Introduction To Logic

Chapter One: Basic Concepts.
Definition of Logic
Logic is not just a science of reasoning; it is a science of clear and adequate reasoning. There is a
difference between Logic which deals with the principles and techniques of adequate reasoning
and psychology which deals with processes of thinking. Logic is either Informal or Formal. It is
informal when it uses the ordinary language and formal when it uses symbolic statements.
 Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with the basic principles, techniques or methods
for evaluating arguments.
 Logic is the science or study of valid arguments.
Logic is the study of
(i) criteria for distinguishing successful from unsuccessful argument,

(ii) methods for applying those criteria, and
(iii) Relatedproperties of statements such as implication, equivalence, logical truth,
consistency, etc.
1.1.Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
An argument does not simply mean a “disagreement” is an attempt to establish a conclusion.
 An argument is a (ﬁnite) set of statements, some of which—the premises are supposed to

support, or give reasons for, the remaining statement—the conclusion.
 An argument consists of some premises and a conclusion. An argument is valid if it is
impossible for the premises to be true, with the conclusion false.
The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence and the Conclusion is the
statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply.
Statement:
A statement is a declarative sentence; a sentence which attempts to state a fact—as opposed to a

question, a command, an exclamation.
Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 1

Premise Indicators:
As, since, for, because, given that, for the reason that, inasmuch as etc.
Example:
Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
Conclusion Indicators:
Therefore, hence, thus, so, we may infer, consequently, it follows that
Example:
Corporate raiders leave their target corporation with a heavy debt burden and no increase in
productive capacity. Consequently, corporate raiders are bad for the businesscommunity.

Note that an argument may be valid even if
 The premises are false and the conclusion is true.

 The premises are false and the conclusion is false.
 The premises are true and the conclusion is true.
For example, here are some arguments, in Standard Argument Form:
1. All humans are mortal

David is human
Therefore, David is mortal.
Examples: Valid Arguments
(1). True premises and true conclusion:
1. If Ali beat Frazier, then Ali was heavyweight champion of the world.
2. Ali beat Frazier.
3. ∴ Ali was heavyweight champion of the world.
(2).False premises and true conclusion:
1. Bill Clinton is a politician, and he once won a gold medal in the Olympics for the 200-
meter hurdles.
2. ∴ Bill Clinton is a politician.
(4) False premises and false conclusion:
1. The moon is made of green cheese, and the planet Mars is made of milk chocolate.
2. ∴The moon is made of green cheese.

Here is an invalid argument,
1. If it has rained, then the grass is wet

The grass is wet
Therefore, it has rained.
1.2.Recognizing Arguments
Not all the passages contain arguments. Because logic deals with arguments, it is important to be
able to distinguish passages that contain arguments from those that do not. Two conditions must
be fulfilling for a passage to purport to prove something:
1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.

2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support or implies
something—that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence.
In very summary form, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should look for
three things:
1. Indicators words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on

2. An inferential relationship between the statement and
3. Typical kinds of non-arguments.
But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of
an argument. One must check to see that the statement identified as the conclusion is intended to
be supported by one or more of the other statements.
a. Deduction and Induction

Arguments can be divided in to two groups:
1. Deductive arguments: is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
 Deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning.

2. Inductive arguments: is an argument in which the promises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that it is improbable that the premises be true and the
conclusion false.
 Inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning.
b. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
This section introduces the central ideas and terminology required to evaluate arguments. We
have seen that every argument makes two basic claims: a claim that evidence or reasons exist
and a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something. The first is a factual claim,
the second an inferential claim. The more important of the two is the inferential claim, because if
the premises fail to support the conclusion an argument is worthless.
Valid deductive argument:
 Valid deductive argument: is an argument that it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.
Invalid deductive argument:
 Invalid deductive argument is an argument that it is possible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.
An immediate consequence of these definitions is that there is no middle ground between valid
and invalid. If the conclusion follows with strictly necessity from the premises, the argument is
valid; if not it is invalid. To test an argument for validity we begin by assuming that all premises
are true and then we determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to
be false.
Here is an example.
All television networks are media companies
NBC is a television network
Therefore, NBC is a media company

