Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 155

KIM

According to Karachi University Business School


(KUBS) Syllabus

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

BBA III (Hons.)

Course Title : LOGIC


Course Number : BA (H) 421
Credit Hours : 03

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

1.1 Logic as a Science and an Art


1.2 Scope of Logic

5
1.3 The Laws of Logic
1.4 Induction and Essential Characteristics of Induction

2. Categorical Propositions and Classes

2.1 Quality, Quantity and Distribution


2.2 The Traditional Square of Opposition
2.3 Immediate Inferences, Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition, Inversion
2.4 Existential Import
2.5 Symbolism and Diagram for Categorical Proposition

3. Three Basic Uses of Language

3.1 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions


3.2 The Forms of Discourse
3.3 Emotive Words
3.4 Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement
3.5 Emotively Neutral Language

4. The Purpose of Definition

4.1 The Types of Definition


4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning
4.3 Techniques for Defining

5. Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms

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

6. Informal Fallacies

6.1 Fallacies of Relevance


6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions
6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

6
Recommended Books

1. Hurley, Patric, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Belmont, Calif Wadsworth, 1988.

2. Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, New York, McMillan Co, 1990.

3. Wernon and Nissen, Introduction to Logic, Arkansas University Press, 1985.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special and my deepest appreciation to my


teacher and Director of Karachi Institute of Management and Sciences
(KIMS) Mr. Imran Husain Quraishi Sahib who provided me the possibility to
complete my research work of Logic BS-III on KIMS Office.

I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation to my teacher


and Principal of Karachi Institute of Management and Sciences (KIMS) Mr.
Adnan Jami Sahib for helping and supporting me in many occasions.

Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the


crucial role of my sincere friend Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, for guidance and
encouragement in carrying out the work on Logic book.

I am also very thankful of Mr. Shaikh Salman Sahib for making a beautiful
title for this book.

Lastly, I would like to thank all my colleagues of Karachi Institute of


Management and Sciences (KIMS) for helping me in the completion of my
book on logic.

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)

Some important characteristics of this book are described below:

1. Logic is the study of Greek Science.


2. It is according to the syllabus of Karachi University
3. It provides the meanings of difficult words in Urdu and some
times in Arabic.
4. The study of this book is very easy for every student particularly
for the Ulamas who know the Arabic Logic.
5. It presents the sequentially description of Topics.
6. It is the complete and concise notes of logic.

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

Head of faculty of Social Sciences

Karachi Institute of Management & Sciences (KIMS)

Topic No: 1:00 Definition of Logic


Accepted Definition of Logic:

According to Irving Copy:

Logic is the study of methods & principles used to distinguish correct


reasoning from incorrect reasoning.

Not completely accepted Definitions of Logic:

1. It is not process of reasoning, so it is not correct to define logic as, the


science of reasoning.

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. (
)

4. Logic is Logic that is all I say. ()

5. The defense against trickery. (


)

Some good definitions as compare to above five:

1. Logic in general is the science of right thinking.

2. Studies reason as the tool of knowledge.

Other Logicians say in the definition of Logic:

1. The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false
(Averroes).

2. The science of reasoning, teaching the way of investigating


unknown truth in connection with a thesis (notion and idea) (Robert
Kilwardby).

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).

4. The art of conducting reason well in knowing things (Antoine


Arnauld).

5. The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).

6. The Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning (Richard Whately).

7. The science of the operations of the understanding which are


subservient (obedient) to the estimation of evidence (John Stuart Mill).

8. The science of the laws of discursive ( )thought (James McCosh).

9. The science of the most general laws of truth (Gottlob Frege).

10. The science which directs the operations of the mind in the
attainment (accomplishment of truth (George Hayward Joyce).

11. The analysis and appraisal (investigation and assessment) of


arguments (Harry J. Gensler).

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).

Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain:

11
Logic is a science that studies the laws of valid thoughts for things.
This definition is consists of four things.

1. Science 2.Laws 3.Valid 4.Thoughts

Scien

) ( Systematic )( Complete

Natural Normativ
Science e
Science























12
2

Law
s

Political Natural Normative


Laws Laws or
regulative

What must be? What Is? What should


be?

They can be They are neither They are neither


changed as well as being changed nor being changed but
violated. violated Example: can be violated.
Law of gravitation.
(Contradictory
attributes).


13
3

Valid
(True)

Validity or truth means, Free from self contradiction


Formal Material

Inductive
Deductive
Logic
Logic

1. Men are mortal. 1. Men are tables.


2. Students are men. 2. Books are men.
Therefore, Students are Therefore, book`s are
not mortal. tables.

Here our argument is not What is said in this


valid, it is self contradictory. argument is not according
to the actual reality.




Though
14
Process
Production or

Feelin Thinki Whish


g ng es

Conce Judgm Reaso


pt ent ning

A concept means A judgment is Reasoning


General idea or Combination of means
simple two concepts, Information
apprehension ( which has which is drawn
)about relation of agree from one
some thing. or disagree judgment or
between them. more then one.

Definition of Logic according to Karamat Husain:

So the complete definition is defined as,


Logic is a normative science that studies the normative or
regulative laws of true valid result bringing thoughts for things.

15
Benefits of Logic:

1. Logic sharpens the intellect.


2. It develops our reasoning ability.
3. It strengthens our understanding power.
4. It promotes clear thinking.
5. It is a very good mental gymnastic.
6. It saves us from being deceived by others clever arguing.
7. It teaches us the laws of correct thinking.
8. It saves from errors and confusion in our own reasoning.
9. Other sciences lie simply in informing our minds but Logic lies
forming our mind.
10. The possession of a logical mind is the noblest treasure that a
man can have.
11. Logic is the light of all science.
12. Logic is also very useful in daily life conversion.

Topic No: 1:01 Logic is Science or an Art


1. Logic is a science because it is a systematic and complete study of a
certain subject-matter ( ) . But it is also an art.
2. Thompson says It is that a science is a body of principles to explain
some subject-matter, an art a body of precepts () , with
practical skill, for the completion of work. A science is teaches us to know,
and an art to do.
3. Science the theoretical and art is practical in nature.
4. The science is the root of art and art is the fruit of science. Art without
science is rootless, and science with out art fruitless.
4. The science is the root of art and art is the fruit of science. Art without
science is rootless, and science with out art fruitless.
5. The science of logic is the basis of the art of correct thinking.
6. Logic is both science and art.
7. Logic is the science of sciences and art of arts.
8. Logic is primarily science and secondary an art.
9. Logic is directly science and indirectly an art.
10. The primary aim of logic is the knowledge of principles of valid
thinking, while secondary aim is to detect and avoid invalid thinking

Topic No: 1:02 the scope 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.

Value and uses of Logic:


It is of great value not only on individual but a collective level. The scope,
value and uses of logic are the things which cannot be separately
discussed. Logic differently described by different school of thoughts as
everyone defines it in a way he use it. At different levels the scope, value
and used of logic can be emphasized as follows:

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.

In the field of Law:


In the field of law, only those cases are acceptable which is fulfilled by the
criteria of logic. Moreover the rules and law are developed on the bases of
logical reasoning.

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.

The scope of Logic

According to Karamat

Logic concerned with thought, and thought connected


with language and things.

Logic directly deals with thought, and indirectly with


language (through which thought is expressed) and
things (to which thought must conform in order to be
valid).

Conceptual Nominalis Materialis


ism m m

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

A concept which When judgment


means expressed in expressed in
language, is called language is called
term. preposition.
Term is a verbal Preposition is a
expression of verbal expression

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)

We have defined logic as the science of the laws of valid thought. It


depends upon correct thinking. It has some principles.
1. The law of identity ( )
2.The law of Non Contradiction. ( )
3. The law of Excluded Middle. ( )
4. The law of sufficient Reason. ) )

1. The law of identity

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.

Formula: If A is B, it is B. if in really Iron is a metal. It is a metal. Bat is


Bat (Bird) not Bat of cricket. If man is mortal. He is mortal.
G.W. Bush is G.W. Bush. Bush is the son of George Bush.

Thus the law of identity is an expression of the identity or sameness of


things.

2. The law of Non Contradiction

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.

Formula: A cannot be both B and Non-B at the same time.


According to this law, two contradictory things cannot be false. (A is a
Muslim and A is Non Muslim.

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.

3. The law of Excluded Middle

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.

Formula: A must be either B or non-B.It points out that between two


contradictories there is no intermediate possibility. There is no middle
course - the middle is excluded. A color must be red or non red. (A must
be Muslim or Non Muslim).
Contrary is not contradiction.

For example: Red and Yellow are not contradictories but contraries, and
between contraries
other alternative
are possible. Contraries are mutually

) but collectively exhaustive (
(
exclusive


) .

Two contraries can both be false.


For example:
This board must be white or not green, both be false when the board is
black.

But two contradictories cannot be false.


Hence, the law of Excluded Middle applies only in the case of
contradictive, and not in the case of contraries.

4. The law of Sufficient Reason

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.

Everything that has a sufficient reason that why it is.


There should be sufficient reason to all happenings.
The above "laws of logic" are part of the basic logical rules of inference.
Everything that acts or changes has a reason or cause why it acts or
changes.
It can also be stated. Everything that begins to exist has a reason why it
exists.

Characteristics of the law of Thought:

Fundamental:

They lie at the very root of every all thought. ()

Self evident:

They are so simple that they neither need nor are capable of any proof.
.


Necessary:

.They are very important for correct thinking

Formal:

Not Material.

22
Apriority:

They are not derived from experience. They are inherent


principles of thoughts.


Topic No: 1:04 Induction and Essential characteristics of


Induction

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

Freedom from self Agreement with facts or

23
Essential Characteristics of Induction:

There are some important and unique characteristics of induction, which


are described below.

