and non-
existent objects. Universal claims about empty sets are all
true, because there are no falsifying instances.
58
The Modern Square of Opposition:
The Boolean interpretation transform the Traditional Square into the
Modern Square, in the following way: relations along the sides of the
square are undone, but the diagonal, contradictory relationship, is
preserved (saved) and remains in force.
59
2.5 Symbolism and Diagram for categorical
Proposition
John Venn, 1834-1923, developed a method for diagramming categorical
propositions that let's us represent visually the informational content of
the propositions. Venn's diagrams allow one to test a syllogistic argument
for validity without having to resort to notions like the distribution of
terms. Venn's diagrams involve 2 overlapping circles, each circle
representing one of the classes mentioned in the proposition. The
diagram contains 4 distinct regions, each of which represents a type of
object having certain properties.
S: Spaniards
P: PaintersS P
S P
SP
SP
:
SP It is the class of all those things that are neither Spaniards nor
Painters.
60
1) Shading a region indicates that that region is empty
If a region is neither shaded nor empty you cannot legitimately draw any
inferences about whether the region is occupied or empty. Using these 2
rules, we get the following basic Venn diagrams for our 4 basic categorical
propositions:
1. A: Proposition (All S is P)
The A form, "All S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that
all of the S's are pushed out, into the P class. If S's exist, they must be
inside the P circle since the left-hand Lune of the diagram is shaded and
so is empty.
All S is P.
2. E: Proposition (No S is P)
The E form, "No S is P," is shown in the diagram to the right. Notice that
the lens area of the diagram is shaded and so no individual can exist in
this area. The lens area is where S and P are in common; hence, "No S is
61
P." All S are in the left-hand Lune, and all P are relegated to the right-
hand Lune.
No S is P.
3. I: Proposition (Some S is P)
The I form, "Some S is P," is much more easily seen. The "X" in the lens,
as shown in the diagram to the right, indicates at least one individual in
the S class is also in the P class. Note that the blank Lanes indicate that
we do not know whether or not there are individuals in these areas. In
fact, we have no information.
Some S is P.
62
The O form, "Some S is not P," is also easily drawn. The S that is not a P
is marked with an "X" in the S-Lune. This area is not within the P circle
and so is not a P.
Some S is not P.
Request, report and greetings are only some of the more obvious
functions served by language. How are you not indicate the real
purpose.
63
Our communications can be categorized into three primary purposes
for language: informative, expressive and directive. And it is helpful to
identify at least three distinct uses of language:
Langu
1. Informative:
64
content of what is being communicated is actually true, so it will be our
central focus in the study of logic.
C. These sentences have a truth value; that is, the sentences are either
true or false (recognizing, of course, that we might not know what that
truth value is). It includes false or truth, correct and incorrect (in words)
propositions. Hence, they are important for logic.
The first sentence reports that having feather is a feature of birds. The
second sentence reports that birds do not have some essential qualities
found in mammals. In, either case it provides information about the world.
Both affirmation and denial about things in the world are examples of
descriptive use of language. The following are some more examples of
language functioning descriptively.
65
of language, but also false sentences are instances of informative use of
language. "A spider has six legs" is a false statement since spiders in fact
have eight legs. Yet the statement "A spider has six legs", even though
false, is nonetheless (however) an example of descriptive use of language.
All descriptions of things, events, and their properties and relations consist
of informative discourse. The language of science is a clear instance of
descriptive use of language.
2. Expressive:
A. Poetry and literature are among the best examples, but much of,
perhaps most of, ordinary language discourse is the expression of
emotions, feelings or attitudes.
B. Two main aspects of this function are generally noted: (1) Evoking
certain feelings and (2) Expressing feelings.
66
C. Expressive discourse, qua ( )expressive discourse, is best viewed
as neither true nor false. Even so, the "logic" of "fictional statements
(invented story or imaginary tales) is an interesting area of inquiry.
When one expresses feelings while alone, one is not expressing it to evoke
feelings in others. But very often we attempt to move others by our
expressions of emotions, in all such cases language is used emotively.
Consider the following utterances:
1. Hi!
2. Cheers! (Joyfulness)
5. its wonderful!
3. Directive:
We use language to direct the world around us. A directive use of
language aims to tell others or ourselves how to act or behave in certain
situations. Be careful is an example of a directive use of language. You
may use directive language in self talk as in stay away from chocolate
for one week.
67
Directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt
(obvious) action by a human agent. When I say "Shut the door," or write
"Read the textbook," or memo myself, "Don't rely so heavily on the
passive (un acceptive) voice," I am using language directively.
The point in each of these cases is to make someone perform or reject a
particular action. This is a significant linguistic function, too, but like the
expressive use, it doesn't always relate logically to the truth of our beliefs.
4. Don't smoke.
68
6. Will you please help me?
Examples:
69
Kinds of your audiences:
2. Assuming your listeners
are already persuaded in
benevolent ( ) results:
1. Avoid from bold request for their money.
2. Cause them to contribute to your organization.
3. Enhance their benevolent feelings and emotions.
4. Make a moving (heart breaking) appeal with expressive
discourse. 5. Use naturally mixes language,
functioning both expressively and directively.