Sound argument: - is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises.
Strong inductive argument:-is an inductive argument such as that it is improbable that the
premises be true and the conclusion false.
Weak inductive argument: is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
Example:
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old
Therefore, probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years
old.
Example of weak argument
During the past fifty years, inflation has consistently reduced the value of the American
dollar. Therefore, industrial productivity will probably increase in the years ahead.
Notes: To be strong, inductive argument must have conclusion more than 50 percent, and as the
probability increase, the argument become stronger.
Example
This barrel contains 100 mangos.
Three mangos selected at random were found to be lemon.
Therefore, probably all 100 mangos are lemon
This barrel contains 100 mangos.
Eighty mangos selected at random were found to be lemon.
Therefore, probably all 100 mangos are lemon
The first argument is weak and the second is strong.

c. Arguments Forms: Providing Invalidity
This section shows that the truth of a deductive argument’s inferential claim is determined by the
form of the argument. In other words, validity is determined by form. For these purposes,
consider the following:
All Adlers are bobkins/
All bobkins are Crockers.
Therefore, all Adlers are Crockers
Because the words “adlers,” “bobkins,” “crockers” are nonsensical, we do not know whether any
of the statement in this argument is true or false. Yet, we do know that if we assume that the
premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. That is, if we assume that
Adlers, whatever they might be, are included in the bobkins and the bobkins in the Crockers,
then we must accept the conclusion that the Adlers are included in the Crockers. According to
the definition of validity, therefore, the argument is valid.
This fact is important for understanding the nature of validity because it shows that the validity
of an argument has nothing to do with its specific subject matter. Even though we know nothing
about Adlers, bobkins, Crockers, we still know that the argument I valid. If we represent these
terms by their first letters, we obtain the following argument form.
All A are B
All B are C Valid Argument
Therefore, all A are C.
All A are B
All Care B Invalid Argument
Therefore, all A are C

Chapter Two: Language: Meaning and Definition
2.1.Varieties of Meaning
Logic deals with the analysis and evaluation of arguments. Since arguments are expressed in
language, the study of arguments requires that we should pay carefully attention to language in
which arguments are expressed. If you reflect on how language is used are everyday life, you can
notice that our ordinary language has different uses.
Language has a variety of functions. By using language we do various things like stating facts,
reporting events giving orders, singing songs, praying God, making requests, cutting jokes,
asking questions, making promises, greeting friends and so on. These are wide varieties of
language uses. We will not make any attempt to provide an exhaustive list of language uses.
Rather we shall discuss here a broad classification of some of the important uses of language.
There are three important uses of language that we shall discuss here. These are: (a) Descriptive,
(b) Emotive, and (c) Directive uses of language.
(a) Descriptive Use of Language:
Language is often used to describe something or to give information about something. So the
descriptive use of language is also called informative use of language. When a sentence is used
descriptively it reports that something has some feature or that something lacks some feature.
Consider the following two sentences:
1. Birds have feather.
2. Birds are not mammals.
3. The death penalty, which is legal in thirty six states has been carried out most in Georgia,
however, since 1977 taxes holds the record for greatest number of executions.
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.
1. Crows are black.
2. Mumbai is not the capital of India
3. A spider has eight legs.
4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.
5. The 15th of August is Indian Independence Day.
All these above statements happen to be true statements. However, it should be noted that only
true sentences are instances of informative use 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 an
example of descriptive use of language.
When language functions informatively we can sensibly ask whether what is asserted is or false.
In other words, the question "Is it true?" can be meaningfully asked of all such instances. When
language is used to affirm or deny any proposition, its function is informative; Language used to
present arguments serves informative function.
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.
(b) Emotive Use of Language:
Language is often used to express our feelings, emotions or attitudes. It is used either to express
one's own feelings, emotions or attitudes, or evoke certain feelings, emotions or attitudes
someone else, or both.
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. The death is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in which hapless prisoners are
dragged from their cells and summarily slaughtered only to satiate the bloodlust of a
vengeful public.
2. Jai Hind!
3. Cheers!
4. It’s disgusting!
5. It’s too bad!
6. It’s wonderful!
7. Let's win this game!
In appropriate contexts all these can count as instances of language functioning emotively.
If a sentence is followed by an exclamation mark, then very likely it is used emotively. The
language of poetry also provides an example of language serving the expressive function
Emotive use is different from descriptive use of language.
Emotive or expressive discourse is neither true nor false. When language is used emotively, it
cannot be characterized as true or false. We can, however, respond to it by asking questions such
as "Is the person sincere?" and "How should I feel?" Expressive use of language is also different
from directive use of language
(c) Directive Use of Language:
Language is often used to give direction to do or not to do something. Commands, requests,