1. Material Truth:

Induction arrives on universal real propositions. The proposition which is


established by induction must be a real and not merely a verbal
proposition. Like, Man is mortal. Crows are black. Lions are fierce.

2. It depends on observation:

Induction depends on particular and common observation.


Examples of observation: I observe that my dog is faithful. Your dog is
faithful. This dog is faithful. From These particular observations, I infer
the general proposition. All dogs are faithful.

Common observations of facts: All men are mortal. It is based on our


observation of many cases of death of different persons.

3. It depends on causal connections among facts:

A generalization which is not based on causal connections cannot be


accepted as valid. For example, All crows are black. It can be accepted
as valid only, if a causal connection between. Crowness and blackness
is proved.
All red mangoes are sweet. It is also needed a connection between
redness and sweetness.

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

But, some time, it goes from general to general.


So, premises and conclusion both are general.
For example:

All cows are mammals and have lungs.


All whales are mammals and have lungs.
All human are mammals and lungs.
So, therefore, it is probable, that all mammals have lungs.

But in some cases it moves from particular to particular.


For example:
Hitler was a dictator ( ) and was ruthless. ()
Stain was a dictator and was ruthless.
Castro is a dictator.
Therefore, Castro probably is ruthless.

25
Comparison
between Deduction
and Induction

Deducti Inductio
on n

It moves from .1 It moves from particular .1


General to particular to .to general
.particular .Induction arrives .2
What deduction .2 .Induction begins .3
..begins with Induction has matter .4
What deduction .3 .truth
?arrives with Induction is the method of
Deduction has formal .4
.Analysis
.truth
Deduction is the method of
.synthesis

26
But

But in spite of differences, deduction and induction are closely


related. Induction supplies universal premises for deduction and
deduction verifies the truth of the generalization of induction.

Truth, Validity and Soundness

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.

2. But if an argument is sound, its premises must be true and it must be


valid.
3. Validity may be predicated of deductive arguments, but not of
Truth, Validity and Soundness
inductive arguments.

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.

There fore, all spiders have wings.

Example of soundness: 1.27


All mammals have lungs. 2. All
whales are mammals.

There fore. All whales have lungs.


2:00 Categorical propositions and Classes

Topic No: 2:01 Quality, Quantity and Distribution

Categorical propositions can be categorized into four types on the basis of


their "quality" and "quantity", or their "distribution of terms". These four
types have long been named A, E, I and O.

Quality and quantity:

Quality refers to whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion


of a subject within the class of the predicate. The two possible qualities
are called affirmative and negative.

For instance, the A-proposition ("All S is P") is affirmative since it states


that the subject is contained within the predicate. On the other hand, the
O-proposition ("Some S is not P") is negative since it excludes the subject
from the predicate.

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.

For instance, the I-proposition ("Some S is P") is particular since it only


refers to some of the members of the subject class.

Note that "no" is both a quantifier and a qualifier.

Remember the following rule:

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...

The quality of a standard form categorical proposition determines


the distribution status of the predicate.
(Such that if the quality is affirmative, the predicate is undistributed, and
if the quality is negative, the predicate is distributed).

Preposition

Quantity

Quality

Univer Particul
sal ar
Affirmati Negati
ve ve

A E

Universal Universal
Affirmative Negative

29

All men are mortal. No men are angels.

All dogs are animals. No woods are men.

All men are human. No tables are


animals.
All mangoes are
fruits. No Muslims are
Hindus.
All cows are
mammals. No men are stones.

Preposition

Quantity Quality

Univer Particul Affirmati Negati


sal ar ve ve

I O

30
Particula Particula
r r
Affirmati Negative

Some human are Some men are not


Muslims. Hindu.

Some Egypts are Some Egypts are not


Muslims. Jews.

Some mangoes are Some roses are not


sweets. red.

Some men are brave. Some men are not


brave.

Very important rules for Distribution and Undistribution: (



)

Distribution:

The two terms (subject and predicate) in a categorical proposition may


each be classified as distributed or undistributed? If all members of
the term's class are affected by the proposition, that class is distributed;
otherwise it is undistributed. Every proposition therefore has one of four
possible distributions of terms.

A form:

An A -proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the


reverse. Consider the following categorical proposition: "All dogs are
mammals". All dogs are indeed mammals but it would be false to say all
mammals are dogs. Since all dogs are included in the class of mammals,
"dogs" is said to be distributed to "mammals". Since all mammals are not
necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to "dogs".

E form:

An E-proposition distributes bidirectional between the subject and


predicate. From the categorical proposition "No beetles (insects) are
mammals"; we can infer that no mammals are beetles. Since all beetles
are defined not to be mammals, and all mammals are defined not to be
beetles, both classes are distributed.

31
I form:

Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some


Americans are conservatives"(Traditional). Neither term can be entirely
distributed to the other. From this proposition it is not possible to say that
all Americans are conservatives or that all conservatives are Americans.

O form:

In an O-proposition only the predicate is distributed. Consider the


following: "Some politicians are not corrupt". Since not all politicians are
defined by this rule, the subject is undistributed. The predicate, though, is
distributed because all the members of "corrupt people" will not match
the group of people defined as "some politicians". Since the rule applies to
every member of the corrupt people group, namely, "all corrupt people
are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.

The distribution of the predicate in an O-proposition is often confusing due


to its ambiguity.

In short, for the subject to be distributed, the statement must be universal


(e.g., "all", "no"). For the predicate to be distributed, the statement must
be negative (e.g., "no", "not").

N Form Example Quantit Quality Distribution


a y
m
Subject Predicate
e
A All S is All men are universa affirmati distribut undistribut
P mortal. l ve ed ed
E No S is No men are universa negative distribut distributed
P angels. l ed
I Some S Some particul affirmati undistrib undistribut
is P mangoes ar ve uted ed
are sweets.
O Some S Some particul negative undistrib distributed
is not P animals are ar uted
not dogs.






32

Reasoning or

Inference


Mediate Immediate

Eduction Opposition
of







Obvers Conver






2.02 The Traditional Square of Opposition
Definition:

The Traditional Square of Opposition is a diagram specifying logical


relations among the four types of Categorical Propositions

Meaning of the difficult words:



Contraries () Sub Contraries ()

Contradictories () Sub alternation () Superaltern (


) Subaltern ()

A Contrari
33 E
Supe
Supe
r
r

Sub Sub
alternation
Contradicto alternation

Sub
Sub
Alter
Alter
n
n
I Sub O

The doctrine (principle) Aristotle begins in three claims:

1. That A and O are contradictories that E and I are contradictories.


2. And that A and E are contraries.
3. A and I (based on the word Affirmative, we refer to the affirmative
Universal and particular propositions as A and I.
And based on the term Negative, we refer to the Negative universal
and particular propositions as E and O:

(A) All S are P


(E) No S is P
(I) Some S is P
(O) Some S is not P

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:

There are four types of immediate arguments, or oppositions:


Contradictories, Contraries, Sub contraries and Subalterns.

Contradictories:

Contradictories are corresponding propositions differing from one another


in both quantity and quality. One must be true and the other must be
false. They cannot both be the same. These prepositions are middle
excluded and there is no third option. This is the strongest type of
opposition.

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:

Contraries are corresponding propositions in which both are universal but


one is affirmative and the other negative, differing from one another only
in quality. They cannot both be true but may both be false.

For example; they cannot both be true:

A: "All dogs are animals" and E:"No dogs are animals" at the same time.

A: "All men are mortal" and E:"No men are mortal".

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:

Sub-contraries are corresponding propositions in which both are particular


but one is affirmative and the other negative, differing from one another
only in quality. . They may both be true but cannot both be false.

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:

1. I: some mangoes are sweets and O: some mangoes are not


sweets.
2. I: Some men are doctors and O: Some men are not doctors.

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.

In alternation, you can look at the Square of Opposition diagram and


deduce (assume) that if the superior (universal) proposition is true, the
inferior (particular) proposition is true as well and that if the inferior
(particular) proposition is false then the superior (universal) proposition is
false as well.

A and I propositions are related by sub alteration. Subalterns are a


different sort of 'opposition', because a sub alternation does not imply
(involve) a contradiction at all. The truth of I may be inferred by the truth
of A. If "All S is P" is true, then we can be certain that "Some S is P" must
be true. The reverse, from I to A, is invalid. The same goes for the
negative propositions E and O. One can infer the truth of O from the
validity of E, but not vice versa.

36
Thus the A Preposition has corresponding I preposition.

1. A: All spiders are eight-legged animals.


I: Some spiders are eight-legged animals.
2. A: All dogs are animals.
I: Some dogs are animals.

Thus the E Preposition has corresponding O preposition.


1. E: No whales are fishes
O: Some whales are not fishes
2. E: No men are tables
O: Some men are not tables.

Immediate inferences:

The operations of conversion, Obversion, and contraposition are applied to


categorical propositions to yield new categorical propositions - these can
become immediate arguments.

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:

(1) The subject and predicate of the original preposition must be


interchanged.

(2) The quality of the original proposition must not be changed.


(Affirmative must be affirmative and negative must be negative)

(3) No term should be distributed in the converse, if it is not distributed in


the original preposition.

Thus: "No pigs are dogs" becomes "No dogs are pigs."

No men are immortal is No immortals are men

Example of I proposition Some man is mortal is Some mortal is man.

The converses of E and I propositions are automatically true and logically


equivalent. The converses of A propositions usually are not, unless the
Subject and predicate are synonyms. There is however, another way:

An A proposition can be made converse through limitation. Recall from


the square of opposition that we can create subalterns. The subaltern of
an A proposition is an I proposition, and we can always create a converse
of an I proposition. So we can create a converse of an A proposition
through limitation.

The converse of O propositions is, in general, not valid.