70
1. It serves for causing their hearers to act in certain ways.
2. To patronize (support and utilize) the speakers business.
3. To offer employment.
4. To extend an invitation to dinner.
3. Marriage ceremony:
1. Expressive function: to perform new role with good way.
2. Directive function: to perform role for the seriousness of their
marriage vows. (Promises and guarantees.
4. Performative utterances:
Other examples:
1. I congratulate you.. . 2. I apologize for my.. 3. I
suggest that .. 4. I accept your offer ..
These words denote an action which is performed by using the verb.
3.2 The Forms of Discourse
Much discourse serves all three functions--one cannot always identify the
form with the function. Consider this chart for the following possibilities.
71
But note that context often determines the purpose of an utterance.
(Statement) "The room is
cool" might be used in different contexts as informative (an
observation), expressive (how one feels at the moment), or directive (to
turn on the heat).
Interrogativ Question
e
Principal Grammatical
Informative Declarative
There is
no sure
connectio
n
Expressive
Note:
The above functions indicate the flixilibility of language and the multiplicacity of its uses.
72
It is mistake to suppose that every thing in the form of a declarative
sentence is informative discourse. Infect there is no sure connection
between principal propositions and grammatical propositions.
Grammatical language serves any one of the three principal functions.
8. It is raining
The proposition asserted is about the weather, not about the
speaker. Yet making the assertion that speaker believes it to be
raining.
73
The Four Kinds of Discourse:
The type of discourse determines how something is communicated.
A discourse is a mode of communication that determines what is said and
how it is said. The type of discourse that is used determines how a
conversation or communication will proceed. The primary types of
discourse are description, argument, narration and exposition.
3. Narration: (describing)
Narrative is the form of discourse that tells about a series of events.
Narration involves telling a series of events, usually in the order that they
happened. Narration is essentially storytelling, and is often used in forms
such as fairy tales() . This type of discourse may relate
74
events that are fictional or nonfictional. ()
Narration is the kind of discourse concerned with action, with events in
time, with life in motion. It answers the question "What happened?" It tells
a story. As we use the word here, a story is a sequence of events
historically true
or false -- so -- fictional or non-fictional -- presented that the imagination
grasps the action.
4. Exposition: (Explanation)
Exposition is one of the four major forms of discourse, in which something
is explained or "describe"
75
3.03 Emotive Words
The informative function derives from the literal (accurate and exact)
meaning of the words in the sentencethe objects, events, or attributes
they refer toand the relationship among them asserted by the sentence.
The expressive content (substance) emerges (appears) because some of
the words in the sentence may also have emotional suggestiveness or
impact.
Words, then, can have both a literal meaning and an emotive meaning.
The literal meanings and the emotive meanings of a word are largely
independent of one another. Language has a life of its own,
independent of the facts it is used to describe.
Emotive Words
Informati Expressi
Wor
Literal 76 Emotive
Bureau Bureau
Pigheaded fool
Depression
Fuss
77
Some times of the influence of words may be positive:
Examples:
I am firm; you are obstinate and he is pigheaded
fool.
Proliferation of Euphemisms ()
1. In war time the defeat of ones own army is likely to be called for
popular consumption, a temporary set back
be reported
2. In a massive (huge) retreat (move back) may as an,
orderly consolidation of forced ()
3. In Vietnam war the defeated American army officer said,
we dont declare war any more (
) he
said, we declare national defense(
)
78
New phrases to replace old one:
Mortician
Undertak Funeral
er Director
Janitor Maintenance Custodian
man
79
easily cover substantive disputes under a surface of emotive agreement.
Since the degrees of agreement in belief and attitude are independent of
each other, there are four possible combinations at work here:
There aren't any problems in this instance, since both parties hold
the same positions and have the same feelings about them. And
they may be in full harmony.
While B believes that the candidates position remains
refusal
unchanged, may vigorously disapprove of the stubborn
to admit error (obstinate negative response) (
)
80
It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or
disagreement at work in any exchange of views. That won't always resolve
the dispute between two parties, of course, but it will ensure that they
don't waste their time on an inappropriate method of argument or
persuasion.
When the resolution of disagreement is our goal, we must attend not only
to the facts in given case, but to the varying attitudes of the disputants
towards those facts.
Disagreement in belief:
Note: When the facts are established and the issue decided the
disagreement to be resolved.
Disagreement in attitude:
of importance.
3. Still other methods may sometimes resolve a disagreement in
attitude.
4. Persuasion may be attempted, with its broad use of expressive
language.
5. Rhetoric (public Speaking) may be effective in unifying the will of a
group and in achieving unanimity of attitude.
6. Such words as good and bad right and wrong, in their
strictly ethical uses, tend to have a very strong emotive impact.
Additional Knowledge:
81
4. To understand the differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude
are not solve the problem but it clarifies the discussion and reveal
the kind and locus ( )of the conflict.
3.5 Emotively Neutral Language
The expressive use of language is just as legitimate (legal and
valid) the informative. There is nothing wrong with expressive
language, and there is nothing wrong with language that is non
emotive or neutral. In some
kinds of poetry emotively colored language is properly preferred
to neutral language.
So, neutral language is better than emotional language.
Distractions will be frustrating (
) and emotion is a powerful distraction.