instructions, questions are instances of directive use of language. Consider the following
examples:
1. Finish your homework.
2. Wash your clothes.
3. You should wear helmet when riding a scooter.
4. Don't smoke.
5. Are you feeling well?

6. Will you please help me?
In all these above examples language is functioning directively. Anyone who utters any of these
sentences, in a typical situation, is directing someone to do something or to respond in an
appropriate manner.
In all instances of language functioning directively, we can meaningfully ask the question
"Should I respond?" You will notice that directive, discourse, like emotive discourse, is neither
true nor false. But directive discourse, specially the imperative statements, can figure in some
arguments.
A command such as "Close the window", or an advice such as "You should wear helmet while
riding scooter" is either obeyed or disobeyed, but it is neither true nor false. Through commands,
advices, and requests are neither true nor false, these can be reasonable or unreasonable, proper
or improper. These characterizations of imperative statements are somewhat analogous to
characterization of informative statements as true or false.
Moreover, imperative arguments often imply or presuppose the truth of some propositions. If I
request you to close the window, my request presupposes the truth of the proposition that the
window is open.
Since reasons can be cited for or against imperative statements, such statements do occur in
imperative arguments. We are not going to discuss the logic of imperatives in this book. In our
study of logic we shall restrict our discussion to arguments that are stated in the language that
functions informatively.
The study of logic is concerned with language that functions informatively. So it is important
distinguish language that is informative from language that serves other functions.
There is, however, no mechanical method for distinguishing informative use of language from
language that serves other functions. Grammatical structure of a sentence often provides a clue to
its function, mere is no necessary connection between function and grammatical form. We can
determine whether the language in a particular context is functioning informatively or not by

asking "Is this instance of language being used to make an assertion that is either true or false?"
If the answer is yes'' then it is an instance of informative use of language.
It should be noted that language, in particular contexts, very often functions in more than way.
One and the same sentence might have more than one function. For effective communication
language is often used deliberately to serve multiple functions.
Language used to the expressive function might contain some relevant information. So also
language that is primarily informative may make use of other functions as well. Most discourses
in our ordinary communication contain elements from all the three uses of language enumerated
above. In logic restrict our attention to those cases where our discourse is at least partly
informative or descriptive.
Notes:These statements accomplish their respective functions through the distinct kinds of
terminology in which they are phrased. Terminology that conveys information is called cognitive
meaning and the terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is called emotive meaning.
2.1.Definitions and their Purposes

a. Stipulative definitions
Stipulative definition specifies how you’re going to use a term. Since your usage may be a
new one, it’s unfair to criticize a stipulative definition for clashing with conventional usage.
Stipulative definitions should be judged, not as correct or incorrect, but rather as useful or
useless.
Clarifying definition is one that stipulates a clearer meaning for a vague term. For example,
a scientist might stipulate a technical sense of “pure water” in terms of bacteria level; this
technical sense, while related to the normal one, is more scientifically precise. Likewise,
courts might stipulate a more precise definition of “death” to resolve certain legal disputes;
the definition might bechosen on moral and legal grounds to clarify the law.
Stipulative definitions should:
 use clear terms that the parties involved will understand,
 avoid circularity, allow us to paraphrase out the defined term,
 accord with how the person giving it is going to use the term,
 and aid our understanding and discussion of the subject matter