An argument that offers a conclusion that is the converse of an E or I


proposition is valid. We can make a conversion of an A statement through
limitation.

Table of Valid Conversions

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:

A valid form of intermediate inference from every standard form


categorical preposition, to obvert a preposition we change its quality (from
affirmative to negative, from negative to affirmative) and replace the
predicate term with its complement.

Rules of Obversion:

(1) The subject term is unchanged.

(2) The predicate is replaced by its contradictory.

(3) The quality of the proposition is changed from affirmative to negative


or vice versa.

Thus the obverse of Every man is mortal is No man is immortal.

39
Table of Valid Obversion

Nam Obvertend Example Nam Obverse Example


e e
All S is P All men are No S is non- No men are
A mortal. E P. immortal.
No S is P No men are All S is non- All men are
E angels. A P. non- angels.
Some S is Some Some
I P mangoes are O Some S is mangoes are
sweets. not non-P. not non-
sweets.
Some S is Some animals Some S is Some animals
O not P are not dogs. I non-P. are non-dogs.

Obvertend Obverse

E: No residents are nonvoters.


A: All residents are voters.
E: No crows are non black.
A: All crows are black.
A: All Hindus are non Muslims.
E: No Hindus are Muslims.
A: All men are nonstones.
E: No men are stones.
O: Some fish are not non-bass.
I: Some fish are bass (deep).
O: Some dogs are not non brave.
I: Some dogs are brave.
I: Some men are nonfaithful.
O: Some men are not faithful.

40
I: Some men are non Muslims.
O: Some men are not Muslims.

Contraposition: (
:


)

To form the Contrapositive of given preposition, we replace its subject


term by the complement of its predicate term, and replace its predicate
term by the complement of its subject term.

The contrapositives of A and O are logically equivalent to the originals.


while E and I are usually not. We can make a contrapositive of an E
proposition through limitation - by using the sub altern of an E proposition
an O proposition. The
contrapositives of I is not valid.

Rules of Contraposition:
1. Obvert the original preposition.
2. Then convert the obverse of the original preposition.
3. Then obvert the converse preposition.

Thus the contra positive of A preposition is A preposition.


A: All members are voters A: All nonvoters are nonmembers.
A: All dogs are mammals. A: All non-mammals are non-dogs.

Table of Contraposition

Na Stateme Example Na Contraposi Example


me nts m tion
e
All S is P All men are All non All immortal are
A mortal. A p is nonS nonmen.
No S is P No men are Some nonangels
Some nonP
E angels. O are nonmen.(by
is nonS.
Limitation)

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.

ORIGINAL CONTRAPOSITIVE VALID BY LIMITATION


All S are P All nonP are nonS yes

No S are P No nonP are nonS no Some nonP are not


nonS
Some S are P Some nonP are nonS no

Some S are not Some nonP are not yes


P nonS

A----A:

A: All members are voters A: All nonvoters are nonmembers.


A: All dogs are mammals. A: All non-mammals are non-dogs.
A: All men are mortal. A: All immortal are nonmen.

E----O:

E: No men are angels. O: Some nonangels are nonmen.


E: No men are stones. O: Some nonstones are nonmen.

I----x: the contraposition of I preposition is not valid, because when we


attempt to drive the contrapositive of I preposition by obverting,
converting and obverting. So the obverse of I preposition is O preposition,
whose converse in general does not follow validly from it.

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:

O: Some men are not doctors. O: Some nondoctors are


nonmen. O: Some mangoes are not
sweet. O: Some nonsweet things are nonmangoes.

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 No S is non P No men are


n nonmortal.

Conversi No nonP is S No nonmortals are


on men.

Obversio All nonP is All non mortals are All nonmortals are
n nonS nonmen. nonmen

Contraposition E----O

No S is P:: No men are angels Some nonangels are not


Some nonP is nonmen.
not nonS

Obversio All S is nonP. All men are


n Some S is nonangels.x Some By Limitation
nonP men are nonangels.

Conversi Some nonP is Some nonangels are


on S men

43
Obversio Some nonP is Some nonangels are
n not nonS not nonmen.

Contraposition I----x

Some S is P Some animals are dogs.

Obversio Some S isnot Some animals are not


n nonP nondogs.

Conversi Some nonP Some nondogs are not This is wrong


on isnot S animals. statement, because
there are many
animals except dogs.

Obversio x x x
n

Contraposition O----O

Some S is not Some men are not Some nondoctors


P:: Some nonP is doctors are not nonmen
not nonS
Some men are
Obversio Some S is nonP nondoctors
n
Some nondoctors are
Conversi Some nonP is S nonmen
on
Some nondoctors are
Obversio Some nonP is not nonmen
n not nonS

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

Rules for Partial Inversion:


1. The subject of the inverse is the contradictory of the original subject.
2. The quality is changed.
3. The predicate is the same as the original proposition.
4. Change in quantity, from universal to particular, in the case of
contradictory.

Symbols and their Partial Inversion:


Note: (Only A & E can be inverted. O and I have no inversion. )
1. A to O
2. E to I

Example:
1. A---O: All men are mortal. Some nonmen are not mortal.
2. E----I: No men are angels. Some nonmen are angels.

Rules for Complete Inversion


1. The subject of the inverse is the contradictory of the original subject.
2. The quality is not changed.
3. The predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate.
4. Change in quantity, from universal to particular, in the case of
alternation.

Symbols and their Complete Inversion:


Note: (Only A & E can be inverted. O and I have no inversion. )
1. A to I

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.

Inversions follow the laws of alternation. Thus


1. If the invertend is true, the inverse is true.
2. If the invertend is false, the inverse is doubtful.

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

So here the predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate.

Two methods of Inversion:


The inverse of the preposition can be obtained in two ways.
(1) By converting the obverted converse.
(2) By alternative using the process of conversion and obversion, till we
get the inverse.

First method: (By converting the obverted converse)

First method: (By converting the obverted converse)

A:Preposition

All S is P All dogs are animals.

Conversi Some P is S Some animals are dogs.

46
on

Obversio Some P is not Some animals are not


n nonS nondogs.

Conversi Some nonS is Some nondogs are not It cannot be


on not P animals. converted,
because it is an O
(Not possible) preposition, with
wrong concept.

Note:
By converting the obverted converse, we cannot get the inverse of A.

First method: (By converting the obverted converse)

E:Preposition

No S is P No men are angels.

Conversi No P is S No angels are men.


on

Obversio All P is nonS All angels are nonmen.


n

Conversi All nonS is P All nonmen are angels. Partial


on Inversion

First method: (By converting the obverted converse)

I:Preposition

47
Some S is p Some dogs are animals.

Conversi Some P is S Some animals are dogs.


on

Obversio Some P is not Some animals are not non


n nonS dogs.

Conversi Some nonS is Some non dogs are not Wrong


on not P animals. concept


First method: (By converting the obverted converse)

O:Preposition

Some S is not P Some animals are not


dogs.

Conversi Some P is not S Some dogs are not Wrong concept


on animals.
(Not possible)

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)

Let us begin with Conversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)

48
Let us begin with Conversion:
A:Preposition

All S is P All dogs are animals.

Conversi Some P is S Some animals are dogs.


on

Obversio Some P is not Some animals are not


n nonS nondogs.

Conversi Some nonS is Some nondogs are not It cannot be


on not P animals. converted,
because it is an O
(Not possible) preposition, with
wrong concept.
Note:
Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of A preposition, we cannot
get the inverse.

Let us begin with Obversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
A:Preposition

All S is P All dogs are animals.

Obversio No S is nonP No dogs are nonanimals.


n

Conversi No nonP is S No nonanimals are dogs.


on

49
Obversio All nonp is non S All nonanimals are
n .nondogs

Conversi Some nonS is Some nondogs are Complete


on nonp nonanimals. Inversion

Obversio Some nonS is Some nondogs are not Partial Inversion


n not P animals.
Note:
Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of A preposition, we can get
the inverse.

Let us begin with Conversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
E:Preposition

No S is P No men are angels.

Conversi No P is S No angels are men.


on

Obversio All P is nonS All angels are nonmen.


n

Conversi Some nonS is P Some nonmen are Partial


on .angels Inversion

Obversio Some nonS is not Some nonmen are not Complete


n nonP. .nonangels Inversion
Note:
Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of E preposition, we can get
the inverse.

50
Let us begin with Obversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
E:Preposition

No S is P No men are angels.

Obversio All S is nonP All men are nonangels.


n

Conversi Some nonP is S Some nonangels are


on men.

Obversio Some nonP is Some nonangels are not


n not nonS .nonmen

Conversi (Not possible)


on
Note:
Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of E preposition, we cannot get
the inverse.

Let us begin with Conversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
I:Preposition

Some S is P Some animals are dogs.

51
Conversi Some P is S Some dogs are animals.
on

Obversio Some P is not Some dogs are not non


n nonS animals.

Conversi (Not possible) x


on
Note:
Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot
get the inverse.

Let us begin with Obversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
I:Preposition

Some S is P Some animals are dogs.

Obversio Some S is not Some animals are not


n nonP nondogs.

Conversi (Not possible) x


on
Note:
Thus, if we begin with Obversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot get
the inverse. Whether, we begin with conversion or obversion, in the case of
I, we cannot get the inverse. Thus, I cannot be inverted.

52
Let us begin with Conversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Conversion:
O:Preposition

Some S is not P Some animals are not


dogs.

Conversi Some P is not S Some dogs are not Wrong Concept


on animals.
Note:
Thus, if we begin with conversion in the case of I preposition, we cannot
get the inverse.

Let us begin with Obversion:

Second method:
(By alternatively using the process of conversion and obversion)
Let us begin with Obversion:
O:Preposition

Some S is not P Some animals are not dogs.