We must avoid from strongly emotive language, when we are
trying to reason about the facts in a cool and objective fashion,
because it is a big hindrance. (Difficulty and obstacle)
(
)
In controversial matters, ( ) we must keep
language neutral, and completely free from emotional change.
Reduce the emotional loading of the term used in controversial
matter. The aim of emotive neutrality may not be
fully achievable. Language that is
completely emotionally is not acceptable, but it is bound to
distraction. ( )
Interviewers are using emotive phrasing in questions, so you
must be very careful not to prejudice the responses they receive.
( )
When this carefulness in interview is ignored the result may be
worthless. (
)
If our aim to communicate information, we should use language
with the least possible emotive impact.
Use appealing to reason and avoid from playing on emotion, it
is common device of successful.
Avoid from emotion, particularly in the field of advertisement,
because it is the most shameless displays in advertising field,
where the dominant aims are always to persuade, to sell, and
often to take advantage of, and develop.
Note:
It will be most directly helpful to eliminate emotive meaning entirely
whenever we can.
82
4.00 The Purpose of Definition
4.1 The Types of Definition
4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning
4.3 Techniques for Defining
Definition:
A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term, the term to be defined is the
definiendum. The term may have many different senses and multiple meanings. For each
meaning, a definiens is a cluster (group) of words that defines that term (and clarifies the
speaker's Purpose and goal.)
Definiend Definiens:
" "
:
um:
:
Mountain 1. A large natural height of the earth's surface rising
abruptly (suddenly) from the surrounding level; a
large steep (sharp) hill.
2. A region where there are many such characteristics, described
by remoteness (faraway) and inaccessibility.
Three kinds
83 of
Obviously Merely Apparently
genuine verbal verbal
dispute dispute dispute that
is really
genuine
84
3. Apparently verbal dispute that is really genuine:
When the parties misunderstand one anothers use of terms is likely to be confusion, and that
confusion may come to be recognized. But sometimes happen that the quarrel really goes
well beyond there differing using of terms. So it indicates that there remains some genuine
disagreement possibly in belief, more likely in attitude between them.
For example:
1. A dispute about pornography: ()
Two parties may dispute whether a given film, in which explicit sexual activity is depicted,
(showed) should be dealt with as pornography.
One party insists that its explicitness makes it pornography, and wicked.
The other party insists that, in the light of its sensitivity and aesthetic merit, it is true art and
not pornography at all.
There dispute is not really about the applicability of the term pornography, they disagree
more deeply about whether the sexually explicit nature of the film makes it bad.
This dispute is verbal only on the surface; beneath the surface, it is very real.
Dispute of this kind are sometimes called criterial or conceptual.
(
)
85
4.1 The Types of Definition
1. Stipulative Definition: ()
Arbitrary (( ) randomly and illogical) Definitions for New
Concepts
We have a stipulative definition any time a word is being defined for the
first time or in a brand new way. Stipulative definitions are in a sense
completely arbitrary this means that they are basically non-binding
proposals which no one needs to assent (agree) to.
1. Convenience: ()
Connivance is one reason; a single word may serve as short for
many words in a cable code or message.
2. Secrecy:
Secrecy is another reason; the stipulation may be understood
only by the sender and the receiver of the message.
86
3. Economy in expression:
The scientists economize the space required for writing out
reports and theories. They also save time. They also save a great
amount of attention and mental energy.
For example:
2. Lexical Definition: ()
3. Prcising Definitions: ( )
87
Difference between Ambiguity and Vagueness:
1. Horse power:
Horsepower means the power of motor, but consumer may be
deceived when definitions of this unit are indefinite (vague). So
Precise definition of one horsepower is now as the power needed to
raise a weight of 550 pounds by one foot in one second- calculated
to equal 745.7 watts.
4. Theoretical Definitions:
88
Constructing a 'Theory' About the Nature of a Concept
1. Justice:
The theoretical definition of Justice became a battle between
Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus defined justice as the
interests of the stronger. Socrates sought to replace that account
with another that he thought more satisfactory.
2. Heat:
Heat is the second battlefield among physicists. Physicists long
defined heat to mean a subtle imponderable fluid. Now they
define it as a form of energy possessed by a body by a virtue
of irregular motion of its molecules
3. AIDS:
Theoretical definitions change day by day, because of different
theories. Like AIDS. The definition of AIDS changed several time.
89
)
5. Persuasive Definitions: (
1. Abortion:
The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
2. Democrat: ()
A leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish
freedom in the economic sphere" (
) A proponent (supporter)
of democracy, rule of the people or rule by many A
member of a Democratic Party
3. Republican: ():
An old white man who feels threatened by change."
Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.
4. Fetus:
An unborn person"()
5. Loyalty: ()
A tool to get people to do things they don't want to do."
90
Kinds of Definition:
Types Definition
91
4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning
General terms:
General terms are class terms that may be applicable to more than one
object. In reasoning, the definition of general terms is of special
importance.
The extension of a general term (also called the denotation of the term)
denotes the several objects to which it may correctly be applied. The
collection of these objects constitutes (represents) the extension of the
term.
For instance:
92
things as cargo ships, passenger ships, battleships, and sailing
ships.