b. Lexical definitions
We noted earlier that the phrase “cosmic force” in this example is obscure:
If there’s a cosmic force, then there’s a God.
There’s a cosmic force.
Therefore, there’s a God.
Unless the speaker tells us what is meant by “cosmic force,” we won’t be able to understand
what’s said or tell whether it’s true. But how can the speaker explain what he or she means
by “cosmic force”? Or, more generally, how can we explain the meaning of a word or
phrase? Definitions are an important way to explain meaning, but not the only way. We’ll
consider definitions now and other ways to explain meaning later.
A definition is a rule of paraphrase intended to explain meaning. More precisely, a definition
of a word or phrase is a rule saying how to eliminate this word or phrase in any sentence
using it and produce a second sentence that means the same thing, the purpose of this being
to explain or clarify the meaning of the word or phrase.
Suppose the person with the cosmic-force argument gives us this definition:
c. Explaining meaning
If we avoid circular sets of definitions, we can’t define all our terms; instead, we must leave
some terms undefined. But how can we explain such undefinedterms?
One way is by examples.
To teach “red” to someone who understands no language that we speak, we could
point to red objects and say “Red!” We’d want to point to different kinds of red
object; if we pointed only to red shirts, the person might think that “red” meant “shirt.” If the
person understands “not,” we also could point to non-red objects and say “Not red!” The
person, unless color–blind, soon will catch our meaning and be able to point to red objects
and say “Red!” This is a basic, primitive way to teach language. It explains a word, not by
using other words, but by relating a word to concrete experiences.
We sometimes point to examples through words. We might explain “plaid” to a child by
saying “It’s a color pattern like that of your brother’s shirt.” We might explain “love”
through examples: “Love is getting up to cook a sick person’s breakfast instead of staying in
bed, encouraging someone instead of complaining, and listening to other people instead of

telling them how great you are.” It’s often helpful to combine a definition with examples, so
the two reinforce each other; so Chapter 1 defined “argument” and then gave examples.
In abstract discussions, people sometimes use words so differently that they fail to
communicate. People almost seem to speak different languages. Asking for definitions may
then lead to the frustration of hearing one term that you don’t understand being defined using
other terms you don’t understand. In such cases, it may be more helpful to ask for examples
instead of definitions. We might say, “Give me examples of an analyticstatement (or of a
deconstruction).” The request for examples can bring a bewilderingly abstract discussion
back down to earth and mutual understanding.

Chapter Three: Informal Fallacies
Fallacies
A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct but which upon very close
examination turns out not to be so. A fallacy is usually very persuasive and so appears very good
and logical. There are two broad divisions of fallacy. They are ‘Formal' and ‘Informal' fallacies.
1. Formal fallacies: have to do with the violation of certain rules of valid inference, whereas
2. Informal fallacies: are errors in reasoning that we may fall into either because of
carelessness or inattention, or because we want to trick others into accepting our position
based on convictions that are not relevant to the issue at hand.
All factories are plants
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll
Since this form is valid, one mighty concludes that the argument itself is valid. Yet the argument
is clearly invalid because it has true premises and false conclusion. The word “plants” is used in
to different senses. In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured, and
in the second it means a life form.
Informal fallacy, which is our main concern here, can be further classified into three broad
categories. They are the fallacies of relevance, fallacies of ambiguity and fallacies of
presumption.
1.1.Fallacies of Relevance
The following are examples of fallacies of relevance:
Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
This fallacy is committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to cause the acceptance
of a conclusion, instead of appealing to reason. It is also committed when someone in a position