Obversio Some S is nonP Some animals are nondogs.


n

Conversi Some nonP is S .Some nondogs are animals


on

Obversio Some nonP is not Some nondogs are not


n nonS .nonanimals

Conversi Not possible x

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:

A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is


uttered to assert the existence of some class of objects. Or

A proposition is said to have existential import if the truth of the


proposition requires a belief in the existence of members of the
subject class.

For example, the proposition There are books on my desk implies


books.
the existence of On the other hand, the statement: There are no
unicorns, ( ) does not have any existential
implications.

The difficulty can be appreciated by reflecting on propositions with a


particular quantity: I and O propositions. These propositions have
existential import. The particular,
affirmative I proposition some soldiers are heroes, says that there
is at least one soldier who is a hero.
And O proposition some soldiers are not heroes, says that there
is at least one soldier who is not a hero.

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:

A: All spiders are eight legged animals. I: Some spiders are


eight legged animals.

In the case of refuse of derivation of particular from universal


creates a serious problem! For example, we know from the
Traditional Square of Opposition that Universal A and O propositions
are contradictories: All Danes speak English is contradicted by
Some Danes do not speak English. Contradictories cannot both be
true, since one of the pair must be false, nor can they both be false,
since one of the pair must be true. But if corresponding A
and O propositions have existential import, then both contradictories
could be false!
To illustrate: The A proposition All inhabitants of Mars are blond (

) and its corresponding O proposition Some
inhabitants of Mars are not blond are contradictories: Now, if they
have existential import, then both of these propositions are false if Mars
has no inhabitants. But if they can both be false, then they cannot be
contradictories. We have the same
problem with sub contraries and subalterns.
Note: So some thing seems to have gone wrong with the traditional
square of opposition in case of this kind.

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.

Here are three introduced to rescue the traditional square of


Opposition:

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.

The Modern Boolean Solution:


George Boole developed an interpretation of categorical propositions
solves the dilemma by denying that universal propositions have
existential import. Modern logic accepts the Boolean interpretation of

56
categorical propositions. This interpretation has the following
consequences:

1. I and O propositions continue to have existential import on the


Boolean interpretation.

2. It also remains true in this interpretation that the universal


propositions, A and E, are the contradictories of the particular
propositions, O and I. That is, the proposition All men are mortal
does contradict of the proposition Some men are not mortal.

3. Because A, E propositions have no existential import, sub-


alternation is not valid. Because A, E, propositions have no
existential import, super-alternation is not valid.

4. Contraries are eliminated because A, E, propositions can now


both be true when the subject class is empty. A: All unicorns
have wings and N: NO unicorns have wings may both be
true, even if there are no unicorns.

5. Sub-contraries, on the other hand, are retained because I and O


propositions always have existential import. Let us show that I and
O-propositions having the same subject and same predicate can be
false together. For
example, "Some inhabitants of Mars are intelligent" and
"Some inhabitants of Mars are not intelligent" would be both
false if Mars has no inhabitants. I: Some unicorns
have horns and O: Some unicorns do not have wings may
both be false, if there are no unicorns.
This shows that I and O propositions are not Sub-contraries.

6. In Boolean interpretation the sub-alternation (i.e. inferring an I-


proposition from an A- proposition and an O- proposition from an E-
proposition) is not generally valid.

7. The Boolean interpretation saves some of these relationships.


Conversion for E and I propositions is still valid. Contraposition for
A, E propositions are still valid. And obversion for any proposition
remains valid. But conversion by limitation and contraposition
by limitation is generally no longer considered to be valid.

Why Reject Existential Import?

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.

The traditional Square of Opposition:

As we know, the square of opposition of propositions expresses the


following relations holding between categorical propositions

1. A and O and E and I are contradictories,

2. A and E are contraries.

3. I and O are sub-contraries and

4. Subalterns I and O follow validity from their super-alterns A and E


respectively.

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

S P : It is the class of all Spaniards who are not Painters.

S P: It is the class of all Painters who are not Spaniards.

SP: It is the class of all Spanish Painters.

:
SP It is the class of all those things that are neither Spaniards nor
Painters.

Two rules apply to using Venn diagrams to represent categorical


propositions:

60
1) Shading a region indicates that that region is empty

2) Placing a bar or an x in a region indicates that the term in that region


has some extension (addition) and the region is not 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.

S P =0. It indicates that it has no members or it is empty.

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.

SP =0. It indicates that it has no members or it is empty.

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.

SP 0. We insert an X into that part of the diagram that represents the


class SP. This insertion indicates that the class product is not empty but
has at least one member.

4. O: Proposition (Some S is not 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.

S P 0. We insert an X into that part of the diagram that represents the



class S P . This insertion indicates that the class product is not empty but
has at least one member.

3.1 Three Basic Uses of Language


We use language everyday in many ways and to meet countless different
ends. We use verbal and non-verbal forms of language and our language
is full of subtle tones that change the meaning of words and phrases.
Language is the most common way to communicate with others.

The formal patterns of correct reasoning can all be communicated through


common language, but then so can a lot of other things. In fact, we use
language in many different ways, some of which are irrelevant to any
attempt to provide reasons for what we believe. Without a doubt,
identifying just these three basic functions is an overview, but an
awareness of these functions is a good introduction to the difficulty of
language.

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

Informati Expressi Directive

Directive uses of The informative use


Reports feelings or
language aim to of language is to
cause or to prevent attitudes of the
communicate some
writer (or speaker),
some overt kind of content
or of the subject, or
(obvious) action by a (substance or
evokes feelings in
human agent. matter) that involves
the reader (or
information.
listener).

1. Informative:

The informative use of language is to communicate some kind of content


(substance or matter) that involves information. The general assumption
is that the content is true. We use language to tell someone something, to
ask a question, and to make notes to ourselves. For example, today is
my birthday offers information. When we ask, What time is it? we
are using language to attempt to receive information.

The informative use of language involves an effort to communicate some


content. When I tell a child, "The fifth of May is a Mexican holiday," or
write to you that "Logic is the study of correct reasoning," I am using
language informatively. This kind of use presumes (assumes) that the

64
content of what is being communicated is actually true, so it will be our
central focus in the study of logic.

A. The informative function affirms or denies propositions, as in science


or the statement of a fact...

B. This function is used to describe the world or reason about it (e.g..,


whether a state of affairs has occurred or not or what might have led to
it).

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.

(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.

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. Karachi is not the capital of Pakistan.

3. A spider has eight legs.

4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

5. The 14th of August is Pakistan 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

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.

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.

2. Expressive:

Reports feelings or attitudes of the writer (or speaker), or of the subject, or


evokes feelings in the reader (or listener).
We use language to express our ideas and emotions. An expressive use of
language means only to find expression or to declare for some feeling, or
to evoke some feeling from other people, according to Philosophy
Pages. Expressive language may or may not include any real information
as the purpose of an expressive use of language is to convey a feeling.

Information may be assumed, but not expressed. For example, if someone

says Yuck,
( ) the word is used to express
dislike. The information received tells that the object is not favorable, but
the word yuck is not necessarily used to inform.

When I say, "Friday afternoons are dreary, (boring)" I am using


language expressively. Although such uses don't express any information.

Thats too bad. What a pity. Curse or Pray.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

3. its disgusting! (Disliking)

4. its too bad!

5. its wonderful!

6. 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.

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.

Directive Language is used for the purpose of causing or preventing


obvious action.

A. The directive function is most commonly found in commands and


requests.

B. Directive language is not normally considered true or false (although


various logics of commands have been developed).

C. Example of this function:

Command: 1."Close the windows." 2. Wash hands

Request: Two tickets please.

Convert to one other by Tones or by addition of word please:

1. Close the windows. Please.

The sentence "You're smoking in a nonsmoking area," although


declarative, can be used to mean "Do not smoke in this area."

(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?

68
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.

3:01 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions


Almost any ordinary communication will probably exhibit all three uses of
language. Thus a poem, which may be mostly expressive, also may
have a moral and thus also be directive. And, of course, a poem may
contain a certain amount of information as well. Effective
communication often demands that language serve multiple functions.

Language usage is much more complicated than the above simple


explanations, however. In many cases, we mix our use of language. It is
rare (uncommon) for discourse just to serve only one function.

Examples:

1. Stop that is both directive and expressive.

2. To say Im tired is informative, expressive, and could even be


directive if it is used to direct another person to end an activity so
you can go to bed.

3. The simple declarative sentence, "I'm hungry," for example,


could be used to report on a physiological condition, or to express a
feeling, or implicitly (completely) to request that someone feed me.

We must avoid from bald (direct) commands which arouse resentment


(anger and dislike) or antagonism (enmity and hostility) and often are
self defeating. (Self beating)

69
Kinds of your audiences:

You aim to get your listeners to contribute to a particular charitable


organization.

1. Assuming your listeners to be benevolent ( ) in
attitude: 1. 1. you may stimulate (inspire)
them by informing them to a good works of organization.
2. Demand of their support for fine result.
3. Use directive language
4. Give information for getting the purpose of contribution.
5. Avoid from naked (unprotected) command and blunt (dull and
dry) request.


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.

3. Assuming your listeners are already against in attitude and


belief of your charitable organization:

1. Use language that is both expressive and informative.


2. Use language deliberately (knowingly) and essentially, as
necessary for successful communication.
3. Use all three functions of language deliberately not accidentally
(by chance). (Informative, expressive and directive)

: Several uses of Language

The ceremonial language: ritual and traditional language

1. Ceremonial discourse is the mixture of the expressive and


directive language, not a separate kind.
For example, ceremonial greetings (respects) at social gatherings
express and evoke goodwill (friendliness) and sociability.

2. Some speakers say that the Ceremonial discourse is used for


the directive purposes. For example,

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:

Language which performs the action it reports.