2. Ostensive definitions: ()
93
Notes: Obviously, ostensive definitions are risky, or unclear, in ways that
extensional definitions are not. An extensional definition provides the
complete extension of a term or concept, and hence leaves minimal
margin for error in interpretation.
3. Quasi-ostensive definitions: ()
1. A synonymous definition:
94
2. An operational definition:
95
Other example, the word "chair identifies "piece of furniture" as the
genus to which all chairs belong and then specifies "designed to be sat
upon by one person at a time" as the differentia that distinguishes
them from couches (sofa and seats), desks, etc.
These five rules are useful for evaluating primarily lexical definitions by
genus and difference.
Copi and Cohen list five rules by means of which to evaluate the success of connotative
definitions by genus and differentia:
96
Although the things to which a term applies may share many distinctive properties, not all of
them equally indicate its true nature. Thus, for example, a definition of "human beings" as
"featherless bipeds" isn't very illuminating, (enlightening) even if does pick out (choose) the
right individuals.
A good definition tries to point out (indicate) the features that are essential to the designation
of things as members of the relevant group.
2. Avoid circularity:
Since a circular definition uses the term being defined as part of its own definition, it can't
provide any useful information; either the audience already understands the meaning of the
term, or it cannot understand the explanation that includes that term.
The definiens should not appear in the definiendum, as in the definition.
A good definition will apply to exactly the same things as the term being defined, no
more and no less. There are several ways to go wrong. Consider alternative definitions
of "bird":
97
3. "Small flying animal" is both too broad and too narrow, since it includes
bats (which aren't birds) and excludes ostriches (which are birds).
Successful intensional definitions must be satisfied by all and only those things that
are included in the extension of the term they define.
4. Avoid figurative or obscure (unclear) language: (
)
Since the point of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term to someone who is
unfamiliar (new and alien) with its proper application, the use of language that doesn't help
such a person learn how to apply the term is pointless. (Useless)
Figurative language:
) may be a lovely thought, but
Thus, "happiness is a warm puppy" (
it is a lousy (down) definition.
"Faith" as "true belief", but it is unclear whether this definition
means "a belief which is truly held" or "a belief which is true,"
"Bread" as "the staff of life" ( ) is a poor definition per this
condition.
Camel is the ship of desert.
Logic is the medicine of mind.
Work is the salt of life.
Old age is the evening of life.
98
proper definition of the mathematical term "infinite" might well be negative, for example.
But in ordinary circumstances, a good definition uses positive designations whenever it is
possible to do so.
Some times there is no basis for choosing between affirmative and negative.
Drunkard as one who drinks excessively and about equally well as one who
is not temperate (self-controlled) in drink
99
5.1 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments
5.2 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms
5.3 Rules and Fallacies
5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism said to be in standard form when its premises and conclusion are all
standard form categorical proposition. (A, E, I and O) and are arranged in a specified
standard order.
Major: ():
The term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion is called the major term of the
syllogism.
Miner: ():
The term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term of the
syllogism.
Middle: () :
The third term of the syllogism, which does not occur in the conclusion, appearing in
its place in both premises, is called the middle term.
Major premise: () :
The premise containing in the major term is called the major premise.
Miner premise: () :
The premise containing in the minor term is called the minor premise.
Miner
Mood: ()
100
The mood of a standard form syllogism is determined by the types
(identified by letter (A, E, I, and O) of the standard form categorical
proposition it contains. The mood of every syllogism is represented by
three letters, in a specific order.
The first letter names the type of the syllogisms major premise.
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism.
The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its
conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the premise in which "felines"
appears) is its major premise. Similarly, the minor term of the syllogism is
"birds and Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "Geese" is the
middle term of the syllogism.
E E E E E E E E
101
I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O
A E I O
A A A A A A A A
A E E E E E I E E O E E
I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O
A A A A A A A A
A E E E E E I E E O E E
I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O
A A A A A A A A
O
A E E E E E I E E E E
I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O
102
AOA EOA IOA OOA
AOE EOE IOE OOE
AOI EOI IOI OOI
AOO EOO IOO OOO
Figure:
The logical shape of a syllogism as determined by the position of the
middle term in its premises. There are four figures.
Examples:
First Figure:
Second Figure:
103
Third Figure:
Fourth Figure:
104
5.1 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Arguments
The mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely determine its form and the form of a syllogism
determines whether the syllogism is valid or invalid. Since each of the 64 moods may appear
in all four figures. There are exactly 256 standard form categorical syllogisms of which only
a few are valid.
Thus any syllogism of the form AAA-1 is a valid argument, no matter what terms we
substitute for the letters S, P, and M.
In other words, in syllogisms of this and other valid forms, if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must also be true. The conclusion could be false only if one or both premises were
false.
Conversely, any argument in an invalid syllogistic form is invalid, even if both its premises
and its conclusion happen to be true.
A syllogistic form is invalid if it is possible to construct an argument in that form with true
premises and a false conclusion.
105
Thus a powerful way to refute ( )an argument in an invalid form is to counter it with an
analogous ( ) argumentan argument in the same formwith obviously true
premises and an obviously false conclusion.
Although this method of logical analogy can demonstrate that a syllogistic form is invalid, it
is a cumbersome tool for identifying which of the 256 possible forms is invalid. Whats more,
the inability to find a refuting analogy does not conclusively demonstrate that a valid form is
valid. The rest of the chapter is devoted to an explanation of more effective methods for
testing syllogisms.