of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree
with a proffered proposition.
Example:
‘Nigeria should join the Non-Aligned Nations if she wants the Non-Aligned Nations to buy
her oil.'
Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
This fallacy occurs when in the course of arguing, one appeals to pity rather than reason. An
appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will
otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom they will then feel sorry. The following
passage commits this fallacy:
I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you
give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I
cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.
Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.
Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
This fallacy is committed when you appeal to the emotion of the people to win their assent to a
conclusion unsupported by good evidence. In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion
relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to
accept its conclusion. 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. The following
example explains this fallacy:
The wisest men and women in Yoruba history have all been interested in Ifa. Obas,
queens and regents of all epochs in Yoruba land have believed in it and have guided the
affairs of their people by it. Therefore those who say that Ifa is not a science are
mistaken.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
This fallacy involves 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. When the opinion of
someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is appealed to in order to
guarantee the truth of a claim outside the province of that authority's field, this fallacy is
committed. Consider this example:
John Adeoye, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Lagos, believes that the sum
of the four angles of a rectangle is 135 degrees.
Therefore the sum of the four angles of a rectangle is 135 degrees.
Argument Against the Man (argumentum ad Hominem)
There are two varieties of this argument. The ‘abusive' variety of ad hominem is committed
when instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the person who made
the assertion. The circumstantial variant of this fallacy occurs when instead of arguing logically,
one argues against the circumstance of the opponent. Consider the following two examples, the
first committing the abusive variety and the second the circumstantial:
1. Mr. Brown's arguments for pre-marital sex should be dropped because he is a womanizer.
2. Rev. Father John should accept my position that abortion should be abolished because
this is compatible with his faith as a Catholic.
Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
This fallacy is committed when one posits that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has
not been proved false or that it is false because it has not been proved true. The following
passage commits this fallacy:
No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.
Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratioelenchi)
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an
argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.
Example:
The Golden rule is basic to every system of ethics ever devised. Everyone accepts it in
some form or other. Therefore people's lives are guided by legislations.
Black-or-White Fallacy
This fallacy is committed when it is falsely assumed in an argument that only two alternatives or
positions are possible in regards to a certain issue or when the possibility of a third alternative to
the two already allowed is ignored (Bello, 2000).
Example
He who is not for Christianity is against Christianity.
Sodiq is not for Christianity.
He is therefore against Christianity.
2.2.Fallacies of Ambiguity
In addition to fallacies of relevance, 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 following are examples of fallacies of ambiguity:
Fallacy of Equivocation
This fallacy is committed when you use a word in more than one sense in an argument. An
equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one
of the propositions of an argument and also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

For example:
Only man is rational
No woman is a man
Therefore, no woman is rational.
Here, the word ‘man' is used in different senses in the two premises of the argument. So the link
they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious.
Fallacy of Division
This fallacy involves an inference from the attribution of some features of an entire class, to the
possession of the same feature by each of its individual parts or members.
Example:
America is a rich and great country.
Peterson is an American.
Therefore Peterson is rich and great.
Fallacy of Composition
This fallacy involves an inference from the attribution of some features of every individual
members of a class, to the possession of the same feature by the entire class. For example,
Since every course I took in college was well-organised, therefore my college education
was well-organised.
Fallacy of Assent
The fallacy of assent is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends
upon a change or shift in meaning. The way in which the meaning shifts in the fallacy of assent
depends upon which parts of it may be emphasized or accented.

Example:
Peter turned in his assignment on time today
Therefore Peter usually turns in his assignments late.
Here, because certain words in the premise are emphasized or stressed, the argument acquires a
different meaning and so becomes fallacious.
2.3.Fallacies of Presumption
Apart from the fallacies of relevance and those of ambiguity, there are some other incorrect
patterns of reasoning which, for want of a better term, have been described as ‘Fallacies of
Presumption'. In these instances, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of
some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. The followings are examples of
fallacies of presumption:
Fallacy of Accident
This fallacy begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then
errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual, atypical and whose accidental
circumstances render the rule inapplicable.
Converse Accident
This fallacy occurs when one generalizes on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Example:
Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.
Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.
The truth here is that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general
principle.