When a person makes a Performative utterance (statement), that
person is performing an action. Although the action could be
performed in some other way, the person chooses to complete the
action by uttering (completing) the Performative words. For
example, a teacher could assign his class homework by simply
stating, I assign you pages 679 690 in the Richter text as
homework.

When you are asked to attend a meeting at a certain time and


place, and you reply, I will, I promise your words do more than
report your attitude or predict your conduct (behavior); they have
the function of making the promise itself.

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

Sentences are commonly divided into four grammatical forms:


declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.

Much discourse is intended (proposed) to serve two or possibly all three


functions of languageinformative, expressive, directiveat once. In such
cases each aspect or function of a given passage is subject to its own
proper criteria.

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).

Name Mean Use

Declarative Assertion Informative

Interrogativ Question
e

Imperative Command Directive

Exclamatory Exclamation Expressive

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.

Rules about Grammatical and principal propositions:

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.

1. I had a very nice time at your party.


It is a declarative sentence. It expresses a feel of friendliness and
appreciation.

2. I would like some coffee


It is a declarative sentence. It is not merely a report of the
psychological (mentally) fact, but it is apparently asserts about an
order or request for action.

3. Do you realize that we are almost late


It is interrogative sentence. It is not necessarily a request for
information about your state of mind; it may be a request for hurry.

4. The exclamation Good Heaven, its late


May be in context of hurry.

5. And the exclamation What a beautiful view


It is more directively than expressively.

6. Come to the window


It is an imperative sentence, serving the directive function.

7. The sea is calm to night


It is a declarative sentence serving information function.

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.

9. I believe that gold should not be used as a standard for


currency It is the assertion of a
specific desire and the belief of a speaker, not a report.

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.

1. Description: (report and explanation)

Description is a form of discourse that uses language to create a mood or


emotion Description communicates what things are like according to
the five senses; the way things sound, look, taste, feel and smell are given
in detail. This type of discourse is good at evoking atmosphere or mood
and is helped by the use of descriptions and symbols.
In description, the intention is to make the reader as brightly aware as
possible of what the writer has perceived
through his senses (or in imagination), to give the reader the "feel" of
things described, the quality of a direct
experience. The thing described may be anything that we can grasp
through the senses, a city street, the face of a person, the sound of a
voice, the odor of an attic, a piece of music.

2. Argument: or Persuasion (influence and advice)


Persuasion relies more on emotional appeals than on facts
Argument is a form of persuasion that appeals to reason instead of
emotion to convince an audience to think or act in a certain way.
One of the four forms of discourse which uses logic, ethics, and emotional
appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos) to develop an effective means to
convince the reader to think or act in a certain way.

The purpose of argumentative discourse is to get the listener or reader to


agree with what is being said through evidence and reason. Argument
tries to obtain agreement through the use of logic, figures, facts,
descriptive examples and expert evidence; emotional appeals may also be
used. An argument may be persuasive if its purpose is not only to get the
reader or listener to agree but also to get them to act on that belief.

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.

In narration, the intention is to present an event to the reader-


what happened and how it happened. The event itself may be
grand or trivial, a battle or a ball game; but whatever it is, the
intention is to give the impression of movement in time, to give
the sense of witnessing an action.

4. Exposition: (Explanation)
Exposition is one of the four major forms of discourse, in which something
is explained or "describe"

Expository discourse is used to inform. Exposition can be used to compare


and contrast, define, analyze, classify, show cause and effect or lay out a
problem and its solution. This type of discourse usually has a distinct type
of organization and structure that is easy to follow.

In the first of these, exposition, the purpose is to explain something: for


instance, to make some idea clear to the reader, to analyze a situation, to
define a term, to give directions. The intention, in short, is to inform.

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

Public Servant Government

Express: Respect: Approval Express: Resentment:

Some times of the influence of words may be negative:

Words Meanin Words Meaning


g
Manure Bleakness

Skunkweed Annoyed

Frustration Indignant


Obstinate Illicit amour



Sadness Bewildment

Pigheaded fool


Depression

Fuss

77
Some times of the influence of words may be positive:

Words Meaning Words Meaning



Happiness Blissfulness

Tuna fish Jubilant

Cheerfulness euphoria

Firm

Righteously

Examples:
I am firm; you are obstinate and he is pigheaded
fool.

I am Righteously Indignant; you are Annoyed. He is


making a fuss about nothing.



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:

Words Meanin New Meani New Meani


g Words ng Words ng


Mortician

Undertak Funeral
er Director



Janitor Maintenance Custodian
man


3.04 Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement


In fact, an excessive reliance (an extreme confidence) on emotively
charged (blamed) language can create the appearance of disagreement
between parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as

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:

1. Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude:

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.

2. Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude:

This case, if unnoticed, may become the cause of endless (but


pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ sharply
about some fact upon which they are in total agreement.
1. A and B may agree that the change of political candidate did
occur, but A may think that splendid, (fine) while B finds it dreadful.
(Shocking) A condemned the candidate for listening for the voice
of reasoning and B condemned the candidate for opportunistic
inconsistency. ()

3. Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude:

In this situation, parties may never recognize, much less resolve,


their fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled by their
shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.

4. Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude:

Here the parties have so little in common that communication


between them often breaks down entirely.

A believes that candidate has changed a position, may very


strongly approve of that change as a product of wise
consideration (wise thoughtfulness)


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.

Solving Process of Disputes:

Disagreement in belief:

1. Disagreement in belief can best be resolved by verifying the facts


2. Witnesses could be questioned
3. Documents could be consulted
4. records could be examined

Note: When the facts are established and the issue decided the
disagreement to be resolved.

Disagreement in attitude:

1. Efforts to resolve this disagreement may involve reference to



2. Motives and intentions ( ) may also be
factual questions.

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:

1. Disagreement in attitude rather than in belief, found the most


vigorous (forceful) and genuine.
2. Differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude are some times
difficult and sometimes may be obscured.(unclear)
3. Differences of disagreement in belief or in attitude are very useful
and they provide awareness about uses of language in solving of
disputes.

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:

1. A definition attempts to explain a word using other words. .


2. Something that is expressed or indicated:
3. Something that one wishes to express, especially by language:

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.)

As an example: To successfully define the word "Mountain", the


definiendum must be given a definiens (actually "Mountain" has at least
two definiens: A large natural height of the earth's surface rising abruptly
(suddenly) from the surrounding level; a large steep (sharp) hill., and
another definiens is " A region where there are many such characteristics, described by
remoteness (faraway) and inaccessibility.").

Definition: A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term

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

1. Obviously genuine dispute:

In which there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do disagree,


either in attitude or in belief. If A cheers while B sulks when Yankees win
the World Series, there disagreement in attitude is plainly real.
Such genuine disputes cannot be resolved by definition or merely
linguistic adjustment. But the dispute remains genuine if it is indeed
about some facts, and can be resolved by ascertaining (establishing) facts
of some kind.

2. Merely verbal dispute:

In which there is ambiguity present, but there is no genuine disagreement at all.


Misunderstanding or the misuse of language is likely to be the culprit (criminal or cause)
here.
A dispute of this kind is difficult to find, once they recognized then the solving of problem
very easy.
Good definition may be a fairly solving process for mutual understanding.

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.

2. A dispute about Marathon Race:

(




)

3. A dispute about TV Culture:



(

)

85
4.1 The Types of Definition


1. Stipulative Definition: ()

Arbitrary (( ) randomly and illogical) Definitions for New
Concepts

A stipulate definition is one in which a new symbol or term is


introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily (randomly) assigned. A
Stipulative definition is neither true nor false, neither accurate nor
inaccurate.

Stipulative definitions are those which specify or stipulate the meaning


of a word or phrase. Sometimes these involve the introduction of new
terms, or the stipulation of new meaning for old terms.

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.

A Stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a completely new term,


creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this
case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no
existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is
always correct.

Stipolative definitions normally are not productive in resolving genuine


disagreement, but by clarifying informative discourse and by reducing the
emotive role of language; they can help to prevent fruitless verbal conflict,

Stipulation for the variety of Reasons:

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:

We write briefly with Stipulation names the following


mathematical equations.
Zetta= (10)21 and Yotta= (10)24.


2. Lexical Definition: ()

Explaining How a Word is Used In General Contexts

Lexical definitions attempt to report usage. All good dictionary


definitions are lexical, since they state how native speakers employ (use)
the words in all of their various senses.

A lexical definition is also the kind of definition found in dictionaries,


reports the meaning or meanings that a term (definiendum) already has.
It is, in other words, a description of the way the speakers of a particular
language use a particular term in their language.

A lexical definition (sometimes also called a reportive definition) is any


definition which explains how a word is actually used - it is thus distinct
from stipulative definitions which simply propose a possible way to use a
word.

Differences between Stipuative and Lexical Definitions:

1. It has a prior and independent definition.


2. Its definition is either true or false.
3. It depends on whether that meaning is correctly or incorrectly
reported.
4. It eliminates ambiguity.


3. Prcising Definitions: ( )

87
Difference between Ambiguity and Vagueness:

Ambiguity (): A term is ambiguous in a given context when it


has more than one distinct meaning and the context does not make clear
which is intended.

Vagueness () : A term is vague when there exist borderline


cases, so that it cannot be determined whether the term should be
applied to them or not.

A prcising definition serves to reduce vagueness. A term is


ambiguous in a given context when it has more than one distinct meaning
and the context does not make clear which is intended. Prcising
definitions are important in law and legislation.

Although a good lexical definition should reduce the ambiguity inherent


(natural) in a term, it cannot reduce the terms vagueness. For that, we
need to move to a prcising definition (also sometimes called an
explicative definition).