106
5.2 Venn Diagram Techniques for Testing Syllogisms
Venn diagram :
The iconic representation of categorical prepositions and of arguments, to
display their logical forms using overlapping.
SP M
S PM
S P M
SPM S PM
S P M
SP M
S P M
107
(1) S P M : The class of all Swedish who are neither peasant nor
musicians.
(2) SP M : The class of all Swedish peasants who are not musicians.
( 3 ) S P M
:
The class of all Peasants who are neither Swedes nor
Musicians.
(5) S P M: The class of all Swedish musicians who are not Peasants.
(6) S PM: The class of all Peasants Musicians who are not Swedish.
( 7)
SP M: The class of all Musicians who are neither Swedish nor
peasants.
(8) S P M : The class of all things that are neither Swedes nor peasants
nor musicians.
Two-circle Venn Diagrams represent the relationship between the classes designated by the
subject and predicate terms in standard-form categorical propositions. If we add a third circle,
we can represent the relationship among the classes designated by the three terms of a
categorical syllogism.
We use the label S to designate the circle for the minor term (the subject of the conclusion),
the label P to designate the circle for the major term (the predicate of the conclusion), and the
label M to designate the circle for the middle term. The result is a diagram of eight classes
that represent the possible combinations of S, P, and M.
With this diagram we can represent the propositions in a categorical syllogism of any form to
determine whether or not that form yields a valid deductive argument.
To do this, we diagram the premises and then examine the result to see if it includes a
diagram of the conclusion. If it does, we know that the premises entail the conclusionthat
108
together they say what is said by the conclusionand that the form is valid. If not, we know
that the conclusion is not implied by the premises, and the form is invalid.
Introduction:
Since the validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form, it is
relatively simple to state the conditions under which the premises of syllogisms succeed in
guaranteeing the truth of their conclusions.
Here is provided a list of six rules, each of which states a necessary condition for the validity
of any categorical syllogism. Violating any of these rules involves committing one of the
formal fallacies, errors in reasoning that result from reliance on an invalid logical form.
Here is concentrated on the rules required for a standard-form of categorical syllogism and
the fallacies created for violating these rules.
The following rules must be observed in order to form a valid categorical syllogism:
Rule: 1:
A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical
terms. Or avoid four terms.
The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism,
and we saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts
to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms
109
commits the fallacy of four terms. The syllogism appears to have only three terms, but
because one term plays two roles, it actually has four.
Example: 1
Explanation:
There are really four since one of them; the middle term power is used in different senses
in the two premises. To reveal the arguments invalidity we need only note that the word
power in the first premise means the possession of control or command over people,
whereas the word power in the second premise means the ability to control things.
Example: 2
Explanation:
This syllogism seems to be a valid AAA-1, Barbara, but because the middle term is used in
the major premise in one meaning and then the meaning of the middle term is shifted in the
minor premise, you actually have FOUR terms and not THREE as required by the very
definition of any standard form categorical syllogism.
Rule: 2:
In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the
premises. OR Distribute the middle term in at least one premise.
In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection between the major and
minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must provide some information about the entire
class designated by the middle term.
If the middle term were undistributed in both premises, then the two portions of the
designated class of which they speak might be completely unrelated to each other.
The term "philosopher" is distributed in the proposition "All philosophers are thinkers,"
but the term "thinkers" is not. Because it is the middle term that links the terms of the
conclusion, a syllogism cannot be valid unless either the subject or the predicate of the
conclusion is related to the whole of the class the middle term designates.hat violate this rule
are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Example:
110
All sharks are fish
All salmon are fish
All salmon are sharks
Explanation:
The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never
distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of them
(Middle) class, thus giving no common ground to relate S (Subject) and P (Predicate).
Example: 2
Explanation:
This AOO-4 syllogism is not one of the 15 valid forms, the reason it is invalid is that the
middle term, Catholics is not distributed in either premise. And since nothing is claimed
about ALL members this category, Catholics, then no necessary inference can be related to
the other two terms, Popes and pious people.
Rule: 3:
In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be
distributed in the premises. OR any term distributed in the conclusion must be
distributed in the premises. OR If MAJOR or MINOR term is distributed in the
conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.
A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor
term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every
member of that class, depending which of the terms is misused in this way; syllogisms in
violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.
Illicit process of the major term (illicit major) occurs when the major term is distributed in
the conclusion but not in the premises.
Illicit process of the minor term (illicit minor) occurs when the minor term is distributed in
the conclusion but not in the premises.
Examples:
And:
111
All tigers are mammals
All mammals are animals
All animals are tigers
Explanation:
When a term is distributed in the conclusion, lets say that P is distributed, then that term is
saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in
the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of
the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the
conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument
invalid.
Example: 2
Illicit minor:
All conservatives are mean-spirited people.
All mean-spirited people are Republicans.
Therefore, all Republicans are conservatives.
Explanation:
In this AAA-4 syllogism the minor term, Republicans, IS distributed in the conclusion, yet it
is not distributed in the minor premise. And since the premise does not tell us something
about All Republicans, then the conclusion cannot tell us something about all Republicans
either. This violation of Rule 3 is called the illicit minor.