False Cause
This fallacy is committed when you say something is the cause of another when in actual fact it
is not. There are two strands of this fallacy:
A. Non causa pro causa: This fallacy occurs when one mistakes what is not the cause of a
given effect for its real cause.
B. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fallacy occurs when we say that one event is the cause of
another from the mere fact that the first event occurred earlier and immediately before the
second.
The following argument commits both strands of false cause:
The moon was full on Thursday evening.
On Friday morning I overslept.
Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.
Begging the Question (PetitioPrincipii)
Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises
offered in its own support. In other words, if one assumes as a premise for an argument the
conclusion one intends to prove, then one commits this fallacy.
Consider this example:
It is best to have government of the people, for the people and by the people because
democracy is the best form of government.
Complex Question
A complex question is one which contains at least two questions, one of which is implied and in
which an affirmative answer to the implied question is already presupposed irrespective of
whether or not the main question is answered in the affirmative or in the negative. In other
words, this fallacy is committed when one draws a conclusion from a yes or no answer to a

question that is loaded. This fallacy occurs more frequently in dialogues. Consider the
following:
1. Have you tried to stop watching too much television?
If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
Therefore, you watch too much television.
2. Did your sales increase as a result of your misleading advertisement?
If yes, then you admit that your advertisement was misleading.
If no, then you admit that you still practice misleading advertisement.
Therefore, you practice misleading advertisement and could go to jail because of your
unethical conduct.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exam?
Where did you put the cookies you stole?
Let us suppose your answer yes for the first question. Therefore, it follows that you have
cheated in the past. You replied under the bed. Therefore, it follow that you did in fact steal
the cookies.

Chapter Four: Categorical Propositions
4.1.The Components of Categorical Propositions
A proposition that relates two classes or categories is called categorical proposition.
Four types of categorical propositions:
1. Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class
2. Those that assert part of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
3. Those that assert that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class
4. Those that assert that part of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class.
Example
All S are P
No S are P
Some S are P
Some S are not P
The words “all,” “no,” and “some” are called quantifiers because they specify how much the
number of subject class is included in or excluded from the predicate class. The words “
are,” and “are not” are called the copula because they link the subject terms with the
predicate terms.
Example
All members of the American Medical Association are persons holding degrees from
recognized academic institutions.
Quantifier:all
Subject term:member of the American Association
Copula:are
Predicate: persons holding degrees from recognized academic institutions

4.2.Formalization
In logic, the analysis of informal arguments proceeds by a technique known as

formalization. This involves two steps:
(a) Translate informal statements into a symbolic or formal language.

(b) Apply mathematical methods to the resulting formalized arguments.
This may be illustrated by an example.
Consider the argument,
1. Either Manchester will win or Liverpool will win [Premise 1]
Manchester will not win [Premise 2]
Therefore, Liverpool will win. [Conclusion]
The first thing we do is to replace the component sub-sentence by symbols standing for
sentences. We shall use the letters ‘P’ and ‘Q’. Thus,
1. becomes, Either P or Q [Premise 1]

2. not:-P [Premise 2]
Therefore, Q [Conclusion]
We have simply replaced the sub-sentences by letters:
‘Manchester will win’ by the letter ‘P’.
‘Liverpool will win ‘by the letter ‘Q’. These letters, ‘P’ and ‘Q’, are called sentence letters or
statement letters.
A note on terminology: some authors call the letters P, Q, etc., propositionalconstants or

propositional atoms.Some also call them propositional variables, but this latter expression is bad
terminology, since, as we will see in the section on semantics for propositional logic, their
interpretation does not vary within a particular truth value assignment, and hence they do not
play the logical role of variables. Instead, they are constants relative to a particular assignment.

Examining (2), we see that there are certain “connecting” expressions remaining: Either … or
Not. Such connecting expressions play a central role in logic. They are called logical
connectives. The next step is to symbolize these logical connectives. The usual symbols are
∨ for ‘either ... or ...’
¬ for ‘not’
Using these symbols, we get:
P∨Q
¬P
Therefore, Q
Notice that we now have things like ‘P ∨ Q’ and ‘¬P’. These are called compound or molecular
formulas, while the sentence letters ‘P’ and ‘Q’ from which they are built are called atomic
formulas.
A note on terminology: within the context of propositional logic, the terms ‘sentence’ and
‘formula’ will be used interchangeably. However, ‘formula’ is technically the more
general of the two terms, and in the context of predicate logic, the sentences will comprise
only a proper subset of the set of formulas.
Roughly, a formula is a way of expressing the “abstract logical structure” or “logical

form” of a sentence. Comparing the informal and the formal arguments, we get:
Informal Argument Formal Argument
Either Manchester will win or Liverpool will win P ∨ Q
Manchester will not win ¬P
Therefore, Liverpool will win. Therefore, Q