Prcising definitions serve to reduce vagueness and also a source of


confusion in argument. The importance of Prcising definitions in law is
evident. (Obvious)

Examples of Prcising Definition:

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.

2. Meter: Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance


from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its
definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge
of metrology.
So Precise definition of Meter is the distance light travels in one
299,792,458th of a second

4. Theoretical Definitions:

88
Constructing a 'Theory' About the Nature of a Concept

A theoretical definition of a term is a definition that attempts to


formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of
the objects to which the term applies. Theoretical definitions go hand in
hand with the acceptance of a comprehensive theoretical framework for
understanding the subject matter to which the defined terms pertain.

If a definition is supposed to help us better understand a concept,


theoretical definitions are those which do the heaviest work in that regard.
(View)

Lexical definitions try to help us understand how a concept is used, but


theoretical definitions try to help us understand how a concept is and
should be used in all cases.

Since the adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the


acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are rightly
cautious (careful) in agreeing to it.

Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia" (inactivity) carried


with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the
conditions in which physical objects move.

Examples of Theoretical Definition:

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: (

Using Definitions to Persuade Others to Accept a Claim

A persuasive definition is a definition formulated and used persuasively


to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring (inspiring)
emotions, often relying on the use of emotive language.

A persuasive definition is an attempt to attach emotive meaning to the


use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the literal meaning of
the term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.

Whenever a definition is offered for the purpose of influencing a persons


attitude or feelings towards the subject in question, we are dealing with a
persuasive definition. Persuasive definitions are
common in political argument.

Examples of Persuasive Definition:

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

Stipulativ A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some


e meaning is arbitrarily assigned. As opposed to a lexical
definition, a stipulative definition cannot be correct or incorrect.

Lexical A definition that reports a meaning the definiendum already


has, and thus a definition that can usually be judged correct or
incorrect.

Precising A definition devised to eliminate vagueness by delineating


(defining) a concept more sharply.

Theoretic A definition of a term that attempts to formulate a theoretically


al adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to
which the term applies.

Persuasiv A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by


e influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon
the use of emotive language.

91
4.2 Various Kinds of Meaning

Extension and Intension or Denotation and Connotation

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.

General terms, or class term have both an extension and an intension.

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.

Every general term has both an intensional meaning and an extensional


meaning.

The extension of a term is determined by its intension, but the reverse is


not true. Terms with different intensions may have the same extension,
but terms with different extensions cannot possibly have the same
intension.

Examples of Extension and Intension:

Intension and extension, in logic, correlative words that indicate the


reference of a term or concept: intension indicates the internal content
of a term or concept that constitutes its formal definition; and extension
indicates its range of applicability by naming the particular objects that it
denotes.

For instance:

1. The intension of ship as a substantive is ( ) vehicle


for conveyance on water, whereas its extension embraces such

92
things as cargo ships, passenger ships, battleships, and sailing
ships.

2. The intension of man as a substantive is rational animal,


whereas its extension embraces such things as Socrates, Imran
Sharif, Zahid Khan, and Fatima Jinnah.

3. The intension of planet as a substantive is A celestial (space)


body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star, whereas its
extension embraces such things as sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter,
Mars, Mercury, and Saturn.

4. The intension of skyscraper as a substantive is A very tall


building of many stories, especially one for office or
commercial use, whereas its extension embraces such things as
the World trade centre in New York, the Sears Tower in
Chicago, the Shanghai World Financial Centre, the Petronas
Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, and so on.

Kinds of Extensional or Denotative Definitions:


1. Definition by Examples:

Extensional definitions identify the collection of objects to which a general


term applies. The most obvious and effective way to instruct someone
about the extension of a term is to give examples of objects denoted by it.
Thus, the extension of the word "chair" includes every chair that is (or
ever has been or ever will be) in the world.
The definition of skyscraper we may use the examples of Empire state
building, Chrysler, Wool worth building and Twin tower of Petronas.


2. Ostensive definitions: ()

Ostensive definitions indicate the meaning of a term by providing a


sample of the things denoted. An ostensive definition refers to the
examples by means of pointing, or by some other gesture. Ostensive
definitions are invariably (habitually) ambiguous, however, because to
point to an object is also to point to a part of it, or to any of its attributes.
For example:
Desk: This desk (pointing with a finger in the direction of desk or towards
a part of desk or its color or its size)
Dog: This dog.
House: This house

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: ()

Quasi-ostensive definitions attempt to resolve this ambiguity by


adding a descriptive phrase to the definiens. But this presupposes a prior
understanding of the descriptive phrase, defeating (overcoming) the
purpose of the ostensive definition.

The ambiguity can sometimes be resolved by the addition of some


descriptive phrase to the definition.
Desk: This desk which is made of wood or article of furniture.
Dog: This dog .. The barking animal sometimes bites.

House: This house.. A building for human habitation (

) or one that is lived in by a
family or small group of people

Kinds of Intensional or Connotative Definitions:


The intension of a term consists of the attributes shared by all the objects
denoted by the term, and shared only by those objects. To develop useful
intensional definitions, however, we need to distinguish three senses of
intension:

1. A synonymous definition:

A synonymous definition is one that defines a word by providing


another worda synonymwhose meaning is already understood and has
the same meaning as the first. Two words with the same meaning are
called synonymous

Adage means proverb, and bashful means shy.


It is useful when it is the meaning of words in other language that
call for explanation. In French, chat means cat.
In Spanish, amigo means friend.
A synonymous definition can fail when the words have no synonym.
A most serious limitation of synonymous definition is this, when the
definiendum itself is not understood.
Thus the synonymous definitions are useless in the construction of
Prcising and theoretical definitions.

94
2. An operational definition:

An operational definition is one that states that a term is correctly


applied to a given case if and only if the performance of specified
operations in that case yields a specified result. It is also a definition,
method, or procedure used to measure or represents a concept or variable
in a specific situation.

An example of a peanut butter sandwich might be simply "the result of


putting peanut butter on a slice of bread with a butter knife and
laying a second equally sized slice of bread on top"

Other example of an operational definition might be defining the weight


of an object in terms of the numbers that appear when that object is
placed on a weighing scale. The weight then, is whatever results from
following the (weight) measurement procedure, which should be
repeatable by anyone.

Note: We know that the synonymous definition is unavailable and an


operational definition is inappropriate.

3. A Definition by genus and difference:

When the synonymous definition is unavailable and an operational


definition is inappropriate, we can often use a definition by genus and
difference. This type of definition is best explained in terms of classes.

A class is a collection of entities having some characteristic in common.



Many classes can be divided into subclasses. We call the general class
genus ( ) and the subclasses species (). Each species of a given genus
has a certain specific characteristic that distinguishes it from all the other
species of the genus. We can define a given species of a genus with the
help of this specific characteristic (difference).

For example, we can define a human as "an animal capable


(talented) of rational thought"
Animal is genus and capable of rational thought is spices.

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.

4.3 Techniques for Defining

Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference

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:

1. Focus on essential features:

A definition should state the essential attributes of the species.

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.

Man a rational animal but which is mortal is redundant (unnecessary),


because the essential attributes of the spices of a man only rational animal.
Man a rational animal who born of parents or who laughs

2. Avoid circularity:

A definition must not be circular:

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.

Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining

"Cordless 'phone" as "a telephone that has no cord."


"A compulsive gambler is a person who gambles
compulsively."
Man is human being
Enjoyment is pleasure
A ruler one who governs
Force is power
A king is a person possessing legal power

3. Capture the correct extension:

A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow:

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":

1. "Warm-blooded animal" is too broad, since that would include horses,


dogs, and aardvarks ( ) along with birds.

2. "Feathered egg-laying animal" is too narrow, since it excludes those birds


that happen to be male.

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).

4. The definition, "A bird is an animal with wings," is too


broad, since bats are also animals with wings, and bats are
not birds.

5. "A bird is a feathered animal that can fly," is too narrow,


since ostriches are birds, but they cannot fly.

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: (


)

A definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or


figurative 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)

Obscurity means difficult language:

For example; "Life" is continues adjustment of internal relations to


external relations.

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.

5. Be affirmative rather than negative:

A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative:

It is always possible in principle to explain the application of a term by identifying literally


everything to which it does not apply. In a few instances, this may be the only way to go: a

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.

"Honest person" as "someone who rarely lies" is a poor definition.


"Drunkard" as "a person who drinks excessively" rather than

who is not temperate in drink." (

"a person
)
Mind is that which not matter is.
Peace is the absence of war.
Sleeping is the opposite of awaking.
Ignorance is the lake of Knowledge.
Failure is the absence of success.
Pleasure is the absence of pain.
A Liquid is that which is neither solid nor gaseous.

Some terms are essentially negative in meaning and so require


negative definitions.

Orphan means a child who does not have parents.


Bald means the state of not having hair on ones head.

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

5.00 Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms

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

5:0 Standard Forms Categorical Syllogisms

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, Miner and Middle terms

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.

Example of all: Major term

Major premise: No heroes are cowards


Middle term
Miner premise: Some Soldiers are not cowards

Miner

Conclusion: ( ) Some Soldiers are heroes.

Miner Major term


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.

The second letter names the type of its minor premise.

And the third letter names the type of its conclusion.

For example, the categorical syllogism: EIO



E: No geese are felines. (
)
I: Some birds are geese.

O: Therefore, some birds are not felines.

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.

Total 64 kinds of Mood are shown in the


A below
A table.A A A A A A

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

AAA EAA IAA O


AAE EAE IAE O
AAI EAI IAI O
AAO EAO IAO 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

AEA EEA IEA OEA


AEE EEE IEE OEE
AEI EEI IEI OEI
AEO EEO IEO OEO

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

AIA EIA IIA OIA


AIE EIE IIE OIE
AII EII III OII
AIO EIO IIO OIO

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.