Rule: 4:
A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises.
OR
Avoid two negative premises. OR No syllogism can have two negative premises.
The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in
such a way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of
the propositions are exclusive (restricted) of one another. In an argument consisting of two
negative propositions the middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor
term, and thus there is no connection between the two and no inference (conclusion) can be
drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Example:
112
No fish are mammals
Some dogs are not fish
Some dogs are not mammals
Explanation:
If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The
conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes
beyond what is contained in the premises.
Example: 2
Explanation:
From the two negative premises of this EOO-2 syllogism, no necessary conclusion can be
inferred about 'some women' not being people that need to own a hand gun.
Rule: 5:
If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but
a negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this
reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An
argument that violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative
conclusion from a negative premise.
Example:
Explanation:
Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion
states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that
this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember,
the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative
statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a
negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P
class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections.
113
Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises.
Note:
These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular
premises is invalid.
Example: 2
Explanation:
This EOI-1 violates Rule 5 in that it improperly infers an affirmative conclusion from two
negative premises, and it violates Rule 4 that stipulates that no valid syllogism can have two
negative premises.
Rule: 6:
In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from
universal premises. OR
From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn. . OR
No syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises.
This rule is based on the modern Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions according
to which particular propositions have existential import but universal propositions do not.
Following this interpretation, a particular conclusion cannot follow from universal premises.
In traditional, Aristotelian logic, this rule did not apply.
These six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms.
Example:
Explanation:
On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular
ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about
114
existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In
which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making
it invalid.
Example: 2
Explanation:
Neither universal premise of this AAI-1 syllogism establishes the existence of a single,
individual poet, the MINOR term. Yet the conclusion asserts that "There exists at least one
poet, such that, this poet is inhabited by ferries". Hence, this syllogism commits the
existential fallacy.
Explanation:
when an argument in ordinary language has an apparently syllogism form
yet also appears more than three terms, we should not reject it, it is not
the fallacy of four term. It is possible to translate in an argument in to a
student form. Two techniques for accomplishing this goal must be
described.
Synonymous:
1. Wealthy = Rich
2. Lawyers = Attorneys
115
3. Vagrants = Tramps
Solution:
Note: 1:
We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by Obverting the
conclusion. AEE-II
Note: 2:
We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by Contraposition
of the first and Obverting the second, leaving the conclusion
unchanged. AAA-I
116
No non-residents are citizens.
All non-citizens are non-voters.
Therefore, all voters are residents.
Six terms:
1.Voters 2. Non-voters 3.Citizens 4.Non- citizens 5.Reisdents 6.Non-
residents
Note:
We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by Converting and
Obverting the first primes, and taking the Contraposive of the
second premise, yields the standard form.
Then: AAA-I
Fallaci
es
Kinds of
Fallacies
Formal Informal
118
1. Avoid four terms.
2. Distribute the middle term in at
least one premise.
3. If MAJOR or MINOR term is
distributed in the conclusion, then it
must be distributed in the premises.
4. Avoid two negative premises.
5. If either premise of a valid
categorical syllogism is negative,
the conclusion must be negative.
6. From two universal premises no
particular conclusion may be
drawn.
1. Appeal to 1. Accident
1. Equivocation
Force
(argumentum
ad baculum) 2. Converse 2. Amphiboly
2. Appeal to Accident
Pity
Kinds of
(argumentum
Fallacies
ad
3. Accent
misericordiam
3. False Cause
)
3. Appeal to
Emotion
Formal 4. Begging the Informal
4. Composition
(argumentum
ad populum) Question
4. Appeal to
Authority (Petitio
(argumentum principii) 5. Avoiding
ad
verecundiam) Fallacies
5. AdReleva
Hominem Presumpt Ambiqu
Argument 5. Complex
6. Appeal to Question
Ignorance 119
(argumentum
ad ignoratiam)
7. Irrelevant
) ( 6.1 Fallacies of Relevance
Definition of Relevance:
When an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion, and that there for cannot possibly establish its truth, the
fallacy committed is one of relevance.
120
In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring
down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with
a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a
fallacy of this type might propose:
It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion
could nevertheless be false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form
are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to
agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no
grounds for believing it to be true.
If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable
to drive to work.
121
Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.
Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given
the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so the argument is
fallacious.
Second Example:
"I've got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles.
If I don't, I won't stand a chance for medical school, and this is my last
semester at the university."
The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise
might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience,
the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the
truth of the conclusion.
122
4. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
( )
(
)
Appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in
order to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or appealing to the
feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who are
famous.
Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that
there is some connection between the truth of a proposition and some
feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority,
the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of
expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for
example:
Second Example:
"I believe that the statement You cannot legislate morality is true,
because President Eisenhower said it."
123
Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man).-The
Latin means "argument to the man." Arguing against, or rejecting a
person's views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives,
intentions, qualifications, etc., as opposed to providing evidence why the
views are incorrect.
Example: 1:
What John said should not be believed because he was a Nazi
sympathizer. (Supporter)
Example: 2:
Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead
of 21.
o . . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18
or
o . . . Doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.
Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.