Sequent:
Formal arguments crop up so often in logic that we prefer a simpler and more
convenient way of writing them down. Instead of the above representation of a formal argument,
P∨Q
¬P
Therefore, Q
We write instead: P ∨ Q, ¬P : Q. The expression is called a sequent.
Definition: A sequent is a sequence of formulas of the following form,
A1, A2…An: B. where A1, A2, …, An and B may be any formulas.
The formulas A1… An, are called the premises of the sequent. The formula B is its conclusion.
(We shall also allow the “null case” where there are no premises at all.)
For example, in the above sequent,
A1 is the formula P ∨ Q;
A2 is the formula ¬P;
B is the formula Q.
In logic, we want todevise techniques to classify a given sequent as either valid or invalid. But
what does “valid” mean? In the next few lectures, you will learn exactly what “valid” means and
you will learn some methods for checking if a sequent (i.e., a formal argument) is indeed valid or
not. Roughly speaking, a valid sequent is one whose conclusion is a logical consequence of
the premises. Otherwise, the argument is not valid.

Propositional Connectives
Certain English expressions like,
And,
Or,
Not,
If … then,
If and only if are called propositional connectives (or ‘logical’ or truth-functional connectives).
They operate on sentences of English to form new sentences. The rules (of grammar or syntax)
governing these connectives is quite simple:
(i) If A is a sentence, then ‘not A’ is a sentence.

(ii) If A and B are sentences, then ‘A and B’ and ‘A or B’ and ‘if A then B’ and ‘A if
and only if B’ are all sentences.
The logical connectives are standardly symbolized in formal logic as follows:
English Expression Logical Symbolization Name of Symbol

not A ¬A Negation
A and B A∧B conjunction
A or B A∨B Disjunction
if A then B A→B Conditional
A if and only if B A↔B Bi-conditional
The negation connective ¬ is called a 1-place (or unary) connective, because it operates
on just one sentence to form a new one. The other connectives ∧, ∨, → and ↔ are called 2-
place (or binary) connectives, because they join a pair of sentences.
Examples of Formalization
We state beforehand what sentence letters symbolize what statements. E.g., P: John is happy
Q: Yoko is sad R: Paul will sing

Then, we obtain the following formalizations:
1. John is not happy ¬P

2. If John is happy then Yoko is sad P→Q
3. John is happy and Yoko is sad P∧Q
4. Either John is happy or Yoko is sad P ∨Q
5. John is happy if and only if Yoko is sad P↔Q
Compound Formulas
In propositional logic, we start with the following ingredients:
(a) Sentence letters: P, Q, R …
(b) Logical connectives: ¬, ∧, ∨, →, and ↔
An amalgam of symbols obtained correctly from these ingredients is called a compound

or molecular formula. For example, the following expressions arecompound formulas:
P→P (P ∧ Q) → R (P ∨ Q) → (Q ∧ P) and so on
Notice that parentheses or brackets are used to indicate grouping.
So, the formula
(P ∧ Q) → R is quite distinct from the formula P ∧ (Q → R).
This is analogous to the use of brackets in algebraic expressions, where ‘(x + y) z’ is quite
different from ‘x + (yz)’. For example, (3 + 5) × 4 is not the same as 3 + (5 × 4).
Formalizing Compound Sentences
It is now possible to formalize complex English sentences, by formalizing each

appearance of the logical connectives. For example, first identify the connectives:
(1) If John is happy and Yoko is sad, then Paul will not sing and put the component sub-
sentences in appropriate brackets
(2) If [(John is happy) and (Yoko is sad)], then [Paul will not sing].