1. The middle term is the subject term of the major premise


and predicate term of the minor term.
2. The middle term is the predicate term of both premises.
3. The middle term is the subject term of both premises.
4. The middle term is the predicate term of the major premise
and subject term of the minor term.

First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Fourth Figure

M ---- P P ---- M M ---- P P ---- M

S ---- M M ---- S M ---- S


S ---- M
:- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P :- S ---- P

Examples:

First Figure:

All men are mortal. Middle term


Zahid is a man.

Therefore, Zahid is mortal

Second Figure:

All men are mortal.


Middle term
Zahid is mortal.
Therefore, Zahid is a man.

103
Third Figure:

All men are human being. Middle term


All men are mortal.

Therefore, all human being are mortal.

Fourth Figure:

All men are human being.


Middle term
Some human being are Muslims.

Therefore, some men are Muslims.

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.

Valid Example: AAA-I

A: All Greeks are humans.


A: All Athenians are Greeks.
A: Therefore, all Athenians are humans.

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.

Invalid Example: AII-II

Conversely, any argument in an invalid syllogistic form is invalid, even if both its premises
and its conclusion happen to be true.

All rabbits are very fast runners.


Some horses are very fast runners.
There fore, some horses are rabbits.

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.

Note: Invalid forms of syllogism (Syllogistic forms will over 200)

Valid and invalid Examples from 64 forms.


Figures Valid Invalid Total
1 4 12 16
2 4 12 16
3 6 10 16
4 8 8 16
Total 22 42 64

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.

S: Swedes P: Peasants M: Musicians



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.

(4) SPM: The class of all Swedish peasant 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.

Some Detail about Venn diagram:

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.

5.3 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

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.

Fallacy: Four terms OR the fallacy of equivocation

Example: 1

Power tends to corrupt


Knowledge is power
Knowledge tends to corrupt

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

All rare things are expensive things.


All great novels are rare things.
Therefore, all great novels are expensive things.

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.

Fallacy: 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

All Popes are Catholics.


Some Catholics are not pious people.
Therefore, some pious people are not Popes

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.

Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor

Examples:

All horses are animals


Some dogs are not horses
Some dogs are not animals

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.

A negative (E or O) categorical proposition denies that a certain term applies to a class, in


whole or in part. Suppose now that we are dealing with two negative premises in a
categorical proposition. One would say that the middle term M does not apply to the subject
term S (or vice versa). The other premises would say that M does not apply to P (or vice
versa). Together, they tell us nothing about the relationship between P and S. As a result, all
syllogisms with two negative premises must be invalid.

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.

Fallacy: 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

No citizens are people that need to own a hand gun.


Some women are not people that need to own a hand gun.
Therefore, some women are not citizens.

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.

Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a


negative conclusion from an affirmative premise.

Example:

All crows are birds


Some wolves are not crows
Some wolves are birds

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

No pornographers are decent (honest) people.


Some film producers are not pornographers.
Therefore, some film producers are decent people.

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.

To violate this rule is to commit the existential fallacy.

Fallacy: Existential fallacy

Example:

All mammals are animals


All tigers are mammals
Some tigers are animals

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

All people who write about flowers are inhabited by fairies.


All poets are people that write about flowers.
Therefore, some poets are inhabited by fairies.

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.

5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms in Categorical Syllogism

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.

(1) By eliminating synonyms:

For Example: EAE-I

No wealthy persons are vagrants.


All lawyers are rich people.
Therefore no Attorneys are tramps.

Synonymous:

1. Wealthy = Rich
2. Lawyers = Attorneys

115
3. Vagrants = Tramps

Solution:

No wealthy persons are vagrants.


All lawyers are wealthy persons.
Therefore no lawyers are vagrants.

(2) By eliminating Compliments:

For Example: AEA-II

All mammals are warm-blooded animals.


No lizards are warm-blooded animals.
Therefore, all lizards are non mammals.

Note: 1:
We can reduce the number of terms to three simply by Obverting the
conclusion. AEE-II

All mammals are warm-blooded animals.


No lizards are warm-blooded animals.
Therefore, no lizards are mammals.

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

All non-warm-blooded animals are non-mammals.


All lizards are non-warm-blooded animals.
Therefore, all lizards are non mammals.

Six term syllogistic terms, that is perfectly valid: EAA

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.

First Premise: No non-residents are citizens.


Conversion: No citizens are non-residents.
Obversion: All citizens are residents.

Second Premise: All non-citizens are non-voters.


Contraposition: All voters are citizens.

Then: AAA-I

All citizens are residents.


All voters are citizens.
Therefore, all voters are residents.

6:00 Informal Fallacies

6.1 Fallacies of Relevance


6.2 Fallacies of Presumptions
6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

Fallaci
es

A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct,


but that proves at examination
117 not to be so.
Formal Informal

Formal fallacies indicate An 'informal' fallacy is when a


that the correct reasoning valid argument that is not sound
involves clear expression is accepted as sound. A valid
and valid form. Formal argument does not have to be
fallacies are a matter of true and that is when we must to
invalid form. Formal fallacies reject it. Informal fallacies are a
deal with the logic of the matter of unclear expression.
technical structure. Informal fallacies deal with the
For example, the major, the logic of the meaning of language.
minor, and the middle terms The word "informal" does not
of any syllogism must be in here mean it is inferior (lower),
the right order. Many times casual or improper. It only means
we argue without doing this. that our focus is not on the form
But it still sounds rational. of the argument, but on the
When we make such a meaning of the argument.
mistake of the rules that is a An informal fallacy involves such
'formal' fallacy. things as: the misuse of language

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.

( )1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum


)


(





)

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:

If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a


grade of F for this course.

I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the


United States.

Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United


States.

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.

2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) (







)

Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to


emotions, sympathy, etc. Turning this on its head, 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 we would then feel
sorry.

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.

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."

3. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)


(
)


:

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:

As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized,



the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the

bloody-fanged wolf of socialism ( ) cleverly
disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children.

Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

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:

Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are


insects.

Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be


true because some individual (however talented or successful) happens to
believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill,
expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as
inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a
conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.

Second Example:
"I believe that the statement You cannot legislate morality is true,
because President Eisenhower said it."

5. Ad Hominem Argument (Argument against the person)


(


)

(

:









)

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.

The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument,


in which we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated
opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can
happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the
proposition must be false because of who believes it to be true:

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.

But we all know that Harold. . .

o . . . Dresses funny and smells bad. or

o . . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or

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.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position


on the truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone
believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true
(and the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory
(unpleasant) or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or
shares a common flaw (error and defect) with us. Again, personality is
irrelevant to truth.

6. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

124
(

)

Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false,


or arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be
true. Our ignorance how
to prove or disprove a proposition does not establish their truth or
falsehood.

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition


unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Thus, for example:

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.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not


enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.

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.

All children should have ample (sufficient) attention from their


parents.

125
Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their
children.

Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

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

The fallacy of presumption may occur when something is assumed to be


true though it is not reasonable to accept it in the relevant context.

In these the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some


proposition that is assume to be true, but is infect false, dubious, or
without warrant. The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate
reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Again, we'll consider
each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted
assumption upon which it is based.

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.

Oprah Winfrey is a woman.

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.

Dennis Rodman wears earrings ( ) and is an excellent rebounder.

Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders. (


)

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the


truth of such a general principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be
false even though the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.

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 (
)

( :


)

False cause is defined as assuming that the effect is related to a cause


because the events occur together.
The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connection
simply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc,
ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I overslept (sleep too long).

Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the


conclusion that a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly
are not enough.

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.

4. Begging the Question (petitio principii)


(
)
:

(








)

128
Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable
and have to be proved but are assumed true.

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument


as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often
happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look
like this:

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals have hair.

Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.

But all animals that bear live young are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question


involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if
its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be
true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide
support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have
already granted that.

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

When question is asked in such a way as to propose the truth of some



assumption buried in this question. The desired answer is already tacitly

) in the question.
assumed (

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:

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.

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.

The classic example of a complex question "Have you stopped beating


your wife? in which the respondent is asked to answer in simple 'yes' or
'no'. Either answer would lead to an apparent admission of wickedness.

Q: why are the private development resources so much more efficient


than any government own enterprises? It is assuming the great efficiency
of the private sector.

The following are some more examples of complex questions:

1. "Have you stopped smoking?"


2. "Where are you hiding the money you have stolen?"
3. "What hair dye (color) are you using?"
4. "How long will you interfere in our affairs?

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















:











6.3 Fallacies of Ambiguities

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.

Really exciting novels are rare. ()

But rare ( ) books are expensive.

Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.

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."

Eighth: He has faith in:

He has faith in president . That he is Exist

He has faith in Telepathythat occurs sometimes

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.

Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.

In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could


be interpreted in different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious
.inference to the conclusion

3. Accent: (pronunciation or tone of voice) ()

The fallacy of accent is defined as, arguing to conclusions from undue


emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain words or statements.

The fallacy of accent occurs when emphasis is used to suggest a meaning


different from the actual content of the proposition.

The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of


spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example:

Jorge turned in ( ) his assignment on time today.

Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

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.

Second example, if a teacher remarks, "Ravi has done the homework


today" with undue (too much) emphasis on 'today', that might suggest
that Ravi normally comes to school without doing homework.

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).

Every course I took in college was well-organized.

Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my


curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is
defective.
Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which
improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My
philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-
organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even
when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it
does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

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).

The fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some


feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature
by each of its individual members (or parts).

First Example:

Ocelots ( ) are now dying out. ()

Sparky is an ocelot.

Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

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.

The argument is fallacious. It is true that "man" as a class has many


members. So the class "man" as a whole is numerous. But we cannot draw
the conclusion that each individual human being 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

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Time Allowed: 3 Hrs


Max Marks: 60

Note: Attempt any six questions.