124
(
)
Example: 2:
Spirits exists since no one has as yet proved that there are not any.
Example: 3:
Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence.
Conclusion
7. Irrelevant (ignoratio elenchi)
()
(
)
Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth
of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for
an entirely different conclusion. An argument that is irrelevant;
that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and
thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at issue.
125
Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their
children.
Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents
generally, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focused on women
alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may
succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.
Example: 2:
A lawyer is defending his alcoholic client who has murdered three people
in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and
attempts should be made to eliminate it.
6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions ()
Unwarranted Assumptions
1. Accident ()
(
)
(
:
)
The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is
true as a general rule, but then errs (goes wrong) by applying this
principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.
1. Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
126
Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.
2. The law states that one should not drive faster than 50 km per hour.
Therefore, even when the road is empty and you are rushing an
emergency patient to the hospital you should not drive faster than
50 km per hour.
3. One should return the thing one has borrowed when asked for.
Therefore, you should return the pistol to its owner even when he
going to commit suicide.
As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this
conclusion; but then, a universal statement that "Every woman earns less
than any man." would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on
the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying
it to any of them is fallacious.
2. Converse Accident (
)
(
:
)
The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is
unusual or atypical (uncommon) in some way, and then errs (makes a
mistake) by deriving from this case the truth of a general rule. It indicates
the error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional instances.
Example: 2:
"A shot of warm brandy each night helps older people relax and sleep
better. People in general ought to drink warm brandy
to relieve their tension and sleep better."
127
3. False Cause (
)
( :
)
Second Example:
When the rooster crows, the sun rises.
Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Third Example:
When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas.
Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
128
Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable
and have to be proved but are assumed true.
Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
Second Example:
The universe has a beginning.
Every thing that has a beginning has a beginner.
Therefore the universe has a beginner called God.
This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does indeed have a
beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner.
Third Example:
"Everything has a cause.
The universe is a thing.
Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause.
5. Complex Question
129
The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own
conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be
considered:
If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the
previous fallacy. We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless
we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is
supposed to prove.
But some time Complex question is not a fallacy, but it is used for
the intelligent of the respondent. And some time it is used,
because of shame, not to clearly ask the question.
:
130
:
Ambiguous Language
In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in
our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that
arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or
sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential
relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be
sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in
each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or
more different senses.
Fallacy of ambiguity is defined as an argument that has at least one
ambiguous word or statement from which a misleading or wrong
conclusion is drawn.
1. Equivocation ( )
Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has
different meanings. It is defined as an argument in which a word is used
with one meaning (or sense) in one part of the argument and with another
meaning in another part.
This fallacy is committed when a key word or phrase is used with two or
more different meanings in the same argument. An equivocation trades
upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in
131
one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings
in a second proposition.
Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the
argument, so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the
conclusion is spurious () . In its more subtle (
)occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of otherwise
valid deductive arguments.
Other examples:
First:
Since a criminal is a law breaker.
A criminal lawyer too is a law breaker.
It can be noticed that the term 'criminal' has been used in two different
senses in the argument. A criminal lawyer is not a criminal.
Second:
The signboard says "fine for parking here". A driver notices the
signboard and reasons as follows: "Since it is fine. I will park my
vehicle here."
This surely is a misinterpretation. The word 'fine' has been used in two
different senses here. In the signboard 'fine' means penalty. But the driver
thinks that it means 'all right'.
Third:
Nature is governed by laws.
Laws are the work of law makers.
So, laws of nature are the work of some law maker.
In this argument the term 'law' has been used ambiguously. It means
descriptive law in the first premise but used in the sense of prescriptive
law in the second. Only prescriptive laws are the work of law makers. Laws
of nature are descriptive laws and not prescriptive.
132
Fourth:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Fifth:
Evolution states that one species can change into another.
We see that cars have evolved into different styles.
Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
Sixth:
Logic teaches you how to argue.
People argue entirely too much.
Therefore we don't need to teach people Logic.
In this "argument" the word "argue" is used in two entirely different senses. In the first line,
the word "argue" is used to mean only the process of arranging propositions to flow logically
from a premise to a conclusion. In the second line, the word "argue" is used to include such
meanings as a heated discussion, a bitter disagreement, a contentious altercation, a dispute or
a controversy.
Seventh:
"The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life;
hence, death is the perfection of life."
He has faith in God Believes that there is perfectfuly and powerful God
exist.
2. Amphiboly ()
Amphiboly occurs when an arguer misinterprets a sentence that is
syntactically or grammatically ambiguous and goes on to draw a
conclusion on this faulty interpretation. An amphiboly can occur even
when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical
construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.
133
A reckless (wild and irresponsible) motorist Thursday struck and
injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup
truck.
134
Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, (tone) but if it is
read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply (involve) the truth
of the conclusion.
4. Composition ( :
)
This fallacy occurs when an attribute true of the parts of something is
erroneously (wrongly) transferred to the whole.
The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of
some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater
whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or
whole).
135
Other Examples:
First Example:
Each player in the team plays well.
Therefore, the whole team plays well.
This argument commits the fallacy of composition. From the fact that each
individual player is a good player it doesn't follow that the whole team
plays well.
Second Example:
Every part of this machine is light in weight.
Therefore, the machine is a whole light in weight.