Now formalize in a natural way:
(3) (P ∧ Q) → ¬R
Notice that you must include brackets here to indicate the grouping of sentence letters.
Similarly,
(4) Unless John is happy or Paul will not sing, Yoko is not sad
This is naturally formalized as:
(5) (P ∨ ¬R) ∨ ¬Q
Propositional Semantics
Notes on Sets
A set is a collection of ‘things’. The things in the collection are called its members or elements.
The “collection” containing Clinton and Diana is written: {Clinton, Diana}. The set containing
just the objects a, b and c is written: {a, b, c}.
The order doesn’t matter. So, {a, b, c} is the same set as {b, a, c}, and so on. We indicate that an
object is a member of a set Δ by writing: a ∈ Δ. We indicate the set of all cats by the following
notation: {X: x is a cat}, to be read: the set of all things x such that x is a cat. We shall use the
Greek symbols ‘Δ’ and ‘Σ’ to stand for arbitrary sets. The members of a set can be almost
anything you like: physical, abstract or imaginary. So sets can contain numbers, eggs, ideas,
and formulas. A set can also contain other sets. (In standard set theory, a set cannot contain
itself!). One particularly important set is the empty set, which is written: ∅, or sometimes { }.
Another important set is the unit set of a single object a, written: {a}. There are two important
operations on sets: ∩ (intersection) and ∪ (union):
1. Δ∩Σ the set of all things that are both in Δ and Σ

2. Δ∪Σ the set of all things that are in either Δ or Σ.

In particular, if nothing is both in Δ and Σ, then Δ ∩ Σ is ∅. Sometimes we shall be interested in
sets of the form Δ ∪ {A}, where Δ is a set of formulas and A is some formula. The set Δ ∪ {A}
is obtained by simply “adding” A to the set Δ.

Introduction To Logic

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Introduction To Logic

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter One: Basic Concepts.

Logic is the study of

(i) criteria for distinguishing successful from unsuccessful argument,

An argument does not simply mean a “disagreement” is an attempt to establish a conclusion.

 An argument is a (ﬁnite) set of statements, some of which—the premises are supposed to

A statement is a declarative sentence; a sentence which attempts to state a fact—as opposed to a

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 1

Therefore, hence, thus, so, we may infer, consequently, it follows that

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 2

 The premises are false and the conclusion is true.

For example, here are some arguments, in Standard Argument Form:

1. All humans are mortal

Examples: Valid Arguments

(1). True premises and true conclusion:

(2).False premises and true conclusion:

(4) False premises and false conclusion:

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 3

1. If it has rained, then the grass is wet

Therefore, it has rained.

1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.

1. Indicators words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on

a. Deduction and Induction

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 4

Valid deductive argument:

Invalid deductive argument:

All television networks are media companies

NBC is a television network

Therefore, NBC is a media company

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 5

Example of weak argument

This barrel contains 100 mangos.

Three mangos selected at random were found to be lemon.

Therefore, probably all 100 mangos are lemon

This barrel contains 100 mangos.

Eighty mangos selected at random were found to be lemon.

Therefore, probably all 100 mangos are lemon

The first argument is weak and the second is strong.

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 6

All Adlers are bobkins/

All bobkins are Crockers.

Therefore, all Adlers are Crockers

All B are C Valid Argument

Therefore, all A are C.

All Care B Invalid Argument

Therefore, all A are C

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 7

(a) Descriptive Use of Language:

1. Birds have feather.

2. Birds are not mammals.

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 8

1. Crows are black.

2. Mumbai is not the capital of India

3. A spider has eight legs.

4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

5. The 15th of August is Indian Independence Day.

(b) Emotive Use of Language:

Gambella University: Introduction to Logic (By Phileman Ochan, 2016) Page 9

(c) Directive Use of Language:

Language is often used to give direction to do or not to do something. Commands, requests,

1. Finish your homework.

2. Wash your clothes.

3. You should wear helmet when riding a scooter.

5. Are you feeling well?