Q1. Define the following.


(10)

a) Complex question b) Truth and Validity

c) Euphemism d) Conversion

e) Amphiboly

Q2. Differentiate between the following.


(10)

a) Expressive and Informative language b) Denotation &


Connotation

c) Verbal Disputes & apparently verbal but really genuine disputes.

d) Illicit Minor/ major and undistributed middle

e) Definiendum and dejiniens

Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with
examples.

Q4. What do you understand by induction and deduction in logic?


Discuss.

Q5. Define categorical syllogism. What do you understood by mood


&figure?

Q6. What do you understand by traditional square of opposition? Explain


by showing a diagram.

Q7. Explain Categorical propositions with the help of diagrammatic


expressions. What are its kinds?

138
Q8. Logic is a positive science. Elaborate.

Q9. What is definition? Differentiate between prcising and theoretical


definition.

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2012


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:

1. Attempt any five questions, all carry equal marks. Do not


write anything on the question paper.
2. Use of mobile phones or any other communicating device
will not be allowed in the examination room. Students will
have to remove the batteries of these devices before
entering the examination hall.

Q1. Define the following with examples.

a) Logic
b) Obversion
c) Conversion
d) Contraposition

Q2. Explain in detail Truth and Validity in Logic.

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.

Q6. Discuss categorical syllogism with its defining components. Give


examples to indicate the different parts of categorical syllogism.

139
Q7. What is the significance of language in Logic? Elucidate different
functions of language.

Q8. Elaborate all the formal fallacies in detail.

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION JUNE 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: June 16, 2012


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:

1. Attempt any five questions, all carry equal marks. Do not


write anything on the question paper.
2. Use of mobile phones or any other communicating device
will not be allowed in the examination room. Students will
have to remove the batteries of these devices before
entering the examination hall.

Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with
examples.

Q2. Explain various kinds of Disputes in language with the help of


examples.

Q3. Differentiate between the following.

140
a) Inductive and Deductive arguments
b) Stipulate and Lexical definitions
c) Informative and Expressive functions of Language.
d) Obversion and Conversion

Q4. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing a diagram.

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.

Q7. Explain any six formal fallacies with examples.

Q8. Re write the following passage in standard form categorical


syllogism by identifying all the essential elements.

a) No stubborn (obstinate) individuals who never admit a mistake are


good teachers, so, some well-informed people are
stubborn individuals who never admit a mistake, and some good
teachers are not well- informed people.

b) All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements;


therefore some important scientific achievements are not American

141
inventions, inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not American
invention.

c) Some conservatives are not advocates of high tariff rates, because


all advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans, and some
Republicans are not conservatives.

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2011; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2011


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Attempt any six questions.

Q1. What do you understand by categorical propositions? Discuss in


detail. (10)

Q2. Explain various kinds of Agreement of disagreement in a language


with the help of examples.

Q3. Differentiate between the following.

142
a) Formal & informal Logic
b) Persuasive & prcising definitions
c) Truth & Validity

Q4. What do you understand by definition by genus and difference? Also


discuss its rules.

Q5. Define the following.

a) Inference b) Categorical Syllogism

C) Obversion d) Argument

Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.

Q7. What is the relevance of Logic for business studies? Elaborate.

Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help
of diagram.

Q9. Explain any six informal fallacies with examples.

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2012


Max Marks: 60

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?

Q2. Differentiate between inductive and deductive argument with the


help of examples.

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.

Q5. What do you know about conversion, Obversion and contraposition?


Explain with the help of tables.

Q6. Define informal fallacies and classify them. Explicate fallacy of


relevance and ambiguity with examples.

Q7. Define categorical syllogism along with the constitutive elements.


Give examples.

Q8. Describe the formal fallacies in detail with examples.

Q9. 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.

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.

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

144
LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Time Allowed: 3 Hrs


Max Marks: 60

Note: Attempt any six questions.

Q1. Define the following.


(10)

a) Complex question b) Truth and Validity

c) Euphemism d) Conversion

e) Amphiboly

Q2. Differentiate between the following.


(10)

a) Expressive and Informative language b) Denotation &


Connotation

c) Verbal Disputes & apparently verbal but really genuine disputes.

d) Illicit Minor/ major and undistributed middle

e) Definiendum and dejiniens

Q3. Write down the rules for definition by genus & difference with
examples.

Q4. What do you understand by induction and deduction in logic?


Discuss.

Q5. Define categorical syllogism. What do you understood by mood


&figure?

Q6. What do you understand by traditional square of opposition? Explain


by showing a diagram.

Q7. Explain Categorical propositions with the help of diagrammatic


expressions. What are its kinds?

Q8. Logic is a positive science. Elaborate.

Q9. What is definition? Differentiate between prcising and theoretical


definition.

145
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2012


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:

3. Attempt any five questions, all carry equal marks. Do not


write anything on the question paper.
4. Use of mobile phones or any other communicating device
will not be allowed in the examination room. Students will
have to remove the batteries of these devices before
entering the examination hall.

Q1. Define the following with examples.

e) Logic
f) Obversion
g) Conversion
h) Contraposition

Q2. Explain in detail Truth and Validity in Logic.

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.

Q6. Discuss categorical syllogism with its defining components. Give


examples to indicate the different parts of categorical syllogism.

Q7. What is the significance of language in Logic? Elucidate different


functions of language.

Q8. Elaborate all the formal fallacies in detail.

146
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION JUNE 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: June 16, 2012


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Instruction:

3. Attempt any five questions, all carry equal marks. Do not


write anything on the question paper.
4. Use of mobile phones or any other communicating device
will not be allowed in the examination room. Students will
have to remove the batteries of these devices before
entering the examination hall.

Q1. Discuss the rules for definition by genus and difference with
examples.

Q2. Explain various kinds of Disputes in language with the help of


examples.

Q3. Differentiate between the following.

e) Inductive and Deductive arguments


f) Stipulate and Lexical definitions
g) Informative and Expressive functions of Language.
h) Obversion and Conversion

Q4. Work out the traditional square of opposition by showing a diagram.

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.

Q7. Explain any six formal fallacies with examples.

Q8. Re write the following passage in standard form categorical


syllogism by identifying all the essential elements.

d) No stubborn (obstinate) individuals who never admit a mistake are


good teachers, so, some well-informed people are
stubborn individuals who never admit a mistake, and some good
teachers are not well- informed people.

e) All artificial satellites are important scientific achievements;


therefore some important scientific achievements are not American
inventions, inasmuch as some artificial satellites are not American
invention.

f) Some conservatives are not advocates of high tariff rates, because


all advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans, and some
Republicans are not conservatives.

148
KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2011; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2011


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Attempt any six questions.

Q1. What do you understand by categorical propositions? Discuss in


detail. (10)

Q2. Explain various kinds of Agreement of disagreement in a language


with the help of examples.

Q3. Differentiate between the following.

d) Formal & informal Logic


e) Persuasive & prcising definitions
f) Truth & Validity

Q4. What do you understand by definition by genus and difference? Also


discuss its rules.

Q5. Define the following.

a) Inference b) Categorical Syllogism

C) Obversion d) Argument

Q6. Discuss any four formal fallacies with the help of examples.

Q7. What is the relevance of Logic for business studies? Elaborate.

Q8. Work out the traditional square of opposition in detail with the help
of diagram.

Q9. Explain any six informal fallacies with examples.

149
Example of Solved Examination

Paper Of

Karachi University

KARACHI UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF KARCHI

FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 2012; AFFILIATED COLLAGES

LOGIC BA (H)-421

BS-III

Date: December 21, 2012


Max Marks: 60

Max
Time: 3 Hrs

Note:

Attempt any six (all) of the followings. Question no.9 &10 are compulsory.
All carry equal marks.

Q1. Define Logic. What is the significance of Logic in business studies?

Q2. Differentiate between inductive and deductive argument with the


help of examples.

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.

Q6. Define informal fallacies and classify them. Explicate fallacy of


relevance and ambiguity with examples.

Q7. Define categorical syllogism along with the constitutive elements.


Give examples.

Q8. Describe the formal fallacies in detail with examples.

Q9. Rewrite each of the following syllogisms in standard form and name
its mood and figure.

c) All proteins are organic compounds, whence all enzymes are


proteins, as all enzymes are organic compounds.
d) Some evergreen are objects of worship, because all fir trees are
evergreens, and some objects of worship are fir trees.

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.

Example of Solved Examination

Paper Of

Karachi University

Answer of Question No.1

The significance of Logic in business studies:

Definition of Logic:

See page: 9

Benefits of Logic

151
See page: 15

Logic is Science or Arts


See page: 15

The scope of Logic:

See page: 17

Answer of Question No.3:

Three Basic Language Functions with Examples for Explanation:

See page: 57

Answer of Question No.4:

Various kinds of definitions with examples:

Stipulative Definitions:

See page: 77

Answer of Question No.5:

Definition of Conversion:

See page: 36

Answer of Question No.6:

Definition of informal fallacies:

See page: 107

Answer of Question No.7:

Definition of categorical syllogism:

See page: 90

Answer of Question No.8:

Explanation of the formal fallacies in detail with examples:

152
See page: 99

Answer of Question No.9:

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

So, it indicates the mood and figure in this form: AAA-2

Major term

b) Syllogisms in standard form:


Premise no 1: A: All fir trees are evergreens. Middle term
Premise no 2: I: Some evergreen are objects of worship.

Conclusion: I: Some objects of worship are fir trees.


Minor term
Minor term Major term
Mood and figure:

153
Mood: AII

Figure: 1

So, it indicates the mood and figure in this form: AII-1

Answer of Question No.10:

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:

Quality, Quantity and Distribution

See page: 27

154
The End

155