This argument commits the fallacy of composition. From the fact that
every part of this machine is light in weight it doesn't follow that the
whole machine is light in weight.
5. Division (
)
Arguing that what is true of a whole is also (necessarily) true of its parts
and/or also true of some of its parts.
Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
This fallacy occurs in an argument when an attribute true of a whole (or a
class) is erroneously (wrongly) transferred to its parts (or members).
First Example:
Ocelots ( ) are now dying out. ()
Sparky is an ocelot.
136
Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate
fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual
members.
Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which
mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in
"Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore,
Sparky is in poor health").
The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something
can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be
truly said of each of its individual parts.
Second Example:
Men are numerous. (Many)
Aristotle is a man.
Therefore, Aristotle is numerous.
Third Example:
That car is blue.
Therefore, its engine is blue.
Fourth Example:
Your family is weird. (Strange)
That means that you are weird too.
Fifth Example:
The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy.
Therefore, every person living there is must be extremely wealthy
or therefore Adam, who lives there, is must be extremely wealthy.
Sixth Example:
This Corporation is very important.
Mr. Doe is an official ( ) of that corporation.
Therefore, Mr. Doe is very important.
Passed Papers
137
Of KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
c) Euphemism d) Conversion
e) Amphiboly
Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with
examples.
138
Q8. Logic is a positive science. Elaborate.
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Instruction:
a) Logic
b) Obversion
c) Conversion
d) Contraposition
Q3. Discuss ten informal famous fallacies at length with help of examples.
Q4. Define definition and elucidate the different types of definition with
examples.
Q5. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing the diagram.
139
Q7. What is the significance of language in Logic? Elucidate different
functions of language.
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Instruction:
Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with
examples.
140
a) Inductive and Deductive arguments
b) Stipulate and Lexical definitions
c) Informative and Expressive functions of Language.
d) Obversion and Conversion
a) Contradictories
b) Ostensive definition
C) Categorical Propositions
d) Logic
Q6. What do you understand by formal fallacies? Discuss any four with
the help of examples.
141
inventions, inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not American
invention.
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
142
a) Formal & informal Logic
b) Persuasive & prcising definitions
c) Truth & Validity
C) Obversion d) Argument
Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.
Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help
of diagram.
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Note:
Attempt any six of the followings. Question no.9 &10 are compulsory. All
carry equal marks.
143
Q1. Define Logic. What is the significance of Logic in business studies?
Q3. Critically evaluate basic language functions and forms and their
relationship. Give examples for explanation.
Q4. What do you know about definition? Also discuss various kinds of
definitions with examples.
Q9. Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name
its mood and figure.
Q10. Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions
and state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or
undistributed.
a) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union
movement.
b) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms
are not responsible who have a stake in maintaining the status quo.
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
144
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
c) Euphemism d) Conversion
e) Amphiboly
Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with
examples.
145
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Instruction:
e) Logic
f) Obversion
g) Conversion
h) Contraposition
Q3. Discuss ten informal famous fallacies at length with help of examples.
Q4. Define definition and elucidate the different types of definition with
examples.
Q5. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing the diagram.
146
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Instruction:
Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with
examples.
147
Q5. Define the following with examples.
a) Contradictories
b) Ostensive definition
C) Categorical Propositions
d) Logic
Q6. What do you understand by formal fallacies? Discuss any four with
the help of examples.
148
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
C) Obversion d) Argument
Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.
Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help
of diagram.
149
Example of Solved Examination
Paper Of
Karachi University
UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI
LOGIC BA (H)-421
BS-III
Max
Time: 3 Hrs
Note:
Attempt any six (all) of the followings. Question no.9 &10 are compulsory.
All carry equal marks.
Q3. Critically evaluate basic language functions and forms and their
relationship. Give examples for explanation.
Q4. What do you know about definition? Also discuss various kinds of
definitions with examples.
150
Q5. What do you know about conversion, Obversion and contraposition?
Explain with the help of tables.
Q9. Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name
its mood and figure.
Q10. Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions
and state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or
undistributed.
c) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union
movement.
d) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms
are not responsible who have a stake in maintaining the status quo.
Paper Of
Karachi University
Definition of Logic:
See page: 9
Benefits of Logic
151
See page: 15
See page: 17
See page: 57
Stipulative Definitions:
See page: 77
Definition of Conversion:
See page: 36
See page: 90
152
See page: 99
Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name its
mood and figure.
a) All proteins are organic compounds, whence all enzymes are proteins,
as all enzymes are organic compounds.
b) Some evergreen are objects of worship, because all fir trees are
evergreens, and some objects of worship are fir trees.
Solution:
Major
a) Syllogisms in standard form: term
Premise no 1: A: All proteins are organic compounds.
Premise no 2: A: All enzymes are organic compounds.
Middle term
Conclusion: A: Whence all enzymes are proteins.
Minor
Minor Major term
term term
Mood and figure:
Mood: AAA
Figure: 2
Major term
153
Mood: AII
Figure: 1
Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions and
state whether their subject and predicate terms are distributed or
undistributed.
a) All new labor devices are major threats to the trade union
movement.
b) Some advocate of the major political, social and economic reforms
are not responsible who have a stake in maintaining the status quo.
Solution:
See page: 27
154
The End
155